Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 11:07 AM CDT

Quote by: Rocha Malhada If you are referring to me, I guess I'm trying to figure out where I slammed science, or that I discount its practice. However I have seen people do as you say. I have also seen so many people slam creationism as folly based on their firm faith in science to provide all of the answers.

I'll apologize in advance if my following characterizations inadvertently offend anyone.


I don't think I'm impugning either science or religion with the above characterizations. However, I would like to point out that they are not equivalent approaches to knowledge (as others seem to have implied).

The question of what can be known with certainty is very old philosophical nut. Descartes very famously critiqued the faculties of human perception in his "Principles of Philosophy." In the end, he claimed all an individual can know for sure is that he or she exists as thought (Cogito, Ergo Sum - "I think, therefore I am"). All other claims to knowledge, including belief in physical objects, other thinking entities (whether mortal or divine), time, and space, requires some faith that our perceptions actually represent an external reality.

"Science" limits the scope of knowledge to can be experienced through our perceptions. "Religion" extends the scope of knowledge to things that cannot be perceived. These approaches to knowledge are not always compatible. When they conflict and individual has to make a philosophical choice about which knowledge is "true."

The religion vs. science issue is therefore a debate over which beliefs about knowledge will guide our choices and behavior. Consider the great uproar when Copernicus had the audacity to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun. At the time, this was a serious religious and philosophical question. That conflict might seem like a quaint episode of over-zealous religiosity to we moderns, until you consider that the philosophic battles over the age of the Earth and validity of evolution are the modern equivalents.

When a conflict of knowledge arises will you choose the perception-limited findings of science or the unlimited and immutable beliefs of religion? That depends on where your philosophical Sun sits in the firmament of human knowledge.

On the plus side, as long as we're still thinking about it we can all agree that we do, indeed, exist.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 11:20 AM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi However, I would like to point out that they are not equivalent approaches to knowledge (as others seem to have implied).

Just curious, I am not sure if I implied that or not... what do you think?

Upon consideration, I believe if I did imply that it was either error or just misinterpretation. I thought I implied the opposite in fact.

My one point that may be confused is that I say "the truth is out there". What I mean by that is that while religion may extend beyond what we can currently "get our hands on" in some ways, I presume there is lots of overlap in that things that religion may teach are probably often stuff that science would also endorse. Like two lights shining on a room they ARE separate lights and may be different colors or types of light, but their fields may overlap. The overlapping fields don't change the different source at all. I also presume that if ever science were able to obtain a handle on the things that religion teaches, that if the religious teachings are true, then the science should illuminate those truths in the mechanical and systematic way that science would. Which is not to say that science may have some flawed perspective that at the time may seem to present a contradiction. Two perspectives, with partially overlapping fields of view. But definitely NOT the same perspective.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 11:35 AM CDT

Quote by: Rocha Malhada I have to admit that I have a problem with believing postulations that man and all the diversity of life on earth evolved from some microbial speck in the sea billions (?) of years ago, because I believe in God as creator. I don't fully trust carbon dating to that extreme. I think honest scientists' study in this area is in earnest and would not contest their competency. Furthermore, I can't say that I fully understand how Genesis applies - and some people seem to think they do. I don't believe that God has revealed everything to us. . - Harold

Harold - let me first start by saying that I wasn't directing my earlier comments towards you, rather more so to many closed-minded individuals that I have met over the course of my life. I've always found you to be more than willing to read opposing perspectives and carefully consider things. Even if you come to different conclusions that I do on certain matters, I respect the fact that you have the patience and presence of mind to contemplate these issues.

Regarding carbon dating, I wouldn't trust it to that extreme either, as it is simply not possible to date anything past about 100,000 years with C14 due to:

1) C14 decays really quickly (compared to many other heavier elements). The halflife is something like 5700 years or so, which means that accuracy can only be reasonably certain up to say 50,000 years.

2) C14 dating makes the assumption that concentrations of C14 in the atmosphere are more or less constant, which is not entirely accurate. There are existing calibration curves which take into account modulation of the C14 atmospheric concentration, but it is really hard to know exactly what the atmosphere looked like say 10,000 years. For instance, in the near-term history, man itself has nearly doubled the amount of C14 in the atmosphere due to testing of nuclear weapons.

3) C14 dating also relies on the assumption of environmental exchange - that the c14 from the atmosphere is ingested by plants and animals at a more or less constant rate. This assumption is also not 100% accurate, and you also have slightly differing atmospheric environments at various locales around the planet.

Nonetheless, taking into account perceived changes in atmospheric concentration over the years (by comparing the rings of very very old trees, for instance) reasonable calibrations can be made to allow for decent accuracy, but certainly this technique has no ability to date something millions or billions of years old.

Now, radiometric dating using something like the nuclear decay of Uranium 235 to Lead 207, which has an extremely well-established half life of approximately 700 million years, which has been verified independently in hundreds of different laboratories around the planet, that has the potential for dating much, much, much farther into the past. U235 also avoids the issue of environmental exchange, as it is not a gas present in the atmosphere and as such relative concentrations are not under constant flux.

Nuclear decay is nuclear decay. Rates don't change as they please.

There is a reason why the most accurate clock on the planet uses Cesium 133 as its active time-keeping element.

Mason

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM CDT

My post got mangled by the nested quotes... I'll remove them and highlight with '----'


-----------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever watched the discovery channel where production is consistently bent on presenting scientific theory as if it is fact with carefully staged statements? It is laughable propaganda.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I have and that kind of thing does annoy me to no end.

I take issue when scientific theories are distilled down to their very basics then presented as facts. This is also happens commonly in the "how the earth was made series". I think it is incumbent on scientists to convey the difference between theory and established fact whenever there is a blurred line between the two.

Although, I would argue that this fault likely lies as much with the producers of the series as it does with the scientists who are quoted. Things like astrophysics, archeology - these rely heavily on time-based theories because we simply weren't there 10,000 or 10 billion years ago to know what was happening. It needs to be stated as theory to allow the viewer to reach their own conclusions.


--------------------------------------------------------
I have to admit that I have a problem with believing postulations that man and all the diversity of life on earth evolved from some microbial speck in the sea billions (?) of years ago, because I believe in God as creator. I don't fully trust carbon dating to that extreme. I think honest scientists' study in this area is in earnest and would not contest their competency. Furthermore, I can't say that I fully understand how Genesis applies - and some people seem to think they do. I don't believe that God has revealed everything to us.
----------------------------------------------------------


I have to admit that I have a problem with believing postulations that mankind was simply created out of nothingness. This to me, sounds like magic.

I see amazing intricate detail in my life every single day, but I never see real magic.

Atoms behave in a certain way when they are perturbed and placed in specific environments. In a laboratory one can create extremely complex organic molecules from basic molecular building blocks.

The thought that atomic elements could combine to form basic molecular building blocks, which could then combine to form more complex structures (amino acids, proteins, dna, lipids, etc), which could then assemble into larger constructs (single celled organisms) - that makes perfect sense to me.

Given that you have the right distance from a gigantic fusion furnace (the Sun), copious H20, the essential elemental building blocks (C, N, O, H, P, etc), and TIME (lots and lots of time - billions of years of time), statistically sooner or later you would have the right chemical conditions and environments for this sort of build-up to take place.

Also multiply this probability by the millions of planets in the universe that may likely boast the same natural ingredients and conditions... to me at least it seems completely logical and a virtual statistical certainty, if not here, at least somewhere else.

Mason

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 12:14 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi Quote by: Rocha Malhada If you are referring to me, I guess I'm trying to figure out where I slammed science, or that I discount its practice. However I have seen people do as you say. I have also seen so many people slam creationism as folly based on their firm faith in science to provide all of the answers. I'll apologize in advance if my following characterizations inadvertently offend anyone. SCIENCE says: "To the best of our ability, this is what we presently believe true about "X" based on theory, observation, and testing." RELIGION says: "We believe "Y" is an unquestionable and immutable truth based on faith (a desire to believe)."

No offense at all - I love it when you present material.

"RELIGION says: "We believe "Y" is an unquestionable and immutable truth based on faith (a desire to believe)."

I find this an rather inaccurate premise. It is the primary reason I do not participate in any single modern religious "Church" or "Denomination". There have been so many questions asked and individuals' search for answers in religious faith.

"Science" limits the scope of knowledge to can be experienced through our perceptions. "Religion" extends the scope of knowledge to things that cannot be perceived."

"Perceptions"? This seems yet another attempt to discount religious faith and experience as a reality. If someone says they have seen ghosts and firmly trust their perceptual experience when they witnessed ghosts, are you prepared to label their experience as one that was not a function of perception, so therefore it is not scientific and non existent as it cannot be manifested at will by a scientist?

What does science know of other dimensions or any other possibility which is not "perceived" by current scientific (experience)?

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 12:57 PM CDT

Quote by: chikoppi [ On the plus side, as long as we're still thinking about it we can all agree that we do, indeed, exist.

I exist. I don't know about the rest of you.

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 01:00 PM CDT

The thread from hell.

Guys I just want so say I have really enjoyed this thread a TON. I know some people hate to go on like this and I know some people get offended by the very context of the "argument" but I for one do enjoy it. I feel like I get a clearer picture of some of you as people and I feel more close to you in that way. I have always been more of a 1-on-1 personality. I am freakin' intense some have said. It's just me, and I don't really apologize. There ARE things about me I dislike and work on but the "ME" in me is something I have learned to accept. I enjoy a good intense discussion. On occasion I get involved and emotional but for me this is just the fun of it. In my life I've learned that some personalities are not compatible with this level on intensity (or whatever you want to call it) and generally speaking I don't hang out with those folks and they don't hang out with me. Frankly... we bore each other. We are not the same kind of people and are interested in other things. I just got over that a long time ago and I don't mind at all. I don't think I'm better than them and I don't think they are wrong in any way. We are just different.

And for the record, everything I have shared about myself is totally true. As a young boy I DID lose a few people. They Just up and freakin' died on me. How I dealt with that stuff is part of me now. I am interested in life, death, and religion. It is integrated into my personality and my goals as I walk this earth. It is VERY integrated into my music and my poetry and my self expression and my soul searching. I don't consider any of this stuff "off topic" at all. Much of my very angry metal songs, or my very endearing love songs are intertwined in life/death/religion/love undertones that I have enjoyed exploring here with some of you, as I always have. My future sonic works are no doubt in some ways affected by my interactions on this very thread.

Those of you who have seen fit to jump in on this thread, it has been a real pleasure. And those that haven't that's ok too in my book! It's just a thread for goodness sake!!!!!

Thanks to you. Cheers!

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 01:05 PM CDT

Quote by: chronologic The thread from hell.

The Jesus thread from Hell, OMG!

* Post Removed *
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 02:33 PM CDT

* This message has been removed *

Re:J.C.Thread.Won't.Die
Wednesday, July 29 2009 @ 02:34 PM CDT

Quote by: Rocha Malhada "RELIGION says: "We believe "Y" is an unquestionable and immutable truth based on faith (a desire to believe)." I find this an rather inaccurate premise. It is the primary reason I do not participate in any single modern religious "Church" or "Denomination". There have been so many questions asked and individuals' search for answers in religious faith.

OK. How then would you characterize the basis of religious belief?

Quote by: Rocha Malhada "Science" limits the scope of knowledge to can be experienced through our perceptions. "Religion" extends the scope of knowledge to things that cannot be perceived." "Perceptions"? This seems yet another attempt to discount religious faith and experience as a reality. If someone says they have seen ghosts and firmly trust their perceptual experience when they witnessed ghosts, are you prepared to label their experience as one that was not a function of perception, so therefore it is not scientific and non existent as it cannot be manifested at will by a scientist?

I would weigh the evidence (is there credible evidence that what they saw could actually exist), develop theories to explain the claim (was the person mentally impaired or possibly mistaken about what they perceived), and test those theories (does something happen if we recreate the original circumstances). There is zero evidence that "ghosts" exist, yet ample evidence of odd (yet natural) environmental effects, impaired senses, psychotic episodes, and instances of impaired reasoning.

I think the real question to ask is whether you would leap to a irrational conclusion about what the person reported rather than first weighing all the possible rational explanations.

Quote by: Rocha Malhada What does science know of other dimensions or any other possibility which is not "perceived" by current scientific (experience)?

Nothing. That's the point.