God

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by Mike Clarke
...I think I said in my first post [or second] that I saw a big difference in religion and faith. I have no problems with people holding on to a sense of faith in a god, but I don't have the same views regarding the reasons for the existance of the worlds various religions.

I don't have a big problem with this. Organized religion is to facilitate the cultivation of faith. It is not faith itself. Since it is an organization, it comes with inherent human errors and frailty.

I don't accept your reasoning that the pope lives in a museum, it's a palace with it's own army. Infact it is an independent state with it's own laws. What value is art and wealth to those facing death from starvation? And "YES" they should sell it off and feed the people. Who are thay saving it for? you can't go in and see it, nor can the faithful from around the world who contribute to it's upkeep.

Dennis_Mahon addressed this issue.

"Thou shalt have no false gods before me." Who said that?
I've always thought it was Abraham's god, the one so many have faith in today. I don't think he was being very politicaly correct when he said that.

That is the First Commandment. It has nothing to do with political correctness. When Moses lead the unruly bunch out of Egypt, he brought forth the 10 Commandments. Simple rules/truth to maintain social harmony while they wondered in the desert. (Forgive my simplification here)

But we seem to have moved on from those days, and now we can tolerate other gods, can't we?
What seems to be more of an issue for many, is religious tolerance, and that is in extreemly short supply around the world today, just as it has always been.

We tolerate other gods for other people. LOL, christians are still not allowed to have "other god".

The ever loving and ever forgiving God, loves all people all the same. (Aren't we all God's children?) Therefore, salvation for all who are pure in heart, irrespective of affiliation or non-affiliation. At least that's the way I feel. I understand that may not reflect how other christians feel.

Honestly speaking, today's most serious religious intolerance is in Islamic societies. It is made worse by the cultural brutality of closed societies. You are talking about a barbaric bunch who believe in cutting your infidel throat so they can receive reward from Allah.

Faith, I can see some value in. Religion, well that's a whole new collection plate.

Collection plate is voluntary donation in the Catholic Church. The collection plate is not sufficient to pay for the utility. The way the Roman Catholic church operates is to go after the super rich parishioners. They are the ones with the money and the properties. This is the same way colleges go after the successful alumni. If you are rich and you are a catholic, you are going to feel real BAD saying no to the Church.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by arnisador
That isn't bad. Science, including logic, is one way of knowing, faith is another.

I've known scientists who were deeply religious yet still did good science. They approached science on its terms and religion on its terms; they largely treated science as a "game" with its own rules. Its conclusions meant little more to them than the outcome of a chess game.

These are different approaches to knowing the world. I really think logic is of little value in religion. If you use the tools of science you disprove religion (by Occam's razor if nothing else); if you use religion you disprove science. Fundamentally, though, which tool you choose is a personal choice and cannot be made logically.

The tools of science neither prove nor disprove religion. The tools of religion do not prove nor disprove science.

Most scientists realize that there are gaps in the theory of evolution. Most christians do not take creationism literally.
I just think that the living system is far too complex to have evolved by chance alone. On the other hand, I don't think God created the T-rex neither. I don't think we can all trace out common ancesters to just Adam and Eve.

I agree with Nightingale's post.

Originally posted by nightingale8472
....Its the things that we can't prove one way or another (is there a god, what happens when we die) that should be addressed by religion.
How our world works is the realm of science...
Why it works is the realm of faith.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Here is a link to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html

 

[yilisifu]

At the same time, we have to admit that science changes from time to time. Things that I was taught many years ago in high school (having to do with subatomic particles, for example) are now regarded as incorrect "theories" and new ones have been introduced... Evolutionists admit that their science is actually a theory rather than a science; it has never been proven although it is taught as indisputable fact in many schools. A number of evolutionists admit that evolutionism is actually a religion of sorts because it is mostly based on faith rather than any hard evidence.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by yilisifu
Evolutionists admit that their science is actually a theory rather than a science; it has never been proven

The same is true of the theory of gravity. The first measurement of the speed of gravity--showing it was finite and roughly equal to the speed of light--was reported within the past three months. We didn't have any evidence that gravity moved at finite speeds until then and hence the theory was worefully incomplete; we still aren't sure if gravitons carry it or if it's a field (whatever that might mean!). Yet, people are still reluctant to do flying side kicks off 11 story buildings. The theory of relativity conflicts with relevant quantum theories. Really, this argument is principally a misapprehension of how the term "theory" is used by scientists. Evolution is the only scientific theory explaining the diversity and similarity of species on the planet. It may be right, wrong, or (most likely) somewhere in between, but it's good science. That's all the more clear as we compare genomic sequences and get molecular confirmation of taxonomic classifications that had previously been made based on phenotypic effects.

The Tobacco Institute always found scientists who said that smoking didn't cause cancer, and people will always find biologists who say evolution isn't correct. I knew a mathematical statistician who didn't believe in the Central Limit Theorem--and theorem is an unequivocal term; that has been rigourously and logically shown to be accurate by formal mathematical proof. The Raelians are smart enough to clone a baby (maybe!) but think we're evolved from aliens. Go figure.

Scientific standards do change, and science isn't the only way to get at the truth. You either accept science as a method--in essence, making one a scientivist even if one is not a scientist--or not. But once you accept science and its methods, evolution is an excellent example of those methods. Like the caloric theory of heat or the four elements that comprise all matter, it may someday be shown to be defective or even wrong; but it still follows the scientific method. Unlike those other cases, though, there's no competing theory with any currency.

If you reject scientific explanations then of course you may reject evolution out-of-hand. If not, while gaps in the evidence may be found, errors in the reasoning would be difficult to find. See e.g. this recent work on the matter.

What you were taught in high school regarding subatomic particles was more likely to have been intentionally simplified (the Bohr model) rather than wrong per se; much of the subatomic theory relevant to chemistry, where one usually sees it, was well understood by the 1930s.

 

[Nightingale]

This is the scientific definition of the word "Theory"

Theory - a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events

Theory in science isn't like a "theory" as we commonly use the word to mean a guess or an idea. By definition, a theory has gone through considerable criticism and attempted falsifications. It isn't just someone's random idea. Some Christians say that evolution doesn't concern them because it's "only a theory." Presumably they think that the word "theory" means about the same thing as a "pipe dream." But the term theory, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments.

Many opponents of the teaching of evolution cite its status as a theory as part of their objection. These people believe that a scientific theory is nothing more than a hypothesis, a belief, or mere speculation. In fact, a scientific theory is one that has its basis in observation of the natural world, formulation of testable hypotheses, and experiments that rigorously attempt to falsify those hypotheses. A scientific theory, therefore, is one step removed from a scientific law, such as the law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics (entropy). Evolution has undergone much rigorous testing over more than a century, with the result that it has gained the status of scientific theory.

In science, the facts are the "what" and the theory is the "why".

By definition, a fact is what is witnessed upon observation. It isn't something that you have to prove. It is just something that "is", like the fact that Martialtalk exists. It can be observed. There is no need to set up experiments that prove it exists, we simply have to watch it exist. That is why we can't say "the fact of evolution." because no human was around to witness it, and although we can see it in small areas of our world today (known as microevolution), we can't see it on a large scale because of the finite nature of our lifespans, so evolution must always remain a theory. In the semantics of science, a fact does not have explanatory or predictive power. It simply exists. Instead one speaks of hypotheses, theories, and laws as ways of organizing, explaining, and extrapolating from facts.

Many evolution opponents attempt to portray scientists who espouse evolution and an old universe as atheists. In fact, many scientists, including evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, astronomers, and cosmologists are devoutly religious. Some even accept the scientific evidence showing that the known universe originated, and has evolved, over the last 15 billion years while believing that an omnipotent designer (God) planned and set it into motion, and is still watching over it. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[rmcrobertson]

I'm not going to get into all of this--except to note that the definitions of scientific theory advanced by Arnisador and Nightingale are altogether correct--but I will say this, in defense of poor old Freud.

"His deviant desires," eh? Would this be the same Jung who wrote as an apologist for Hitler, while Freud recognized a group psychosis when he saw one, identified Hitler as what he was, and got the hell out? The Freud whose sisters died in camps? The Freud who--if you'd bother to read, say, his "Dora," case and his innumerable self-analyses--was quite well aware of the limits of his own ideas and his own biases?

There's little point in my arguing about this. Some prefer the Jung who provided so much ammo to Joseph Campbell's maunderings and the superiority of men over women, to say nothing of his influence on that gorgonzola cheese of an intellectual, George Lucas. Some prefer Freud's humanity, analysis, and skepticism. Me? I with Siggy.

If you'd like to attack Freud, show some evidence that you've read his work. It's the same problem with my students who want to write essays attacking Darwin: they won't read his works to see what the ideas and arguments are!

I'll stick with W.H. Auden, "In Memory of Sigmund Freud:"

He wasn't clever at all;
He merely told the unhappy Present to recite the Past
Like a poetry lesson till sooner or later it faltered at the line where

Long ago the accusations had begun,
And suddenly knew by whom it had been judged
How rich life had been and how silly,
And was life-forgiven aand more humble...

No wonder the ancient cultures of conceit
In his technique of unsettlement foresaw
The fall of princes, the collapse of
Their lucrative patterns of frustration

If he succeeded, why, the Generalised Life
Would become impossible, the monolith
Of State be broken and prevented
The co-operation of avengers.

Of course they called on God, but he went his way
Down among the Lost People like Dante, down
To the stinking fosse where the injured
Lead the ugly life of the rejected

And showed us what evil is: not, as we thought
Deeds that must be punished, but our lack of faith,
Our dishonest mood of denial,
The concupiscence of the oppressor.

I have to tell you--having been a little over-serious--give me this over Jung's apologies and justifications for racism and thinking women are inferior (it's all, "archetypes," don't you know), absolutely any day.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
...... In fact, many scientists, including evolutionary biologists, paleontologists, anthropologists, geologists, astronomers, and cosmologists are devoutly religious. Some even accept the scientific evidence showing that the known universe originated, and has evolved, over the last 15 billion years while believing that an omnipotent designer (God) planned and set it into motion, and is still watching over it. These are not mutually exclusive concepts.

My point exactly! Thank you! I think I begin to have a very good impression of Wicca.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by arnisador
....If you reject scientific explanations then of course you may reject evolution out-of-hand. If not, while gaps in the evidence may be found, errors in the reasoning would be difficult to find.....

First of all, I don't believe any one rejects scientific explainations. Secondly, when there are gaps in the evidence, then the theory is NOT complete. Which also means there exists the high probablity of error in the reasoning. Yet, It doesn't necessary mean you reject the theory in whole.

 

[yilisifu]

Yes, except that evolution fails the standards of following the "scientific method" altogether. Microevolution is a fact; evolution within a species - certain creatures adapting naturally to changes in their environment...but macroevolution; the evolution of, say, cows into whales (which is one of the evolutionist's theories) fails the tests of the scientific method.
What I don't like about it is that it is taught as absolute fact in schools here when it is no more than a theory.

 

[chufeng]

A wise Chinese scholar once said that if one were to compile all of the written works and be able to comprehend them...the bulk of knowledge would be outweighed by the bulk of ignorance...

Truth is no one knows...

For those who would argue against a particular belief...any argument you can offer will be insufficient to change their minds.

For those who hold to a particular belief...no argument will be sufficient to move them from that position.

Paradoxically, they might both be correct ...

Until one crosses the veil between the now and "what comes after" it is all speculation...then again, I could be wrong.

:asian:
chufeng

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by chufeng
[A wise Chinese scholar once said that if one were to compile all of the written works and be able to comprehend them...the bulk of knowledge would be outweighed by the bulk of ignorance...

He obviously didn't know about the internet.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by chufeng
...For those who would argue against a particular belief...any argument you can offer will be insufficient to change their minds.

For those who hold to a particular belief...no argument will be sufficient to move them from that position.

Paradoxically, they might both be correct ...

Until one crosses the veil between the now and "what comes after" it is all speculation...then again, I could be wrong.

None of us harbors the expectation of changing people's mind with what we state. Views, opinions and facts are shared. Hopefully we learn something from each other. That's all.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by Johnathan Napalm
when there are gaps in the evidence, then the theory is NOT complete.

This applies to the theories of gravity, relativity, and especially quantum mechanics, just to name a few. Indeed, very few scientific theories are "complete"--heat is quite well understood, but the theory of light leaves us with lots of questions (does wave/particle duality really make sense to anyone?).

Which also means there exists the high probablity of error in the reasoning.

No, that's fallacious reasoning. You're conflating evidence and inference.

 

[arnisador]

Originally posted by yilisifu
but macroevolution; the evolution of, say, cows into whales (which is one of the evolutionist's theories) fails the tests of the scientific method.

How so?

What I don't like about it is that it is taught as absolute fact in schools here when it is no more than a theory.

Why don't you have the same complaint about the other 'mere' theories taught as if they were facts in the schools--gravity, for example, or heat conduction? How oil or diamonds are formed, which also requires a long time and can't be observed?

As to evolution, in Darwin's time the objection against macroevolution might obtain, but knowing what we do know about DNA, mutation rates, crossover phenomena, etc., and how similar the DNA of all primates is, and how it's closer to those of other mammals than say of avians, it seems to me that the mechanism of macroevolution is clear--it's the same as for microevolution, just given more time. How else to explain all the near modern human species--Homo erectus, etc.? All microevolution? Couldn't enough microevolution add up to macroevolution?

 

[Nightingale]

we can observe one kind of virus (or something else that replicates rapidly, like plants) turn into another kind of virus entirely... for example, HIV has been traced back to SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), which infects apes. SIV cannot infect a human. HIV cannot infect an ape. They are two different things, but one came directly from the other. But we know for a fact that HIV is a mutation of SIV, by looking at the earliest HIV specimens we can find.

Viruses are something that we can observe mutating and evolving. This is why there is a different species of flu each year, and you have to get revaccinated. You're always and forever protected against any flu that you get a shot for, but the virus mutates, and you have to get protected against the new strain. Evolution in action.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by arnisador

No, that's fallacious reasoning. You're conflating evidence and inference.

I think you are mixing theory with law. A theory is just that, a theory.

In many situations, there are conflicting evidences. You cannot be absolute with your inference.

 

[Nightingale]

a law is called a law because it:

a. fits the evidence
b. can be observed directly
c. has been well tested and has stood up to much scrutiny

Gravity is a law because it:

a. fits the evidence... the explanation fits the facts
b. you can observe it... this is why the apple fell on Newton's head.
c. has been well tested... we have lots of scientists trying to figure out WHY it works, but we know for sure that it does work.

a theory is a theory because it:

a. fits the evidence
b. cannot be easily observed in its entirety
c. has been well tested and has stood up to much scrutiny

Evolution is a theory because it:

a. fits the evidence... we have the fossil record, and the scientific principle that something can't come from nothing.
b. we can see microevolution, but not large scale evolution
c. we've had scientists testing this theory for decades. nobody's come up with anything better yet

Simply put, the theory of evolution must remain a theory because we simply can't observe its happening on a large scale because our lifetimes are too short. Right now, its the best explanation we have, and that's how its taught in school (at least, in the schools I went to).

Evolution is (or should be, at least under California state standards) "the best explanation we have right now because it is the only explanation at the moment that fits ALL the evidence."

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by arnisador
Why don't you have the same complaint about the other 'mere' theories taught as if they were facts in the schools--gravity, for example, or heat conduction? How oil or diamonds are formed, which also requires a long time and can't be observed?

Diamonds can be synthesized by emulating natural process, ie subjecting carbon to super intense pressure.

As for oil, there is another theory. This theory states that oil was formed when the earth was formed from stardusts. I forgot the scientist name. But he did discover oil deposit based on this theory, in regions where the experts thought there couldn't be any. I saw that documentary so long ago. Sorry my memory is sketchy on this.

 

[Johnathan Napalm]

Originally posted by nightingale8472
...Simply put, the theory of evolution must remain a theory because we simply can't observe its happening on a large scale because our lifetimes are too short. .....

That is why the evolution process can be observed in virus and bacteria. Their life span is short enough, relative to ours, for the effect to be noticeable.

Evolution is (or should be, at least under California state standards) "the best explanation we have right now because it is the only explanation at the moment that fits ALL the evidence."

Does it fit "ALL" the evidence?