Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Science and Religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • zamb
    Senior Member
    • Nov 2006
    • 5834

    Science and Religion

    [quote user="Faust"]

    [quote user="gusgusterson"]As I'm only buying things like stays at Ritzy Canine and groceries, Mrs. Gusterson purchased a Rick Owens top and Comme Repetto ballet flats with grommets this weekend. I tried to talk her into some super pointy Ann D elf shoes and thankfully talked her out of many new fall things. I did buy a 50 spf rash guard a few weeks ago!
    [/quote]</p>

    Good man [Y]</p>

    Zam, are you taking a crash course in Western European intellectual heritage?</p>

    [/quote]</p>

    </p>

    Faust,</p>

    No not really,</p>

    I have noticed that there is a Huge Connection between Modern ideas in Science, Politics, Religion, theology etc and the Ideas of the Ancient Philosophers............... It one sense one has to really ask if we have really progressed idea wise or we have only been able to better articulate and reinforce the original ideas of Antiquity</p>

    As a Christian , and a modern progressive thinker (albeit a God Centered thinker) I am trying to understand how Mankind has moved from a universal (albeit varying) belief in God, or at least the divine, to the point where the West in particular has now become generally Atheistic in its outlook .</p>

    I dont want to assume anything, nor misunderstand anyone (if thats even possible[:|]), so i am trying to understand the ideas and views of some of the Great (And Absurd[65]) thinkers to have come along, and how their views has helped (or hurt?) our current world collective outlook </p>
    “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
    .................................................. .......................


    Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock
  • Faust
    kitsch killer
    • Sep 2006
    • 37852

    #2
    Re: Your recent purchases



    That's quite an undertaking, Zam. Well, you read Descartes already. That's where the break started from the Ancients. I think you will also may need to read a general history text, because it's hard to jump between philosophers without putting them in the historical context. It's a good book, but expensive... of course you can get it used for $1 :-)</p>

    </p>

    </p>
    Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

    StyleZeitgeist Magazine

    Comment

    • zamb
      Senior Member
      • Nov 2006
      • 5834

      #3
      Re: Science and Religion



      yea it is,</p>

      Maybe i need o forget about fashion, career, family etc and take up a life of Contemplation of the origins of all things?</p>

      As the Ancients say................. "Coming into Being"[66]</p>

      Speaking of which........... i left Aristotle's "Metaphysics" at the closeout store close to my House yesterday, I have to retrieve it this evening.</p>

      Thanks for the link to the Book , I will order it this evening.</p>

      I want to disagree with you though about the break beginning with Descartes (even though you could be right as he made his ideas simpler) ........... We could make a case that it began with Kant. A lot of people dont really respect his as they should because his ideas were so complex............................ even his countryman Freud made fun of him.</p>

      Personally i think Freud was a lunatic though [65][65].</p>

      A baby boy cries because subconsciously he has sexual longings for his Mother!? What!
      </p>

      Tell me he himself didnt need a headshrink![:'(][65]</p>
      “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
      .................................................. .......................


      Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock

      Comment

      • pbt
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2007
        • 159

        #4
        Re: Your recent purchases

        "As a Christian , and a modern progressive thinker (albeit a God Centered thinker) I am trying to understand how Mankind has moved from a universal (albeit varying) belief in God, or at least the divine, to the point where the West in particular has now become generally Atheistic in its outlook."<DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"><DIV>In order to save people from the hubris of identifying signs of God within their own mundane lives He created a universe which requires only science to explain its origins. Now that many of us westerners know about that state of affairs it becomes more difficult to believe in a creator and so fewer of us do. But it allows us the luxury of a 'pure faith', because it requires arbitrary belief, unfettered by rationality. </DIV></DIV>

        Comment

        • zamb
          Senior Member
          • Nov 2006
          • 5834

          #5
          Re: Your recent purchases

          [quote user="pbt"]"As a Christian , and a modern progressive thinker (albeit a God Centered thinker) I am trying to understand how Mankind has moved from a universal (albeit varying) belief in God, or at least the divine, to the point where the West in particular has now become generally Atheistic in its outlook."<div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"><div>In order to save people from the hubris of identifying signs of God within their own mundane lives He created a universe which requires only science to explain its origins. Now that many of us westerners know about that state of affairs it becomes more difficult to believe in a creator and so fewer of us do. But it allows us the luxury of a 'pure faith', because it requires arbitrary belief, unfettered by rationality. </div></div>

          [/quote]</p>

          Does science really explains the origins of the universe? or it gives Theoretical possibilities of how it came to exist, with significant aspects (the origin of matter/ energy, consciousness or mind) still unaccounted for.?</p>

          Are we certain that Science is the only means by which things can be explained or Science only gives us an Empirical explanation of Physical things, with the laws of nature being a necessary constant?
          </p>

          From whence cometh the laws of nature, and what is it that keep these laws in effect? these things have not been accounted for.........</p>

          Can we say for certain that we will not come to some knowledge that will render our current information (accepted truths) obsolete, the same way the Idea (discovery) of Atomic particles rendered the concept of four elements (air, wind, earth and fire) obsolete?
          </p>

          Can "(Pure?) Faith" exist without reason, or is reason a "stepping stone"/ building equipment to faith, in the same manner scaffoldings are needed to build buildings?
          </p>

          </p>
          “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
          .................................................. .......................


          Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock

          Comment

          • zamb
            Senior Member
            • Nov 2006
            • 5834

            #6
            Re: Your recent purchases



            <u>Feel free to respond.......</u></p>

            but if we go too much further, this may need its own thread...........If we are allowed to discuss subjects such as this in the forum.........</p>
            “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
            .................................................. .......................


            Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock

            Comment

            • pbt
              Senior Member
              • Jan 2007
              • 159

              #7
              Re: Your recent purchases

              Science is always a work in progress. Many phenomena are unaccounted for, or imperfectly explained by science. New theories fill gaps and replace old theories. Of course science eliminates neither the possibility of the existence a Creator nor of Faeries. Evidence for either would support rational belief in their existence. Lacking evidence, faith in the existence of either is irrational though, presumably, pleasing to the former if indeed He exists.

              Comment

              • pbt
                Senior Member
                • Jan 2007
                • 159

                #8
                Re: Your recent purchases

                <SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 12.096px;">but if we go too much further, this may need its own thread...........If we are allowed to discuss subjects such as this in the forum......... </SPAN><DIV><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 12.096px;">AGREED. An ideas thread, or perhaps another forum might be more appropriate for this topic. </SPAN></DIV>

                Comment

                • zamb
                  Senior Member
                  • Nov 2006
                  • 5834

                  #9
                  Re: Your recent purchases



                  [quote user="pbt"]Science is always a work in progress. Many phenomena are unaccounted for, or imperfectly explained by science. New theories fill gaps and replace old theories. Of course science eliminates neither the possibility of the existence a Creator nor of Faeries. Evidence for either would support rational belief in their existence. Lacking evidence, faith in the existence of either is irrational though, presumably, pleasing to the former if indeed He exists.[/quote]</p>

                  </p>

                  Science in its purest Form....... (Observation of Phenomena and coming to Proven conclusions from it) does more to Validate the existence of God, than to dispove It.</p>

                  But in the truest sense one cannot look for Empirical proof for God as God is a Spirit.....according to the bible</p>

                  But rationally speaking.......... there has to be a Cause outside of the Universe (unity/ oneness of verse that is....) to accord for its existence and the order seen in it....... and it cannot be by random chance, no more than sounds made at random can be understood as music. and Since we as mankind are a part of it, the very Fact that we are aware of our existence, build civilizations and have created the internet were you and I, absolute strangers can have a conversation about this topic, is more than reason to conclude the existence of a Supreme Mind (intelligence)</p>
                  “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
                  .................................................. .......................


                  Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock

                  Comment

                  • Faust
                    kitsch killer
                    • Sep 2006
                    • 37852

                    #10
                    Re: Your recent purchases

                    Ok, duke it out here. :-)
                    Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                    StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                    Comment

                    • zamb
                      Senior Member
                      • Nov 2006
                      • 5834

                      #11
                      Philosophy/dicussion: Origin of existing things



                      [quote user="Faust"]Ok, duke it out here. :-)
                      [/quote]</p>

                      well its not really duking it out............</p>

                      As i have said before, there is no topic under heaven concerning man that i am afraid/unwilling to discuss. My one rule is that people dont get personal and be disrespecful.</p>

                      So far my Fellow SZ member has been doing well and i look forward to hearing/ seeing/ reading ) from him or anyone else willing to contribute.........</p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>

                      </p>
                      “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
                      .................................................. .......................


                      Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock

                      Comment

                      • pbt
                        Senior Member
                        • Jan 2007
                        • 159

                        #12
                        Re: Your recent purchases

                        Man I regret weighing in (particularly on a design forum) because I can see in advance it's a futile discussion. I think in par 1 and par 3 you're referring to the teleological argument, or the argument from design. There are people who call themselves scientists who support this position (it's the academic buttressing for the idea of creationism being taught in science classes). My only response is to say I agree with the majority of scientists who observe the argument from design is specious. In other words the origin of matter is tied to extremely simple entities, shadows of shreds of neutrons, whatever, that don't require a Creator to account for their origin. Complexity arose slowly from such utter simplicity. <DIV><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV style="text-align: left;"><SPAN class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma;">"But in the truest sense one cannot look for Empirical proof for God as God is a Spirit.....according to the bible"</SPAN></DIV><DIV style="text-align: left;">See this sentence (unlike Richard Dawkins) I don't object to. While not buying into the sentiment myself, I'm not fretting about it either. It's what I was referring to (albeit a trifle facetiously) in my original response. You're going with a feeling.</DIV><DIV style="text-align: left;"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV style="text-align: left;">We're regurgitating a discussion that's been held in public countless times since the curriculum debates, and in the wake of the publication of the God Delusion. An entertaining (and enjoyably polemical) version of that debate took place in the pages of the London Review of Books. It's worth checking out. It begins with Eageton's review of Dawkins's book, and continues in the responses linked at the base of the article. Zam, I think you will like Eagleton's piece (though I myself consider it a prank aimed at undermining it's own propositions; either that or he's completely lost his mind).</DIV><DIV style="text-align: left;"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV><DIV style="">http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html</DIV><DIV style="text-align: left;"><BR class="khtml-block-placeholder"></DIV>

                        Comment

                        • zamb
                          Senior Member
                          • Nov 2006
                          • 5834

                          #13
                          Re: Your recent purchases

                          [quote user="pbt"]Man I regret weighing in (particularly on a design forum) because I can see in advance it's a futile discussion. I think in par 1 and par 3 you're referring to the teleological argument, or the argument from design. There are people who call themselves scientists who support this position (it's the academic buttressing for the idea of creationism being taught in science classes). My only response is to say I agree with the majority of scientists who observe the argument from design is specious. In other words the origin of matter is tied to extremely simple entities, shadows of shreds of neutrons, whatever, that don't require a Creator to account for their origin. Complexity arose slowly from such utter simplicity. <div><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma;">"But in the truest sense one cannot look for Empirical proof for God as God is a Spirit.....according to the bible"</span></div><div style="text-align: left;">See this sentence (unlike Richard Dawkins) I don't object to. While not buying into the sentiment myself, I'm not fretting about it either. It's what I was referring to (albeit a trifle facetiously) in my original response. You're going with a feeling.</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div style="text-align: left;">We're regurgitating a discussion that's been held in public countless times since the curriculum debates, and in the wake of the publication of the God Delusion. An entertaining (and enjoyably polemical) version of that debate took place in the pages of the London Review of Books. It's worth checking out. It begins with Eageton's review of Dawkins's book, and continues in the responses linked at the base of the article. Zam, I think you will like Eagleton's Piece (though I myself consider it a prank aimed at undermining it's own propositions; either that or he's completely lost his mind).</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div><div style="">http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br class="khtml-block-placeholder"></div>

                          [/quote]</p>

                          </p>

                          Why should you regret weighing in.? I know that this is a design forum, and from that standpoint i understand that it may not be the best place to discuss such a topic,</p>

                          that being said, we should be able o discuss such views in an open, respectful manner.</p>

                          I believe there is a God, and for me this belief is not outside of reason, nor is it based on any intellectual argument,</p>

                          it is based on my experience, because God is personal and real to me. I also believe than God can only be known (at least in a personal way) tr</p>

                          hough his own self revelation .</p>

                          But from as Scientific (biological, physiological, Ontological, Fossil research etc) if all the evidence is treated fairly we cannot help but admit the existence of a Creator, and for the record , i dont embrace the theory of intelligent design, nor do i embrace the Theory of Evolution</p>

                          </p>

                          I think in its proper context, with the rise of modern Science, Evolution is more a philosophical , than a scientific theory, because , there can be no deterministic experiment, or Observation to come to a conclusion on the theory.(this is something that is critical to science , so i don't see why scientists has given this theory a pass when everything else to be considered scientific must meet this Criterion)</p>

                          Also, lets say for argument sake , Electrons,protons Atoms or whatever basic particles are the only things needed to account for all things (an absurd idea, since it is clear to us that their are intangible things (non matter) that exist in the universe.</p>

                          where did these particles arise from?</p>

                          and what caused them to constitute the order that exist?</p>
                          “You know,” he says, with a resilient smile, “it is a hard world for poets.”
                          .................................................. .......................


                          Zam Barrett Spring 2017 Now in stock

                          Comment

                          • pbt
                            Senior Member
                            • Jan 2007
                            • 159

                            #14
                            Re: Your recent purchases



                            Zam, I regret weighing in and consider that discussing the topic is pointless because more than likely we'll just wind up exchanging a series of assertions each of us finds equally untenable and no one will end up any more edifyed. I can't respond properly to the post you just made because I'm unfamiliar with the argument you're making for the existence of a Creator. Most of what you've said lines up with the teleological argument but this you do not embrace. Could you sketch it out a bit? </P>
                            <P mce_keep="true"> </P>

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X
                            😀
                            🥰
                            🤢
                            😎
                            😡
                            👍
                            👎