Has it ever occured to anyone that, over the course of history, humans often come to the conclusion that anything that cannot be explained at the moment is automatically considered to be supernatural? For example, the Greeks. They had a god for just about anything that they could not explain with their means of science or technology at the time. How else could they explain the torrent of fire and molten lava that spwes out of a volcano? By claiming that Hephasteus is simply working in his forge of course.
But fast forward to today. And we know that isn't the case. The advent of computers, automobiles, airplanes, etc etc etc, would simply astound the Ancient Greeks. They would consider us gods. They would be unable to speak out of pure awe.
And since science is never ending in the sense that, with each question answered, more questions are formed... we still do not have a logical explanation for God. That being that supposedly judges us from afar, and moves through us all.
Think about it though... what if we just haven't reached the technological threshold to explain it yet?
It could be possible, that "God" is nothing more than a wave that interacts with our matter. Influencing our decisions with maybe electrical impulses or something similar. Religion is making "god" more important than it really is. With the advent of more powerful technology, we may be able to see what it is that moves through us all. More than likely, it is just another force of nature. It justs exists. It is there, always has been. But it is not a being, it is not something to worship... it is just not something we can understand. YET.
Basically, what I am trying to say is, we humans have proven over time that with the advent of better technology we can understand the ways of nature around us. So what's to stop us from unlocking the secrets of the universe? As well as explaining what "god" really is? We just can't comprehend it yet... but we will in time I think. Just like we did with volcanoes, oceans, telephones, airplanes, etc etc etc.
Religion is powerful in many ways no doubt. It helps certain people get through rough times, and to them, it explains the way things are as well giving them a code of ethics that they can follow. But religion is also on a way ticket to being obsolete. If science can bridge the gap between the two, what now?
Now just so everyone knows, I am not trying to attack anyones beliefs, I am merely wondering outloud if the above could be the case. I would also like to hear what other people have to say. Please be open-minded, and rational.
I will explain in better detail some ideas that I have heard as well some of my own if a great dialogue can be established.
I wish things were as rational as you claim, but they're not. ( First, I think you're getting some terms confused. Mormons and Protestants are both Christian, not Catholic. Catholicism is one type of Christianity; the word "Christianity" generally encompasses all Christ-based religions. )
Anyway, I have to wonder if you've ever driven through the midwest. The church is still fighting against evolution and sex ed to this day. If you search for "Intelligent Design" or "Abstinence Only" in google news or something similar, you'll see that they're still going strong. Books bans, and more recently, internet filtering, is still common in many schools. You could look up the current list of top banned books to get an idea, or read all about the Harry Potter scare, where the church has made an entire industry off of convincing people that kids reading Harry Potter will turn into Satanists.
switching topic now, to wikipedia.
just a quick confusion as to why wikipedia is not a reliable source. scientific papers are given credibilety by peer review (your peers reviewing, changing, and ultimatally agreeing on the facts present in the paper). wikepedia is the encyclopedia about everything so everyone is technically your peer in wikipedia as a whole and since it can be changed by your peers freely, wouldn't it be peer reviewed? on minor subjects with limited viewpoints it is not reliable, but over all i dont really see the problem.
Yes, I agree that you shouldn't just read wikipedia and assume it's true. But the important part of wikipedia is, as i said, that it lists its sources at the bottom of every article in a handy web-link format. And it lets people use the ubiquitous "Citation Needed" tag any time someone thinks that the person writing is just making things up. If you have any doubt about whether what you're reading is true, you can check the sources, and decide for yourself whether the linked sources are credible enough for you. If you go look at the evolution article, you will see that it lists 220 accredited sources at the bottom, plus external links to related sites created by legitimate scientific research groups, and a list of related reading material. That's what makes wikipedia great, and that's why it's actually an incredibly good research tool.
At least much better than googling "global warming is fake" and pasting a link to the first right-wing propaganda site that comes up, which contains zero sources and no actual data.
oh, sorry, I have trouble getting those two confused alot.
i could be wrong. my only source was an article i remember reading saying that the pope declaired that evolution was correct but my memory could be bad. as for the sex ed, i guess i was just assuming based on my 12 years in catholic school and getting quite a bit of sex ed.
as for the book bans and internet filtering you could be right about them filtering in school, i have not tested it and am no longer in a position to do so. however i interpreted the person i was quoting's statment as saying that the church was trying to ban books, etc from society as a whole.
and yes the whole hary potter thing is completely rediculous (also the stupid pokemon scare if anyone remembers). I would like to hear the pope's actual opinion on it.
I heard from one of my teachers that the whole reason that catholics had a problem with hary potter was because when (bible story time) saul was king he went to a "witch" to bring back a prophet from the dead so he could speak to him and the prophet said that what he had done was bad. since the prophet said it was bad to bring him back from the dead and the witch did it, witches are bad. hermoine is a witch (bad) and hary is the male version wizzard so wizzards must be bad, so hary potter is bad. bad=witch=wizzard=hary potter= class gives collective WTF.
This is not an international scientific community. It is, again, a right-wing political lobbying group. I guess I need to be more clear; when I say "national or international scientific community", I mean groups which are considered legitimate entities by their particular nations' citizenry and international agreement, entities which publish in actual scientific journals, participate in public education, can receive public funding, etc. The main things that are required are peer review, and a statement of political neutrality - that they will research and publish the truth regardless of whether the results are bad for their particular group. So, universities, scientific associations, international research institutions, etc., all count. A few random scientists standing in a room together without official backing from any institution does not. Conservative think tanks and talk radio do not. I know, I know, every single accredited group in the world is part of the massive liberal conspiracy. However, it's impossible to establish a baseline if you're going to assume that any sort of organization with oversight is a conspiracy, and only non-accredited groups who don't have any form of truth enforcement are telling the truth.
What you've linked here is a political meeting. This one is created by the Heartland Institute, yet again, a right-wing political lobbying group and think tank who is entirely sponsored by Republican-funding corporations. Their mission statement includes ensuring that free markets can operate without oversight, and to ensure that governments do no enforce laws relating to the environment. The Heartland Institute is responsible for such ridiculousness as "The List of 500 Scientists Who Think Global Warming Is A Myth", which, after it was published, was answered by nearly all of those 500 scientists calling the Heartland Institute and demanding they be taken off the list because they never said anything like that, and their names were used without permission.
You mean like an entire planet's worth of hotter air and constant exposure over 20 years?
The Scripps Institution of Oceanography doesn't deny man-made global warming. Here's their climate change FAQ:
http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/Climate_Change_FAQ/
If you read it, they agree entirely with scientific consensus. If you don't want to read it, the part in question:
ANSWER: Earth's climate does change naturally, but the current warming is not natural. Known natural causes of warming, such as the sun, have been constant in the past 30 years, so they cannot explain the warming of the past 30 years. The pattern of the current warming is also highly unnatural. For example, it is warming more at night than during the day; this is expected for CO2-caused heat trapping, because CO2 works at night, whereas natural warming would be more in the day. A long list of similar patterns (a "fingerprint" of human-caused warming) proves conclusively that the warming isn't natural.
Also in their FAQ:
ANSWER: Actually, there is strong scientific consensus on the reality of human-caused climate change. See the consensus/position statements of: - National Academy of Sciences - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - American Geophysical Union (AGU) - American Meteorological Society (AMS) - American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Oreskes (Science, 2004) analyzed all abstracts in refereed scientific publications from 1993-2003 with the keywords "global climate change" (928 papers). None disagreed with the consensus position that human activities are causing the current warming.
I would ask this though: You originally posted here implying that you trusted the Scripps Institute of Oceanography. Now that you see they disagree with you, I'm sure you will undoubtedly turn on them and declare them to be part of the conspiracy. But then, did you ever trust them to begin with? Are you trusting sources beacuse they are credible and truthful, or are you just trusting anyone who says what you want to hear?
Thats nice but you didnt actually prove the Universe isnt orderly, so...
So your comparing the Universe to a cupcake and order to deliciousness... sorry but you cant do that, it doesnt prove your point at all. Its basically a connotation fallacy.
As for quantum mechanics. I knew some one would bring it up. Quantum mechanics main and basic use is to predict where electrons orbit. The thing is quantum mechanics is not always right, like general relativity. if you use General Relativity to describe a black hole it gives you something different than quantum mechanics does. This is why they are looking for the unified theory.
Quantum mechanics also says if i run into a wall for all eternity one time ill go right through it. But we know this is impossible because the electromagnetic forces prevent me form doing so. Particles appearing randomly has only been theorized mathematically not actually seen. Quantum mechanics mearly predicts what could happened because we dont know exactly where an atom is. It does not say things occur randomly.
I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn't, than live my life as if there isn't, and die to find out there is.
It's the second law of thermodynamics. Do I have to re-prove it right here? Because, I could equally say you didn't prove that the Universe is orderly. I guess it depends on your deifnition. If by "orderly" you mean "non-chaotic", then you're wrong, because entropy is all around us, and always increasing. If by "orderly" you mean "looks pretty neat" then that's entirely opinion.
It's not a connotation fallacy; I'm pointing out how syllogisms work. I guess the cupcake does make it sound insulting, sorry, I just like cupcakes. Here it is in a more neutral form:
1. If you have X-ness in every part of Y, then Y is X. (true)
2. Therefore, there exists a Z with greater X-ness that spawned Y. (false, doesn't follow from the above statement)
If you have redness in every part of an apple, it doesn't mean there's a greater redness that spawned the apple. If you have loudness in every part of a song, it doesn't mean there's a greater loudness that spawned the song. Etc.
You're right that we don't know everything yet and we're searching for a Unified Theory, but that doesn't mean quantum physics is incorrect. It's correct in the sense that it's the best model available for explaining what happens.
No, this is a common misunderstanding. QP and things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle aren't just saying that we can't figure out where the electron is. The electron actually IS in two places at once. Similarly, with Heisenberg's, it's not that we just can't figure out how fast the particle is moving, it's that the particle actually IS moving at all potential velocities at once until it is measured/collapsed. I'm afraid that QP is very clear that the universe itself IS non-deterministic, and based on probability. Einstein didn't like it at first; he had a famous quote when QP research started: "God does not play dice with the universe", but eventually he changed his mind and agreed it was true after the evidence was made clear. (Even Einstein was wrong sometimes.)
Personally, I feel exactly the opposite.
Yes, its called pascal's wager and not an argument.
I still dont see how you use Thermodynamics to prove me wrong. The Universe is orderly and governed by scientific laws and mathematics. Thermodynamics is just one of the laws it operates on, just like quantum mechanics. So your only proving my point: the Universe is orderly. We cant explain eveything in the universe, but i would expect one day we should be able to explain mathematically how everything in the universe operates.
As for order coming from order I could explain this alot better but to do so would require me to write several pages. So the best i can do is point you to Modern Physics and Ancient Faith by Stephen Barr
Makeshiftwings:
There are so many laws that governs our (pefectly designed) world; some we don't even understand. That is not orderly? Why not just say we don't know what happened? Arguing doesn't make it better, we are just going in circles. I don't know anyone else, you not convincing me about anything you claimed. Are you trying to convince yourself?
Also if I am wrong I lose nothing; if you are wrong you lose everything. Not exactly a fair bet. Not that I think people should believe out of fear.
Keep searching and keep an open mind.
If belive in a creator blindly is closed minded, so is assuming there is no creator with out proof.
I didn't type this. I closed my eyes and just hit my keyboard.
OK I see what you mean. Yeah, I'd agree that there are mathematical laws governing everything. I don't know if I'd necessarily call that order, though, but I see what you mean.
Well I'm probably not going to have time to read it any time soon. But even with this different idea of order, I don't think the syllogism works. If you mean that everything that is complex (like a snowflake) ultimately comes from something more complex (the universe), then that's true. Everything is part of the universe, and the universe is more complex than any one thing in it because the universe includes each thing in it. But just because everything in the universe is part of the universe, doesn't mean the universe has to be part of something else. Things in the universe are part of the universe because the word "universe" basically means "everything". It's like saying "Each thing is a part of All-Things". That doesn't mean "Thus, All-Things is part of something else." It only means "Thus, All-Things is part of All-Things."
Hmmm.. a perfectly designed world would be made out of chocolate and be inhabited by a race of nymphomaniacal supermodels.
Because we do know what happened? The Big Bang was real, and so is evolution. Sorry, but it's true.
Because internet forums are made for arguments! It's good to know that nothing I can say will possibly change your mind though... it means I can probably disregard your claims of being open-minded.
Actually, you lose a lot. You (maybe not you specifically, but the church in general) lose the creation of a better world because you are clinging to unethical and intolerant views. You lose out on the joys of life because you uphold puritanical rules of self-denial. You lose your freedom because you submit to any authority figure that claims to be religious. You lose the ability to make truly meaningful ethical choices, because you live in constant fear that if you don't follow the rulebook, you will burn in hell. Personally, I'm really glad I don't have to deal with any of that. I quite like equality, rationality, personal freedom, and premarital sex
Oh I do. Don't worry.
Well not really, that's kind of what the thread is about. Rational people assume that wild irrational claims are false unless the person making the claim presents some sort of proof. It's the only way to stay sane in the world. Are you honestly going to give serious thought to it when I tell you that Dracula is standing behind you right now but he keeps turning invisible when you look for him and as soon as you press your space bar he's going to bite you? And a million other ridiculous things I could make up? Surely you don't give every crazy thing someone says equal validity... if you did, you'd never be able to sleep at night for fear that the universe was completely insane.
Me too.
It just ate my response
I know one of the guys that heads Scripps and they believe that man may be contributing to the climate change (which I'm not agruing against) BUT is not the main catalyst or even on the main level.
How is man causing the ocean waters to heat up? By increasing the air temperature? The air temperature would have to rise more than 1 or 4 degrees for it to have a big impact on bodies of water that large.
Hence why most Scientists feel the earth's core is heating up.
In the 70s and 80s people were saying that we would be going through another ice age because the temperatures were dropping. Then came the catalytic converter.
Now, guess what, people are saying that the converters are causing most of the exhaust to be CO2
Yeah, sure you do. Well I know God, and he told me that global warming is man made.
Citation needed.
Yeah, a few random groups of people. There's a difference between "some people" and "every accredited scientific community in the entire world".
I just had a funny thought. Let's assume for a moment that the whole story about Jesus dying on the cross and being ressurrected is actually true. In the lights of the events of Battlestar Galactica's finale the thought springs to mind that he was a cylon. Disclaimer: No offence to religious people intended (just in case).
Easter: The celebration of the reanimation of a jewish zombie who was his own father.
COUGARSHAMM POSTS #100
First, of religion ...my World Book dictionary defines religion as belief in God or gods...worship of God or gods...anything done or followed with reverence or devotion.
Theologically, philosophically, or metaphysically speaking, what I mean by religion is an act of homage by which we render to God both privately as individuals and publicly as social beings, the honor, gratitude, worship and obedience due Him and in the way prescribed by Him.
Religion, in the way prescribed by HIm, indicates revealed religion by God Himself...
One religion can't be as good as another becasue there is only one truth...and it is certain that God the Supreme truth could not have revealed contradictory teachings. Truth is neither yours nor mine...it's independent of us. We hold things becasue they are true. They are not true becasue we happen to believe them. Truth is consistent. If you have the truth on a given subject and my ideas conflict with yours, then I do not possess the truth. And if I am right, then you haven't got the truth.
So from that, we can only conclude that in that list of yours above, there is only one true religion and all the rest are false religion.
And that's where the distinction lies in doing what you suggest above...especially for the person who is seeking Truth Who is God Himself...All of these can't be true so why pick up a Qur'an or study Shinto if neither of these is the one religion that God revealed?
They are like two halves of a surburban nuclear family, shovelling at the coal face of freedom.
Bless em!
My goodness! This has to be THE most ignorant statement I've read so far in this thread...!
Why? Because you might actually learn something. Learning leads to greater understanding. In this case of other cultures. What defines and drives them. By i.e. reading the Qur'an you might actually learn that the discrimation of women and the other teachings of the islamic fundamentalists are utter bullshit and just a tool of control whereas the real islam itself is quite liberal. But hey, why try to learn something right? The only effect would be that you could raise your mental horizon above the one of the nutshell you're living in. And who would want to do that, right?
Sorry mods, if this is a little inflamatory. But such ignorance is driving me mad.
... why pick up a Qur'an or study Shinto if neither of these is the one religion that God revealed?
Study resistant?
How do you know they're not the 'one religion'?
She doesn't know.
She was told something. She believes it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
