Proof of a Higher Power

[GAB]

Hi,
Irish and alcohol ? Irish and the potato, potato and alcohol? My guess...

Regards, Gary

 

[heretic888]

To a REAL higher power, all your posturing and arguments would mean nothing because they would have the same affection for all forms of life regardless of intelectual capacity.

Congratulations. You just perfectly summed up the Bodhisattva.

Of course, a Bodhisattva wouldn't actually consider him/herself a "higher power", since the entire notion is laughable from the point of view of the Enlightened Mind. Now, the notion of THE "power" (as in "one and only"), well, that's another story...

I did enjoy your use of the pejorative term "posturing", intimating that I am somehow pretending to be something I am not. Interesting how someone arguing for "equality of all creatures" was making a not-so-veiled stab at moral superiority....

You can 'prove' God is dead all you like but it won't make any difference. I'm sure if you argued long enough you may even convince me that an apple tastes like an orange (either that or I'd die of boredom).

At no point did I ever argue that "God" is "dead".

who said that the Revelation of "John" was twisted? Huh?!?!?

That'd be me. And, to note, what I specifically said was that the Revelation of John is a Christian redaction of a Jewish intertestamental work.

Where'd you get that?

Biblical scholarship.

The book of Revelation was WRITEEN BY JOHN and he testified to what he saw.

That's funny... considering the incredibly late date of the appearance of the current "Revelation of John". So late, in fact, that the Church of the time actually had stories of John becoming "immortal" so it could have been the same John of the Gospel of John that authored both texts --- since, of course, they were well over 100 years apart.

Share with us, don't preach at us. And accept us even if we don't agree or choose another path. I have accepted your belief in God and Jesus, and am happy it brings you fullfillment. Please let the rest of us do the same.

Well said.

Science is a great tool. My dad is a chemist and it has payed for a fair amount of my life.
You also can use it to "prove" all sorts of great things.
It has been "Proven" that Irish are inferior to the rest of the imigrants in america(in the nintenth cetury mind you). There have been other graet things science has "proven" over the years.

In typical fashion, someguy is demonstrating a blatant misunderstanding of just what "science" is and, more importantly, how it actually works.

But, hey, its always easier to demonize the "other side" rather than understand where they're coming from, right??

*chuckle* Laterz.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Quote:
Science is a great tool. My dad is a chemist and it has payed for a fair amount of my life.
You also can use it to "prove" all sorts of great things.
It has been "Proven" that Irish are inferior to the rest of the imigrants in america(in the nintenth cetury mind you). There have been other graet things science has "proven" over the years.



In typical fashion, someguy is demonstrating a blatant misunderstanding of just what "science" is and, more importantly, how it actually works.

Well, he is correct in that science has been used (and misused) to forward inherent racial or classist superiority for centuries, and still some try to today.

Science is a human endeavour, and studies can be flawed, biased, and so forth.

What are you referring to, heretic?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Well, he is correct in that science has been used (and misused) to forward inherent racial or classist superiority for centuries, and still some try to today.

Science is a human endeavour, and studies can be flawed, biased, and so forth.

Yes, but someguy is (or seems to me to be) saying that such flawed abuses of science show that it is therefore just a crock. Notice the contextual mockery of the word prove, which is repeatedly put in quotes.

 

[Marginal]

Science is a great tool. My dad is a chemist and it has payed for a fair amount of my life.
You also can use it to "prove" all sorts of great things.
It has been "Proven" that Irish are inferior to the rest of the imigrants in america(in the nintenth cetury mind you). There have been other graet things science has "proven" over the years.

The Bible has been used to "prove" that slavery is mandated by God. Better toss it out!

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Yes, but someguy is (or seems to me to be) saying that such flawed abuses of science show that it is therefore just a crock. Notice the contextual mockery of the word prove, which is repeatedly put in quotes.

Ah! OK, gotcha.

Well, that's ridiculous. I hate this kind of "reasoning" - if it's not a perfect system, toss it out! All the systems we have are imperfect - we are imperfect creatures. We do the best we can, and, hopefully, acknowledge our faults and mistakes, and keep going.

Sheesh.

And a scientist rarely if ever says they "prove" anything (although certain fields, like physics and math, have "proofs") - we can support or not support certain ideas.

 

[Flatlander]

Interesting to note, as well, that the field of physics is largely based on the acceptance of approximation. Werner Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle demonstrates this rather well.

 

[heretic888]

Everyone else covered anything I might have said, so I'll just address the one question directed at me:

What are you referring to, heretic?

Past experience, miss mouse.

Someguy's use of "science" in the past on these boards --- particularly in regards to religion --- has always been based upon misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or flat-out fraudulent data. He was one of the guys supporting that "creation science" nonsense, among other things.

And, when he is usually called on it, he typically bows out for a time. I suspect this will happen again now.

Have a good 'un.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Everyone else covered anything I might have said, so I'll just address the one question directed at me:



Past experience, miss mouse.

Someguy's use of "science" in the past on these boards --- particularly in regards to religion --- has always been based upon misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or flat-out fraudulent data. He was one of the guys supporting that "creation science" nonsense, among other things.

And, when he is usually called on it, he typically bows out for a time. I suspect this will happen again now.

Have a good 'un.

You too.

 

[someguy]

Go away for abit and see what happens...
I don't really know where to start.
How about here

Someguy's use of "science" in the past on these boards --- particularly in regards to religion --- has always been based upon misunderstandings, misinterpretations, or flat-out fraudulent data. He was one of the guys supporting that "creation science" nonsense, among other things.
And, when he is usually called on it, he typically bows out for a time. I suspect this will happen again now.
Have a good 'un.

Me thinks some one has misunderstood me alot.
I don't really remeber supporting creation science. I probably did just for the fun of it.
I have belived in evolution most of my life. Before that I hadn't thought it was either creationism or evolution. I simply hadn't thought about it at all. Although it doesn't really matter that much.

All I am saying about Science is put your faith in anything that calls itself science and say it's right because it's science is not a good idea. I'm saying this in a very round about way and I guess you took a differnt view on what I said.
My quotation marks around prove where intended to show that it didn't really prove anything. But thats what "science" says.
Alright what do you want me to go back and prove somethings fine. PM me Heretic and tell me what to go and find and show you. I'll try and do though I won't promise athing.
Bowing out for a time might have something to do with things to do. I'll still come and check things but I won't check everything when I'm bussy. I also won't look into stuff I don't feel like talking about at the moment.
Do you guys really want to go hunt up the article that" shows" how Irish are infrerior. If you really want I'll have to go find my proffessor and get her to tell me where to find it. Tell me if you guy's really want to see one of those studies because there where more than one. It will take me till at least wensday of next week to see her again. Then I'll have to remember I'm very absent minded so it may take a while.
As to my grammer and spelling if you can't read something I will clarify it for you. I have no spell chcker on this computer. It isn't mine. I'm also not paying as much attention to grammer as I should. I am doing stuff at the moment other than this.
Well if you will exsuce me I'm going to go do some of that stuff that apperntly I think is all what ever I think it is. Chemistry for now. Hmm burning things and looking at colors. Been there done that. maybe I should try randomly mixing things. Look for someguy blowing up a collage by accedent. That would be me.(really bad joke but I couldn't resist)

 

[heretic888]

All I am saying about Science is put your faith in anything that calls itself science and say it's right because it's science is not a good idea. I'm saying this in a very round about way and I guess you took a differnt view on what I said.

You are aware, of course, that that entire attitude is itself very unscientific?? Science rests its basis on the principle of testability and falsifiability --- not on "cuz we say so". 'Fraid you're thinking of certain varieties of religion. Again.

That being said, there is indeed "bad" science. Meaning, "science" that does not have the data to support its claims or whose claims are untestable.

But, by its own criteria, bad science isn't real science at all. Laterz.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

But thats what "science" says.

Do you guys really want to go hunt up the article that" shows" how Irish are infrerior. If you really want I'll have to go find my proffessor and get her to tell me where to find it. Tell me if you guy's really want to see one of those studies because there where more than one. It will take me till at least wensday of next week to see her again. Then I'll have to remember I'm very absent minded so it may take a while.

No, that's what somebody with an agenda--either to insult the Irish or to insult true science--tried to pass off as a scientific claim. And if you're citing this discovery as a reason why science shouldn't be trusted, then that shows a blatant misunderstanding of what science really is.

This is why I asked about the nature of the whole 'science proving the Irish are inferior' claim; only by seeing the excuse for reasoning behind the claim could I really say how it isn't an example of scientific discovery. And yes, I'd like to find out what you're referring to, if it wouldn't be too much trouble. If not, all anyone has is your word and interpretation.

 

[Marginal]

Do you guys really want to go hunt up the article that" shows" how Irish are infrerior. If you really want I'll have to go find my proffessor and get her to tell me where to find it. Tell me if you guy's really want to see one of those studies because there where more than one. It will take me till at least wensday of next week to see her again. Then I'll have to remember I'm very absent minded so it may take a while.

I can get a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin which "proves" the Bible is an evil tool of slavery too if you like. But then, since it's but one interpretation of the Bible and takes lazy shortcuts like your eugenics texts do most simply elect to not take it seriously rather than burn every Bible they come across. Funny how that works...

 

[Feisty Mouse]

You are aware, of course, that that entire attitude is itself very unscientific?? Science rests its basis on the principle of testability and falsifiability --- not on "cuz we say so". 'Fraid you're thinking of certain varieties of religion. Again.

Unfortunately, I think a large number of people in school today are being told (directly or indirectly) that Science (note capital letter) is now the most important system, as Religion (whichever that was) used to be a few centuries ago.

One of the biggest challenges I think I face in teaching college students about research methodology is that *they* (each one of them) is a scientist, as long as they understand the scientific method, and are criticial and honest in their questioning. It doesn't mean that someone with a PhD and 30 years of research experience might not have more experience and a larger body of knowledge to immediately draw upon than others, but it is up to each person to realize that they have the ability to evaluate science, given the time and interest.

I teach pretty intelligent students who are interested in and possibly going to pursue a science career, and they still don't always seem to take on that role of evaluating science themselves. (Or they do, but tend to forget that each person has their own personal biases they bring to the table, and must remain aware of.)

Whew! Long mini-rant.

Religion/spirituality - faith is important
Science - scientific method and knowing that explanations are tentative

They are both important systems, I think, but different. The trouble comes when one takes the place of the other in society. (And don't get me started on technology.)

 

[rmcrobertson]

If you want to see a beautiful illustration of what just got posted, look up the attempt by practitioners of, "therapeutic touch," to attack the results of an experiment run by a 9-year old, which showed conclusively that "therapeutic touch," is ********.

 

[PeachMonkey]

They are both important systems, I think, but different. The trouble comes when one takes the place of the other in society. (And don't get me started on technology.)

Mouse, can you give an example of where science has replaced religion in society to detrimental effect?

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Mouse, can you give an example of where science has replaced religion in society to detrimental effect?

Well, someguy's comments are an example. No system (whatever it is) is perfect, because it is people who are going to implement the system. Relgion can be used for good results or bad results, and so can science. I can be told that we have a religious inquistition going for spiritual reasons, or that other races need to be oppressed and cannot think for themselves or feel pain, for scientific reasons.

Both are up to the people who are perceived to hold the power - speak with authority - and how people in general interpret what they are suppossed to do. Love others because GOD told us to? Or love others because altruism and group selection are tools for survival?

 

[PeachMonkey]

Well, someguy's comments are an example.

Someguy's comments were an example of "science" being misused for evil, rather than an example of science supplanting religion, n'est-ce pas?

I can be told that we have a religious inquistition going for spiritual reasons, or that other races need to be oppressed and cannot think for themselves or feel pain, for scientific reasons.

In either of these examples, did science supplant religion?

Both are up to the people who are perceived to hold the power - speak with authority - and how people in general interpret what they are suppossed to do. Love others because GOD told us to? Or love others because altruism and group selection are tools for survival?

How about just loving others cause it's a good thing to do, without reliance on external authorities to back up what clearly works best for people and societies at large?

 

[Flatlander]

How about just loving others cause it's a good thing to do, without reliance on external authorities to back up what clearly works best for people and societies at large?

When making this judgement ("cause its a good thing to do") are you not basing it on one of either:

1) your observations, which have demonstrated that the cause/effect relationship between loving others and the rewards this brings to your life (science) (approximately),

or

2) your moral position - it just 'feels' like the 'right' way to behave.(religeon) (approximately)

Regardless of whether you rely on an external authority to validate or guide your behaviour, there will still be a component of science or religeon in justifying your choice.

 

[heretic888]

You bring up an excellent point, miss mouse, but we both know that what you are referring to ("Science" with a capital S) is not really science.

What you are referring to has existed since the 18th century in various forms --- materialism, positivism, reductionism, "scientism", etcetera ad infinitum. None of the above actually adhere to the scientific method in and of itself --- they are basically "one-and-only" type philosophies that go about trying to rip on all other philosophies as "wrong", while harping theirs as the one true faith.

Gee, does kinda sound like religion, huh?? Kinda like what the Stalinists and Maoists did with "Marxism" a few decades ago --- but, no science here. Just another type of "religionism" (which can be atheistic or materialistic in its fanaticism).

The problem, I would agree, is that this crass "scientism" has slowly infected some of the science curriculums in universities across the country. Its up to the discerning and intelligent teacher to keep the two separate (example: evolutionary theory does not preclude a "divine" or "otherly" aspect to biological adaptation).

Regarding the relation of science and religion --- they aren't as different as people would always like to think. Gould's NOMA is a simplistic solution, at best, and doesn't really drive to the heart of the matter.

Laterz.