|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 12:29 pm
TigerCatNails It seems to me that by your description/defenition of science that science is merely a way for people to explain things that they don't understand. Which would mean basically that science was invented to quell people's fears since it is a well known fact that people fear that which they don't understand. Not understanding is also a big reason why a lot of people back away from the idea of their being a God who created the universe and is watching over them. They don't understand, which scares them, and so they refuse to believe that He's real. ((psst i'm just wondering do you believe in a god fer real?))
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 12:53 pm
((Yes, I do believe in God for real. I'm a Christian and have very strong view on the subject.))
If there were no God than what do you believe to be after death? Is it nothing? Do you simply cease to exist? And if that's so than do people have souls? Because it seems to me if death was the end than there would not be souls because souls don't die. If God does not exist and there is nothing once a person dies than I might as well not care about the consequences of my actions and just go around doing whatever I want. The worst thing that can happen is that I die and after that is nothing, I will cease to exist so it doesn't matter. Right?
And just to note using an expert from your own paper to support your statement about God being created to quell the mind's fear causes your argument to be fallacious, just so you know. ((I'm taking a logic class right now. PHIL 109))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:11 pm
TigerCatNails It seems to me that by your description/defenition of science that science is merely a way for people to explain things that they don't understand. Which would mean basically that science was invented to quell people's fears since it is a well known fact that people fear that which they don't understand. Not understanding is also a big reason why a lot of people back away from the idea of their being a God who created the universe and is watching over them. They don't understand, which scares them, and so they refuse to believe that He's real.
How science differs from religion is that science sticks only to the world that can be adaquately tested by anyone who wishes to (in theory). You can go out and perform any scientific experiment you desire and you should have the results listed. In fact science would encourage you to do so as the more data there is the more science can understand the world and describe it.
Science also attempts to make predictions about the world it describes. It is not enough for science to say 'things fall because of gravity'. Science instead postulates that all things will 'fall' towards the largest gravitational pull of any mass anywhere. So when they went to the moon they discovered it also had gravity. Interestngly enough the heory of gravity is only a theory, not a law. One day somethig might not fall and the theory of gravity may have to be revised.
I do not see science as used to quell peoples fears the way you describe. Science is cold and hard and tends to scare some people. If you wish to have something warm and fuzzy to tell you that everything is going to be ok I would suggest religion. wink
Science was originally started by people trying to better understand gods design and how his creation worked (in Europe anyway). Science is about understanding, it is not about giving people answers to their lives and meaning. Sciene merely describes and predicts, letting you know what to expect from the world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:24 pm
TigerCatNails ((Yes, I do believe in God for real. I'm a Christian and have very strong view on the subject.))
If there were no God than what do you believe to be after death? Is it nothing? Do you simply cease to exist? And if that's so than do people have souls? Because it seems to me if death was the end than there would not be souls because souls don't die. If God does not exist and there is nothing once a person dies than I might as well not care about the consequences of my actions and just go around doing whatever I want. The worst thing that can happen is that I die and after that is nothing, I will cease to exist so it doesn't matter. Right?
What I see evidence for in this world is that when you die you simply dissipate and your body returns to the rest of the mass and energy of the universe. In short, the 'person' that was ceases to eist in and of themselves, they may live on in memory, history or effect - but not as themselves.
I have seen no evidence for a soul and so do not believe in such a thing. Again, this does not mean they cannot exit.
Your argument is one I have heard many times before - that without a god (or other absolute being/law) people would have no reason to do anything other than act on their most impulsive and worst desires.
I am not going to go into great depth on any of these explanations right now, but if you want me to say so and I will try to find the time...
Firstly from a purely evolutionary/scientific development there are good reasons for people to develop the construct of a conscience and to work together. Creating social groups and even religious beliefs which can support them working together.
Religion and other social constructs also promote good behaviour - those which are too self destructive end up destroying themselves and so dying out. It is only natural that wht we have now is inherently positie in it's message.
Even if you do not think you will suffer for eternity there is a lot that can happen here and now. Do you know what happens to ****** in prison? Frankly there are plenty of reasons to behave on earth within the laws of your culture/society. Not many people are happy without friends.
Very few people really want to run around breaking all the laws. While a lot of people might think it would be great to d something, few of them want to live in a society where it is close to true anarchy. So they work on reating the society they want to live in by being a part of it.
I realise some of the above ar einterrelated and probably not well explained. However I hope it is enough to illustrate my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:26 pm
SanguineV If you wish to have something warm and fuzzy to tell you that everything is going to be ok I would suggest religion. wink
Going back to the idea of science. It's not that I don't believe in science or I think it's all wrong. I think in most cases science is pretty much accurate. I just think it's mistaken in it's their of how the world came to believe. I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory or Evolution. And if I'm wrong and those theories are correct than it is my opinion that they are correct only because God delibirately caused them so that people would have a way to explain how he created the earth because while the Bible says he created the universe and the heavens in seven day (well, actually six, he rested on the seventh) the time is relative because that seven days could have been seven million years for all we know. Time then wasn't the same as time is now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 1:57 pm
TigerCatNails SanguineV If you wish to have something warm and fuzzy to tell you that everything is going to be ok I would suggest religion. wink
However it was more of a side track than a real discussion - I would prefer to talk about religion as a warm fuzzy thing in a different topic if you wish to persue it.
TigerCatNails Going back to the idea of science. It's not that I don't believe in science or I think it's all wrong. I think in most cases science is pretty much accurate. I just think it's mistaken in it's their of how the world came to believe. I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory or Evolution. And if I'm wrong and those theories are correct than it is my opinion that they are correct only because God delibirately caused them so that people would have a way to explain how he created the earth because while the Bible says he created the universe and the heavens in seven day (well, actually six, he rested on the seventh) the time is relative because that seven days could have been seven million years for all we know. Time then wasn't the same as time is now.
If you believe in the creation of the universe in 6 literal days then we may as well stop here. We probably won't see eye to eye, and this isn't even the right thread for the discussion.
However if you take a slightly more liberal view of the bible then there is no contradiction between it and the scientific explanation. In fact it is perfectly acceptable, for both science and christianity, for the universe to have been created by god (science doesn't deal with this, it doesn't mean it isn't compatible though, just untestable/beyond the perview of science) and then to have progressed over billions of years through the methods described by science.
As a slight aside, the big bang theory is one of several possible explanations... The big bang theory is also highly compatible with non-dogmatic christian mythology/interpretation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:18 pm
Quote: However if you take a slightly more liberal view of the bible then there is no contradiction between it and the scientific explanation. In fact it is perfectly acceptable, for both science and christianity, for the universe to have been created by god (science doesn't deal with this, it doesn't mean it isn't compatible though, just untestable/beyond the perview of science) and then to have progressed over billions of years through the methods described by science.
As a slight aside, the big bang theory is one of several possible explanations... The big bang theory is also highly compatible with non-dogmatic christian mythology/interpretation. Quote: Firstly a small point. Evolution is a proven fact, the Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory which is about as close to a fact as science goes.
I must say though that I really don't believe in macroevolution although I do believe in microevolution. And I should also say that I've heard (I can be completely sure it's sure but I'm almost positive it is) that Darwin who came up with theory in the beginning, denounced it and said that he was wrong (and not because he was forced to say it either).
I can see your point about having a reason to have a society and to have laws and obey them and such. It's merely that without something after then there would be no goal to life. You would be merely living and dying. If there were no life after death than what would be my reason to live? If you don't mind me asking, since you said you don't believe there is anything after death, what is your reason for living?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:09 pm
TigerCatNails That was pretty much my point. I'm sorry if it didn't come across clearly. If the theories are correct than it is because of God. It didn't merely come about naturally. That is what I was attempting to say.
Of course this is all beyond knowledge - so we could both be wrong. xd TigerCatNails Yes, it is as close to a fact that you can get in science. But that doesn't make it 100% proven, absolutely. It just means that as far as scientists know it's most likely true.
I must say though that I really don't believe in macroevolution although I do believe in microevolution. And I should also say that I've heard (I can be completely sure it's sure but I'm almost positive it is) that Darwin who came up with theory in the beginning, denounced it and said that he was wrong (and not because he was forced to say it either).
Nothing can be proved absolutely 100% by science. We do not go around claiming gravity is only a theory and not 100% proven and might be wrong. While it is true, it is pointless to add such qualifiers - it is as accurate as we can be now and if it changes in the future then we shall deal with it then. To doubt everything now is simply too time consuming and self destructive. Are you going to qualify that you will see someone tomorrow as long as the sun rises? After all it is not 100% proven fact that it will... wink
Microevolution and macroevolution do not exist as anything but an imaginary line drawn, usually by opponents of evolution theory, in the sand. But seeing as you say you do not believe in the creation of new species/macroevolution some examples can be found here Speciation.
Darwin is attributed with forming the initial theory of evolution, and he did not at any point claim it was false. I suggest you research carefully any such claims as there have been many attacks made on his character due to his work. One thing you must understand though, is that science doesn't care who came up with a hypothesis. The hypothesis stands or falls on it's own merit and even if Darwin did claim it was all an elabourate hoax on his part it would still be the theory it is now because it is correct.
TigerCatNails I can see your point about having a reason to have a society and to have laws and obey them and such. It's merely that without something after then there would be no goal to life. You would be merely living and dying. If there were no life after death than what would be my reason to live? If you don't mind me asking, since you said you don't believe there is anything after death, what is your reason for living?
You can also look at the purely biological reason and assume that your ultimate goal is to have viable offspring and pass on your genetic material, directly or otherwise.
I am not going to discuss my reasons here. If you wish to discuss such things them PM me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:46 pm
TigerCatNails ((Yes, I do believe in God for real. I'm a Christian and have very strong view on the subject.))
If there were no God than what do you believe to be after death? Is it nothing? Do you simply cease to exist? And if that's so than do people have souls? Because it seems to me if death was the end than there would not be souls because souls don't die. If God does not exist and there is nothing once a person dies than I might as well not care about the consequences of my actions and just go around doing whatever I want. The worst thing that can happen is that I die and after that is nothing, I will cease to exist so it doesn't matter. Right?
And just to note using an expert from your own paper to support your statement about God being created to quell the mind's fear causes your argument to be fallacious, just so you know. ((I'm taking a logic class right now. PHIL 109)) Um yes for that last thing you said about fallciousness, I already said it was from my own paper and that it was just my view on the subject. Okay. Let me take this moment to say I am a Buddhist. I believe the purpose of life is to lead a life of happiness, yes, but that does not mean doing whatever you want. I urge a simple and generous existance: I find that the greatest and most permanent of all pleasures (all of which are fleeting anyway) to be giving and to bring more happiness on other people. Buddhists have moral values too, you know. You don't need a god for that. To answer another of your questions, yes I do not think there is anything after death. We humans are composed of the same things as dirt, as trees, as other animals, and when we die our bodies just become them again. I also believe there is no such thing as a "soul", if your definition is the common one, a sort of eternal ethereal spirit in one's body that lives on after the body has died, I don't believe they really exist. What's the problem with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:49 pm
SanguineV TigerCatNails ((Yes, I do believe in God for real. I'm a Christian and have very strong view on the subject.))
If there were no God than what do you believe to be after death? Is it nothing? Do you simply cease to exist? And if that's so than do people have souls? Because it seems to me if death was the end than there would not be souls because souls don't die. If God does not exist and there is nothing once a person dies than I might as well not care about the consequences of my actions and just go around doing whatever I want. The worst thing that can happen is that I die and after that is nothing, I will cease to exist so it doesn't matter. Right?
What I see evidence for in this world is that when you die you simply dissipate and your body returns to the rest of the mass and energy of the universe. In short, the 'person' that was ceases to eist in and of themselves, they may live on in memory, history or effect - but not as themselves.
I have seen no evidence for a soul and so do not believe in such a thing. Again, this does not mean they cannot exit.
Your argument is one I have heard many times before - that without a god (or other absolute being/law) people would have no reason to do anything other than act on their most impulsive and worst desires.
I am not going to go into great depth on any of these explanations right now, but if you want me to say so and I will try to find the time...
Firstly from a purely evolutionary/scientific development there are good reasons for people to develop the construct of a conscience and to work together. Creating social groups and even religious beliefs which can support them working together.
Religion and other social constructs also promote good behaviour - those which are too self destructive end up destroying themselves and so dying out. It is only natural that wht we have now is inherently positie in it's message.
Even if you do not think you will suffer for eternity there is a lot that can happen here and now. Do you know what happens to ****** in prison? Frankly there are plenty of reasons to behave on earth within the laws of your culture/society. Not many people are happy without friends.
Very few people really want to run around breaking all the laws. While a lot of people might think it would be great to d something, few of them want to live in a society where it is close to true anarchy. So they work on reating the society they want to live in by being a part of it.
I realise some of the above ar einterrelated and probably not well explained. However I hope it is enough to illustrate my point.truly wise words, mister sanguine v! i think we have similar ideas on this subject, but your a much better linguist than i.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:56 pm
TheBeatnik truly wise words, mister sanguine v! i think we have similar ideas on this subject, but your a much better linguist than i.
That gives me an idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 3:57 pm
SanguineV TheBeatnik truly wise words, mister sanguine v! i think we have similar ideas on this subject, but your a much better linguist than i.
That gives me an idea.Write a book! I'd buy it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 2:01 am
Quote: Science was created as a way to describe things that do not make sense... So was language... So were most systems within human experience. But wasn't religion also created to explain things? Is not one of the main things we 'know' about god that he created the universe? Could science be the same thing as religion, maybe...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 2:32 am
Tanwen_Devilfire Quote: Science was created as a way to describe things that do not make sense... So was language... So were most systems within human experience. But wasn't religion also created to explain things? Is not one of the main things we 'know' about god that he created the universe? Could science be the same thing as religion, maybe...?
You are correct in the sense that religion and science share some place as they can both provide anwers, however you will generally find that the answers they share are much fewer than the ones they don't. Science can provide no real answer for why we are here. Religion offers very little for how everyday things occur. To make a broad generalisation, science deals with the material and testable while religion deals with the immaterial and often untestable.
To address you last question, science isn't a religion because it lacks the organisation and structure of a religion. Science can be, and for some people is, a belief. Any philosophical position can be a belief and may coincide or coexist with a religion at the same time. However science in its current form is not a religion and if it holds onto its current structure shouldn't become one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 11:55 am
Tanwen_Devilfire Quote: Science was created as a way to describe things that do not make sense... So was language... So were most systems within human experience. But wasn't religion also created to explain things? Is not one of the main things we 'know' about god that he created the universe? Could science be the same thing as religion, maybe...? Well, I humbly think the difference between science and religion is that while science tries to determine things that can definitely be proven, or at least theories that have some grounding, religion hosts certain beliefs that have no proof whatsoever. I agree with you that they do both try to explain the unexplainable, as we both said before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
