WHAT, in God's name

Glaucus · 9 May 2008 at 10:56

Combat squirrel said:
Now this is interesting, the 'scientific method' point. Lets strip away its name for a second and understand what it is. In short, observing and looking at something in as much detail as possible, then testing it, retesting it, and looking at it again until we understand it. Whats wrong with this ?

What's wrong with it? Loads.
It looks for predictive accuracy only and the simplest model. It doesn't show what is true or the way it actually happened. Science all though extremely useful has many downsides.

Vonhelmet · 9 May 2008 at 11:03

Combat squirrel said:
Im saying the FACT because that picture is about as real as we can get of viewing the earth from a good way away, i.e. taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. Id bet my legs and arms that if we sent another probe out, it would still be the same though, earth a spec in the sky.

That's great. Yay for science.

Remind me again what that has to do with God?

Combat squirrel said:
Now this is interesting, the 'scientific method' point. Lets strip away its name for a second and understand what it is. In short, observing and looking at something in as much detail as possible, then testing it, retesting it, and looking at it again until we understand it. Whats wrong with this ? and surely the most logical and useful way of understanding things ? If one day in the future, billions of trillions of years in the future humans eventually understood everything there is to know and had an extended period of time where new things were not discovered, id bet we would also have the answer as to why were here. So small steps and chipping away at the old block of knowledge is a good way to go and is making progress surely ?

That's a reasonable summary of the scientific method. Once again, it has nothing to do with God.

Combat squirrel · 9 May 2008 at 11:07

semi-pro waster said:
There are quite a few different religions so I'd suspect that the answer is no, I'm not sure what the Qu'ran has to say about Adam and Eve for instance.

Its beginnings are somewhat different, but as with many religious texts it has various and numerous references to 'the beginnings', all open to interpretation.

In short to summarise it approximately says Allah created the universe, however then makes numerous interesting points which could be interpreted as our current understanding of the universe. Basically Allah creates it, but also points out that at one point 'the heavens and earth were one' and makes loads of other references to the heavens and earth concluding in manor such as the sun will end and all will return back as it was.

Loads of texts and analysis available on this.

Vonhelmet · 9 May 2008 at 11:08

Combat squirrel said:
Its beginnings are somewhat different, but as with many religious texts it has various and numerous references to 'the beginnings', all open to interpretation.

In short to summarise it approximately says Allah created the universe, however then makes numerous interesting points which could be interpreted as our current understanding of the universe. Basically Allah creates it, but also points out that at one point 'the heavens and earth were one' and makes loads of other references to the heavens and earth concluding in manor such as the sun will end and all will return back as it was.

Loads of texts and analysis available on this.

So in short, the Qu'ran doesn't contradict the scientific understanding of what happened?

wannabedamned · 9 May 2008 at 11:08

Combat squirrel said:
Its beginnings are somewhat different, but as with many religious texts it has various and numerous references to 'the beginnings', all open to interpretation.

In short to summarise it approximately says Allah created the universe, however then makes numerous interesting points which could be interpreted as our current understanding of the universe. Basically Allah creates it, but also points out that at one point 'the heavens and earth were one' and makes loads of other references to the heavens and earth concluding in manor such as the sun will end and all will return back as it was.

Loads of texts and analysis available on this.

lol, To be fair that seems closer to the 'scientific truth' than the christian rendition

Vonhelmet · 9 May 2008 at 11:09

wannabedamned said:
lol, To be fair that seems closer to the 'scientific truth' than the christian rendition

The Christian rendition is written allegorically.

OH NOES LITERAL INTERPETATION ARGUMENT APPROACHING!

Dolph · 9 May 2008 at 11:13

Combat squirrel said:
Im saying the FACT because that picture is about as real as we can get of viewing the earth from a good way away, i.e. taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture. Id bet my legs and arms that if we sent another probe out, it would still be the same though, earth a spec in the sky.

Yes, but that in no way addresses the 'fact' you gave that god/deities/higher lifeforms are entirely a human creation.

Now this is interesting, the 'scientific method' point. Lets strip away its name for a second and understand what it is. In short, observing and looking at something in as much detail as possible, then testing it, retesting it, and looking at it again until we understand it. Whats wrong with this ? and surely the most logical and useful way of understanding things ? If one day in the future, billions of trillions of years in the future humans eventually understood everything there is to know and had an extended period of time where new things were not discovered, id bet we would also have the answer as to why were here. So small steps and chipping away at the old block of knowledge is a good way to go and is making progress surely ?

We don't test it again and again until we understand it, we test it again and again until we can predict it's behaviour. This is a small but very important distinction. Predicting behaviour is not the same as understanding something, you don't have to know how something works to be able to predict it's behaviour, only the relationship between the start and end points.

Science is geared up to prediction, and prediction is best served by using the simplest model that gives the required level of accurate prediction. This is the basis of the scientific method, and the assumptions that underpin it, it's science's greatest strength why applied properly, and it's greatest weakness when it's applied inappropriately. Fundamentally, science doesn't care whether the mechanism is correct if the predictions are accurate. This is why science is not the be all and end of all approaches for investigation, it can (and frequently has) yeilded false results or got things back to front, and it does so because of the way it looks at things only with concern for the predictive accuracy.

Further to that, science only ever describes the simplest way something could have occurred, not how something did occur. Unfortunately, poor scientific education and understanding, combined with media who frequently eliminate the caveats and catches that should be present when dealing with science, and people like Richard Dawkins preaching science like it's a religion have caused far too many people to believe science describes what did happen, or how something actually works. They have put their faith in it, in exactly the same way as people have previously put their faith in religious texts, and just like with religious texts, it's going to have bad results.

Skidder · 9 May 2008 at 11:15

vonhelmet said:
That's great. Yay for science.

Remind me again what that has to do with God?

That's a reasonable summary of the scientific method. Once again, it has nothing to do with God.

There is no arguing with faith. Faith is believing things without having reason too believe them. Given that, a person who has faith can not be reasoned with.

Dolph · 9 May 2008 at 11:18

Skidder said:
There is no arguing with faith. Faith is believing things without having reason too believe them. Given that, a person who has faith can not be reasoned with.

As we're seeing with both the scientific and religious faithful

wannabedamned · 9 May 2008 at 11:18

vonhelmet said:
The Christian rendition is written allegorically.

OH NOES LITERAL INTERPETATION ARGUMENT APPROACHING!

Ah, Now that makes more sense to me. The Bible is "Funned Up"

Combat squirrel · 9 May 2008 at 11:19

VON HELMUT - your getting abit off topic here and with your various answers, lets talk about this with points and understanding. Your comment about the qur'an, well of course it draws similar ideas, as does the bible. But thats what grinds my gears with religion, there all open to interpretation and try to 'please' everyone, no actual evidence, just half hearted ideas that could be explained away into fitting anyones ideas, not good.

AcidHell2 said:
What's wrong with it? Loads.
It looks for predictive accuracy only and the simplest model. It doesn't show what is true or the way it actually happened. Science all though extremely useful has many downsides.

An opinion, and the simplest model is something to strive for, at the end of the day, everythings just atoms, very simple models. Your pinning to much on 'truth' persay, which sounds odd coming from me. Correct something that has happened cannot happen again, in this universe in the quantum state etc etc, but if your looking for 'truth' and understand something as such that you can predict its behaviour, thats useful for understanding things. Of course your just thinking in terms of lab experiments, maybe? I dont know. Again ill say evolution as its generally widely known. An idea was thought of, its not been dis proven, then an entirely different approach was taken, genetics which only further supported the idea to the point its getting ni-on NEAR impossible to say its not true. Thats personally one of my favourite examples, the idea of evolution, and then genetics being tied together so indisputably.

The result of these 2 ideas is that, wow, we can clearly see here that humans evolved from previous species.......lets look further, wow all life is so similar to each other, the building blocks are the same. Marvellous the human race much better understands each other and our origins

but wait.........people STILL dont think this is true, but how ? its right here ?

The result of evolution and genetics which happen to literally be looking at our selves
is that it doesnt agree with a book written thousands of years ago, by some people, that didnt understand these concepts which had not then been discovered. As to why people put more 'faith' into old understandings of people in a much less advanced state of mind and while people in the here and now who are making more sense and are doing something , yet continue to be ignored, is something that really needs to be sorted out

Maybe it will take 2000 years for these people to be generally believed in ? could evolution be one day turned into a religion by some people ? lol,

Dolph · 9 May 2008 at 11:20

wannabedamned said:
Do the people here who believe in God, and follow religion, Believe the Adam and Eve story?

That would surely depend on whether they follow christianity first off, and then what sort of interpretation they put on the text...

I certainly don't, but then I'm not a christian, I have no creation/early existance ideas as part of my faith, it's not something that can be verified either way so why argue about it...

wannabedamned · 9 May 2008 at 11:25

Dolph said:
a christian, I have no creation/early existance ideas as part of my faith, it's not something that can be verified either way so why argue about it...

Well that's the thing, It can be argued scientifically. Just not religously.

Evolution, Is very provable.

Hitman_Leon · 9 May 2008 at 11:27

wannabedamned said:
Do the people here who believe in God, and follow religion, Believe the Adam and Eve story?

If you follow a lot of things said in the bible it dose make god look like a scientist IMHO. Maybe the Bible was written from the point of view that the people around who saw anything described and wrote or passed stories that were written into the bible had no understanding and thus explained things in the laymans terms of the time. This would explain many things there was a lot of superstition around and many things that would seem normal now would have been explained as miracles ect at that time.

Dolph · 9 May 2008 at 11:30

wannabedamned said:
Well that's the thing, It can be argued scientifically. Just not religously.

Evolution, Is very provable.

That it's happened/happening, definitely.

The mechanism behind it, that got us to where we are now, that gets a little trickier...

And then there's the simple statement that evolution is simply the rules of the universe in action, and the question of how those rules came to be...

MookJong · 9 May 2008 at 11:35

wannabedamned said:
Do the people here who believe in God, and follow religion, Believe the Adam and Eve story?

I believe in "God" although don't like to use that word for it because people misinterpret it. I have followed religious teachings and I believe I understand the meaning of Adam and Eve....you may not agree though

Adam and Eve is the explanation of how humans woke up from a sentient animal state and became self aware. It's all about our move from being instinct led to being free thinking. We were once in balance and part of nature (at one with god), but we are now our own masters. Adam and Eve woke up and realised they were naked and felt human emotions like embarassment....plants or animals in balance with nature do not.

The birth of the idea of self and ego are the evils that come with being free thinking....Many Eastern religions teach that through practise it is possible to transcend the idea of the self and connect back to the natural state of simply being.

It's kind of what I'm saying in my sig....switch your thoughts off, just be and you will feel your connection back to where everything once came.

Vonhelmet · 9 May 2008 at 12:10

Skidder said:
There is no arguing with faith. Faith is believing things without having reason too believe them. Given that, a person who has faith can not be reasoned with.

They can to a degree, but you'll have a hard time arguing them away from their faith unless their faith crosses over into scientifically testable territory. R Kelly believes he can fly, but we can fairly comprehensively scientifcally show that he can't. It's harder with reasonably sensible faith in God, as it doesn't really step into scientific territory.

wannabedamned said:
Ah, Now that makes more sense to me. The Bible is "Funned Up"

No, but it uses many different styles, some of which are not entirely literal.

Combat squirrel said:
VON HELMUT - your getting abit off topic here and with your various answers, lets talk about this with points and understanding. Your comment about the qur'an, well of course it draws similar ideas, as does the bible. But thats what grinds my gears with religion, there all open to interpretation and try to 'please' everyone, no actual evidence, just half hearted ideas that could be explained away into fitting anyones ideas, not good.

You're approaching things from a purely scientific point of view - that is not my fault.

My point with the Qu'ran was a minor dig because I was perplexed as to why you would quote it when it appears to be wholly compatible with your scientific approach.

Also, if you stopped and thought for a moment, I doubt you'd say that religion tries to "please everyone". And again you're making the mistake of thinking that faith requires evidence, which it conceptually doesn't. The idea is nonsense.

Combat squirrel said:
The result of these 2 ideas is that, wow, we can clearly see here that humans evolved from previous species.......lets look further, wow all life is so similar to each other, the building blocks are the same. Marvellous the human race much better understands each other and our origins but wait.........people STILL dont think this is true, but how ? its right here ?

The result of evolution and genetics which happen to literally be looking at our selves
is that it doesnt agree with a book written thousands of years ago, by some people, that didnt understand these concepts which had not then been discovered. As to why people put more 'faith' into old understandings of people in a much less advanced state of mind and while people in the here and now who are making more sense and are doing something , yet continue to be ignored, is something that really needs to be sorted out

Maybe it will take 2000 years for these people to be generally believed in ? could evolution be one day turned into a religion by some people ? lol,

Evolution is not at odds with religion, unless you listen to certain fringe religious groups. So you're really just arguing against a straw man.

Riiya · 9 May 2008 at 12:14

Science is a shroud¬!

"The coming mass transformation is heralded by a re-interpretation of history -- a new perspective of history that keeps coincidences conscious in the public mind. Our intense preoccupation with science and technology, while a necessary development, has become a screen behind which we hide our uncertainty about life. The coming transformation establishes our awareness as something real. We begin to see that we have been pre-occupying ourselves with material survival and controlling our situation in the universe for security up until now. From now on we know our openness represents a waking up to what is really going on."

semi-pro waster · 9 May 2008 at 12:21

Combat squirrel said:
Its beginnings are somewhat different, but as with many religious texts it has various and numerous references to 'the beginnings', all open to interpretation.

In short to summarise it approximately says Allah created the universe, however then makes numerous interesting points which could be interpreted as our current understanding of the universe. Basically Allah creates it, but also points out that at one point 'the heavens and earth were one' and makes loads of other references to the heavens and earth concluding in manor such as the sun will end and all will return back as it was.

Loads of texts and analysis available on this.

I'll assume for a second you are right in your interpretation of the Qu'ran, it doesn't really matter for my point either way. My point was simply that believing in God and following a religion does not automatically mean that it must be the Christian religion as wannabedamned seemed to be suggesting.

You can believe in a god or gods and follow a religion without ever having heard of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

wannabedamned · 9 May 2008 at 12:31

semi-pro waster said:
I'll assume for a second you are right in your interpretation of the Qu'ran, it doesn't really matter for my point either way. My point was simply that believing in God and following a religion does not automatically mean that it must be the Christian religion as wannabedamned seemed to be suggesting.

You can believe in a god or gods and follow a religion without ever having heard of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.

Yeah, that was kinda my bad. When i said religion I was referring to the religion I know about christianity, I guess i should have said christianity and not religion

but I guess when i said adam and eve, It should have made it obvious which religion i was talking about