Subject:
|
Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 13:47:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1389 times
|
| |
|
|
<37CDCE45.78EA965D@eclipse.net> <slrn7srq48.kau.jsproat@eris.io.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sproaticus wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 1999 01:13:31 GMT, Christopher Weeks <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote:
> > Sproaticus wrote:
> > > Yes, but you still have to take quite a lot on faith. Barring *personal*
> > > experimentation, how do you know that:
> > Faith in God is untestable
> > and thus not really subject to review or verification.
>
> Yah, well, that depends on who you talk to.
OK, I like to believe that I'm always open to being corrected. Help me
to test God's existence and we'll see where that goes. If the Christian
God really exists, I'd certainly rather know that it does.
> > That is, unless
> > you suggest that those 'scientific ideas,' for instance
> > > ...chromosomes carry the stuff that tells your body how to build itself?
> > are part of some large world-wide conspiracy. I doubt it.
>
> But you can't discount it. Conspiracies do happen. But I don't think it
> would help my case if I were to argue this one! :-,
Agreed. (Both points.)
> > > We accept various scientific models which work well with these phenomena.
> > > Few people, if any, have personally scientifically concluded all answers.
> > So? Everyone who believe in science as an appropriate paradigm for the
> > search theoretically plays by the rules and just as you can trust my
> > findings, I can trust yours. I don't have to personally conclude _everything_.
>
> This is a mistake. You have no real reason to trust my word except that
> I've told you that you can. Unless you'd take it on faith...
No, the point is that I can take your word for it (not in and of itself)
because your claims have been subject to public scrutiny and restest.
Thus if the community believes your claim, I can too, because it is as
yet supported and not disproved.
> Waitaminute. So what you're saying, then, is that people you've never met
> can be trusted in the realm of science, while people you've probably met
> before in the realm of religion cannot? I have two words to say to that:
> cold fusion.
Of course not, not on personal basis. See above.
> > > Ergo, few people, if any, are true scientists.
> > It sounds as if you are saying that 'true scientists' have concluded all
> > answers. I'll assume unless you correct me that you mean something
> > else. A true scientist is one who uses TSM to search for truth. Right?
>
> I'll accept that as a definition, with the understanding that the scientific
> method is flawed by its dependence upon an honest community.
No it's not. It's not at all dependent on that. If you make some
spurious claim, then others (or I, if it's my field) will catch it.
That's basically why it's so robust.
> > > Science is okay for explaining "how", but really crappy at they "why" part.
> > [...]
> > I think we're just not very mature WRT to psychology. Give it fifty years.
>
> Wow, we're optimistic today! :-,
>
> Psychology has been little better than reading tea leaves since day one.
> Current psychology theory is based upon the ramblings of a cocaine-addicted
> fraud whose main objective was to make a splash in Austrian society. I'm
> willing to give it fifty years to see if it improves, but I'm not holding
> my breath.
That would be a long breath hold. I think the past 100 years of
psychology have been minimally fruitful. I think the next 50 will be
much more so. I think any new discipline has a geometric curve that it
follows and we are near the...inflection point isn't right, but do you
know what I mean? What's the point where the upward travel becomes more
significant than the rightward travel?..in psychology.
> > I totally miss what you mean. I'm saying that attributing phenomenon X
> > to God's will (defined as un-understandable) leads us away from trying
> > to explain X. I think that's bad.
>
> Ah. Sorry, my mistake. I'm going from the assumption that is is eventually
> possible for one to understand God, in fact, to become like God. Attributing
> a phenomenon to God would be little more than putting its explanation on the
> back burner, in effect, allowing more time to be dedicated to more important
> affairs.
That might be a sensible approach whether or not God has any input. I
prefer to say that we have other more pressing issues that we can get
more bang for our buck on.
> "Blood-related" meaning by immediate family. I am human, I am related to
How immediate? First cousins? Second?
> my brother, therefore my brother is human. By the argument you've posited
> (I'm not sure whether you subscribe to it, but anyway), I could have
> a sociopathic homocidal Nintendo addict, who idles away every breathing
> moment viewing naked goats on the Internet, in my family -- your basic no-good
> "animal" -- even though I am human. We share genetic code in the closest
> sense, but we're separate species. Hmmm... Not a valid argument.
I can see it now...the next big anti internet push will be to develop
software that automagically stiches cardigan sweaters on naked bodies.
How long before livestock are restricted in the same way?
I'm still not willing at attribute negative connotations to animalhood.
I'm an animal and that's fine with me. I have never and will never
claim that two humans regardless of their 'value' are different species.
Since I didn't assert that, I'm not sure what you're trying to make
happen with this line of discussion.
> > But this brother (real or not - I'm guessing real) is missing something
> > important and makes his behavior less human and more alien of some kind.
>
> Hmmmm... By "alien", I'm assuming that you mean some element of strangeness
> which can't be reconciled with a human sensability. If so, then you're
> pretty far from the mark. If anything, it brings out *more* humanity through
> his emotions -- joy and sadness, triumph and discovery, etc. -- which I
> haven't witnessed in any animal.
Yes you have, in your brother. I wasn't entirely satisfied with 'alien'
but I thought it captured my idea satisfactorily. Maybe I was wrong.
OK, some people with messed up mental states have an element of
strangeness which can't be reconciled with human sensibility. Maybe
your brother doesn't fit that bill.
> > > > We will answer what was there before the BB, just like we answered "why
> > > > do bird wings allow flight?"
> > > BTW, the bird flight answer is by no means flawless. We've been alternating
> > Right, I could have picked something else, the point is still valid.
>
> So is mine. With any real scientific discovery comes the possibility that it
> will eventually be disproven.
Absolutely. That's much of the beauty of science. Knowledge continues
to grow.
> Arg. Lastworditis. My point: science is a form of religion.
What is the definition of religion? Does that mean that you are
involved in multiple religions? Barely on-topic: what is the difference
between a religion, a sect, and a cult (The dictionary isn't very helpful)?
--Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
