John Cuthber Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 No, not wrong at all, Religion is what allows us to conceptualize things far beyond our current understanding, That's not just obviously wrong but insulting. What do you think I can't visualise because I have no religion? Now, if the best you can do when presented with the facts is to insult people, perhaps you should stop posting until you have grown up a bit. 1
swansont Posted October 25, 2015 Posted October 25, 2015 ! Moderator Note Posts discussing whether science can explain consciousness have been splithttp://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91820-can-science-explain-consciousness/
TJ McCaustland Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 That's not just obviously wrong but insulting. What do you think I can't visualise because I have no religion? Now, if the best you can do when presented with the facts is to insult people, perhaps you should stop posting until you have grown up a bit. Excuse me did I ask for your opinion? No. That is not insulting, as religion itself is purely personal beliefs, You have your own religion in not believing in God, or believing in some ancient god like Ra, it is up to you to define your own concept of the universe, Whether that concept is correct is another matter. ! Moderator Note Posts discussing whether science can explain consciousness have been split http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/91820-can-science-explain-consciousness/ Swansont, I know that we're not supposed to comment on these, but I have a question as to what split defines in the term of the post?
Phi for All Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 Religion is what allows us to conceptualize things far beyond our current understanding, I've tried to understand this statement for what it was meant to convey, but I can't get over how the words just seem to say, "When we have no idea what we're talking about, we use religion." If you can conceptualize something, how is it "far beyond our current understanding"? And when you say "conceptualize", aren't you saying, "You won't really get it, none of us do, but it will seem like you're closer to an answer because it will be supernatural and therefore won't really have a set answer." Forgive me, but this appears to be something that sounds really cool and relevant, but when you break down what you're actually saying, it has no real meaning. Lots of folks talk about how you can't know the mind of God, then they say stuff like this that implies they do.
John Cuthber Posted October 26, 2015 Posted October 26, 2015 (edited) Excuse me did I ask for your opinion? No. That is not insulting, as religion itself is purely personal beliefs, You have your own religion in not believing in God, or believing in some ancient god like Ra, it is up to you to define your own concept of the universe, Whether that concept is correct is another matter. You explicitly didn't ask my opinion; but you posted it on a discussion site where I'm a member. So I'm perfectly entitled to give you my opinion, especially since you saw fit to insult my ability. As has been pointed out at length elsewhere, atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour and not collecting stamps is a hobby. So. No, in fact, I don't have a religion. Now; let me know what it is that I can't visualise as a result of that. It hardly matters. If you can't get to grips with the idea that I have no religion, what is it that I can only visualise because my "religion" is in a box marked "atheism"? Edited October 26, 2015 by John Cuthber 1
TJ McCaustland Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) You explicitly didn't ask my opinion; but you posted it on a discussion site where I'm a member. So I'm perfectly entitled to give you my opinion, especially since you saw fit to insult my ability. As has been pointed out at length elsewhere, atheism is a religion in the same way that bald is a hair colour and not collecting stamps is a hobby. So. No, in fact, I don't have a religion. Now; let me know what it is that I can't visualise as a result of that. It hardly matters. If you can't get to grips with the idea that I have no religion, what is it that I can only visualise because my "religion" is in a box marked "atheism"? Your visualization and opinion are your own, I appreciate your efforts on this forum but if atheism is a distinct lack of religion as baldness is a distinct lack of hair then why is it considered a hairstyle? I've tried to understand this statement for what it was meant to convey, but I can't get over how the words just seem to say, "When we have no idea what we're talking about, we use religion." If you can conceptualize something, how is it "far beyond our current understanding"? And when you say "conceptualize", aren't you saying, "You won't really get it, none of us do, but it will seem like you're closer to an answer because it will be supernatural and therefore won't really have a set answer." Forgive me, but this appears to be something that sounds really cool and relevant, but when you break down what you're actually saying, it has no real meaning. Lots of folks talk about how you can't know the mind of God, then they say stuff like this that implies they do. But what meaning does "1 mole of O2 or 6.022*1023 O2 Atoms" have if the universe as we conceptulize it is infinite? Because although we state the universe only has so much matter, dark matter, energy, dark energy etc. with infinity comes the possibility for anything to happen, even multiverseS, where 1 mole of O2 has no meaning as measurement of matter in any one of those is irrelevant as the potential matter is measureless? Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate but it sounds a lot like lots of other things in SCIENCE that are "Facts" Don't make sense either when taken from a certain point of view..... Edited November 3, 2015 by TJ McCaustland
ACG52 Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 The words 'don't make sense' really means 'I don't know so it can't be right'.
John Cuthber Posted November 3, 2015 Posted November 3, 2015 (edited) Forgive me for playing the devil's advocate but it sounds a lot like lots of other things in SCIENCE that are "Facts" Don't make sense either when taken from a certain point of view..... Is that point of view called ignorance? As for "But what meaning does "1 mole of O2 or 6.022*1023 O2 Atoms" have if the universe as we conceptulize it is infinite?" well... do you understand what " one dozen eggs or 12 eggs" means? Because (apart from your mistake about atoms and molecules) that's pretty much the same concept as "1 mole of O2 or 6.022*1023 O2 Atoms molecules" A dozen eggs is a dozen eggs, whether or not the universe is finite or not, and no matter how we conceptualize it. And the importance of a mole of oxygen might simply be that it will keep you alive for a while. The really neat thing about science is that it still works whether or not you understand it or believe in it. Anyway, while I'm happy to forgive you for playing devil's advocate, I'm rather less happy to have you tell the world that I can't visualise things because I don't have a religion. So, either support that allegation, or withdraw it. (I remind that the forum has rules about answering criticism of points you raise) Edited November 3, 2015 by John Cuthber
TJ McCaustland Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Is that point of view called ignorance? As for "But what meaning does "1 mole of O2 or 6.022*1023 O2 Atoms" have if the universe as we conceptulize it is infinite?" well... do you understand what " one dozen eggs or 12 eggs" means? Because (apart from your mistake about atoms and molecules) that's pretty much the same concept as "1 mole of O2 or 6.022*1023 O2 Atoms molecules" A dozen eggs is a dozen eggs, whether or not the universe is finite or not, and no matter how we conceptualize it. And the importance of a mole of oxygen might simply be that it will keep you alive for a while. The really neat thing about science is that it still works whether or not you understand it or believe in it. Anyway, while I'm happy to forgive you for playing devil's advocate, I'm rather less happy to have you tell the world that I can't visualise things because I don't have a religion. So, either support that allegation, or withdraw it. (I remind that the forum has rules about answering criticism of points you raise) The problem with thinking that 1 does exist in the terms of say an egg, or whatever else, is that they are simply figments of our imagination, we know that matter is mostly space, yet we see it and feel it as a solid 100% mass object, so you cannot say that 1 exists when it is more like X, because 1 itself is just a representation, and representations are not exact, so by that same logic, the universe is a representation because although our perceptions and minds state it is a solid mass where matter exists in place of space, it is in reality mostly space, like this 1 as my LCD displays it, it is really just a representation of something real, and we believe it's real and cling to that logic to the very end because we cannot begin to imagine the universe as it truly is, and are afraid to see it as such because we never could understand the least bit of it, so we are ignorant, and believe it's real though we know it is just a representation, inexact to us because we can never perfectly measure it to attain it knowledge of it's exact nature. So in order to live and remain sane in this universe people believed in their own religions, because they cannot ever begin to conceptualize the most basic form of it as it truly is, but in some cases this ignorance was actually a spark of brilliance in one way or another, because someone made a wild hypothesis because he thought he had been visited by his god, so he said some crazy, insanely impossible thing "In his day." that in some cases was later actually found out to be true by application of science. So although you may not believe in any religion JC, because as you stated you are "Bald" or do not believe, but some day in the future you may because of some event, or you may not believe at all ever, but my advice to you though it may not be my place, is to keep an open mind always, and never be indoctrinated into anything totally, but at the same time retain your own beliefs (Even if you have none.) So no a dozen eggs has never been a dozen eggs and never will be, because all we've actually learned is faith in itself, because we can never truly know what 1 is, So your so called science, is faith in our own belief that 1 is 1, and not X,( so you DO have beliefs ) and thus science cannot explain it's own belief because it is irrational, but at the same time is useful because it is PARTIALLY rational, just in the same way we say 1 is 1 when it's truly X. So no science cannot explain everything in a universe without God because it is FOUNDED on the same principle as the faiths that believe in him (Whatever their god may be.), (even if science does not have the same beliefs) That 1 is 1 and always will be 1 instead of it being X because it's just a representation we conjure to try to understand the un-understandable, Useful yes, but never actually exact or entirely true. Edited November 9, 2015 by TJ McCaustland
John Cuthber Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 So no a dozen eggs has never been a dozen eggs and never will be, Others may disagree, but thanks for clarifying your point of view. As far as I can tell, most of the rest of the "wall of text" was word salad. Now you have got it out of your system, perhaps you would like to follow the forum rules and answer my point from a few posts ago.. No, in fact, I don't have a religion. Now; let me know what it is that I can't visualise as a result of that. It hardly matters. If you can't get to grips with the idea that I have no religion, what is it that I can only visualise because my "religion" is in a box marked "atheism"?
TJ McCaustland Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Others may disagree, but thanks for clarifying your point of view. As far as I can tell, most of the rest of the "wall of text" was word salad. Now you have got it out of your system, perhaps you would like to follow the forum rules and answer my point from a few posts ago.. No, in fact, I don't have a religion. Now; let me know what it is that I can't visualise as a result of that. It hardly matters. If you can't get to grips with the idea that I have no religion, what is it that I can only visualise because my "religion" is in a box marked "atheism"? You can't not necessarily visualize something someone with a religion can, but it may have to be presented to you via inspiration or an idea you see somewhere that you refine into the same thought, i.e. You probably aren't as "Outside the box" as some people with religion are, Because religion is crazy and therefore we are crazy
John Cuthber Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 You can't not necessarily visualize something someone with a religion can, i.e. You probably aren't as "Outside the box" as some people with religion are, Because religion is crazy and therefore we are crazy Why did you claim that I can't visualise things because I'm not religious? Why did you take so long to accept that you are just wrong? Plenty of scientists are viewed as "crazy" for whatever merit that might have. It wasn't a monk that came up with Schroedinger's cat that's alive and dead at the same time..
Reg Prescott Posted November 9, 2015 Posted November 9, 2015 Why did you claim that I can't visualise things because I'm not religious? Why did you take so long to accept that you are just wrong? Plenty of scientists are viewed as "crazy" for whatever merit that might have. It wasn't a monk that came up with Schroedinger's cat that's alive and dead at the same time.. That's correct. But it misses the point, I believe, that the man who came up with it (Schrödinger) was attempting to highlight the craziness of the opposition's ideas, viz., the orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum physics; not his own ideas. The cat thought experiment was presented as a reductio ad absurdum. In other words, Schrödinger was effectively saying: "You guys are crazy; not me".
PeterJ Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) Drat. I wish religion was not always lazily elided with theism. I usually agree with the mods at every turn, but in this case I wonder why we are not allowed to propose that consciousness cannot be explained by science in a thread that asks whether science can explain everything. Edited November 10, 2015 by PeterJ
swansont Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 I usually agree with the mods at every turn, but in this case I wonder why we are not allowed to propose that consciousness cannot be explained by science in a thread that asks whether science can explain everything. ! Moderator Note Because that's a specific discussion that went off on a tangent and was moved. "propose" is the key word here. If it was generally recognized to be true, you wouldn't need to propose it. Proposing it requires a separate discussion, hence the splitting.
John Cuthber Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 That's correct. But it misses the point, I believe, that the man who came up with it (Schrödinger) was attempting to highlight the craziness of the opposition's ideas, viz., the orthodox (Copenhagen) interpretation of quantum physics; not his own ideas. The cat thought experiment was presented as a reductio ad absurdum. In other words, Schrödinger was effectively saying: "You guys are crazy; not me". Why do you think it matters which side was which. The point I made was that some scientists think crazy things. whether that's Schroedinger or his "opponent" doesn't matter does it. Both of them are scientists.
Reg Prescott Posted November 10, 2015 Posted November 10, 2015 Why do you think it matters which side was which. The point I made was that some scientists think crazy things. whether that's Schroedinger or his "opponent" doesn't matter does it. Both of them are scientists. The point, I suppose, John, is that people tend not to think their own beliefs are crazy. One man's reductio ad absurdum is another man's confirmation.
TJ McCaustland Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Why did you claim that I can't visualise things because I'm not religious? Why did you take so long to accept that you are just wrong? Plenty of scientists are viewed as "crazy" for whatever merit that might have. It wasn't a monk that came up with Schroedinger's cat that's alive and dead at the same time.. Because of the fact that having a religion makes you view the universe in a different way, and it's generally difficult to visualize the same things say, a priest of some religion would, if you're from a different religion or don't believe at all. The crazy creationists for example who say asteroids "Pop into existence", Although they are stupid and highly non-scientific, they have a different perspective that allows them to formulate a train of though (Choo Choo ) that you wouldn't normally be able to on your own (Psychology )
John Cuthber Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Because of the fact that having a religion makes you view the universe in a different way, and it's generally difficult to visualize the same things say, a priest of some religion would, if you're from a different religion or don't believe at all. The crazy creationists for example who say asteroids "Pop into existence", Although they are stupid and highly non-scientific, they have a different perspective that allows them to formulate a train of though (Choo Choo ) that you wouldn't normally be able to on your own (Psychology ) Nice claim. Got any evidence? Once again I'm simply asking you to demonstrate that you tare not making stuff up. What can't I visualise?
TJ McCaustland Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Yes, I do. The evidence lies in the fact that lets say you one day visualize a universe, it's created by a five dimensional star collapsing which causes the big bang and starts your universe, and at the same time a man who is a Christian, or a Jew, or of whatever religion visualizes another universe, no matter how non-scientific their version may be, would you envision the same universe as him if he didn't tell you about his, and you didn't believe in any outside, omniscent force starting it all? No. In this way he can envision a brilliant car that uses the earth's magnetic field as a means for energy and works in both yours and his universe, while you envision no such thing because you were not inspired by the text you were reading, even if it's the same as the one he was reading, because you don't have the same thought process as he does because there's and extra variable in there that you don't have. Why this occurs in the said situation? Because you don't believe in the same things, and therefore are inspired differently by the said text. In the same method you can envision a new type of train that uses solar energy to move while he doesn't because although again you're reading the same text and have different views on it. Take an image of a cross or a six sided star for example, would it mean anything to you truly if a nasty comment were attached to it? No. However if a man of one of those religions saw it..... FLAME ON! He would verbally butcher the person who wrote it.
John Cuthber Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 Thanks, you seem to have put forward a bunch of things that I can, in fact, visualise. Did you think you had a point there somehow?
TheGeckomancer Posted November 25, 2015 Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) It's not really a matter of if science can explain a universe without God. We may answer every question science can answer and be left with some only God can answer. Most real scientists don't actually rule this out. The problem is with ASSUMING that this is the case. See this is why people like Richard Dawkins call it the God of the Gaps. Because God for most people throughout history is what we don't know. What causes lightning? God? What makes rain? God? See the problem? These questions have real answers. Throwing God in there place seriously inhibits our knowledge and the rate at which we build knowledge. Most real scientists will not have the audacity to tell you there is or is not a god. They haven't done double blind studies or had anyone triple check there work for goodness' sake! But even amongst the ones who do not know, many will still claim atheist. Because for a scientist the healthier stance is to assume all questions can be answered and move out from there. I myself am what I call an effective atheist. If we could somehow create a test that would scientifically prove god. And it came back positive. My life would not change 1 tiny bit. The proof of god does not prove anything else. But honestly, if I were a professional respected scientist I would just say atheist without any disclaimers. Why? Because we really need to get away from using religion as a model for how the universe works, or really... Anything people should do in society..... I would feel I am setting a bad example by being honest as weird as that seems. Edited November 25, 2015 by TheGeckomancer
TheGeckomancer Posted November 26, 2015 Posted November 26, 2015 It won't let me edit my post again. I realized I didn't strictly answer your question. We won't know until we have officially answered every question science can answer,
DrP Posted November 27, 2015 Posted November 27, 2015 Because of the fact that having a religion makes you view the universe in a different way, and it's generally difficult to visualize the same things say, a priest of some religion would, if you're from a different religion or don't believe at all. On the way home from work tonight I looked up at the moon - it was very low in the sky, full, yellow and very big (Harvest moon). It was amazing! It was beautiful. I laughed. One of my first thoughts was 'praise the lord'. I have been religious in the past and believed in creation, so I have pondered the universe from that perspective and have been awed. But, being honest, it seems like a load of trash to me now. I was just as awed tonight looking at the harvest moon as ever I had been when thinking that a god had designed it. You don't realise how dumb it all sounds when you just believe from a position of blind faith. It's just that - a belief in a fairy tale. I used to argue from the other side of the debate.... in fact - I have never really had a discussion on this side of it before. The problem is... and I used to do this too to other people, the problem is that you believe what you say is true because of what is in the book and the only evidence are people 'testimonies'. But when someone who doesn't believe gives you a testimony you refuse to believe it because it goes against what is in the book. It is just plain denial to look at and accept the FACTS (not personally fealings and testimonies and writings in a book), the facts presented by the opposing argument.
TheGeckomancer Posted November 27, 2015 Posted November 27, 2015 On the way home from work tonight I looked up at the moon - it was very low in the sky, full, yellow and very big (Harvest moon). It was amazing! It was beautiful. I laughed. One of my first thoughts was 'praise the lord'. I have been religious in the past and believed in creation, so I have pondered the universe from that perspective and have been awed. But, being honest, it seems like a load of trash to me now. I was just as awed tonight looking at the harvest moon as ever I had been when thinking that a god had designed it. You don't realise how dumb it all sounds when you just believe from a position of blind faith. It's just that - a belief in a fairy tale. I used to argue from the other side of the debate.... in fact - I have never really had a discussion on this side of it before. The problem is... and I used to do this too to other people, the problem is that you believe what you say is true because of what is in the book and the only evidence are people 'testimonies'. But when someone who doesn't believe gives you a testimony you refuse to believe it because it goes against what is in the book. It is just plain denial to look at and accept the FACTS (not personally fealings and testimonies and writings in a book), the facts presented by the opposing argument. This is the problem most scientists have with religion. I don't care about your testimony, give me facts, hard testable data that can be corroborated and duplicated. God is actually a totally separate question from religion though. One most people don't know how to separate.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now