Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bronwyn
Trad climber
Not of This World
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 02:08pm PT
|
I don't think there is an aversion to honest inquiry among believers. In fact, I think if you speak to many Christians, you will discover that they BECAME believers after in-depth, honest inquiry.
There is a man named Lee Strobel, hard-line atheist and journalist, who decided that once and for all, he was going to put a stop to all this Christian nonsense. He set out to definitively prove, through investigation, that God did not exist. What eventually happened, was that all of his inquiry led to him to believe that God DOES exist. CS Lewis was also a scholar and atheist, who through the evidence, came to believe in God and wrote numerous books about it. So did Stroebel. There is also a book called "The Hidden Face of God", that presents very clear, scientific evidence for God's existence. Afraid of honest inquiry? I think not! If anyone dismisses these books with a wave of the hand before reading them, I would say that person is the one who is afraid of inquiry. If you can't be bothered reading books that present the other point of view, have you really made every effort to make a full inquiry? You then are as guilty of what you accuse others of...not looking at all the evidence.
I have found, in the past, that the ones least open to genuine inquiry are the atheists. Christians have no fear of honest inquiry. We know that not all questions will be answered, or CAN be answered. (At least on this side of the veil). Logic and Christianity are not mutually exclusive.
That being said, there is an element of mystery and wonder that does make the Christian life very dynamic and exciting. I've done it both ways, and the life of faith is much more engaging and exciting. Life is much richer and deeper.
|
|
4damages
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 02:22pm PT
|
Dr. F.,
From past known terminology the leaf is compound.
Reference Thesaurus.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bipinnately
The tree should probably still be classified dicotyledon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicotyledon
From past records these trees and leafs predate the bible and are
still here today . I have not verified updated records since the 90's.
The trees are quite common today depending on climate zone.
I probably can't answer anymore about anatomy and physiology here or
at another public place.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 02:25pm PT
|
Yeah jstan
Socrates
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 02:29pm PT
|
As I've said before in many posts, the existence of god makes sense only as an idea... the physical properties that would be a part of the "god hypothesis" are easy to be seen as improbable to the point of impossible.
Now if you are willing to throw out most of what we know is science, then a "reconciliation" of the points of view are possible. Similarly, if you are willing to throw out most of religious belief.
The traditional way around this is to merely state that these two intellectual domains are separate and do not impinge on each other. A dodge that doesn't work, this thread is an example of believers insisting that something that is not physically possible is...
Science does not admit supernatural phenomena, science is about natural phenomena.
God is supernatural, and has no place in science.
Even Newton knew that and dismissed god after genesis... god was the watchmaker, and once the spring was wound everything just worked.
|
|
Bronwyn
Trad climber
Not of This World
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 02:52pm PT
|
How do you explain "Consciousness"? Science has never yet been able to completely define it, and has no consensus on what it actually IS. Science does not have any explanation for how consciousness even came to be. It is generally assumed to reside in the brain, yet there is also plenty of scientific evidence for somatic consciousness.
Yet we all KNOW that consciousness exists, because we all experience it. In the same way, you can also know that God exists because you experience Him. The "proof" of consciousness is in the experiencing of it. Just as the "proof" of God is in the experiencing of Him.
And as any good occultist will tell you, science is the basis for the manifestation of what is often termed the "supernatural".
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 02:57pm PT
|
Ed wrote
"As I've said before in many posts, the existence of god makes sense only as an idea... the physical properties that would be a part of the "god hypothesis" are easy to be seen as improbable to the point of impossible."
That's only if you have preconceived ideas about what God is based on ancient religions (the science wasn't better than religion back then either)
What aspects of a "God Hypothesis" do you see as essential and how do they conflict?
Peace
Karl
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 03:01pm PT
|
Interesting thing about consciousness is that it is the ONLY thing we TRULY know to exist.
Face it, ALL your information about the universe, world and yourself is received and acknowledged by your own consciousness alone. THere is no sure proof that NONE of this really exists around us and that this isn't just a "dream" within consciousness.
Peace
Karl
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 03:04pm PT
|
The Fet said -
Wow Klimmer, you teach science but don't understand it. As evident in your post above.
If believe God has a hand in ongoing evolution why don't you design an experiment to test that hypothesis. If you can do that and get a result that supports your hypothesis you will win a nobel prize and forever change our scientfic understanding of the universe.
I have a very clear understanding of science. Do you? I don't think you do or you would not have said what you said.
Science is about Cosmic Order using the Scientific Method. It asks how or what questions. For science to be able to do anything regarding a phenomenon or question about the Universe, it must be able to be placed within the constructs of a scientific hypothesis, in other words in must be testable. Science is a very powerful tool, but it is a tool non-the-less. It can not answer all questions that can be asked. It can not answer non-scientific hypotheses, but it can not be said that non-scientific hypotheses are not true or not valid, since science can't say one way or another. Science can only work with empirical data and scientific hypotheses, nothing more. (Some people believe that is all there is. That in itself would be a faith, or a religion. It can be argued that some elevate science to a religion in this regard. I don't. Science is a tool, a very powerful tool but it can not answer all questions.)
Religion is about Cosmic Purpose. It answers why questions, which are out side of the constructs of science to answer. Religion, logic, philosophy etc. can attempt to answer these questions.
Science and Religion are two very important human endeavors and are compatible, but serve different purposes. Know the difference.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 03:05pm PT
|
God is supernatural, and has no place in science.
I disagree 100%
The supernatural is not a separate entity from the natural.
They are one and same.
|
|
4damages
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 03:20pm PT
|
Dr. F,
I re-edited the note you asked for. Jacaranda is bipinnate.
See monocotyledon for clarification. I believe palms are also those
as is grass also noting palms should probably not be classified as trees
due to xylem lacking.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 03:24pm PT
|
Klimmer in your last post you say "Science is a tool, a very powerful tool but it can not answer all questions". That is correct.
But in a previous post you say "Modern Evolution assumes we are alone and that we have always been alone." Evolution doesn't assume anything about that. Evolution fully allows for life to develop on other celestial bodies, and in fact scientists put a lot of effort into looking for it. What revamp of evolution would occur if extra terrestrial life were found?
Scientists would love to find other form of life, especially non-DNA or even non-carbon based life, it would greatly help our understanding of evolution.
I agree with Werner. If God exists I would expect him/her to be a natural force. But I understand most believe he would be supernatural.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 03:40pm PT
|
It seems what we have here is a reflection of the two main methods of dealing with confliciting religions. For a child born in a household where each parent has strong but very different religious beliefs, the child has two main possibilities for coping with religion.
One is the position of syncretism where by that child cobbles together his or her own belief system using what is perceived as the best of both views. The other position is that of cultural pluralism whereby the child accepts and practices both religions depending on which parent he or she is with and which temple or church is being visited at any point in time.
It seems to me we have advocates of both approaches on this thread in regard to the different approaches to life of science and religion. So the question for each contributor is - are you a syncretist or a cultural pluralist?
|
|
4damages
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 03:49pm PT
|
"God is supernatural, and has no place in science."
WBraun,
Yes, I to disagree with the above and agree with you,
though I believe religious bias is a problem in the
military. Also I believe neither science or religion
is perfect.
Do you think I am surpassing you for the most picked
on @ ST?
http://besaw.webs.com/contact.htm
I'm leaving now for the weekend. I'll check next week.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 03:58pm PT
|
Weschrist-
I never said science was a religion, but I will say that it is a belief system. For Ed and most other mainstream scientists to say the physical world is all there is, is itself a belief system, based in my view, on incomplete knowledge of the spiritual realm. Incomplete knowledge while discussing science is the very thing they accuse both religious and spiritual people of when they try to talk about that subject.
So perhaps there are irreconcilable differences between the two, and cultural pluralism is the only possible response for anyone wishing to study both fields.
However, it seems to me that the more interesting challenges, are those of syncretism, of at least attempting to reconcile ideas of consciousness/spirit and matter.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 20, 2009 - 04:14pm PT
|
Sometimes I wonder if I ever should have started this thread.
It was ALL about Ardi, and the increasing evolutionary proof that
we modern primates can now extend our common ancestry linkage back
to over four million years ago.
NO, for the LAST TIME: Moderns humans did NOT evolve from monkeys
or apes. But, we DO have a "common ancestor" with them.
IF one has a questioning, rational, and logical brain, then one can
easily accept that Charles Darwin nailed it, life started some three billion
years ago on this planet, and evolved, and HERE WE ARE.
If you cannot stand the thought that there is NO afterlife, and that
somehow modern humans are not "special", then go ahead and believe
in the personal comfort that all religions MADE UP, and offer you.
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 04:25pm PT
|
"The supernatural is not a separate entity from the natural."
As a scientist, I would have to agree. There is no place in science for saying something does not exist. Just because you cannot measure it or prove to any reasonable level of probability that it exists does not mean it does not exist. God could be a natural phenomena that we have yet to understand. God may not be "magic" at all.
Of course without magic, which is the ability for something to happen that cannot happen, there would still be no God. For if God existed within the bounds of some sort of physical laws, God would then have to explain God's existence within those laws and that would make God very un-God-like.
So do all of the believers really believe in magic? It's the ability for something to happen contrary to the laws of the universe or beyond. Or is God just a fancy name for an alien that has lots of power compared to us but must sit and ponder his existence like we do?
If you believe in magic then I believe in Santa Claus and there is no way in hell you can tell me he doesn't exist... since it's magic.
Dave
|
|
rectorsquid
climber
Lake Tahoe
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 04:27pm PT
|
Norton,
Any thread, discussion, etc..., about evolution will always promote an argument about religion unless the room is filled with atheists. You know that the taco is not filled with atheists.
No one can possibly believe in evolution as it applies to humans and also believe in God (as defined by modern religion) without just rationalizing that God made us evolve. We all know that anyone with that rationalization is just avoiding deciding what they really believe and what is utter crap.
Dave
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 04:34pm PT
|
Dr. F-
There is a difference between religion which focusses on creeds and dogmas, and sometimes very complex philosophical concepts, and the true spiritual world which is about interior experiences which change one's life.
You have clearly experienced religion, but not an interior spiritual life.
You are correct in pointing out that the holy books and beliefs of many religions are quite outdated, especially in their attempts to explain the natural world.
However, your experience of interior spirituality is also at a very basic level, thwarted it would seem, by your bad experiences with religion.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 04:38pm PT
|
"I never said science was a religion, but I will say that it is a belief system."
Jan I am, once again, having trouble with the words.
In these discussions the word "belief" functionally means concepts that are held absent objective data. The word has been redefined and former meanings stripped away by common usage.
I would agree with you that science is a "methodology" or a way of determining how the natural world functions. An iterative process that is constantly changing, hopefully improving, our ability to understand and predict natural phenomena.
And the methodology itself, is open to challenge and to improvement.
Werner hit on something really important when he describes what exists as a schism( my word).
What we have had on earth for the past few millennia is not unlike what would obtain were a race of intergallactic aliens to settle here.
There is no communication and no common language.
During my lifetime I have seen a definite interest in our moving ever further away from developing a language.
We are almost taking pride in the existence of this schism.
While this may make good politics, it bodes ill for our future.
Ultimately, there may be no future.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2009 - 04:39pm PT
|
Norton-
I have definitely done my share of writing about fossils on this thread.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!