Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
"The Universe is approx. 13.8 billion years old, the Earth 4.54 billion and the first Homo Sapiens appeared less than 200,000 years ago."
Right on.
"The dinosaurs had a nice 160 million year run without having to worry (and wonder) about original sin."
Original Sin. Aughk. Another eg of Abrahamic religion getting it wrong and making a mess of it - at least as far as a truth-claim, or set of truth-claims, goes.
Now if we could get you and a few others here to start conceiving of "faith" as synonymous with "trust" - to start conceiving of "faith" (eg, evidence-based faith, like evidence-based trust) as widely applicable outside of religious context - that would be a further step up, a further step forward.
Flip the script. Break out of Judeo-christio-islamic (Abrahamic) rhetoric and vocabulary. Fly free. Free solo!
With the demise of Abrahamic religion and its old-world theism, it'll happen eventually. "Faith" - like "belief" and "spirit" and "miracle" - is just too good an English word to leave behind in the wastes of religious superstition.
.....
"Taylor Swift confessed Harry Styles and John Mayer destroyed her faith in dating..." :)
[Click to View YouTube Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfWlot6h_JM
Only 350M-plus hits, lol!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
In religion, theists and theologians will do everything they can to protect their bronze age ideology and its institution. They will misdirect, deflect, try to throw you off, change the subject, scream bloody murder or bigotry. Over the years, there's no counter strategy of theirs I haven't seen. But their times, like those of astrology, are numbered.
.....
"Isis claims to be islam as KKK claims to be christian. IMO isis just look like criminals; probably disenfranchised young adults without direction or a job in an area torn apart by war and political corruption."
This is seriously off-track. Try living in a community of fundamentalists for a year or two. If it doesn't enlighten you, you're hopeless.
Yes, many actually believe what they say they believe.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
HFCS -- " Free solo!"
You couldn't do it for one minute.
You are completely bound by the ball and chain of your own doing.
That ball and chain is not anything outside of you at all.
It's YOU period, not science nor religion.
That was the whole premiss and root of the mind thread.
You create all your own illusions and project them and do not see things as they really are.
You only see HFCS in everything ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Oh Sullly, again you go too far...
“In that book which is my memory,
On the first page of the chapter that is the day when I first met you,
Appear the words, ‘Here begins a new life’.”
.....
Religio delenda est. :)
Oh, those extremist atheist groups...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P4rMys4wOY#t=25
That's why this "war of ideas" regarding belief and practice particularly in democracies matters.
.....
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality of happiness, and by no means a necessity of life.”
George Bernard Shaw
It's personal choice as Jerry Coyne noted...
Who would you rather be? a more dolorous knower of the truth? or a credulous person who spends his life fingering rosaries and confessing sexual peccadillos in hope of finding eternal life?
Which choose you?
.....
On a lighter note...
The Imitation Game (2014). In theaters 25 dec 2014.
English mathematician and logician, Alan Turing, helps crack the Enigma code during World War II.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/?ref_=nv_sr_1
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
BB: But really hasn't the workings of "Science" been here since the beginning?
If science is a description for what is, really, then no. If somehow science is what runs this show, then sure. But you can’t find that science in the past. Many people here use “science” to mean “reality.” If you actually DO science (come up with questions, construct studies, measure, analyze, then discuss), then that is not THE reality. Science means to describe that reality, and it does a pretty good job for as far as it goes. But let’s not forget that not everything is available to the 5 senses and the discursive mind. In fact, most things that science loves dealing with are invisible representations that are constructed (e.g., trust, dark matter, hierarchies, species, culture, and what not).
Science is not reality. Science talks about reality. People who point to a far distant past and says that science was operative then are referring to (I think) laws and principles that they think are immutable and always standing. Cosmology (at least the theories of such) say that that is not likely the case (the big bang and who knows what).
Talk about love or war. It’s just talk and pales in comparison to the “thing” talked about.
Ed:
You can call it bigoted if you wish.
Qualifications for positions can come in many flavors. You can hire someone simply for attitude, and eschew the technical qualifications. Many companies do just that, and it works well for them. It says that attitude can’t be taught, but competencies can. You can also hire people simply based upon experience or non-experience. Many new companies will hire folks because they can be socialized or institutionalized—because they have no experience in an industry, and hence can be trained in a way preferred (they have nothing to unlearn). Bigotry is in the eyes of the law and the beholder.
It’s just not a question of a person who believes (or not) in a material universe. Everyone believes in that, don’t they? I don’t think you got the spirit of my comment. I want someone to see human beings are far far more than a bag of bones and blood.
DMT:
Please point me to the post where you actually talked about science in detail or in depth. What thing have you presented or discussed scientifically. You seem to believe in it, but you don’t ever seem to talk about anything in particular in science. You seem to be a Sunday Protestant. You're a general believer but with no specificity.
HFCS:
Sullly gives us the beautiful poem (in response to a call for one) from Blake, and you respond with Donohue. Apples and oranges.
Try explicating Shaw’s comment. I’d say that he is elevating a skeptic over a believer. Aren’t you a believer in science? Wouldn’t a skeptic look at anything doubtfully?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
If you were raised in chemistry you'd know that the rules and realities of nature that you speak of underlie all of life, all living things.
If you were raised in engineering you'd know that every time you saw a jetliner in flight it was proof positive that the rules the world runs on are ordered, constant, regular, faithful; and that science is a darn good description of them; and that its applications are marvelous, miraculous even, and indubitably worthy of our admiration and support.
Those lucky few who were raised in science - and just as importantly have that "real true feel for it" - know there's no insider controversy concerning these things. Only the naysayers and deniers... well... naysay and deny. It's a shame.
.....
Time to go weld a bead.
Not of cream cheese or iambic pentameter but of hot iron on iron. ;)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I want someone to see human beings are far far more than a bag of bones and blood.
and you stereotyped a "physicist" as someone who only sees a human being as "a bag of bones and blood," another example of your bigoted point of view. I understood what you were saying "in spirit" as you put it, and I remain insulted, personally, that you would make such a generalization.
You display the also stereotypical attitude that scientists, or at least a physicist in this case, cannot truly value life, and art and beauty and all those things that you claim are beyond material. Those things are "beyond material" but that does not make them "super-natural" or beyond the physical domain, at least in origin.
Oddly, there is an accessible piece in today's NYTimes that illustrates your idea of the "qualification" argument that, at least in my mind, is totally congruent with this line of the discussion, maybe you read it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/07/us/in-seven-states-atheists-push-to-end-largely-forgotten-ban-.html
"But 53 years later, Maryland and six other states still have articles in their constitutions saying people who do not believe in God are not eligible to hold public office. Maryland’s Constitution still says belief in God is a requirement even for jurors and witnesses."
...
"The six states besides Maryland with language in their constitutions that prohibits people who do not believe in God from holding office are Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
Mississippi’s Constitution says, “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.” North Carolina’s says, “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
Pennsylvania’s Constitution contains no prohibition, but does say that no one can be “disqualified” from serving in office on the basis of religion — as long as they believe in God “and a future state of rewards and punishments” (a reference to heaven and hell)."
and now we have MikeL's notion that holding the "beliefs" of a physicist make one unfit for a leadership position along much the same lines of logic that such wording was placed into state constitutions.
Your brief "explanation" doesn't do much to explain your thinking, MikeL, not that you have to explain anything.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
MikeL:
"I don’t want anyone leading anyone else who sees the universe as only materially, especially at the level of the most basic materials in the universe (supposedly, matter)."
Ed:
"seems bigoted to me... sort of like saying, "I wouldn't want a Roman Catholic leading anyone" or "I wouldn't want a Jew leading anyone" or "I wouldn't want an Afro-American leading anyone" or "I wouldn't want a Gay/Lesbian leading anyone"...
Sorry Ed, but you're comparing apples and oranges here. A person who is Jewish or Afro-American and as best I can tell, Gay/Lesbian, was born that way and had no choice, whereas a Catholic can believe or not believe and science as a way of looking at the world is a personal choice also.
To dislike someone for who they can't help being is bigotry. To dislike someone based on reasoning that you don't agree with, is not.
You and Mike have made different choices of what to believe in. Having made those choices, you may of course become biased in your belief that one or the other apply to all of life.
Since both science and a mystical world view are choices, we can and should IMO discuss why these choices are preferable in certain situations and not others. To say either one of these orientations applies to all aspects of life, appears to me to be biased if not bigoted on the part of both of you.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
so Jan, you are saying that the state constitutions should stand as they are... since they are making a selection based on personal belief?
perhaps your reasoning is sound and that I'm off base.
Sorry for offering my opinion here that assuming someone has a particular belief based on their physics training disqualifies them for a role in the administration.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
The demise of Red John has left a void in poetic description.
I would rather have an Oxford PhD in physics, a Rhodes Scholar, as SecDef than, say, a Zen Master who would council Pentagon officials in the sound of one-hand-clapping. But if you put the two together in one person I might have to reconsider.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
so Jan, you are saying that the state constitutions should stand as they are... since they are making a selection based on personal belief?
Huh? I thought that the whole point of our democracy was to not let personal belief interfere with government. Of course that's been imperfectly realized but we have to keep trying. Personally, I would support a case going to the Supreme Court to make them come up with a decision putting atheism on the same level playing field as every other religious belief in America. In fact I think that has happened in as much as Atheists Inc. is a tax exempt religious organization. Of course it's trickier when it's written into state law what with state's rights and all. However, it seems to be the decisions on desegregating schools also overruled that.
More productive probably would be to start a campaign protesting that atheists are a discriminated against minority and that is anti-American. It would give atheists a platform to expound their ideas and force people to think.
The main problem I would see with a physicist for president is if his/her background was academic. Although I voted for both, I think Carter and Obama are examples of smart people who have a hard time making decisions because they get bogged down in detail. Academics (myself included) are famous for considering so many angles to so many considerations, that time and issues pass them by. Better that however, than a mystic who tries to float above it all. Best combination as jgill says is to have a background in both.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I find it odd that a person who chose to pursue a career in physics would be suspected of placing a low value on human life.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
"I am become death the destroyer of worlds."
J.R.O.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
They like physics because they can make bombs that will kill us all?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
It's a human problem... nobody's innocent, not the scientists not the believers. There is imposition on both sides.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
nobody's innocent
This does not sound like a reason to exclude a person from a high position in government because they have a background in physics.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Ed: .. . assuming someone has a particular belief based on their physics training disqualifies them for a role in the administration.
Bring forth the unusual institutionalized and socialized disciple who does not put forward the party line. Eisenhower was one, I believe; even though he was a 5-star general, he said he deeply distrusted the military industrial establishment. I think that ANYONE who is a devotee of their discipline is dangerous. (Everyone hearing me now?)
Hell, I don’t know who I’d like. I think I wrote that me thinking there is a right or wrong, good or bad, better or worse in the universe was beyond my pay grade.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
J.R.O. and Krishna, Paul.
Perfect symmetry.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
And you have covered all bases, Mike.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
no one here has any clue as to what the physicist in question's personal beliefs are. Nor do they necessarily interfere with the ability to fulfill one's official duty. Eisenhower certainly a devotee of soldiering, yet he didnt advocate unduly for the army as president. he was also a christian, yet that didnt interfere with his soldiering.
Ridiculous arguments, non-starter analogies.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!