Science is, at it's heart, logic. Everything that is truly scientific is based on evidence and logic. Religion, especially christianity, is based on blind, unreasoning faith and the denial of any evidence contrary to that faith. If one applies science to religion, religion falls apart. If one bases science religion and limits science to dogma, then science fails.
It's not that simple.
Christianity is based on both faith and reason. The early medieval Christian philosopher, Thomas of Aquinos, formulated the doctrine of "double faith", i.e, you could believe in God both from pure faith and from reason, and these two modes of thinking supported and complemented each other. This became the dominating doctrine in Christianity for the next millenium.
Since many Christian beliefs contradict science, experience, or the Bible, Christians frequently need to rationalise away these contradictions. But that doesn't mean they reject reason; it only means they fail to apply it in some cases.
It also means they're not fundamentally different from someone who, for example, believes in a political ideology. Political idealogues also make incorrect assumptions about the world which forces them to rationalise, but they don't reject reason as such.
It's also important to remember that the vulgar form of Christianity which embodies conservative morals and promotes creationism isn't universal. In Europe, the churches have been fairly progressive since the 19th century, and many priests and religious leaders accepted the theory of evolution within decades of its publication. Even the catholic church accepts it now (although they're still very conservative on social issues).
The Catholic church is strongly opposed to contraception, and on Catholic Ireland, contraceptives may not be sold to minors, and may not be advertised (you have to ask for them).
Historiacally, contraceptives have been outlawed in some US states.
It's conceivable that the Egyptians kept quiet about a defeat against the Hebrews, but it's strange not to mention large famines, locust swarms and having every first-born killed, not even by blaming it on something else. The Egyptians kept records over things like population and harvests for tax purposes.
The question makes sense within the context of a religion. Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim to believe in "the god of Abraham", so by their own definitions, they believe in the same god.
It's not unusual for Christians and Muslims to claim the other group believes in the "wrong" God, though, but that makes less logical sense to me.
More generally, "God" is often defined as "the god who created everything", which makes all creator gods the same god.
Curiously, using this definition, Mormons don't believe in the same god as Christians, since Mormons believe in multiple universes, and the god they pray to only created the matter in our universe. There's potentially an even greater god out there who created the Mormon god
They didn't copy the iPad feature by feature. They just used the elements which were most popular and made most sense. For example, making a thin tablet with thin borders around the display is just common sense, once technology allows it and it's been shown that the public likes it and is prepared to pay for it.
Another feature they didn't copy was the design of the power and volume buttons. On the Galaxy Tab 10.1, both buttons have the same shape and are placed beside each other; the volume button is just a little longer. This makes it easy to press the wrong button and accidentally turn off your tablet.
Samsung's no Apple, but they provide pretty good value for your money.
It wasn't a single a scientist; it was the whole eugenics movement during the first half of the 20th century. Eugenics and scientific racism was the norm during that time.
Kosher isn't about sanitation, it's about being cleansing yourself in the eyes of God. It's about cleanliness on a spiritual level, not on a physical level with germs and dirt.
You don't see mathematicians claiming that Euler's Elements of Algebra instructed them to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up innocent people. Well, I suppose you might find a crazy one that would say that, but he would hardly become a hero among other mathematicians.
There have, however, been biologists who claimed that the evidence compelled them to sterilise the retarded and mentally ill, and exterminate malicious or inferior human races.
The obvious retort is, "But that has nothing to do with science! It was just politics that used science as an excuse!" Well, yes, but the same is true of militant islamism: it's politics that's using religion as an excuse.
The protestant bible has been subjected to rigorous examination and comparison with the ancient texts. If there is something left out, (or included) there are very good reasons for doing so.
Some books in the Bible are fairly historically accurate, in particular, the later Jewish scriptures, like the Book of Kings. But there are also numerous places where myths are presented as facts. For example, the exodus from Egypt, and the ten plagues God called down on the Egyptians, is not mentioned at all in Egyptian accounts, which is very odd if they had any basis in reality.
The main reason we keep the Bible the way it is in modern times, is tradition. For example, scholars have found numerous passages where rabbis have scribbled an explanation or edification between two verses in the original text, and gradually over time, the added note has become incorporated into the main text and believed to be part of the original. Sometimes, these later additions are so well-known or often cited that they've been kept in modern versions of the Bible, even after it was discovered they were false.
And there's still a huge number of Christians who use the old King James version, despite its many inaccuracies and mistranslations.
Of course, the Christians who decided which books to include in the Bible way back at the Nicean church meeting in early medieval times, weren't idiots either. Many of the excluded books are too unbelievable or contradict the others. But some of them may have been excluded for political reasons, or simply because they didn't fit in with the dominating religious beliefs of that particular time.
Even today, we have people who believe a particular Football player is winning because God is answering his prayers. And in matters of faith, who is to say they are wrong?
Jesus.
Matt. 6:6-8:
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Christianity claims that Allah is a false idol from the Mecca idol market which just became prominent over the others and was molded into something like Abraham's God after Mohamed met with some Christians, but that Christians actually worship the same deity as the Jews.
Some Christians claim that. My friend, who's a recently retired priest in Church of Sweden, says he gets annoyed when Christians claim the Muslim God is not the same as the Christian God.
But Christians claim they believe in the same God as Jews; they just have a different idea of what God is like.
It all boils down to what definition of God you use. Christian, Jews and Muslims all tend to define "God" as "the god that Abraham believed in". Using that definition, it doesn't matter what specific properties God has.
Many non-literal believers define God even wider, as "the god who created everything". Using that definition, even impersonal gods like the Brahma in Hinduism is the same one as Christians believe in.
In science you accept postulates which can neither be proven nor disproven.
No, postulates belong to mathematics, not science. In science you assume hypotheses, which can be proven or disproven.
Furthermore, specific beliefs such as atheism operate on same level as believing in God. If God can't be proven or disproven, and it is a cardinal violation of science to believe in anything that can't be tested, then why is it acceptable to believe definitive in the inverse?
Totally agree with you here - atheism has nothing to do with science. It's a philosophical standpoint.
I was clearing up a common misconception that religion and science have to be at odds. The faith in a creator is not diametrically opposed to accepting science.
You're right. Lots of priests accepted the theory of evolution in the decades after Darwin published it, and incorporated it into the Christian world-view. Many churches accepted it silently, without commiting to either side, and that includes the Catholic Church.
The big backlash against the theory of evolution came later, among US-American churches in the 1920's, That's when "creation science", later redubbed "creationism", was invented as a counter to the theory of evolution.
The controversy between evolution and creationism has nothing to do with faith vs. science, because creationism has nothing to do with either faith or science. It's a political and legal tool to get Christian education into American public schools.
We've known that the Earth is round since at least classical times (the ancient Greeks). I wouldn't be so sure cavemen didn't know it.
On the flip side, the very intelligent 20th century mathematician and atheist Bertrand Russell used to believe that the world was flat when he was young, and that the church tricked people into believing in a round Earth.
Having your rights violated doesn't give you the right to do anything to protect yourself. For example, you can't shoot someone down merely for trespassing (at least not in most jurisdictions). You can't destroy someone's camera just because they illegally took pictures of you. You can make a citizen's arrest, but you can't mete out the punishment or confiscate property yourself.
Assuming the activists did anything wrong at all - from the TFA it sounds like the drone was filming private property from above a public highway, the hunters' lawyer couldn't find anything to pin on the them, and the hunters knew they did something wrong because they quickly drove away after shooting the drone down.
According to TFA, a lawyer tried to stop them from launching it without succeeding, and the drone landed on the highway when shot. That suggests the drone was filming private property from a position over the public highway.
It seems like this could pretty easily be abused. For example, if someone mistakenly parks on your property, you can deny them access and effectively confiscate their car indefinitely.
However, for some strange reason, animals rights are violated when people kill them -- at least, according to the "animal rights" activists.
I can't speak for all animal rights activists, but I think they're less concerned with the killing than the suffering. Few activists protest against hunts that're necessary to keep the population in check (because the animals would just starve to death when their numbers became too high). One of the most reviled types of hunts are fox hunts, presumably because they're prolonged and stressful to the animal, and done purely for entertainment.
#6 Birdshot fired out of a 12 gauge has a maximum effective range of around 40 yards, when shooting birds. I can guarantee there was no danger posed to anyone on that highway, the birdshot never even got close.
Since the drone crashed on the highway, it was clearly shot from a close enough range to reach the highway...
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds like a statement based on blind faith to me.
Science is, at it's heart, logic. Everything that is truly scientific is based on evidence and logic. Religion, especially christianity, is based on blind, unreasoning faith and the denial of any evidence contrary to that faith. If one applies science to religion, religion falls apart. If one bases science religion and limits science to dogma, then science fails.
It's not that simple.
Christianity is based on both faith and reason. The early medieval Christian philosopher, Thomas of Aquinos, formulated the doctrine of "double faith", i.e, you could believe in God both from pure faith and from reason, and these two modes of thinking supported and complemented each other. This became the dominating doctrine in Christianity for the next millenium.
Since many Christian beliefs contradict science, experience, or the Bible, Christians frequently need to rationalise away these contradictions. But that doesn't mean they reject reason; it only means they fail to apply it in some cases.
It also means they're not fundamentally different from someone who, for example, believes in a political ideology. Political idealogues also make incorrect assumptions about the world which forces them to rationalise, but they don't reject reason as such.
It's also important to remember that the vulgar form of Christianity which embodies conservative morals and promotes creationism isn't universal. In Europe, the churches have been fairly progressive since the 19th century, and many priests and religious leaders accepted the theory of evolution within decades of its publication. Even the catholic church accepts it now (although they're still very conservative on social issues).
The Catholic church is strongly opposed to contraception, and on Catholic Ireland, contraceptives may not be sold to minors, and may not be advertised (you have to ask for them).
Historiacally, contraceptives have been outlawed in some US states.
I'll get back to you if I find a reference for the other thing.
It's conceivable that the Egyptians kept quiet about a defeat against the Hebrews, but it's strange not to mention large famines, locust swarms and having every first-born killed, not even by blaming it on something else. The Egyptians kept records over things like population and harvests for tax purposes.
The question makes sense within the context of a religion. Jews, Christians and Muslims all claim to believe in "the god of Abraham", so by their own definitions, they believe in the same god.
It's not unusual for Christians and Muslims to claim the other group believes in the "wrong" God, though, but that makes less logical sense to me.
More generally, "God" is often defined as "the god who created everything", which makes all creator gods the same god.
Curiously, using this definition, Mormons don't believe in the same god as Christians, since Mormons believe in multiple universes, and the god they pray to only created the matter in our universe. There's potentially an even greater god out there who created the Mormon god
They didn't copy the iPad feature by feature. They just used the elements which were most popular and made most sense. For example, making a thin tablet with thin borders around the display is just common sense, once technology allows it and it's been shown that the public likes it and is prepared to pay for it.
Another feature they didn't copy was the design of the power and volume buttons. On the Galaxy Tab 10.1, both buttons have the same shape and are placed beside each other; the volume button is just a little longer. This makes it easy to press the wrong button and accidentally turn off your tablet.
Samsung's no Apple, but they provide pretty good value for your money.
It wasn't a single a scientist; it was the whole eugenics movement during the first half of the 20th century. Eugenics and scientific racism was the norm during that time.
Kosher isn't about sanitation, it's about being cleansing yourself in the eyes of God. It's about cleanliness on a spiritual level, not on a physical level with germs and dirt.
You don't see mathematicians claiming that Euler's Elements of Algebra instructed them to strap explosives to their bodies and blow up innocent people. Well, I suppose you might find a crazy one that would say that, but he would hardly become a hero among other mathematicians.
There have, however, been biologists who claimed that the evidence compelled them to sterilise the retarded and mentally ill, and exterminate malicious or inferior human races.
The obvious retort is, "But that has nothing to do with science! It was just politics that used science as an excuse!" Well, yes, but the same is true of militant islamism: it's politics that's using religion as an excuse.
The protestant bible has been subjected to rigorous examination and comparison with the ancient texts. If there is something left out, (or included) there are very good reasons for doing so.
Some books in the Bible are fairly historically accurate, in particular, the later Jewish scriptures, like the Book of Kings. But there are also numerous places where myths are presented as facts. For example, the exodus from Egypt, and the ten plagues God called down on the Egyptians, is not mentioned at all in Egyptian accounts, which is very odd if they had any basis in reality.
The main reason we keep the Bible the way it is in modern times, is tradition. For example, scholars have found numerous passages where rabbis have scribbled an explanation or edification between two verses in the original text, and gradually over time, the added note has become incorporated into the main text and believed to be part of the original. Sometimes, these later additions are so well-known or often cited that they've been kept in modern versions of the Bible, even after it was discovered they were false.
And there's still a huge number of Christians who use the old King James version, despite its many inaccuracies and mistranslations.
Of course, the Christians who decided which books to include in the Bible way back at the Nicean church meeting in early medieval times, weren't idiots either. Many of the excluded books are too unbelievable or contradict the others. But some of them may have been excluded for political reasons, or simply because they didn't fit in with the dominating religious beliefs of that particular time.
Even today, we have people who believe a particular Football player is winning because God is answering his prayers. And in matters of faith, who is to say they are wrong?
Jesus.
Matt. 6:6-8:
But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
How can people believe in ridiculous stuff like Athens lol
Christianity claims that Allah is a false idol from the Mecca idol market which just became prominent over the others and was molded into something like Abraham's God after Mohamed met with some Christians, but that Christians actually worship the same deity as the Jews.
Some Christians claim that. My friend, who's a recently retired priest in Church of Sweden, says he gets annoyed when Christians claim the Muslim God is not the same as the Christian God.
But Christians claim they believe in the same God as Jews; they just have a different idea of what God is like.
It all boils down to what definition of God you use. Christian, Jews and Muslims all tend to define "God" as "the god that Abraham believed in". Using that definition, it doesn't matter what specific properties God has.
Many non-literal believers define God even wider, as "the god who created everything". Using that definition, even impersonal gods like the Brahma in Hinduism is the same one as Christians believe in.
In science you accept postulates which can neither be proven nor disproven.
No, postulates belong to mathematics, not science. In science you assume hypotheses, which can be proven or disproven.
Furthermore, specific beliefs such as atheism operate on same level as believing in God. If God can't be proven or disproven, and it is a cardinal violation of science to believe in anything that can't be tested, then why is it acceptable to believe definitive in the inverse?
Totally agree with you here - atheism has nothing to do with science. It's a philosophical standpoint.
I was clearing up a common misconception that religion and science have to be at odds. The faith in a creator is not diametrically opposed to accepting science.
You're right. Lots of priests accepted the theory of evolution in the decades after Darwin published it, and incorporated it into the Christian world-view. Many churches accepted it silently, without commiting to either side, and that includes the Catholic Church.
The big backlash against the theory of evolution came later, among US-American churches in the 1920's, That's when "creation science", later redubbed "creationism", was invented as a counter to the theory of evolution.
The controversy between evolution and creationism has nothing to do with faith vs. science, because creationism has nothing to do with either faith or science. It's a political and legal tool to get Christian education into American public schools.
We've known that the Earth is round since at least classical times (the ancient Greeks). I wouldn't be so sure cavemen didn't know it.
On the flip side, the very intelligent 20th century mathematician and atheist Bertrand Russell used to believe that the world was flat when he was young, and that the church tricked people into believing in a round Earth.
The Galaxy Tab 10.1 doesn't have a hardware rotation lock. It's a software option on the bottom right menu.
Not that it diminishes your point...
What if you were invited to park on someone's property, then uninvited after you placed it there? Would you not be allowed back to fetch your car?
Having your rights violated doesn't give you the right to do anything to protect yourself. For example, you can't shoot someone down merely for trespassing (at least not in most jurisdictions). You can't destroy someone's camera just because they illegally took pictures of you. You can make a citizen's arrest, but you can't mete out the punishment or confiscate property yourself.
Assuming the activists did anything wrong at all - from the TFA it sounds like the drone was filming private property from above a public highway, the hunters' lawyer couldn't find anything to pin on the them, and the hunters knew they did something wrong because they quickly drove away after shooting the drone down.
According to TFA, a lawyer tried to stop them from launching it without succeeding, and the drone landed on the highway when shot. That suggests the drone was filming private property from a position over the public highway.
Really? That's the law where you live?
It seems like this could pretty easily be abused. For example, if someone mistakenly parks on your property, you can deny them access and effectively confiscate their car indefinitely.
However, for some strange reason, animals rights are violated when people kill them -- at least, according to the "animal rights" activists.
I can't speak for all animal rights activists, but I think they're less concerned with the killing than the suffering. Few activists protest against hunts that're necessary to keep the population in check (because the animals would just starve to death when their numbers became too high). One of the most reviled types of hunts are fox hunts, presumably because they're prolonged and stressful to the animal, and done purely for entertainment.
#6 Birdshot fired out of a 12 gauge has a maximum effective range of around 40 yards, when shooting birds. I can guarantee there was no danger posed to anyone on that highway, the birdshot never even got close.
Since the drone crashed on the highway, it was clearly shot from a close enough range to reach the highway...