My point re science was that it can predict reality very well.
Actually, that it *has* predicted some things well. You cannot say with certainty that it *can*.
For all you know, the world is utter and complete chaos lasting for billions of years. With complete randomness every moment changing the structure of the universe. And, as it just so happens, within the randomness and chaos, "order" seemed to appear for a century or two. No different than someone takiung a random set of numbers from pi and finding order, seeing that it lasts in order for a few more numbers, and then completely goes otherwise.
Surely, we need what to deal with and thus *assume* order. Though, that in itself does not pass reasonable doubt. Science claims that the world has been around for billions of years, yet (Science itself) has only been around for a century or two (this well sophisticated). Can two hundred years out of billions really prove order?
There's a huge philiosiphical debate that you can get into about what is physically real and what isn't, what our observations really mean, and whether the predictable behaviour that we observe is really there or just an illusion.
And recognizing the debate is important. However, I'm okay with the usual response, that we have to start somewhere. Even if it is all proven incorrect, the fact that we were able to use it now and then makes it at least somewhat acceptable.
My personal belief is that religions have been there for two reasons: to give people comfort that there are "greater things" out there, and to explain things that have no other explanation.
You may have missed my point. I was showing two things. One, that just as Science has its way of discerning truths, so does Religion. Neither being better than the other. Two, that has its place. Whereas Science can provide where religion cannot, Religion can provide where Science cannot. In the places where they can both provide is where one makes his choice.
As science progresses and offers alternative explanations for things (such as how the planet came into existance, or what stars are), there is less need for religions to explain phenomena.
For those who have chosen to believe in Science and use Religion only where Science cannot provide.
Remember, Science is a *study*. It cannot "prove" anything. In fact, saying that Science *will* prove something is a belief, which is religious, not scientific. Thus, Evolutionism, as I call it, is a religion. That is the relgion of those who believe that Science will explain the origin of everything. Being open to the idea is not Evolutionism, mind you. I mean specifically, the belief that Evolution (or something related in Sience) will prove all.
I really don't see what the problem is with people saying: OK, so the story of Creation was a simplistic, symbolic way of explaining a complex process to people thousands of years ago, but isn't literally true.
There's nothing wrong with saying it as a possibility. Hey, to each their own. But to say it with conviction is to belittle the people who use Religion over Science, and that is the overwhelming majority of the US (and world) population.
The fact that the mechanism for Creation was in fact so fantasically complex that humanity still can't understand it fully enhances the believability of God, as you said.
I'll repeat that, tilted the other way:
The fact that the mechanism for Creation was in fact so fantastically simple that humanity still can understand it fully--even with all those tempting complex, theories of Science--, enhances the believabiltiy of G-d,
The classic example of an explanation moving from a religious domain to a scientific one is Gallileo's explanation of how the Earth fit into the solar system, as opposed to Aristotle's.
I'll disagree there. One, Aristotle was anything but religious. That was Philosophy, not Religion. Second, Science has only proven that from inside the box it seems that the Earth rotates around the sun. I am still open to the possibility that we'll get "outside the box" (whether the box be the galaxy or whatever) and see the other way to be true. I am not saying that it is true, or that it even should be worried about. But to say that it is patently not true may be foolish.
People's interpretation of religion over time necessarily reflects on other aspects of their society: obviously current Christians' interpretations of the Bible is substantially different to that of Christians 2000 years ago.
Not really.
Very few religions have been around for that long. Christianity is one, but its doctrines were not all started at one time. About fifteen hundred years ago there was a great debate over the idea of the trinity. Until then the belief was duality, but the trinity finally won. So, chrisitanity evolved because it was never set in stone.
Judaism, however, is still the same even after (nearly) four thousand years. The beliefs were set in stone and were never changed. I wonder if other religions can be found to be the same way.
To my mind, it is perfectly plausible that our translated record of people's beliefs thousands of years ago may not have been the word of God in the way that we currently interpret the words. Indeed, the message may have been tailored to the people whom it targets to fit in with the existing ideas at the time, or they may have interpreted God's message in this way themselves.
It depends on the religion. If the religion, like Catholicism, has its fundamentals set by one individual (the infallible Pope), then you might be able to say what you said. Other religions, however, have their beliefs via passed down traditions. When traditions from two parts of the world are shown to be almost identical even after centuries of being apart, your theory is discounted.
By the way, the bit about space being created: yes, it's a very difficult theory to understand, and when it comes down to it, the interpretation is just an interpretation.
That's no excuse though for saying that the inconceivable is that which actually happened.
It's the maths which counts, but it's hard to say what the maths describes if it's not the creation of space itself.... So space could have gone from being nonexistant to being a very very small "balloon" in a sense. Nasty to think about, I know;).
No, it couldn't.
First, as someone pointed out to me, the difference between zero and one, is much greater than the difference between one and two. So, even if you did prove to me that wild theory that space "expanded" , it still provides no solution for how the first bit of space got there.
Now, as for this expansion, regardless of the maths, it makes no sense. Blow up a baloon half way. Make a box around the baloon. Try expanding the ballon further. Is it possible?
Saying that the balloon expanding is like space, may be understandable. But where will you "put" that space? If the space does not exist, it can not go "there", simply because there is no "there"!
Regardless of the theories you ascribe to space, a physical realm is still required. I contend it to be impossible to explain how that realm got there (without going non-physical).
And I disagree about logic not being a good way of proving things.
I never said that it wasn't a good way. It is a good way, just like Belief is a good way. Each proves themselves to be good tools, but neither disproves the other.
The problems that you see with logic are those that you see when it is misapplied:
No, that's just a problem with the people.:-)
My problem is that you cannot "prove" that Logic is a proving tool, without using Logic itself. (We only use Logic because it is the logical thing to do.) Thus it is a vicious cycle.
Not just that, but science relies on other things apart from logic, such as inference, interpretation, extrapolation, and straight out guessing at times.
Inference is Logical. Interpretation, extrapolation, and even guesses are merely brute-force attacks to provide Science with what to test. They are not "relied" upon, however.
So you can't say that logic doesn't provide good truths. It does provide truths that are as good as you get,
Just like Philosophy and Religion do.
but some people don't understand how it's applied,
Or, don't choose to use that method of proving truths. Just because a method exists does not mean that it has to be used.
In fact, you can't say anything at all about our physical world using just logic without a whole lot of assumptions that are usually left out.
Yes, and recognition of that is the first step to not attacking those with other beliefs, as the OP did.
Many inventions and phenomena were predicted by the theories that you deride.
I had no intention of deriding the theories themselves. I was merely answering in kind to the OP. He said his remark with great derision, so I answered the same way.
Science is science because it is rigorously testable,
That is untrue. Science is science because it is merely a study and not a proof. Noone can deny that you can study things. However, Science needs to go past the first level. That is, if everything was to be studied, we'd have a lot of records but little progress. So, Science has a method to rely on one study to do another, thus reaching a second level.
The problem is that while studies study phenomina, and we can say with great certainty that the phenomina happened, we cannot say that the theory is the reason it happened. While it may be likely, the theory cannot be proven. However, so as not to be stagnated by this lack of certainty, rules were created on which to allow a study to be called truthful (until proven otherwise). The rules were that something had to be testable and repeatable. A wise choice.
Thus, Science is not science because it is testable, Science is science because it is a study. It can go past the first level because it is testable.
Note, however, that requiring something to be testable and repeatable is limiting. If something were untestable or unrepeatable, Science could not touch it. Granted little is known to be like that, however excluding the possibility is closed-minded, and the reason I asked this question.
and that property is unique compared to other disciplines.
All disciplines only prove themseleves. Science only proves itself, because Science predicts that which it tests, and tests that which it predicts. Logic is merely a tool. Yet Logic only proves itself because it is logical. Nothing outside of Logic proves Logic. In a similar fashion, Religion believes in things. Belief powers itself. Believers believe in belief because it is believable. Nothing outside of belief can prove belief.
I guess, so, in a sense, all disciplines are unique. So, if one was to specialize in any one discipline, they should choose the one with the (unique) tools that appeals to them. They can even blatantly ignore the other systems. Just, don't ever say that one is correct and the other is incorrect. Each only proves themselves.
It's amazing how much science you can see around you (and measure!) every day, with no equipment except your own body.
And it's amazing how much G-dliness you can see around you (and enjoy!) with no equipment other than your own heart.
And it's amazing how many axioms you can see around you (and philosophize!) with no equipment other than your own intellect.
Science can predict what is possible, and what will happen in certain circumstances,
So can Philosophy and Religion.
with incredible accuracy.
With incredible *scientific* accuracy. Let us not forget the vicious cycle.:-)
That's not to say that religion has no value, but from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, applying logic and scientific investigation gets you results time after time. Religion may not.
When a person is looking for a more fullfiling life Religion gets you results time after time. Science may not.
What you get out of it depends on how much faith you put into it,
Not neccesarily. Some religions are heavy on Faith, some on Logic. As such Faith doesn't always get results. It really depends on the relgion, the individual, and the sought after results.
and even then, society may discover something the next day which will show beyond reasonable doubt that you were actually wrong about certain beliefs.
And this isn't true about Science?!?
Also, this is not always true with Religion. If the belief is that a deity created the world and communicated Truths, nothing can prove it incorrect, that is the basis of the belief.
In fact, it is the Scientists (or intellectuals) that claim certain things and say that a belief must be incorrect, only to find out later that they were incorrect due to lack of knowledge. Examples include the world being round (religious belief that intellectuals denied until Columbus), humans in the form of monkeys (Jewish belief), and others.
Time and space themselves were created.
That Time was created, I can understand. As Time measures movement, before a physical realm existed, there could be no time. However, how space was created is beyond my understanding. How can space be created? Either the physical realm was there or it wasn't. If it was there, the Big Bang didn't create it, if it wasn't there then how can it be created (without saying that something non-physical created it)?
There was no matter at that stage, only energy.
So how did the energy come to be? Energy, like matter, is physcial. To say that this physical thing came from that physical thing is useless. What created the *original* physical thing?
There was no sound. Even light, a manifestation of the electromagnetic force, wasn't in the form that we know it today. Yes, there are very specific observations that are extremely hard to explain without such a theory.
I actually have no problem with that particular aspect.
You won't see detailed explanations for the composition of matter and the way it interacts with itself in most religion's theories of creation. But you'll need to spend years leaning about physics to even understand the big bang theory as it currently stands.
And you can years on Religion too you know.:-)
Just like Science is a complicated discipline, so is Religion. And being religion has been religiously investigated by more people for more time, I think it demands as much respect, if not more.
An explanation of why the universe is, is not something that mainstream science claims to have a definate answer to.
How often do you read slashdot?:P The Scientists, when pushed admit what you just said. However, talk to them and find out what their personal beliefs are. Also, the people that do not understand science (they haven't studied it, or haven't studied enough, or don't have enough time, or they just don't "get it" even though they want to, etc...) rely on Scientists and *believe* that they (the Scientists) are correct. They also *believe* that the answers are in Science, but that we just haven't found them yet (which, strangely enough, is a belief).
There's lots of ideas, such as the many-universe theories (which I don't really subscribe to personally) that say something like, "Well, one of the tickets (universes) in the lottery has to win." Or the anthropomorphic ones: "If the universe didn't have intelligent life, then I wouldn't be around to know if I lost." Or a myriad of other ideas that aren't based around a God per se. So in summary, just because it's improbable that a universe would be this way by chance, it doesn't mean that it's impossible, ever.
True. And I have mentioned that to people many times. It depends on how people find their truths. If through Logic, it is not a good proof. If not through Logic, it just might be.
Then you could sit and chat, ask him any question and get verifiable answers.
Any examples?
Fly around, materalize objects from nothing, teleport, et cetera.
And this alone would make you believe completely and positively that the deity is a deity? What if a second deity came to you and said that the first was just a scientist, and that he (the newer deity) was the *real* deity?
It would be a repeatable event, verifiable in laboratory conditions, with any number of people present. It could be recorded on any medium to prove that it wasn't a hallucination.
But isn't that what Life is? It's repeatable, and noone can explain it. Also, how would you prove that it was the deity that did it? Would you just assume that the deity did it because it happened right after the deity said that it would?
Can't post in your journal, so I will post it here.
Thanx.
the discussion is moot as well because the diety could use its power to either extract from the mind of the individual the necessary things to say, or change the brain of the being so that he has no choice but to believe.
I excluded those answers in the journal.
The reason is that the main point of the question is to see if our own methods of proof directly exclude the possibility of a deity, or if such a possibility exists, but it has never happened.
I still need help answering this question. Although I can't (yet) answer it myself, I use it as a proof to show how many "scientists" are closed-minded.
So why couldn't the universe have just always existed?
Because the universe is physical, and anything physical must come from one of two things. Either another physical thing, or something non-physical. If we say that the universe came from something else physical, then we haven't gotten anywhere (we've just added another step). Thus, it must have come from something non-physical, and it is that non-physical thing that Creationists call G-d. Regarless of powers people say G-d has, something non-physical must have created the physical world.
G-d himself is non-physical. We don't know the rules of the non-physical world, and as such, we cannot say with any certainty that He must have been created or the like. Thus, we can say that G-d always existed, and we cannot say this about the world.
Except that crowd A (the Big Bang people) have scientific, objective evidence,
And their "evidence" is based on baseless theories that make sense only with the use of other theories. In the end, it is a vicious cycle, that makes sense only to itself.
and crowd B (the God exists people) only have subjective, untestable evidence.
They have the greatest evidence of all. The world is here. If you would have told me (before the world came to be) that all these forces would come together and make what is now known as the world, I'd tell you that while it was possible, it was unlikely, and mostly foolish. You're like the guy who won the lottery and claimed, "I *knew* that I would win."
There is no requirement on evidence to be "testable". That is a rule that Science placed upon itself. To then go and say that anything that is "untestable" is less reliable is rather closed-minded. You may choose not to use, and that is your right, but don't put down others who don;t believe in your rule.
But why do you think they are mutually exclusive?
Because those who believe in G-d, usually believe that He also created the world in a deliberate non explosive manner. That precludes the idea of a "big bang".
Out of curiosity, what's the difference between the 10 commandments and the rest of them?
G-d commanded those ten to be written on sapphire stones. All other ones were only written in the Torah scroll.
Other than that, there is no real difference, those are merely ten of the six hundred and thirteen.
How were they conveyed to people?
All except one, through Moses. The other was through Aaraon.
The same way they were conveyed to Moses?
Yes, but with less fanfare.
Seems like he'd need a whole legal pad to write those down rather than some stone tablets.
Not really. The Bible was written on a scroll. However, the details, known as the Oral Law, were committed to memory.
What do you consider the status of the NT to be?
Books. All-time best sellers though.:-)
Is Jesus the son of God?
Yes, as are you and I. G-d created the world, and as such we are all His children.
Does he speak for God?
I don't believe so. But Christians probably think so. I think it is a tennant of their religion.
Are the things he said considered commandments?
No.
If not, why not?
The Bible explicitly states that nothing can be added or removed from it. And, if a person says he is a prophet and that G-d wants it, he should be killed.
I supposed different denominations believe different things, I'm just wondering about some of the specifics in this case.
No problem. I'm not Christian, and I do not believe in Christian beliefs. I usually consider the "Bible" to be a reference to the Five Books of Moses, the OT being the Bible and the other 19 books, and the NT being the 36 additions by the church fathers, and the Gospel to be both the OT and the NT.
I figured, "which the Bible says not to do", meant commandment.
I believe the original post said something like "the bible says", not that it was a commandment. The bible says a whole lot more than just what's in the commandments.
But never does it say not to do something, without it being a commandment. Note, the OT has 613 commandments.
I'm not religious anyway. I just posted the quote so that whoever asked would know what the guy was talking about.
I appreciate it. I only challenged on my knowledge of the OT. I forget that many call the NT "Bible" instead of "Gospel".
Ah, NT. I usually take Bible as referring to the OT. The NT would be appropriately referred to as Gospel. But, to each their own.
>Not really. The affirmation is that you will not only tell the truth, but you will say nothing but the truth.
That's the point. That's why Quakers (most of us) will affirm, but will not swear.
My counter-point was to your comment of, "implies that one is telling the truth only at certain times and that it is okay to NOT tell the truth at other times." I think you misunderstood it.
And you cite bigamy as an example.
Just a quick one, but apparently, not a good one.
I should re-state here that I do not consider the Bible inerrant, by any means.
I believe it is inerrant. OT, that is.
but if a man can have 2 wives, then it would only be fair for a woman to have 2 husbands
Maybe, but the OT has nothing to do with fairness per se, rather what G-d's commandments are. Thus, fairness has no bearing here. Unless, that is, the person was only taking the Bible's commandments as suggestions to be pondered and possibly agreed to.
On the other hand, there are some laws where I would have a very tough time finding someone guilty. For example, I could never have voted to convict Rosa Parks if the bus were segregated by law.
I would have. She blatantly broke the law. Regardless of whether the law was fair or just, she did break the law, and I think of her as any other rabble rouser. To me, the end does not justify the means.
I explained my reasons, and after me the majority of jurors voded "guilty." In the long run, we voted for a conviction. I can't ever be sure, but I feel if I were not in there, and did not have the courage to say what I felt, that this person would have not been convicted.
That is commendable.
You make some good points.
Thank you.
It's clear this is something you have thought about or are aware of.
Yeah, I think about just about everything. Also, considering, my personal beliefs, I had what to think about regarding jury duty.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts.
You're most welcome. I'm generally glad to debate.
and swearing an oath (which, by the way, the Bible says not to do
Where does it say that?
implies that one is telling the truth only at certain times and that it is okay to NOT tell the truth at other times.
Not really. The affirmation is that you will not only tell the truth, but you will say nothing but the truth. Further, you will tell all of the truth. Thus, it is opposed not only to not telling the truth, but also to interweaving in non-truths or leaving out some details.
And the ironic thing is that, as a Quaker, I would feel it to be of the utmost importance to listen to both sides without prejudice and to value both sides equally as I weight the facts.
...and ignore the ideas of the prosecutor and defender, and more importantly, the law. Say, for example, the case was bigamy. Something perfectly all-right in the Bible, yet forbidden by US law. Would you be able to weigh the facts with equal seriousness? Or, better yet, say the person did something perfectly all-right in US law, but directly opposed to Quaker beliefs, would you still be able to be impartial?
And even if you would be able to judge impartially and fairly within the framework of US laws, and completely disregard your own beliefs, would you put up a greater mental fight to the prosecutors suggestions, believing only that you should make inferences? The prosecutor has spent much time thinking about the case, much more than the jury member. That can leave the prosecutor to think that if some self-righteous person comes along who thinks he should make his own "impartial" inferences, that he (the prosecutor) would be better off without him. Ditto for the defender. And, you are probably correct here, I am just imagining what the two lawyers would think.
On another note, to support your affirmations. The constitution says (Article 2, Section 1, final paragraph) that the president must "solemnly swear (or affirm)". Apparently, the framers took your concern well.
How can you ever reply to an email? If the FROM header is forged (or even the REPLY-TO) a reply of any sort would be unsolicited. Otherwise, I'd say, let people subscribe by email (instead of through the web) then the reply would be solicited.
It makes one wonder. The purpose of the confirmation is *specifically* to keep the addresse from getting unsolicited emails. Making that UCE, it just plain silly.
As is the general case, the customer is an idiot. Why? Well, instead of giving the techie the problem ands asking for a solution, they think up their own uneducated answer and ask for implementation. Then, when questions arise, both the programmer and the client fumble in the dark.
First thing to do is to ask the client what the problem is. If the answer starts off with "I need", grimace and ask again. Tell them pleasantly but sternly two things. One, that you will give them anything they ask for. Two, it is best to give you the problem, not the answer.
Now, on the programmers part two things are sorely overlooked. They are the requirement and the specifications. They are two very different things. There can be only one requirements document per project, as it details the requirements. There are many possible specification documents, because the specification is one solution.
After the programmer has a basic idea of what the problem is, the programmer should write a requirements documents. This should go through *at least* three rounds. If the original requirements document is said to be good, than the client is probably not willing to put in the effort neeeded to think about it. Explain to them the importance. You'd have to be incredibly lucky to get it right the first time around. Youy know you're done when the client says "wow". Finally, the client *must* agree that these are the requirements for the project. At this point, the fee and basic estimation is done.
Now, the client is not really needed. The problem is understood, and is clearly spelled out into an agreed upon requirements document. Now comes the solution. Think up one and write a specification document. Depending on how much the client needs to know should decide whether to share this with the client. There generally is no need, and they don't care how it's done, just that it works.
When work is up to specification, match it to the requirements, and go through it point by point with the client. Voila, done.
This passage sort of gives you an idea of how the guy thinks:
Not really. He just gets very passionate about the subject.
Also, as an older INTP, he sees the world and laughs at their mistakes, realizing, finally, that the whole world is a bunch of idiots. So, when seeing a mistake that actually ticks him off (he was a school psycologist, and couldn't stand people sending SPs to him with "disorders") he gets like this.
Well, they're both models. I'm not sure it's a question of which one is true and which is false.
I think they are both true. Keirsey *thought* he disagreed. He doesn't. He just minimizes the I/E difference too much. I'm sure if I just a had a talk with him I could straighten him out.:-)
I don't usually give much credit to personality tests, but some of the myers-briggs stuff has been right on.
It's simple. The groups come about *after* the letters are defined. When applying it, it works really well. And then Keirseys four types, with his tie ins to two thousand year old stuff makes it very interesting.
For a basic introduction, go to http://www.keirsey.com. He based his work on the MBTI. The MBTI is Meyers-Briggs Type Inventory. Their book, printed many years after the MBTI came out is Girsts Differing.
The rest of the letters are types. Each of the sixteen types has four letters. Keirsey groups them into four groups, with the SP being the energetic Artisan, and the NT being the scholarly Rational. The two introverted (hence "I") of the NTs are INTP and INTJ. INTP is the space cadet, or the absent minded professor. Albert Einstein was a classic INTP. INTJs, Keirsey's "Mastermind", are the rarest type (for women or overall, for men the rarest is INFP). Neils Bohr was an INTJ.
Though, our first computer was an Apple ][ e, "enhanced' to 128 K of memory. Ah, the days when a hanger doubled as a video card, when turning off sound was reaching in and removing one plug, and when the floppy drive acted up.. a screwdriver fixed all problems.
Keirsey wrote a pamphlet denying it. As a school psycologist, he found most kids diagnosed with "disorders" to be SPs. Being schools are not made for SPs, such kids have a *very* hard time listening without hands on experience.
The IQ test, being written (probably by NTs) for NTs, only measure strategic intelligence. With a higher IQ, she's probably an NT (though ISTP just as well, being close to the INTP). As an INTJ myself who was drugged with a double dosage of Ritalin twice daily, I can say that I had no such "disorder". I was merely energentic and bored to tears. The teacher taught at a *much* slower than I needed. As such, I got straight As (except history in eighth grade), all the awards, but Ds or Fs in "effort". Then they drugged me and "they" were happy. Talk about self-centeredness.
If only they'd set up schools by knowledge and understanding rather than age. It's so silly and damaging to potential.
Anyway, I'd suggest that you first find out her interests. A good way to do that is with the MBTI (Book: Gifts Differing). Though Kerisey (Book: Please Understand Me II) has much more observation-wise in his book. With a knowledge of (possible) interests, it can be much easier to deal with such children in an effective manner.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the in-depth reply :).
;).
:-)
Ditto.
My point re science was that it can predict reality very well.
Actually, that it *has* predicted some things well. You cannot say with certainty that it *can*.
For all you know, the world is utter and complete chaos lasting for billions of years. With complete randomness every moment changing the structure of the universe. And, as it just so happens, within the randomness and chaos, "order" seemed to appear for a century or two. No different than someone takiung a random set of numbers from pi and finding order, seeing that it lasts in order for a few more numbers, and then completely goes otherwise.
Surely, we need what to deal with and thus *assume* order. Though, that in itself does not pass reasonable doubt. Science claims that the world has been around for billions of years, yet (Science itself) has only been around for a century or two (this well sophisticated). Can two hundred years out of billions really prove order?
There's a huge philiosiphical debate that you can get into about what is physically real and what isn't, what our observations really mean, and whether the predictable behaviour that we observe is really there or just an illusion.
And recognizing the debate is important. However, I'm okay with the usual response, that we have to start somewhere. Even if it is all proven incorrect, the fact that we were able to use it now and then makes it at least somewhat acceptable.
My personal belief is that religions have been there for two reasons: to give people comfort that there are "greater things" out there, and to explain things that have no other explanation.
You may have missed my point. I was showing two things. One, that just as Science has its way of discerning truths, so does Religion. Neither being better than the other. Two, that has its place. Whereas Science can provide where religion cannot, Religion can provide where Science cannot. In the places where they can both provide is where one makes his choice.
As science progresses and offers alternative explanations for things (such as how the planet came into existance, or what stars are), there is less need for religions to explain phenomena.
For those who have chosen to believe in Science and use Religion only where Science cannot provide.
Remember, Science is a *study*. It cannot "prove" anything. In fact, saying that Science *will* prove something is a belief, which is religious, not scientific. Thus, Evolutionism, as I call it, is a religion. That is the relgion of those who believe that Science will explain the origin of everything. Being open to the idea is not Evolutionism, mind you. I mean specifically, the belief that Evolution (or something related in Sience) will prove all.
I really don't see what the problem is with people saying: OK, so the story of Creation was a simplistic, symbolic way of explaining a complex process to people thousands of years ago, but isn't literally true.
There's nothing wrong with saying it as a possibility. Hey, to each their own. But to say it with conviction is to belittle the people who use Religion over Science, and that is the overwhelming majority of the US (and world) population.
The fact that the mechanism for Creation was in fact so fantasically complex that humanity still can't understand it fully enhances the believability of God, as you said.
I'll repeat that, tilted the other way:
The fact that the mechanism for Creation was in fact so fantastically simple that humanity still can understand it fully--even with all those tempting complex, theories of Science--, enhances the believabiltiy of G-d,
The classic example of an explanation moving from a religious domain to a scientific one is Gallileo's explanation of how the Earth fit into the solar system, as opposed to Aristotle's.
I'll disagree there. One, Aristotle was anything but religious. That was Philosophy, not Religion. Second, Science has only proven that from inside the box it seems that the Earth rotates around the sun. I am still open to the possibility that we'll get "outside the box" (whether the box be the galaxy or whatever) and see the other way to be true. I am not saying that it is true, or that it even should be worried about. But to say that it is patently not true may be foolish.
People's interpretation of religion over time necessarily reflects on other aspects of their society: obviously current Christians' interpretations of the Bible is substantially different to that of Christians 2000 years ago.
Not really.
Very few religions have been around for that long. Christianity is one, but its doctrines were not all started at one time. About fifteen hundred years ago there was a great debate over the idea of the trinity. Until then the belief was duality, but the trinity finally won. So, chrisitanity evolved because it was never set in stone.
Judaism, however, is still the same even after (nearly) four thousand years. The beliefs were set in stone and were never changed. I wonder if other religions can be found to be the same way.
To my mind, it is perfectly plausible that our translated record of people's beliefs thousands of years ago may not have been the word of God in the way that we currently interpret the words. Indeed, the message may have been tailored to the people whom it targets to fit in with the existing ideas at the time, or they may have interpreted God's message in this way themselves.
It depends on the religion. If the religion, like Catholicism, has its fundamentals set by one individual (the infallible Pope), then you might be able to say what you said. Other religions, however, have their beliefs via passed down traditions. When traditions from two parts of the world are shown to be almost identical even after centuries of being apart, your theory is discounted.
By the way, the bit about space being created: yes, it's a very difficult theory to understand, and when it comes down to it, the interpretation is just an interpretation.
That's no excuse though for saying that the inconceivable is that which actually happened.
It's the maths which counts, but it's hard to say what the maths describes if it's not the creation of space itself.... So space could have gone from being nonexistant to being a very very small "balloon" in a sense. Nasty to think about, I know
No, it couldn't.
First, as someone pointed out to me, the difference between zero and one, is much greater than the difference between one and two. So, even if you did prove to me that wild theory that space "expanded" , it still provides no solution for how the first bit of space got there.
Now, as for this expansion, regardless of the maths, it makes no sense. Blow up a baloon half way. Make a box around the baloon. Try expanding the ballon further. Is it possible?
Saying that the balloon expanding is like space, may be understandable. But where will you "put" that space? If the space does not exist, it can not go "there", simply because there is no "there"!
Regardless of the theories you ascribe to space, a physical realm is still required. I contend it to be impossible to explain how that realm got there (without going non-physical).
And I disagree about logic not being a good way of proving things.
I never said that it wasn't a good way. It is a good way, just like Belief is a good way. Each proves themselves to be good tools, but neither disproves the other.
The problems that you see with logic are those that you see when it is misapplied:
No, that's just a problem with the people.
My problem is that you cannot "prove" that Logic is a proving tool, without using Logic itself. (We only use Logic because it is the logical thing to do.) Thus it is a vicious cycle.
Not just that, but science relies on other things apart from logic, such as inference, interpretation, extrapolation, and straight out guessing at times.
Inference is Logical. Interpretation, extrapolation, and even guesses are merely brute-force attacks to provide Science with what to test. They are not "relied" upon, however.
So you can't say that logic doesn't provide good truths. It does provide truths that are as good as you get,
Just like Philosophy and Religion do.
but some people don't understand how it's applied,
Or, don't choose to use that method of proving truths. Just because a method exists does not mean that it has to be used.
In fact, you can't say anything at all about our physical world using just logic without a whole lot of assumptions that are usually left out.
Yes, and recognition of that is the first step to not attacking those with other beliefs, as the OP did.
Many inventions and phenomena were predicted by the theories that you deride.
:-)
:-)
:P The Scientists, when pushed admit what you just said. However, talk to them and find out what their personal beliefs are. Also, the people that do not understand science (they haven't studied it, or haven't studied enough, or don't have enough time, or they just don't "get it" even though they want to, etc...) rely on Scientists and *believe* that they (the Scientists) are correct. They also *believe* that the answers are in Science, but that we just haven't found them yet (which, strangely enough, is a belief).
I had no intention of deriding the theories themselves. I was merely answering in kind to the OP. He said his remark with great derision, so I answered the same way.
Science is science because it is rigorously testable,
That is untrue. Science is science because it is merely a study and not a proof. Noone can deny that you can study things. However, Science needs to go past the first level. That is, if everything was to be studied, we'd have a lot of records but little progress. So, Science has a method to rely on one study to do another, thus reaching a second level.
The problem is that while studies study phenomina, and we can say with great certainty that the phenomina happened, we cannot say that the theory is the reason it happened. While it may be likely, the theory cannot be proven. However, so as not to be stagnated by this lack of certainty, rules were created on which to allow a study to be called truthful (until proven otherwise). The rules were that something had to be testable and repeatable. A wise choice.
Thus, Science is not science because it is testable, Science is science because it is a study. It can go past the first level because it is testable.
Note, however, that requiring something to be testable and repeatable is limiting. If something were untestable or unrepeatable, Science could not touch it. Granted little is known to be like that, however excluding the possibility is closed-minded, and the reason I asked this question.
and that property is unique compared to other disciplines.
All disciplines only prove themseleves. Science only proves itself, because Science predicts that which it tests, and tests that which it predicts. Logic is merely a tool. Yet Logic only proves itself because it is logical. Nothing outside of Logic proves Logic. In a similar fashion, Religion believes in things. Belief powers itself. Believers believe in belief because it is believable. Nothing outside of belief can prove belief.
I guess, so, in a sense, all disciplines are unique. So, if one was to specialize in any one discipline, they should choose the one with the (unique) tools that appeals to them. They can even blatantly ignore the other systems. Just, don't ever say that one is correct and the other is incorrect. Each only proves themselves.
It's amazing how much science you can see around you (and measure!) every day, with no equipment except your own body.
And it's amazing how much G-dliness you can see around you (and enjoy!) with no equipment other than your own heart.
And it's amazing how many axioms you can see around you (and philosophize!) with no equipment other than your own intellect.
Science can predict what is possible, and what will happen in certain circumstances,
So can Philosophy and Religion.
with incredible accuracy.
With incredible *scientific* accuracy. Let us not forget the vicious cycle.
That's not to say that religion has no value, but from a purely pragmatic viewpoint, applying logic and scientific investigation gets you results time after time. Religion may not.
When a person is looking for a more fullfiling life Religion gets you results time after time. Science may not.
What you get out of it depends on how much faith you put into it,
Not neccesarily. Some religions are heavy on Faith, some on Logic. As such Faith doesn't always get results. It really depends on the relgion, the individual, and the sought after results.
and even then, society may discover something the next day which will show beyond reasonable doubt that you were actually wrong about certain beliefs.
And this isn't true about Science?!?
Also, this is not always true with Religion. If the belief is that a deity created the world and communicated Truths, nothing can prove it incorrect, that is the basis of the belief.
In fact, it is the Scientists (or intellectuals) that claim certain things and say that a belief must be incorrect, only to find out later that they were incorrect due to lack of knowledge. Examples include the world being round (religious belief that intellectuals denied until Columbus), humans in the form of monkeys (Jewish belief), and others.
Time and space themselves were created.
That Time was created, I can understand. As Time measures movement, before a physical realm existed, there could be no time. However, how space was created is beyond my understanding. How can space be created? Either the physical realm was there or it wasn't. If it was there, the Big Bang didn't create it, if it wasn't there then how can it be created (without saying that something non-physical created it)?
There was no matter at that stage, only energy.
So how did the energy come to be? Energy, like matter, is physcial. To say that this physical thing came from that physical thing is useless. What created the *original* physical thing?
There was no sound. Even light, a manifestation of the electromagnetic force, wasn't in the form that we know it today. Yes, there are very specific observations that are extremely hard to explain without such a theory.
I actually have no problem with that particular aspect.
You won't see detailed explanations for the composition of matter and the way it interacts with itself in most religion's theories of creation. But you'll need to spend years leaning about physics to even understand the big bang theory as it currently stands.
And you can years on Religion too you know.
Just like Science is a complicated discipline, so is Religion. And being religion has been religiously investigated by more people for more time, I think it demands as much respect, if not more.
An explanation of why the universe is, is not something that mainstream science claims to have a definate answer to.
How often do you read slashdot?
There's lots of ideas, such as the many-universe theories (which I don't really subscribe to personally) that say something like, "Well, one of the tickets (universes) in the lottery has to win." Or the anthropomorphic ones: "If the universe didn't have intelligent life, then I wouldn't be around to know if I lost." Or a myriad of other ideas that aren't based around a God per se. So in summary, just because it's improbable that a universe would be this way by chance, it doesn't mean that it's impossible, ever.
True. And I have mentioned that to people many times. It depends on how people find their truths. If through Logic, it is not a good proof. If not through Logic, it just might be.
Re:OK, I'll bite.
Thanx, I appreciate it.
Then you could sit and chat, ask him any question and get verifiable answers.
Any examples?
Fly around, materalize objects from nothing, teleport, et cetera.
And this alone would make you believe completely and positively that the deity is a deity? What if a second deity came to you and said that the first was just a scientist, and that he (the newer deity) was the *real* deity?
It would be a repeatable event, verifiable in laboratory conditions, with any number of people present. It could be recorded on any medium to prove that it wasn't a hallucination.
But isn't that what Life is? It's repeatable, and noone can explain it. Also, how would you prove that it was the deity that did it? Would you just assume that the deity did it because it happened right after the deity said that it would?
Can't post in your journal, so I will post it here.
Thanx.
the discussion is moot as well because the diety could use its power to either extract from the mind of the individual the necessary things to say, or change the brain of the being so that he has no choice but to believe.
I excluded those answers in the journal.
The reason is that the main point of the question is to see if our own methods of proof directly exclude the possibility of a deity, or if such a possibility exists, but it has never happened.
Deuteronomy 13:1 (Masoratic). Though, in the NIV its, 12:32.
The passages just after that talk about those who try changing it.
I understand.
However, most of the time when I hear the terms, it is outside of Slashdot. And, they refer to what I said. Maybe it's just my circle of friends.
It looks like the creationists (or, at least, trolls pretending to be creationists) haven't come out of the woodwork yet.
:P
Umm... noone trolled us yet.
I do not think a scientist is rejecting God when they try to look at something like the origin of life.
Talk to the scientists one day.
To me creationism is a form of denial
And Evolutionism isn't?
I still need help answering this question. Although I can't (yet) answer it myself, I use it as a proof to show how many "scientists" are closed-minded.
So why couldn't the universe have just always existed?
Because the universe is physical, and anything physical must come from one of two things. Either another physical thing, or something non-physical. If we say that the universe came from something else physical, then we haven't gotten anywhere (we've just added another step). Thus, it must have come from something non-physical, and it is that non-physical thing that Creationists call G-d. Regarless of powers people say G-d has, something non-physical must have created the physical world.
G-d himself is non-physical. We don't know the rules of the non-physical world, and as such, we cannot say with any certainty that He must have been created or the like. Thus, we can say that G-d always existed, and we cannot say this about the world.
Except that crowd A (the Big Bang people) have scientific, objective evidence,
And their "evidence" is based on baseless theories that make sense only with the use of other theories. In the end, it is a vicious cycle, that makes sense only to itself.
and crowd B (the God exists people) only have subjective, untestable evidence.
They have the greatest evidence of all. The world is here. If you would have told me (before the world came to be) that all these forces would come together and make what is now known as the world, I'd tell you that while it was possible, it was unlikely, and mostly foolish. You're like the guy who won the lottery and claimed, "I *knew* that I would win."
There is no requirement on evidence to be "testable". That is a rule that Science placed upon itself. To then go and say that anything that is "untestable" is less reliable is rather closed-minded. You may choose not to use, and that is your right, but don't put down others who don;t believe in your rule.
But why do you think they are mutually exclusive?
Because those who believe in G-d, usually believe that He also created the world in a deliberate non explosive manner. That precludes the idea of a "big bang".
Out of curiosity, what's the difference between the 10 commandments and the rest of them?
:-)
G-d commanded those ten to be written on sapphire stones. All other ones were only written in the Torah scroll.
Other than that, there is no real difference, those are merely ten of the six hundred and thirteen.
How were they conveyed to people?
All except one, through Moses. The other was through Aaraon.
The same way they were conveyed to Moses?
Yes, but with less fanfare.
Seems like he'd need a whole legal pad to write those down rather than some stone tablets.
Not really. The Bible was written on a scroll. However, the details, known as the Oral Law, were committed to memory.
What do you consider the status of the NT to be?
Books. All-time best sellers though.
Is Jesus the son of God?
Yes, as are you and I. G-d created the world, and as such we are all His children.
Does he speak for God?
I don't believe so. But Christians probably think so. I think it is a tennant of their religion.
Are the things he said considered commandments?
No.
If not, why not?
The Bible explicitly states that nothing can be added or removed from it. And, if a person says he is a prophet and that G-d wants it, he should be killed.
I supposed different denominations believe different things, I'm just wondering about some of the specifics in this case.
No problem. I'm not Christian, and I do not believe in Christian beliefs. I usually consider the "Bible" to be a reference to the Five Books of Moses, the OT being the Bible and the other 19 books, and the NT being the 36 additions by the church fathers, and the Gospel to be both the OT and the NT.
Never said it was a commandment.
I figured, "which the Bible says not to do", meant commandment.
I believe the original post said something like "the bible says", not that it was a commandment. The bible says a whole lot more than just what's in the commandments.
But never does it say not to do something, without it being a commandment. Note, the OT has 613 commandments.
I'm not religious anyway. I just posted the quote so that whoever asked would know what the guy was talking about.
I appreciate it. I only challenged on my knowledge of the OT. I forget that many call the NT "Bible" instead of "Gospel".
Ah, NT. I usually take Bible as referring to the OT. The NT would be appropriately referred to as Gospel. But, to each their own.
>Not really. The affirmation is that you will not only tell the truth, but you will say nothing but the truth.
That's the point. That's why Quakers (most of us) will affirm, but will not swear.
My counter-point was to your comment of, "implies that one is telling the truth only at certain times and that it is okay to NOT tell the truth at other times." I think you misunderstood it.
And you cite bigamy as an example.
Just a quick one, but apparently, not a good one.
I should re-state here that I do not consider the Bible inerrant, by any means.
I believe it is inerrant. OT, that is.
but if a man can have 2 wives, then it would only be fair for a woman to have 2 husbands
Maybe, but the OT has nothing to do with fairness per se, rather what G-d's commandments are. Thus, fairness has no bearing here. Unless, that is, the person was only taking the Bible's commandments as suggestions to be pondered and possibly agreed to.
On the other hand, there are some laws where I would have a very tough time finding someone guilty. For example, I could never have voted to convict Rosa Parks if the bus were segregated by law.
I would have. She blatantly broke the law. Regardless of whether the law was fair or just, she did break the law, and I think of her as any other rabble rouser. To me, the end does not justify the means.
I explained my reasons, and after me the majority of jurors voded "guilty." In the long run, we voted for a conviction. I can't ever be sure, but I feel if I were not in there, and did not have the courage to say what I felt, that this person would have not been convicted.
That is commendable.
You make some good points.
Thank you.
It's clear this is something you have thought about or are aware of.
Yeah, I think about just about everything. Also, considering, my personal beliefs, I had what to think about regarding jury duty.
Thanks for your comments and thoughts.
You're most welcome. I'm generally glad to debate.
Ah, NT, sorry. The OT (thus Bible, not Gospel) has no such commandment.
Where does it say that?
implies that one is telling the truth only at certain times and that it is okay to NOT tell the truth at other times.
Not really. The affirmation is that you will not only tell the truth, but you will say nothing but the truth. Further, you will tell all of the truth. Thus, it is opposed not only to not telling the truth, but also to interweaving in non-truths or leaving out some details.
And the ironic thing is that, as a Quaker, I would feel it to be of the utmost importance to listen to both sides without prejudice and to value both sides equally as I weight the facts.
...and ignore the ideas of the prosecutor and defender, and more importantly, the law. Say, for example, the case was bigamy. Something perfectly all-right in the Bible, yet forbidden by US law. Would you be able to weigh the facts with equal seriousness? Or, better yet, say the person did something perfectly all-right in US law, but directly opposed to Quaker beliefs, would you still be able to be impartial?
And even if you would be able to judge impartially and fairly within the framework of US laws, and completely disregard your own beliefs, would you put up a greater mental fight to the prosecutors suggestions, believing only that you should make inferences? The prosecutor has spent much time thinking about the case, much more than the jury member. That can leave the prosecutor to think that if some self-righteous person comes along who thinks he should make his own "impartial" inferences, that he (the prosecutor) would be better off without him. Ditto for the defender. And, you are probably correct here, I am just imagining what the two lawyers would think.
On another note, to support your affirmations. The constitution says (Article 2, Section 1, final paragraph) that the president must "solemnly swear (or affirm)". Apparently, the framers took your concern well.
How can you ever reply to an email? If the FROM header is forged (or even the REPLY-TO) a reply of any sort would be unsolicited. Otherwise, I'd say, let people subscribe by email (instead of through the web) then the reply would be solicited.
It makes one wonder. The purpose of the confirmation is *specifically* to keep the addresse from getting unsolicited emails. Making that UCE, it just plain silly.
OS/2 Going, Going... Gone
Shouldn't that be, "OS/2 Going, Going... Going"?
It will be availibe for purchase for a few months, and for support a couple of years.
How delightfully refreshing it was!
True, it does hapen. But rarely.
The question was how to make the customer happy. If they know enough to write their own spec, then they already are.
As is the general case, the customer is an idiot. Why? Well, instead of giving the techie the problem ands asking for a solution, they think up their own uneducated answer and ask for implementation. Then, when questions arise, both the programmer and the client fumble in the dark.
First thing to do is to ask the client what the problem is. If the answer starts off with "I need", grimace and ask again. Tell them pleasantly but sternly two things. One, that you will give them anything they ask for. Two, it is best to give you the problem, not the answer.
Now, on the programmers part two things are sorely overlooked. They are the requirement and the specifications. They are two very different things. There can be only one requirements document per project, as it details the requirements. There are many possible specification documents, because the specification is one solution.
After the programmer has a basic idea of what the problem is, the programmer should write a requirements documents. This should go through *at least* three rounds. If the original requirements document is said to be good, than the client is probably not willing to put in the effort neeeded to think about it. Explain to them the importance. You'd have to be incredibly lucky to get it right the first time around. Youy know you're done when the client says "wow". Finally, the client *must* agree that these are the requirements for the project. At this point, the fee and basic estimation is done.
Now, the client is not really needed. The problem is understood, and is clearly spelled out into an agreed upon requirements document. Now comes the solution. Think up one and write a specification document. Depending on how much the client needs to know should decide whether to share this with the client. There generally is no need, and they don't care how it's done, just that it works.
When work is up to specification, match it to the requirements, and go through it point by point with the client. Voila, done.
This passage sort of gives you an idea of how the guy thinks:
Not really. He just gets very passionate about the subject.
Also, as an older INTP, he sees the world and laughs at their mistakes, realizing, finally, that the whole world is a bunch of idiots. So, when seeing a mistake that actually ticks him off (he was a school psycologist, and couldn't stand people sending SPs to him with "disorders") he gets like this.
Well, they're both models. I'm not sure it's a question of which one is true and which is false.
:-)
I think they are both true. Keirsey *thought* he disagreed. He doesn't. He just minimizes the I/E difference too much. I'm sure if I just a had a talk with him I could straighten him out.
or they could say, "he was einstein" and thats why he sucks at math. I'd be proud!
:-)
I've read this more than once, and I laugh each time.
one of my goals in life was to be 'rare'
Well done.
I don't usually give much credit to personality tests, but some of the myers-briggs stuff has been right on.
It's simple. The groups come about *after* the letters are defined. When applying it, it works really well. And then Keirseys four types, with his tie ins to two thousand year old stuff makes it very interesting.
For a basic introduction, go to http://www.keirsey.com. He based his work on the MBTI. The MBTI is Meyers-Briggs Type Inventory. Their book, printed many years after the MBTI came out is Girsts Differing.
The rest of the letters are types. Each of the sixteen types has four letters. Keirsey groups them into four groups, with the SP being the energetic Artisan, and the NT being the scholarly Rational. The two introverted (hence "I") of the NTs are INTP and INTJ. INTP is the space cadet, or the absent minded professor. Albert Einstein was a classic INTP. INTJs, Keirsey's "Mastermind", are the rarest type (for women or overall, for men the rarest is INFP). Neils Bohr was an INTJ.
Teachers generally hated me.
:P
Thhpppt! I was the teachers pet.
So are you guys mac users?
Nope. The single-button scares me.
Though, our first computer was an Apple ][ e, "enhanced' to 128 K of memory. Ah, the days when a hanger doubled as a video card, when turning off sound was reaching in and removing one plug, and when the floppy drive acted up.. a screwdriver fixed all problems.
I am thinking an emac will be my next system.
Kewl. I can't stand vi either.
The question is if there is such a thing as ADHD.
Keirsey wrote a pamphlet denying it. As a school psycologist, he found most kids diagnosed with "disorders" to be SPs. Being schools are not made for SPs, such kids have a *very* hard time listening without hands on experience.
The IQ test, being written (probably by NTs) for NTs, only measure strategic intelligence. With a higher IQ, she's probably an NT (though ISTP just as well, being close to the INTP). As an INTJ myself who was drugged with a double dosage of Ritalin twice daily, I can say that I had no such "disorder". I was merely energentic and bored to tears. The teacher taught at a *much* slower than I needed. As such, I got straight As (except history in eighth grade), all the awards, but Ds or Fs in "effort". Then they drugged me and "they" were happy. Talk about self-centeredness.
If only they'd set up schools by knowledge and understanding rather than age. It's so silly and damaging to potential.
Anyway, I'd suggest that you first find out her interests. A good way to do that is with the MBTI (Book: Gifts Differing). Though Kerisey (Book: Please Understand Me II) has much more observation-wise in his book. With a knowledge of (possible) interests, it can be much easier to deal with such children in an effective manner.