|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Sure we are effecting climate change there is no doubt about it |
:stongue:
The rest of your post makes this statement foolish... which it is. |
|
|
| UWM |
| You can trust us complex scientists, I swear on the Bible! Oh wait. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moongoose
Since when? since when has god been a complex explanation to anything? An explanation so complex, that it requires an incredible amount of education to understand no less. How much of an education do you need to understand "god did it" and "its gods plan"? There can be a debate on the moral issues that various religions push, there is place for discussion there, but the core issues, the core questions; where, when, why? The answer to those is always the same. god. |
If one simply takes the answer "god did it" then they are accepting something they are told, not understanding "God." Simillarly, if one were to simply accept the big bang theory as fact because someone told them it was so then they are accepting that which they have been told rather then understanding it. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Acceptance =/= understanding
belief =/= understanding
it is only simple if one's inquiries stop at the initial response.
I agree, it requires nothing more then faith to believe in ANYTHING but as stated earlier belief and understanding are not the same thing.
And this differs from my second paragraph how? |
Complex =/= Ridiculous, Unfundamented
As stupid, and blatantly obvious as that statement sounds the opposite seems to be your line of reasoning. A person who was indoctrinated in a religion since birth and who dared to question it, then decided to explore/study/analyze it and came to a conclusion like yours that "it's too complex to understand, therefore it is valid and it must be true" is a highly stupid one.
Anyways, this thread had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with it's polar opposites: logic, reason, science, etc. Let's keep it that way, please. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
If one simply takes the answer "god did it" then they are accepting something they are told, not understanding "God." Simillarly, if one were to simply accept the big bang theory as fact because someone told them it was so then they are accepting that which they have been told rather then understanding it. |
Oh yeah, and you seem to be reading the same pseudo-scientific books as one of my best friends. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
'Moral Hazard' is a textbook example of a Christian who is a tad more intelligent than the bunch and realizes how absurd faith is but is scared less to admit it. So, he comes up with all this "complex, hard to grasp, must be studied, other highly intelligent people dedicate their live to studying it (even scientists!)" bull to delude himself into thinking that there is a justification for his faith. |
I need not delude myself into thinking that there is a justification for any faith. There are a great many purely secular benefits to faith, even if said faith is entirely misguided. That said, I chose my faith after a lengthy period of study, reflection, and deduction, which started from a position of non-belief. Even now I would not go so far as to state I absolutely believe let alone know. All that said, my personal belief is irrelevant to the conversation... the concept of "god" is not a simple one and the only persons that would believe it is are those who have the very least understanding of it and have given it the very least amount of thought.
| quote: | | Ironic thing is, that according to the Bible, the only way to reach salvation and avoid eternal damnation and ass-raping is not through actions but through faith. And according to the Bible's own definition of faith, Moral Hazard is in violation of it by attempting to use his brain. Good thing that hell is all imaginary, right? You might have had more fun if you realized this sooner, though. |
Oddly, I believe in hell only as a concept... interestingly, so does the RC church. As for fun... you clearly have not read many of my pre-family-man posts. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
Religion really isn't that difficult to understand at all. Everything it's based on is in a single book that can be read in a month or so. Seriously fellas, go pick up a bible, open it to a random page, and start reading. Chances are you will not see anything particularly profound or inspiring. (When I did it, I landed on the story of Balaam and his talking donkey..lol) You will likely be reading something that sounds as if it could have been written by any first century primitive..and more often than not (certainly in the old testament) containing thoughts most people in today's world would consider racist, sexist, and downright barbaric..certainly not something you'd expect from a creator of the universe who wanted to prescribe a system of morality for us.
There are whole schools of Christian apologetics that have sprung up to come up with excuses and rationalizations to make the horrible stuff in the bible jive with our modern sense of morality. There are other schools in the "intelligent design" crowd who try to twist and distort the bad science in the bible to make it compatible with our modern understanding (usually by denying our modern understanding altogether). I don't think a supreme being would need defenders like this do you? I'm sure he intended for people to read his word and take it at face value..rather than waste decades of their lives studying different "interpretations" to make it comprehensible. The fact that we can't do this speaks very poorly for the proposition that the bible is divinely inspired. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Or you could read any given bible as a culturally historical text that, although you may disbelieve the literalness of it all you like, is rich with tales and weaves of human times long past that shall never, ever occur in the same manner again; viewpoints that seem esoteric or invalid with your world view are not automatically as such, nor can religious belief effectively be reduced to a mere mistaken perspective any more than scientific inquiry could - they are each indispensible, inexorable values that speak mountains about the depth of human communication, at least to those able to understand their languages.
This is not a defense of faith or personal religion though - I am merely saying that it's extremely counterproductive to regard belief and script with such a slash-and-burn policy. Religion is here to stay, so let's just focus on better ways to exploit explore it to its fullest, eh? |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Oh yeah, and you seem to be reading the same pseudo-scientific books as one of my best friends. |
Sorry Woscar; however, you seem to be unable to distinguish between belief and understanding. I accept the big bang theory to be fact but my understanding of if it rather limited (a couple of books on the subject and a few astronomy classes during my undergrad). I can definately say I believe the theory is correct but I cannot say that I understand it. Simillarly, one could believe in god(s) but not understand it. Belief is easy; all it requires is a choice. Understanding is difficult, as it requires a great deal more. This is why I say that understanding "God" as an explenation for anything is not simple; in order to understand that explenation one must first understand god. The amount of differing view-points, conlusions, interpretations, of what "god" is (even as an abstract concept let alone if one believes it is an actual entity) is staggering; subsequently, making sense of it all and reaching any sort of understanding is difficult. The same is true of complex scientific endevors of all stripes; one can have some knowledge of the subject and choose to believe it as truth; however, to truly understand it requires a lot more. Many people do not trust complex science because trusting it often requires them to make a choice that contradicts their immediate personal observations and thier understanding is so limited that they are unwilling to make that choice. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| woscar, have you ever tripped on drugs? |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Religion really isn't that difficult to understand at all. Everything it is based on is in a single book that can be read in a month or so. Seriously fellas, go pick up a bible, open it to a random page, and start reading. Chances are you will not see anything particularly profound or inspiring. (When I did it, I landed on the story of Balaam and his talking donkey..lol) You will likely be reading something that sounds as if it could have been written by any first century primitive..and more often than not (certainly in the old testament) containing thoughts most people in today's world would consider racist, sexist, and downright barbaric..certainly not something you'd expect from a creator of the universe who wanted to prescribe a system of morality for us. There are whole schools of Christian apologetics hat have sprung up to come up with excuses and rationalizations to make the horrible stuff in the bible jive with our modern sense of morality. There are other schools in the "intelligent design" crowd who try to twist and distort the bad science in the bible to make it compatible with our modern understanding (usually by denying our modern understanding altogether). I don't think a supreme being would need defenders like this do you? I'm sure he intended for every person to read his word and take it at face value..rather than waste decades of their lives studying different "interpretations" to make it comprehensible. The fact that we can't do this speaks very poorly for the proposition that the bible is divinely inspired. |
Couldn't agree more. And I love your avatar btw! :D
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I need not delude myself into thinking that there is a justification for any faith. There are a great many purely secular benefits to faith, even if said faith is entirely misguided. That said, I chose my faith after a lengthy period of study, reflection, and deduction, which started from a position of non-belief. Even now I would not go so far as to state I absolutely believe let alone know. All that said, my personal belief is irrelevant to the conversation... the concept of "god" is not a simple one and the only persons that would believe it is are those who have the very least understanding of it and have given it the very least amount of thought. |
What you call "purely secular benefits to faith" are non-existent simply because what you see as "faith" in everyday activities is really strong determination, personal conviction, focus, effort, and many other secular qualities in human beings. I have never had faith in anything (well, that's not entirely true considering I was raised a Christian). However, I have had strong personal convictions that I have the qualities required to succeed in accomplishing a goal. For example, I am perfectly aware that I landed the job I have now because I have earned it through hard work, the right set of mind, and the right circumstances (a fancy way of saying chance). My mother's faith in me and her prayers had absolutely nothing to do with it whatsoever.
Please don't say that your personal belief is irrelevant to the conversation. Given what you are saying, this equates to an intelligent-design advocate saying that his affiliation with the Discovery Institute, his being raised in a Christian family from Kansas, and his education in Grove City college is irrelevant to his propositions.
Like I said before, the concept of "God" per se is very simplistic. It is as simple as saying "Something I cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or feel created everything I know. Why? Because that's what this book says and the authorities on this thing that I cannot see, touch, smell, taste, or feel say that it is true.". If you don't agree you are deluding yourself. To use Mongoose's example, you would also need to believe that the concept of a pink unicorn that created the universe and everything in it, and who is interested in the personal, sexual, and private lives of humans as well as their dietary habits is also a very complex one.
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Oddly, I believe in hell only as a concept... interestingly, so does the RC church. |
Even odd-lier...that is not what I hear every time I accompany my girlfriend to mass on Sundays. Hell is a very serious thing for Roman Catholics, specially the current Pope who once said "Hell really exists and is eternal". Limbo was too until the same Pope decided it was not because it made them look like imbeciles willing to condemn children for all eternity for not being lucky enough to survive birth to have magical water dripped on their foreheads.
Like I said before, please don't make this thread about religion. This is about science, logic, and reason. Something that given your own reasoning, if it can be dignified with such a word, is unqualified to discuss. |
|
|
| boris_the_bear |
| God disapproves of this thread :mad: God says: moar chops:p |
|
|
|
|
