|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Halcyon+On+On |
| When I was young and growing up in Canada, some God-lover stole my bike and then asked for forgiveness right away. I don't know what God thought about this, but that bike did not have a seat. |
|
|
| Chimney |
| Thread has deviated from a discussion about science to a typical "does God exist" storm. |
|
|
| epicaricacy |
you grew up in Canada?
where? |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| I was lying. Please forgive me, lord. :sadgreen: |
|
|
| epicaricacy |
| it is over rated anyways....so what if i don't own any guns, i'll still rape and pillage like it was poutine for a dollar day:p |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I tend to disagree on the enlightening aspect; however, I'm not sure providing any of these things was ever the intent of any science; subsequently, I'm not sure how one can fault science for not offering them. |
true, and I don't fault it - like I said, I think it's foolish to put as much stock into science as I think so many people do - but i think a lot of people expect that science will eventually offer these things. And I suppose for me the benefits - distractions and conveniences - of science just don't outweigh the costs to me, distraction being the most costly to me personally.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
But what if the aim of science was not to bring about a species-wide revolution by way of advancement, but is rather the mere symptom of a seemingly human need to explore one's curiosity to its absolute limit? What if religion comes from the very same fount?
Of course one could argue that curiosity is just another distraction, but it seems so much more than that when you consider how fulfilling and almost endless it is in a monkey with its mind in order. |
That's a great point, and I do think curiosity is great, but not at this cost. Nor at the cost of organized religion. Art and self inquiry for me are sustainable (and limitless!) ways to explore this curiosity. |
|
|
| denys envy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
lol, Denys. Fun stuff, no? Gotta love how topics drift here. |
i just love seeing people step up to the plate with you, i believe we've had one or two squabbles in the past. and whether it's me or someone else - it's nice to see you debate and not turn to personal attacks - as is so often the case on these boards. real proper stuff.
good , keep it coming guys. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chimney
Thread has deviated from a discussion about science to a typical "does God exist" storm. |
I think it's pretty much inevitable. I agree with Richard Dawkins that science is corrosive to religion. The more you learn about the natural world, the less plausible supernatural explanations become. Halcyon said something earlier..that God is becoming "smaller and smaller" as our gaps of knowledge are being filled, and this really is the case. It's impossible to cling to ancient supernatural/biblical explanations of the origin of the universe and our species once you understand how science so thoroughly refutes those ideas.
"Every fact is an enemy of the church. Every fact is a heretic. Every demonstration is an infidel. Everything that ever really happened testifies against the supernatural." - Robert G. Ingersoll |
|
|
| epicaricacy |
people also need to distinguish the difference between being religious and being spiritual. You can believe in a higher power/reason that we are here for this limited time, without subscribing to the "word of God" as written by man.
i don't lend any credence to organized religion, but part of me refuses to believe that death is just like turning off a television. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
I think it's pretty much inevitable. I agree with Richard Dawkins that science is corrosive to religion. The more you learn about the natural world, the less plausible supernatural explanations become. |
I think you can also say the more you learn about the natural world, the less plausible (or at least, complete) existing scientific explanations (causal, materialist, reductionist, determinist) become. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
I think you can also say the more you learn about the natural world, the less plausible existing scientific explanations (causal, materialist, reductionist, determinist) become. |
I think you like turning everything into a philosophical issue.:) Science = naturalistic. It describes things in the natural world with great accuracy. Of course our understanding breaks down on the edges of science..and "what we know aint necessarily so" when we start pondering quantum strangeness and uncertainty..but these gaps in our knowledge really have no bearing on the effectiveness and accuracy of science in real life. If a model works, it works..and we can bet it's a close enough approximation to reality for all intents and purposes. Not being able to answer the ultimate "why" questions is no reason to discard the knowledge we have or to belittle the scientific process. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by epicaricacy
people also need to distinguish the difference between being religious and being spiritual. You can believe in a higher power/reason that we are here for this limited time, without subscribing to the "word of God" as written by man.
i don't lend any credence to organized religion, but part of me refuses to believe that death is just like turning off a television. |
That's most people I know around here, and we do make a very sharp distinction between these words for exactly that reason. The sheer number of people that believe in God and aren't exactly part of any organised religion is quite impressive (though some claim to be Catholic and never stepped in a church). |
|
|
|
|
