|
Intelligent Design Theory (pg. 18)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by srussell0018
You really like making things into two words :p |
Everything sounds catchier when it's broken down into two words :D
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Mary poppins flying with her umbrella is also rational in its own framework, whats your point? |
As Hal said, it's thanks to a voluntary suspension of disbelief. If you think it doesn't make sense, it's not entertaining either.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
want is the key word here. Just because we want to hear it, doesn't make it valid, correct and logical. |
And I never said otherwise. As for logical, it can be logically sound, as logic alone cannot determine if something is right or wrong, it just points out whether your line of thought is adequate or not.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
i agree with you 100%, this is the reality behind mythology, religion, fairy tales etc. It gives us reassurance for the unknown no matter how ridiculous the ideas maybe. But should we not abandon those previous ideas when we come up with better, more substantial ones? |
I think so, yes.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Especially when nature has been abiding by them for hundreds of millions of years, That being the empirical truth? |
I thi-- hmm... I'm a bit wary to use the word truth but yeah, I follow you here.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Using our senses to progress through life believing in that which is tangible or and or logically perceivable? |
The problem is that reason alone can only go so far.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
A woodchuck could chuck any wood he would chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.
If there is no wood, than cannot the woodchuck chuck? if we cannot trust rationality, then our airplanes wouldn't fly, we wouldnt have electricity, etc etc. We have to trust our rationality and improve on it as we progress throughout time. |
It's no wonder religious folks are often anti-capitalism, anti-modernism, anti-intellectualism and anti-everything-that-evil-modernity-has-brought-upon-us-and-that-takes-us-away-from-something-more-sacred :D
Like I said, you can only justify reason through reason.
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I wonder if anyone would have attempted to build a machine that flies were it not for the very same origins in wonderment ancient civilizations extolled when seeing birds and encoding them in their rationale of the world. |
*waits for Stu* |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
and before you say it, it is NOT science's aim to explain away these phenomena. That's where self-appointed rationalists take the essence of science and run with it, much in the same way self-appointed enlightened take religion and run with it.
|
Correct, the purpose of science isn't to prove, but to disprove and reject the null hypothesis, whatever that maybe in context.
| quote: |
Science is merely the methodology of empirically researching tangible or otherwise observable phenomena for the purpose of compiling information. There is nothing in its essence that points toward defeating aspects of human spiritualization, it's merely one of those consequences people are apt to trumpet far after the fact. Religion does the same thing, but there is bad religion just as there is bad science.
|
it all depends on the experimentation, if you formulate your Hypotheisis to attempt to disprove human spiritualization by empirical means and show that its simply an issue of insufficient reuptake in the brain causing an overstimulation/ dellusional demeanor through ample neurtransmittters, then so be it. yadeyadeyada.
My point is that there is bad science, and good science (That which is compelling, peer reviewed and used as a function of our daily lives).
There is only bad religion which creates a delusional mind based on false assumptions. Religion in no way beneifits people except by encouraging the notion that in fact ignorance is bliss, which in no way helps society or the progression of humans or any species for that matter. It's lazy, outlandish, manipulative, primitive outdated and outright wrong.
There is a reason why fairy tales are for kids, it gives a "rational" easy explanation for an underdeveloped mind. If we want to belittle ourselves than by all means, take the spiritual venture of irrationality and ignorance to live a happy delusional life of bliss. In the end we only have one life to live, personally i would rather live a life of knowledge than in-congruent babble ideally used for manipulating and controling peoplel; sheep, who will, in the end sacrifice themselves in a mass to a poisoned fruit punch to reach salvation in the heavens above. Oh the delusions of grandeur as rick james would put it, I think ill take the scotch instead.
| quote: |
I wonder if anyone would have attempted to build a machine that flies were it not for the very same origins in wonderment ancient civilizations extolled when seeing birds and encoding them in their rationale of the world. |
Sure these are tangible things you are describing here. There is no tie between spiritual belief and seeing birds fly. The notion that religion/spiritual belief is needed to postulate and advance is quite absurd.
but yes
religion is rational within its own context |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| Don't get me wrong here, what i am trying to say is that it isn't the thought of something new, outlandish, commical, unorthodox or even insane that disturbs me about religion; it is the rational used to try to explain it. That rational being something unfounded that can only be empirically defined and debunked as a "spiritual hallucination" as i would like to call it. Something that can be instilled in someone, some people to herd them together, manipulate them for a cause. Even if that cause maybe companionship, i feel that it is a formidable step towards regression of society and and us as Homo sapiens sapiens. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Don't get me wrong here, what i am trying to say is that it isn't the thought of something new, outlandish, commical, unorthodox or even insane that disturbs me about religion; it is the rational used to try to explain it. That rational being something unfounded that can only be empirically defined and debunked as a "spiritual hallucination" as i would like to call it. Something that can be instilled in someone, some people to herd them together, manipulate them for a cause. Even if that cause maybe companionship, i feel that it is a formidable step towards regression of society and and us as Homo sapiens sapiens. |
So there is no rationality used in science? Scientific experiments are entirely rational, using an empirical (physical framework) to seek answers. We still start from a biased assumption (hypothesis), then INTERPRET results according to this bias.
is it really that big a difference that what we're PERCEIVING (completely fallible, and subjective (See intersubjectivity)) is in front of us?
as you said about the big bang- Nobody will EVER witness it. It is and entirely rational Supposition. Rationality is essentially use of the mind: We can never perceive the world as seperate from our self, and because of this, we will always use rational principles to interpret physical stimuli.
most importantly though, as Hal pointed out, Trying to challenge religion on a scientific basis is just retarded. They're not comparable. You can't defeat one with the other, You can choose not to believe it, but scientists who try and 'prove' gods non-existence are just dumb.
You're putting a big emphasis on empiricism, but empiricism isn't just based on the real world. It uses assumptions about the way the 'real world' (our perception of it) works, to make other assumptions about it, then test them. Perhaps that's better than theistic rationality (i don't disagree with you), BUT what is the difference for you, the consumer of science, as opposed to the scientist discovering truths, and the religious zealot?
You read journal articles, they read the bible. Both offer truths which neither of you can, or will test, and both of you believe them to be true. Of course, you'll say you CAN test the scientific reading, and that's true, but the religioius person can FEEL the presence of god, and believes they can see gods presence in the world, actions in the world, empirical realities in the world also.
The only difference on your end is your assumptions about the origins of truth and the way you believe the world works. You've not done research on scientific principles you take for granted, but you believe them. Religious n00bs havn't seen god, but they believe in his existence.
It's all about trust (in the source of information you consider true), and your dogmatic (usually societal) situation.
also: I know a lot about the history of ideas. Neither spirituality, rationality, or empiricism are New ideas, so don't say that- Christianity is fairly new, but it came from much older ideas- it wasn't original. same with empiricism. Modern science is modern sure, but its been around for a lonnnnggg time. The most interesting thing is that science and religion have only been seperated, and at odds for a few hundred years, but that's largely to do with social issues... |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
rational from relgion = make believe
rational from science = emprical, logical and tangible |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
So there is no rationality used in science? Scientific experiments are entirely rational, using an empirical (physical framework) to seek answers. We still start from a biased assumption (hypothesis), then INTERPRET results according to this bias.
|
perhaps you are misunderstanding my words here. There is logical rational to science, the rational which is tried, tested and true, empirically observed and trusted by you, me and all other living organisms everyday on this planet. Comparatively, the rational behind religion is make believe, outdated and outright incorrect due to what we now know through our generations of living experience (during the time it may have been the best judgment of how things were, but not anymore).
| quote: |
is it really that big a difference that what we're PERCEIVING (completely fallible, and subjective (See intersubjectivity)) is in front of us?
|
yes, of course it is. you're talking about an anomaly in approximatley 2 billion years of life on this planet. Where is the evidence? If there is evidence, then bring it to the table I am not refuting possiblity, but the plausibility is slim and thus one should choose to accept the already presented facts with a high margin of correctness, instead of archaic man made dogma which is obsolete UNLESS one can present a valid case to show otherwise.
| quote: |
as you said about the big bang- Nobody will EVER witness it. It is and entirely rational Supposition. Rationality is essentially use of the mind: We can never perceive the world as seperate from our self, and because of this, we will always use rational principles to interpret physical stimuli.
|
so the alternative is man made religion? You can't be seriously having this argument. I do agree that we could be perceiving something that would perhaps not be a true reality due to the restriction of our senses, but then wouldn't our minds be subjected to the same constraints? that is our psychology to ponder based on our senses would essentially restrict us from deeper thought ?
But perhaps our mind isn't restricted to what we can perceive with our other senses. Regardless, a supposition tale of noahs ark lining the animals 2 by 2, or a man walking on water is an insult to the theory in which you attempt to present.
| quote: |
most importantly though, as Hal pointed out, Trying to challenge religion on a scientific basis is just retarded. They're not comparable. You can't defeat one with the other, You can choose not to believe it, but scientists who try and 'prove' gods non-existence are just dumb.
|
There is no challenge my friend. I do not wish to equate religion with deeper thought, as that is an insult to mine and your intelligence. To equate religion to science is comparing milton bradley's opperation to cardiac bypass surgery. Fairtales are for kids and they belong that way. Unless there is some sort of logical disposition towards a believe system that clearly isn't man made propaganda who's incentive is to marry women of the age 9, i think its a waste of your time and mine to try to delve into the deeper meaning of it.
| quote: |
You're putting a big emphasis on empiricism, but empiricism isn't just based on the real world. It uses assumptions about the way the 'real world' (our perception of it) works, to make other assumptions about it, then test them. Perhaps that's better than theistic rationality (i don't disagree with you), BUT what is the difference for you, the consumer of science, as opposed to the scientist discovering truths, and the religious zealot?
|
The difference is progression of our species in intellect, technology, life expectency, knowledge and so forth. Take a look around the world and see what religion has to offer people? War, segregation, biggotry and so forth. Why do we have to be constrained to a system which says "You jews are the chosen ones" or "anyone who isn't of the islamic faith is an infidel", or "slavery is justifiable"
There is nothing wrong with deeper thought, presumptions and ideas that may seem irrational. The problem is when you take these things and justify them by archaic resolutions (belief systems) which are clearly primitive for our time. Then, when you try to revise them, it is simply sugar coating the pre existing fallacy.
| quote: |
You read journal articles, they read the bible. Both offer truths which neither of you can, or will test, and both of you believe them to be true. Of course, you'll say you CAN test the scientific reading, and that's true, but the religioius person can FEEL the presence of god, and believes they can see gods presence in the world, actions in the world, empirical realities in the world also.
|
the difference is understanding meosis is more relevant prose to the progression and advancement of our species then marry poppins and her flying umbrella. Why waste your time with dellusionality?
| quote: |
The only difference on your end is your assumptions about the origins of truth and the way you believe the world works. You've not done research on scientific principles you take for granted, but you believe them. Religious n00bs havn't seen god, but they believe in his existence.
|
I've read the bible and went to catholic school. I've also learned a significant amount of evolution and abiogenisis. Albeit my astronomy is quite shoddy, i do understand the main principles behind the big bang theory and it holds far more water then any religious hogwash i've ever encountered. Again, what would you find more credible? The earth was created in 7 days? or that it took a good 4.3 billion or some aught years for our planet to develope due to radiometric dating?
| quote: |
It's all about trust (in the source of information you consider true), and your dogmatic (usually societal) situation.
also: I know a lot about the history of ideas. Neither spirituality, rationality, or empiricism are New ideas, so don't say that- Christianity is fairly new, but it came from much older ideas- it wasn't original. same with empiricism. Modern science is modern sure, but its been around for a lonnnnggg time. The most interesting thing is that science and religion have only been seperated, and at odds for a few hundred years, but that's largely to do with social issues... |
Theoretically that is fair enough, but put into practice, human nature always has had a vendetta behind religion. Its only truth lies in the vagueness of the ideas and, as well, it's the greatest political tool for one to herd people and make them follow. I guess this is evolutionary as we are somewhat of a "pack" species. |
|
|
| Desiderata |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Aaaww, come on, don't make me look bad!
Like Hal said, religion is rational in its own framework: it provides answers for questions that had been formulated up until that point and give answers that people want to hear (mind you, no big religion says God is a bastard that hates us and thinks we should all rot in hell regardless of what we all do). It makes a lot of sense to believe in religion, specially if you've got no better answer (either because you don't know or because you don't understand the rival ideas). The only problem of most religions is that the moment they're codified, they become increasingly inconsistent with experience.
Ironically, it's not rational to trust rationality either. Because you can only justify why one should be rational by being rational ;) |
/Thread! Very well said! |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Like Hal said, religion is rational in its own framework: it provides answers for questions that had been formulated up until that point and give answers that people want to hear (mind you, no big religion says God is a bastard that hates us and thinks we should all rot in hell regardless of what we all do). It makes a lot of sense to believe in religion, specially if you've got no better answer (either because you don't know or because you don't understand the rival ideas). The only problem of most religions is that the moment they're codified, they become increasingly inconsistent with experience.
Ironically, it's not rational to trust rationality either. Because you can only justify why one should be rational by being rational ;) |
This is such a crock. Anything can be “rational” within its own framework, if that framework has absolutely nothing to do with rationality. Its also really easy to provide “answers” when you can just make them up as you see fit. It makes absolutely no sense to believe in religion’s answers any more than ANY answer you get ANYWHERE from ANYONE. So basically, its OK to believe virtually anything because, you know, it makes us feel good to “know” things.
Btw, its not a ing answer if its ing wrong! |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
This is such a crock. Anything can be “rational” within its own framework, if that framework has absolutely nothing to do with rationality. |
If that framework has nothing to do with rationality, then it can't be rational even within its own framework.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Its also really easy to provide “answers” when you can just make them up as you see fit. It makes absolutely no sense to believe in religion’s answers any more than ANY answer you get ANYWHERE from ANYONE. So basically, its OK to believe virtually anything because, you know, it makes us feel good to “know” things. |
What? I never said it was okay to believe anything just because it makes us feel good. I'm saying that, quite often, people believe what makes them feel good. I never, at any moment, said that's the most desirable thing to do.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Btw, its not a ing answer if its ing wrong! |
Wrong answers do exist, you know? :D |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| SHUT THE UP AND STOP ARGUING YOU ING S |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
SHUT THE UP AND STOP ARGUING YOU ING S |
[Haak]
YOU YOU ING !
[/Haak] |
|
|
|
|
