RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/24/2011 9:49:03 PM)

quote:

All that aside, going back to your post (#294)...the answer is no (again). Nobody's opinion is correct which is what I've been saying throughout the entire thread. Religion is an opinion as is science (they are perspectives, opinions, takes, impressions, etc.). The difference between the two is science can demonstrate its position...religion cannot.


Finally, a direct answer. But, the bolded part... how often is science wrong?

quote:

But at this level, science and religion are apples and oranges if you are talking about taking them literally (which others have pointed out as well). Think of it this way (indulge me for a moment). Western religion told a story of the creation at a time when there was no viable alternative. People became vested in it. Then science came along and suddenly there was an alternative (sort of like a new tool in the toolbox). There has been a conflict with this ever since. At first it was mainly in favor of the religious crowd but as scientific theories showed themselves to be increasingly (and repeatedly) accurate as representative explanations for the universe, the religious crowd started to lose members and it has been shrinking ever since.


And yet the atheist movement hasnt increased by leaps and bounds. Now, im not saying the "bible" is accurate, so im not sure why you would think im saying to take them literally. That part confuses me, especially in light of a recent post of mine that was like a mile long.

quote:

The sort of people I think are damaging to religion are people like Joel Osteen or any of the TV evangelists you see out there (Voice of Victory, Oral Roberts, Jimmy Swaggart, the guy in Texas whose name escapes me, etc.), cults, fundamentalists, orthodox types, and the list goes on. These people are looking at the world through a pinhole (actually I sometimes wonder if they know what they are doing and are really just raking in the cash like Jim Baker did). They're all grossly mistaken in what they are doing and I'm not talking only about people who are in the public eye. I have met individuals who are exactly the same. Their minds are completely shut down but they will insist it is you who are close-minded in a confrontation.


I visited PTL. It was a wonderful place. Ran by crooks. But the idea behind it was beautiful. I dont believe any of them are "closed minded". I do believe they knew exactly what they wanted and how to get it. On the face of it all, very religious people. Then the veneer started to crack... glimpes of reality started to show... this is why I often say... just because he/she says they are religious doesnt make it so. Actions speak far louder than words. Having affairs, ripping off old people, telling lie upon lie... these are not the actions of the "religious"... at least not to me.

quote:

The "problem" as I see it is religion (mainly western religion) is in serious need of a makeover. It's left up to interpretation...which is why there are all these sorts of people out there going off into left field. The vast majority of people on this planet do not have a very broad education so they fall victim to the seduction of evangelicals. They do not have the background or tools to make any critical comparisons.


And you are quite entitled to state the problem.. as you see it. However, we are back to the questioning of intelligence here. Do I question yours when you speak of your desire not to believe? And I dont believe its a "vast majority" as you say. I, for one, stated what I believed and what I didnt believe... and quite plainly. Seems I dont fall into your category. I know many who would not fall into your categories.

The problem.. as I see it... is that we, those who feel a spiritual or religious connection, are coming on a new dawn. I dont have to go to church to "pratice my faith". I dont need a man in a robe to tell me I am absolved of my sins. I dont need a book to tell me what is right or wrong. And I sure dont need a small percentage of the population telling me I dont know what it is I do know.

I see miracles everyday. I have seen things science has yet to be able to come close to explaining. I see happiness and joy, I see sorrow and pain. I have seen things I could never explain to myself or anyone else.

I dont expect any two people to have the exact explanation for any event. One scientist says one thing, another will come along and say something different.

The difference is, I do not discount science. It has its place. I believe religion has its place too. And this is where we do not meet. Its not about science, its about the hatred of religion.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 4:21:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
He characterizes these acts as self-defense, and nowhere at the link cited or in the excerpt you posted from it does he contest his view that they are.

Here's the problem, his position isn't on that website, it's in his book. The website is him complaining about how he's been selectively quoted out of context. So what do you, go and find out what his whole argument actually is? No, you take snippets that he's contesting as having been selected in such a way that they don't accurately reflect his position and further selectively edit them.

Also did you miss the whole
unconscionable act and Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime stuff. He even put it in bold for you.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
The position I attributed to him was his view that the killing of people who hold dangerous beliefs -- even if they haven't done anything yet, and even if it means killing tens of millions of mostly innocent human beings along with them in a pre-emptive nuclear first strike -- constitute acts of "self defense."

There's that quote mining again, you know where you leave out the unconscionable part. I think that his putting that in bold may be a hint that it's a relevant part of his position. 

"How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world?"




tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 4:23:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Finally, a direct answer. But, the bolded part... how often is science wrong?



This question has been asked a few times. It seems to me to reflect a very common misunderstanding of what science is about.

Science is not about right and wrong, true and false at all. Strictly speaking these are value judgements. Value judgements are not supposed to play any part in science at all.

Science produces working hypotheses that are tested repeatedly. If the hypothesis holds, eventually it becomes scientific orthodoxy by a process of peer review, re-testing and consensus. Which sounds very fancy but boils down to most scientists agreeing it is the best hypothesis available.

This doesn't mean it is true, it just means almost all scientists in that field agree it's the best explanation of the phenomenon available at that time, the best description of all the relevant evidence. This is the highest status a piece of knowledge can achieve in science.

The Theory of Evolution has achieved this status. So has Einstein's Relativity Theory. These theories will retain that status until someone comes along and produces a better theory.

So in that sense, the question you asked doesn't really make perfect sense. Science is never 'wrong' because it never claims to be 'right' or 'true' in the first place. The scientific consensus changes from agreeing the old theory is the best available to agreeing that the new theory is best available.

I know that in everyday life scientists assert that they know the truth all the time, which they really shouldn't be doing. Richard Dawkins is a perfect example of this. He really should know better. Advertisers claim their products are "scientifically proven', which is nonsense as strictly speaking, science has never really proven anything to be a fact in its history and never will. However, most of the time, the scientific consensus is the best available explanation.

In a way this mirrors the distinction you draw between religion and the religious and they way you feel people often conflate the former with the latter.

Basically when people talk about science as 'fact', or as 'right' or as 'true' - they are talking through their hats.

I hope this clarifies things for you tho' I have a sneaking suspicion I have just made things as clear as mud!




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 4:37:43 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
1) your right, you dont know what is being talked about

Curious, you are avoiding my question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
You blooming idiot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
2) no where have i called anyone intellectually inferior.

Really...would you care to rethink that answer?






tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:04:06 AM)

quote:

I hope this clarifies things for you tho' I have a sneaking suspicion I have just made things as clear as mud!


Not at all. lol You have helped prove my point. Neither is infallible. Neither is perfect. Both can do extreme good. Both can do extreme harm. It comes back to that saying "science answers how...."




tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:05:12 AM)

quote:

Really...would you care to rethink that answer?


Nope.. not at all. [:D]

And again, get a life and move on, gesh!




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:23:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
But that's not what's happening here, that sort of intellectually honest critical discussion is fundamentally different from name calling and lying about it.

In reference to the bolded part... that is your opinion.

Certainly you agree that an intellectually honest critical discussion is fundamentally different from name calling? You're the one who brought that up:

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.


It's demonstrable that you've been calling people names, "idiot", "blooming idiot", "an all around asshole" and so forth.
So clearly that is happening here.

It's demonstrable that you're denying that said name calling constitutes personal attacks.
A statement which just isn't true.

So what exactly do you mean? Where is this a difference of opinion?


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
One i dont happen to agree with. And, for that, you called me a liar. Interesting.

I didn't use the word lie to refer to some reasonable difference of opinion. I used it in regards to you calling someone things like "an all around asshole" and then claiming that wasn't a person attack.

While we are at it here's another lie:

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
We all know you are hard core atheist, unable to believe that people who dont think like you are intelligent.





tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:34:08 AM)

quote:

It's demonstrable that you've been calling people names, "idiot", "blooming idiot", "an all around asshole" and so forth.


I called you a blooming idiot. And here you are, proving my point yet again.

quote:

It's demonstrable that you're denying that said name calling constitutes personal attacks.
A statement which just isn't true.


I never said that wasnt an attack... but.. let me go on record as saying it now. Its not an attack when its true.

quote:

I didn't use the word lie to refer to some reasonable difference of opinion. I used it in regards to you calling someone things like "an all around asshole" and then claiming that wasn't a person attack.


See above.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:55:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
I never said that wasnt an attack... but.. let me go on record as saying it now. Its not an attack when its true.

*face palm* That's not remotely true. When you attack someone it is an attack. The veracity of what you are personally attacking them with doesn't in any way change the nature of the act.





tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 6:20:19 AM)

And you can argue this point till you give yourself a black eye. Frankly, I no longer care what your opinion is, was, or will be. Your atheistic heart got bruised and your nose pulled out of joint when i dared utter an opinion of the great Harris' words.

You didnt like my opinion. Again, tough.

You have derailed this thread over and over because you didnt like my opinion. Again, tough.

You dont like my opinion of you. Again, tough.

You keep posting on this matter. What is it you hope to gain, I have no clue, nor do I desire to know.

You manage to brow beat others out of threads on religion because, I suspect, you feel its a victory for you to be the last man standing. Stand and stomp your foot all you wish. For me, on this thread, this is the last post I will make towards you. You have turned this from being about science and religion to being about you. A bit self-centered, a total derailment... and a temper tantrum that you should have ended by now.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 10:22:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
The research you depended on refers to studies with physical objects, e.g., a carrot sliding along a track partially occluded by a screen. You misapplied that research to interpersonal object relations (wherein the word "object" means a person) apparently assuming that there isn't much difference between an infant's mother and a carrot. You are wrong, of course, which should be starting to sound familiar to you.

No applying object permanence to people isn't my idea, if memory serves that was done by Jean Piaget. An application which is still in use:

Separation anxiety and stranger anxiety both coincide with a new intellectual skill called object permanence. They now remember objects and specific people that are not present. They will search for toys that have dropped out of sight. They are able to call up a mental image of what (or who) they are missing. They don’t want the stranger, because the stranger is not you.

They understand that people leave before they learn that people return. They can tell from your actions that you are about to leave. Anxiety begins to build even before you leave.

They can’t tell from your actions that you are about to return. They have no idea when – or even if – you will come back. And they miss you intensely. For them, each separation seems endless.

Dropping a screaming child at day care tugs at parents' hearts. Much nighttime screaming is an expression of separation anxiety. Sleep is a scary separation.

Peek-a-boo and bye-bye are fun ways for us to interact with babies, and great ways to teach them about object permanence. For babies at this age, these are issues of great concern.



Also, the reason I'm talking about carrots instead of parents is that I wanted to go with the most current research I could find on when object permanence develops instead of using the older studies that put it closer to one year old.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
The following excerpts are from a professional-level monograph discussing the self-psychology and object relations theories of Margaret Mahler and Heinz Kohut in light of current research.

Thank you for telling me where you were getting your information from, I’m still wading through it but please keep in mind “in light of current research” actually means in light of research from over twenty years ago, the article is from 1989.






Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 2:50:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

No applying object permanence to people isn't my idea, if memory serves that was done by Jean Piaget... please keep in mind “in light of current research” actually means in light of research from over twenty years ago, the article is from 1989.

Piaget's research is considerably older than 1989 -- he died in 1980 -- and his primary interest was epistemological; his studies explored cognitive development, not interpersonal relationships. You cannot talk about interactions with physical objects and interactions with persons as if they were interchangeable.

K.





tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 3:25:38 PM)

A general comment if I may:

There seems to be several conversations happening here simultaneously at the moment.

I wish I could understand the relevance any of them have to the OP.

Edited to add extra truth and herbs




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 4:47:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Thank you for telling me where you were getting your information from, I’m still wading through it...

I forgot to add, that's not where I got my information. I just searched for a reasonably professional presentation to satisfy your request for a citation. As for "wading through it," the article assumes familiarity with Kohut's self-psychology. I've actually read Kohut, along with a great deal of other required material, which combined with experience forms the background from which I speak.

K.




eihwaz -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 4:53:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
In the indeterminate behavior of the constituents. Non-linear dynamics (aka chaos theory) cites many examples. Quantum mechanics also posits non-deterministic behaviors.

That's the answer I was expecting, but I don't find it entirely satisfying because, as I understand it, indeterminacy is a given at the quantum level, whether the system is chaotic or ordered.
K.

So-called chaotic systems exist at all scales, from atomic to galactic.  While the constituent behaviors of a chaotic system are unpredictable, the system itself is ordered.  One can say that, for this species of complex system, order emerges from chaos.





anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:00:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

A general comment if I may:

There seems to be several conversations happening here simultaneously at the moment.

I wish I could understand the relevance any of them have to the OP.

Edited to add extra truth and herbs


I agree but it's forum and actually I'm enjoying the various sub-discussions that it has spawned. For what it's worth, my original post is pretty bad on my part but I have not posted on a forum for a few years and needed some time to let my engine warm so to speak. Where I'm at now is closer to what I mostly enjoy discussing. Not exactly sure if that is clear to everyone but given time, hopefully it will become so.

Also, thanks for answering tazzygirl's question regarding science. You saved me a lot of writing. Science is a work in progress is my way of summing it up. There is no "arrival" point strictly speaking.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:03:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Here's the problem, his position isn't on that website, it's in his book.

Here's the problem, his position is on the website. He quotes it from his book.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

you take snippets that he's contesting as having been selected in such a way that they don't accurately reflect his position and further selectively edit them... did you miss the whole unconscionable act and Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime stuff. He even put it in bold for you.

Yeah, that must be it...

Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime

So unh... does this mean you're lying again?

K.




Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:09:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

One can say that, for this species of complex system, order emerges from chaos.

But that is profoundly interesting. Why would it? For order to arise from chaos suggests at least to me that there is more to chaos than simply pure chaos.

K.




GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:29:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Here's the problem, his position is on the website.


Oh really, do tell?
 
"The following passage seems to have been selectively quoted, and misconstrued, more than any I have written...This paragraph appears after a long discussion of the role that belief plays in governing human behavior, and it should be read in that context."


Where is this long discussion? I'd like to read it, can you point me to where on the website it is?





tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/25/2011 5:48:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

One can say that, for this species of complex system, order emerges from chaos.

But that is profoundly interesting. Why would it? For order to arise from chaos suggests at least to me that there is more to chaos than simply pure chaos.

K.


While I agree this is a profoundly interesting point, I'm not convinced that there must be more involved initially than 'pure' chaos K.

Think perhaps of cloud formation arising out of the apparently disordered droplets of moisture rising in the atmosphere ...

There is also the question of scaling or if you prefer proximity. Patterns can emerge/recede depending on the distance/relationship between an observer and the observed.

I know quite often I can't tell the forest for the trees. [:D]


Edited to add extra truth and herbs




Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625