RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang

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

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

Message

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/13/2011 2:34:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Meanwhile, back in the real world, it seems theocracy is not a Muslim monopoly. And zealots continue to force their narrow twisted views on the rest of society whenever they can get away with it ...... And, I'll add, "whenever they can get away with it" is more than merely just too often. K.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/13/2011 4:12:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub Hey there you are. I thought you had abandoned this thread and was missing you. The word "religion" comes from the Latin, re + ligio, and means to bind together, to reconnect, the particular with the Universal. Our current definition, which of course reflects how we use the word, misses that essential point entirely, as does much of what passes for "religion" these days. Up until around the 1500s, to speak of your religion meant what you practiced, not what you "believed". Without practice, without discipline, no religion can be understood, because that which is universal cannot, by definition, be defined in terms of the particulars it subsumes. All religion is symbolic, and symbolism is excluded from religion only when religion itself perishes. ~Radhakrishnan To believe in the literal truth of some book is, in religious terms, idolatry. Only the practice of a religious discipline can lead to an understanding of that which is embodied in the varied symbologies of our religions. A study comparing Carmelite nuns, who practice contemplative prayer, with practitioners of Buddhist meditation found the same patterns of brain activation in both groups. The apparently irreconcilable differences between theistic and non-theistic traditions are meaningless from the point of view of an absolute that is simultaneously both and beyond both. K. Thanks for elaborating on my points and some of the points in this discussion in general. Some of your most recent replies have a bit of sarcasm to them but just so you know I'm not a total blibbering idiot...I understand your frustration and take them to be expressing the fact. As for myself, I always welcome deeper understanding contrary to what some may think. And I guess I should qualify this for the sake of others by saying understanding does not automatically imply agreement. You took the time to point out what religion fully entails, what "Transubstantiation" is in strict practice, and that it's not uncommon for both to be misunderstood by the average practitioner (I say that in the most general of terms). In a way, this supports one of my contentions about religion and even repeats some of what Harris is saying. Religion is so open to interpretation it is quite easy for people to either get lost within it or in some cases be exploited by people they trust as authorities on the subject. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that can be dangerous, especially with the destructive technology available today. And the fact that it can be interpreted in many ways begs the question of what in it is actually true? This is another major difference between science and religion. That exactness of what each is communicating. I have heard so many interpretations of the creation story in an attempt to fit in the scientific world view of evolution and the geologic record, it's enough to make your head spin. Of course, the people who do this are those who want the creation story to be true and take the bible literally. Science on the other hand makes every effort to be accurate and is completely up front about any areas where it is not. Let me run this hypothetical situation by you if I may. A person who has faith in God tells me their faith is all they need. To me, this means they are not concerned with whether God really exists or not...they have faith. Depending on how orthodox they are they may even take the suggestion of questioning the existence of God as heresy. This is catch-22...a paradox. According to the Merriam-Webster definition of catch-22: "A problematic situation for which the only solution is denied by a circumstance inherent in the problem or by a rule." I have had this issue with religion for as long as I can remember. It's what drives my pushing for the truth based on what I see as a convenience operating in the background that favors those who want to believe religion outright. Science seeks verification of what it declares in its theories. Testing proves or disproves and as a result you establish a more accurate understanding. You just did this by correcting my understandings above. In short, whether something is true or not does not depend on simply saying so or choosing to believe it. But that's the position a lot of religious people take either knowingly or not. I think people like me (and I hope a lot more) are at the point of saying it's time to sort this stuff out once and for all and put the fantasy aspects to rest. I can understand the church's reason for not admitting that science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong. I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite.

Musicmystery -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/13/2011 4:14:25 PM)
quote: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang Wouldn't the point of such a religion be that God is behind everything? Doesn't that pretty much go with the God gig?

Kirata -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/13/2011 5:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub Science on the other hand makes every effort to be accurate and is completely up front about any areas where it is not... In short, whether something is true or not does not depend on simply saying so or choosing to believe it. Some food for thought then: Michael Cremo (video, ~60 minutes, French introduction) Archive Freedom quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have an education and presumably some intelligence ignore the resources available and stand firm that religion is false without ever having undertaken any of the study and practical discipline that would enable them to grasp what the symbolism of these traditions represents. The typical religion thread around these parts attracts either an argument from so-called "scientific" materialism, which is, of course, philosophy in a clown suit, not science, or else an argument from a literal reading of the Bible, which is, of course, theologically illiterate nonsense. K.

Rule -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/13/2011 6:14:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong. Oh? Which ones? quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite. That is a very complicated issue. Generally it is folklore, i.e. cultural memories / truths that are passed on from one generation to the next. As the folklore is passed on, it is reinterpreted according to the contemporary cultural state, errors may occur, and information may be lost, eventually resulting in a form that might be scarcely recognizable by the people who originally experienced said folklore. Another aspect of it is that nearly all humans are creatures of habit that are programed by their culture and unable to make up their own minds. Only extraordinary events, 'miracles' such as Jesus resurrection, or traumatic events such as war or the loss of a loved one or an accident, can shock people out of their old cultural habits and cause them to accept new cultural habits. Otherwise, only the very rare people who are able to think outside of the box, can shake off their cultural conditioning.

pyroaquatic -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/13/2011 6:32:22 PM)
So the Pope, God, and an Explosion walk into a bar....... :D It feels as if I have walked into the class late. I appreciate the discussion that you have mustered so far anthrosub. That also goes out to all of the other participants as well. In my B(elief)S(ystem) the almighty power induced being we aptly call God decides to destroy itself to answer a question. Seeing how God knows everything can God indeed know everything if God destroys itself? So.... BAM.... the act of the big bang is choice. Everything after is chance. Eventually the simple dust of the kosmos reconstructed itself into higher orders until eventually we get to this conversation in which we are aware of an almighty being. The reconstruction of God is-by our frail standards-far off but the mere fact that we are conceptualizing God means something. I have nothing against the religious or the scientists, atheists, agnostics, christians, muslim, buddhist, or whatever path people decide to walk. We speak of higher powers and it is inevitable to do so. I know I could be wrong but I know these parched lips will always require more knowledge. My beliefs are never absolute or static. They are my delusions alone and I won't force them on any other. To those that know me I know that I sound like a broken record. As to the pope.... it simply does not matter. In the grand scale of things-one thousand years into the future-what the pope says will be inconsequential. We all think the same thoughts right? Am I entirely insane at this conjecture or am I overly tired? :3

Rule -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/13/2011 6:59:58 PM)
You are wise.

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 2:40:48 AM)
quote: anthrosub In short, whether something is true or not does not depend on simply saying so or choosing to believe it. But that's the position a lot of religious people take either knowingly or not. I think people like me (and I hope a lot more) are at the point of saying it's time to sort this stuff out once and for all and put the fantasy aspects to rest. I can understand the church's reason for not admitting that science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong. I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite. Religion insists an unverifiable leap to truth via faith. In order to maintain some coherence it is forced into all kinds of exotic claims (miracles, creation, transubstantiation etc) that are guaranteed to get sceptical minds offside. This logic seems to hold whether one interprets religious texts and/or claims symbolically or literally. For religion, the absolute can be accessed only at the cost of abandoning reason. Science alas fares no better. While science is certainly the most reliable and successful investigation method humans have yet devised, it is reliable only until a singularity (eg the Big Bang) is reached. By definition it cannot investigate any further. Strictly speaking science has no concept of truth, or to put that slightly differently, scientific 'truth' is always provisional and arbitrary. So science by definition can never access the absolute. Ultimately, if science and religion are the methods adopted, the search for absolute truth leaves us doomed to a choice between the impossible and the unverifiable. That's not a choice that I find enticing.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 9:59:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Who brought him up? You brought him up specifically to attack him personally. Anthrosub was talking about his works, you responded with this personal attack: quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl My thoughts about Harris... ahem... are not kind. He is arrogant, and thats the nicest thing i can say about him. I dont put too much stock into someone who feels the need to be superior by way of telling others how inferior they are. This comment caused Anthrosub to ask you the question that you responded to not by answering but by once again attacking Sam Harris. Furthermore, that last lengthy post of yours failed to address the issue that I raised. You lied when you said this: quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Attacking the idea, not Harris. Huge difference. P.S. Apparently I need to pay more attention when posting with a kindle quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel specificity

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 10:04:11 AM)
I did NOT bring up Harris. You have reading problems yet again. Amazingly it took you two days to come up with that pathetic argument. As it typically does when you are caught with your pants down around your ankles. I was specifically asked what my impression was about what Harris said. I responded. Dont like my response.. big fucking deal. I dont like most of what you have to say because most of what you say is repeated rhetoric of what someone else has to say. Do you even have an original thought process? Something that isnt repeated by someone else? I dont like what your guru Harris said. Big whoop. But dont make me out to be the bad guy when you fell flat on your ass. You were wrong, I showed you where, and you STILL dont have the ability (no surprise there) to admit you were wrong. Yeah, Big man of steel, huh.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 10:20:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have an education and presumably some intelligence ignore the resources available and stand firm that religion is false without ever having undertaken any of the study and practical discipline that would enable them to grasp what the symbolism of these traditions represents. What I can't understand is why people such as yourself ignore the existence and popularity of the positions that atheists are arguing against and present this idiotic drivel. While I enjoy works of fiction which contain figurative language or deeper meanings that doesn't somehow cause them not to go in the fiction section. Nor does it invalidate the points that non theists are making to the roughly one hundred million Americans who think that the bible is literally true.

tazzygirl -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 10:22:46 AM)
Yeah, 1000 people responding to that poll was enough people to tell them 100 million people believe the bible is literally true. Keep believing that. [8\|] Im sure it helps you sleep at night.

GotSteel -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 12:44:54 PM)
It is always helpful, when people want to ridicule someone, for them to know that there's more than one belief out there. Otherwise, they just end up looking like pestilent idiots who imagine that people think they're smart when they mouth off.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 3:17:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub Science on the other hand makes every effort to be accurate and is completely up front about any areas where it is not... In short, whether something is true or not does not depend on simply saying so or choosing to believe it. Some food for thought then: Michael Cremo (video, ~60 minutes, French introduction) Archive Freedom quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have an education and presumably some intelligence ignore the resources available and stand firm that religion is false without ever having undertaken any of the study and practical discipline that would enable them to grasp what the symbolism of these traditions represents. The typical religion thread around these parts attracts either an argument from so-called "scientific" materialism, which is, of course, philosophy in a clown suit, not science, or else an argument from a literal reading of the Bible, which is, of course, theologically illiterate nonsense. K. Thank you again for the links. I will definitely review and reply later. As for your summaries...believe it or not I agree with you. I do not profess to be an expert on the "nuts and bolts" of each religion. I do see the frustration inherent in discussing this topic when you don't know how much of a background each responder has.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 3:32:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong. Oh? Which ones? quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite. That is a very complicated issue. Generally it is folklore, i.e. cultural memories / truths that are passed on from one generation to the next. As the folklore is passed on, it is reinterpreted according to the contemporary cultural state, errors may occur, and information may be lost, eventually resulting in a form that might be scarcely recognizable by the people who originally experienced said folklore. Another aspect of it is that nearly all humans are creatures of habit that are programed by their culture and unable to make up their own minds. Only extraordinary events, 'miracles' such as Jesus resurrection, or traumatic events such as war or the loss of a loved one or an accident, can shock people out of their old cultural habits and cause them to accept new cultural habits. Otherwise, only the very rare people who are able to think outside of the box, can shake off their cultural conditioning. Which ones? Here is a good example of the crux of the problem. If I say, "the talking serpent" the response will be that it is not to be taken literally. But the point is many people do. So when I say science has proven this to be a myth, I am directing my statement at those people...not every Christian on the planet. Has science conducted some specific experiment to disprove the talking serpent? Of course not. But the scientific evidence regarding the history of the planet and life on it reveals the talking serpent to be a myth by consequence. Regarding the second portion of your reply...if you read my other posts in this thread you will see I am advocating the exact same thing. As for thinking outside the box...I grew up without a mold. My parents left me and my siblings alone to form our own understanding. They never discouraged our intellectual curiosity or freedom.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 3:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic So the Pope, God, and an Explosion walk into a bar....... :D It feels as if I have walked into the class late. I appreciate the discussion that you have mustered so far anthrosub. That also goes out to all of the other participants as well. In my B(elief)S(ystem) the almighty power induced being we aptly call God decides to destroy itself to answer a question. Seeing how God knows everything can God indeed know everything if God destroys itself? So.... BAM.... the act of the big bang is choice. Everything after is chance. Eventually the simple dust of the kosmos reconstructed itself into higher orders until eventually we get to this conversation in which we are aware of an almighty being. The reconstruction of God is-by our frail standards-far off but the mere fact that we are conceptualizing God means something. I have nothing against the religious or the scientists, atheists, agnostics, christians, muslim, buddhist, or whatever path people decide to walk. We speak of higher powers and it is inevitable to do so. I know I could be wrong but I know these parched lips will always require more knowledge. My beliefs are never absolute or static. They are my delusions alone and I won't force them on any other. To those that know me I know that I sound like a broken record. As to the pope.... it simply does not matter. In the grand scale of things-one thousand years into the future-what the pope says will be inconsequential. We all think the same thoughts right? Am I entirely insane at this conjecture or am I overly tired? :3 Interesting post. So in short, we will never really know and in the long run nobody will really care. I've reached that point many times in my life but there is still the nagging question of why some people follow their inner beliefs regardless of real information to the contrary and why others see the evidence and run with it as far as possible. And to be fair why there are people out there who are a mix of the two. Incidently, no matter what all of us figure out...tomorrow will be born an entire new generation who will need to learn everything we know today from scratch. By that I mean they will need to figure out for themselves what makes sense and what does not.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 4:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: anthrosub In short, whether something is true or not does not depend on simply saying so or choosing to believe it. But that's the position a lot of religious people take either knowingly or not. I think people like me (and I hope a lot more) are at the point of saying it's time to sort this stuff out once and for all and put the fantasy aspects to rest. I can understand the church's reason for not admitting that science has proved many of the bible's statements to be wrong. I can understand why people who have little or no education believe in religion. I cannot understand why people who have the resources available to them but ignore the information continue to stand firm that religion is the truth when in any other field of understanding they would do the exact opposite. Religion insists an unverifiable leap to truth via faith. In order to maintain some coherence it is forced into all kinds of exotic claims (miracles, creation, transubstantiation etc) that are guaranteed to get sceptical minds offside. This logic seems to hold whether one interprets religious texts and/or claims symbolically or literally. For religion, the absolute can be accessed only at the cost of abandoning reason. Science alas fares no better. While science is certainly the most reliable and successful investigation method humans have yet devised, it is reliable only until a singularity (eg the Big Bang) is reached. By definition it cannot investigate any further. Strictly speaking science has no concept of truth, or to put that slightly differently, scientific 'truth' is always provisional and arbitrary. So science by definition can never access the absolute. Ultimately, if science and religion are the methods adopted, the search for absolute truth leaves us doomed to a choice between the impossible and the unverifiable. That's not a choice that I find enticing. Well put. I know science is ultimately another "explanation" of the unknown. The difference, as you have pointed out, is that it has the ability to be tested (down to a point). At the macro level, I think there is no question of the accuracy of science but reduce things down to a certain micro level and science too is confronted with some pretty hazy phenomena (I think string theory would be a good example).

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 6:44:48 PM)
quote: Kirata To believe in the literal truth of some book is, in religious terms, idolatry. Only the practice of a religious discipline can lead to an understanding of that which is embodied in the varied symbologies of our religions. A study comparing Carmelite nuns, who practice contemplative prayer, with practitioners of Buddhist meditation found the same patterns of brain activation in both groups. The apparently irreconcilable differences between theistic and non-theistic traditions are meaningless from the point of view of an absolute that is simultaneously both and beyond both. (my emphasis) I found this observation (in bold above) fascinating. It opens the door to one of the more interesting and (imho) intelligent justifications for enquiry into dimensions and/or entities beyond the physical and the rational. So I was sad to see you go down the path you did rather than develop this point. I appreciate that some people find it easier to ridicule rather than listen, so sharing your views does demand a little courage. I am as guilty as anyone else of using ridicule here on occasion. But I for one would love to hear you expand your views on this theme. Your observation seems to me to open up a series of intelligent insights that offer the possibility of progressing this discussion beyond the standard tired sterile religion vs science debate. So I can promise that I for one will be listening and considering your perspectives in this area carefully and respectfully if you choose to respond to this request.

anthrosub -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 6:52:50 PM)
Kirata, I have a degree in anthropology. I am very familiar with many of the discoveries that Cremo notes in his presentation...the ones he states we find in the textbooks (I hope you find that funny). One of my professors was also Donald Johanson's professor and sponsor when he worked on his Ph.D. One day he told me when Johanson returned to the United States from Ethiopia, he paid him a visit and brought the bones of Lucy with him. He opened the case containing the bones on the coffee table in the living room and said, "This is going to make me a lot of money." I was always troubled by that but wrote it off as typical human greed. The links clearly show there is a traditional "camp" within the scientific community...probably several. As such I retract my earlier idealic statements about science but do not retract its methods as being accurate. The links show that all parties are using the same methodology but that the people using the tool of science are not being honest with the data they have found (repressing it where it does not fit into the traditionally accepted theory). I think this is very important for anyone following this thread to realize. What I saw raises many questions to be sure. What is driving those who hold power over the review and acceptance of new data to suppress it? I suspect it's the same thing behind any situation where human beings become vested and resist change. I also freely admit this is the same issue I have previously attributed to religion alone. But there still remains the difference between the two regarding the presence of evidence. What I see now is there is more to the geologic record than meets the eye. Regarding the presence of fossils of anatomically correct humans found in strata dating as far back as billions of years clearly needs further investigation. I would say it's too early to tell 100% if each and every finding is correct but on the face of it, it certainly appears to be. If it is true then science needs to discover how anatomically correct humans could exist for all that time without physically evolving or for that matter...developed into advanced civilizations with the remains left behind to find along with them. I know this sounds far fetched but heck, perhaps we really have already been visited by aliens and humans were seeded here from time to time until we finally took root so to speak. Perhaps Erich von Daniken has been right all along. There have been times where I have mused whether it's possible that the earth is much older than what can be measured and that perhaps extremely ancient land masses have been completely erased due to the subduction of continental plates. Let's face it, the age of the earth is being measured by available rock. If it got recycled there's nothing left to measure. The age of our planet and the solar system in general is being measured by dating remains of meteors but even that is an approximation. The further back in time you go with these things the greater the margin for error. In short, our understanding is in its infancy. You have provided me with an epiphany and something new to explore. I hope we can talk about it and the consequences much more. Thanks P.S. I hope nobody here is getting the idea I'm side-stepping anything. You could not be more wrong. If I haven't said something you wanted to hear it doesn't mean it's not going to be said but it also doesn't guarantee you will eventually hear it. This entire conversation has just gone to a new level.

tweakabelle -> RE: Pope Says God is Behind the Big Bang (1/14/2011 7:37:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: anthrosub Well put. I know science is ultimately another "explanation" of the unknown. The difference, as you have pointed out, is that it has the ability to be tested (down to a point). At the macro level, I think there is no question of the accuracy of science but reduce things down to a certain micro level and science too is confronted with some pretty hazy phenomena (I think string theory would be a good example). Yes. Your point re verification is valid and important. I wasn't suggesting that we abandon science or the use of reason completely at all. Rather I was pointing out that this is an area where their application is limited. There are a host of areas where the scientific method excels. There are others where its utility is more dubious. Human behaviour, philosophy, values and the search for truth and meaning etc. are among the dubious areas, and such matters (human behaviour, philosophy, values and the search for truth and meaning etc.) mark the boundaries of this discussion to me. Where reason and evidence based testing can be used, by all means let's use them. But let's be aware of and acknowledge their limitations too.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875