Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

yes

6 (50%)

no

6 (50%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: November 26, 2005, 04:21:30 pm

[side_show]

I would love to be put on display in an exhibit such as this.  The title of my particular display, "fuck*ng."

Damn fine idea - would this be a solo exhibit, or would there be one or a few more people?

[side_show]

This made me laugh.

THE ANSWER MAY SUPRISE YOU!
I can't really think of any really suprising answer to that question. I mean, one you have "yes" and "no" down, both of which are relatively common choices, where do you go from there? Let me guess-
"Is there a God? MAYBE!"

Oh, Bozack - you please me!

[side_show]

I'm fascinated by the 50/50 split on the poll question.

I think the split on the poll represents the fact that, well, asking "Yes" or "No" on this question isn't quite asking enough. I was initially hesitant to vote because there was no "Yes, But With Reservations About This Instance" option, for reasons that I have already exposited about at great length to total board apathy. I suspect there are relatively few "yes/no, and DAMN THE TORPEDOES" votes in there and more "well, it depends."

Y'know I tried three times to provide a third option of "Whatever" but everytime it wouldn't let me post it, which was really annoying.

I meant for this to be a debate over whether it is ethical or not to use bodies where the consent of institution (hospital, psychiatic ward, prison) is obtained, but not nessisarily the consent of the individual or their familes.  I kind of forgot that the way a body is handled has spiritual implications for many people, since it really doesn't for me.

Still this is why I love this board - I love that a cartoon about cats and alive stuff animals draws in such thoughtful people.  

[Doc]

To tangent on something that Paul said two pages ago, I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'faith in science'.
Let me explain.
I'm a (almost finished!) science student at the university of queensland. Like all undergraduate uni students I am full of vitriol and rabid idealism, but lacking interest in religion or politics (not strictly true: they are both fascinating subjects but not something I get particularly idealistic about) I am big on science, I would take the scientific method to bed and show it a night of passion such as it has never seen.

Anyway: science is not and should not and has never been about faith. It really bothers me that people seem to see science as a viable substitute for religion and are therefore treating it in the same way as they would treat religion (in no small part because scientists in general haven't been great at communicating with the general public). In my mind it is this sort of thinking that has led to stuff like 'What the Bleep do we know' and 'ID is too science' because people are taking scientific findings and theories out of context and shoe-horning it into their own philosophy without understanding that in science being sure the question you are asking is the right one is usually vastly more important than the answer you get.

I see it in the following way: Philosophy in general is a creation process, it's like working with clay, or painting, there was nothing there before so you create some sort of belief about the universe. Science starts with a big block of marble and chips away, working out (insanely slowly at times) which bits don't belong and throwing them away. There are borders between the two of course, but they should never be crossed. Science can't tell us about what is in the middle of the marble block until it chips out enough and philosophy can't define parts of the statue that have already been removed.

Sorry for the rant, it is just something I see a lot that bothers me since it is a misrepresentation of something I care about a lot (note 'care about', not 'believe in'). Of course I'm guessing now V who is a proper science type is going to smack me down for talking total crap.

Believe in the people doing science, believe that they are doing their jobs properly and thinking things out right so they draw the correct conclusions.  Don't believe in science itself.
Ok, I'm done now.

[pmcd9]

I would love to be put on display in an exhibit such as this.  The title of my particular display, "fuck*ng."

Damn fine idea - would this be a solo exhibit, or would there be one or a few more people?

Just you and me Mel.

~Paul

[V-Adore]

To tangent on something that Paul said two pages ago, I hate, hate, HATE the phrase 'faith in science'.
Let me explain.
I'm a (almost finished!) science student at the university of queensland. Like all undergraduate uni students I am full of vitriol and rabid idealism, but lacking interest in religion or politics (not strictly true: they are both fascinating subjects but not something I get particularly idealistic about) I am big on science, I would take the scientific method to bed and show it a night of passion such as it has never seen.

Anyway: science is not and should not and has never been about faith. It really bothers me that people seem to see science as a viable substitute for religion and are therefore treating it in the same way as they would treat religion (in no small part because scientists in general haven't been great at communicating with the general public). In my mind it is this sort of thinking that has led to stuff like 'What the Bleep do we know' and 'ID is too science' because people are taking scientific findings and theories out of context and shoe-horning it into their own philosophy without understanding that in science being sure the question you are asking is the right one is usually vastly more important than the answer you get.

I see it in the following way: Philosophy in general is a creation process, it's like working with clay, or painting, there was nothing there before so you create some sort of belief about the universe. Science starts with a big block of marble and chips away, working out (insanely slowly at times) which bits don't belong and throwing them away. There are borders between the two of course, but they should never be crossed. Science can't tell us about what is in the middle of the marble block until it chips out enough and philosophy can't define parts of the statue that have already been removed.

Sorry for the rant, it is just something I see a lot that bothers me since it is a misrepresentation of something I care about a lot (note 'care about', not 'believe in'). Of course I'm guessing now V who is a proper science type is going to smack me down for talking total crap.

Believe in the people doing science, believe that they are doing their jobs properly and thinking things out right so they draw the correct conclusions.  Don't believe in science itself.
Ok, I'm done now.

No, I think I agree with you, actually; no smackdowns coming from this direction. One of the important things in science is to ask the correct questions and to know what you're asking. No matter how rigorous your logic is, if you ask something incorrectly focused or stupid it's just going to fail. A classic example is creation science/ID: the problem isn't so much the conclusion as it is the question. "Is something huge and ineffable and improvable responsible for the creation of all things?" is not a question one can answer with science, so treating it as a scientific question is fundamentally misguided.

(On the other hand, to go back into an argument I had at dinner tonight -- a lot of the questions that non-scientists think are stupid are actually just necessary parts of creating a basic foundation of knowledge in a field. I have a prof here who has spent his entire career studying two specific cells in the zebragiraffe brain, for instance; this is stultifyingly retarded-sounding and exceptionally difficult to explain, but in fact, working on those two cells in the zebragiraffe brain is yielding incredible results related to spinal cord regeneration. Weird questions are not necessarily stupid question.)

I too tire of the "science = religion" thing, because it usually demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how science functions and self-evaluates. What scientists have "faith" in is that their colleagues accurately report their data and use good experimental procedure, but they also demand proof of this, so it's not "faith" in the religious sense to any meaningful degree. One has "faith" in a theory only as an operating principle that matches the empirical observations you have made; you don't believe in it unless it matches all the observations, and if it stops matching or a better-fit theory comes along, you discard it. Scientists have "faith" in evolution because it works. If it didn't, it'd be gone.

I think the real problem here is that most people never go beyond the high-school or college-intro level of science, where you are taught scientific concepts as dogma. However, that approach doesn't hold even in the higher levels of undergraduate science education, let alone graduate school and the real research world. It's just the way you get people to accept first principles and get their footing; higher levels are significantly more analytical and demand a burden of proof that true religious faith does not.

[miles]

Hey, Doc and V-Adore, just curious, do you have a stance on the realism/anti-realism debate in the philosophy of science?  I've been studying that for a while now.  I'm not a scientist at all, and so I like to hear what the real deals think about it.

If anyone isn't familiar with the debate (I certainly wasn't before a year ago):  Realism is, roughly, that scientific theories or theoretical entities are true or approximately true (or real), while anti-realism denies this, usually stating that they are just useful tools, and could be true or false, but we don't know which.

Also, I think your characterization of philosophy is a bit off the mark, Doc.  In a lot of philosophy classes, at least in the analytic tradiation, you're taught precise skills in constructing arguments and are forced to scrutinize them for soundness.  Also, you inherit a long tradition with which you must work.  You're right, it's not like science, or not exactly like science (some philosophers of mind do a lot of empirical research, but I think that's more a case of science and philosophy intersecting), but it seems that you equate philosophy with religion, and I'm not really sure why.

[pmcd9]

I accept the Bible as the revealed word of God, but personally, I think it reveals itself to different people in subtly different ways.

You sure said a mouthful there Dawg.  It's interesting that you should say that because you were talking about original sin and I have a slightly different interpretation of the events.

in Genesis: there are two original sins there. Eve eats of the apple, sure. But worse yet, she offers it to Adam. At this point Adam has a choice and it's a doozy:

Eve or God?

The guy chose the girl (and ultimately, temptations of the world of every kind) over God. (and (1) men still do this today! and (2) This places a rightful amount of the BLAME for the fall of mankind back on Adam who deserves at least a portion of the blame women have been getting forever) This was heartbreaking for God who came looking for them and could not find them because they were hiding, naked and ashamed. God was angry

I don't blame Adam or Eve, I blame God.  You see, Adam and Eve were doing just fine in Paradise.  They were having fun, enjoying life and doing everything just exactly like God said to.  Then along comes Satan.  Oh boy, this guy is a snake.  He's such a smooth operator.  The dude is so slick he conned a third of the Angels in Heaven to rebel against God himself.  And here we are in the garden and God left Adam and Eve alone with this fucker about.  Those two kids never stood a chance.  It was bad enough that God himself was tempting them.  'All this is yours, just don't eat of that tree.  You know that one over there, the one with the most beautiful, most delicious fruit.  Yeah that one, stay away from that shit.'  So it's already on their mind.  They are doing alright, but they just can't stop thinking about that forbidden fruit.  So add Satan into the mix, 'hey it's alright, you can at least try it.  The old man just wants you to stay away from this tree because he's throwing a party this weekend.  He's saving the fruit for that, gonna make up some pies.  So you see you'll be eating it on Saturday anyway so go ahead and give it a little taste now.  It is delicious too, even better than it looks.  Look, he ain't gonna miss it.  We go way back, what a practical joker, he's always doing something like this.  Forbidden fruit, pffft, c'mon, and you believed that shit...'

So yeah, God isn't there for us, we have to invent him.  And he wasn't even there for Adam and Eve.

~Paul

[V-Adore]

Hey, Doc and V-Adore, just curious, do you have a stance on the realism/anti-realism debate in the philosophy of science?  I've been studying that for a while now.  I'm not a scientist at all, and so I like to hear what the real deals think about it.

If anyone isn't familiar with the debate (I certainly wasn't before a year ago):  Realism is, roughly, that scientific theories or theoretical entities are true or approximately true (or real), while anti-realism denies this, usually stating that they are just useful tools, and could be true or false, but we don't know which.

I think that's a pretty strange distinction to draw, personally. My leanings tend towards "useful tools"; that is, that theories and the like are not valuable in and of themselves but are valuable in that they give us a framework for our knowledge and a skeleton on which to expand it. That said, false theories are intrinsically poor tools/frameworks, so, you know. I suppose you could call me an anti-realist in that I don't consider most theories to be valuable as entities.

[Choop]

*OMG* thread *BLOWMYMIND*

God is an invention of people. Animals in packs need alphas. People in groups don't work without either an alpha or a system. YHWH was a systematic alpha that worked until some genius kid realized that some older folk were taking advantage of the system - he figured out that system's problems and invented a new alpha: G*D. The systems that have evolved have each taken a single (or group of singular) teaching and warped it toward their own false prophets' goals, whether those goals be better or worse for people in the long term.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this, but speaking as a lifelong student of religion and the spirit, Christianity is a lesson in opportunism. No matter the sect, Christians are vulnerable to any who profess a belief in Jesus.

I'm not saying any other religion is different: are Muslims more or less likely to believe in a dfferent Imam? Are Jews more susceptible to this Rabbi than that? I don't know.

What I do know is that there are at least three sects of Judaism: Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. I've heard of at least two sects of Islam, Sunni and Shia, and there are most probably more. I know personally of several sects of Christianity: Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Calvinist, Methodist, Lutheran, and more.

Who is any one of us to say which faith is right, true, and correct?

Dawg, I know this at least mirrors your argument of secular humanism's detriment to faith. Where, I ask, is the answer? Is it so personal that no person can aid another? Is it so general that a single faith is truth?

Not that I'm letting you off the hook. I expect -- or at least hope for -- an answer.

[AlohaDawg]

I never said a single faith is truth - I have great friends who are Muslim and other faiths, and I think their faith is true - because I believe there are many ways to worship God.

It's the motivation behind and the results of your faith that I believe are important, not the how. I hope God feels the same way.

Dennis Prager is way smarter than me

[arkabee]

You must have faith in <something> or you wouldn't have a place to make your ethical stand, though. Where do you perceive the root of your values is?

there are differences between faith, belief, and hope.

i don't really have faith.  never been able to.

[AlohaDawg]

I actually place those things on a contunuum - I think they're related, although hope is above and beyond all things in a way - I would think it would be difficult to internalize hope if you had no faith there was some kind of energy working toward whatever it is you hope for. And I think it's tough to have faith if your faith isn't faith in something you believe in.

I was just thinking about this the other day in terms of evangelism - I came up with a sort of hierarchy (the first two are parallel)

Antibelief  
Non-belief unaware of the Message
Awareness of the Message
Understanding the Message
Belief in the Message
Faith in the promise of the Message
Evangelism about the Message
Mission to teach, live and propagate the Message
Ministry to provide continuous support to all of the above

Or something like that.

[arkabee]

I actually place those things on a contunuum - I think they're related, although hope is above and beyond all things in a way - I would think it would be difficult to internalize hope if you had no faith there was some kind of energy working toward whatever it is you hope for. And I think it's tough to have faith if your faith isn't faith in something you believe in.

i believe i will see the sun tomorrow.  while i am cognizant of the risks surrounding me that might stop me from seeing the sun tomorrow, i do not expect to, for instance, be killed in my sleep by my kitten.  

i hope i will see the sun tomorrow.  i look forward to it, i anticipate it, and i wish for it to be such.

i do not have faith that i will see the sun tomorrow.  i do not implicitly feel as though my seeing the sun tomorrow is a, um, done deal.

[AlohaDawg]

I do.

That might be the difference between us.