Print

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

[theinevitable]

Yeah, OK. You find the answer to the Why question in your faith. So how is this a failure of science? Science's job is to look at the How. that's what it does. And I don't see how science is putting humans at the pinnacle of existence in any way-- my science classes have always been pretty hardcore about beating into my head that that is the opposite of the case.

[AlohaDawg]

Science is a temptation to let the mind and it's endeavors supplant faith in the very being that created humanity in the first place. Both can and should coexist, but not at each other's expense. I see the imprint of God on everything; I think that's a minority opinion.

[theinevitable]

Science is a temptation to let the mind and it's endeavors supplant faith in the very being that created humanity in the first place. Both can and should coexist, but not at each other's expense. I see the imprint of God on everything; I think that's a minority opinion.

yeah, I mean. There isn't anything to argue with here. This and other things you've said are so fundamentally opposite to the way I understand the world, at least in some of your basic beliefs/ways of understanding things/etc, that there really isn't any point to discussing this aspect.

But I'm going to do it anyway just to make this one point, because I hate that I feel like the ridiculous anti-faith anti-wonder person here. The thing that gets me, really REALLY gets me about a lot of public discussion of topics like this is the idea that Science somehow makes things less Wondrous. And this just... doesn't make any sense to me. Is a rainbow any less beautiful once you know how water droplets refract the light to make the pretty colors? If it does seem less beautiful to you, I'm sorry. The more I learn about the way things work in the natural world the more I find wonder in them-- I don't understand why this seems to be a minority opinion. I don't see how thinking that the Creator designed all of it would make me feel any differently about the beautiful, complex, amazing world we live in. Actually, I think that if I believed that things were the way they are because God made them that way, I would find them -less- amazing. Learning about how unguided things like erosion or natural selection can lead to incredibly complex, functional, and beautiful things will never get old to me, and will never stop amazing me. But, you know, I'm a big dork.  I don't really know what I think about the idea of God, I've gone back and forth about it a lot so I'm sorry if I come across as inconsistent.
 
But what it all goes back to is the idea that, if you think there is a God who created all of us according to his master plan, he gave us brains to figure things out. And right now a lot of people are using their brains to study the environment, and what they're seeing is telling them there's a problem. Which... seems to me to mean that we will be OK if we make the right choices in our day to day lives and such, like you said.
The issue is, "running around chicken little style" refers to freaking out and saying the sky is falling when a rock or something falls on his head, yes? I forget what falls on his head.
This is more like... chicken little and thousands of other chicken friends measure how high the sky is every day for decades, and say "the sky is falling."
So yes, we do have these great brains, no matter where you think they came from, and we should use them.
Like I said before, God helps those who helps themselves.

[Doc]

Dan is the man with 200 cans because he gets it. The more I learn about the world the more beauty and wonder there is to see.

[side_show]

Maybe a decade later. Soured me a little. Probably is a hell of a lot more offensive to you maybe.

I'm not offended by Iron Eyes.  In the end he portrayed a fictional stereotype that doesn't actually exist, so it's more silly and embarrassing for everyside of that story than offensive to me.

[Drygioni]

yeah, I mean. There isn't anything to argue with here. This and other things you've said are so fundamentally opposite to the way I understand the world, at least in some of your basic beliefs/ways of understanding things/etc, that there really isn't any point to discussing this aspect.

But I'm going to do it anyway just to make this one point, because I hate that I feel like the ridiculous anti-faith anti-wonder person here. The thing that gets me, really REALLY gets me about a lot of public discussion of topics like this is the idea that Science somehow makes things less Wondrous. And this just... doesn't make any sense to me. Is a rainbow any less beautiful once you know how water droplets refract the light to make the pretty colors? If it does seem less beautiful to you, I'm sorry. The more I learn about the way things work in the natural world the more I find wonder in them-- I don't understand why this seems to be a minority opinion. I don't see how thinking that the Creator designed all of it would make me feel any differently about the beautiful, complex, amazing world we live in. Actually, I think that if I believed that things were the way they are because God made them that way, I would find them -less- amazing. Learning about how unguided things like erosion or natural selection can lead to incredibly complex, functional, and beautiful things will never get old to me, and will never stop amazing me. But, you know, I'm a big dork.  I don't really know what I think about the idea of God, I've gone back and forth about it a lot so I'm sorry if I come across as inconsistent.
 
But what it all goes back to is the idea that, if you think there is a God who created all of us according to his master plan, he gave us brains to figure things out. And right now a lot of people are using their brains to study the environment, and what they're seeing is telling them there's a problem. Which... seems to me to mean that we will be OK if we make the right choices in our day to day lives and such, like you said.
The issue is, "running around chicken little style" refers to freaking out and saying the sky is falling when a rock or something falls on his head, yes? I forget what falls on his head.
This is more like... chicken little and thousands of other chicken friends measure how high the sky is every day for decades, and say "the sky is falling."
So yes, we do have these great brains, no matter where you think they came from, and we should use them.
Like I said before, God helps those who helps themselves.

Good post, and sums up how I feel about such things very well, so thank you.

[Doc]

Turns out Wonderella already figured this one out on it's own.

[Ruta Bagas]

I think it's a bit late in the discussion for me to just jump in but I am finding some of this discussion interesting and I feel I should register my intention to keep a beady eye on it. (Also I have a sneaking suspicion that I disagree with a lot of it more than I think I do, so I thought I'd give the benefit of the doubt a while to teeter before jumping in.) Just one thing.

I just worked out why I hate those guys (the annoying hippies that is) it's because they are applying morals to something I feel is an entirely practical matter. Morality varies from person to person but given enough data we should all be able to agree that action x will lead to consequence y. As soon as people start clouding the water with morality folk get all uppity and start thinking their opinion is as valid as testable reality.

I don't really follow how you just throw morals out. If you (not you) proceed with action x in full knowledge that consequence y will very likely substantially increase the chances of some innocent party being shoved off this mortal coil, then I would have no problem saying that you (not you had behaved immorally. I understand that that's often not useful in discourse (though it's by no means never useful) but it seems to me that it's only "an entirely practical matter" in the sense that anything else we might choose to make a moral issue of is.

Of course I don't really know how properly to respond to all this talk of hate because nobody's been very clear about who these mysterious figures they hate really are.

[theinevitable]

you poked someone in the eye?

When I was a kid, my mom and dad taught me that hurting people who say things you don't like isn't something nice people do.

[AlohaDawg]

Sometimes, not nice is the right thing to do. I tell my daughters that if someone hits them once, remove yourself from that sitution and tell someone if you need to. If they follow you and hit you again, you can hit them just as hard as you want.

I can see getting pushed to that place by these self-righteous pricks, espcially when your kid is forcibly exposed to their crap. If they come too close or touch me or my kid, I'm gonna hit 'em too.

[theinevitable]

Sometimes, not nice is the right thing to do. I tell my daughters that if someone hits them once, remove yourself from that sitution and tell someone if you need to. If they follow you and hit you again, you can hit them just as hard as you want.

I can see getting pushed to that place by these self-righteous pricks, espcially when your kid is forcibly exposed to their crap. If they come too close or touch me or my kid, I'm gonna hit 'em too.

The difference here is that if someone is hitting you, they can cause you physical harm. you have a right to defend yourself. If someone is saying things to you, or even yelling them at you, the worst that happens is that you'll get your feelings hurt. And if your feelings are getting hurt so badly that you feel the need to physically attack them, well. I don't know what to say.

[Doc]

I don't really follow how you just throw morals out. If you (not you) proceed with action x in full knowledge that consequence y will very likely substantially increase the chances of some innocent party being shoved off this mortal coil, then I would have no problem saying that you (not you had behaved immorally. I understand that that's often not useful in discourse (though it's by no means never useful) but it seems to me that it's only "an entirely practical matter" in the sense that anything else we might choose to make a moral issue of is.

I'm not so much throwing morals out as I'm saying they are not necessarily helpful to the discourse. Morality is hugely variable from person to person but also hugely important to the individual so as soon as people decide on what is morally right confirmation bias shoots right up and their interest in what is accurate goes out the window. Given enough data we can make a fairly good guess at what a given outcome will be of a given action and what can be done to alter that outcome. It's in deciding how to apply this knowledge that morality comes into play, but people shouldn't try to use guilt or other moral pressure to get other people to agree with their version of the facts.

[lprkn]

I kind of see Ash's situation being more like he was all "talk to the hand" and then the guy walked his eye into Ash's thumb.

Although it kind of funny to think he went haiyah (I don't know how to spell this thing) and just aimed his thumb at the dude's eye.

[AlohaDawg]

The difference here is that if someone is hitting you, they can cause you physical harm. you have a right to defend yourself. If someone is saying things to you, or even yelling them at you, the worst that happens is that you'll get your feelings hurt. And if your feelings are getting hurt so badly that you feel the need to physically attack them, well. I don't know what to say.

Based on Ash's post, I'm guessing the guy got too close. If I'm with my kid and guys get in our personal space, he may have to deal with some pain.

If it's just me, maybe I'll just say something. If my kids are threatened in any way, someone pays.

[Ruta Bagas]

I'm not so much throwing morals out as I'm saying they are not necessarily helpful to the discourse. Morality is hugely variable from person to person but also hugely important to the individual so as soon as people decide on what is morally right confirmation bias shoots right up and their interest in what is accurate goes out the window. Given enough data we can make a fairly good guess at what a given outcome will be of a given action and what can be done to alter that outcome. It's in deciding how to apply this knowledge that morality comes into play, but people shouldn't try to use guilt or other moral pressure to get other people to agree with their version of the facts.

Ah, I thought you might mean that. I was thrown off by the "entirely practical matter" business. In that case I basically agree, although I think situation always makes a difference - sometimes (rarely) it's necessary or useful to moralise just as sometimes it's necessary to poke someone in the eye.

I'm not going to make any judgement on said eye-poking (though I'm sure it was justified), but if you've got to be violent there is something beautifully dismissive about poking someone in the eye. Probably more so with an index finger than a thumb, but you can't have everything.