Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
People like to read about the really far out science stuff - possibility of life on other planets, visitors to our planets, string theory, big bang, etc. But it seems they don't want to take time to go past bullets on a briefing slide; that is, they don't seem to want to take the time to try to understand the fundamentals. This is why they're more likely to believe crazy stuff - because they don't have any basis for discernment.


.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
FF WROTE:
This is why they're more likely to believe crazy stuff

Define "crazy stuff".


Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Example crazy stuff -
Alien abduction
Creationism
Astrology
ESP
Sun's energy produced by electrical instead of nuclear effects
Atom bombs were not dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Einstein was wrong, b/c waves assume an either
Faith healing
Ghosts


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Fundamentals. Great topic, TFF. But, what are The fundamentals? And, who gets to decide, me? smile

Last edited by Revlgking; 01/29/08 04:20 PM.
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
The fundamentals of whatever is being discussed.

Example 1: Before one asserts that evolution or abiogenesis violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it would be a very good idea to have done some reading on the subject.

Example 2: Before one asserts that faith healering can't possibly have natural explanations, one ought be familiar with cases like Peter Popoff, among others.

Example 3: Before one asserts that the sun doesn't operate on fusion, one ought to have some familiar with the evidence in favor of that conclusion.

The thing is that in MANY areas there ARE recognized experts, but the more gullible people pick and choose experts according to their religious prejudices. These guys are quick to discount any naturalistic explanation and offer up some miraculous explanation as infinitely more plausible.

Not everyone who claims to have "studied" a subject qualifies as an expert. Not everyone who is recognized by the general public is an expert. Not everyone with a PhD is an expert.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Surely we all decide on what we feel are the fundamentals of our more cherished beliefs, some of us band with others in groups that have codified the particular set of rules (ie fundamentals) that they recognise as true. The trick is to be polite and not harass people who feel differently. Sometimes, of course , people are wrong, and their particular fundamental belief did not work. The Earth really did go round the sun, and the world did not end on any of the hundreds of dates prophesied.

Here are some more crazy beliefs.
Virgin Birth (well OK I mean for humans)
Transubstantiation.
Life after death.
Heaven
Hell
Miracles
Adam and Eve, and original sin
Plus a lot of etcs

Often there can be no experts in a particular field because we have not yet worked it out, or maybe do not even know of its existence!! We don't know everything, and I'll be sorry if we ever do! A few crazy ideas can be good sometimes, but I acknowledge that blind adherence to faith in some instances is very dangerous. We must always continue to question, rather than assuming we understand the fundamentals.


Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
One of the fundamentals, as I see it, is the bringing together of science and religion.
=========================
ABOUT MICHAEL DOWD and his work on bringing science and faith together.
=========================================================

http://www.thegreatstory.org/who_we_are.html
=================================
Praise for Michael's 2007 book from NOBEL LAUREATES

# "The universe took 13.7 billion years to produce this amazing book. I heartily recommend it." — JOHN MATHER, NASA CHIEF SCIENTIST, 2006 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS

# "The science vs. religion debate is over! Michael Dowd masterfully unites rationality and spirituality in a world view that celebrates the mysteries of existence and inspires each human being to achieve a higher purpose in life. A must read for all, including scientists." — CRAIG MELLO, 2006 Nobel PRIZE IN PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDICINE

# "Dowd has given us a bridge across one of the major chasms of our times: religion and evolution. His passion for both science and religion is contagious. Reading his book, one can see that the discourse itself has just evolved to a whole new level!" — REV. MARLIN LAVAHNAR, SENIOR MINISTER, ALL SOULS UNITARIAN CHURCH, TULSA

# "If anyone can persuade a monotheist that the science of evolution — biological, geological, or cosmological — can enrich his or her faith, I'm betting on Michael Dowd." — THOMAS C. SCHELLING, 2005 NOBEL PRIZE IN ECONOMICS

# "At last, someone who understands that all of reality is sacred and science is our method of comprehending it." — LEE HARTWELL, 2001 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDICINE

# "Honest students of God should welcome the revelations of science as insights, not fear them as threats. Here is a book in that spirit by an ardent believer, who takes evolution to heart, and celebrates it." — FRANK WILCZEK, 2004 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS
_________________________
GØD=TheOneSpirit-in&through land&sky&sea and all-pervasive gravity-in&through&around the Cosmos.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Rev quoted

"At last, someone who understands that all of reality is sacred and science is our method of comprehending it." — LEE HARTWELL, 2001 NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSIOLOGY OR MEDICINE

Take out 'is sacred' and substitute 'exists' and it makes a lot of sense.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Ellis, you mean something like this: "At last, someone who understands that all of reality simply IS...and science is our method of comprehending it."

Ellis, for me, GØD is not a three-dimensional and personal being with any human like form--like an idol. It is the term that I give to all the reality that IS... and experience, with my senses. I think of myself as a piece--that is, a son, or a daughter--of that reality, which I feel is a process, not an event.

Last edited by Revlgking; 01/30/08 11:18 PM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
M
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
M
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,696
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Ellis, you mean something like this: "At last, someone who understands that all of reality simply IS...and science is our method of comprehending it."

GØD is not a three-dimensional and personal being with any human like form--like an idol
quote]
Quote:

It is the term that I give to all the reality that IS... and experience, with my senses. I think of myself as a piece--that is, a son, or a daughter--of that reality, which I feel is a process, not an event.

Mike Kremer 2 Revlking
I'm glad you dont believe that G-d has a human form..like an idol. Nobody believes this today, except for a few natives in the deepest jungles of Borneo.

Unfortunately I have to take exception to your belief ....That G-d is the term you give to all reality. (Full stop)
That additional ...IS...is a superfluous nonsensical extra, as far as English is written.
Surely G-d is the term one should give to all that is NOT reality.
'An unproven non physical reality', in fact.
G-d is far to clever a spirit to show us his physical self, for then he would lose the spirituality features, that the human brain is just able to comprehend.
Were he ever to show his physical self to us, G-d would then be replaced by a picture, or a photo within a CD or a write up in a dictionary. We would always want him to show his physical self to us.
G-d is far too clever for that. He will always be best described as an unproven non physical reality.
He knows its the best way to keep our human minds pure, relaxed, and above all, thoughtful.
Once you try to say or prove that G-d is is the term you would give to all reality that ....IS....You are on the same slow downward inquiring slope that has been effecting humans and most religions for 5000 years.

I dont mind what ever un-proven non physical reality you wish call G-d, whether Spirit, Ghost, Gravity waves, Dark Matter, or even prehaps...Invisible Energy.
But as a follower of Michael Dowd, you must allow science and religion, to both enter and combine with your thoughts, whenever religion is on the menu.
G-d himself would approve, and I'm positive Michael Dowd does.

For that which you cannot comprehend has more chance of lasting 7000 years than any reality that..IS
Science allows us all to prove or dis-prove, that is exactly why I am sure Michael Dowd's religious teachings will last.




.

.
"You will never find a real Human being - Even in a mirror." ....Mike Kremer.


Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
I don't think "bringing together science and religion" is a fundamental activity of science. Science does not care about religion. I'm not opposed to private activities of this sort, but it's not an intrinsic function of science.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
TFF: 'I don't think "bringing together science and religion" is a fundamental activity of science.'

Absolutely true (according to my dictionary)

...but I'm sure that "bringing together science and religion" as a fundamental activity of religion would be welcome by a good many scientists and others in the USA. Science, by definition, is an immovable object in this scenario. It's a road that could ultimately lead to the end of religion as we know it.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
"It's a road that could ultimately lead to the end of religion as we know it." rede says.

Define "religion", for me, rede. And who are the "we"?

If you mean sick religion--and there is plenty of such--I agree with you. Or do you know, and can you demonstrate, scientifically, that allreligion is sick? Of course there are hypocrites--in all walks of life, including philosophy, science religion and art.

HEALTHY RELIGION
================
I work on having a healthy religion? It is my doing my best to treat my fellow human beings with good will, including moral, ethical and loving respect in the name of justice and peace. This includes people I may not actually like, emotionally. I presume most atheists feel the same way, agreed?

AGAPE LOVE IS CENTRAL TO ALL GOOD AND HEALTHY RELIGION
======================================================
It grounded in Agape Love, and the application of the Golden Rule, the highest good. Deeds, not creeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape
http://www.ualberta.ca/~agrace/AgapeVerdana.html
Quote:
“Agape is disinterested love. … Agape does not begin by discriminating between worthy and unworthy people, or any qualities people possess. It begins by loving others for their sakes. … It springs from the need of the other person.”
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1958)
As I understand it, there is statistical evidence that good religion makes things better and people healthier. I think the science of sociology confirms this, does it not?

By the way, I try to avoid applying the "brass knuckles, jack boot, lead pipe, brute force, shock and awe, whatever" rule, which is rooted in ill will (sin): Do others before they do you. Ill will is the greatest evil of all. It destroys self and others.

Last edited by Revlgking; 02/01/08 07:41 AM.

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
E
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
E
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,490
Why would you want to reconcile the two though? Science does not need religion . Does religion need science?

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Rev

Rev: 'Define "religion", for me, rede'

- Yes, a good point, Rev. I should be more specific.

I agree with this definition from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

"Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy"

But what I'm actually referring to is the Christian and Islamic religions, since they account for over half the world's population.

Rev: 'And who are the "we"?'

- "We" are those who have a commonplace knowledge of those two major religions.

Rev: If you mean sick religion..."

- I wouldn't choose the word "sick" Rev. I suppose it's a word that might be used if one were to assume that a very large group of people who shared the same false beliefs regarding reality were sick. But that's a different issue that I don't intend to get into.

Religion "as we know it" generally incorporates false (falsifiable) beliefs, and since certain such irrational beliefs tend to lead to active opposition to science, fundamental activity of religion aimed at bringing religion closer to science would need to eliminate such beliefs.

If religion, as a result, were left with beliefs that, however irrational they may seem, could not be falsified, science would be relatively unhindered. There's still plenty of room for nuttiness. For example there may arise a sect that claims the world was created by superbeings from the planet Gliese 581c. That might be hard to disprove.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Ellis

Ellis: "Why would you want to reconcile the two though?"

- Perhaps 'reconcile' is the wrong word. Progress, as I see it, would be in the religious being content with "belief in the sacred or the holy" without the additional multifarious, contradictory, unscientific/antiscientific beliefs that are currently extant.

Ellis: "Science does not need religion"

- True, but I suspect that many scientists' lives are enriched by a sense of the "sacred and holy".

Ellis: "Does religion need science?"

- Yes. Or rather, it needs to acknowledge the virtues of the scientific method in matters relating to the physical universe, rather relying on various interpretations of religious texts.

Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Quote:
Ellis: "Does religion need science?"
- Yes. Or rather, it needs to acknowledge the virtues of the scientific method in matters relating to the physical universe, rather relying on various interpretations of religious texts.
For me, being religious means being part of a fellowship made up of people who want to work with and help one another, physically, mentally and spiritually, and then reach out and help make the community, the nation and the world a better place.

BTW, I take no pleasure in dogmatic creeds, or having blind faith. The same is true for meaningless rituals. I am also interested in the role a fellowship can play in promoting education. I abhor wilful ignorance, therefore, I love the scientific approach.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
T
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,940
Science is a collective endeavor, and I love the "fellowship" aspect of it. However, "fellowship" is not a fundamental.


Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5