Another 'What if'? .....
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
Well, if I started now I could probably be fluent in a couple years 
*edit* No arrogant American stereotype jokes either, I'm as multi-culti as the next guy. For instance, I can say several derogatory phrases in idiomatic Mexican Spanish
*edit* No arrogant American stereotype jokes either, I'm as multi-culti as the next guy. For instance, I can say several derogatory phrases in idiomatic Mexican Spanish
Well, it changes the discussion in the sense that it's mostly the "recent" single deity religions that claim that a god created all. This idea has filtered through to even many non religious, or non practicing people, that despite all the science, there must be someone/thing that created the beginning (god setting off the big bang if you will). If however god only separated heaven and earth, rather than created them, he is just as much part of nature as you and I... He'd "only" be one of the many forces of nature. In that sense making it easier to prove that he exists*, just not in the way that contemporary religion would have us believe.Jay, I've no doubt there are texts suggesting as much but in my humble opinion, religious texts aren't in any way reliable, far from it.
[I'd go on to say, they should be avoided at all costs if you are looking to them for truth and direction]
I think when we view problems such as the creation of the universe, which can for the purposes of this thread be distilled into a religious/non-religious discussion, then to compare religious texts with scientific documents is pretty much pointless and of course, academic.
Science is all about consistency and accountability to its own axioms, religion is all about the other kind of accountability
*All you'd have to do is define what separating heaven and earth actually means and then finding the force responsible for that. That force could then be called god if you wanted to. It would make a god a lot less powerful and a lot less scary and would debunk pretty much all contemporary religions. You could argue that discovering god as outlined above, equals proving he doesn't exist, with all the ramifications that would have.
Creation gods predate Judaism, which is, to my knowledge, the oldest monotheistic religion at ~5,000 years. It's probably a natural outgrowth of human consciousness itself to wonder how something came about from nothing since it defies every experience of human existence. Every natural thing we can observe and catalog and measure and study has a known beginning, and procreation psychologically reinforces the idea that in order for something to exist, it must have descended from something else. Like I said before, if you believe that matter and energy somehow emerged from literal nothingness and spontaneously exploded into a universe, you believe in something so stupefyingly supernatural that you may as well call it a god - it's the same concept with a different banner.
Science and religion clearly share the disadvantages of the human condition.
But its unfair to say that makes both of them similarly imperfect.
All you have demonstrated is that humans are not perfect. I dont think anyone would disagree with that.
The scientific method tries to eliminate the human element. It doesnt always succeed but its failures are insignificant compared to religion and its successes so much more useful.
Uness there has been some scientific debate im not aware of which is as entrenched and destructive as say, Israel/Palestine.
No debate, but I'm sure the folks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quite thrilled with science and the splitting of the atom.
There is.....the abortion debate. Millions of fetuses are aborted each year while scientists attempt to determine at which point "life" exists.
Darwinism (or Social Darwinism...natural selection, survival of the fittest, et al.) has contributed synergistically with Imperialist mentalities and caused the near genocide of native Americans, Aussie aboriginals and South Africans. "We have weapons, and technology and they're savages. It's our duty to civilize them and make them like us." Yes, the church helped, but make no mistake there was much more to it than the church because without the blessing of the crown there were no "expeditions."
To see anywhere that people have used science you have to look at subtexts, so no, there are no blatantly obvious destructive issues other than man taking scientific achievements and using them for destructive purposes.
Don't be so naive to think that if the whole world became agnostic or athiest there would be no wars. Matter of fact, I'd be willing to bet my life that if that happened people would eventually turn to religion again because they'd do exactly what many are doing now and complain about how science and agnosticism/athiesm is holding society back...yadda yadda yadda. Man is never satisified..his lusts know no bounds. Give him enough time and he'll find a reason to go to war. I don't know.....maybe the fight over resources as they become scarce.
That was a scientific conflict?
I thought WW2 was more of a political ideological thing.
But Im no Buddha.
BTW Japan currently has 50 odd nuclear power plants.
They must like splitting the Atom a little bit
Thats a science versus religion debate.
These usually play out with the religious side going nuts crazy while the science side just gets on with it.
This one deserves a new thread in itself. But all I will say is perhaps the Cathoilic church should embrace rubber jonnies and butsecks.
And no I dont mean in the vestry with the Choir boys.
Survival of the fittest is attributed to Charles Darwin but he didnt coin the phrase. Nor did he mean it in the literal sense.
In any case im pretty sure imperialism was around before Darwinism.
Unless the Romans knew more than they were letting on.
Im glad you noticed that.
So we are agreed. Humans Bad science good.
Thanks for that but your arguing against a point I never made
Maybe I will rebut the point you never made about god being a giant 'sponge bob square pants' floating around the Kuiper belt.
Come on. Dont be so naive to think that? I reckon we'd have picked him up on a telescope by now.
It rarely ever succeeds, actually, which is why bias correction has to applied statistically after-the-fact when constructing a decent experiment. But that's leaving out completely the agenda-driven nature of "science" as practice (not to be confused with the scientific method, as a concept), particularly regarding the funding of research and publishing of data, which was what I specifically referenced. The point was that ideological conflicts exist within science that are every bit as political and divisive as those within religion, although they certainly tend to manifest themselves differently. It's every bit as much a human endeavor, and every bit as much plagued by human failings. The smugness with which someone with such idealistic enthusiasm for the institution of science would castigate a religious person as stupid or naive is ironic, in my opinion.
The Israel/Palestinian conflict is based on religion? I thought it was an ethnic and political thing that dates back millenia. But then I'm no Dawkins.
Do make sure to let the thousands of "nuts crazy" ethicists and philosophers that have debated the topic of abortion and infanticide since Aristotle know when science "just gets on with it" - it'll be nice to have the clarity
When proselytizing for the tolerant, peaceful, esoteric nature of your cause, resorting to petty schoolyard name calling is a good way to lose credibility.
I haven't found any, but perhaps you can find some English versions of articles by Professor Ellen van Wolde, she works for the Catholic Radboud University of Nijmegen. She's one of the people that got this thing rolling.Well, if I started now I could probably be fluent in a couple years
*edit* No arrogant American stereotype jokes either, I'm as multi-culti as the next guy. For instance, I can say several derogatory phrases in idiomatic Mexican Spanish
And she's working for a Catholic university no less...