Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I've done this many times, and I'm way too tired and busy to do this right now, but what the heck, once more into the fray in defense of science and against the enemies of organized religion!

Science is more than a collection of facts and theories (though it is also that). It is above all a methodology to discover facts and formulate theories. Though it is true that most of the general public regard scientists as high priests, that is only because most people have allowed that to happen, i.e. let themselves fall behind the research curve so much that the arguments, speculations etc. of scientists have become wholly unfathomable to them.

The most wonderful thing about science in my opinion is that in principle, anyone, limited only by their own time and interest, can follow in the footsteps of the work of scientists and verify scientific results on their own.

Narf seems to argue that science doesn't offer the same kind of certainty from which stems spiritual satisfaction that most forms of organized religion. I agree that this is probably true for the vast majority of people. But then science isn't "meant" to satisfy any spiritual urges. It doesn't have to be a bromide, to use a word beloved by Ayn Rand, it only has to be "true".

One of my conceptions of paradise is the world described by Greg Egan in his novelette "Border Guards". In it, humans are immortal, all but indestructible, with all but infinite powers at their disposal (though none have the power to truly hurt another being without his/her/its consent), and above all with constant access to the huge database of human knowledge. In this world, a talented few actually push back the frontiers of knowledge, but the vast majority only follow far, far behind, living lives not unlike that of many university students, studying for the raw pleasure of study, intersped by moments of play, conversation and love.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif Who the hell really knows?

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Of course. But I was responding to your claim that you follow the Ten Commandments, not the apparently implied claim that you follow the Ten Commandments as modified by certain later scholars and holy men. That would be different.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Which probably contributes to the fact there is so much killing going on.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Hmm... this is difficult to translate, but basically my motto is "Let others be if they let you be." Don't try to impose anything on people who are not being actively disruptive.

Conversely, don't try to impose anything on me. I'll make my own choices, thank you very much.

At the same time, I try to be supportive of other people, help them whenever I can. Knowledge should not be hoarded.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

my views are my views and your views are your views.it's only when everyone realizes that everyone's views are different and unique to their own and can look past that will mankind ever truly be able to move forward

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

You are right, Narf, there are a lot of similarities between Science and Religion. The big difference between Science and all the other Dogma out there is that science is wrong. No other Dogma is willing to admit that it is wrong, if that ever happens, it is abandoned and people invent a new one, maybe giving it the same name, but the words of higher powers are never wrong.

Science, on the other hand, is wrong. It is allowed to be. It is constantly correcting itself, improving, and moving forward. True science does not require faith, because "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", and science is not about hope, or the unperceivable. Real science deals only with what can be proven, and most importantly what can be proven repeatedly by different scientists. If an experiment does not get reproducible results the theory it 'proves' is not proven, and not part of Hard Science.

Some areas commonly associated with science are difficult to prove, but that doesn't stop people from trying, and from taking the results and forming new theories. The psychology of an individual and certain actions or trends of great scale, like astrophysics, evolutionary biological trends, or even economics, may still be highly theoretical simply because we do not yet have the technology to make the needed measurements, let alone to run or reproduce an experiment. So these might not be Hard Sciences, and these might, for now, require 'faith'. We're working on it.

Now you might point out that you are not able to reproduce, personally, the experiments on which many modern principles of Science depend. And you might claim this moves Science into the realm of faith. And you might point out that the lingua sancti of Science, Math, has grown so large that no one man can understand all its fields, in fact I believe that Last man to do so was John Herschel, who died in 1871. And you might have a point. But they can be proven, where faith is reserved for those thing that can't.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

While I agree with most of Loser's points, I believe there is a larger issue you are all missing.

Simply put, there is no need for conflict between science and religion bercause they address different questions.

Science exists to explain how.

Religion exists to explain why.

Using science to explain why or religion to explain how is apt to fail miserably (and often does).

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

I don't like arguing religion. Neither side can ever win because it is... faith. And faith by it's nature can never be proved or disproved.

But... as to misery on earth being created by humans and free will... Last I checked hurricans and tornadoes and earthquakes weren't caused by humans and their freewill.

Now you can use the old argument that such disasters give people a chance to show their virtues such as bravery etc... but doesn't that interfere with freewill? In addition aren't all the man made disasters, such as war, collapsing buildings etc enough for people to prove their virtues without having to cause great disasters that kill, maim, torture and otherwise do evil to those who possibly have done nothing to deserve that. (What does a 2 month old baby do to deserve something like that? Wasn't original sin taken care of already with Christ?)

I could go on and on with the problems in organized religion and unorganized and most of the religious texts (several of which I have read in several different translations) ....

There is no point to doing so however. Experience has showed me that people who believe believe regardless and arguments to the contrary, even ones they can't counter won't have any affect. That is the nature of faith.

Those who don't believe already don't believe so what is the point?

Let me just say that the God who talks to me is right and yours is wrong! BWAHAHAHAHAHA! My morale and ethical values are correct and you can either agree with me or you can be wrong! Fortunatly for you, you don't have to believe in my God to get the good afterlife or at least a second chance. Those who are deserving of punishment shall recieve it based on a code of ethics and morales to complex to be accuratly placed into words, but not having the faith isn't adequate cause to be eternally damned to torture and pain.

After all... what is the point of having free will and punishing for the wrong choices if you tell at least 5 different people that they have the one true path and all others are damned and can't agree on what is and isn't forgiveable?!?


Just my few cents worth or whatever other currency you want to use.

Re: Real World Philospohy
 

Nice, Erax. I'll keep that point around for the next time I get in one of these.