Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
.
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
25 Apr 2005 11:15:56 AM |
|
|
<darwinist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114298894.498223.188830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
: Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
: speculation.
:
: Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
:
: Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
:
: Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
: formalise, test and refine other parts.
:
: Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
: Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
There are a lot of things that science can not deal with.
Aesthetics, morality, human character, law, the raising
of children....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 11:14:37 PM |
|
|
<darwinist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114298894.498223.188830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
This entire statement is a misleading oversimplification, although it is an
interesting view of history.
For instance:
The characterization of religion as a response to ignorance must be based on
an idea of the noble savage in ancient times trying to explain natural
phenomena in his external environment by inventing supernatural forces to
explain them. Many anthropologists studying ancient and modern myths, most
included in some sorts of religious rubrics, hold a view that religion is an
expression of mental phenomena based in the subcomscious minds of peoples
who all have similar myths. C.G. Jung is one example of this sor of
thinking, which I hold more likelyh an explanation of the origins of
religions. Religions then become refined through political processes,
incuding the domination of some ethnic groups over others, etc.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Philosophy, in the Western tradition, began as an attempt to relate
religious concepts to observed natural phenomena, on the one hand, and to
reconcile conflicts such as political and psychological, within the now
solidified dogma of religion.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Science is not newer than religion, but I guess you must know that, after
all. We take modern science to be science per se, since it being applied in
a way to rapidly alter the environment in an organized way that transcends
nations. Science is equivalent to the human ability to invent, which is as
old as the species.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
Your idea of science is science as a weapon. Anyone could do it, but maybe
some people would rather not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
26 Apr 2005 05:19:23 PM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
<darwinist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114298894.498223.188830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
This entire statement is a misleading oversimplification, although it
is an
interesting view of history.
For instance:
The characterization of religion as a response to ignorance must be
based on
an idea of the noble savage in ancient times trying to explain
natural
phenomena in his external environment by inventing supernatural
forces to
explain them. Many anthropologists studying ancient and modern myths,
most
included in some sorts of religious rubrics, hold a view that
religion is an
expression of mental phenomena based in the subcomscious minds of
peoples
who all have similar myths. C.G. Jung is one example of this sor of
thinking, which I hold more likelyh an explanation of the origins of
religions. Religions then become refined through political processes,
incuding the domination of some ethnic groups over others, etc.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Philosophy, in the Western tradition, began as an attempt to relate
religious concepts to observed natural phenomena, on the one hand,
and to
reconcile conflicts such as political and psychological, within the
now
solidified dogma of religion.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Science is not newer than religion, but I guess you must know that,
after
all. We take modern science to be science per se, since it being
applied in
a way to rapidly alter the environment in an organized way that
transcends
nations. Science is equivalent to the human ability to invent, which
is as
old as the species.
I'm talking about the formal kind of western science. You need to get
from religious speculation to formalised logical theories to testable
hypothesis before you can have this kind of science. I don't see how
else you could get there.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
Your idea of science is science as a weapon. Anyone could do it, but
maybe
some people would rather not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
30 Apr 2005 06:58:53 PM |
|
|
<darwinist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114553962.986589.161620@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ike wrote:
<darwinist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114298894.498223.188830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
This entire statement is a misleading oversimplification, although it
is an
interesting view of history.
For instance:
The characterization of religion as a response to ignorance must be
based on
an idea of the noble savage in ancient times trying to explain
natural
phenomena in his external environment by inventing supernatural
forces to
explain them. Many anthropologists studying ancient and modern myths,
most
included in some sorts of religious rubrics, hold a view that
religion is an
expression of mental phenomena based in the subcomscious minds of
peoples
who all have similar myths. C.G. Jung is one example of this sor of
thinking, which I hold more likelyh an explanation of the origins of
religions. Religions then become refined through political processes,
incuding the domination of some ethnic groups over others, etc.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Philosophy, in the Western tradition, began as an attempt to relate
religious concepts to observed natural phenomena, on the one hand,
and to
reconcile conflicts such as political and psychological, within the
now
solidified dogma of religion.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Science is not newer than religion, but I guess you must know that,
after
all. We take modern science to be science per se, since it being
applied in
a way to rapidly alter the environment in an organized way that
transcends
nations. Science is equivalent to the human ability to invent, which
is as
old as the species.
I'm talking about the formal kind of western science. You need to get
from religious speculation to formalised logical theories to testable
hypothesis before you can have this kind of science. I don't see how
else you could get there.
Your Euro-centric view of science history is the sort of idea that is the
hallmark of White Supremacism. Why are you touting this view of history?
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
Your idea of science is science as a weapon. Anyone could do it, but
maybe
some people would rather not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
05 May 2005 03:51:42 AM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
[...]
I'm talking about the formal kind of western science. You need to
get
from religious speculation to formalised logical theories to
testable
hypothesis before you can have this kind of science. I don't see
how
else you could get there.
Your Euro-centric view of science history is the sort of idea that is
the
hallmark of White Supremacism.
Well, sure. White supremacists have a euro-centric view of everything.
Which is a far cry from suggesting the dominance of western
civilisation in a specific area. I am not, for example, asserting the
dominance of the west in religion or philosophy; or even the dominance
of the west in science today.
I maintain (open, of course to debate) that the history of science, up
until the last few decades, is heavily dominated by the west; and the
history of the west for the last 5 or 6 centuries has been, if not
dominated, strongly influenced by science.
Why are you touting this view of history?
If you mean why am I touting my view of history; becuase it's the best
I can figure so far. If you mean why am I touting a White-Supremacist
view, as you alluded to in the last statement; I am not.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
Your idea of science is science as a weapon. Anyone could do it,
but
maybe
some people would rather not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
08 May 2005 12:30:56 AM |
|
|
<darwinist@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115283102.947873.182670@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Ike wrote:
[...]
I'm talking about the formal kind of western science. You need to
get
from religious speculation to formalised logical theories to
testable
hypothesis before you can have this kind of science. I don't see
how
else you could get there.
Your Euro-centric view of science history is the sort of idea that is
the
hallmark of White Supremacism.
Well, sure. White supremacists have a euro-centric view of everything.
Which is a far cry from suggesting the dominance of western
civilisation in a specific area. I am not, for example, asserting the
dominance of the west in religion or philosophy; or even the dominance
of the west in science today.
I maintain (open, of course to debate) that the history of science, up
until the last few decades, is heavily dominated by the west; and the
history of the west for the last 5 or 6 centuries has been, if not
dominated, strongly influenced by science.
Why are you touting this view of history?
If you mean why am I touting my view of history; becuase it's the best
I can figure so far. If you mean why am I touting a White-Supremacist
view, as you alluded to in the last statement; I am not.
You seem to imply that science and hence modern technology inevitably arose
from religion in Europe, which is Judeo-Christian. To me that implied that
you approved of that process and your mention of other peoples as lacking in
this regard gave the impression of a racial view. I still have that
impression. True it was not overtly a racist statement, but I sensed a
racial bias. In an alternative world, if that process had not occurred,
science might still have developed, but more slowly and with less disruption
of the ecosphere. Your failure to mention that alternative scenario created
the impression that you assume faster is better. Western progress is in fact
based on genocide.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
Your idea of science is science as a weapon. Anyone could do it,
but
maybe
some people would rather not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
18 May 2005 12:38:24 AM |
|
|
Ike wrote:
[...]
Well, sure. White supremacists have a euro-centric view of
everything.
Which is a far cry from suggesting the dominance of western
civilisation in a specific area. I am not, for example, asserting
the
dominance of the west in religion or philosophy; or even the
dominance
of the west in science today.
I maintain (open, of course to debate) that the history of science,
up
until the last few decades, is heavily dominated by the west; and
the
history of the west for the last 5 or 6 centuries has been, if not
dominated, strongly influenced by science.
Why are you touting this view of history?
If you mean why am I touting my view of history; becuase it's the
best
I can figure so far. If you mean why am I touting a
White-Supremacist
view, as you alluded to in the last statement; I am not.
You seem to imply that science and hence modern technology inevitably
arose
from religion in Europe, which is Judeo-Christian.
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I don't mean to and didn't think
that I had implied that anything about it was "inevitable", or
inextricably tied to the "essence" of westernism. I'm an individualist,
not an essentialist; but of course I draw generalisations in an attempt
to describe history and other big ideas like "truth".
To me that implied that
you approved of that process and your mention of other peoples as
lacking in
this regard gave the impression of a racial view. I still have that
impression. True it was not overtly a racist statement, but I sensed
a
racial bias. In an alternative world, if that process had not
occurred,
science might still have developed, but more slowly and with less
disruption
of the ecosphere. Your failure to mention that alternative scenario
created
the impression that you assume faster is better.
Wait a second. To begin with I thought it seemed a bit of a jump to go
from me talking up the process of western-science, to me being some
kind of white-supremacist, but now, (and correct me if i'm wrong)
simply by failing to mention an alternative history, I have given the
impression that the actual history (as I see it) is the better, or the
best possible one? Am I misunderstanding you?
In any case the judeo-christian tradition, which is a religious
tradition, is not the same as a race. And secondly western civilisation
is more than just the judeo-christian tradition. Much, much more.
Western civlisation, which can not be described by any single
historical factor; was the first part of the world to really develop
formal, empirical science, but like I said in the original post, anyone
can do it. I must admit I'm completely stumped at where these
accusations of racism are coming from.
Western progress is in fact based on genocide.
For all the implications you've tried to stretch out of my arguments in
order to explain that I look like a racist, you then bust out this
little gem? Do you really think such a statement can stand without
qualification?
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former;
and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
Your idea of science is science as a weapon. Anyone could do
it,
but
maybe
some people would rather not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albert Wagner" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 08:51:15 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
Oops. I just noticed that darwinist has crossposted from
alt.atheism. I think I'll refrain from this thread. alt.atheism
is a pack of wild trolls.
--
"I know that most men, including those at ease with
problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom
accept even the simplest and most obvious truth
if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity
of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining
to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others,
and which they have woven, thread by thread,
into the fabric of their lives." -
-- Tolstoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Vic Sagerquist" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 09:30:57 PM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2005, Albert Wagner dropped trou, farted, whirled, then
shouted:
darwinist@gmail.com wrote:
Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilisation, but anyone can do it.
Oops. I just noticed that darwinist has crossposted from
alt.atheism. I think I'll refrain from this thread. alt.atheism
is a pack of wild trolls.
<roar!!!!>
Muaaahahahahaha!
--
Vic Sagerquist
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
Plonked by Jason Gastrich for all eternity...
______________
As you were, I was. As I am, you will be.
--- Hunter S. Thompson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "zerkanX" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
24 Apr 2005 08:49:25 AM |
|
|
Interesting but see what you think about this...
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 16:28:14 -0700, darwinis wrote:
Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
Religion is the first response to fear.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Philosophy is the means of organizing the known with the unknown.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Science is the response to ignorance without fear - usually associated with
being well fed and secure. Religion is as much an 'idea' as science and is as
much a meeting of the 'universe'.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Both science and philosophy, if they are to be separated at all, made great
strides during times of religious domination, however, religion depends on the
acceptance of eternal ignorance whereas science, while still as dependent on
ignorance as religion, does not accept it as a given condition.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilization, but anyone can do it.
Western Civ. has no singular claim on science nor philosophy or is this really
your point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
01 May 2005 08:08:52 AM |
|
|
"zerkanX" <zerkanX@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.24.13.49.23.629360@nospam.net...
Interesting but see what you think about this...
On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 16:28:14 -0700, darwinis wrote:
Religion is the first response to ignorance. This is a ground for
speculation.
Religion is the first response to fear.
Philosophy is the second response, a means of organisation.
Philosophy is the means of organizing the known with the unknown.
Science is the third step, a true application. Idea meets universe.
Science is the response to ignorance without fear - usually associated
with
being well fed and secure. Religion is as much an 'idea' as science and is
as
much a meeting of the 'universe'.
Each step requires us to abandon some parts of the former; and
formalise, test and refine other parts.
Both science and philosophy, if they are to be separated at all, made
great
strides during times of religious domination, however, religion depends on
the
acceptance of eternal ignorance whereas science, while still as dependent
on
ignorance as religion, does not accept it as a given condition.
Science is the ideal. It is the secret weapon behind Western
Civilization, but anyone can do it.
Western Civ. has no singular claim on science nor philosophy or is this
really
your point?
Yes that is really his point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
23 Apr 2005 08:36:11 PM |
|
|
Is science truth? The heart of science is that you will always get the
same results under the same circumstances.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
26 Apr 2005 10:45:53 PM |
|
|
enki wrote:
Is science truth? The heart of science is that you will always get
the
same results under the same circumstances.
Science is the search for truth. Good experiments are repeatable.
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
27 Apr 2005 02:43:16 AM |
|
|
And are good works of art reproducible? Can a
poem be reproduced?
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1114573553.343558.142390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
:
: enki wrote:
: > Is science truth? The heart of science is that you will always get
: the
: > same results under the same circumstances.
:
: Science is the search for truth. Good experiments are repeatable.
:
: --
: Ron
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tron" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
29 May 2005 04:00:11 PM |
|
|
"cat rancher" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com> skrev i melding
news:roHbe.3829$Zi.3351@fed1read04...
And are good works of art reproducible? Can a
poem be reproduced?
Walter Benjamin wrote the book on that one:
"Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit".
T
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
28 Apr 2005 04:01:34 PM |
|
|
And are good works of art reproducible? Can a
poem be reproduced?
Yes, using a camera photo copier or tape.
Creativity and science are two different things. Science is pretty
easy to explain creativity and estethics is very difficult and would be
a great conversation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
27 Apr 2005 08:46:05 AM |
|
|
cat rancher wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1114573553.343558.142390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
: Science is the search for truth. Good experiments are repeatable.
And are good works of art reproducible?
Of course they are, as are bad works of art. But that's not what I am
addressing.
Art can be thought of as a scientific discipline which has a number of
principles that can be verified by experiments consisting of a works of
art which are shown to an audience and measuring the audience reaction.
Can a poem be reproduced?
Not in an economical manner. :-)
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
27 Apr 2005 01:34:32 PM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1114609564.979359.120290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
: cat rancher wrote:
: > "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
: > news:1114573553.343558.142390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
:
: > : Science is the search for truth. Good experiments are repeatable.
:
: > And are good works of art reproducible?
:
: Of course they are, as are bad works of art. But that's not what I am
: addressing.
:
: Art can be thought of as a scientific discipline which has a number of
: principles that can be verified by experiments consisting of a works of
: art which are shown to an audience and measuring the audience reaction.
:
:
: > Can a poem be reproduced?
:
: Not in an economical manner. :-)
:
: --
: Ron
And how can someone reproduce an original work of art?
The inspiration, insight, point of view are not reproduced,
only copied.
Insight can not be reproduced, only plagiarized or restated
and often incorrectly.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: That's what's wrong with science |
04 May 2005 09:04:18 PM |
|
|
In
Kansas, the State Board of Education is putting evolution on trial
again. They haven't got to the story of Joshua stopping the sun in the
sky yet. This certainly belongs in physics class.
Geometry classes take note; a careful reading of Second Kings reveals
that the circular altar in Solomon's temple is nine cubits in diameter
and 27 cubits around the rim. That makes pi an even three-point-zero
instead of that old silly Unchristian 3.1416. Pi just a theory!
The story of the Holy Hymen and virgin birth should certainly be
mentioned in biology class along with the naked lady and the talking
snake.
I'm sure our learned theological experts who constantly peruse the
Bible can find much more that's wrong with science than I can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
05 May 2005 12:42:12 AM |
|
|
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote
I'm sure our learned theological experts who constantly peruse the
Bible can find much more that's wrong with science than I can.
Let's start with how last week Vitamin E in massive doses was life
extending, but this week it increases morbidity in direct correlation with
dosage.
Or they were telling women to take Vitamin D to prevent osteoporosis, but
now that doesn't work either.
And need we discuss cell phone usage and long term threats to brain tissue?
How many times has the story changed on that one?
And what is evidence? An indication of efficacy based on statistical
"significance". So X doesn't cause A, but in a series of tests, X was
correlated with A at a level two percent higher than non-X, which is
"significant".
Examples abound. The point is that those entrusted with the practice of
"science" can't seem to exert adequate controls on their experiments.
Science as "philosophy of science" might seem perfection. But in practice
it's often a mess.
And isn't that the same problem you seem to have with "theological experts"?
Science is a tool. The quality of the work produced is dependent upon who is
wielding the tool.
Interestingly, the "science as god" group worships the tool, and holds to
the conceit that the tool produces objective truth with every application.
Experiments produce results not truth. Results can hint at truth. Hints,
suggestions, indications, correlations... is science occult?
.
|
|
|
| User: "rj" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
05 May 2005 01:23:59 PM |
|
|
"rugged individuals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote in
news:9JSdnfY8yOWrL-TfRVn-1w@comcast.com:
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote
I'm sure our learned theological experts who constantly peruse the
Bible can find much more that's wrong with science than I can.
Let's start with how last week Vitamin E in massive doses was life
extending, but this week it increases morbidity in direct correlation
with dosage.
Or they were telling women to take Vitamin D to prevent osteoporosis,
but now that doesn't work either.
And need we discuss cell phone usage and long term threats to brain
tissue? How many times has the story changed on that one?
And what is evidence? An indication of efficacy based on statistical
"significance". So X doesn't cause A, but in a series of tests, X was
correlated with A at a level two percent higher than non-X, which is
"significant".
Examples abound. The point is that those entrusted with the practice of
"science" can't seem to exert adequate controls on their experiments.
Science as "philosophy of science" might seem perfection. But in
practice it's often a mess.
And isn't that the same problem you seem to have with "theological
experts"?
Science is a tool. The quality of the work produced is dependent upon
who is wielding the tool.
Interestingly, the "science as god" group worships the tool, and holds
to the conceit that the tool produces objective truth with every
application. Experiments produce results not truth. Results can hint at
truth. Hints, suggestions, indications, correlations... is science
occult?
All of your questions could be easily answered with some education.
Science like god isn't perfect. Science like god doesn't have all the
answers. Science, like God, makes mistakes. SCience however does not
command that it be worshipped, that it be prayed to, nor does science
demand sacrifices. The rules of science can be broken without the need to
repent or to be cleansed. Experiments can reveal the truth. An
experiment, properly performed can reveal the truth. Where people have
problems is when they let their desires for a particular outcome dictate
their actions. The Mickelson-Morley experiment was performed hundreds of
times over and over because Mickelson could not believe the results. He
spent nearly his whole life trying to prove the existence of the
lumineferous aether. Outright lying about the results happens as well.
All of these actions are foibles directly attributed to the psychology of
human beings. If one accepts the truth, no matter how distasteful, one can
move forward and learn more. No one ever promised the truth to be
comfortable, popular, or easy. The truth can be an elusive ***** hiding in
a obtuse corner cowering under a scrap. It can be as plain as the
headlines too. Finding the truth is almost always painful but ultimate
acceptance has vast rewards beyond description.
Science in of itself should be viewed by Christians as a gift from God just
as intellect and beauty are. The problem with fundies is that they want
something to be true so badly that they lie about that which threatens
their beliefs.
Science as a whole does produce the truth. It is not infallible as it is
the conclusions of men.
rj
--
"I'm an atheist, thank God." - Dave Allen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
05 May 2005 09:37:57 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 5 May 2005 01:42:12 -0400, "rugged individuals"
<brandon@comcat.com> wrote:
Science is a tool. The quality of the work produced is dependent upon who is
wielding the tool.
Has nothing to do with what I said.
Interestingly, the "science as god" group worships the tool,
I don't worship anything.
and holds to
the conceit that the tool produces objective truth with every application.
Experiments produce results not truth. Results can hint at truth. Hints,
suggestions, indications, correlations... is science occult?
"science, while it diminishes our cosmic pretensions, enormously
increases our terrestrial comfort. That is why, in spite of the horror
of the theologians, science has on the whole been tolerated."
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence,
it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
[Bertrand Russell]
.
|
|
|
| User: "rugged individuals" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
05 May 2005 10:17:53 PM |
|
|
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ecbk71db2dbp3qonjdp6ce4ql13g877roq@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 May 2005 01:42:12 -0400, "rugged individuals"
<brandon@comcat.com> wrote:
Science is a tool. The quality of the work produced is dependent upon who
is
wielding the tool.
Has nothing to do with what I said.
Interestingly, the "science as god" group worships the tool,
I don't worship anything.
and holds to
the conceit that the tool produces objective truth with every application.
Experiments produce results not truth. Results can hint at truth. Hints,
suggestions, indications, correlations... is science occult?
"science, while it diminishes our cosmic pretensions, enormously
increases our terrestrial comfort. That is why, in spite of the horror
of the theologians, science has on the whole been tolerated."
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence,
it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
[Bertrand Russell]
Bertie was a brilliant fellow, unquestionably. But why should anyone heed
what he says about religion (as far as we can tell from books he's
supposedly written) more than one would heed what the Son of God says about
the subject (as far as we can tell in books He's written)?
And here's another counter (from the Queen of Heaven) to Russell's false
prophecies:
"In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph." (spoken by Our Lady of Fatima
to the three seers on July 13, 1917: see www.fatima.org )
So it's a race. Whose prophecy will come true first? (And obviously if one
comes true first the other can't come true at all.) Bye, Bye Bertie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Acme Diagnostics" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
06 May 2005 07:21:03 PM |
|
|
"rugged individuals" <brandon@comcat.com> wrote:
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ecbk71db2dbp3qonjdp6ce4ql13g877roq@4ax.com...
On Thu, 5 May 2005 01:42:12 -0400, "rugged individuals"
<brandon@comcat.com> wrote:
Science is a tool. The quality of the work produced is dependent upon who
is
wielding the tool.
Has nothing to do with what I said.
Interestingly, the "science as god" group worships the tool,
I don't worship anything.
and holds to
the conceit that the tool produces objective truth with every application.
Experiments produce results not truth. Results can hint at truth. Hints,
suggestions, indications, correlations... is science occult?
"science, while it diminishes our cosmic pretensions, enormously
increases our terrestrial comfort. That is why, in spite of the horror
of the theologians, science has on the whole been tolerated."
"Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence,
it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
[Bertrand Russell]
Bertie was a brilliant fellow, unquestionably. But why should anyone heed
what he says about religion (as far as we can tell from books he's
supposedly written) more than one would heed what the Son of God says about
the subject (as far as we can tell in books He's written)?
And here's another counter (from the Queen of Heaven) to Russell's false
prophecies:
"In the end My Immaculate Heart will triumph." (spoken by Our Lady of Fatima
to the three seers on July 13, 1917: see www.fatima.org )
So it's a race. Whose prophecy will come true first? (And obviously if one
comes true first the other can't come true at all.) Bye, Bye Bertie.
My money's on Ann Margaret. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "DrBenway" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
06 May 2005 08:16:22 PM |
|
|
So it's a race. Whose prophecy will come true first? (And obviously if one
comes true first the other can't come true at all.) Bye, Bye Bertie.
Mary's Number one! Mary's Number one!
Yeah Amen I'm with ya brother (NOT!)
Doah!!
"Stupid Science!
"Can't even count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!"
Ever ask yourself Why do you really post in this group?
There so much of Gods REAL work for you to do elsewhere in the world.
Posting in this group is not effectively working for your God is it?
Save someone who is hungry give your money to your church,
feed the hungry, the sick, your own family.
Why shamelessly worship your ego/pride here?
What God do you really worship by your ACTIONS here?
(church lady "Could it be........")
No published answers required
(but actual self honesty might be helpful )
DB
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RyanT" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
06 May 2005 09:41:07 AM |
|
|
The difference is, Russell's ideas and works have already left an
influence on society today and is routinely being applied in the form
of the analytic method. His influence is enormous, and many of the
products we use today are a result from his . His approach to ideas
are not a "phophecy", because science doesn't rely on false predictions
to bolster their case. They use evidence.
Scientists are sometimes are wrong. Who knew? Nobody is claiming to
be perfect. The difference is, they have a greater tendency to admit
it when they're wrong, and they revise their ideas as new information
comes up. Lots of efforts are poured into falsifications of currently
existing theories, and those vitamin things are a good example of this
happening. The whole reason why you even know why they might not be as
great as they inititally said they were, is because of scientists.
These people do not sit around and marvel at themselves for producing a
theory, they actively seek the truth. In fact, Russel set out to prove
mathematics as some kind of universal truth, be then realized it
couldn't be done because of our limitations in logic. His biggest
contribution to the world of science actively involved undermining the
way people thought of it!
Russell predicted that as science becomes more commonplace in society,
it'll lead to a process of secularization and a reduction in the power
of the church. Just looking at where we used to be even just a couple
of decades ago, these trends are already happening in obvious manners.
What has your lady done for you recently?
Oh, here's some good bible quotes:
Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and
shall show great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible,
they shall deceive the very elect.
Mark 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall
show signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
Read your own book for Christs sakes!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
05 May 2005 03:03:21 PM |
|
|
Religion and science can both be the tools
of immature thinking. If they combine to
create nuclear holy wars then we have a
problem.
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:ecbk71db2dbp3qonjdp6ce4ql13g877roq@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 5 May 2005 01:42:12 -0400, "rugged individuals"
: <brandon@comcat.com> wrote:
:
:
: >Science is a tool. The quality of the work produced is dependent upon who
is
: >wielding the tool.
:
: Has nothing to do with what I said.
:
: >Interestingly, the "science as god" group worships the tool,
:
: I don't worship anything.
:
: > and holds to
: >the conceit that the tool produces objective truth with every
application.
: >Experiments produce results not truth. Results can hint at truth. Hints,
: >suggestions, indications, correlations... is science occult?
: >
:
: "science, while it diminishes our cosmic pretensions, enormously
: increases our terrestrial comfort. That is why, in spite of the horror
: of the theologians, science has on the whole been tolerated."
:
: "Religion is something left over from the infancy of our intelligence,
: it will fade away as we adopt reason and science as our guidelines."
: [Bertrand Russell]
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AL" |
|
| Title: Re: That's what's wrong with science |
06 May 2005 04:48:59 PM |
|
|
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:kcvi71t2fkcu9f9ua8tb2dfp6b2r9odkh1@4ax.com...
In
Kansas, the State Board of Education is putting evolution on trial
again. They haven't got to the story of Joshua stopping the sun in the
sky yet. This certainly belongs in physics class.
For whomevers sake it's Kansas!!! In Kansas live a bunch of ignorant
asswipes that vote for GWB, if they lived in England they'ld be called
Scotsmen and would have voted for Tony Blair
Geometry classes take note; a careful reading of Second Kings reveals
that the circular altar in Solomon's temple is nine cubits in diameter
and 27 cubits around the rim. That makes pi an even three-point-zero
instead of that old silly Unchristian 3.1416. Pi just a theory!
The story of the Holy Hymen and virgin birth should certainly be
mentioned in biology class along with the naked lady and the talking
snake.
I'm sure our learned theological experts who constantly peruse the
Bible can find much more that's wrong with science than I can.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
28 Apr 2005 12:01:57 AM |
|
|
cat rancher wrote:
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1114609564.979359.120290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: Art can be thought of as a scientific discipline which has a number
of
: principles that can be verified by experiments consisting of a
works of
: art which are shown to an audience and measuring the audience
reaction.
And how can someone reproduce an original work of art?
An artist can create multiple versions of his art works.
The inspiration, insight, point of view are not reproduced,
only copied.
Those things aren't detectible by an audience.
Insight can not be reproduced, only plagiarized or restated
and often incorrectly.
How do you know that? And, what difference does it make?
--
Ron
.
|
|
|
| User: "cat rancher" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth |
28 Apr 2005 06:27:28 AM |
|
|
"Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
news:1114661397.530969.144750@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
: cat rancher wrote:
: > "Ron Peterson" <ron@shell.core.com> wrote in message
: > news:1114609564.979359.120290@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
:
: > : Art can be thought of as a scientific discipline which has a number
: of
: > : principles that can be verified by experiments consisting of a
: works of
: > : art which are shown to an audience and measuring the audience
: reaction.
:
: > And how can someone reproduce an original work of art?
:
: An artist can create multiple versions of his art works.
:
: > The inspiration, insight, point of view are not reproduced,
: > only copied.
:
: Those things aren't detectible by an audience.
:
: > Insight can not be reproduced, only plagiarized or restated
: > and often incorrectly.
:
: How do you know that? And, what difference does it make?
I don't. I just think science is an *****. A good tool but a bad
master.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
