|
I do not view Corian's statements as a personal attack, and indeed they are perhaps better seen as an indictment of the failures of the organization too often seen as Christianity when Christianity is in truth a personal and communal experience that has nothing to do with hierarchies and laws.
Usually I'm pretty good about it but for some reason Corian is getting under my skin. And I hate it when I get lumped in with weird Christians.
Kirth, I understand what you are saying and, for what it's worth, I am doing my best in my little part of the world to stop that attitude and behavior. Possibly a loosing battle, but it's got to start somewhere.
Erian -- you continue to do an excellent job. I'm probably not going to dialogue with Corian because I am really having a difficult time figuring out what the problem/issue/question really is. For what it's worth, it looks like a lot of his searching stems from the Catholic church -- not that that is "good" or "bad", but just that I don't have a lot of first-hand experience with that.
And, Corian -- for what it's worth, I have been part of a number of different denominational churches over the last 20 years and I feel fairly confident in saying that a pretty good majority of people from those congregations don't accept what you seem to imply is "fact" or accepted by the Christian church. And, again, I am truly sorry you did not get a better answer to your questions.
And many more consider Tertullian one of the fathers of the catholic church. I brought him up because he was one of those who helped form the christian view of Hell.
Now, as for my run-ins with priests, theologists, and religious people during my years of searching, I can say it wasn't just one person. They ALL gave me those answers, either standard noncommittal fare like "it's okay, Jesus loves you", or simplistic references to various scriptures, or things that basically amounted to "just accept it". Seeing how religious people treated me when I wanted to believe did give me a sour aftertaste.
So then, I'll be a bit more direct...what is your opinion of me? Am I giving you those same dismissive answers? If you were dealing with a "true" theologian and the best they came up with was "Jesus loves you" or "Just accept it" well, I'd question their actual status as a theologian. I am no great scholar, but I can assure you you won't get either of those answers from me. So, ask me a question, and I'll do my best to answer with as much depth as I can muster.
Back to Hell: It may be that you could clothe the doctrine of Hell in more pleasant clothes today, things not as monstrous as eternal torture. But again, Hell in the eyes of the catholic church isn't like that. I have discussed this with many catholics, including priests, and what I took away from those meetings has generally been that Hell in catholicism is a very real place, with very concrete punishments. And if you look at it throughout history, it's even more concrete, told of in loving, overflowing detail how horrible its physical punishments are. There are even children's books about the horrible punishments that small children endure in Hell.
If you are dealing specifically in the area of the Roman Catholic explanation of Hell, that indeed helps clarify where you're coming from. There is indeed a subset of this faith tradition that hold to Hell as the place you describe. However, if you read the Catechism you will actually find that they support my definition--the primary punishment of Hell is willful separation from God. In that very same section it is stated that no one is predestined to Hell.
Indeed, the official Roman Catholic view of Hell is much different than some Catholics think, because they generally derive their definition of Hell from other sources (such as Dante's works).
Sum total: If we accept that God made this world, both physically and metaphysically, and the doctrine of Hell is correct, we get a God who designed a Hell for us to burn in if we didn't choose the right way to honour him. And just to make it easier, he told a lot of different people about this stuff in different ways, resulting in thousands of religious movements that all claim to be the One True Path. If Hell is the absence of a guy like that: count me in.
Actually, as I understand Hell is is truly of our own creation and damnation--our willful separation from God--rather than some malicious act on God's part. As for the confusion, that unfortunately is again an issue endemic to humans rather than God.
Moff Rimmer: You want the questions that I want answered?
I'll just give you one...
I'm leaving work now and headed for some down-time with my family, but I'll get back to this either later tonight or tomorrow...
Kirth, I understand what you are saying and, for what it's worth, I am doing my best in my little part of the world to stop that attitude and behavior. Possibly a losing battle, but it's got to start somewhere.
Yes, there are Christians, like you and Erian, who follow the gospel and not the narrow-minded nonsense that passes for gospel in small-minded people. Those with whom I've had the pleasure of talking have often become good friends; they never take my difference in views as a challenge to their own faith, and vice versa.
It seems to me, that if more people knew Christians of your sort, there would be fewer of the small, mean "cultural" ones around -- but maybe I'm giving most people too much credit for insightfulness.
I visited Hell once. They were out of all my favorite flavors and so I left. That place really sucked.
Throughout my searching, I found things in all the religious movements I looked at that made me cringe.
Just out of curiosity, which ones have you looked at? I agree with your distaste of much of the Christian (and specifically Catholic) doctrine as it was taught to me, but there are many religions other than Christianity, and it's hard to accept your points when you insist on using the words "religious people" when you mean "Christians" or "Catholics." Have you ever sat down and talked with a Hindu mahatma about his beliefs?
I've met many outspoken Christians who were in no way religious. I've met men of great insight and compassion, and deep spiritual fulfillment, who were not Christians.
Again: not all religions revolve around a God and an afterlife.
|
|
I'll just give you one: If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why does the world look like it does, with lynch mobs, food riots, murder, corruption, torture, mass executions, pollution and so on?
I may not fully answer this, but I might still like some clarification...
It appears that you are saying that the world as it is today is God's fault and not man's -- correct?
It also appears that you want God to clean up our messes -- is that what you are saying or are you really asking something different?
|
|
I'll just give you one: If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why does the world look like it does, with lynch mobs, food riots, murder, corruption, torture, mass executions, pollution and so on?
Kirth -- just curious, do Bhuddists have an answer to this question? Just kind of curious as to your take on it.
Truthfully, from a relatively non-religious standpoint, it's probably a very reasonable question for any religion.
I visited Hell once. They were out of all my favorite flavors and so I left. That place really sucked.Flavors of what?
Everything I normally enjoy that comes in delicious flavors. It's a subtle enough punishment for being there but one that severely cramped my tastebuds' style. And check this out, in Hell it's all public transportation and the bus and train arrive only once every four hours, so you're stuck there on an uncomfortable bench listening to people whining all day about how they wound up there. They even try to compete to see who has the most pathetically self martyring story.
"Oh poor me, I didn't know that stealing that doughnut would..."
Man, if only you could kill a guy twice, y'know?
So, no Starburst Jelly Beans then?Everything I normally enjoy that comes in delicious flavors.I visited Hell once. They were out of all my favorite flavors and so I left. That place really sucked.Flavors of what?
They have them all... just never the ones you want, in stock.
The Beastmaster knows how to bring a man down slow, see? Slow.
I'll just give you one: If God is omnipotent, and omniscient, and omnibenevolent, why does the world look like it does, with lynch mobs, food riots, murder, corruption, torture, mass executions, pollution and so on?Kirth -- just curious, do Bhuddists have an answer to this question? Just kind of curious as to your take on it.
In pure Buddhism, there is no God to cause these things. People perform evil acts because they fail to perceive their interconnectedness with those whom they hurt. This skewed world-view causes their lives to be more difficult, and so they become frustrated -- causing them to perpetrate ever-greater atrocities in order to "correct" the problem they perceive, as if it were something external to themselves.
|
|
In pure Buddhism, there is no God to cause these things. People perform evil acts because they fail to perceive their interconnectedness with those whom they hurt. This wrongful world-view works to their long-term detriment, causing their lives to be more difficult, and so they become frustrated -- causing them to pereptrate ever-greater atrocities in order to "correct" the problem they perceive, as if it were something external to themselves.
Is it getting better or worse from a Buddhist's point of view? I understand that there is no "God", but we all, in essence, fill the role of "God". I guess a further question is do Buddhists believe there is an end to this, one way or the other?
Is it getting better or worse from a Buddhist's point of view? I understand that there is no "God", but we all, in essence, fill the role of "God". I guess a further question is do Buddhists believe there is an end to this, one way or the other?
I'm not sure I understand your first question. Do you mean, for everyone, over time? People have always been deluded, and most will likely remain so. In answer to your second question, the "end" for a person who fully perceives and accepts reality as it is, directly, with no false judgments or ideological constructs in the way, is Enlightenment -- that person is at peace, is immune from suffering himself and causes no suffering to those around him.
If when you say an "end" you're inquiring after some kind of an afterlife -- well, if "time" and "self" are in fact illusory, then the concept of an afterlife is rooted in fallacy, so it's a moot question. Sometimes a minute can seem like forever; often I turn around and wonder where the last 20 years went. Taken a step further, an eternal afterlife is no different than a 15-minute coffee break :)
|
|
I'm not sure I understand your first question. Do you mean, for everyone, over time?
I guess more over time, but see below...
People have always been deluded, and most will likely remain so. In answer to your second question, the "end" for a person who fully perceives and accepts reality as it is, directly, with no false judgments or ideological constructs in the way, is Enlightenment -- that person is at peace, is immune from suffering himself and causes no suffering to those around him.
I guess that I'm a little confused between the difference between how we are all part of the same thing and how we are separate.
I think I'm kind of asking, will everyone reach enlightenment?
Taken a step further, an eternal afterlife is no different than a 15-minute coffee break :)
Depends on who you are with. ;-)
I guess that I'm a little confused between the difference between how we are all part of the same thing and how we are separate.
Is this any different that stating that all things are connected?
I think I'm kind of asking, will everyone reach enlightenment?
Eventually.
|
|
Is this any different that stating that all things are connected?
I guess that I'm a little confused between the difference between how we are all part of the same thing and how we are separate.
Maybe, except that (at least how I understand it) we are really all part of the same entity and not just connected -- so hurting others really hurts ourselves more than we may realize.
I'm really not the expert, however, hence the reason I was asking the question.
It's not like the idea does not exist among Christians.
"No man is an island, entire of itself
every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main
if a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were,
as well as if a manor of thy friends or of thine own were
any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind
and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls
it tolls for thee.
-- John Donne"
Sure, it's telling of Donne's social class that he chooses a "manor" as a metaphor, but I still like this passage.
Whether or not you see infinite interconnectedness as being different from "the great all" is just a matter of semantics. Personally I don't see why they are in any way different.
I guess that I'm a little confused between the difference between how we are all part of the same thing and how we are separate. I think I'm kind of asking, will everyone reach enlightenment?
We naturally perceive "ourselves" as being separate, so it's often convenient to speak as if that were the case -- as long as we remain aware that it's an intellectual metaphor rather than a deeper truth. For any chemists in the audience, it's like the Bohr model of the atom -- we know that electrons are in clouds, not neat shells, but the shell model allows us to make useful predictions, so it can be a valuable construct even if it's not really accurate.
So, with that said, here's a "first order" example: You eat food, and the molecules from that food become part of you. So your body is made up of things from all over the earth (and some space dust as well). As your cells die and are replaced, the "you" isn't constant, either -- your body this year isn't the one you had 15 years ago, even if it looks similar. OK. Mentally, our attitudes and personalities are constantly being shaped and re-adjusted in response to our experiences, in much the same way -- so our environment is part of our bodies AND our personalities.
The natural reaction of most people is to say "No! I am unique!" But in 200 years, they won't be here; nor will anyone who knows them. You can claim to have an immortal soul, but that's another difference between Christians and Buddhists: instead of clinging to that idea as a source of a unique "self" and founding a religion around it, we try to let it go.
That's just scratching the surface, but it's a start. Kruelaid's semi-flippant "yes" as to whether "we" all achieve enlightment is a good answer, but it isn't strictly accurate -- but that question is a lot like the famous Koan "Does a dog have a Buddha-nature?" (Answer: "Yes; everything does" and "Of course not, he's a dog!" and, equally valid, "I saw the moon last night.")
so hurting others really hurts ourselves more than we may realize.
Yes. Hurting others is not only like hacking off your own arm, it also reinforces the wrong thinking that led "you" to do so in the first place, worsening your blindness of what you're actually doing.
In physical terms, creating suffering causes anger anger and hatred in the sufferers, which nearly inevitably cause a backlash. In metaphysical terms, the pain we inflict on ourselves hurts enough that it deepens the borderline "split personality" we started with, making it easier to hurt ourselves in the future.
Whether or not you see infinite interconnectedness as being different from "the great all" is just a matter of semantics. Personally I don't see why they are in any way different.
There is wisdom in what you say. Fundamentally, any attempt to assign words or intellectual concepts to reality, instead of living it, is nothing but an exercise in semantics. I can explain how things are all day, and provide metaphors, but it's more important to be aware and alert and see how things are.
If most of the people I see would just put down the cell phone occasionally and really pay attantion to walking, or just breathing, they'd be amazed at what they learn.
P.S. That quote of Donne's is one of my favorites, for obvious reasons.
Why is there suffering? Because the universe is the correlation between Sturgeon's Law (99% of everything is crap) and the Law of Large Numbers (given a sufficient population, anything that can happen will happen). There is no wheat without chaff. Myself, I'd rather have some chaff, than no wheat. Or in other words, I accept the world the way it is, because that's the way it has to be.
I do not have a bone to pick with the Catholic church specifically. The reason I used it as an example was that it has a very specific view of Hell. I live in Sweden, and our lutheran until-recently state religion has officially stated that Hell is no longer part of their dogma.
As for what religions I have looked seriously at: Well, let's see. Judaism, catholicism, various smaller churches of protestantism, islam, mormons, jehova's witnesses. Yes, this limits my experience to various constructs of biblical religions, but it's hard to come by hinduists, buddhists, shintoists and so on where I live.
Erian: You are very perceptive. It seems you have insight, and I'd be prepared to respect you for that insight even if you weren't religious. You correctly understood that I have something against formal and organized religion. What people believe for themselves, that's up to them. But when people force their religious views on their children, that's not okay. I have talked to so many who were in this situation and suffered throughout their childhood for it. When religious people use their religion to force others to conform to their tenets under the guise of "you hurt my religious feelings", that's absurd. And when there are laws made that promote one religious view over all other views, that's not okay either.
God knows (ha ha) that I'm not going to wade through 44 pages of this thread, so forgive me if it's been covered, but I just wanted to mention transubstantiation. It's awesome and part of official Catholic doctrine.
Another thing which may have been brought up: an omniscient god and free will are mutually exclusive. For any being to be omniscient, it must know quite literally everything, which would include the future; if it knows what will happen in the future, then the future is predetermined and nobody truly has any free will.
|
|
... But when people force their religious views on their children, that's not okay. I have talked to so many who were in this situation and suffered throughout their childhood for it.
So have I.
However, is it possible that there are many (perhaps more?) "who were in this situation" and actually benefitted greatly throughout their childhood for it? Is this even a possibility in your mind?
Good point, Moff Rimmer.
But I'll tell you, I just don't have any great stories about the kids who were indoctrinated with well balanced beliefs. It was the scripture memorizing rod whipped Godbots who did all the memorable stuff... or ummm... had it done to them.
So it's easy for me to forget the ones who turn out well.
|
|
Good point, Moff Rimmer.
But I'll tell you, I just don't have any great stories about the kids who were indoctrinated with well balanced beliefs. It was the scripture memorizing rod whipped Godbots who did all the memorable stuff... or ummm... had it done to them.
So it's easy for me to forget the ones who turn out well.
This is kind of like the news. We always seem to hear about and remember the most all the bad experiences. For some reason that is what people are most interested in (or so it seems). I had a really good experience growing up. I don't really talk about it because I don't have the need to get it off my chest (or what have you). If it sucked, I can pretty well guarantee that everyone within 50 miles would have heard about it by now.
Just because you don't hear about the good doesn't mean it isn't happening.
EDIT: Putting it a little differently -- I have nothing to complain about. So you won't hear about my growing up from that angle. And if I talked about how great it was it would probably come across as bragging which would probably defeat anything good that might have come from it. So, unless someone specifically asks, you probably won't know how good I had it. How many others are there out there like me? I have no idea -- but ask yourself how many people you have heard from compared to how many people you haven't. I too have heard a lot of crap that has happened. But there are a whole lot of people I have no idea about.
Unfortunately, because the complainers are loudest, people seem to think that is the "norm".
Erian: You are very perceptive. It seems you have insight, and I'd be prepared to respect you for that insight even if you weren't religious...
Well, I appreciate that. Now, I actually consider myself a bit slow--if we were having this conversation face-to-face you would probably find me ineloquent and clumsy! However, I'm reconciled to that as just a part of who I am. ;^)
Getting to mutual respect is, I suppose, part of the point of this thread. Now, to be sure I would also probably "offend" some folks with my voting decisions and such--I will most definitely vote my beliefs and those beliefs may not line up with what others like/support. I should no more be expected to suppress those beliefs than should others be expected to accept them without question. However, I strongly support this as a democratic process rather than some imposed theocracy. I'm not, as some here might say colloquially, a "namby pamby" Christian afraid to support my beliefs for fear of offending others. But I'm also not under the delusion that "if we can just get this country to be Christian, everything will be alright." Governments, and I would argue even organizations, cannot be "Christian" in the true sense of the word, meaning they cannot be transformed to the image of Christ. Christians can, and I believe should, influence organizations and even governments. But they have no more inherent right to do so than every other human. This does mean some organizations will be more oriented toward Christian beliefs, while others will be less so.
God knows (ha ha) that I'm not going to wade through 44 pages of this thread, so forgive me if it's been covered, but I just wanted to mention transubstantiation. It's awesome and part of official Catholic doctrine.
It is indeed an interesting concept. Did you have a particular question or thought about transubstantiation, however?
Another thing which may have been brought up: an omniscient god and free will are mutually exclusive. For any being to be omniscient, it must know quite literally everything, which would include the future; if it knows what will happen in the future, then the future is predetermined and nobody truly has any free will.
I'll use this one to wrap back around to Corian's previous question regarding an omniscient/omnipotent/omnibenevolent God and the obvious "not good" situation of the world. Both that previous question and this comment are walking around in the wonderful philosophical world of the Omnipotency Paradox, the Problem of Evil, and finally the Problem of Hell. These questions have been around for millennia, indeed likely dating back to the earliest debates about the nature of reality. I am no great Christian thinker, and so I do not presume to be able to persuade anyone on these questions when they have been contested for so long. However, I would also note that despite their ancient nature, these questions have not extinguished the notion of faith in such a being (or beings, as these paradoxes also apply to polytheistic religions).
That said, it is important (at least in my opinion) to acknowledge that one's conclusion about these issues as disproving faith relies on assumed truths that, by the nature of faith, are not necessarily true. Taking the issue of omniscience (which is bound up with omnipotence in most cases) and free will as a starting point, our general perception of knowledge as humans is temporal, i.e. bound up with our experience of time. And our concept of time is bound up in our understanding of the physics of reality as we currently understand such things. However, God by very nature does not have to exist/operate within either our perception of time or our perception of physics if God is truly omnipotent. If God can thus exist as an external observer, existing outside our concepts of time and reality, then God can see an occurrence without having controlled that occurrence. We practice this on a much smaller scale as humans (especially those in the field of science)--we can observe a closed system and know the outcome of certain events because we have knowledge beyond what exists solely in that closed system. We do not have to interact/control such a system to have such knowledge. So, the conclusion that knowing the outcome of an event equals controlling (or removing free will) from that event doesn't actually make sense to me. Now, this is a fairly elementary explanation of this concept--folks like Thomas Aquinas and C.S. Lewis provide it from a Christian perspective much more eloquently than I--but my basic point is that from a pure logic perspective our ability to comprehend, or in fact even discuss, omnipotence and omniscience is limited by our own lack in both areas.
Taking this into the area of God's Goodness (or omnibenevolence), the restriction to preclude free will from that discussion obviously limits many Christians' ability to answer the dilemma. It would be similar to me saying, "Prove that the Big Bang is true, but do not use any theoretical or hypothetical data." To be clear I am not opposed to the scientific method as a means of expanding our knowledge--I will not, however, accept anyone that claims Science as obviously and fundamentally true. By this I mean those that blindly accept a scientific approach as always true without understanding that at many levels, science is based on unobservable theories/hypotheses that simply cannot (at least at this time) be proved. If they cannot be proved, then they are not by accurate definition "true." Anyone that argues differently, at least as far as I can tell, is actually using a fairly bad scientific approach.
To the basic question of the (poor) state of this world and the (negative) human condition, from a Christian perspective I would indeed tell you that both are the responsibility of humans. This cannot be proved, and as stated early is obviously a matter of faith rather than logic, but the basic points of my belief are (1) humans are creations of God, given the ability to interact with reality almost as God but (2) humans willfully separate themselves from God through their very power to interact with reality and (3) this separation has repercussions to both the Self and to the Other (which is both human as well as the rest of reality). Now, this is a very basic framework, and I've placed it in as non-religious a way as I know possible but this is how I would answer your question. How/why this could occur with an omnibenevolent God breaks down if I'm constrained from discussing free will in the process but I do want to point out one important thing in the above--the state of this world and the human condition are the responsibility of humans. This is not just a statement of past action, but also of present and future action. It is our responsibility on a daily basis to do something about both. The statement Jesus made in what is commonly now known as the Lord's Prayer, "your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as in heaven" is not some far-off future hope for Heaven. It is an immediate declaration to daily bring Heaven to earth, to reconcile God and creation. This, again, is a hard part of Christianity that many may ignore--basically after I've gotten my "fire insurance" from Hell, I want to just coast along to my final reward. This is not the purpose of Christianity, as it denies the day-by-day transformation of oneself to be as Christ because Christ was never inactive in his ministry to the sick, the needy, the poor, and the helpless. He brought Heaven to everyone he encountered (and note, this sometimes was not a "good thing" for those he encountered--reference the merchants selling their wares in the temple and the pharisees that were abusing their religious power).
This is not a purely logical argument, and again I do not presume I will convince someone on such grounds. However, I did want to close with mention that I myself am of an intellectual bent. As with Corian, I spent many years in thought and exploration, not simply in the Christian realm but in "pure" philosophy, science, and other religions. My current state is not one simply of accepting what I have been handed by either family or society, though I acknowledge both influences. And my current state is by no means perfect--I will (hopefully) continue to learn and grow in these areas until the day I die. That process is most definitely helped by having these conversations, and for that I wanted to thanks those that continue coming back here from time to time.
How many others are there out there like me? I have no idea -- but ask yourself how many people you have heard from compared to how many people you haven't. I too have heard a lot of crap that has happened. But there are a whole lot of people I have no idea about.
Unfortunately, because the complainers are loudest, people seem to think that is the "norm".
I'll raise my hand as having had a positive experience with religion growing up and support that evidence from the few should not translate to truth for the whole. If someone is forcing Christianity on their children, then they've missed the point entirely. Now, I do not advocate total freedom from religious influence, as I have seen championed by some (and by seen I mean actually, personally experienced). I am a Christian. I cannot act otherwise around my son to shelter him from that belief system so that he is free to chose his own way, both because it would violate my nature and because it would simply leave that void to be filled by some other belief system (religious or otherwise).
|
|
I am a Christian. I cannot act otherwise around my son to shelter him from that belief system so that he is free to chose his own way, both because it would violate my nature and because it would simply leave that void to be filled by some other belief system (religious or otherwise).
Ditto. My parents were/are Christian and raised me that way -- however they also raised me to think for myself and figure out what I believe and not just take on their beliefs because they were my parents. And I like to think that I am doing the same with my children.
|
If someone is forcing Christianity on their children, then they've missed the point entirely.
Indeed, the very notion of Free Will and 'knowledge of good and evil' kinda requires that a person be allowed to come to God of their own volition. Sure, they can be educated, sure, they can be inspired by the words and deeds of those around them, but those 'camps' where they raise little soldiers for Christ or attempt to beat disobedience out of children (or drown them in the bathtub to exorcise whatever evil spirit made them do something mommy told them not to do) are about as evil as evil can get, IMO. People who torture their kids into lip-service to a God they clearly don't understand deserve whatever Hell they believe in.
Why is there suffering? Because the universe is the correlation between Sturgeon's Law (99% of everything is crap) and the Law of Large Numbers (given a sufficient population, anything that can happen will happen).
Suffering is your reaction to the crap, though, and not the crap itself. You can't eliminate the crap, but you can let it roll off your back, and then you don't suffer from it.
Why is there suffering? Because the universe is the correlation between Sturgeon's Law (99% of everything is crap) and the Law of Large Numbers (given a sufficient population, anything that can happen will happen).Suffering is your reaction to the crap, though, and not the crap itself. You can't eliminate the crap, but you can let it roll off your back, and then you don't suffer from it.
And that's yet another corollary with Christianity, which ultimately brings a Joy that is present even in times of pain and hardship. The fine line being the source of one's ability to ignore the crap/live in Joy as either one's own enlightenment or transformation by God.
If I'm out Texas way anytime I'm going to have to look you up, Kirth. Same if you head my way (Birmingham, AL)!
By this I mean those that blindly accept a scientific approach as always true without understanding that at many levels, science is based on unobservable theories/hypotheses that simply cannot (at least at this time) be proved. If they cannot be proved, then they are not by accurate definition "true." Anyone that argues differently, at least as far as I can tell, is actually using a fairly bad scientific approach.
As a professional scientist, let me weigh in a bit on this.
First, a scientific theory is NOT a hypothesis; the latter is untested; the former has the weight of corroborating evidence and observation (scientists use the word specifically, not in the colloqual sense of "an idea"). Therefore, anything that does not have corroborating observational evidence is by definition NOT a theory. (Note that change in species over time can be observed in the fossil record, and, contrary to Creationist claims, there is no shortage of transitional fossils). I've gone on about this before, but it never hurts to repeat. When people say "it's just a theory," they usually forget that gravity is also "just a theory."
Second, NOTHING in science is ever "proven true." That's the fundamental basis of the methodology. Scientists come up with a hypothesis and then test it, using experimentation and observation. If a hypothesis is proven false (which can and usually does happen), then that hypothesis is thrown out or modified until it fits the observations. Only if it survives all attempts and testing, and still fits all the observations, is it considered a "theory."
Science does not concern itself with "Truth" (capital T); rather, it seeks to find explanations for observations made about the natural world. The supernatural cannot be tested, and therefore is outside of the scope of science. Anyone who claims otherwise is flat out wrong.
As an important note, Newton's "laws" had to be altered to account for Einstein's relativity effects, after standing as successful theories for 200 years. Most of the scientific community was pleased to have better explanations with greater predictive power; there was no "Newtonian" sect that denied Einstein's work on the basis of treating "Newtonianism" as a dogma. As a parallel, Darwin's theory has been altered and refined several times, and continues to be refined, in order to accommodate the observations in the fossil record (and the discovery of the genome) as well; the modern Theory of Evolution CANNOT realistically be termed "Darwinism" unless the speaker has an ideological ax to grind.
As a professional scientist, let me weigh in a bit on this...
Well stated, Kirth (as I know you've done before on this very thread) and exactly what I'm on about up above in much better language. My primary concern is with those who (ironically similar to some religious folks that they oppose) blindly spout out things like "man-made global warming is true, end of debate!" or "the Big Bang is true, why would we teach anything else?" I do not discount either of these as theoretical options, but neither is Truth to the extent some would llike to believe.
Thanks!
My primary concern is with those who (ironically similar to some religious folks that they oppose) blindly spout out things like "man-made global warming is true, end of debate!"
Don't get me started on that one! I hear "It's true, end of debate!" and, equally, "it's false, end of debate!" any number of times every day by people with no grasp of climate science, and no grasp of the state of the current theory (which, I should point out, is still being tested and modified to fit the observations). Scientifically, the anthropogenic climate change models can only be considered hypthesis that fits a lot of the evidence, but definitely requires further modification and refinement.
Erian, if you're ever in Houston, my wife and I would be honored to have you as a guest (you, too, Moff). Don't know if I'll ever be in Birmington, but the first week of June I'll be in Lexington, SC -- although a quick Google Maps check tells me that's still a 5-hour drive. Meh.
Don't get me started on that one! I hear "It's true, end of debate!" and, equally, "it's false, end of debate!" any number of times every day by people with no grasp of climate science, and no grasp of the state of the current theory (which, I should point out, is still being tested and modified to fit the observations). Scientifically, the anthropogenic climate change models can only be considered hypthesis that fits a lot of the evidence, but definitely requires further modification and refinement.
Heh, you'll not hear much from me on this one--I know enough to know there's still a valid debate and, unfortunately, things like money, politics. and such are playing too big a role on both sides. But the scientific models for climate change have never been on my radar for much more than trying to work out a passable system for my campaign setting... :^D
Hmm, that's one of the first mentions of roleplaying I recall on this thread in quite some time!
Erian, if you're ever in Houston, my wife and I would be honored to have you as a guest (you, too, Moff). Don't know if I'll ever be in Birmington, but the first week of June I'll be in Lexington, SC -- although a quick Google Maps check tells me that's still a 5-hour drive. Meh.
Will do. All of my Texas trips over the last decade have been Plano-focused, as both companies I've worked for are based there. However, I've got a shift coming up soon that actually might put Austin as a more likely destination--still a ways from Houston but closer than north o'Dallas! As for Lexington, yep, that's quite a haul! The up side is there's some beautiful country between here and there--you can take Interstate 20 as a (mostly) straight shot.
|
|
Erian, if you're ever in Houston, my wife and I would be honored to have you as a guest (you, too, Moff). Don't know if I'll ever be in Birmington, but the first week of June I'll be in Lexington, SC -- although a quick Google Maps check tells me that's still a 5-hour drive. Meh.
My brother is in Dallas, but Houston is still a ways away from there. I still may try and make it down next time I'm in the area though.
My brother is in Dallas, but Houston is still a ways away from there. I still may try and make it down next time I'm in the area though.
From Dallas, you're looking at about a 4 hour trip to W Houston, along I-45 and then Beltway 8. In between there's nothing but small towns like Buffalo, which boasts a Subway shop and a Texas Burger fast food counter. Grim choices all around, unfortunately. I'll never understand why Texas has to be so big.
Austin is about 3 hours away ("Just outside the Beltway!" in Texas-talk), but there are some cute little towns along the way (for example Brenham, home of the Blue Belle ice creamery - which gives tours and samples).
|
First, a scientific theory is NOT a hypothesis; the latter is untested; the former has the weight of corroborating evidence and observation (scientists use the word specifically, not in the colloqual sense of "an idea"). Therefore, anything that does not have corroborating observational evidence is by definition NOT a theory. (Note that change in species over time can be observed in the fossil record, and, contrary to Creationist claims, there is no shortage of transitional fossils). I've gone on about this before, but it never hurts to repeat. When people say "it's just a theory," they usually forget that gravity is also "just a theory."
You saw "Jesus Camp" as well, right? To me, the moment that stood out the most was when the kid with the mullet was doing his home-school thing and his mom starts talking about how "science can't prove anything" and that "evolution is nothing more than a theory". Obviously their idea of "theory" was rather different than the one employed by you or me.
My wife and I sat there and shuddered, stunned. When the kids put on the camo war paint, she got up to make sure the door was locked. Ben Stein would do well to see that movie, and think about how quickly these people would send him to the ovens, as opposed to the scientific community (which is too busy writing grant proposals to think about sending anyone anywhere).
For people interested in the "Evolution/ID" debate, especially those who have seen Stein's movie, be sure to check out A Flock of Dodos. It clearly (and with some humor) lays out the controversy, and concludes, more or less, that the debate exists because most scientists totally suck at explaining things to non-scientists, and drive them away instead of getting them to understand. Any well-presented "alternative," no matter how unfounded in any evidence, suddenly gets a lot of popular credence that way.
|
|
Ted Haggard's a real charmer, isn't he?
Also, this article has an interesting take on scientific presentation and contrariness.
Vattnisse -- It would be refreshing to read some evolution criticism by someone who actually has any grasp of the theory. And potentially useful, if it leads to a modification or refinement that improves the theory. I love reading Michael Beehe -- I don't share his views, and can refute a number of his premises, but at least his arguments come from a reasonable grasp of the subject instead of merely coming out of left field.
P.S. I notice that your top 5 favorite movies (on that thread) are on my top 20 list. Cool!
Thanks, Erian. =) Science's take on religion is that somewhere around 25% of us have the capacity to feel true religious feelings, and thus feel the need to do so. Beyond this, I'd speculate that most of the rest have some sense of spiritual feelings and needs, and that a fair portion of those remain part of some religious movement due to social or other reasons. However, to many of those who do NOT have the capacity to feel religious feelings, being forced to pay lip service to a church/God/whatever is more or less just as horrible as for a deeply religious person to be forced to join another religion. It's just not enough to say that "it's still good for you". Moff, you are a christian, right? I'd assume it's a part of you that you couldn't deny even if you wanted to.
Now imagine what it'd be like to be to grow up in a family where they forced you to go through the motions of serving another religion. I've spoken to a good number of those who were forced into christianity by uncaring parents, always motivated by "it's good for you even if you hate it". What tends to happen is that these children grow up into hating everything that christianity stands for, and see christianity as utterly Evil. As soon as they are able, they leave home, and most become very determined atheists. At least, this is my experience of those people.
For myself, I had the luck to be born into a family where pressing me into paying lip service to anything wasn't a priority. My parents never told me what parties they voted for, for example. At times I wished they would tell me, of course, because it would have been easier, but they let me find my own way. And perhaps not so strangely, I ended up believing in more or less exactly the same things they believed in.
And finally, as for religion, I didn't find anything I liked. All the systems of belief I studied spoke to me more of "how to control the masses" than of "how to live a good and fulfilling life". That's where cynicisms like the catholic Hell sting. And, because I do try to act in a good manner, I found that I could not lend myself to supporting "how to control the masses".
And another thing, what would it have meant for me to "just accept it"? I would have had to deny a very central part of myself. You see... not feeling religious feelings, not getting answers to your prayers, not seeing the hand of God in all things... those things are all parts of what and who I am. So, to me having to "just accept it" would be just as bad to me as for you to "just accept" some other religion, if my guess is correct.
We do not choose who we are. But if we can't be tolerant of those different from us, none of us humans will survive.
Science's take on religion is that somewhere around 25% of us have the capacity to feel true religious feelings, and thus feel the need to do so.
Just a minor correction, but I'd probably say "at least one study's take on religion..." rather than "Science's take on religion." No sense ruffling feathers over an assertion that's hardly considered a mainstream scientific theory.
Your overall point is outstanding, though.
Yes, I should have said "there are scientific studies that show that..." I admit there isn't much evidence, but then, it's a small field all in all. Science isn't all that interested in religiosity.
|
|
I appreciate and agree with most of what you are saying. For too many people, you are very right.
Now imagine what it'd be like to be to grow up in a family where they forced you to go through the motions of serving another religion. I've spoken to a good number of those who were forced into christianity by uncaring parents, always motivated by "it's good for you even if you hate it". What tends to happen is that these children grow up into hating everything that christianity stands for, and see christianity as utterly Evil. As soon as they are able, they leave home, and most become very determined atheists. At least, this is my experience of those people.
I have found this to be true as well. What I find is interesting is that it feels far more like the majority of athiests are so because of poor religious experiences rather actual searching or figuring it out for themselves. Basically they were turned off from God and didn't like the "God" they saw rather than determined that there wasn't a God.
Just out of curiosity -- you said that you didn't find anything you liked when you were searching for religion -- what do you feel you were looking for? What would you have liked? I am asking honestly as I really don't think that you are alone in that.