USAFHokie80 wrote:Oh jesuschrist! I'm terribly sorry your feelings are hurt. But that doesn't change the fact that an english major and a history major or a theatre major or any of the like are not equiped to pose questions about the nature of the physical world in which we live that have a deeper meaning than "oh, isn't this flower pretty?" They tend (and of course there are exceptions) not to have the knowledge or skills to test and determine why the speed of light is constant or why a water reacts to a magnetic field. It is these types of observations and discoveries that really unhinge religion.
My feelings aren't hurt--the idiotic conceit of people with narrow-minded world views does me no harm at all. It is very revealing, though to see the progression of your "argument," and how more clearly you show just how uninformed you are.
More than two thousand years ago, Cicero wrote: When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? This is the earliest recorded version of the "watchmaker analogy." The Intelligent Design crew have tarted up the old whore and now call her "irreducible complexity."
However, people whose thinking is not channeled by the narrow viewpoint of scientific conceit ask another question. Why did Cicero feel compelled to defend the logic of a theistic creation? The obvious answer is that theism was questioned, and commonly questioned, two thousand years ago. It is also obvious that people were able to question theism without benefit of a theory of thermodynamics or a concept of bond angles.
Setanta wrote:More than two thousand years ago, Cicero wrote: When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers? This is the earliest recorded version of the "watchmaker analogy." The Intelligent Design crew have tarted up the old whore and now call her "irreducible complexity."
However, people whose thinking is not channeled by the narrow viewpoint of scientific conceit ask another question. Why did Cicero feel compelled to defend the logic of a theistic creation? The obvious answer is that theism was questioned, and commonly questioned, two thousand years ago. It is also obvious that people were able to question theism without benefit of a theory of thermodynamics or a concept of bond angles.
Blah blah blah. That really has nothing to do with anything I've said. You can't say what was "logical" when referring to people because we often do things contrary to logic, especially back then and especially where religion in concerned.
Questioning religion on the basis of the sun dial without actually understanding why it works doesn't do any good. Philosophers without scientific understanding cannot seriously put a question to anything of the natural world until they have a very deep understanding of it.
I see your scientific training left you bereft of the type of comprehension which is simple and basic to the historian. The point of the passage from Cicero is that it provides evidence that theistic religion was questioned two thousand years ago, long before the science which you worship religiously had been conceived of. I'm not surprised that you didn't see the point, but the point is that it refutes your silly, nay stupid, contention that science is required to question religion.
This is really getting to be a fun thread. Perhaps some nuclear physicist will solve all our problems. . .
But we can be thankful and tranquil and proud
For man's been endowed with the mushroom shaped cloud
And we know for certain that some lovely day
Some one will set the spark off
And we will all be blown away.
Setanta wrote:I see your scientific training left you bereft of the type of comprehension which is simple and basic to the historian. The point of the passage from Cicero is that it provides evidence that theistic religion was questioned two thousand years ago, long before the science which you worship religiously had been conceived of. I'm not surprised that you didn't see the point, but the point is that it refutes your silly, nay stupid, contention that science is required to question religion.
LOL. It's amusing to see how irritated this all makes you. I never said a scientific intellect was required to question religion. And once again, the fact that he made a statement in support does not mean absolutely that religion was ever in question. That is an unfounded assumption on your behalf - however logical it seem to you. What I said was that to question science in a manner that cannot be dismissed as philosophical wonderment, you need the ability to prove inconsistency. I can question religion by saying "I don't think god exists." That is easily dismissed where as "we can show that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" cannot so easily be pushed off. I'm not really interested in convincing you of this because it is an obvious fact. Sorry that you don't like it. I'm not saying that people with more artistic educations are stupid or useless or any of that. I am only saying that in this particular situation, they are not well equipped.
"I am a wise man, for the only fact I truly know is that of my own ignorance." -Socrates
Conversely, certainty seems proportional to stupidity.
Fee Fie Foe, Hokie, you're needling of Set amuses some of us, but the amusement is in his favor.
See... I think Hokie has gotten us into some of the meat and potatoes of the discussion.
When it comes to some of the fundamental claims that religion makes about the world and universe around us, it requires a keen understanding of the scientific principles that are at odds with the dogma. (i.e evolution vs. creationism)
Religion has successfully brushed aside the attitude it took towards Galileo and the Earth's rotation around the Sun, and tries to convince us that it's not repeating its sins with its criticism of evolution (which it really is).
How many of those three absolutely obtuse Republican candidates who think the Earth is only 6,000 years old actually understand what the theory of evolution is actually about? I may get burned on this, but I seriously doubt any of those individuals has been educated in the sciences adequately. (That doesn't mean those who claim to believe evolution are, but that's a different point altogether.)
When it comes to the Earth's rotation around the sun... duh... you can show people footage of it actually happening.
When it comes to evolution, you have to be in command of some basic scientific principles... principles that, I dare say, the vast majority of the American electorate, at least at this point in time, is incapable of comprehending.
It is my firm belief that mastery of modern scientific principles is the antidote to religion. Those who manage to give credence to both, I can only guess, have successfully compartmentalized their mind, and refuse to allow their two modes of understanding to interact.
The problem is, all it takes is a preacher (who may or may not understand evolution) to tell a bunch of lemmings that evolution is as much of a matter of faith as the concept of creation is, and that they much "choose... but choose wisely..."
This has polarized America into those who cannot/refuse to understand science, and those who do. Since nothing makes my mouth water more than the prospect of a world where we dispense with bending over backwards to make our world adhere to some obsolete bronze aged text and use evidence and reason to create a sustainable world for us all, my motivation in starting this thread was to strengthen my belief that educating more people would erode the dogmatic nonsense that is religious faith.
Bring it.
When it comes to some of the fundamental claims that religion makes about the world and universe around us, it requires a keen understanding of the scientific principles that are at odds with the dogma. (i.e evolution vs. creationism)
You think so?
common sense ain't all that common.
ossobuco wrote:When it comes to some of the fundamental claims that religion makes about the world and universe around us, it requires a keen understanding of the scientific principles that are at odds with the dogma. (i.e evolution vs. creationism)
You think so?
Well I guess if you're an english major you could always write an essay on why you think the earth revolves around the sun. Of course, that will do little since you would have no technical knowledge or data or ability to demonstrate the fact.
Here we go... let's try a lil exercise. Now, I've found a tid bit of knowledge everyone can understand...
I believe that: 2 + 2 = 5.
So explain to me with your english and history skills, not math or science, why I shouldn't believe that.
Without number theory (math/science) you can conjecture till you're blue in the face. At the end of the day, you have no means to demonstrate why this is incorrect.
That. Is. My. Point.
Hello? Not believing a construct doesn't require any elaborate science background.
ossobuco wrote:Hello? Not believing a construct doesn't require any elaborate science background.
This is such a ridiculous comment.
To meaningfully refute a construct requires one to provide a more plausible explanation. If you're going to refute evolution.... OF COURSE YOU NEED TO HAVE A SCIENTIFIC BACKGROUND.
"Elaborate"... perhaps not... but to some, the concept that viruses are not killed by antibiotics is elaborate.
Otherwise you can say, "I don't believe 2+2=4."
WHY don't you believe that? You're within your rights to not believe anything. But if anyone is to take you seriously, you have to provide evidence that your own world view about ANYTHING (math, science, god) is superior.
No, I don't. Not believing comes first. One can always work up a refutation is one cares enough to engage.
No, I don't. Not believing comes first. One can always work up a refutation is one cares enough to engage.
I worked in immunology, am an atheist. You really want to have me refute 2 + 2 = 4?
I'm talking about the nature of not believing. I've not much care if you insist I work up argumentation. Perhaps for some, not believing comes after meticulous argument, fine with me. Indeed, probably true with me on some issues. However, I never believed in the easter bunny, and never felt the need to give some complex reasons why to anyone, and won't be starting in on that now, however you may call my comment 'ridiculous'..
USAFHokie80 wrote:
I believe that: 2 + 2 = 5.
So explain to me with your english and history skills, not math or science, why I shouldn't believe that.
Without number theory (math/science) you can conjecture till you're blue in the face. At the end of the day, you have no means to demonstrate why this is incorrect.
Hold up two fingers (not those two!).
Now hold up another two fingers.
End of demonstration.
(of course, 5 may actually be right for very large values of "2" but let's not go there!)
