Just stop the useless complaining.
POSTED BY: LostInTheVerse
UPDATED: Thursday, November 25, 2004 04:27
VIEWED: 24069
PAGE 15 of 17
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
as in the scientist who can’t get his paper published
Maybe not in an accepted journal, but people can and do post there papers online. http://arxiv.org/ for instance, is a pre-print server for Physics, Mathematics, Nonlinear Sciences, Computer Science and Quantitative Biology. The last one was added since I was last there.
I would imagine that there are similar pre-print servers for other areas (or there will be soon). So, people do have a forum to publish there results if they want to.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The problem is that modern, western science is predicated upon the assumption that there are only five senses. Other forms of investigation are scorned. Science has a very hard time acknowledging the very existence (let alone efficacy) of intuition. This is a limitation that Science has chosen because these first five senses are provable through scientific means. All other senses have thus far proven utterly elusive to its grasp.
Actually, I've heard of a number of studies that have studied remote sensing, telekenesis, etc. Just because something is not in the main stream and people are highly skeptikal of it, it doesn't mean that it is entirely dismissed.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
The wise scientist, therefore, understands that this limitation is formal and not metaphysical. The wise scientist agrees with Hamlet that there are “more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of” in Science.
Although there are a lot of "scientists" in the other catagory, I believe that this one quoted above is at least the solid majority.
I think it's one of the side effects of being a scientist. You are basically shown on a daily basis how much you *don't* know. Tends to be a humbling experience.
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
If you ask me, both extremes have done harm and impeded the developement of our species.
[/b
Agreed. Most things are double edged swords.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Truth is a funny thing, people. The truth is good enough for me; pure, clean, based on fact, and unbiased. You may choose to believe otherwise, it is your choice (which people tend to forget the freedom to make up omne's own mind!!!)
I love this statement because it sums up how I feel..you see I don't care what the truth is I just want to know it whatever it may be..
some people only want to know the truth if they can handle it!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by piratejenny:Quote:
Truth is a funny thing, people. The truth is good enough for me; pure, clean, based on fact, and unbiased. You may choose to believe otherwise, it is your choice (which people tend to forget the freedom to make up omne's own mind!!!)
I love this statement because it sums up how I feel..you see I don't care what the truth is I just want to know it whatever it may be..
some people only want to know the truth if they can handle it!!
"Your mouth is talking. Might wanna see to that"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, very interesting.
Hey Tragic, a working 'puter is always a good thing- welcome back!
----------------------
Quote:
The wise scientist, therefore, understands that this limitation is formal and not metaphysical. The wise scientist agrees with Hamlet that there are “more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of” in Science. The credulous (or if you will, religious) scientist does not. Because he cannot produce evidence of God in a petri dish he calls himself an atheist. He raises Science from a mere method or tool into a Cosmology, a kind of god in its own right.-HK Cavalier
Quote:
Basically, in the rest of the world (and from what my wife tells me it is even more so, in the direction that I defend) science is not perceived as anything of a religion. There are too many differences. I beleive that this perception that science is a religion comes from a lack of education and understanding of what science really is. -Sigmanunki
Quote:
If you say science is not a religion, all the more power to you. I just can't prove anything if you will not try to see things from my side....First, define religion- Write it down: Make sure it will include Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus Bhudists, Native Americans and what you think will be the "bare bones" they share in common.- Tragicstory
Quote:
You can see anything if you use the right filters- Rue
I hope I have the essentials here? I think I'm going to tackle defining "religion"- which is FORMALLY defined as a belief in a supernatural power. Religions have a number of components, and since religions have changed over time it's not easy to encapsulate ALL aspects into one summary. However, here are a few common threads that I've observed:
Code of Behavior
ALL religions that I know of have some sort of code of behavior. That includes both current religions and historic religions (Vikings, Druids, Sumerians etc.) I can't think of any exceptions, but if you can, please let me know.
Afterlife
ALL religions that I know of talk about some sort of afterlife. Again, if there are exceptions, let me know.
World story
Most religions provide a world story of a sorts- where we and the world (or universe) came from. Native American, Hindu, Jewish, aboriginal and animistic religions refer to gods. I don't whether Buddhism and Confucianism fall into this category.
Controlling larger forces
All religions that I can think of attempt to control larger forces- whether it is sacrificing to the rain gods, lighting up incense to the ancestors for good luck, or prayer. Exceptions...?
Hierarchy
Religions almost always have priests that intervene between the gods and the people, and impose some sort of control on the population. I can't think of any exceptions, but perhaps there are some mystic religions that are purely individually practiced that I don't know about.
COMPARISON
Both science and religion attempt to control larger forces. The only difference between science and religion in this regard is that science is more successful because it tests its attempts against results.
Both science and religion recognize that there are forces that are much larger than we are. Every scientist I know realizes that there are many things that limit our knowledge... even the structure of our brain may make it impossible for us to model fundamental things about the universe. I think the perception that of science that everything is known or knowable is false.
Science, as far as I can tell, doesn't provide a code of behavior. It doesn't tell people what is "right or wrong" except in the realm of how to perform science.
Both science and relgion attempt to provide a "world story". Since natural history can't be tested in tha lab, the best we can do is apply current natural progressions to past occurences. The difference between science and religion in this realm is that scientists test their story against current knowledge and for internal consistency, but this area is very much
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I hope I have the essentials here?
With the length of the discussion I don't really think that this is possible. But you do have a lot of them
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Code of Behavior
To wide reaching. You just state that one exists. I mean, how do you define it.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Afterlife
True, every religion that I know of has one whether people attempt to explain it (ie Christanity) or they don't (ie Buddhism).
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
World story
This sounds a lot like world view. As with your code of behaviour, it's too wide reaching.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Controlling larger forces
I don't know whether I'd agree with this totally. There are areas of grey.
Mostly people are asking the gods to do something. Sacrific and the like are just attempts to appease the god/goddess/etc. But, there are prayers and spells in various religions that do attempt to control certain forces.
Also, science at it's fundamental level is just trying to understand nature. There are areas (ie Engineering) that attempt to exploit what nature has to offer that can be defined as attempting to control it.
I would think that this is a mixture and highly dependant on what area of science or what religion you are looking at.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Hierarchy
Wiccans are mostly solotary practitioners. The Koran (Islam) states that one should look to himself and the Koran to know what is true and explicitly states not to listen to anyone else that may call themselves priests or what-have-you.
I think that hierarchy is something that we as humans have in our nature. You can even look at the playground at any school and *very* early on there is a "pecking order" defined.
So, I'd say that this is more human that religion.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think the perception that of science that everything is known or knowable is false.
True.
But, within this discussion, I'd restate this as, the perception that science has absolute knowledge is false. ie every religion clams to know what to do or how to behave to appease whatever they believe in. Whether that religion also believes that its knowledge is the only way is inconsiquential. Science does not clam this.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Science, as far as I can tell, doesn't provide a code of behavior. It doesn't tell people what is "right or wrong" except in the realm of how to perform science.
Very true, it's society that does that.
For instance, one of my wifes colleges went to a conference in Japan and behaved as he did in any other conference that he has gone to. He was spoken to at one point and told that his behavour was incorrect and told how to do it from then on.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Both science and relgion attempt to provide a "world story".
...
for example, my opinion is that the "big bang" theory actually came from relgion because applying all known interactions comes up with too many fudge factors- dark matter, dark force etc. I personally think we are just missing some fundamental concept that would create a paradigm shift
Also, which one. There are many different big bang theories.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Afterlife and the "supernatural".
Very true!
On another note, I was looking at my book shelf yesterday and noticed that I have with me (read: not still in storage) a general religion book. For those interested it's "The Harpercollins Dictionary Of Religion." I use it in one of my religous studies courses. Here is an interesting exert from p 893-894. I'll attempt to format as the book does, spelling mistakes are my own. For those who want the definition now and don't want to read
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by LostInTheVerse:
If the President does anything to piss you off that much, arrange a peaceful gathering to protest whatever you want, wherever you want, whenever you want.
While it is still legal.
Quote:
That's it. I'm fed up. You all have seen my posts, you know I'm typically very gracious and try to only discuss positions and issues, but I'm just tired of having my intellect and personality come into question based on how I vote.
If you can't see that he has consistently lied, that his actions are increasing world tension and fusing more terror theb your intellect should be called into question.
The dangerous thing about democracy, even the faux democracy of America is that it requires a well educated population - not hicks who think the sun revolves around them and that their deity of choice must dictate how everybody lives.
Of course nobody should leave, they should stay and fight - so that the next election won't be the last one...
And the families of the 100.000 civilians who have been killed in the illegal war have more right to be annoyed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sorry to rejoin so late. I like my job, am proud of what I do, and of my accomplishments, but it does take some time.
The rough and ready dividing line I heard for religion was does it involve supernatural critter/s (corporeal or not, humanoid and/or other). If it does, it's a religion, if it doesn't it is more properly called a philosophy. My Confuscian friend at work reminds me of that often.
What is 'supernatural'? At one point eclipses, stars, droughts etc were supernatural. Then science came along and explained them, or more accurately described them by defining how one object relates to another. In science people do posit unprovable concepts. For example, Newton's law of gravity didn't explain what gravity was, it posited an attraction and then formulated how bodies move under that attraction in relation to each other. Newton himself was aware of this dichotomy. But while the idea of gravity is a construct, the desciption of what it does is not. I think it is the difference between science and religion. Science relates real objects to real objects testable in the real world, while religion relates real objects to mental contructs, not testable in the real world.
I agree with SignyM, religion fills so many more roles besides an expl'n of things. I didn't tally up as many as SignyM as I was considering it, but I was headed that way.
And I agree with HK that science is inevitably limited by our senses, scale, brain structure, perhaps even by our language. Certain things just make sense to us in the west, conditioned I think by religion (as SignyM mentions). For example, we can conceive of 'never ending' but have a hard time with 'has no beginning'. I think that goes along with the notion of a soul being created out of nothing that lives forever after that. (Parenthetically, I think the idea that the body is just an icon - in the computer sense - for the REAL being which is the soul, makes religious people less likely to value the individual on earth, more likely to accept war, the death penalty, death by economic means etc and less likely to accept abortion because they're not sure when a new soul is created.) And the notion of an all powerful god vs free will seems to have a corresponding dichotomy of a mechanistic universe vs a quantum one.
As to the limitations of our senses and of course the brain, WHAT IF there are microregions where times cirles around and around but we, with our sensation of bulk properties OF A CERTAIN SCALE just go by them?
As to science's inescapable limits, I think at least with some people (I can speak for myself) the biggest back-of-the-brain thought as I move forward is "What am I NOT seeing?" And I don't believe I'll ever know.
Anyway, just musing. Thanks everyone for a wonderful discussion of an interesting topic.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There is much to sort out on the definition of relgion. I listed all those aspects because they've been brought up by religious ppl at my workplace to explain/ define relgion. IMHO many "religious" aspects are really something else (below)
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF RELIGIOUS PPL WOULD JOIN IN AND LET ADD THEIR VIEWS OF RELIGION. (Otherwise y'all get stuck with me trying to explain your beliefs! )
Code of behavior- Religious ppl often say "Without religion, how would you know right from wrong?" All religions that I know of have some sort of view of "right living": being in harmony with nature, becoming part of the one, rules about how to treat each other. IMO, where the codes deal with how to treat each other or the real world, it could be called "ethics" rather than "religion". Beyond that, where the code talks about how to deal with the supernatural (offer pollen every morning to the Twin Gods) it is religion.
The other thing religious people bring up is- "Without God, why would anyone obey the rules?" In surveys, atheists are actually more moral in their everyday life than religious people, so it is not necessary to have a supernatural enforcer. But interestingly, religions often reflect the social structure of the day. For example in warring tribal societies the gods themselves are often at war, in societies with a strong central government the religion is monotheistic, in societies where women hold power the gods are female etc.
Is it possible that religion is an early attempt at social engineering???
Afterlife Christians say "There are no atheists in a foxhole". That's false,- I happen to BE a foxhole atheist! _ but it brings up the point that all religions (that I know of) talk about personal after-death persistance and sometimes pre-birth existance. Examples: Navajo Chindi, waiting to be reborn, Valhalla. I think this is religious, but not sure whether it is necessary to the definition. Are there religions that do not have this concept?
World story All of the religions that I know about have a story about how the world began- Twin Gods (Mayan), Apsu and Tiamat (Sumerian), Jehovah (Jewish/Christian/Muslim)etc . There are also a lot of religions that describe the universe- regions below and above the earth, rings of fire, etc. I think of this as a form of primitive science- people trying to explain what they see. IMO this could and should be replaced by science because it is the same motivation, but science has a more consistent and useful story.
Hierarchy- You're right, there are religions w/o hierarchy. Not essential to the defintion.
Controlling larger forces- Even appeasing the gods is an attempt to control larger forces, because pissed-off gods can do all kinds of nasty things like eating up the sun or sending a plague. Before science, it was the ONLY way people could address things like disease, drought, infertility, sickness, persistent bad luck etc. Even today you'll find people who think that if they get ENOUGH people to pray for someone's child God will act like a somewhat negligent parent who'll respond when the crying gets loud enough. (I could go into the psychology of that, but that's a whole 'nother dicussion!) IMO, this function could, and should, be replaced by modern technology because it has the same motivation.
So some of the functions lumped in with religion are more properly "ethics" or "primitive science/ primitive technology" and possibly even "primitive social engineering".
All of that is to say that I agree that the ESSENTIAL aspect of religion is a belief in the supernatural. ANY RELIGIOUS PPL DISAGREE?? Enquiring minds want to know!
To get to the fuzzy aspects of science and the supernatural- it seems, according to Rue- that the ESSENTIAL dividing line between the natural and the supernatural is description and predictability.. If it can be described and predicted- like gravity- it is a "natural" phenomenon. Few would describe gravity as "supernatural" or attempt to
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF RELIGIOUS PPL WOULD JOIN IN AND LET ADD THEIR VIEWS OF RELIGION. (Otherwise y'all get stuck with me trying to explain your beliefs!
I don't think that Tragic is coming back, so I believe that we will be talking amongst ourselves.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Code of behavior
I still don't think that this belongs in a definition of religion. Would you find chivilary or the bushido religion?
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is it possible that religion is an early attempt at social engineering???
*coughcatholicscough* They definitly used there position to hurd the masses to what they wanted. Still do.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Afterlife
Every religion that I know of has one.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
World story
I could be wrong but I can't remember Buddhism having one. It's just (from what I can remember) a system designed to enlighten someone.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Controlling larger forces
Again Buddhism doesn't seek to control a larger force. It just seeks divine wisdom.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
All of that is to say that I agree that the ESSENTIAL aspect of religion is a belief in the supernatural. ANY RELIGIOUS PPL DISAGREE?? Enquiring minds want to know!
This is why I live the definition that I quoted above so much. It states the one common factor in all religions, some sort of supernatural. The other factors tend to be human in nature and are not found in some but can be huge in another religion.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But I can imagine that there are phenomena that science will NEVER describe and NEVER be able to predict. Will we consider these "supernatural"?
Time will tell
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The past no longer exists. The future doesn't exist either. We live in the present- in a vanishingly small space between two voids. How can we exist in nothing, between nothing? We're like a twinkle on the crest of a wave, with nothing behind us and nothing before us. It is the hubris of humanity to say with certainty... "I KNOW".
That's my belief.
Funny thing is, people are still researching the time arrow. Some think that time is continuous while others are starting to think that time is descrete (which you state above).
Fact is, we don't know what time is right now. I find it funny that such basic concepts ellude us.
Agreed, one cannot say "I know."
Drinking much
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All very good points.
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As to science's inescapable limits, I think at least with some people (I can speak for myself) the biggest back-of-the-brain thought as I move forward is "What am I NOT seeing?" And I don't believe I'll ever know.
But I think that when we look at the differences in science and religion, it's exactly what you stated above (well, one of them many anyway). That is that science knows that it has limitations. That there are things that it doesn't know and that this list keeps growing. Religion on the other-hand claims to be the truth or at least one path to the truth. Quite a large difference if you ask me.
----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME