|
U-Know! Forum » God V Science (again) |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 16:54
|
||
|
Creationism is a big deal down here in the deep south Hi Vince. I can see Darwin's old stamping ground, Shrewsbury, from my window. Creationism isn't a big deal there, or in a lot of the States I guess. His ideas have had 150 years to soak into the soil in most of the world and were confronted and resolved by your and my gt grandparents probably. Yet creationists seem to act as though the ideas are new and a danger to society. I suppose they ARE scary if your world view is dictated by one small part of a two thousand year old manuscript. It crosses my mind to ask a simple question - why should they care so much? If God flicked the switch why is it an assault on his prestige to suggest how things developed thereafter? He's still the Creator. Then it comes to me..... what they really don't like is the Book being disrespected because that makes their belief in it's literal nature look stupid. It's all about them....
|
|||
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 17:37
|
||
|
nigelswift wrote: Then it comes to me..... what they really don't like is the Book being disrespected because that makes their belief in it's literal nature look stupid. It's all about them.... Yep. It's the doctrine of the house of cards. Amazing, isn't it, that they are so insecure about their own faith as to think that even one 'error' in the Bible might call into question the whole thing? What sort of all-or-nothing jive is that? Even the vast majority of agnostics, or even Dawkins & Co will agree that there is value in the Book, specifically in regards to certain historical and ethical subjects. This insecurity is also seen in the riots that followed the cartoon depictions of Mohammed. Why all the rage? Is Islam so wobbly that one little poke from outside is perceived as a mortal insult, and a threat to the Muslim faith? I would think if a religion were mature enough, it'd be able to brush off these external criticisms calmly. But that's where the ugly truth comes out... there are elements within these religions that react like snarling dogs the second someone steps on their lawn. Which is probably inevitable, tho I don't see the wiser elements in these religions working very hard to quell the extremists. And that just brings up the truth that no religion has a monolithic cohesiveness, not even the Papists. There's just as much squabbling inside the ranks of a religion as there are criticisms coming from outside them. Which is something secular society forgets, sometimes.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Sep 17, 2008, 20:48
|
||
|
Well I don't think there's a religion exists that hasn't got its 'interpretations' or emphases. All that does is serve to separate geographically, socially, in terms of class, for whatever reason, then it becomes too entrenched, more often than not for the worse. The Catholic/Protestant one I understand most, seeng as its closest to me 'culturally'. It's the same God, the same Jesus, but...different! Religion is probably the most politicised instiution of them all. x
|
|||
moss 2897 posts |
Sep 18, 2008, 08:41
|
||
|
Strangely it was 17th century religious dissenters persecuted in England that went over to the 'new' country America. The upheaval in this country spawned the puritanical movement that resulted in Quakers and other groups, all approaching 'their' god differently. The paradox of the Quakers with their view of a simple life, resulted in them making money - entreprenurial skills and religion making an alliance, the exporting of religious dissent in Europe has made Americe what it is today.... At the heart of the argument lies the fact that religion has always been a part of history, creationism is a present manifestation of a simplistic viewpoint, you can no more shout it out of its corner, (it will eventually move) than you can knock down every Anglican church in England - we need belief, in whatever shape it comes even though it is manifestly untrue to others. Dawkin is too strident for me, Darwin had some of the answers, but why is the human race always striving to find an answer - at Cern trying to find the absolute beginning of the universe... Me I'm in the camp that says humans are an organism (got to big for our boots) amongst others, part of a living environment that is symbiotically dependent on each other.....
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Sep 19, 2008, 09:21
Sep 19, 2008, 09:15
|
||
|
shanshee_allures wrote: Enter Quantum Physics? From the documentary I saw on the 'Parallel Universe' (and that's as far as my knowledge goes tbh) the theory was mathematically perfect, unless maths needs revising now, or maybe I got the wrong end of it all. x Perfect(ish) as in there is more than one version of string theory mathematically that works. On paper, sure it does, it's maths, its a mechanical 'working through' from base 'assumptions'. Simply, it depends on how you collapse the variables (dimensions-ish) together as to what answer you get/want. None of them however can ever have a physical experiment conducted to prove any of them beyond doubt, ever. So, its all moot, though obviously a valid area of study. Just cos the maths works doesn't mean it's right, its even questionable to say its 'likely'. See the book 'Not even wrong' by Peter Woit. Edit : Also, for some reason, Physicists are a bit shit at declaring their variables, I've never understood why.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Sep 19, 2008, 10:12
Sep 19, 2008, 10:02
|
||
|
Didn't they do an experiment where a laser bean light shebang was passed through a small slit and that light sort of made a duplicate of itslef in order to get to the other side, breaking off into all those 'electrons'? I am talking about the programme re E from Eels' dad. Saw it there. Anyway, I mention this re the 'soul' becasue it's one way in which science and rather other wordly ideas meet. There's another scientist dude who was a great believer in Clairvoyance, applied it as a science but I forget his name right now. Think Darwin might've known him too. EDIT: Remember now Here ye go Seems he did more than 'know' Darwin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace x
|
|||
|
stray 2057 posts |
Edited Sep 19, 2008, 10:13
Sep 19, 2008, 10:12
|
||
|
Oh right, thats what you mean, sorry. Yep, very old experiment, the 'observer effect' etc too. Theory. Thats the word basically, yep, kind of the same as faith. Even the particles the LHC will observe are still called 'theoretical particles'. They're more 'fields' than 'particles' in the normal non-physicists understanding of the word 'particle' really. However, the thing you mention does have a physical experiments that backs it up, reinforce the theory as more likely. I mentioned string theory as that will never have experiments that could back it up so its more akin to leap of faith. Albeit a leap of faith based on easily rejigged math. I think you mean Tesla on clairvoyance/science. Interestingly there have been a batch of experiments done recently with the effects of electromagnetism on people. They described feeling that there was someone else in the room with them when there wasn't, and in some cases seeing ghosts when exposed to certain fields. Can't find the paper at the moment though, annoyingly.
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Sep 19, 2008, 10:14
|
||
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Russel_Wallace Put it in an 'edit' just as you posted yours it seems. Spooky or what? :-) x
|
|||
|
handofdave 3515 posts |
Sep 19, 2008, 12:12
|
||
|
"His interest in biogeography resulted in his being one of the first prominent scientists to raise concerns over the environmental impact of human activity." Way ahead of his time on that front!
|
|||
|
shanshee_allures 2563 posts |
Edited Sep 19, 2008, 12:56
Sep 19, 2008, 12:54
|
||
|
Yeah, he was a very interesting old dude in all respects, more than inspired Darwin, was a pacifist, a spiritualist , and of course an environmentalist before it was even though on. First read about him at University, and only at a cursory level. He did suffer a broken heart badly though, which sort of made him give in quite a bit. Infact I'm inclined to read more now:-) x
|
| Pages: 7 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
