Ian Iveson wrote:
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...
Ian Iveson wrote:
Trevor Wilson wrote:
**Apology accepted. Few of us here bother with a
dodgy,
policially censored,
2,000 year old book. Gobbledegook is for the morons,
not
those of us who
actually think.
You can see where Arnie's "I know the Truth, I will
instruct you in
it" attitude comes from :-)
**Poor ******* must be in constant conflict. He *claims*
to hold himself to scientific principles, yet maintains
that the supernatural is a normal part of life. He is,
of
course, like all religious nutters, seriously deluded.
Arny applies science where he finds it appropriate, which
is
pretty much where you would, were you capable.
**Huh? Science is all there is. Anything else is bunk.
Science tells me that Arny's religious beliefs are
impossible.
I doubt you know much about what Arny's particular beliefs
are,
**Arny believes in the supernatural. It could be life after death, God, 72
virgins, virgin births, numerology, astrology, whatever. Specifics are
unimportant. What he believes is fundamentally anti-science.
and considering he doesn't intentionally make a fuss
about them perhaps they aren't a fair target.
**********. It goes to credibility. People who embrace the supernatural have
a real credibility problem when it comes to logic and reason.
He sees the
science that you see, and he also sees something else that
you don't.
**No, he does not. He IMAGINES that he 'sees' something that I do not. He is
deluded (like ALL people who have embraced the supernatural).
The quote from Hegel that I quoted is worth consideration.
It has a particular place in the history of philosophy,
science and religion that's worth understanding.
**I do not take issue with philosophy. Philosophy is neither right, nor
wrong. Belief in the supernatural is, however, wrong. It is a symptom of the
delusion.
Perhaps the most famous use of the word "bunk" originates
from Karl Popper's attack on Hegel.
For the rest, to which you are sadly oblivious, he
applies
Christianity. Not my choice, but at least it's a start.
**No, it's not. Religion is fundamentally anti-science,
logic and rational thinking. It is the very worst place to
start.
Religion is fundamentally anti-science in broadly the same
sense as Einstein is fundamentally anti-Newton.
**Not even close. Newton's theories were based on clear and obvious
observation of physical things. Einstein's were based on mathematics.
Newton's theories are close enough for all but very high velocities.
Religion demands that people must discard some very basic tennants of
science. Einstein demanded that we discard Newton IF very high velocities
and/or extreme accuracy is required.
It is and it
isn't. It's a historical process of development, through
which one epoch is "subsumed" by another...old beliefs
remain imbedded. Consequently, contradiction is part of the
fabric of understanding.
**There's the problem. Science discards theories if they do not meet with
observed phenomena. Religion keeps them hanging around, despite the clear
knowledge that they are nonsensical.
His
church seems quite modern, which is a good sign.
**No such thing as a "modern church". They're all based on
an anti-science rationale.
Science is based on religion.
**Not even remotely. Science is rigorously open, whilst religion is
rigorously closed.
You only see the anti-science,
but religion is deeply embedded in the science you believe
in. It's no coincidence that the big bang neatly fits with
the idea of creation;
**Not even remotely close. Religion demands that some kind of supernatural
force was involved.
the belief that all humans came from
Africa fits nicely with the garden of eden;
**Not even close. Religion demands that some kind of supernatural force was
involved and evolutionary pressures do not exist.
global warming
is a perfect last judgement. The holy trinity, via the
syllogism, is part of every scientific thought you have,
assuming that you limit yourself to deductive logic, as
appears to be the case.
Perhaps you believe that history, too, is bunk?
**Some is. As they say: History is written by the winners.
At least
he's not about to blow himself up.
**Now you're splitting hairs. They probably said the same
thing about the Jonestown bunch. ALL religious belief is
bunk. ALL rely on forcing adherents to remove the rational
part of their thinking.
Perhaps you're just upset coz you can't do prophecy?
**Not so much. It is an impossibility. Rational
prediction, based on past and present developments is, of
course, a different thing.
Rational rather than scientific? Are you making a
distinction here, and if so, what is it?
**I examined past trends and present developments. None were wild guesses,
based on some kind of supernatural belief.
Are your ethics rational?
**Indeed.
Are they scientific?
**When necessary, yes.
Or is
morality bunk, too?
**Morality is based on a greater good. Religious morality is not necessarily
the case (though it may be so).
Wouldn't you like to learn?
**I can already do all the prophecy I need to. I can
predict the following (within a reasonable degree of
accuracy):
* Oil will cost more in 10 years than it does today.
* The planet's temperature will continue to rise for the
next 50 years.
* The planet's population will rise to 9 billion within
the next 40 years.
A prediction isn't necessarily a prophecy, to my mind. Do
you believe that those predictions are scientific?
**No. They ARE scientific.
If they
are, then I doubt they are the kind of prophecy that Arny
was talking about.
**Of course not. Prophecy, in the biblical sense, is bunk.
But I'm encouraged that you have at least a notion of a
larger science. Less encouraged however by your fatalism.
Perhaps science could help us to reorganise civilisation in
such a way that it can avoid your scenario?
**Science and political will could certainly manage that. Religion, of
course, has no place in the mix. In fact, one of the most influential
religious leaders (the Pope) is on record as claiming that global warming is
not a problem. That same person is also anti-birth control.
After the dialectical idealism of Hegel and the scientific
revolution, came dialectical materialism, and another bout
of political repression that continues to this day. You see
the anti-science of religion but, as usual, the religion is
a totem for a material, political conflict of interests.
Feudal lords protect their domains with one religion,
republicans protect their wealth with another.
If science is all there is, and you are up for extending its
boundaries, then how about the scientific development of the
management technology necessary to control civilisation?
Then your predictions could be truly scientific. As it is,
the one about population seems especially precarious to me.
**Indeed. Logic and reason should be used to make population decisions, not
religious beliefs.
China seems to have got a grip. After all, scientific
civilisation management would obviate the need for the kind
of elections we seem to be tired of. The Conservative's idea
of Soviets is quite refreshing in this respect.
So does your Big Science cover all these bases?
**Logic and reason does. Again, something that religion lacks.
Is
civilisation, like audio technology, entirely within its
domain?
**Please expand your question.
Is small science all you want
from life?
**Nope. I am also interested in big science too.
So I gathered. I guess you must be a communist, too.
**Ah, I see. You feel the need to place labels on people. How quaint. If you
must use label to describe me, then use these:
* Humanist
* Atheist
* Rationalist
* Socialist
* Omnivore
Communism, despite it's obvious attractions, is fundamentally flawed, as it
applies to first world nations. OTOH, Communism can work in certain
situations (communes, small farming communities in developing nations, etc).
Communism seems to be not such a great idea when operating on a national
scale. That does not mean that the system is irretrievably broken. Just
flawed, in the same way that consumerism is flawed.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
Body Life aspects of worship
Linear Mode
