God'll git ya if you celebrate! If you're going to behead anybody, I can provide you with a few names. Let me know. In the mean time, HAVE A BLAST!
Posts by Etude
-
-
-
-
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Hey misocup:
I hope I'm not too late and you won't look at this post. Just in case, I'll try to send it via email. Somehow, I wrote it but forgot to put it up on the board.
I venture to guess that you’ve read “The God Delusion”. If so, you’re certainly an inquiring mind and I’d like to ask you some questions. I mentioned before that I think spirituality and religion are not intrinsically tied (religion may deal with the belief in God but belief in God does not always deal with religion). I think the same thing applies to religion and spirituality. From the exchange on this thread, it’s obvious that there’s some confusion as to what spirituality is. No matter what we call it and no matter what we try to do to quash it, it seems that we cannot eradicate this quality from humans.
In light of the effort from people like Dawkins to explain in some sort of scientific terms the need for something which on its face (the God idea) belies Evolution, what do you think of his attempt? The answer may further the cause of this thread, but I sense that it’s dying down. If you want to play, I encourage you to formulate a question along these lines and start a new thread in the proper area. Let me know and I’ll join in. I’m curious about opinions other people who also read the book may have. Thanks make yourself for being curious and posting the question. Misocup, thanks for the video humor. I’m eating them up. I see where you got your profile picture. It’s more humorous now but still disturbing.
Etude.
-
71
Is Darwinism True?
by Perry ina scientific dissent from darwinism2 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism3 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
a scientific dissent from darwinism4 www.dissentfromdarwin.org .
-
-
Etude
Perry:
Obviously, this is a heated and controversial topic for which I don’t expect any significant, let alone workable conclusions on either side to prove or disprove anything. However, I’d like to offer some comments regarding your often-stated question of “How do you know Creationism is wrong?” This is like asking: “How do you know that an invisible man isn’t there?” Think about it. Wait, wait… Think about it. If you were to chose between two things for which you don’t find sufficient justification, you are either likely to not make a decision about either (because they are unsupported) or be inclined (with caution) to say that “it is likely that this one (or that one) is true” due to some evidence. That is called inductive reasoning, not deductive because the premises (whether missing, untrue or improvable) don’tforce you to make an inevitable conclusion. In other words, Creationism is an alternative explanation of things, but certainly not one you “prove”. Among others, I have examined one attempt to “prove” Creationism (principally the disputes on irreducible complexity, which includes all that stuff about the cell you brought up) and it fails primarily due to an exception in what it tries to prove. So how can it be possible to disprove something that is questionable in the first place (which is the point of your question)?
While I agree that Creationism is an alternate explanation for life and the universe, it is incompatible with evidence that exists about our universe, and the progression of life on Earth in terms of fossil evidence and dates. I know there are people who will contest that, so let me be clearer: In the absence of any other source for an account or explanation for the rise of life on Earth, many creationists have to abide by the one of the most popular accounts for such an event, which is the Bible, and many assume that the Universe was created in 6 literal days of 24 hours. Not all of them believe that, but some do. Others may accept that the Universe is approximately 13.4 billion years old or so, but that God actually “pushed it along” by kicking off the process that eventually caused some species to evolve”. That eliminates a Universe where God is inconceivable and explains the complexity in it that many people can’t comprehend would have arisen on its own. The problem with the last example is that if we’re going to accept some scientific discoveries about our universe (that are not in the Bible), we can’t just pick and chose those that support our position. We should accept that which is likely, even if it presents a contradiction. What conclusion we make is something else.
In keeping with that reasoning, equally objectionable statements could be made against Evolutionary Theory. In order to demonstrate one, we need to make one thing clear: [Please bear with me on this subtle point and note that it does not include the theory of biopoesis or Abiogeneis, which attempts to explain how life began in the first place] It appears to me that creationists attribute to evolutionists the belief that Evolution is the result of thousands and thousands of random mutations due to some large statistical probability over millions of millions of years from which the “chance” (or chances) happened to give rise to complex life. On the other hand [and here is the subtle difference], my understanding of what evolutionists think is that Evolution is the accumulation of tiny statistically improbable (not impossible) events (mutations, genetic changes) to an unstated but apparently sufficient degree (thousands, millions?) over millions and millions of years that eliminated the “chance” factor to a snowballing inevitable effect for change to a higher degree of complexity. The key here is the idea that the uncountable iterations of change eliminated the “chance” factor that eventually led to complexity.
Having said all of that, I must express that Evolutionary theory enjoys a very unique place in the realm of Natural Sciences in the sense that it doesn’t require the same burden of proof as other Natural Sciences (Astronomy, Biology, Chemistry, Earth Science and Physics). While they follow a good rule in Bacon’s “Scientific Method”, Evolution (a subset of Biology) is more derivational because many of its premises cannot be experimented upon. For example, we cannot yet create an experiment that would “accelerate” the evolutionary process (meaning a bunch of mutations, lots and lots of mutations) that would result in a new trait or collection of beneficial changes. This would definitely support the idea of natural selection being a force responsible for the change of species from less to more complex. In other words, we could actually replicate and document the method by which Natural Selection happened. At this point we can only say that it must have happened because we are here. That makes me intellectually uncomfortable. That is not the same thing as saying that Natural Selection is not another viable explanation for the existence of life as we know it. A number of other problems exist with Evolutionary theory. For example: The morphological studies of animals (the studies of the progressive anatomical changes and body function) that lead evolutionists to believe an animal evolved from one stage to a more advanced state are sometimes contradicted by molecular biologists’ discoveries that an animal thought to be at a particular (morphological) place in the evolutionary chain actually has a different place (perhaps an earlier simpler genetic one) in its complexity. And yes, there might be a misunderstanding about what “Natural Selection” means in the case of the Peppered Moth changes (since it was mentioned on this thread). Although decidedly a Lepidoptera, it was not a butterfly. The controversy is that the moth did not actually mutated or developed new genes to adapt its color but that it simply manifested a differential genetic shift from light to dark based on genotypic inheritance, which already existed (before the soot covered the trees, there already existed light and dark months).
Do you see the difficulties on either side? Nevertheless, I respect more the scientific insinuations than the creationist ones because there’s more reasonable evidence to support a theory there than for things that are improvable, like the universe coming into existence in several days or even that God kicked off the evolutionary process. For me, any conclusion or none in that area is no reason to exclude the idea of God, even if I can’t prove whether s/he exists or not. Mentioning some of the giants of science (Newton, Faraday, etc) does not advance your cause, since one exception in their achievements can bring down your whole argument. For example: Newton discovered a lot of great things. However, he was wrong about one or two in a way that had huge implications, mainly about time and space. The bottom line is that his assumptions influenced him to picture the universe as a ginormous clock or machine, which fitted with the order and predictability of his God. He felt that was the natural conclusion. Alas, he would have been completely disconcerted to learn that there’s no such thing as instantaneity, that time is relative and varies in rate due to gravity or acceleration or may not even exist (yes, there’s some evidence for that) and that space is not uniform. I know it’s an uncomfortable place to be in, not being able to come up with answers. But at least, you can avoid taking in the wrong answers.
Etude.
-
-
-
Etude
Peachburger:
I hope that if you don't find some answers here that you at least find some support and empathy. If you would like a pretty rubust discussion about Spirtuality, check out this thread: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/192437/1/can-spirituality-replace-religion.
Etude.
-
-
-
Etude
Gosh, I hope I'm no too late. Listen Blue Grass, just accept and play along. You never now if he's reaching out. In that case you don't give yourself up (be very cautions) and still you keep your good status in case he's just fishing around. Be clever. Lie through your teeth. Don't feel guilty. If he's fishing around, he deserves all the deceit he's giving out. If he turns out to have some doubts himself, maybe you can help him. Don't do anything until you see a sign that he's willing to put himself out there and do something that's considered "untheocratic". Be cautious as a snake and gentle as a lamb.
Etude.
-
41
Why believe in the SUPERNATURAL?
by Terry inwhat is meant by the supernatural?
supposedly, a realm that transcends nature.. what is nature?.
nature is existencethe sum of that which is.. it is usually called nature when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law.. so nature really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities.. what, then, is super-nature?.
-
-
Etude
OK. I think I’m getting to know what you mean a little better. So now, let me ask you a question: Do you have any idea how many recipes for stew there are in the world? Damn! I would venture to guess that the number boggles the mind. It wasn’t enough for someone to invent the stew in the first place. Some other people, a lot of other people just had to go and screw with it, ad this and that, take away this or that, on and on ad nauseam. Who ever invented it decided it was perfect the way it was. Why screw with it? So you stop adding stuff to yours while I add different and extra stuff to mine. The point here is that even though it’s perfectly fine to stop searching, asking or wondering, my feeling is that it’s really not our nature. Applying your logic in one respect it seems to me that it would never have occurred to people to get behind the guy (maybe a collective guy) who dared to think that we should go to the moon. I can hear the conversation: “You want to spend how much?” “It’s going to take how long before we actually land?” “You mean people can die doing this?” “You’re telling me that after all that we’re only going to bring back some rocks?” “Screw that!”
I think this insatiable desire to know is implacable in the human race. It will always exist. While you may be content to just contemplate the moon on a clear and cool Texas night, in the Houston Space Center the majority of people are probably wondering what life will be like when humanity reaches the middle of the Galaxy. They won’t be here when that happens, but it doesn’t stop them from wondering and helping with advances that may one day make it possible.
I don’t think you would agree that going to the moon resulted in “… spend[ing] billions on it without a practical end in sight?” I can’t begin to list for you the technological benefits that you presently enjoy which resulted directly from the research and discoveries that resulted from the “moon project”. If you were to look in every corner of your house, I’m almost certain you’ll probably find something that you can attribute to what resulted from the “moon” project. Going to your physician and realizing what it is that may keep from dying will probably yield the same result.
Let me tell you why we should bother since I’ve often thought about what sort of thing could significantly change the entire world as we know it. Actually, I’ll give you two examples: 1) Do you remember all the hype about “Cold Fusion”? It stood to revolutionize the way we get energy. It would be cheap and relatively easy to make. Well, just think – If we could come up with a way to produce energy independently, I mean a way that mom and dad could produce sufficient energy to run an entire house and meet all the energy needs of the family, cities would disappear. One of the major reasons we congregate in our modern Babels is because of the infrastructure it provides (water, sewage, electricity, gas, etc). The manufacturing sector would also radically change. There would be so many things that would not need manufacturing which are now necessary if you live in city. People could grow their own food a lot easier having energy to pump water in places that were previously inaccessible. We could really redistribute the population of the Earth and cause less of an impact on the environment. Do you think this is not possible or too far-fetched? Sometimes I feel we’re on the verge of it, judging from the experimentations that go on around the world. So, it may not matter to you that “…smashing itty bitties together at blinding speeds and ‘observing’ the vanishingly fast pieces” in order to find the Higgs boson is a holy grail of Science. But, others think that finding it could lead to unimaginable benefits.
2) OK. How about those “Supernatural” dimensions? As a young child, I was really into science fiction and wondered what it would be like to go into another dimension. After taking Calculus in college I realized that the stuff of fiction was really not the result of over-active imaginations. I learned about imaginary numbers; I learned about a two dimensional object with only one side; I learned about a torus which lead to the n-torus or an “n-dimensional compact manifold”; I learned that mathematicians had been playing with multiple dimensions since the 1800’s and could add and subtract them. Do you really think we’re that far away from at least understanding what that could be? Think about how transportation would change, not just here on Earth but in the universe if we found a way to transport ourselves around by just crossing through another dimension. We think the portal is there because we can already do it with “itty bitties” in a particle accelerator. Now if I could only get the consumer version of that, I wouldn’t even have to say “Beam me up, Scotty”.
I understand if you don’t want to know and don’t place much importance in the kind of research that is so removed from us that it won’t make a difference in our lifetime, perhaps even several lifetimes beyond ours. It really doesn’t affect me here and now either. However, it’s inevitable. And while I’m not a researcher or a scientist, I think some of those guys have balls as big as church bells for daring to trudge on in their quests when no one else thinks it’s worth it.
Etude. -
41
Why believe in the SUPERNATURAL?
by Terry inwhat is meant by the supernatural?
supposedly, a realm that transcends nature.. what is nature?.
nature is existencethe sum of that which is.. it is usually called nature when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law.. so nature really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities.. what, then, is super-nature?.
-
-
Etude
Terry:
How do you know there isn't a "supernatural" force that is causing your foot to wag and pull the sheets off you that's the force behind it all?
Hey man, I’m just messing with you. I couldn’t resist. But to address the issue your raised (“Why believe in the Supernatural”), I take it you raised it only to tear it down, since you question the very significance of Supernaturalism. Yeah, it’s just another place to hang up your hat if you can’t explain certain things in logical or verifiable terms. But let me throw a ringer at you. You believe in a physical universe with causes and effects. I suppose you accept everything you conceive is in it and you need no elaborate explanations that define what is observable either through sight or experimentation, hence Occam’s razor. So, the simplest solution is usually the right one and one doesn’t need a more elaborate one to explain an event or question. OK. I’ll buy that. Is that the answer each and every time? Well, we need to leave room for more.
Here’s the kicker. I thought once that Science could progressively find sufficient answers so we could “build” the universe from scratch, I mean at least on paper as a theory. I expected that the discoveries and refinements of natural laws (gravity, electromagnetism, etc) would eventually lead to an orderly progression of what really makes up the universe and why it works the way it does. The problem is that we end up in quandary. If we come up with a theory or set of rules based on some deductions, we are inevitably drawn to come up with another theory (a meta-theory) that explains the rules we came up with in the first place and then we need a meta-meta-theory, etc, etc. It’s like having sex without an orgasm. While that sounds good, it’s very frustrating.
So it was that we had a great theory in Quantum Mechanics. But as we kept “looking” deeper and deeper into the subatomic, we found that the very laws we used to peer with just broke down and made no sense at all. The behavior of particles becomes totally chaotic. Now what? I guess we have a choice to forget about everything that’s considered progress in physics and just keep going on to our jobs and watching TV or whatever and not be concerned at all with the big issues. Well, that’s one way to do things and I don’t knock it at all. For others, in order to know the implications of what we examine in the quantum and to make sense of it all, a new explanation is needed. Enter Super Symmetry! Let me state before I go on (since a comment was made that I don’t agree with) that my understanding is that “String Theory” is resolved and is a viable postulate. There were several version of a “String Theory” but they were finally united because of Super Symmetry (SUSY). The problem is that current top String Theory cannot be verified. Verification (experimentation) is the hallmark of any Natural Sciences. Now, there seems to be another theory that proposes to explain the problems in Quantum Physics and marry the esotericism of String Theory to the “familiar” properties of Quantum Physics. It is called the “Wave Structure of Matter” or WSM. Among one of the dichotomies it does away with is the Jekyll and Hyde characteristic of the photon, being both a wave and a particle. While I’m personally intrigued by this, it will be a long time before we move away from our current understanding and accept this new thing. I’ll be long dead by then. The point is that it never stops and it shouldn’t. If we ever have all the answers then Science ceases to exist and there will be no more questions to ask. You could say that SUSY and WSM are “Supernatural” explanations in for the nature of matter since they are presently outside the realm of any verifiable experimentation. So, do I believe in the Supernatural? In that sense: yes.
There was a time when the world explanation of matter was that everything consisted of four “elements”: water, fire, earth and air. If you really think about it, you can still say that this is mostly true about almost everything we observe that’s physical. But we didn’t stop there. And, while Newton was a brilliantly outstanding dude, he was wrong about things that had tremendous implications. Einstein kicked some major intellectual ass but may have been wrong in certain areas since some evidence shows that the speed of light is not constant relative to the observer. Oh shit, the universe is going to blow up!
Mindmelda mentioned that many things that were once considered magical (supernatural) are now explainable and acceptable in physical terms. If we choose to think that some of the mysterious appearances and sightings people claim as supernatural are actually the result of events transpiring between gaps into our dimensions from another as-yet identified dimension, then that’s a legitimate plausibility. I don’t think that when scientists suggest extra dimensions they are being whimsical. Today, there’s no doubt left that when you physically separate a particle form its anti-particle and inject into one some energy, the other will “instantly” increase by the same amount, which is faster than the speed of light. A possible way this happens is via “linked” dimensions. Is that “supernatural”? Well, in a sense yes. We just have to leave the hocus-pocus-stick-it-up-your-chokers aspect out of it. And just to keep things into perspective, Mathematics, which we dearly love and trust, is not a Natural Science because it cannot be experimented upon. In that sense, it’s just as legitimate as Super String Theory.
Etude. -
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Terry:
You make a good point. Still I think he (GW) would not have made it that far into the race if it hadn't been for the "born again" contingent.
Etude.
-
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Hi streets:
But why would you have to label that sensation as "spirituality" ? Why not just pure "wonderment" or "awe" or "wow" ?
I don’t. But I suppose that we have to call it something. I can only summarize what I found while looking up the definition (not just a dictionary definition but also a current vernacular understanding of the term). From the word itself we can infer that it has something to do with “spirit”. This suggests an intangibility or etherealness of what it deals with. The term is usually applied to things that are non material or are beyond the ordinary. For example: We don’t term feelings of love for parents or even for children as spiritual. We don’t say that an awesome rock concert was a spiritual experience (unless there’s some sort of illegal substance involved). We don’t think of country music as spiritual, although we know that some music can evoke spiritual feelings or can help us achieve a higher state of “spirituality”. No, the meaning is reserved for things that are “of the spirit” and are out of our usual everyday experience; the type of sensation or experience that has a particular sense of “wow” for us. This doesn’t have to be an extreme experience but it is usually one described as very personal and introspective. Perhaps it has to do with the profundity of the experience for the individual, even if it’s triggered by something ordinary. I have personally never experienced it, but I’ve heard people talk about a sexual experience in the same terms, the “Earth moved” for them. That’s quite extraordinary. Is that why some people call: “Oh God!” during sex? Is that why there have been sex-based religions in the past? There’s something to that. Sex for me is pretty good on a regular basis but it doesn’t quite rise to that level. I would rather concentrate on the type of spirituality that deals with the most unanswerable feelings and realizations that I can experience. You could say that “spirituality” is an umbrella word that covers a more or less similar range of sensations (awe, wow, wonderment, etc) of a particular order, the experience of which are very subjective and individual.
Etude. -
61
can spirituality replace religion?
by make yourself ini was watching cnn, an d they asked this question and this one lady called in and claimed she wasn't raised in a religious household.
but she remembered when she was in elementary school that this jw girl asked her if she was spritual she said no, then the jw told her she would go to hell.
wow.
-
-
Etude
Misocup:
Let me start by saying that you make some significant observations, many of which I have grappled with for some time and which have given me a good deal of difficulty to explain. Secondly, let me say that the picture on your profile is quite disturbing. The guy really creeps me out. It is a bit painful and unnerving. I’m envious. I wish I’d thought of it.
Now let’s see; you bring up the question of why there are scientists who in spite of the scientific theories to the contrary still believe in God while the majority is rabid in its pursuit to convince the rest who still “believe” that they are wrong, almost to the point of ridicule. You question why they don’t just live and let live if people’s delusions don’t hurt anybody.
OK. I have observed that very thing, but mostly in the field of Evolution. There are natural sciences that don’t present such controversies, except perhaps in one particular way that relates to Quantum Mechanics. Since scientists are pretty convinced that the Universe had a beginning, being scientists can only force them to ask not “what was there before?” but why it is the way it is; how did the universe end up being this way (being able to support life, our type of life) and did not end up differently. It’s too exhausting to get into it, but they have come up with a theory for that and it’s called the “Anthropic Principle”. There are a few variations of it (the weak and strong) and a lot of controversy about it. In comes a physicist name Paul Davies who suggests that such a theory reveals that scientist must accept certain things about Science with the same faith that a religious person accepts God. Well that sort of thing pisses of people like Richard Dawkins. It irritates him enough to mention it in his books but he doesn’t have the balls to formally refute Davies. Davies is well versed in the Anthropic Principle and is a very respected scientist
If you put Dawkins and others like him in one camp (the pissed off atheists) and people like J. P. Moreland (an apologist and scientist) and other religious fundamentalist in another, there is still room for people like Paul Davies and Clancy Martin (all world-class scientists) to fit somewhere else. It seems to me that they are in a camp that neither criticizes nor defends. They do not abandon their beliefs but are not so quick to label others as lunatics either, especially Clancy Martin. Although a self-declared agnostic, he believes that religion is fine because it serves a purpose to provide hope and comfort to the people who have it. He wouldn’t want people to lose that or have to give it up. He simply feels that they should at least consider that what they hold close may not be the reality they think it is.
Presently I’m reading a book called “Patience With God” by Frank Schaeffer. He was a fundamentalist Christian who abandoned that to flirt with Atheism but is now neither. He suggests that the New Atheists (the radicals) agenda is to get rid of religion altogether without taking into account that, whether they like it or not, the majority of people are spiritual beings. In their quest, they have set themselves up as a quasi-religion equipped with prophets and gurus with the goal to return to ideas before postmodernists (to Modernism) and form theories to eradicate our current perception of religion. In other words, they want to explain away and interpret everything in terms that do not include any mention of God. This makes sense since two of the most significant figures during the era of Modernism were Charles Darwin and Karl Marx (not that I’m suggesting that Darwin set out to do that). On the other hand I don’t recall a time when religious fundamentalism has been as rampant as today. Hell, it got George Bush elected. So, I think it cuts both ways.
My impression is that at this time in our history both religious and atheistic camps are on the rise. Yes, there are more people in the world. But what I think is happening is that more people are taking sides because they are being polarized. The rise even puzzles Richard Dawkins in light of the fact that people are increasingly acting to the influence of certain “memes” for which there appear to be no evolutionary mechanisms or even a necessity for, in terms of Natural Selection. I do see that people will be whatever they will be whether their opinion points to one pole or another. I can understand if there’s a perception that the scientists are more forceful in their message. But if you really think about it, so have the evangelicals for a very long time. Perhaps the situation is that scientists have the more prominent pulpit right now.
One last thing: I do believe that we are the sum of our parts. This was clearly the thinking in the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes. That idea does not have to exclude other possibilities that accommodate some of the precepts of religion or even cast in doubt on the idea of God. One of the problems I observe with individuals like Richard Dawkins is that, in his book “The God Delusion”, he uses a lot of bad acts and inconsistencies on the part of religion in order to indict the idea of God. His book should have been called “The Religion Delusion” instead. He fails to see that religion and God have effectively very little to do with one another. This is why a person can be spiritual without having a religion.
Etude.