I agree that the ancestors of those who are nowadays posting "", "
" and "
" in response to a religious fellow and making comments like "so much stupidity!", "how you can you not see how you're wrong" were probably shaking their heads in disbelief because of the stupidity of the guy who thought there were many gods, that lightning bolts were thrown by some bearded fellow and the waves on the sea made by another bearded fellow while every sane being knew of course that there was only one bearded fellow and you had to worship him while properly dressed, not while dancing naked.
I also agree that both said ancestors and said present day people posting smileys and condescending comments don't really know/knew what it is they were/are talking about, since the vast majority of both groups read it in some book or heard it from some other guy, without ever checking things for themselves.
Yeah, many things change, but some things will always stay the same. "I don't really know what I'm talking about but I'm right and you're wrong because I'm taking the position of what is the consensus nowadays! You're teh stupid!" is from all times.
That doesn't mean scientific findings didn't bring us much good, though. Just compare our living standard to the living standard during the time people believing in one God were making fun of people believing in many gods.
And as has been said much better before: science and religion shouldn't compete, they play in different leagues.
Last edited by Andres; 02-18-2010 at 15:15.
Andres is our Lord and Master and could strike us down with thunderbolts or beer cans at any time. ~Askthepizzaguy
Ja mata, TosaInu
Good post Reenk. Thanks for swinging by the BR, wanax.
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
agreed but that doesnt mean that the comparison doenst hold. and i was talking solely about europe (or the western countries).
i dont really get this :P (not saying it isnt relevant)The implosion of the idea of logical positivism before it made any kind of permeation into widespread thought as well as Kuhn's attack against the linear view of scientific progress (despite the excesses of postmodernism that also resulted) pretty much assure that the menace of 'science' never grabs influence it doesn't deserve.
[/QUOTE]Great point, you've made it once it before if I recall. I do think there is a bit of overlap which does conflict in some cases, but it's minor as they primary focus of both is quite different. And for one who holds an instrumentalist (or any anti-realist conception) of scientific entities, with no ontological commitment to naturalism (heck, one can even get away without a methodological approach to inquiry), the best of both worlds is available in pure harmony.![]()
[/QUOTE]
it is possible to combine practical religion and science with each other or its systematic counterpart, but it isnt possible to combine the scientific metasystem with the religious metasystem. and the scientific system is dominating right now. when we are looking for justification nowadays we no longer look at god but we look at numbers, experiments and polls. a ruler is no longer justified because he rules in the name of god. though it is true that you can't really say that he rules in the name of science nowadays, the scientific revolution did have a large impact on our worldy beliefs and how we eventually developed and devised the current system.
you are right, i didnt express myself rightly there... i cant remember what point i was trying to make... so you can just ignore that post.I don't really understand the point of trying to equate science and religion like this?
I mean of course there are other aspects to both science (process, research programs) and religion (ritual) which are huge parts, but they aren't really relevant at all, just as you yourself say the results aren't. What (at least I thought) you were trying to compare was religious and scientific worldviews...
true. atleast they claim to be without morals, and the practise in itself is.There are ethics followed in science and results from science do influence morality, but science doesn't have morals in the way that religion does...
We do not sow.
The only thing that doesn't change is the few rule the many,
The poor, uneducated masses and their problems are ignored,
and they cannot help themsleves because they are made to believe in something and they are kept entertained
and as long as their basic needs are satisfied they are happy to live with life leftovers.
human psychology makes the regular man imagine the world through comparing himself with his neighbors
and as long as he has at least as his neighbor has it means everything is just fine.
most of the people will never question any belief as long as their hormones are making them feel good enough.
and i think this is a big problem
because as human beings we can do better than other animals we share the world with
or maybe we haven't evolved out the animal.
Cruel and Cunning
Utterly Insane
Terribly Scarred
i hope we never will. imagine how life would be if everyone would question authority, if everyone would be a rational individual that would be sceptic about everything someone else would say. a great project like that pyramids would never be accomplished. same for many other things.
the problem i have is that too few people are questioning now, and they are not questioning everything, some things are left unchallenged.
We do not sow.
Bah, that makes no sense.
The pyramids could very well be completed if everyone questioned authority, IF everyone agreed that building them was a good thing and not an unneccessary waste of human life and resources.
The more authority has disappeared, the more freedom people are given and the more every individual is allowed to think for himself, the more progress humanity has progressed. Never before has authority been so absent, never before has every individual human been more rational. And never before have we seen progress like we see today.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
There's nothing wrong per se with assuming that people who are supposed to know their stuff are in the right.
My own brother is a ...er, 9/11 revisionist if you will. He berates people who believe in the mainstream story of 9/11, because they're just believing what the American government and the media tells them.
If you've ever met one of these people, you'll notice that they (probably) "know" a lot more about 9/11 than you. If you're discussing 9/11 with one of them, you'll find that often you can't answer them directly on some points simply because you don't know about them, and can't be bothered to spare the time to learn about them.
Instead, for example, we assume that the vast majority of professional architects would surely have protested if the official explanation for the WTC collapses as inplausible.
Actually now that I think of it, more often than not when large numbers of people reject the consensus of the "learned elite" there are quite a few conspiracy nuts in them. With the vaccination campaign against influenza in the Netherlands for example one of the foremost detractors was convinced that the vaccines contained nano-chips from the government.
I don't think you can apply such ideas to every point in human history and expect them to work. The comfortable life we enjoy in today's civilised society is a result of thousands of years of the development of increasingly centralised and powerful systems of government, increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer individuals with each stage (from tribal chiefs, to nobles, to feudal monarchs, to national absolutist monarchs etc). After all, progress has often been faster during wars.
Last edited by Rhyfelwyr; 02-22-2010 at 15:51.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Scientific "dogma's" aren't holy in the way they are in religion. You might be ridiculed (i.e. not stoned to death) if you question science as such, but not if you question the premises behind accepted theories.
Science more or less means discovering facts and making up theories based on what we know and can observe, and by that process hoping to know the "truth". Young Earth Creationists are not ridiculed because they question the generally accepted age of the universe and the world, but for the reasons that they do. Still, I don't think it would be accurate to say that they "reject" science because I assume most of them happily follow scientific advice on nutrition and health issues, and so on.
Actually I think that most people who reject the theory evolution for example (since that's the most popular topic in science vs. religion discussions) would argue that the theory of evolution is bad science. Ot that the theory of intelligent design is at least as valid from a scientific perspective. There are plenty of people who question the way science currently works or the results that it produces, but not science as such.
?Originally Posted by The Stranger
I understand what you're saying here...just not how you could say this![]()
Last edited by Kralizec; 02-22-2010 at 14:22.
thats only true if people are free rational agents, which is still under question... (hehe low i know.)
and i actually doubt that very much. never since the dawn of modern times has humanity performed and suffered so many sickening deeds. mysticism is flourishing more and more than the few centuries before. and i think even though it is true that centralised authority is pretty much absent, humans are very far from being free. they are controlled a lot, they just dont realise it. and what's worse, no one knows who or what is in charge.Never before has authority been so absent, never before has every individual human been more rational. And never before have we seen progress like we see today.
what is the realistic chance of that happening? cmon...The pyramids could very well be completed if everyone questioned authority, IF everyone agreed that building them was a good thing and not an unneccessary waste of human life and resources.
Last edited by The Stranger; 02-22-2010 at 15:54.
We do not sow.
as if every religion will kill you if you do not agree.
the point is, we do not know when we "know" something. science has shown that. We only "know" what we don't know, and then still only from a certain point of view. so what if the foundations of science are fundamentally wrong. we can't know. scientists claim causality, a christian claims the hand of god, neither can prove either exists or does not exist. they can only prove, the existance of their own startingpoint (i.e. causality or god) by already taking those things into account when formulating the evidence that is supposed to support it.Science more or less means discovering facts and making up theories based on what we know and can observe, and by that process hoping to know the "truth". Young Earth Creationists are not ridiculed because they question the generally accepted age of the universe and the world, but for the reasons that they do. Still, I don't think it would be accurate to say that they "reject" science because I assume most of them happily follow scientific advice on nutrition and health issues, and so on.
sounds like you are backing my point there, not sure if it was intended... is it an ambush? :PActually I think that most people who reject the theory evolution for example (since that's the most popular topic in science vs. religion discussions) would argue that the theory of evolution is bad science. Ot that the theory of intelligent design is at least as valid from a scientific perspective. There are plenty of people who question the way science currently works or the results that it produces, but not science as such.
why couldnt i say it? i place no value upon that remark. i dont claim it to be bad or good or whatever. my formulation might have been a bit unlucky, but you say you know what i mean.?
I understand what you're saying here...just not how you could say this![]()
Last edited by The Stranger; 02-22-2010 at 16:03.
We do not sow.
We've become more and more centralized, you say? Meet the Spartans of ancient greece and the Italian city-states of the middle ages. While countries like France may have gone from decentralization to centralized authority, others have gone the other way.
[QUOTE=The Stranger;2437452]thats only true if people are free rational agents, which is still under question... (hehe low i know.)
No, rationality is not a requirement.
We've committed the worst deeds this century? Nonsense. Hitler is the worst scumbag of modern times. Genghis Khan still killed plenty more than he did. You think the Gestapo were cruel? Meet the execution methods one millennia ago, like the "spread eagle" of the vikings, where a living human is cut up in the middle of his chest, before both sides of the ribcage is broken to each side, thus resebmling an eagle spreading its wings. You think we're controlled now? Read up on Sparta, no dictatorship since has even come close to the degree of control from cradle to the grave that the spartans achieved.
Zero, because building the Pyramids is a complete waste of time and human life. A greater project we actually need, the internet, was built in a few years, however.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Exceptions don't prove the rule when compared against the greater part of the development of human society. In any case, Greece or Italy today are much more centralised than they ever were in the past, considering the large degree of autonomy these city states tended to have.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
[QUOTE]
oke a free agent... which in this debate will come down to almost equal.
i meant the 20th century. not the 21st. ofcourse there were places that had worse methods, more blunt and maybe even more painful. but nowhere ever have we seen such ruthless ideologistic orientated mass murdering, solely based on an atribute a person can't control, his (ancestral) history. Genghis may have killed more, but he wouldnt kill a man for being just chinese, and do the same to every other chinese. And yes, sparta may have been very controlled. but most people in the west (or on the globe) during that time were not under a form of centralised (or even decentralised) government that could enforce their laws everywhere and instantly. which seems to be the case now in (atleast in the west).We've committed the worst deeds this century? Nonsense. Hitler is the worst scumbag of modern times. Genghis Khan still killed plenty more than he did. You think the Gestapo were cruel? Meet the execution methods one millennia ago, like the "spread eagle" of the vikings, where a living human is cut up in the middle of his chest, before both sides of the ribcage is broken to each side, thus resebmling an eagle spreading its wings. You think we're controlled now? Read up on Sparta, no dictatorship since has even come close to the degree of control from cradle to the grave that the spartans achieved.
yes it was. but again i doubt it would have been achieved if everyone would question its need for production, way of production, price of production, place of production, spread of use, rights of production etc etc etc.Zero, because building the Pyramids is a complete waste of time and human life. A greater project we actually need, the internet, was built in a few years, however.
We do not sow.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Bookmarks