Jump to content

Prometheus

Senior Members
  • Posts

    1898
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    17

Everything posted by Prometheus

  1. The closest scripture i know of comes from the Buddha in the kalama sutra: However, it is not the scientific method, it is not meant to be a tool for empiricism, but for self reflection. As for Christ, i've not heard any. Muslims often claim there are many examples of 'science' in their holy books - any one know any of these claims?
  2. Sam Harris on death and the present moment Thought this was an interesting talk ranging from the religion must die to the finding something sacred in life.
  3. Not sure calling him a sinner will help much. Anyway, another perspective to ponder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus A system of thought which acknowledges a lack teleology to existence, but still challenges people to embrace this as a fact and live the best lives they can.
  4. What else can we be except what we are? Getting off topic now though, not that i mind...
  5. Broken also implies a teleology to our evolution: that we are destined to be perfectly rational beings, rather than simply being evolutionary products of an ever changing landscape. We are not 'meant' to be anything
  6. Just a technical note: not all religions postulate a creator being(s).
  7. Appolinaria, You seem to be arguing that people who believe in god are not broken by changing the meaning of the word god and then trying to supply evidence of it. While i disagree with Inow's analogy of calling a table an apple is equivalent to the various definitions of god in general, it probably is equivalent to calling god an amino acid carrying asteroid. If you want to use another definition for god, i think it only fair you use a more commonly held one, such as the Hindu concept, or some such (i find it very boring that on science forums the Abraham god is predominantly discussed). I think a more fruitful approach might be take the definition of god as creator of the universe, which thereafter has no input what-so-ever. There is no logical contradiction in believing in this god so long as you do not attempt to give any attributes to such a god - only that it created. Neither is there, nor can be, any evidence in favour or against this god (since by definition we have said this god is outside, and only outside, our universe - and the scientific method can only explore what is in our universe). In case any one's wondering i'm actually an atheist. Reason i don't personally believe in the god i've described above is that the god is essentially empty - we can attribute nothing to this god, other than 'it' caused the big bang. It might have been a big crunch from another universe, or whatever - we can't know. However, not knowing has never stopped humans speculating and if people wish to believe in this god, it does not mean they are broken, any more in my believing that the big bang was caused by a big crunch.
  8. To my mind this experiment suggests that reason and superstition would develop together. I imagine that as humans began to reason about things, they came to an understanding that when something happens, something caused it to happen. Without the reasoning abilities of a modern human though, the causes were 'river god made the river swell' (after all they knew nothing of the melting glacier miles away) and such. Religion, in this context and as an extension of superstition, could be seen as an early attempt to identify causes. Funny, when Derren Brown recreated this experiment (for entertainment, not actual science) for humans, they fell into the same pigeon thinking.
  9. I'm going to weigh in on Thomas Kelly guessed's side. I want the practice, and i think he'll appreciate some help. I will have to, however, disregard everything thus far said on this thread, as i don't understand a word. Sorry about that, but i'm not sure it's my fault. So, i understand the contradiction in question is that if god is all loving and god is all powerful, then these two qualities are at odds with each other, given we see so much evil in the world? This rests on the assumption that just because god is all loving he will therefore always prevent evil from happening (which is in his power). This is akin to the mollycoddling parent, denying a child the full spectrum of life, including the bumps and bruises. By denying us exposure to evil, we would be denied an opportunity to practice goodness and to develop. Regardless of god's motive, i suggest that because god is all loving does not necessarily mean he would intervene whenever evil occurs. Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive.
  10. Useful distinctions. As a side note, i have far more respect for people who simply claim they have faith in their god, rather than the people who claim there is evidence for it. But few children are given 'proper' upbringings. Most are raised to believe in a god. We all know how important are our formative years. These teachings are so part of childrens' make-up by the time they get to adulthood all the reason the world only makes for a few atheists. Apparently. I'm starting to think i'm using a different meaning for the word norm than you guys. Take a look around, take a look at the statistics. The norm (i.e. most common) is for people to believe in god. Even in our age of reason, there are plenty of people who believe not only in god(s), but unicorns and mystics and astrology and space-faring dolphins (no sh*t, i've come across people who believe this) and UFOs and... Interesting. I guess this is where the gene/meme admixture makes things complicated. A couple of objections though. It is unclear whether apes will go on to develop human-level intelligence, and if they do what their 'beliefs', if any, would be. If they do, just because apes followed one evolutionary path to this end, it does not follow that humans followed the same path. And (sorry to any anthropologists), this type of research cannot be as tightly controlled as the physical sciences, and so will never have the same level of accuracy. It can only ever be suggestive, rarely reaching firm conclusions from which predictions can be made. I agree, when reasoning and religion conflict, we should follow reason. I'm not a religious apologist. But what is at issue here is what is, not what should be.
  11. In itself that's fine. If a majority of people had heart failure, we'd still call them sick. However, this is slightly different. If everyone had sickle cell disease, would we still call them sick? No, it'd be a norm, something we just grew up with (as a species), but lowers our chance of catching malaria, i.e. an evolutionary trait. We have evolved to believe in god, whether it be by genes or memes (now that'd be an interesting discussion). For better or worse it's a human trait, for now. It was, and still is, the norm. Broken suggests deviation from this norm. Broken suggests we once had reason, then lost it.
  12. The loss of function in a given lifestyle is often attributed to significant changes in in thinking, feelings or behaviour (from http://ispsuk.org/?p=312 ,international society for psychology...), so my definition similar in some regards (i.e. mental causes). If you all agreed to accept 'broken' as a mental defect in the ability to reason rationally, then fair enough, but i would take issue with it. Utmost is the term 'broken' implies that rational reasoning is the norm for humans. I would argue it is the exception, and so the vast majority of us are broken. If belief in god(s) renders one broken, then the vast majority of humans are broken. I would say a definition for some kind of mental disability which renders the vast majority broken, is itself broken. Edit note: Sorry if this discussion's already been had, just point me there.
  13. I will try to argue that people who believe in god(s) are not broken, by using means not yet used (at least as far as i can tell). This argument will take the existence of god(s) to be irrelevant, and so a definition of belief or god is not required. A definition of broken, though, is required. If we take 'being normal' as being the ability to function in a given lifestyle, then to be broken is the inability to function in a given lifestyle. The given lifestyle here refers to whatever society brought you up. For whatever reasons our species, and society, have evolved beliefs in gods. This is normal, and certainly does not hinder people who believe in god from functioning in any given society i can think of. An ability to function, here, is the crux.
  14. I'm Prometheus. Interested in science, currently learning some maths. Want to hone my debating skills.
  15. As i understand it there are two theories bandied around as top why acupuncture works (both, of course, assume it works). One, it works on the gate-control theory of pain (the generally accepted theory of pain in medicine). By this theory acupuncture should work about as well as rubbing an injury (which does work). Two, acupuncture somehow releases endorphins and enkephalins, natural opiates. I've not looked into either, but can try to dig out some articles if you like. But as i understand it, most studies suggest it doesn't work beyond placebo (is there a cochrane review?).
  16. It would depend on how death is defined. In the UK, and most western countries i assume, it is defined as brain stem death. Japan has it as cessation of cardio-respiratory function. By these differing definitions one might have been kept alive in the UK but was brought back to life in Japan, both via CPR. Timo answered the rest. Kind of related, found this article arguing individuals should be allowed to define death for themselves: http://jme.bmj.com/c.../3/146.abstract Interesting implications for organ donation and 'do not attempt resus' orders.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.