NationStates Jolt Archive

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?
Because religion is an archaic form of science. I try to convince people of the fallacious nature of religion, but if they want to believe in it I will be merely frustrated. If they try to teach their outdated ideologies in science class in public schools, then I'm gonna get pissed off. Especially the idiots who say that evolution is only a theory. They're worse than the people who say that carbon testing is wrong on the dating of the Earth. Of course religion may be taught in theology, anthropology, and some english classes in public schools.

1)
a. Stupidity and insecurity.
b. Stupidity and arrogance.

2) Yes.

Wow, that was easy. May I be excused early?

Because religion is an archaic form of science. I try to convince people of the fallacious nature of religion, but if they want to believe in it I will be merely frustrated. If they try to teach their outdated ideologies in science class in public schools, then I'm gonna get pissed off. Especially the idiots who say that evolution is only a theory. They're worse than the people who say that carbon testing is wrong on the dating of the Earth. Of course religion may be taught in theology, anthropology, and some english classes in public schools.

I think you may be missing the point however

the reasons that they have these "outrageous" arguments is because they believe that truth is differant from the truth that you believe. They believe that their understanding is just as valid.

Truth is just dependent on society, 1000 years from now people will be trying to break from the oppressive truth system of science for its backward thinking.

1)
a. Stupidity and insecurity.
b. Stupidity and arrogance.

2) Yes.

Wow, that was easy. May I be excused early?

my god are you smart

I'd have to say religion and science should stay separate. Neither is good for each other.

I might as well just toss Adam's "Salmon of Doubt" in just for kicks.

I think you may be missing the point however

the reasons that they have these "outrageous" arguments is because they believe that truth is differant from the truth that you believe. They believe that their understanding is just as valid.
I know, and I would be fine with that if there wasn't evidence right in front of their godforsaken eyes to the contrary. I swear, it's like convering your ears and saying "LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

Truth is just dependent on society, 1000 years from now people will be trying to break from the oppressive truth system of science for its backward thinking.
No, I suspect that they will not break away from science. I'm sure they will be disproving many things we currently believe, but this will all be scientific in its own right. This is assuming we don't blow ourselves up by that time...

Truth is just dependent on society, 1000 years from now people will be trying to break from the oppressive truth system of science for its backward thinking.

And they would be right to do so if ... math, physics, chemistry or any other subject was still tought using today's books.

And they would be right to do so if ... math, physics, chemistry or any other subject was still tought using today's books.
Thank you. That was the argument I was trying to make, but I didn't present it nearly as well. Good show, sir.

Let me add something here. There is a difference between cheapening beliefe systems and growing as moral, logical societies. Do you REALLY think we should have kept the traditions in the Old Testament of stoning people, cutting of the hands of criminals, sacrificing oxen, and declaring women unclean and untouchable during that time of the month? Does it cheapen religion by removing the practice of slavery, that was widely practiced in biblical times? I would say no. So while religion has traditions, that doesn't always mean they are right or decent.

Now, why does Religion have no place with science? I think a melding of the two usually produces the best results, but let me explain why scientists are usually stubborn and adamant about religions exclusion.

Evolution vs Creation. Evolution helps scientists understand the world around them. It has brought about the ideas of natural selection, adaptation, mutation, and gene theories. The idea of evolution is testable, and by thinking about it scientists have been able to utilize its findings and solve problems.

Creationism does not allow this.

The difference is that Science attempts to find the reason, make sure it is testable, and then use those testable findings to solve problems, harness natural energies, make life better, cure cancer... etc etc. Religion tends to say "God did it" and move on without any understanding at all.

There is a BIG difference. If humans always took this approach we would think that the sun was a chariot of fire that crossed the sky.

My belief is that God wants us to understand the universe. My belief is that a book does not tell me how I should think.

And they would be right to do so if ... math, physics, chemistry or any other subject was still tought using today's books.

lol

it doesnt matter what text books they are reading from though, its all just "truth".

In today's society, we believe that the scientific method produces truths about the world, in the dark ages people looked to god, rationalists believe that truth can be discovered by introspection. Each society has a differant way of judging truth.

Science to me is just the act of determining the specifics of qualities that we attribute to objects. We can give a "truth" about height and weight, just because we have a system that defines what height and weight are.

Beliefs may be relevant to the society, but science can be tested and proven. How we interpret the findings may be different, but 2 + 2 will always equal 4. Archemedies' test of the displacement of water performed 3 thousand years ago still works. The Roman's ideas on archetechture are still sound, arches still work with keystones. So while it may be true that science will fall out of vogue, it is only at societies deteriment that we abandon truth over faith.

I know, and I would be fine with that if there wasn't evidence right in front of their godforsaken eyes to the contrary. I swear, it's like convering your ears and saying "LA! LA! LA! LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"



Creationist: But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that evolution is impossible
non Creationist: That is just classical thermodynamics you are talking. When applied to open systems, dissipative structures, and sytems out of equilibrium....
Creationist: That is not possible. It goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
non Creationist: It IS the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Creationist: Prove it.
non-Creationist: / points them to a page explaining more than just classical thermodynamics /
Creationist: Just because scientist said it doesn't mean it's the truth. There is no way to know...
non-Creationist:
:headbang:

Is that a decent job of summing it up?

Let me add something here. There is a difference between cheapening beliefe systems and growing as moral, logical societies. Do you REALLY think we should have kept the traditions in the Old Testament of stoning people, cutting of the hands of criminals, sacrificing oxen, and declaring women unclean and untouchable during that time of the month? Does it cheapen religion by removing the practice of slavery, that was widely practiced in biblical times? I would say no. So while religion has traditions, that doesn't always mean they are right or decent.

But what if God thinks that black people and jews should be slaves? should not christians want to have black and jew slaves?

Now, why does Religion have no place with science? I think a melding of the two usually produces the best results, but let me explain why scientists are usually stubborn and adamant about religions exclusion.

lol

Evolution vs Creation. Evolution helps scientists understand the world around them. It has brought about the ideas of natural selection, adaptation, mutation, and gene theories. The idea of evolution is testable, and by thinking about it scientists have been able to utilize its findings and solve problems.

Creationism does not allow this.

The difference is that Science attempts to find the reason, make sure it is testable, and then use those testable findings to solve problems, harness natural energies, make life better, cure cancer... etc etc. Religion tends to say "God did it" and move on without any understanding at all.

all that you are saying is that science is better at being scientific than religion is. Do you honestly believe that science is the be all and end all of truth? do you think human understanding has come nearly that far?

There is a BIG difference. If humans always took this approach we would think that the sun was a chariot of fire that crossed the sky.

My belief is that God wants us to understand the universe. My belief is that a book does not tell me how I should think.

There isnt a difference though. Just because you recognize the scientific method as being the way to produce truth doesnt mean it is. If science were to be compared by religions standards it would be a complete failure as well, but they are compleatly differant understandings of the cosmos. How can you judge which to be true? you DONT know for sure.

BTW. Most of the scientific method was written in a BOOK (by Bacon I believe) and has been adapted through WRITINGS. This method was adapted off of the method developed by Aristotle in his WRITINGS.

OH, and all Western mathmatics are essentially based around Pythagoras and the Greeks understanding of numbers and algebra (they did think the triangle was the simplest shape). So, if pythagoras didnt get it right..... oh no science

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

Most don't.

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

No scientists care if a religion agrees with them, nor is the scientific community as a whole critical of religion for not using the scientific method. The debate only comes in when religious people want to teach religion *as science* in a *science* classroom. At that point, anything taught *must* follow the scientific method.

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

You're right. We should still have slaves, since those were long lasting tenets. After all, the OT lays out laws for exactly how to treat them.

We should also go back to discriminating against women.

Screw society and the socio-political atmosphere. You cheapen your beliefs if you have so little faith that you won't question them. And if you question them and come to a different conclusion - so be it.

Beliefs may be relevant to the society, but science can be tested and proven. How we interpret the findings may be different, but 2 + 2 will always equal 4. Archemedies' test of the displacement of water performed 3 thousand years ago still works. The Roman's ideas on archetechture are still sound, arches still work with keystones. So while it may be true that science will fall out of vogue, it is only at societies deteriment that we abandon truth over faith.


Proof is again subjective. 2+2=4 so long as 2 is equal to 2 and 4 to 4. Saying that because 2+2=4 prooves mathmatics correct is the exact same as saying that the bible proves god correct. Its a self affirming theory.

Displacement, density, weight, height, mass, velocity, location, colour, odour. These are scientific qualities that we give to objects in order for science to study them. The fact that displacement is a law of science therefore has as much credence as the 10 commandments.

Im not say that displacement isnt true. Through scientific observation it is obviously true. But through religious observation the 10 commanments hold strong.

Most don't.

then why is it such an affront to religion that science doesnt follow its belief. Why does religion seem to need to create a scientific theory to prove itself to non-believer in the first place?

No scientists care if a religion agrees with them, nor is the scientific community as a whole critical of religion for not using the scientific method. The debate only comes in when religious people want to teach religion *as science* in a *science* classroom. At that point, anything taught *must* follow the scientific method.

fair enough

You're right. We should still have slaves, since those were long lasting tenets. After all, the OT lays out laws for exactly how to treat them.

We should also go back to discriminating against women.

Screw society and the socio-political atmosphere. You cheapen your beliefs if you have so little faith that you won't question them. And if you question them and come to a different conclusion - so be it.

But, we only see equality and freedom as rights of people and man because that is what the truth of our society is.

hundreds of civilizations have determind that the truth is that women are subservient to men. That was TRUTH, fact. It wasn't a big cover up, or male chauvenistic conspiracy, people just believed it, they same way you believe in equality today.

However, if a religion claims that it knows the truth, then changes, wouldnt that reflect badly on their truth? or should religion be allowed to be constantly "evolving" like science? what would God say?

What if we were trying to validify something beyond our way of discovery? Such as science not being an efficient tool for proof. What if the only way to discover the truth was on an individual basis? Meaning nobody could tell you anything except their very own experience but you could not fathom what really happened without it happening to you. As far as my experience has been it has been a very private yet eye opening one. To open up the knowledge that only God can give you is worth living a life on its own.

What if we were trying to validify something beyond our way of discovery? Such as science not being an efficient tool for proof. What if the only way to discover the truth was on an individual basis? Meaning nobody could tell you anything except their very own experience. As far as my experience has been it has been a very private yet eye opening one. To open up the knowledge that only God can give you is worth living a life on its own.


you are on the oposite end then

your definition of truth is based around what you believe God is.

you are on the oposite end then

your definition of truth is based around what you believe God is.

Well if seeing something with your own eyes and using your logic to comprehend what "No formalities, No labels, Seek Peace, Stay away from politics, F*** The Bible" actually means with a understanding mind, falls under that definition then yes.

1b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

the scientific community doesn't give a crap about whether religious people or religious organizations agree with science. the scientific community just wants religion to stay the hell out of the way when it comes to scientific discovery, and for religion to be kept out of science classrooms.

Now, I'm all for disproving mathmatics, but listen. I have a ruler. I have a second ruler that is twice as long. It's TWICE as long... that means x2. Whether you call the little one 2 microns, 2 feet, 2 hands, 2 bilboplagerhummers, the longer one would be 4. How is mathmatics a just a passing fad? A world without mathmatics would not look like the one you live in. How is archetechure posible without mathmatics? What does a world look like where 2+2 does not equal 4?

If I have 2 apples, and you have 2 apples, we have 4 apples. It is not a matter of perspective.

My point is that Math works. And because it works, things are possible. It is not the same as a saying god exists because he says he does, because God does not build skyscrappers, but math does. When people do math wrong, things fail. The Mars probe crashed because someone didn't convert Metric to Miles... that's not perspective, that is mathmatics.

It is a way to understand the world, yes... but MUCH more importantly, it allows us to control, predict, and effect the world.

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

1a) I feel that they are threatened by science and afraid that it will disprove their world view somehow. Actually I don't see how science can prove a religion. It could possibly prove that the biblical literalists are wrong - but even then- if they really wanted to they could explain it away as God tricking us, or making it a miracle whereby two timelines happened at once or something.

b)I don't think we are. I think where the problem lies is that they are picking bits and pieces of science in order to "prove" their point and ignoring the rest. It would be the equivalent of a non-religious person telling a Christian that he is going to hell for eating shrimp while ignoring the New Testament, and then when the Christian tries to explain the NT, insisting that if Leviticus says so and their God's word is eternal, then they must be going to Hell. The Christian would get very frustrated, and rightfully so.

2) Obviously not. It has happened several times before. All Christians are no longer Catholic. Many of the tenants changed at the time of Reformation. Since then other churches have split and formed based on new interpretations of the bible. Also prior to the Civil Rights movement, many churches would not marry inter-racial couples because they held it to be sinful. That has changed. Sometimes the change is slow, because they say the word of God is eternal and unchanging. But if the world changes -as it constantly does- and the Word of God does not, then the meaning has mutated in relationship to the rest of the world. So the word of God moves in pace to keep the same relative relationship with the world as it had before and always, otherwise the MEANING of the word of God would change.

What if we were trying to validify something beyond our way of discovery? Such as science not being an efficient tool for proof. What if the only way to discover the truth was on an individual basis? Meaning nobody could tell you anything except their very own experience but you could not fathom what really happened without it happening to you. As far as my experience has been it has been a very private yet eye opening one. To open up the knowledge that only God can give you is worth living a life on its own.

EVERY human already does this. It is called finding meaning in life. Some people find meaning in religion. Some find it in science bars. Some find it in teaching. Some find it in just living. It is a bit different for each and every individual. I am positive for you God makes your life worth living. If you can respect that other people have their own meaning and that is just as valid as your meaning even if it does not include God, then you have the right to ask that others respect that your meaning comes from a valid place. If you cannot respect that those who do worship God can have valid meaning in their lives then you have no right to ask that respect of others.

then why is it such an affront to religion that science doesnt follow its belief. Why does religion seem to need to create a scientific theory to prove itself to non-believer in the first place?

Like I said, most don't. Those who do demonstrate both a lack of knowledge of science and a lack of faith in their religion.

But, we only see equality and freedom as rights of people and man because that is what the truth of our society is.

If that is the only reason you see it, especially when it isn't even complete, then I am very sad for you.

hundreds of civilizations have determind that the truth is that women are subservient to men. That was TRUTH, fact. It wasn't a big cover up, or male chauvenistic conspiracy, people just believed it, they same way you believe in equality today.

And even then, many people examined their beliefs, challenged them, and found them lacking. The big problem is that most people aren't willing to challenge their beliefs - and many power structures encourage them to refrain from doing so.

However, if a religion claims that it knows the truth, then changes, wouldnt that reflect badly on their truth? or should religion be allowed to be constantly "evolving" like science? what would God say?

Any religion or religious person that claims to know the entire truth is either incredibly arrogant incredibly lacking in faith. The moment you stop questioning your beliefs and claim that you know everything is the moment that you lose all faith and are completely wrong.

Religion *has* to be constantly evolving - as it must attempt to reach the ideal state that God wants it to reach. We will probably never get there, but the point is the journey.

<snip>

However, if a religion claims that it knows the truth, then changes, wouldnt that reflect badly on their truth? or should religion be allowed to be constantly "evolving" like science? what would God say?

If God is the creator of all things, that would include evolution imho, and science. So I think God would be rather pleased.

Humans (or the world) changing their reflection or expression of divinity as their environment changes does not of itself mean that God is changing, or that the nature or purpose, if there is one, of God is changing. Unless God is a concrete thing - words on a page for example.

Disclaimer: I am sure there are examples that go against the whole....

1) I don't think most religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science. It's more of an attitude that science is only to discredit their faith and religion. A person wants to belive there is something after death so they probably fear that science might tell them there is nothing. Even though I don't think anybody will take the effort to prove or disprove God(s).

1.b) The scientific community is not looking for validation by Religion. It simply wants Religion to stay out of the science classroom.

The problem with the two is that Religion requires a bit of faith and science is more cynical. Part of the process of the scientific method.

2) No. Change is good. Science only strengthens from challenges. The fact that Creationists spew some of their garbage makes the "Eviloutionists" verify things.

Creationists would be surprised if they could actually find some damning evidence and watch many "Eviloutionists" change their views.

It's part of the process. You make a hypotheises and go about attacking it.

I'd have to say religion and science should stay separate. Neither is good for each other.

I might as well just toss Adam's "Salmon of Doubt" in just for kicks.
Is that finally out? Any good?
His literate demeanor was admirable and flummoxing at times.
His social demeanor was appalling and desperate need of a hot-iron adjustment. I nearly kicked the prick down a flight of stairs.
Yes, i did meet him and discover what he seemed to esteem of others' intellect, especially of his fans. That was a disappointing day, to be sure.

1a) I feel that they are threatened by science and afraid that it will disprove their world view somehow. Actually I don't see how science can prove a religion. It could possibly prove that the biblical literalists are wrong - but even then- if they really wanted to they could explain it away as God tricking us, or making it a miracle whereby two timelines happened at once or something.

b)I don't think we are. I think where the problem lies is that they are picking bits and pieces of science in order to "prove" their point and ignoring the rest. It would be the equivalent of a non-religious person telling a Christian that he is going to hell for eating shrimp while ignoring the New Testament, and then when the Christian tries to explain the NT, insisting that if Leviticus says so and their God's word is eternal, then they must be going to Hell. The Christian would get very frustrated, and rightfully so.

2) Obviously not. It has happened several times before. All Christians are no longer Catholic. Many of the tenants changed at the time of Reformation. Since then other churches have split and formed based on new interpretations of the bible. Also prior to the Civil Rights movement, many churches would not marry inter-racial couples because they held it to be sinful. That has changed. Sometimes the change is slow, because they say the word of God is eternal and unchanging. But if the world changes -as it constantly does- and the Word of God does not, then the meaning has mutated in relationship to the rest of the world. So the word of God moves in pace to keep the same relative relationship with the world as it had before and always, otherwise the MEANING of the word of God would change.
Good post.

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

1a) This is a relatively scientific age, in that science is recognized as an authority. Some religious folk want to have the endorsement of the scientific establishment as well as their own; if scientists are even neutral on religious issues, they're a threat.

b) Because scientists don't believe that religion is "a separate path to truth." By the principles of reason and experiment, you can build skyscrapers and heal the sick, but all the gods in the world can't heal even a broken leg. The problem is that Religion sometimes says to Science, "We're separate systems; leave us alone," and then intrudes on Science's turf by making testable claims about the physical world. If priests just said "God exists," scientists would grumble about that being an untestable claim but couldn't disprove it either. But when priests go on to say that God transforms wine into blood or heals people who pray, they're saying things that scientists can prove are false.

On a more personal level, some scientific folk see priests as the equivalent of people who play doctors on TV. Those people dress up and claim to have authority, but they really don't, because they haven't done the work that gives science its credibility. Priests don't really have any power beyond psychology, leadership, and the placebo effect, yet almost everyone trusts them. They haven't earned that trust.

2) Changing your mind only cheapens your beliefs when they're based on the assumption that they're unchangeable and handed down by God. Science and democracy are based instead on the assumption that we'll get stuff wrong and fix it later.

The main thing with how science judges truth and how religion judges truth is that scientifics hypotheses only become theories and then FACTs after they have been sufficiently repeated by several parties, opposing and supporting. Louis Pasteur's ideas were ridiculed by most of the scientific community, but when his experiments were repeated by that same opposing community, the results were the same.

With the religious community, a whole lot of things are left unrepeated, taken for granted.

So, I would say that in order for religion to have any leverage, it would have to behave like science (and that is why some religious groups find it important to prove themselves with science).

We do not know that evolution is real--but rather that with our knowledge evolution is something that can be repeated. Whether or not there are COMPLETELY NEW factors that we have never seen that control evolution has yet to be seen, but so far we can label whatever causes all the experiments to result the same as evolution and be pretty confidant in that being a fact.

If a God controls evolution stemming from an adjusted Creationist view, but we still label it evolution, does that throw out the whole Theory of Evolution? Or does is merely tell us that there is a new variable (God) that must be researched to fully know and predict evolution? Is this not the goal of science, to know everything?

Because religion is an archaic form of science. I try to convince people of the fallacious nature of religion, but if they want to believe in it I will be merely frustrated. If they try to teach their outdated ideologies in science class in public schools, then I'm gonna get pissed off. Especially the idiots who say that evolution is only a theory. They're worse than the people who say that carbon testing is wrong on the dating of the Earth. Of course religion may be taught in theology, anthropology, and some english classes in public schools.
Religion is no form of science. Science seeks to explain the nature world; religion the spiritual world.

Religion is no form of science. Science seeks to explain the nature world; religion the spiritual world.

I think you are missing the point. Religion got it's start trying to explain the natural world.

Q. "What is lightning?"
A. "Zeus throwing thunderbolts because he's mad."

Q. "Why is it raining?"
A. "Because the angels are sad and crying."

Most of us have heard something similar, either in our studies of mythology or in everyday conversations. Ask most children in America where lightning, rain and thunder come from and they will give you an answer with some kind of religious connotation. I actually heard a child once describe thunder as "The angels in Heaven are bowling". But this phenomenon is not limited to the US. From Judeo-Christian myths to Zogg the Volcano God on some little Pacific Island, religion seeks to explain the world around us. (Look to Genesis for a classic example).

This is also what science does. The reason the religious don't like science is that it demystifies the world. And religions need the mystical to survive.

Lightning arises through purely natural forces. Rain arises through purely natural forces. EVERYTHING arises through purely natural forces. This doesn't leave any room for the supernatural, and thus religion is endangered by science.

Is there any reason to wonder why the religious establishment is trying to "invade" science by teaching their beliefs in the classroom? It is an attempt to remystify the world.

Science to me is just the act of determining the specifics of qualities that we attribute to objects. We can give a "truth" about height and weight, just because we have a system that defines what height and weight are.

The force is strong in this one...

ok

on a personal note, i would suggest that science does a better job at determining scientific characteristics about the physical world. Thats not religions purpose.

like any number. It isnt a real thing, its a symbol that humans have come to associate with a scientific concept, that of quantity. Those words and symbols have no meaning outside of the scientific definition of truth.

So yes, you can scientifically disect the world, but see how limited science truly is? we can only discover things that our language is able to let us understand. We can only figure out what our sences allow us to detect. lol, even our perception of the world is just a projection in our mind.

However, science cannot tell us what God determines is moral, as this is not a quantitative observation, but a spiritual idea. both are differant interpretations of truth that are adopted by a society and used to determine what is right and wrong, many times making moral determinations.

"Those words and symbols have no meaning outside of the scientific definition of truth."

Okay. Look at your computer.

Tell the scientists that designed the plastic casing that their symbols have no meaning outside the scientific definition of truth. Tell the electrical engineers that designed the chips that their symbols have no meaning outside the scientific definition of truth. Take a look at this message board - tell the people that designed cables to transmit this information from computer to computer that their symbols have no meaning outside of the scientific definition of truth.

Sheesh, look at a cell phone, make a call - and then assert that Maxwell's Equations have no meaning outside of a rigid scientific framework.

You know why scientists think that their claims to truth apply to reality as a whole? Because those claims are used to build things, design things, and so on. All of those fancy technological gadgets that we take for granted - built on foundations of science.

We can only figure out what our sences allow us to detect.

Actually, no. When we realize our senses can't detect something, we try to build instruments that can. Starting from simple things from optical microscopes, on to fancier gadgetry such as laser interferometers or radio telescopes, on to really wierd things like particle accelerators and the like. If we can't sense something, we try to figure out how we can build something that can sense it for us.

Okay. Look at your computer.

Tell the scientists that designed the plastic casing that their symbols have no meaning outside the scientific definition of truth. Tell the electrical engineers that designed the chips that their symbols have no meaning outside the scientific definition of truth. Take a look at this message board - tell the people that designed cables to transmit this information from computer to computer that their symbols have no meaning outside of the scientific definition of truth.

Sheesh, look at a cell phone, make a call - and then assert that Maxwell's Equations have no meaning outside of a rigid scientific framework.

You know why scientists think that their claims to truth apply to reality as a whole? Because those claims are used to build things, design things, and so on. All of those fancy technological gadgets that we take for granted - built on foundations of science.

ya, science works at achieving scientific ends. im not arguing that science isnt correct, because there are things that we can see around us that obviously are marvels of modern engineering.

This is however only if you believe in science, as most people in our science dominated culture do.

If you live in a time that allocated anything unexplainable to a higher power, than any of your examples have a simple, yet obviously ignorant answer. Its God.

However, depending on which system you use as the basis for defineing truth you wind up with a differant answer. Both use circular arguments to proove their validity.

Science uses the laws of science to prove its truths whereas religion uses the laws of god. again, im not commenting on the validity of either.

Actually, no. When we realize our senses can't detect something, we try to build instruments that can. Starting from simple things from optical microscopes, on to fancier gadgetry such as laser interferometers or radio telescopes, on to really wierd things like particle accelerators and the like. If we can't sense something, we try to figure out how we can build something that can sense it for us.

ya, thats fair

"Both use circular arguments to proove their validity."

The argument for science goes as follows... "We think science is true. It gives us such and such results. We can use these results to try to build lots of useful things. These things work - hence, science is probably true."

How is that circular reasoning?

The argument for science goes as follows... "We think science is true. It gives us such and such results. We can use these results to try to build lots of useful things. These things work - hence, science is probably true."

How is that circular reasoning?

lol, its much less circular than religion, but bare with me

we can only make scientific observations about quantitative things, ie, math is an exact science where as behavioural psychology isnt.

Since science created concepts like height, weight, numbers, velocity, as linguistic and numerical sysbols to give us language to communicate observations we make about the world.

It would be like if i said that me computer desk is 8 melu high. i cant be wrong, because a melu is just an interpretation of length, which is a quality defined by science.

ya, science works at achieving scientific ends. im not arguing that science isnt correct, because there are things that we can see around us that obviously are marvels of modern engineering.

This is however only if you believe in science, as most people in our science dominated culture do.

If you live in a time that allocated anything unexplainable to a higher power, than any of your examples have a simple, yet obviously ignorant answer. Its God.

However, depending on which system you use as the basis for defineing truth you wind up with a differant answer. Both use circular arguments to proove their validity.

Science uses the laws of science to prove its truths whereas religion uses the laws of god. again, im not commenting on the validity of either.

I think you're wrong. Science has a stronger claim to truth when it comes to the physical world than religion does. The reason being that science is based upon observations, repeatable experiments, and mathematics that remain identical regardless of culture. Whether you measure the volume of water displaced by an object in liters, gallons, or cubic cubits, it still represents the same number of water molecules. Religion, however, is mainly speculation about one or more supreme beings heavily colored by one's culture. While a Baptist from Alabama and a Muslim from Saudi Arabia may both agree on the specific gravity of gold, but would never agree on religion.

I think you are missing the point. Religion got it's start trying to explain the natural world.

Q. "What is lightning?"
A. "Zeus throwing thunderbolts because he's mad."

Q. "Why is it raining?"
A. "Because the angels are sad and crying."
I didn't miss the point; I hit the nail right on the head.

That what you've stated there is a modern-day myth. It has no foundation in truth.

Most of us have heard something similar, either in our studies of mythology or in everyday conversations. Ask most children in America where lightning, rain and thunder come from and they will give you an answer with some kind of religious connotation. I actually heard a child once describe thunder as "The angels in Heaven are bowling". But this phenomenon is not limited to the US. From Judeo-Christian myths to Zogg the Volcano God on some little Pacific Island, religion seeks to explain the world around us. (Look to Genesis for a classic example).

This is also what science does. The reason the religious don't like science is that it demystifies the world. And religions need the mystical to survive.
I see you have some background in mythology. Interesting; my studies led me to a different conclusion, that the foundation of religion is in symbolism and symbolizing the world around us in spiritual constructs.

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

I don't believe christianity needs to be validated by science. I do believe that it will one day be proven true by science from their efforts to disprove it.

Actually, no. When we realize our senses can't detect something, we try to build instruments that can. Starting from simple things from optical microscopes, on to fancier gadgetry such as laser interferometers or radio telescopes, on to really wierd things like particle accelerators and the like. If we can't sense something, we try to figure out how we can build something that can sense it for us.
But machines cannot detect things that entirely subjectively perceived --there is always a realm that will be off-limits to the machine, the realm of the imagination. So how does science react? With ridicule and scorn. "...only make-believe." "...it's all in his head." "...dismiss it, and look at the facts."

Science cannot touch on religious understanding, ever, because it exists in the realm of the imagination.

I don't think that the missing link has ever been found ... which is what is needed to prove that evolution is true .... until then its only a theory .

Here is someone with no knowledge whatsoever of how science works. Science can never, and has never, *proven* anything. It can only disprove false hypotheses. And *EVERYTHING* that science ever postulates is "just a theory".

Besides I think that at least in America ( if not the rest of the world ) people should have the knowledge & opportunity to makes informed decisions . So creationism should be taught in school so they can make an intelligent decision .

Creationism can only be taught in it's rightful place - a religion class. It is not, in any way, shape, or form, science. It does not follow the scientific process - and the only way to be a Creationist is to be a very bad scientist. Why should we teach bad science in schools?

Do you think we should teach kids how to flip their cars so that they can make intelligent decisions about driving? Do you think we should teach kids that 3+5=24 so that they can make intelligent decisions about math? Do you think we should teach kids that Bush is God so they can make intelligent decisions about government? I think not. In science, we teach science. The only place for bad science is to teach kids what *not* to do in science.

I think you're wrong. Science has a stronger claim to truth when it comes to the physical world than religion does. The reason being that science is based upon observations, repeatable experiments, and mathematics that remain identical regardless of culture. Whether you measure the volume of water displaced by an object in liters, gallons, or cubic cubits, it still represents the same number of water molecules. Religion, however, is mainly speculation about one or more supreme beings heavily colored by one's culture. While a Baptist from Alabama and a Muslim from Saudi Arabia may both agree on the specific gravity of gold, but would never agree on religion.
It is called "scientism"; the belief that science is more right and true because it explains the natural world, whereas the realm of the subjective is to be dismissed because it cannot be explained by science.

Hey, I thought the thread title said, "(not about evolution)". ;)

Read the addition to my original post ... then tell me this again. I'll even
post it again here:

Please Read this:

"Missing Links" are vital to the theory of evolution . Even Darwin himself admitted that without the existence of "missing links" his theory would be proven false . Let's take a look at some of those missing links.

This is completely false. We would have to prove that there are absolutely no missing links in order to "prove Darwin wrong." In other words, we would have to check every single layer of every single piece of Earth on every single centimeter of Earth. Then, since we know that every single organism doesn't get fossilized, we would have to build a time machine and go back through every single generation of every organism that ever existed.

Coelacanth is supposed to be the evidence that amphibians came from fish. After all, the fins were attached to the body by thick, fleshy lobes, allowing freer rotation and possibly "feet" with which to walk, and evolutionists speculated that they were shallow water fish. All this went uncontested until one was caught in the Indian Ocean, and it was found out that they rarely come within 500 feet of the surface.

Which proves nothing. The fact that the *current* coelacanths do something does not change the fact that they may share a common ancestor with amphibians. This comes from the common, but very wrong, misconception that evolution necessarily involves one species becoming another species, without leaving some members of the opposite species intact. It is very possible that a population of ancient coelacanths evolved to be in shallower water. From them, amphibians evolved. Then, other shallow water fish outcompeted the shallow water coelacanths, eventually resulting in their extinction. If there was nothing better to compete with the deeper water species, there is no surprise that it is still around.

Archeopteryx is presented as a link between reptiles and birds. Some unusual features were small breastbones, teeth, elongated tail, and claws on its wings. Sounds pretty convincing, until you realize that there are some species of birds today that exhibit similar characteristics. And besides, it has modern flight feathers and hollow bones, evidence of a true bird.

This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. The fact that some birds have these features are *support* for the theory, not proof against it. What kind of idiot wrote this crap?

The "horse series" is probably one of the worst attempts to prove evolution. Ribs woulod magicaly disappear and reappear and is based on a rabbit. Talk about desperation.

Without more background, I cannot say anything about this. However, *if* this is true, then it is not part of the theory at this point anyways.

Piltdown Man was discovered in a gravel pit not far from Piltdown, England. It was found with crude tools, and bones belonging to humans and apes. But, what was overlooked was the obvious file markings and chemical residue, making the jaw and other bones look ancient and sub-human.

Nebraska Man was constructed from a single tooth, later discovered to belong to an extinct pig.

Ramapithecus was constructed from a heavy jawbone, some teeth, and skull fragments, and was speculated to have walked upright, though a hipbone was never found. But, a full skeleton of Ramapithecus was found, and it resembles modern orangutans.

Ausralopithecus was supposed to be the first in the line of human descent. It was a small ape skull, and regarded as unmistakable evidence, until an adult Australopithecus was found, and declared an extinct ape by evolutionists

The fact that these were demonstrated to be either false assumptions or hoaxes and were then thrown out as evidence is further support for the *fact* that science alters its theory to suit the evidence, not the other way around.

Homo habilis was argued to be classified as a type of australopithecine . Later skeletons of homo habilus discovered would reveal though that it was not humanlike at all. And any evidence of H. habilus that would suggest it is human is because human bones were mixed by "scientists" with ape bones.

Proof that scientists were intentionally doing so? Proof that any part of evolutionary theory is still based on any of this? Oh wait....ther is none.

[ Homo erectus , known as "Java Man" and "Peking Man" , discovered by Eugene Bubois, was considered a link. Heavy brow ridges and femur bones, similar to modern humans, was considered to be proof of the evolution of man. But, Dubois exaggerated the skull, and failed to report that he found a complete human skeleton in the same strata.

More proof of the fact that science throws things out when they are shown to be falsified or misinterpreted.

[ Neanderthal Man was characterized by heavy brows, sloping foreheads, powerful physiques, and larger brains than humans of today. But closer examinations of this "link" show that he stood upright with the posture, gait, and intelligence of a modern person. And some tools that have been unearthed reveal that they may have been smarter than humans of today. That sounds like a regression , and I thought that evolution was supposed to be better, not worse. In any event, they were later clasified as true humans.

Cro-magnon man , like "Neanderthal man" was a more powerful and had superior intelligence. They just lived in caves and hunted bison, like some of the Indians (or, to be politicaly correct Native Americans) do. Even evolutionists classify them as modern humans.

Ditto.

[ The impossibility of transition

In order for evolution to take place, the creature has to be fully functional while undergoing the change. Bats, who supposedly evolved from rodents similar to shrews, would be a great example for evolution. But, the complexity would render the rodent unable to use his paws for running or grasping, and it would not be able to walk, hold its food, or fly. In fact, it would be incredibly vulnerable, and it would not have lived long enough to produce offspring. Kind of goes against "Survival of the fittest" doesn't it?

This is an idiotic view as well. THese people erroneously act like we are talking about a single generation gap here. We are talking about extremely gradual changes, which would in fact not harm the creature at all.

[Unlike evolutionists who speculated about genetics, Gregor Mendell did extensive research and expirementation. He found
1) Variety within kinds result from pre-existing genetic variety.

Part of evolutionary theory.

[2) There are fixed limits to biological change.

I'm not sure what it means by "fixed limits," but this is also part of evolutionary theory.

[3) Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained.

This is completely untrue, and is not something that Mendel "proved".

[I hope I have given you evidence to ponder at just how scientific evolution is.

So, I show that you know nothing at all about science, and you provide "evidence" from someone else who knows nothing at all about science.

On top of that, there is not a single shred of evidence for Creationism or Intelligent Design, neither of which is even nominally based in the scientific method, in this email.

How about you go back to school, learn how science works, and then come back and try again?

But machines cannot detect things that entirely subjectively perceived --there is always a realm that will be off-limits to the machine, the realm of the imagination. So how does science react? With ridicule and scorn. "...only make-believe." "...it's all in his head." "...dismiss it, and look at the facts."

Science cannot touch on religious understanding, ever, because it exists in the realm of the imagination.
Actually with modern equipment the brain can be scanned and the parts of the brain responsible for subjective phenomena can be mapped.

It is called "scientism"; the belief that science is more right and true because it explains the natural world, whereas the realm of the subjective is to be dismissed because it cannot be explained by science.
Actually we can map the portions of the brain responsible for subjective phenomena.

I'd have to say religion and science should stay separate. Neither is good for each other.

I might as well just toss Adam's "Salmon of Doubt" in just for kicks.


One of these days the evolutionist will realize they were wrong and they will drop on their knees also and declare God as their savior when they come befor him to be judge. As said " One day every tongue will confess he is God one day every knee will bow" so one day Religion and science will be brought together no matter if people like it or not

"Missing Links" are vital to the theory of evolution . Even Darwin himself admitted that without the existence of "missing links" his theory would be proven false .

Which, as I pointed out below, is a ludicrous statement unless you build a time machine and go back and *prove* that there never was a so-called "missing link" at any point in the history of every single species on Earth.

There is much evidence that evolution is not science at all, but vain attempts to keep a philosophy alive . An evolutionist by the name of G.A. Kerkut even admitted that evolution is not capable of scientific verification , and called it a philosophy which needs to be accepted by faith , and admitted that any evidence supporting evolution is circumstancial .

1. One person's quote means nothing.
2. Evolution requires no "faith," as anyone can look at the evidence for themselves and interpret it in a scientific manner. The problem that Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents don't understand is that you have to look at *all* evidence with an *open* mind, not just the evidence that backs up your pre-set conclusion.
3. Any evidence supporting anything from the past is circumstantial. The point at which evolution trumps faith-based ideas is the fact that it is formed *from* the evidence, while the other two try and mold the evidence to fit an idea they had before they even started.

[Why should you teach bad science in schools? Thats a good question .... the report I posted shows evolution to fall under that category ...

The report you posted *supports* science. It isn't my fault that an idiot wrote it.

[yet ... you don't seem to have a problem with it being taught in school .... why is that?

Because, as I showed through your post, it is good science - based on currently available science and changing with any new evidence that comes.

One of these days the evolutionist will realize they were wrong and they will drop on their knees also and declare God as their savior when they come befor him to be judge. As said " One day every tongue will confess he is God one day every knee will bow" so one day Religion and science will be brought together no matter if people like it or not

Wow, you are an idiot.

I already drop on my knees before God. It has *nothing* to do with evolution.

Edit: I take that back. The wonders of biology are part of what makes me so humble before God, so I guess evolution most likely has *something* to do with it.

Because religion is an archaic form of science. I try to convince people of the fallacious nature of religion, but if they want to believe in it I will be merely frustrated. If they try to teach their outdated ideologies in science class in public schools, then I'm gonna get pissed off. Especially the idiots who say that evolution is only a theory. They're worse than the people who say that carbon testing is wrong on the dating of the Earth. Of course religion may be taught in theology, anthropology, and some english classes in public schools.


If the weathermen can not predict the weather than how and the heck can scientists predict evolution Serioulsy they have nothing to back up there views we supposidly evolved from monkeys yet our heart is closer to a pigs. if we evolved from monkeys then wheres the in between Religion has more truth than evolution Read the Case for Christ I think by Lee Strobel maybe then youll see

If the weathermen can not predict the weather than how and the heck can scientists predict evolution Serioulsy they have nothing to back up there views we supposidly evolved from monkeys yet our heart is closer to a pigs. if we evolved from monkeys then wheres the in between Religion has more truth than evolution Read the Case for Christ I think by Lee Strobel maybe then youll see

No one ever said "we evolved from monkeys" except idiots with no conception of the theory.

We evolved from a *common ancestor* of all mammals (including pigs, btw).
We evolved from a *common ancestor* with all apes.

And belief in Christ has *nothing* whatsoever to do with evolution.

Wow, you are an idiot.

I already drop on my knees before God. It has *nothing* to do with evolution.


Wow you are a moron if you missed the point of what I am saying. Revolution has no truth religion does so therefor the frickin revolutionist will all be faced with the truth someday and then they will frickin change their mind about it

Wow you are a moron if you missed the point of what I am saying. Revolution has no truth religion does so therefor the frickin revolutionist will all be faced with the truth someday and then they will frickin change their mind about it

Revolution? You mean "evolution," the theory based on all available evidence?

Should I instead believe in one of the two very different Creation stories in Genesis with no physical evidence to back them up. Do tell me - which one should I choose?

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.
1. a) Because science is a means of uncovering truth, and scientism believes a truth should be uncoverable by all means. People on both sides of the gulf are subject to this feeling. Science has proven itself useful time after time after time. The psyche of mankind has even warped itself to thinking in terms of scientific and logical means --Aristotle would be so proud.

1. b) Scientism (an unfortunate side-effect of the above-mentioned warping) has lead people away from the state of mind that allowed them to wrap their minds around the symbolism of religion. Even "believers" today rely more on "faith" than any actual understanding of their own religions. Scientism says that science is all that is right and true; therefore, everything must eventually bend itself to fit into measurable and repeatable facts (dispite the fact that the subjective realm is not measurable nor repeatable). If it cannot bend, it gets thrown out as an "unworkable theory".

2. Any healthy belief structure is constantly growing and expanding as consciousness grows and expands from childhood through to death. The worst thing that ever happened --that could ever have happened --to mankind's spiritual development was the invention of writing. "Written in stone," is an ironic and appropriate metaphor for a lack of ability or willingness to change. That is what cheapens spiritual ideas.

If the weathermen can not predict the weather than how and the heck can scientists predict evolution Serioulsy they have nothing to back up there views we supposidly evolved from monkeys yet our heart is closer to a pigs. if we evolved from monkeys then wheres the in between Religion has more truth than evolution Read the Case for Christ I think by Lee Strobel maybe then youll see
Ok, the weatherman CAN predict the weather. Not with 100% accuracy, but with much greater accuracy today than ever in the past.
Evolution isn't a prediction. It's an explanation of how we have the animals that exist today when they didn't exist before based on the observations we have made of DNA, the fossil record, and morphology. Pig hearts are not more similar to human hearts than a chimp's heart. It's just that harvesting a bunch of chimp hearts would be a lot more expensive than harvesting pig hearts, and all mammals have the same basic structure to their hearts. As for the in-betweens, more bones are found each year. Creationists love to point to the mistakes and handfull of hoaxes, but the fakes are in the minority.

Ok, the weatherman CAN predict the weather. Not with 100% accuracy, but with much greater accuracy today than ever in the past.
Evolution isn't a prediction. It's an explanation of how we have the animals that exist today when they didn't exist before based on the observations we have made of DNA, the fossil record, and morphology. Pig hearts are not more similar to human hearts than a chimp's heart. It's just that harvesting a bunch of chimp hearts would be a lot more expensive than harvesting pig hearts, and all mammals have the same basic structure to their hearts. As for the in-betweens, more bones are found each year. Creationists love to point to the mistakes and handfull of hoaxes, but the fakes are in the minority.

At the risk of some idiot trying to use this as "evidence" against evolution, I do have to point one thing out. Biochemically, pigs do tend to be closer to humans than chimps. Of course, this most likely has to do with the fact that chimps tend to be almost exclusively (if not exclusively) herbivores, while both humans and pigs are omnivores. Also, their hearts and blood vessels are often more useful in clinical aspects and in research because they are close in size to ours.

Hey, I thought the thread title said, "(not about evolution)". ;)


I didn't bring the subject up .... just defending my beliefs in answer to
another poster.

[Quote:]Originally Posted by Gnostikos
Because religion is an archaic form of science. I try to convince people of the fallacious nature of religion, but if they want to believe in it I will be merely frustrated. If they try to teach their outdated ideologies in science class in public schools, then I'm gonna get pissed off. Especially the idiots who say that evolution is only a theory. They're worse than the people who say that carbon testing is wrong on the dating of the Earth. Of course religion may be taught in theology, anthropology, and some english classes in public schools.

God is the Creator ... ie ... Creationism as you call it. Evolution is an
attempt to prove that God isn't the one responsible for creating everything,
including everything evolutionists try to use as so called proof.
I other words you are calling God a liar .... I think that by itself would give
God a reason to oppose evolution.

Further proof that you know nothing about science and simply listen to idiotic propoganda designed to control you.

Science in no way is attempting to, or is even able to, prove or disprove God.

And how am I calling God a liar by looking at the way the world works? God created it to work a certain way, and I am finding out as much as I can about the rules God put in place.

By the way, just so you know, a little secret - God didn't write the Bible, human beings did. And there are *two* separate creation stories in the Bible, written by *two* different authors to convey *two* different metaphorical points. Which one do you choose to believe in?

Edit: Also, Creationism is a very different point-of-view than simply having a belief in a Creator or creation. Creationism is, by its very definition, both poor science and poor religion created by people who don't understand sience and have no faith in their religion. By its very nature, it requires that people look for evidence for a foregone conclusion that was meant to be metaphorical anyways. A belief in creation, is wholly separate.

At the risk of some idiot trying to use this as "evidence" against evolution, I do have to point one thing out. Biochemically, pigs do tend to be closer to humans than chimps. Of course, this most likely has to do with the fact that chimps tend to be almost exclusively (if not exclusively) herbivores, while both humans and pigs are omnivores. Also, their hearts and blood vessels are often more useful in clinical aspects and in research because they are close in size to ours.
I guess I stand corrected.

That sounds like a regression , and I thought that evolution was supposed to be better, not worse. In any event, they were later clasified as true humans.
Are you aware that it is believed that retroviruses came from viruses based off of DNA? They are "technically" inferior to DNA viruses, since they are based off of RNA, which is very easily mutated. However, the great amount of mutations allows then to adapt insanely fast, which is clearly advantageous. Don't go assuming that because a descendant can't do some things its ancestors could do that it regressed.

In order for evolution to take place, the creature has to be fully functional while undergoing the change. Bats, who supposedly evolved from rodents similar to shrews, would be a great example for evolution. But, the complexity would render the rodent unable to use his paws for running or grasping, and it would not be able to walk, hold its food, or fly. In fact, it would be incredibly vulnerable, and it would not have lived long enough to produce offspring. Kind of goes against "Survival of the fittest" doesn't it?
Goddamnit, you're an idiot, aren't you. Do not just look at other's claims and state what you think when you have no knowledge of the topic. What you just said would be ridiculous if you understood evolutionary biology.

Genetics as proof against evolution

Unlike evolutionists who speculated about genetics, Gregor Mendell did extensive research and expirementation. He found
1) Variety within kinds result from pre-existing genetic variety.
2) There are fixed limits to biological change.
3) Mutations cause genetic information to be lost, not gained.
1) Only applicable to sexually reproducing animals.
2) Not that we have reached.
3) Mutations cause genetic information to be altered, not lost. Do you know anything about nucleotides? Do you understand what DNA does? What about RNA? Do you know how proteins are produced? Do you understand mitosis? If you answered yes to any of the above, you're officially a dumbass. If not, you're just ignorant.

There is much evidence that evolution is not science at all, but vain attempts to keep a philosophy alive .
No, that's creationism. Evolution came after creationism, in case you weren't aware. And they aren't vain for biologists, since they use evolutionary theory constantly. EVOLUTION IS THE BASIS OF MODERN BIOLOGY!

An evolutionist by the name of G.A. Kerkut even admitted that evolution is not capable of scientific verification , and called it a philosophy which needs to be accepted by faith , and admitted that any evidence supporting evolution is circumstancial .
Was he high when he said that? Or drunk? Or had he suffered a concussion? Perhaps he was just an idiot who accepted evolution out of faith because he didn't f**king understand it.

I hope I have given you evidence to ponder at just how scientific evolution is.
For anyone who actually understands evolution, I hope not.

Do you know why it is that infectious bacterial agents develop resistance, or even immunities, to certain antibiotics? It is because the first dose(s) were not strong enough to kill all the harmful bacteria, so the ones that are left reproduce. Evolution. Wanna know why so many insects develop resistance to pesticides (quite quickly, mind you)? Same reason. Evolution on a micro and macro level for you right there.

Do you realise that individuals evolve somewhat during their lifetime? Because cells develop quantities of protein receptors on the plasma membrane based off of how often and much the mother cell was?

WHY CAN YOU GODF**KED CREATIONISTS REALISE THAT THERE IS NO GODFORSAKEN SUPPORT FOR CREATIONISM EXCEPT YOUR MIND?!? Damn you b*stards piss me off sometiems.

God is the Creator ... ie ... Creationism as you call it. Evolution is an
attempt to prove that God isn't the one responsible for creating everything,
including everything evolutionists try to use as so called proof.
I other words you are calling God a liar .... I think that by itself would give
God a reason to oppose evolution.
No, evolution is not an attempt to prove god didn't create everything. Evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life and why dog and human fossils don't appear in the same strata as trilobite or even dinosaur fossils. If there is a god, how do you know he didn't work by means of evolution?

Further proof that you know nothing about science and simply listen to idiotic propoganda designed to control you.

Science in no way is attempting to, or is even able to, prove or disprove God.

And how am I calling God a liar by looking at the way the world works? God created it to work a certain way, and I am finding out as much as I can about the rules God put in place.

By the way, just so you know, a little secret - God didn't write the Bible, human beings did. And there are *two* separate creation stories in the Bible, written by *two* different authors to convey *two* different metaphorical points. Which one do you choose to believe in?

This exchange will be ended now because the Terra - Domina never meant this to be a part of his/her thread . But I welcome the chance to continue this elsewhere . If you have scientific proof supporting evolution then post in on a thread of your own, I
will be glad to answer you there. Terra - Domina please except my Apology for this intrusion.

This exchange will be ended now because the threads owner never meant this to be a part of his/her thread . But I welcome the chance to continue this elsewhere . If you have scientific proof supporting evolution then post in on a thread of your own, I
will be glad to answer you there.
I think you should stop using the bold typeface. And do some research on evolution. Real research. I guess this thread has simply evolved to something other than the thread creator's intent.

I think you should stop using the bold typeface. And do some research on evolution. Real research. I guess this thread has simply evolved to something other than the thread creator's intent.

Take it elsewhere and I will answer you.

That's okay Gnostikos, you piss me off sometimes too, but there's really no reason to resort to snippiness and bold font messages.

You need to chill. Want a toke, brother?

Creationist: But the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that evolution is impossible
non Creationist: That is just classical thermodynamics you are talking. When applied to open systems, dissipative structures, and sytems out of equilibrium....
Creationist: That is not possible. It goes against the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
non Creationist: It IS the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Creationist: Prove it.
non-Creationist: / points them to a page explaining more than just classical thermodynamics /
Creationist: Just because scientist said it doesn't mean it's the truth. There is no way to know...
non-Creationist:
:headbang:
Is that a decent job of summing it up?

Yup. That pretty much sums it up.

lol, its much less circular than religion, but bare with me

we can only make scientific observations about quantitative things, ie, math is an exact science where as behavioural psychology isnt.

Since science created concepts like height, weight, numbers, velocity, as linguistic and numerical sysbols to give us language to communicate observations we make about the world.

It would be like if i said that me computer desk is 8 melu high. i cant be wrong, because a melu is just an interpretation of length, which is a quality defined by science.

Actually, what that is saying is that the computer desk is 8 times as high as a given measurement - the melu. This can be wrong if you take what you define to be one melu, take eight of them, stack them up lengthwise - and they're not the same height as the computer desk.

We define measurement units in terms of real things. "One second" is defined to be "the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom." "The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second." And so on.

Really, what unit we measure things in is irrelevant - the physical laws science discovers hold true whichever units we use to measure things.

Make up your own system of measurement of mass and distance. Newton's theory of Gravitation will tell you that the force of attraction between two masses is equal to G*M1*M2/r^2, where M1 is the mass is the first object (in any units), M2 is the mass of the other object (in the same units), and r is the distance between them (in any units). G is a constant of proportionality - this constant clearly depends on what units you have picked for everything else, but what the theory says is that this constant will be the same for all masses and distances, as long as the units are held constant. Independent of what units you use for all of them.

...anyhow... how does how we describe things matter... you look at the computer screen. It emits light, no matter how you describe it, what fancy linguistical symbols you cook up - the reality that "the computer displays stuff" doesn't change. You don't need science to observe the effects of science - you don't need to know the symbols to look out the window of an airplane. You won't know how many feet it is off of the ground - but you will be able to qualitatively see that yes, you're frickin high in a big metal tube.

I'm not sure I see how you can claim that your computer was designed based on circular reasoning.

Yup. That pretty much sums it up.

Take it elsewhere and I will answer you. How many times must I say this?

At the risk of some idiot trying to use this as "evidence" against evolution, I do have to point one thing out. Biochemically, pigs do tend to be closer to humans than chimps. Of course, this most likely has to do with the fact that chimps tend to be almost exclusively (if not exclusively) herbivores, while both humans and pigs are omnivores. Also, their hearts and blood vessels are often more useful in clinical aspects and in research because they are close in size to ours.

Ahh but the DNA pattern match we are closer to chimps.

As to herbibores? If they are it's only because meat is not around. For example, they hunt Colobus(in groups no less), will snatch young pigs, and have been seen eating baboon. There was even a case of canibalism. One study of 45 Gombe chimps showed they consumed more than 1500 pounds of prey. The Chimps of the Tai Forest are hunters as well.

It would probably be more correct to label them opportunist meat eaters.....

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

i haven't a clue, really. people like to be able to convince others (or themselves) of why they should have faith. scientific, empirical evidence supporting their claims could help.

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

personally, i don't like ignorance. and if you're going about saying that the earth is 6,000 years old and that evolution never happened, that's exactly what you're spreading.
if they keep their ignorance to themselves, then that's fine.

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

well, gay marriage is about equal rights. the bible is fine with slavery, does that mean that slavery shouldn't have been abolished?

priestly marriage: well, to start off with, don't jewish rabbis get married? that's the basis of christianity: judaism. unless you're going to make it about the psycho paul.

prohibition: what does that have to do with the bible? jesus turned water to wine in that book, he obviously didn't have issues against alcohol.

It would probably be more correct to label them opportunist meat eaters.....

just like us. :)

Are you aware that it is believed that retroviruses came from viruses based off of DNA? They are "technically" inferior to DNA viruses, since they are based off of RNA, which is very easily mutated. However, the great amount of mutations allows then to adapt insanely fast, which is clearly advantageous. Don't go assuming that because a descendant can't do some things its ancestors could do that it regressed.


Goddamnit, you're an idiot, aren't you. Do not just look at other's claims and state what you think when you have no knowledge of the topic. What you just said would be ridiculous if you understood evolutionary biology.


1) Only applicable to sexually reproducing animals.
2) Not that we have reached.
3) Mutations cause genetic information to be altered, not lost. Do you know anything about nucleotides? Do you understand what DNA does? What about RNA? Do you know how proteins are produced? Do you understand mitosis? If you answered yes to any of the above, you're officially a dumbass. If not, you're just ignorant.


No, that's creationism. Evolution came after creationism, in case you weren't aware. And they aren't vain for biologists, since they use evolutionary theory constantly. EVOLUTION IS THE BASIS OF MODERN BIOLOGY!


Was he high when he said that? Or drunk? Or had he suffered a concussion? Perhaps he was just an idiot who accepted evolution out of faith because he didn't f**king understand it.


For anyone who actually understands evolution, I hope not.

Do you know why it is that infectious bacterial agents develop resistance, or even immunities, to certain antibiotics? It is because the first dose(s) were not strong enough to kill all the harmful bacteria, so the ones that are left reproduce. Evolution. Wanna know why so many insects develop resistance to pesticides (quite quickly, mind you)? Same reason. Evolution on a micro and macro level for you right there.

Do you realise that individuals evolve somewhat during their lifetime? Because cells develop quantities of protein receptors on the plasma membrane based off of how often and much the mother cell was?

WHY CAN YOU GODF**KED CREATIONISTS REALISE THAT THERE IS NO GODFORSAKEN SUPPORT FOR CREATIONISM EXCEPT YOUR MIND?!? Damn you b*stards piss me off sometiems.


Kiss ... Kiss

Kiss ... Kiss
I'm not quite sure what this means, but I think I get your point. I get a little emotional at times...and I have strong convictions in this area. I should have tried to be more civil with my posts. I apologise.

it doesnt matter what text books they are reading from though, its all just "truth".

yes it does matter which texts you're reading.

i mean, let's say i pick up a text about astronomy before kepler came along with planets in elliptical orbits around the sun. that would be entirely different than today's books.

what if i picked up a book from before relativity and quantum mechanics?

it's quite possible that one day, some huge, new revolutionary theory could come along and do away with these theories, perhaps we discover that the universe isn't really expanding, perhaps we discover a mechanism for mutation that would facillitate evolution, perhaps we find out what happened during plank's time, perhaps we discover new information about planet formation that radically changes what we know about the world.

if we're still using today's textbooks and adhering to them as current science, then there is something wrong with that.

In today's society, we believe that the scientific method produces truths about the world, in the dark ages people looked to god, rationalists believe that truth can be discovered by introspection. Each society has a differant way of judging truth.

Science to me is just the act of determining the specifics of qualities that we attribute to objects. We can give a "truth" about height and weight, just because we have a system that defines what height and weight are.

except that science does not refer to the supernatural forces that may or may not exist... religion does. you can prove that gravity acts on a body. you can show evidence for relativity, for quantum mechanics. you can't show evidence for religion.

I'm not quite sure what this means, but I think I get your point. I get a little emotional at times...and I have strong convictions in this area. I should have tried to be more civil with my posts. I apologise.

Apology excepted .... I would also like to offer my apology to you & Dempublicents because I too have strong convictions & go overboard sometimes. So why don't we just all agree to disagree and leave it at that?

yes it does matter which texts you're reading.

i mean, let's say i pick up a text about astronomy before kepler came along with planets in elliptical orbits around the sun. that would be entirely different than today's books.

what if i picked up a book from before relativity and quantum mechanics?

it's quite possible that one day, some huge, new revolutionary theory could come along and do away with these theories, perhaps we discover that the universe isn't really expanding, perhaps we discover a mechanism for mutation that would facillitate evolution, perhaps we find out what happened during plank's time, perhaps we discover new information about planet formation that radically changes what we know about the world.

if we're still using today's textbooks and adhering to them as current science, then there is something wrong with that.



except that science does not refer to the supernatural forces that may or may not exist... religion does. you can prove that gravity acts on a body. you can show evidence for relativity, for quantum mechanics. you can't show evidence for religion.


I know what you are saying, but I also know that when I pray and the Holy
Spirit answers me I get goose bumps all over my body. That is a type of
evidence that unseen supernatural forces really do exist, are at work and can be proven .... if God wishes it to be.

I know what you are saying, but I also know that when I pray and the Holy
Spirit answers me I get goose bumps all over my body. That is a type of
evidence that something unseen really does exist and can be proven ....
if the God wishes it to be.
Did you know that similar feeling can be induced by electromagnetic stimulation of certain portions of the brain?

Did you know that similar feeling can be induced by electromagnetic stimulation of certain portions of the brain?

Yeah, i used to have that problem. If you take away things like radios and alarmclocks etc and try it, goodbye goosebumps.

Did you know that similar feeling can be induced by electromagnetic stimulation of certain portions of the brain?

While thats interesting JP .... I never stimulate myself electromagnetally while praying .... so I don't think that was the cause.

you can't show evidence for religion.

Religion of our definitions and examples are not a accurate assumption of God. Getting to know God is learned through personal experience, something you can not do to God (meaning you would never do it) that we seem to do to people all to often is exploit. Therefore there is no additional way to witnessing the word of God other than personal experience. This gives you an absolute truth that God is here where ever here is. No bible and no amount of brainwashing on earth can do away with Gods love for everyone of us. You can find truths in the bible the same as any book, just the same you find falshoods as well. Even when people are guided by God they are still not immune to their own imperfections, so that is why we have errors within every book or writing written by a person. That is why we are not doing Gods work when we start to prefer listening to a book over our own instilled instincts God gave us. When we do Gods work it is simply just being yourself.

Yeah, i used to have that problem. If you take away things like radios and alarmclocks etc and try it, goodbye goosebumps.


Oh Please .... Don't insult me!

While thats interesting JP .... I never stimulate myself electromagnetally while praying .... so I don't think that was the cause.
My point is that if a scientist with a helmet wired to emit those waves at a specific portion of the brain can cause those feelings, then you have to admit the possibility that it's just a portion of your brain misfiring that causes religious experiences. Just because it's not triggered from outside in the case of true beleivers doesn't mean that it's not the result of overactivity in some portion of the brain.

It is a myth that science only started in the modern era. Sure, there were SOME things that people in the Middle Ages said "Yup, God did it". But there were far more where they used observation, mathmatics, and questioning the natural world to come up with concrete solutions. The cathedrals built in Mideval Europe used numbers, ideas of archetechure, even Pi to create amazing structures. They made right angles, created arches, used buttresses, etc. They were able to use botany and animal husbandry (the forfathers of biology) to grow hybrids and domesticate animals. They built dams, began economic theory, discovered the plough and the 3 field system of farming. Civilization cannot exist without some form of science and mathmatics.

Like other posters have already said, it doesn't matter the language or the units you use, but numbers work, science works. In Moses' time, if I had two sheep and I sacrificed one to God, I would have one sheep left. There is no fudging that, no gray area. I have subtracted one sheep. Science is just a complex outgrowth of that basic fact.

The creators of monoliths like stonehenge had to use some sort of science and mathmatics. Astronomy for one. They had to measure the stones so they matched their heights, for another. They had to know Pi or at least create a simple tool like a compass to create circles.

Science is not a seperate part of our existance that can be isolated from the rest of our experience. It is a model for how everything around us works.


Here is the difference between Science and Religion. If I am in my house and the lights go out, a religious man will pray that the lights turn back on. The Scientist will go into the basement and turn the circuit breaker back on. In a blackout... I want the scientist.

Edit to say that even Noah needed Science to create his ark. If you believe in literal interpretations of the bible you have to belive that measurement and science even existed back then.

My point is that if a scientist with a helmet wired to emit those waves at a specific portion of the brain can cause those feelings, then you have to admit the possibility that it's just a portion of your brain misfiring that causes religious experiences. Just because it's not triggered from outside in the case of true beleivers doesn't mean that it's not the result of overactivity in some portion of the brain

In order to accept that possibility then you would also have to accept that it is God "triggering" those pleasurable feelings of presence that you get when you talk with God.

Religion hates anything new. Science embraces new ideas. So if you are religious(I'm talking to the Super-Orthodox retards that enjoy calling anything new the devil or a sin) and like science your a dumass hypcrit. :upyours:

My point is that if a scientist with a helmet wired to emit those waves at a specific portion of the brain can cause those feelings, then you have to admit the possibility that it's just a portion of your brain misfiring that causes religious experiences. Just because it's not triggered from outside in the case of true beleivers doesn't mean that it's not the result of overactivity in some portion of the brain.

No I don't .... I don't believe thats true

Religion hates anything new. Science embraces new ideas. So if you are religious(I'm talking to the Super-Orthodox retards that enjoy calling anything new the devil or a sin) and like science your a dumass hypcrit. :upyours:

We can do without your childish name calling and finger wagging

Religion hates anything new. Science embraces new ideas. So if you are religious(I'm talking to the Super-Orthodox retards that enjoy calling anything new the devil or a sin) and like science your a dumass hypcrit . :upyours:

Also I know the proper spelling of dumb___ hypocrite .... do you? The
least you could do is spell it right if you want people to believe you are
correct. :rolleyes:

Actually with modern equipment the brain can be scanned and the parts of the brain responsible for subjective phenomena can be mapped.
But that does not show you what the subject is experiencing.

Did you know that similar feeling can be induced by electromagnetic stimulation of certain portions of the brain?
You can *never* know if it is "a similar feeling" without the direct subjectively experiencial input of a person --the very same person, no less. And even then, you can "only have their word for it."

You can *never* know if it is "a similar feeling" without the direct subjectively experiencial input of a person --the very same person, no less. And even then, you can "only have their word for it."
If the same person describes both situations in the same terms, you can be reasonably sure that they are the same experience.

1a) I feel that they are threatened by science and afraid that it will disprove their world view somehow. Actually I don't see how science can prove a religion. It could possibly prove that the biblical literalists are wrong - but even then- if they really wanted to they could explain it away as God tricking us, or making it a miracle whereby two timelines happened at once or something.
i've honestly heard someone claim that satan planted dinosaur bones to confuse people.

ah, baptists...

It is a myth that science only started in the modern era. Sure, there were SOME things that people in the Middle Ages said "Yup, God did it". But there were far more where they used observation, mathmatics, and questioning the natural world to come up with concrete solutions. The cathedrals built in Mideval Europe used numbers, ideas of archetechure, even Pi to create amazing structures. They made right angles, created arches, used buttresses, etc. They were able to use botany and animal husbandry (the forfathers of biology) to grow hybrids and domesticate animals. They built dams, began economic theory, discovered the plough and the 3 field system of farming. Civilization cannot exist without some form of science and mathmatics.

Like other posters have already said, it doesn't matter the language or the units you use, but numbers work, science works. In Moses' time, if I had two sheep and I sacrificed one to God, I would have one sheep left. There is no fudging that, no gray area. I have subtracted one sheep. Science is just a complex outgrowth of that basic fact.

The creators of monoliths like stonehenge had to use some sort of science and mathmatics. Astronomy for one. They had to measure the stones so they matched their heights, for another. They had to know Pi or at least create a simple tool like a compass to create circles.

Science is not a seperate part of our existance that can be isolated from the rest of our experience. It is a model for how everything around us works.
Yes! exactly. It is a model of everything around us. And religion is a model of that which is within us --the spiritual world we build inside us.

Here is the difference between Science and Religion. If I am in my house and the lights go out, a religious man will pray that the lights turn back on. The Scientist will go into the basement and turn the circuit breaker back on. In a blackout... I want the scientist.

Edit to say that even Noah needed Science to create his ark. If you believe in literal interpretations of the bible you have to belive that measurement and science even existed back then.
Right, and the religious fellow praying for the lights to come back on is doing it wrong, because it isn't going to happen. More sensible that he pray for the fortitude of character to get up and turn the switch off, himself. :D

If the same person describes both situations in the same terms, you can be reasonably sure that they are the same experience.
That is true.

wow...

just... wow

ummm... that debate on evolution guys, amazing. Very funny. Religious people do seem to try and assume detailed knowledge of sciences.

anyways, I think I should clear something up, because I think there is a misconception as to what I am asking

all I am getting is reasons why science works. And i understand it does. Beautifully. I love science

Science presumes that truth is something that we can allocate a value to based on certain characteristics. Like the protons that affect our subjective annyalisis of information. We can determine the "truth" of how they move and interact with other nearby protons and make determinations about how the bio-chemical reaction works.

Science would then claim that the truth about subjectivity can be reduced down to numbers and equations, provided that you can isolate all necessary variables. This is the truth that the establishment of our society has accepted as correct and is the mindset that we are culturally taught to understand as absolute truth.

However, there are many more determinations about a person's subjectivity than numbers can explain. Many qualities I'm sure would be impossible to associate a number to.

Yes! exactly. It is a model of everything around us. And religion is a model of that which is within us --the spiritual world we build inside us.


Right, and the religious fellow praying for the lights to come back on is doing it wrong, because it isn't going to happen. More sensible that he pray for the fortitude of character to get up and turn the switch off, himself. :D

HA HA Funny Guy .... I don't waste Gods time on things I am able to do
myself. Thats the most ridiculous example you could have chosen
to use... don't insult my intelligence Willamena

My point is that if a scientist with a helmet wired to emit those waves at a specific portion of the brain can cause those feelings, then you have to admit the possibility that it's just a portion of your brain misfiring that causes religious experiences. Just because it's not triggered from outside in the case of true beleivers doesn't mean that it's not the result of overactivity in some portion of the brain.

All of each individual human's experience and perceptions are NOTHING more than electro-chemical activity in the brain, whether in response to external or internal stimuli. If you decide chocolate tastes good, it is because of the firings in your brain working in response to the world and your relation with it. If you decide you want chocolate, it is the brain working in response to itself.

The thing we call chocolate exists. We say this because everyone with functional senses can see and describe in nearly the same terms the physical object. We cannot say as an absolute, however, that chocolate tastes good. There will never be anyway to compare your subjective experience of chocolate with mine.

In order to accept that possibility then you would also have to accept that it is God "triggering" those pleasurable feelings of presence that you get when you talk with God.

Yes. But God does not exist in the physical world. God is a subjective quality. Some people will experince God and insist that those who do not have that same experince have not encountered God or "let him into their heart." But that sort of thinking is just as silly as insisting that if someone doesn't like chocolate, then it is because they haven't tasted it. It assumes that God is a physical, finite quality. Some will perceive God and find a close approximate of that experience in what has become a codified description of said experience based on other having had a similar experience and writing it down (ie an organized religion) and insist therefore that the religion must be true. This is just as silly as saying that if someone does not like chocolate, then it is because they have not yet tried a particular brand of chocolate.

I fail to understand why people continue to insist that their personal experience of a subjective must be a universal truth. What about humans makes a majority of us insist on absolutism? Each person's experience of the subjective is equally valid. Therefore all gods and all lack of god can validly co-exist.

This exchange will be ended now because the Terra - Domina never meant this to be a part of his/her thread . But I welcome the chance to continue this elsewhere . If you have scientific proof supporting evolution then post in on a thread of your own, I
will be glad to answer you there. Terra - Domina please except my Apology for this intrusion.

You miss the point yet again.

Evolution is a theory based off of the evidence. *All* currently known evidence backs it up. Any evidence found that does not back up the current incarnation of the theory changes the theory. That is the difference.

If the same person describes both situations in the same terms, you can be reasonably sure that they are the same experience.

No. Words are too limited. One tiny example is all the shades that get described as "green." Language has not even began to cover a fraction of what a person can experience. A result is that a particular thing that a language does not have a concept for is thought of as "less real" than the things the language has a word for. This is why it is nearly impossible to translate certain concepts from one language to another.

Piltdown Man was discovered in a gravel pit not far from Piltdown, England. It was found with crude tools, and bones belonging to humans and apes. But, what was overlooked was the obvious file markings and chemical residue, making the jaw and other bones look ancient and sub-human.


The author left off a HUGE amount of information in this story.

The hoax happened because people wanted it to happen. Not because it proved evolution but because of racism. Certain scientists of England at the time could not deal with the out of africa theory that was being proposed at the time. Add on to that the fact that Germany and I think France had found Neanderthals, they desperately wanted an ancient ancestor of their own.

There is also belief that it was also done to discredit Sir Arthur Smith Woodward.

Anyhow. As with many creationists, they bend the truth on these events rather then seeing that science actually corrects claims.

As the author forgot to mention that many people didn't belive the piltdown hoax......

Apology excepted .... I would also like to offer my apology to you & Dempublicents because I too have strong convictions & go overboard sometimes. So why don't we just all agree to disagree and leave it at that?

On some issues, there cannot be a "agree to disagree."

Like I said, if someone wanted to teach that 3+5=52 in a math class, I would adamantly refuse.

Likewise, I will adamantly refuse to let someone ruin the next generation by teaching them that making a conclusion and then hunting only for evidence that backs it up, while ignoring anything you can't explain could be called science.

No. Words are too limited. One tiny example is all the shades that get described as "green." Language has not even began to cover a fraction of what a person can experience. A result is that a particular thing that a language does not have a concept for is thought of as "less real" than the things the language has a word for. This is why it is nearly impossible to translate certain concepts from one language to another.

thanks

i had not the language to explain it that way

wow...

just... wow

ummm... that debate on evolution guys, amazing. Very funny. Religious people do seem to try and assume detailed knowledge of sciences.

anyways, I think I should clear something up, because I think there is a misconception as to what I am asking

all I am getting is reasons why science works. And i understand it does. Beautifully. I love science

Science presumes that truth is something that we can allocate a value to based on certain characteristics. Like the protons that affect our subjective annyalisis of information. We can determine the "truth" of how they move and interact with other nearby protons and make determinations about how the bio-chemical reaction works.

Science would then claim that the truth about subjectivity can be reduced down to numbers and equations, provided that you can isolate all necessary variables. This is the truth that the establishment of our society has accepted as correct and is the mindset that we are culturally taught to understand as absolute truth.

However, there are many more determinations about a person's subjectivity than numbers can explain. Many qualities I'm sure would be impossible to associate a number to.

This is another example of a misconception. The purview of science does not extend into certain matters. A scientific mindset - maybe, but not science itself. For instance, the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent God is completely outside the purview of science, as science only deals with determining and using the rules under which the Universe works. An omnipotent God, by definition, is outside those rules, so God is not a matter for science to worry with. Some people try to take a scientific stance on it, but this is incorrect - as belief on either side is nothing more than an axiomatic statement - which can be neither proven nor disproven.

wow...

just... wow

ummm... that debate on evolution guys, amazing. Very funny. Religious people do seem to try and assume detailed knowledge of sciences.

anyways, I think I should clear something up, because I think there is a misconception as to what I am asking

all I am getting is reasons why science works. And i understand it does. Beautifully. I love science

Science presumes that truth is something that we can allocate a value to based on certain characteristics. Like the protons that affect our subjective annyalisis of information. We can determine the "truth" of how they move and interact with other nearby protons and make determinations about how the bio-chemical reaction works.

Science would then claim that the truth about subjectivity can be reduced down to numbers and equations, provided that you can isolate all necessary variables. This is the truth that the establishment of our society has accepted as correct and is the mindset that we are culturally taught to understand as absolute truth.

However, there are many more determinations about a person's subjectivity than numbers can explain. Many qualities I'm sure would be impossible to associate a number to.


THE END OF CERTAINTY (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684837056/qid=1101846819/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-8002505-3532830?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Taken from an editorial review: Prigogine explores deterministic chaos, nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and even cosmology and the origin of the universe in an attempt to reach an explanation that can reconcile physical laws with subjective reality.

Science may be moving away from determinism.

I know what you are saying, but I also know that when I pray and the Holy
Spirit answers me I get goose bumps all over my body. That is a type of
evidence that unseen supernatural forces really do exist, are at work and can be proven .... if God wishes it to be.
funny. when i read the bible and pray, i feel nothing.

yeah, some consistent divine being there.

when i read buddhist works and meditate, however... an entirely different story.

This is another example of a misconception. The purview of science does not extend into certain matters. A scientific mindset - maybe, but not science itself. For instance, the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent God is completely outside the purview of science, as science only deals with determining and using the rules under which the Universe works. An omnipotent God, by definition, is outside those rules, so God is not a matter for science to worry with. Some people try to take a scientific stance on it, but this is incorrect - as belief on either side is nothing more than an axiomatic statement - which can be neither proven nor disproven.

you take me wrong

im not putting down the discoveries that science has made

it has done a fabulous job at telling us what (probably) has happened in our physical world.

All I am doing is investigating the nature and origins of truth and the structures that the accepting of "truth" by a society builds.

THE END OF CERTAINTY (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684837056/qid=1101846819/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-8002505-3532830?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

Taken from an editorial review: Prigogine explores deterministic chaos, nonequilibrium thermodynamics, and even cosmology and the origin of the universe in an attempt to reach an explanation that can reconcile physical laws with subjective reality.

Science may be moving away from determinism.

that looks fantastic

i may pick it up after christmas

Also I know the proper spelling of dumb___ hypocrite .... do you? The
least you could do is spell it right if you want people to believe you are
correct. :rolleyes:

Spelling is a rather lame way to judge IQ

Hmmm Einstein was a horrible speller. So I guess we should ignore him.

Beethoven was a slob when writing score so his music must be crap as well.

you take me wrong

im not putting down the discoveries that science has made

it has done a fabulous job at telling us what (probably) has happened in our physical world.

All I am doing is investigating the nature and origins of truth and the structures that the accepting of "truth" by a society builds.

You seemed to be suggesting that science is purported to be able to explain *all* things and put a number on *all* things. I was pointing out that there are issues which are completely outside the purview of science.

You seemed to be suggesting that science is purported to be able to explain *all* things and put a number on *all* things. I was pointing out that there are issues which are completely outside the purview of science.

not necessarily that science needs to be able to explain all things, but any fundamental "truth" about the universe or anything in it will need to be much more encombassing that just statistics, since as you said, there are lots of things outside of the view of science

Spelling is a rather lame way to judge IQ

Hmmm Einstein was a horrible speller. So I guess we should ignore him.

Beethoven was a slob when writing score so his music must be crap as well.
First of all, I do not believe IQ is an accurate way of measuring intelligence. There are many kinds of intelligence, not just the traditionally concieved ones (read some Howard Gardner), and that those can't really be quantified anyways.

Both Einstein and Beethoven were excpetional individuals, who, from their extreme prowess in certain areas, lacked in others. Einstein also had dyslexia (which is not just reading letters backwards), and Beethoven was insane. Einstein revolutionised physics, and Beethoven produced wonderful music (I really like the 5th Symphony and the Turkish March).

Hmmm Einstein was a horrible speller. So I guess we should ignore him. Beethoven was a slob when writing score so his music must be crap as well.
Both Einstein and Beethoven were excpetional individuals, who, from their extreme prowess in certain areas, lacked in others. Einstein also had dyslexia (which is not just reading letters backwards), and Beethoven was insane. Einstein revolutionised physics, and Beethoven produced wonderful music (I really like the 5th Symphony and the Turkish March
Did you ever read about Einstein political and social views people? The man was a GENIUS and not because of his discoveries in Phisics. BTW, dyslexia has nothing to do with one's intelligence. Nor for that matter insanity... there are lot of crazy people that would make an MIT guy look like an idiot. :p

Did you ever read about Einstein political and social views people? The man was a GENIUS and not because of his discoveries in Phisics. BTW, dyslexia has nothing to do with one's intelligence. Nor for that matter insanity... there are lot of crazy people that would make an MIT guy look like an idiot. :p
Yes, that was my point. Though Einstein's forte really was science and math.

Did you ever read about Einstein political and social views people? The man was a GENIUS and not because of his discoveries in Phisics. BTW, dyslexia has nothing to do with one's intelligence. Nor for that matter insanity... there are lot of crazy people that would make an MIT guy look like an idiot. :p

Most genuises are also at least a tad insane - I think you have to be to be that intelligent.

Of course, it all comes with trade-offs. Much like many genuises, Einstein had little to no common sense.

HA HA Funny Guy .... I don't waste Gods time on things I am able to do
myself. Thats the most ridiculous example you could have chosen
to use... don't insult my intelligence Willamena
Um, it wasn't my example but the one of the person I was responding to.

No. Words are too limited. One tiny example is all the shades that get described as "green." Language has not even began to cover a fraction of what a person can experience. A result is that a particular thing that a language does not have a concept for is thought of as "less real" than the things the language has a word for. This is why it is nearly impossible to translate certain concepts from one language to another.
Ah, but he was talking about the same person using the same language in two difference experiences.

i.e. no matter how limited the language may be to describe the subjective experience, it is the same person evaluating similar experiences and reporting on them.

Most genuises are also at least a tad insane - I think you have to be to be that intelligent.

Of course, it all comes with trade-offs. Much like many genuises, Einstein had little to no common sense.

You got that right.

A friend of mine holds about 20 patents for Satellites, he used to run testing at Los Alamos.

Sidenote: His dad was an assistent to Einstein. One story he tells is Einstein had the ability to sleep at will and if asked a question, would wake up and answer it as if he was always awake.

My friend said he had guys that were amazing. One guy would build test kits and ask for wire by ohm capacity. His kits never failed.

However, this guy was helpless when he stepped out of his range.

He liked to refer to them as idiot savants. When they are in their zone, they were brilliant. Give them something outside; helpless.

First of all, I do not believe IQ is an accurate way of measuring intelligence. There are many kinds of intelligence, not just the traditionally concieved ones (read some Howard Gardner), and that those can't really be quantified anyways.

Both Einstein and Beethoven were excpetional individuals, who, from their extreme prowess in certain areas, lacked in others. Einstein also had dyslexia (which is not just reading letters backwards), and Beethoven was insane. Einstein revolutionised physics, and Beethoven produced wonderful music (I really like the 5th Symphony and the Turkish March).

IQ was just me being lazy and not typing out intelligence. ;)

No. Words are too limited. One tiny example is all the shades that get described as "green." Language has not even began to cover a fraction of what a person can experience. A result is that a particular thing that a language does not have a concept for is thought of as "less real" than the things the language has a word for. This is why it is nearly impossible to translate certain concepts from one language to another.
If I describe the taste of habanero peppers, then am given an unidentified substance to taste, and I report the exact same spicy flavor using the same words, is it not reasonable to assume that the unidentified substance was habanero pepper?

If I describe the taste of habanero peppers, then am given an unidentified substance to taste, and I report the exact same spicy flavor using the same words, is it not reasonable to assume that the unidentified substance was habanero pepper?

Good one. If you were a regional manager at a large banking firm and you were having a teleconference with your accountant (while having a haircut) and you told your accountant to take a little off the top. Would it be safe for the barber to assume to take a little off the top as well? I think it has to do with being specific with a attempt at lessening the amount we assume. There are to many things that coincide with one another to generalize about things and expect others to know exactly what your talking about.

He liked to refer to them as idiot savants. When they are in their zone, they were brilliant. Give them something outside; helpless.
Yes. often, autistics are idiot-savants. As long as you can "use" idiot savants to their fullest potential, they can be incredible.

Good one. If you were a regional manager at a large banking firm and you were having a teleconference with your accountant (while having a haircut) and you told your accountant to take a little off the top. Would it be safe for the barber to assume to take a little off the top as well? I think it has to do with being specific with a attempt at lessening the amount we assume. There are to many things that coincide with one another to generalize about things and expect others to know exactly what your talking about.
Yeah, but that doesn't apply to the topic I was addressing. I was saying that people describe religious experiences and the effects of electromagnetic stimulation on certain areas of their brains in the same terms. The test subject in an experiment probably won't be teleconferencing with his accountant and barber while undergoing a science experiment. I dare say he will focus on the task at hand. I gave the habanero example because someone posted that subjective experiences can't be studied due to the limitations of language.

Yes. But God does not exist in the physical world.

Not true if you are Mormon. The church of Latter Day Saints belives that the God of this world exists within Universe near a star named Kolob. :)

Yeah, but that doesn't apply to the topic I was addressing. I was saying that people describe religious experiences and the effects of electromagnetic stimulation on certain areas of their brains in the same terms. The test subject in an experiment probably won't be teleconferencing with his accountant and barber while undergoing a science experiment. I dare say he will focus on the task at hand. I gave the habanero example because someone posted that subjective experiences can't be studied due to the limitations of language.
But it still doesn't serve to allow you, as the hypothetical experimenter, to know what it is they experienced. There is no information on that passed on to you either through your experience or your machines.

You only have their word for it that it is a similar experience.

Now, this isn't a problem for most people, but it is for scientists. It is not independantly verifiable evidence.

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

Because then athiests cannot use science as a way to shoot down their ideas, as they often try to do.

b) Why does the scientific community think that it is necessary for religion to agree with them, or more pointedly, why is science critical of religion for not having the same beliefs about the origins of truth as they have?

1. Because it will convince people who do believe in religion (similar to my answer to A).

2. Because they want to be correct.

2) Doesn't it cheapen a belief structure to change long lasting ideas and tennants (gay marrage, priestly marrage, prohibition, ect...) just because the attitude of society and the socio-political atmosphere believes that they should be changed.

Yes, but certain rules don't apply to everyone (religion).....

But it still doesn't serve to allow you, as the hypothetical experimenter, to know what it is they experienced. There is no information on that passed on to you either through your experience or your machines.

You only have their word for it that it is a similar experience.

Now, this isn't a problem for most people, but it is for scientists. It is not independantly verifiable evidence.
Sure there is. As the researcher, I now know that the stimulation of a certain part of the test subject's brain produces an experience which the test subject cannot diferentiate from a religious experience.

Not true if you are Mormon. The church of Latter Day Saints belives that the God of this world exists within Universe near a star named Kolob. :)

Wasn't that a star trek movie? ;)

Wasn't that a star trek movie? ;)

http://www.latterdaylampoon.com/gazelem/spacedoctrine/

Just to keep up the documention. I swear it is true.

Sure there is. As the researcher, I now know that the stimulation of a certain part of the test subject's brain produces an experience which the test subject cannot diferentiate from a religious experience.
I would be curious to read up on the data on this experiment, especially repeatability.

Not saying I don't believe you, or anything, but I only have your word on it. :D

I would be curious to read up on the data on this experiment, especially repeatability.

Not saying I don't believe you, or anything, but I only have your word on it. :D
I saw it on nova or some other PBS science program. I just found this link. www.wireheading.com/brainstim/godbrain.htm
Hope it helps.

PS. clicking on the link doesn't work. You need to type it in.

I saw it on nova or some other PBS science program. I just found this link. www.wireheading.com/brainstim/godbrain.htm
Hope it helps.

PS. clicking on the link doesn't work. You need to type it in.
File not found, but thanks. I'll poke around and see what I can find.

Sure there is. As the researcher, I now know that the stimulation of a certain part of the test subject's brain produces an experience which the test subject cannot diferentiate from a religious experience.
I would be curious to read up on the data on this experiment, especially repeatability.

Not saying I don't believe you, or anything, but I only have your word on it. :D
It is possible to argue that Christianity achieved its dominance of European civilisation because of timing and historical accident, rather than intrinsic merit or truth. The social, technical and political conditions were right for the rapid expansion of monotheism across the Mediterranian countries and its establishment as the binding force for the ex-Roman empire. So the secular argument would be that Jesus and his followers just happened to be in the right place at the right time with a sufficiently good message.

But Christian historians can, and do, turn the argument on its head - what else would you expect God to do but send down his son in the time and place best suited to spreading his message?

Similar arguments can be made for other religions, eg Sikhism was an attempted synthesis of Islam and Hinduism (Punjabis were fed up with their region being used as a doormat by invading and counter-invading armies) or Judaism and its rituals are a superb survival mechanism for a people living within alien social environments. These secular analyses can simply be turned into religious analyses by arguing that God works in the grain of the world, not across it or in isolation from it.

Is there not an analogy with the argument about whether religious feelings are simply due to stimulation of a particular area of the brain? Even if this is so, does that preclude the existence of God? If God exists and interacts with humans, wouldn't you expect that to be reflected in the normal physiology of people. That electrical stimulation and religious practice can produce 'religious' sensations which are indistinguishable from one another does not mean that one or other explanation is right. They could be complimentary.

Ah, but he was talking about the same person using the same language in two difference experiences.

i.e. no matter how limited the language may be to describe the subjective experience, it is the same person evaluating similar experiences and reporting on them.

Think about all the times that you were happy, for example. Did they all feel _exactly_ the same, or is happiness a general word that approximates a wide variety of emotions that we have no specific words for.

If I describe the taste of habanero peppers, then am given an unidentified substance to taste, and I report the exact same spicy flavor using the same words, is it not reasonable to assume that the unidentified substance was habanero pepper?

"Spicy flavor" would describe a wide variety of peppers. Can you tell the flavor of a habenero from _____( insert name of whatever the next closest pepper happens to be). Or do both just produce really intense burny sensations.

Or better yet- changing the example to peaches since I know more about them than habaneros - if one could vividly describe the taste vividly enough, someone hearing you who had never tasted peaches might think you were describing two different objects if one peach were riper than the other. Or someone hearing you describe how something tastes when you are hungry for it and hearing you describe the taste of the same thing when you are in a mood where you prefer something else would also get a very different picture.

Without having an external to link it to, all we can get is similar sensation.

Or I read somewhere (maybe on this board?) that a taste test type thing was done were people could see the products, and 80% chose coke over pepsi. When blind-folded, the result was closer to 50-50. Perception changes sensation. Physically painful things "hurt" more when they are a surprise.
Neither language nor the consistancy of what a person subjectively experiences are enough to lead to a "same thing" proof.

Sure there is. As the researcher, I now know that the stimulation of a certain part of the test subject's brain produces an experience which the test subject cannot diferentiate from a religious experience.

The would just prove what area of the brain is stimulated during religious experiences.

Now if you could take a hard-core atheist and stimulate that part of their brain and they had a "God" experience then you might be onto something. If on the otherhand, the atheist cannot differentiate the experience from say the way he feels after sex (using this because religious experience is often described as bliss), then all you have proven is a certain type of emotion arises from that part of the brain, not what causes that emotion.

Think about all the times that you were happy, for example. Did they all feel _exactly_ the same, or is happiness a general word that approximates a wide variety of emotions that we have no specific words for.
Oh, yes. Happy-A, Happy-B, Happy-3... no wait, that was a Happy-10. ;-)

Each experience is unique, I'm with you there, but happiness, no matter what the specific, is always recognizably happy by the individual.

Shoot! I was looking forward to reading Reasonabilityness' post.

Oh, yes. Happy-A, Happy-B, Happy-3... no wait, that was a Happy-10. ;-)

Each experience is unique, I'm with you there, but happiness, no matter what the specific, is always recognizably happy by the individual.

but the fact remains that we are unable to make any anaylisis of what happiness is because we dont have the language to specify the differance between say, pleasure and joy?

but the fact remains that we are unable to make any anaylisis of what happiness is because we dont have the language to specify the differance between say, pleasure and joy?
Oh, the language exists; has for millennia, as any student of poetry can affirm.

What is relevant to the topic on hand, I think, is not the inadequacy of expression, but the inadequacy of the receiver; the person reading such expression, to whom the task falls to try and interpret and draw out the specific metaphor of feeling expressed by the artist.

There is a reason why the ancient religious texts were written in poetry.

but the fact remains that we are unable to make any anaylisis of what happiness is because we dont have the language to specify the differance between say, pleasure and joy?

Pleasure and Joy are labels (limits of categorzation). Labels are not real. What is real is what we make of that feeling of joy,pleasure,extasy, etc.. not what someone else tells you it is. We as people can categorize every single thing on this planet and it still wont mean a damn thing to every other single person on this planet. Because we all have our own perceptions of what that label means to them.

Oh, the language exists; has for millennia, as any student of poetry can affirm.

What is relevant to the topic on hand, I think, is not the inadequacy of expression, but the inadequacy of the receiver; the person reading such expression, to whom the task falls to try and interpret and draw out the specific metaphor of feeling expressed by the artist.

There is a reason why the ancient religious texts were written in poetry.

absolutly

thats kinda what i ment, we have thousands of words to describe love, yet none have any quantitative or qualitiative symbolism to us aside from expressing the feelings associated with happiness.

Communication is very strange, a person formulates an idea based on their subjective interpretation of the subject and their interpretation of the linguistics needed to prevay that subject. The message is then sent and recieved by the other person, who uses their own interpretations of language and life to disect the meaning they think the other is trying to potray.

so much room for error....

People today believe that science is that answer to everything and that all things can be proved through science, which is of course, absurd. Man is not the measure of all things, and he surely cannot comprehend all things of this universe. Man cannot fully comprehend God and the full extent of His power- it is totally above and beyond the human mind.

Did we and primates evolve from a common ancestor? Scientific evidence would prove this so...however, were did our conscience come in? Were did we develop morals? Where did we learn to surpass our instincts and build the society we have today. My view, as a Catholic, is that yes, we did evolve, however God molded our evolution to become what we are.

To answer the last question...all i know is that the Catholic Chruch does not change her views based on social pressure...for example we have records of Catholic writers condemning abortion as early as the 2nd century

Pleasure and Joy are labels (limits of categorzation). Labels are not real. What is real is what we make of that feeling of joy,pleasure,extasy, etc.. not what someone else tells you it is. We as people can categorize every single thing on this planet and it still wont mean a damn thing to every other single person on this planet. Because we all have our own perceptions of what that label means to them.

no, as was discussed, quantitative statistcs can be formulated about the physical world

its the intangable that is impossible to know

Oh, yes. Happy-A, Happy-B, Happy-3... no wait, that was a Happy-10. ;-)

Each experience is unique, I'm with you there, but happiness, no matter what the specific, is always recognizably happy by the individual.

Precisely. But that doesn't make it "one thing."

We English speakers have wet snow, dry snow, new snow, etc. but they are all recognized as snow.

Some of the native tribes in the Alaska would not be able to translate "snow" accurately into their language because the generic term has no meaning. They do have "wet snow" and "new snow" and "dry snow" and to them these are very different things.

To answer the last question...all i know is that the Catholic Chruch does not change her views based on social pressure...for example we have records of Catholic writers condemning abortion as early as the 2nd century

Whether or not it is based on social pressures or divine revaltion of God to the office of the Pope is debatable. But the Church has changed her views. The official Roman Catholic position to Islam and other religions is far different now than it was at the time of the Crusades. The mass is said in the vernacular (for the most part) rather than Latin, Catholics and non-Catholics may get married within the Church. The Catholic Church is not now as it was in the beginnign.

Sure there is. As the researcher, I now know that the stimulation of a certain part of the test subject's brain produces an experience which the test subject cannot diferentiate from a religious experience.
Look at it this way.... if finding god was as simple as stimulating this part of the brain, then why haven't we all been offered an opportunity to be exposed to this experience? It would seem to be rather a "biggie", and one that could convince atheists of some god-thing feeling.

Whether or not it is based on social pressures or divine revaltion of God to the office of the Pope is debatable. But the Church has changed her views. The official Roman Catholic position to Islam and other religions is far different now than it was at the time of the Crusades. The mass is said in the vernacular (for the most part) rather than Latin, Catholics and non-Catholics may get married within the Church. The Catholic Church is not now as it was in the beginnign.

You do have point...She has changed her views...however most of them were for the better...if anything we have a more "Catholic" Church than we did 1000 years ago.

It is possible to argue that Christianity achieved its dominance of European civilisation because of timing and historical accident, rather than intrinsic merit or truth. The social, technical and political conditions were right for the rapid expansion of monotheism across the Mediterranian countries and its establishment as the binding force for the ex-Roman empire. So the secular argument would be that Jesus and his followers just happened to be in the right place at the right time with a sufficiently good message.

But Christian historians can, and do, turn the argument on its head - what else would you expect God to do but send down his son in the time and place best suited to spreading his message?

Similar arguments can be made for other religions, eg Sikhism was an attempted synthesis of Islam and Hinduism (Punjabis were fed up with their region being used as a doormat by invading and counter-invading armies) or Judaism and its rituals are a superb survival mechanism for a people living within alien social environments. These secular analyses can simply be turned into religious analyses by arguing that God works in the grain of the world, not across it or in isolation from it.

Is there not an analogy with the argument about whether religious feelings are simply due to stimulation of a particular area of the brain? Even if this is so, does that preclude the existence of God? If God exists and interacts with humans, wouldn't you expect that to be reflected in the normal physiology of people. That electrical stimulation and religious practice can produce 'religious' sensations which are indistinguishable from one another does not mean that one or other explanation is right. They could be complimentary.
I am "religious folk", at least I consider myself so. I have experienced something akin to what I have heard others describe as god or god-hood. Even so, I would be hard-pressed to believe any evidence of 'god' presented in the material world. 'God' is, I believe, a symbol projected from the human consciousness to expand upon the god-hood within each of us.

The secular view of religion achieving dominance due to timing equated to or made analogy to the scientific view of sparks going off in the brain is a bit too much for me to contemplate at the moment. I do, however, totally disregard the idea that god causes feelings in me, or electrical stimulations. I have biases, dol-garnit, and this is one of them: god does not interfere in anything in the physical world. God exists for spiritual enlightenment and as a goal along that path.

They could very well be sponaneously synchronous. There we agree.

Please don't call me a 'diest'. :prayer:

Pleasure and Joy are labels (limits of categorzation). Labels are not real. What is real is what we make of that feeling of joy,pleasure,extasy, etc.. not what someone else tells you it is. We as people can categorize every single thing on this planet and it still wont mean a damn thing to every other single person on this planet. Because we all have our own perceptions of what that label means to them.
If that's the case, then language is entirely useless. ...and we know it's not.

Labels are funny old things. When God created Adam, the first task he assigned to him was to label everything, to give it name. Mankind labels things, and it's something he does very well. He assigns meaning when he gives them a name. The power of the spoken word, of sound, to create. He emulates god's creation of the world on a lesser scale.

absolutly

thats kinda what i ment, we have thousands of words to describe love, yet none have any quantitative or qualitiative symbolism to us aside from expressing the feelings associated with happiness.

Communication is very strange, a person formulates an idea based on their subjective interpretation of the subject and their interpretation of the linguistics needed to prevay that subject. The message is then sent and recieved by the other person, who uses their own interpretations of language and life to disect the meaning they think the other is trying to potray.

so much room for error....
Including spelling errors!
That's quite poetic. Are you as drunk as I am? ;)

Precisely. But that doesn't make it "one thing."

We English speakers have wet snow, dry snow, new snow, etc. but they are all recognized as snow.

Some of the native tribes in the Alaska would not be able to translate "snow" accurately into their language because the generic term has no meaning. They do have "wet snow" and "new snow" and "dry snow" and to them these are very different things.
Sure it does. Feelings can be generalized as easily as anything else in mankind's domain. (That's another thing, besides labelling, that mankind does very well.)

Inuit speakers have 47 different varieties of snow. ...but the also have a word for 'snow'.

If that's the case, then language is entirely useless. ...and we know it's not.

Labels are funny old things. When God created Adam, the first task he assigned to him was to label everything, to give it name. Mankind labels things, and it's something he does very well. He assigns meaning when he gives them a name. The power of the spoken word, of sound, to create. He emulates god's creation of the world on a lesser scale.


No its the meaningless definitions we give to meaningless (minus the people that experience it) situations that can only be defined individually (feelings,emotions and the cause for them) because we all have preference. Now your assuming that the very part in the bible is correct and true and factual. Just as the pharisees assumed Jesus was not speaking the word of God, they thought a book written by man (old testament) was more true.

Including spelling errors!
That's quite poetic. Are you as drunk as I am? ;)

no, just stupid

If that's the case, then language is entirely useless. ...and we know it's not.

Labels are funny old things. When God created Adam, the first task he assigned to him was to label everything, to give it name. Mankind labels things, and it's something he does very well. He assigns meaning when he gives them a name. The power of the spoken word, of sound, to create. He emulates god's creation of the world on a lesser scale.
No its the meaningless definitions we give to meaningless (minus the people that experience it) situations that can only be defined individually (feelings,emotions and the cause for them) because we all have preference. Now your assuming that the very part in the bible is correct and true and factual. Just as the pharisees assumed Jesus was not speaking the word of God, they thought a book written by man (old testament) was more true.
Okay, first off you can't go around saying that subjective experiences are meaningless or you risk labelling yourself a materialist. Secondly, I'm not a Protestant who believes in the literal word and truth of the Bible.

I actually quoted Adam because he has symbolic relevance. Go figure. :)

(and go him!)

Nothing experienced by the individual is meaningless; rather, it has meaning *because* it is experienced by the individual, as Adam showed with his very relative, very subjective decision of names for each and every thing he encountered.

Without him (symbolically speaking), we wouldn't have language.

We all have preferences, and this is A Good Thing. Brad forbid we all be the same.

no, just stupid
No! not stupid; quite lovely.

No! not stupid; quite lovely.

lol

maybe its all the weed then...

On some issues, there cannot be a "agree to disagree."

Like I said, if someone wanted to teach that 3+5=52 in a math class, I would adamantly refuse.

Likewise, I will adamantly refuse to let someone ruin the next generation by teaching them that making a conclusion and then hunting only for evidence that backs it up, while ignoring anything you can't explain could be called science.


I never said anything about ignoring science

funny. when i read the bible and pray, i feel nothing.

yeah, some consistent divine being there.

when i read buddhist works and meditate, however... an entirely different story.


So it sounds like your on the path to buddhism.

Spelling is a rather lame way to judge IQ

Hmmm Einstein was a horrible speller. So I guess we should ignore him.

Beethoven was a slob when writing score so his music must be crap as well.

Tell that to some of the hardcore RPer's here in NS, where do you think I
heard it from?

I didn't miss the point; I hit the nail right on the head.

That what you've stated there is a modern-day myth. It has no foundation in truth.


I see you have some background in mythology. Interesting; my studies led me to a different conclusion, that the foundation of religion is in symbolism and symbolizing the world around us in spiritual constructs.


Really? That's cool. I'd like to hear your reasoning. Here's some of mine:

If you look at mythologies, they all have certain things in common. They have stories about why things are the way they are. The genesis creation myth tells us how we got here (as do all the others). The entire Norse mythology explains the aggressiveness of humanity. Several different Amerindian stories tell how something came to be. The Greeks tell us how fire came to earth, why we fall in love, etc. etc. Throughout all mythologies, too one extent or another, they explain the world. This is what we now use science for.

And there is even some physiological evidence to support this link. The euphoria that some people report during "religious experiences" is the same sense of wonder that some scientists (even atheistic ones) report experiencing while contemplating the cosmos, or at least their little piece of it. There have been studies that show the "God Module" at work in the human brain, and it does not just function during "religious" experiences. Basically, science can fulfill the same physiological functions as religion. This seems to indicate that they serve similar functions, as far as motivation is concerned.

I never said anything about ignoring science

It is impossible to argue for Creationism without ignoring the basics of science.

One of these days the evolutionist will realize they were wrong and they will drop on their knees also and declare God as their savior when they come befor him to be judge. As said " One day every tongue will confess he is God one day every knee will bow" so one day Religion and science will be brought together no matter if people like it or not

No offense, but I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.

1. b) Scientism (an unfortunate side-effect of the above-mentioned warping) has lead people away from the state of mind that allowed them to wrap their minds around the symbolism of religion. Even "believers" today rely more on "faith" than any actual understanding of their own religions. Scientism says that science is all that is right and true; therefore, everything must eventually bend itself to fit into measurable and repeatable facts (dispite the fact that the subjective realm is not measurable nor repeatable). If it cannot bend, it gets thrown out as an "unworkable theory".

Sorry to disagree with you, but what you are calling the "subjective realm" is measurable AND repeatable. Just look at the "God Module" study:

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm

I believe that "religious experiences" fall under your subjective realm, do they not? And yet we can watch them happen, in a reproducible environment, any day of the week.

No. Words are too limited. One tiny example is all the shades that get described as "green." Language has not even began to cover a fraction of what a person can experience. A result is that a particular thing that a language does not have a concept for is thought of as "less real" than the things the language has a word for. This is why it is nearly impossible to translate certain concepts from one language to another.

The difference here, and it's been said elsewhere, is that if the same person describes two separate episodes of a feeling as identical (or nearly identical) then they can be said to be....identical. No language barrier implied.

you take me wrong

im not putting down the discoveries that science has made

it has done a fabulous job at telling us what (probably) has happened in our physical world.

All I am doing is investigating the nature and origins of truth and the structures that the accepting of "truth" by a society builds.

I think the problem here is that you are saying there is some "spiritual" world that exists independently of the physical world. I know the word "subjective" has been thrown around alot. However, can you call it spiritual if it has physical effects? And EVERY "spiritual" experience, thought, etc. has physical effects, ie respiration, brainwave activity, etc. I don't think it's possible to effectively split the world into "spiritual" and physical.

A good definition of truth (taken from the first entry on dictionary.com) is:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5 a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

If you accept that definition of truth, then for your "subjective" world to have any kind of Truth at all, it would still have to have facts. If it has facts, it is subject to examination...thus, science.

It is possible to argue that Christianity achieved its dominance of European civilisation because of timing and historical accident, rather than intrinsic merit or truth. The social, technical and political conditions were right for the rapid expansion of monotheism across the Mediterranian countries and its establishment as the binding force for the ex-Roman empire. So the secular argument would be that Jesus and his followers just happened to be in the right place at the right time with a sufficiently good message.

But Christian historians can, and do, turn the argument on its head - what else would you expect God to do but send down his son in the time and place best suited to spreading his message?

Similar arguments can be made for other religions, eg Sikhism was an attempted synthesis of Islam and Hinduism (Punjabis were fed up with their region being used as a doormat by invading and counter-invading armies) or Judaism and its rituals are a superb survival mechanism for a people living within alien social environments. These secular analyses can simply be turned into religious analyses by arguing that God works in the grain of the world, not across it or in isolation from it.

Is there not an analogy with the argument about whether religious feelings are simply due to stimulation of a particular area of the brain? Even if this is so, does that preclude the existence of God? If God exists and interacts with humans, wouldn't you expect that to be reflected in the normal physiology of people. That electrical stimulation and religious practice can produce 'religious' sensations which are indistinguishable from one another does not mean that one or other explanation is right. They could be complimentary.

You make a good argument, but let's extend it. People with schizophrenia claim to hear God, the devil, angels and demons. This is very similar to what non-schizophrenics claim. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is a matter of degree, not kind. So, we give drugs to schizophrenics, they stop hearing these voices. So, to extend the argument again, if we give the right drugs to religious people, they will stop having religious experiences, yes?

So, a physical substance can stop a spiritual intervention? I don't buy it.

I had a similar conversation with a friend once about possession. It applies there, as well. If we properly medicate someone who is possessed, they stop acting possessed.

Think about all the times that you were happy, for example. Did they all feel _exactly_ the same, or is happiness a general word that approximates a wide variety of emotions that we have no specific words for.



"Spicy flavor" would describe a wide variety of peppers. Can you tell the flavor of a habenero from _____( insert name of whatever the next closest pepper happens to be). Or do both just produce really intense burny sensations.

Or better yet- changing the example to peaches since I know more about them than habaneros - if one could vividly describe the taste vividly enough, someone hearing you who had never tasted peaches might think you were describing two different objects if one peach were riper than the other. Or someone hearing you describe how something tastes when you are hungry for it and hearing you describe the taste of the same thing when you are in a mood where you prefer something else would also get a very different picture.

Without having an external to link it to, all we can get is similar sensation.

Or I read somewhere (maybe on this board?) that a taste test type thing was done were people could see the products, and 80% chose coke over pepsi. When blind-folded, the result was closer to 50-50. Perception changes sensation. Physically painful things "hurt" more when they are a surprise.
Neither language nor the consistancy of what a person subjectively experiences are enough to lead to a "same thing" proof.


Perception does not change chemical makeup, however, which is what causes all these sensations in the first place. So, we can reproduce these sensations in you whenever we want. Just give you the proper chemical compounds, i.e. peach or habanero.

The would just prove what area of the brain is stimulated during religious experiences.

Now if you could take a hard-core atheist and stimulate that part of their brain and they had a "God" experience then you might be onto something. If on the otherhand, the atheist cannot differentiate the experience from say the way he feels after sex (using this because religious experience is often described as bliss), then all you have proven is a certain type of emotion arises from that part of the brain, not what causes that emotion.

This has been done. However, I'm having trouble finding the study. Give me some time, please.

People today believe that science is that answer to everything and that all things can be proved through science, which is of course, absurd. Man is not the measure of all things, and he surely cannot comprehend all things of this universe. Man cannot fully comprehend God and the full extent of His power- it is totally above and beyond the human mind.

Did we and primates evolve from a common ancestor? Scientific evidence would prove this so...however, were did our conscience come in? Were did we develop morals? Where did we learn to surpass our instincts and build the society we have today. My view, as a Catholic, is that yes, we did evolve, however God molded our evolution to become what we are.

To answer the last question...all i know is that the Catholic Chruch does not change her views based on social pressure...for example we have records of Catholic writers condemning abortion as early as the 2nd century

There is quite a bit of evidence to support the idea that morality is actually an evolved trait:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805075208/qid=1101935012/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-7549211-1817706?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

This is a great book on the subject.

Sorry to disagree with you, but what you are calling the "subjective realm" is measurable AND repeatable. Just look at the "God Module" study:

http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/new_page_2.htm

I believe that "religious experiences" fall under your subjective realm, do they not? And yet we can watch them happen, in a reproducible environment, any day of the week.
But it is not the religious experience that is being measured, nor is it repeatable by looking at the data --i.e. the objective observer cannot look at the data and know what it is to experience god. Nor can he hook himself up to the machine and know that whatever he feels is what the subject described as god.

I think the problem here is that you are saying there is some "spiritual" world that exists independently of the physical world. I know the word "subjective" has been thrown around alot. However, can you call it spiritual if it has physical effects? And EVERY "spiritual" experience, thought, etc. has physical effects, ie respiration, brainwave activity, etc. I don't think it's possible to effectively split the world into "spiritual" and physical.
Whether or not the spiritual experience has a physical counter-part is irrelevant. The spiritual experience is just that --experiential. Yes, it can, and is, still called a spiritual experience if it has a physical counter-part. Its physicality does nothing to impact its spirituality.

A good definition of truth (taken from the first entry on dictionary.com) is:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5 a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

If you accept that definition of truth, then for your "subjective" world to have any kind of Truth at all, it would still have to have facts. If it has facts, it is subject to examination...thus, science.
It does have facts, that is not disputed. But subjective facts are, by definition, only verifiable by the subject. Science requires objectively verifiable facts.

I think the problem here is that you are saying there is some "spiritual" world that exists independently of the physical world. I know the word "subjective" has been thrown around alot. However, can you call it spiritual if it has physical effects? And EVERY "spiritual" experience, thought, etc. has physical effects, ie respiration, brainwave activity, etc. I don't think it's possible to effectively split the world into "spiritual" and physical.
The "spiritual world" exists independantly of the physical world by virtue of being a construct of the imagination. The data contained in this world is, for the most part, user-generated (thought, emotion, complex concepts, etc.). Whether or not its source is identified as sparks going off in the brain or chemical interactions is irrelevant to the subjective view --how these "sparks" are interpreted by the mind and and viewed and manipulated by the human who experiences them is what counts. That is the world that is independant of [objective] reality (which is associated with the physical world). It is a world made up entirely of symbols.

OK, let's say that there is an event that science cannot predict, measure, or gauge in any way. They have no language or understanding of it. Then what?

Let's say (hypothetically) that random people accross the nation are waking up in the middle of the night, seeing an Angel standing in their room, hearing a voice that says "Follow the Word" and then disappears in a green puff of smoke. Their is no trace, it cannot be recorded, it apparently happens in the persons mind but makes little in the way of altered brain waves. It may change the people's lives, but in different ways. Because all the people involved have a different idea of what God is and what the Word is they do very different things. One becomes a baptist, one a vegitarian, one leaves to follow a Hindi Guru.

So we have an event that cannot be measured, predicted, or controled in anyway. Science doesn't care. Some may try to disprove it, but who cares? Because it cannot be measured, predicted, or controled there is no reason to study it, what would be the point? You would just have to throw up your arms and say, "Yep, it happens, but who cares." As long as it doesn't happen to you it will have little effect on your life.

So Science cannot measure everything at this point. But things that cannot be measured cannot be controled, cannot be altered, and cannot be predicted, so trying to do so would only be a frustratingly fruitless venture. Like the UFO phenomena.

Does this mean that Science is useless? Hell no. It's allowing us to have this conversation on computers across the Internet.

I said before that the difference between a Scientist and a Religious man is that when the lights go out the Religious man prays and the Scientist goes downstairs to flip the breaker. Someone responding by saying that the religious man would actually pray for the stregnth to go downstairs and turn the lights back on. I have no problem with these folks, so let me clarify.

When the lights go out, the scientist will get up to turn the lights on, the Religious man will pray, and the Fundamentalist Christian will proclaim it is the end of the world and try to put the Scientist in shackles and keep him from turning the lights on. The issue is being so goddamned sure of your own views that you try to push them on someone else.

If we can agree that religion requires faith and cannot be scientifically verified then STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE, COERCE, OR BEAT ME INTO FOLLOWING YOUR FAITH AND MORALS. If you agree it takes faith, don't blame those who hold faith in other things. It is NOT a foregone conclusion that "God hates Fags" it is NOT a foregone conclusion that heaven and hell exist.

Science, on the other hand, can be tested. It can be debated. The rules should be very different when discussing each. If you are Muslim, I can't say you are wrong. If you believe in the Spontaneous Generation of toads, I can.

When it comes to the discussion of laws we should be looking at the concrete ramifications, not whether it agrees with one religion or another.

I think the problem here is that you are saying there is some "spiritual" world that exists independently of the physical world.

No, I have been arguing that people in modern society are taught to accept science and its methods as Truth, and the only absolute truth.

I believe there is a greater truth to existence and the universe than numbers and symbols can truly explain, one that can only be understood. Never, however, would I say that there is an independant spiritual world.

I know the word "subjective" has been thrown around alot. However, can you call it spiritual if it has physical effects? And EVERY "spiritual" experience, thought, etc. has physical effects, ie respiration, brainwave activity, etc. I don't think it's possible to effectively split the world into "spiritual" and physical.

No, you are right. There are certain physical characteristics that can be scientifically proven to occur during some phenomena. Science can determine facts about this, and in the contemporary understanding of truth, thats how we as a society view things.

However, this scientific dominance of knowledge and truth is a modern event. The world has been, and in many places still is, under the control of various metaphysical truth systems.

As far as I am concerned, science has no more justification to declare Truth their intelectual property than a religion does.

A good definition of truth (taken from the first entry on dictionary.com) is:

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3. Sincerity; integrity.
4. Fidelity to an original or standard.
5 a. Reality; actuality.
b. often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.


ok, so this kinda proves what i am saying. You have accepted this contemporary idea of truth and limited your understanding of non statistical qualities that it might posess.

Frankly I don't believe that humans posess the linguistic understanding to come close to defining real truth

If you accept that definition of truth, then for your "subjective" world to have any kind of Truth at all, it would still have to have facts. If it has facts, it is subject to examination...thus, science.

Facts: 1200 years ago it was a FACT that the sun went around the earth

a fact is something that anyone assumes is true. Each truth structure has its own way of determining what is a fact that reveals some truth. Science has the scientific method and YES! it is the best at determining statistical information about the physical world and its physical effects.

You make a good argument, but let's extend it. People with schizophrenia claim to hear God, the devil, angels and demons. This is very similar to what non-schizophrenics claim. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is a matter of degree, not kind. So, we give drugs to schizophrenics, they stop hearing these voices. So, to extend the argument again, if we give the right drugs to religious people, they will stop having religious experiences, yes?

So, a physical substance can stop a spiritual intervention? I don't buy it.

I had a similar conversation with a friend once about possession. It applies there, as well. If we properly medicate someone who is possessed, they stop acting possessed.

you are making 2 logically falacious arguments

1. That if God wanted to give someone a religious experience he couldnt

2. Demons and angels arent real so they cant talk to people

You are more than likly correct, but you cant just assume. If there was a God, Im sure he would be more than capable of bypassing any human interference.

Also: I dont think anyone was saying that praying is bringing a physical communication with God. Do we have a scientific measurment for the ammount of God that exists in something at any one time?

Perception does not change chemical makeup, however, which is what causes all these sensations in the first place. So, we can reproduce these sensations in you whenever we want. Just give you the proper chemical compounds, i.e. peach or habanero.

the peach and the habernero were both examples of language's inability to diferentiate between non quantitive, alike, ideas.

Yes, we can map out what each emotion looks like as it physically occurs in the brain, good for us. Please, tell me what that tells me about happiness.

Please use science to differentiate Joy and Pleasure. J'(p) if you will.

Please, tell me what that tells me about happiness.
You do. :)

Please use science to differentiate Joy and Pleasure. J'(p) if you will.
For us non-scientific types --what is this symbol? Something a function of something else?

In reading the many posts in this thread I thought of something - religion strengthens science.

When religion says that something is wrong in science, science takes a look and makes sure it's right or finds out if it's wrong. Religion, on the other hand, can't rewrite its holy book (whatever book a certain religion uses). It can't change what it claims to follow at a moments notice and fight science harder, it can only say 'I'm right.' Science can say, "You know, you got that right, we were wrong, but we see what's right now, so watcha gonna do now???"

For us non-scientific types --what is this symbol? Something a function of something else?

lol, that was more of a joke for me because i compleatly got my ass kicked by a calculus test today :(

i didnt put any thought into it

For us non-scientific types --what is this symbol? Something a function of something else?

J'(p) would be the derivative of J with respect to p.

So, if J(p)=3*p, then J'(p)=3

J'(p) would be the derivative of J with respect to p.

So, if J(p)=3*p, then J'(p)=3

see how you can answer that and i cant

DAMN YOU CALCULUS!

Originally Posted by Violets and Kitties
Think about all the times that you were happy, for example. Did they all feel _exactly_ the same, or is happiness a general word that approximates a wide variety of emotions that we have no specific words for.

"Spicy flavor" would describe a wide variety of peppers. Can you tell the flavor of a habenero from _____( insert name of whatever the next closest pepper happens to be). Or do both just produce really intense burny sensations.

Or better yet- changing the example to peaches since I know more about them than habaneros - if one could vividly describe the taste vividly enough, someone hearing you who had never tasted peaches might think you were describing two different objects if one peach were riper than the other. Or someone hearing you describe how something tastes when you are hungry for it and hearing you describe the taste of the same thing when you are in a mood where you prefer something else would also get a very different picture.Perception does not change chemical makeup, however, which is what causes all these sensations in the first place. So, we can reproduce these sensations in you whenever we want. Just give you the proper chemical compounds, i.e. peach or habanero.
The scientist can feed the person the precise chemical make-up of peach or habanero and sit back content. He can "reproduce the sensation" in a test subject by feeding the same subject the same chemical compound, provided all other conditions remain relatively the same. But each test subject will have a unique experience of the sensations of peach and habanero, unique to their taste buds. The sensation of what is being experienced by one test subject is not measurable nor reproducable across subjects by the tester in this scenario.

Okay, I think I have a handle on where y'all are going with this whole experiential thing. A friend and I have this discussion pretty frequently. Here are the points that seem to come up over and over again:

1) Is what I see as blue what you see as blue?
My answer: Yes. We can define blue as certain type of light with distinguishable characteristics.


2) If I were telepathic and could directly sense what someone else is sensing, would I be able to understand that some blue object is actually blue.
My answer: I don't know. Until someone becomes telepathic and does it, we may never know.

So, and I think this sort of answers all the responses to my posts yesterday, the real question here is "What is reality?"

How do we define reality? Some would say we don't have the linquistic tools to do so. Others say we all do so in very subjective terms. Still others will give you staticistical, quantum-mechanical models of how the world works.

Ultimately, I must go with a "scientific" definition of reality. Just because science doesn't currently understand some things doesn't mean that it won't at some point understand them. We have been talking about "subjective" things alot in this thread. But, as I have pointed out, we can measure certain aspects of these things. We now know, for example, what kind of brain activity occurs when someone has a religious experience. So, if we induce that particular kind of brain activity, people will have a religious experience. It is that simple. The form that experience takes has a lot to do with the culture and mindset of the individual, but he will have some form of "religious experience". So, science has a broad definition for this subjective, experiential thing. It is not refined yet. Why not? Because we have only lately begun to develop the tools to refine it. Does that mean we won't ever refine it? Of course not. We are working on the understanding of consciousness all the time.

It's not symbology. The world is not symbolic. Symbolic meaning is imposed from without a phenomenon, by a sentience, i.e. human. There is no universal symbolism that transcends language. There are, as Joseph Campbell said, certain archetypes that pop up over and over in human cultures/religions. These archetypes are brought out because we, as humans, need them. Why? Because certain structures in our brains force this need on us. That doesn't mean that the entire world is just a symbolic projection in our minds. It just means that the human brain shapes experience. And the more we understand the human brain, the more we understand how it shapes experience. There is a physical world.

How do we define joy and pleasure is something that will have to be changed over time as we understand these things better. But pleasure is something that is experienced when a certain area in the brain is stimulated, either from the inside or the outside. I would presume that joy is an intense version of this. If so, that's easily testable. We gather a group of people and ask them to report when they are feeling pleasure and what they would describe as joy. If the same patterns in everyone's brains match when they describe it, then we know something new about joy and pleasure. From there, we try to induce it from the outside. If we can induce joy in the same people, then we know that they are experiencing the same things. If we then induce those same kinds of brain activity in others, it is reasonable to assume that we can call it pleasure or joy. If a different pattern emerges for what people identify as "joy" then we induce that pattern instead of the "pleasure" one.

If we did not have some kind of common understanding of these things, there would be no words for them. However, I know what you mean when you say "spicy". It may be a bit different in my head at the moment, but we can communicate until we have a common understanding of the what "spicy" means. And it can be further refined. It can be habanero spicy, or jalepeno spicy, or nutmeg spicy. The same goes for all other experiential things.

The subjective, experiential world is not something that is "unknowable" in science. Science does need hard facts to progress, but we can gather hard facts about "subjective" things. Physical pain is subjective, but we talk about lessening it, do we not? Thus, it is, in some way, measurable. If it's measurable, it falls within the realm of science.

you are making 2 logically falacious arguments

1. That if God wanted to give someone a religious experience he couldnt

2. Demons and angels arent real so they cant talk to people

You are more than likly correct, but you cant just assume. If there was a God, Im sure he would be more than capable of bypassing any human interference.

Also: I dont think anyone was saying that praying is bringing a physical communication with God. Do we have a scientific measurment for the ammount of God that exists in something at any one time?

1) If we can turn off "religious experiences" by damping down the brain activity that occurs when someone is having one, then can God give someone a religious experience? If we can give someone a drug that permanently suppresses those areas of the brain, or even remove those areas, will they still have religious experiences? No, they won't. Everything we do is influenced by brain activity. Our entire personality can change if we damage our brains. I, personally, have cyclothymia, which is like a mild form of bipolar disorder. When I am on my meds, the world is a different place. How is it different? It more closely conforms with the shared view of reality that everyone else has built up. In other words, the government isn't really out to get me.

2) Give me solid, verified proof of the existence of a demon or an angel.

2) Give me solid, verified proof of the existence of a demon or an angel.
Got to have "faith" for that one (I know bs ) :p

Okay, I think I have a handle on where y'all are going with this whole experiential thing. A friend and I have this discussion pretty frequently. Here are the points that seem to come up over and over again:

1) Is what I see as blue what you see as blue?
My answer: Yes. We can define blue as certain type of light with distinguishable characteristics.
Okay, when you look at a blue sky through your own eyes what are the distinguishable characteristics of blue?

2) If I were telepathic and could directly sense what someone else is sensing, would I be able to understand that some blue object is actually blue.
My answer: I don't know. Until someone becomes telepathic and does it, we may never know.
Not sure where you got this one from... To directly sense what someone else is sensing would require you to literally put your consciousness into their body.

So, and I think this sort of answers all the responses to my posts yesterday, the real question here is "What is reality?"

How do we define reality? Some would say we don't have the linquistic tools to do so. Others say we all do so in very subjective terms. Still others will give you staticistical, quantum-mechanical models of how the world works.

Ultimately, I must go with a "scientific" definition of reality. Just because science doesn't currently understand some things doesn't mean that it won't at some point understand them. We have been talking about "subjective" things alot in this thread. But, as I have pointed out, we can measure certain aspects of these things. We now know, for example, what kind of brain activity occurs when someone has a religious experience. So, if we induce that particular kind of brain activity, people will have a religious experience. It is that simple.
Sure, but it doesn't tell you what experience they had, what it felt like and looked like in their heads, from the perspective of their minds, interpreted by their senses. That is information that the scientist (who has not had his own religious experience to compare) can never know.

The form that experience takes has a lot to do with the culture and mindset of the individual, but he will have some form of "religious experience". So, science has a broad definition for this subjective, experiential thing. It is not refined yet. Why not? Because we have only lately begun to develop the tools to refine it. Does that mean we won't ever refine it? Of course not. We are working on the understanding of consciousness all the time.
I sincerely believe that mankind will never develop tools that will reach into a mind and reproduce for the objective observer an experience intact and real-time from the subject's view.

It's not symbology. The world is not symbolic. Symbolic meaning is imposed from without a phenomenon, by a sentience, i.e. human. There is no universal symbolism that transcends language. There are, as Joseph Campbell said, certain archetypes that pop up over and over in human cultures/religions. These archetypes are brought out because we, as humans, need them. Why? Because certain structures in our brains force this need on us. That doesn't mean that the entire world is just a symbolic projection in our minds. It just means that the human brain shapes experience. And the more we understand the human brain, the more we understand how it shapes experience. There is a physical world.
I didn't mean to imply that the symbolic world replaces the physical world in any way. I never said that the things projected from the human mind have any (physical) reality. I was merely explaining the subjective view.

Yes, the human mind shapes experience, that's the ticket. That is the subjective view. It doesn't replace or displace the objective view of reality. But both are necessary, nay vital, for a complete understanding of the world around us. Neither view should be held aloft as more truthful or more accurate than the other, because the reality is that humans see the world through both views at the same time. Even the most objective of us can never let go of our subjective perspectives.

Symbolic meaning is understood by the human, not "imposed". Yes, I suppose "imposed" is one way of looking at it, as there is no symbolic meaning without the presence of the human. But that's exactly what religion is --nothing without humans. The religious experience has no objectively real meaning. It is subjectively real. Dream research, and the psychological interpretation of dreams attempted by Jung, is a good example of exploring things that are subjectively real. It is also a good example of the limitations of language expressed by Violets and Kitties. We can talk about such research being in "early stages" but really, will it ever accomplish coming anywhere close to understanding the other person's subjective experience? (For now it won't, since that is not the goal of such research.)

"The world is not symbolic", that is correct; however, there you are talking about the physical world (by default) and symbols seen in the patterns around us. The constructs that we form in the mind (entirely subjectively experienced things) are also symbolic in nature. They are not real, not any part of the physical world. They have no presence there; they exist entirely in our minds. We see them and hear them and do not share them with anyone except through our language, and they stir feelings every bit as much as if we were in the presence of real (physical) things.

This may all seem very obvious to some, but for some reason there are people who entirely refuse to wrap their brains around the fact that the religious experience could be an entirely subjective experience intended for nothing more than spiritual enlightenment.

How do we define joy and pleasure is something that will have to be changed over time as we understand these things better. But pleasure is something that is experienced when a certain area in the brain is stimulated, either from the inside or the outside. I would presume that joy is an intense version of this. If so, that's easily testable. We gather a group of people and ask them to report when they are feeling pleasure and what they would describe as joy. If the same patterns in everyone's brains match when they describe it, then we know something new about joy and pleasure.
Yes, we know what area of the brain to stick electrodes into when we want a buzz. Umm yum. But that is not really an understanding of what pleasure is, nor how it is distinguished from joy. In order to fully understand what pleasure is, we should know as well the properties of how pleasure feels to the subject. And in order to scientifically understand pleasure, it would be necessary to objectively understand those subjective qualities (i.e. for a separate individual, an objective observer, to feel what the subject feels) --and that simply isn't possible. Not yet, anyway.

From there, we try to induce it from the outside. If we can induce joy in the same people, then we know that they are experiencing the same things. If we then induce those same kinds of brain activity in others, it is reasonable to assume that we can call it pleasure or joy. If a different pattern emerges for what people identify as "joy" then we induce that pattern instead of the "pleasure" one. If we did not have some kind of common understanding of these things, there would be no words for them. However, I know what you mean when you say "spicy". It may be a bit different in my head at the moment, but we can communicate until we have a common understanding of the what "spicy" means. And it can be further refined. It can be habanero spicy, or jalepeno spicy, or nutmeg spicy. The same goes for all other experiential things.

The subjective, experiential world is not something that is "unknowable" in science. Science does need hard facts to progress, but we can gather hard facts about "subjective" things. Physical pain is subjective, but we talk about lessening it, do we not? Thus, it is, in some way, measurable. If it's measurable, it falls within the realm of science.
I agree, it is not "unknowable" because the experimenters themselves are human and partial to the same subjective understandings as their test subjects. But the subjective world is unreproducable; what you have described above is not reproducing a subjective experience but an objective experiment that does not begin to touch on the describing the subjective. You have not duplicated a subjective experience, just created a second one. In order to reproduce a subjective experience you would have to be able to to duplicate a real-time experience in another person.

Okay, I think I have a handle on where y'all are going with this whole experiential thing. A friend and I have this discussion pretty frequently. Here are the points that seem to come up over and over again:

1) Is what I see as blue what you see as blue?
My answer: Yes. We can define blue as certain type of light with distinguishable characteristics.


2) If I were telepathic and could directly sense what someone else is sensing, would I be able to understand that some blue object is actually blue.
My answer: I don't know. Until someone becomes telepathic and does it, we may never know.


My guess would be probably not. Or at least we wouldn't recognize it as our own concept of blue up until the point the brain applied some symbol to it. As every memory, thought, and emotion shapes each brain and thus its morphology and chemistry somewhat, the brain's reaction would be the some total of experience and emotion that an individual had ever associated with the wavelength that makes up the color blue. At its deepest root, blue will always be different for each individual.


So, and I think this sort of answers all the responses to my posts yesterday, the real question here is "What is reality?"

How do we define reality? Some would say we don't have the linquistic tools to do so. Others say we all do so in very subjective terms. Still others will give you staticistical, quantum-mechanical models of how the world works.

Ultimately, I must go with a "scientific" definition of reality. Just because science doesn't currently understand some things doesn't mean that it won't at some point understand them. We have been talking about "subjective" things alot in this thread. But, as I have pointed out, we can measure certain aspects of these things. We now know, for example, what kind of brain activity occurs when someone has a religious experience. So, if we induce that particular kind of brain activity, people will have a religious experience. It is that simple. The form that experience takes has a lot to do with the culture and mindset of the individual, but he will have some form of "religious experience". So, science has a broad definition for this subjective, experiential thing. It is not refined yet. Why not? Because we have only lately begun to develop the tools to refine it. Does that mean we won't ever refine it? Of course not. We are working on the understanding of consciousness all the time.


I would say that reality is the physical world and its laws. It is that which exists in the concrete sense. Reality is that which happens whether a sentience is present to experience it or not.


It's not symbology. The world is not symbolic. Symbolic meaning is imposed from without a phenomenon, by a sentience, i.e. human. There is no universal symbolism that transcends language. There are, as Joseph Campbell said, certain archetypes that pop up over and over in human cultures/religions. These archetypes are brought out because we, as humans, need them. Why? Because certain structures in our brains force this need on us. That doesn't mean that the entire world is just a symbolic projection in our minds. It just means that the human brain shapes experience. And the more we understand the human brain, the more we understand how it shapes experience. There is a physical world.


Yes. But humans can only experience the physical world via the senses and the brain. We are not capable of seeing only that which is present. If we experienced the world in an objective sense, then kittens would simply be baby cats - not cute little fuzzy things that evoke an emotional response. We may eventually may be able to understand how the brain shapes experience, but the fact is that unless all people start with the exact same brain chemistry, and the exact same level of function of sensory organs, experiences the exact same set of happenings, then we cannot expect any two brains to shape or define experience in identical ways. Some archetypes are spread human wide, some over cultural areas, and some are personal. The more similar people's experiences and thought patterns are, the closer the way brains "define" objective reality. Humans do not "see" reality. Humans just see a close approximation.


How do we define joy and pleasure is something that will have to be changed over time as we understand these things better. But pleasure is something that is experienced when a certain area in the brain is stimulated, either from the inside or the outside. I would presume that joy is an intense version of this. If so, that's easily testable. We gather a group of people and ask them to report when they are feeling pleasure and what they would describe as joy. If the same patterns in everyone's brains match when they describe it, then we know something new about joy and pleasure. From there, we try to induce it from the outside. If we can induce joy in the same people, then we know that they are experiencing the same things. If we then induce those same kinds of brain activity in others, it is reasonable to assume that we can call it pleasure or joy. If a different pattern emerges for what people identify as "joy" then we induce that pattern instead of the "pleasure" one.


But everyone's brain chemistry is different. We already have an idea of which part of the brain produces pleasure, but it takes different amounts of stimulation to produce the same level of pleasure in different individuals (drug tolerance is a rough example of this). And even then, some people will react to the pleasure by wanting more. Otherwise will feel the need to self-flagelate for experiencing such an unworthy feeling.


If we did not have some kind of common understanding of these things, there would be no words for them. However, I know what you mean when you say "spicy". It may be a bit different in my head at the moment, but we can communicate until we have a common understanding of the what "spicy" means. And it can be further refined. It can be habanero spicy, or jalepeno spicy, or nutmeg spicy. The same goes for all other experiential things.

The subjective, experiential world is not something that is "unknowable" in science. Science does need hard facts to progress, but we can gather hard facts about "subjective" things. Physical pain is subjective, but we talk about lessening it, do we not? Thus, it is, in some way, measurable. If it's measurable, it falls within the realm of science.

Even with pain. Drop hot wax on some people and they will scream in pain. Others will scream in delight. Same reality. Different experience.

Reality is one universal constant. Experince of reality is infinite.

1) If we can turn off "religious experiences" by damping down the brain activity that occurs when someone is having one, then can God give someone a religious experience? If we can give someone a drug that permanently suppresses those areas of the brain, or even remove those areas, will they still have religious experiences?

So, what you are saying then is that God has come down, down an experiment where he began to communicate with people in a physiological way, and scientists took down those test results.

No, they won't. Everything we do is influenced by brain activity. Our entire personality can change if we damage our brains. I, personally, have cyclothymia, which is like a mild form of bipolar disorder. When I am on my meds, the world is a different place. How is it different? It more closely conforms with the shared view of reality that everyone else has built up. In other words, the government isn't really out to get me.

ya, fair enough, i was on Zoloft for a while, lol, weird stuff.

However, that just goes to show how our truth and undestanding of such is related to our own annalysis of reality?


2) Give me solid, verified proof of the existence of a demon or an angel.

i dont have it

the same way you dont have the proof that they dont

so we have to agree that we have no evidence that demons or angels exist, but we cannot prove that they dont talk to people.

i dont have it

the same way you dont have the proof that they dont

so we have to agree that we have no evidence that demons or angels exist, but we cannot prove that they dont talk to people.
And this is why I am agnostic

Reality is one universal constant. Experince of reality is infinite.
Booya! That says it all.

I would also add that reality is subject to time, to the recognizable flow of cause-and-effect events. The experiential reality is not, because the consciousness exists only in the present, only "now", making each experience different from any that came before or will come to pass.

Okay, I think I have a handle on where y'all are going with this whole experiential thing. A friend and I have this discussion pretty frequently. Here are the points that seem to come up over and over again:

1) Is what I see as blue what you see as blue?
My answer: Yes. We can define blue as certain type of light with distinguishable characteristics.


I would disagree. We can place a scientific value to certain wavelengths of light and claim that anything falling between X and Y are blue

As i dont think there would be any argument in saying that we arent a machine, our subjectivity would give us each our own understanding of what blue is.

This does not change the nature of the wavelengths or of any scientific data, just that differant people envision blue in differant ways. Think of blue, you get a shade, my shade will be differant than yours.

2) If I were telepathic and could directly sense what someone else is sensing, would I be able to understand that some blue object is actually blue.
My answer: I don't know. Until someone becomes telepathic and does it, we may never know.

even if you could intercept their brain activity with yours somehow, anything they did would be instantly annalyzied by your subconsious.

So, and I think this sort of answers all the responses to my posts yesterday, the real question here is "What is reality?"

again, as it is my thread and I got to choose what the question is, the question is WHAT IS TRUTH?

[QUOTE=Mickonia]How do we define reality? Some would say we don't have the linquistic tools to do so. Others say we all do so in very subjective terms. Still others will give you staticistical, quantum-mechanical models of how the world works.

again, you seem to be thinking that i am promoting an idea about reality. i am not, nobody is saying that subjectivity is better than science.

I am personally dissapointed by Science's claim to truth, as it obviously casts aside undefinable charasteristics as unscientific.

Think about a Toy. You can make as many measurments as you wish about the toy, but none will tell how much fun the toy will give, and therefore is not the whole TRUTH about the toy.

Ultimately, I must go with a "scientific" definition of reality. Just because science doesn't currently understand some things doesn't mean that it won't at some point understand them.

However, the scientific understanding is numerical and symbolic. What about things that arent quantifiable?

We have been talking about "subjective" things alot in this thread. But, as I have pointed out, we can measure certain aspects of these things.

we can measure physiological neural reactions

We now know, for example, what kind of brain activity occurs when someone has a religious experience. So, if we induce that particular kind of brain activity, people will have a religious experience.

So, God has given a subject a religious experience and scientists measured it?

It is that simple. The form that experience takes has a lot to do with the culture and mindset of the individual, but he will have some form of "religious experience".

Yes, exactly. changing the nature and understanding of the truth behind the experience.

Hence, subjectivity.

Look at mental illlness, in all of our understanding of it, it has gone from illness, to demons, to needing to be secluded, to being handicaped, to now, where there is a huge integration movement for those that are mentally handicapped.

each time, society has viewd this as true.

So, science has a broad definition for this subjective, experiential thing. It is not refined yet. Why not? Because we have only lately begun to develop the tools to refine it. Does that mean we won't ever refine it? Of course not. We are working on the understanding of consciousness all the time.

no, that is impossible, because unless you can recreate the entire subjective history of a consiousness you cant begin to understand why it would make a subjective annylisis.

It's not symbology. The world is not symbolic. Symbolic meaning is imposed from without a phenomenon, by a sentience, i.e. human.

yup, making our understanding of truth limited to the symbols we can assign an object.

There is no universal symbolism that transcends language. There are, as Joseph Campbell said, certain archetypes that pop up over and over in human cultures/religions. These archetypes are brought out because we, as humans, need them. Why? Because certain structures in our brains force this need on us. That doesn't mean that the entire world is just a symbolic projection in our minds. It just means that the human brain shapes experience. And the more we understand the human brain, the more we understand how it shapes experience. There is a physical world.

Yup, but, as you have just explained, our understanding of this phyiscal world is based upon the subjective annylsis of stimuli that come through our sences.

I dont see your point. Are you saying that science is honestly going to some day be able to explain all the intangables in the universe with numbers and symbols? we will have symbols and equations for all types of love?


How do we define joy and pleasure is something that will have to be changed over time as we understand these things better. But pleasure is something that is experienced when a certain area in the brain is stimulated, either from the inside or the outside. I would presume that joy is an intense version of this.

However I have always associate pleasure with sexual or emotional stimulation and joy with a sudden feeling of unexpected happiness.

If so, that's easily testable. We gather a group of people and ask them to report when they are feeling pleasure and what they would describe as joy. If the same patterns in everyone's brains match when they describe it, then we know something new about joy and pleasure. From there, we try to induce it from the outside. If we can induce joy in the same people, then we know that they are experiencing the same things. If we then induce those same kinds of brain activity in others, it is reasonable to assume that we can call it pleasure or joy. If a different pattern emerges for what people identify as "joy" then we induce that pattern instead of the "pleasure" one.

If thats what passes for a psychological or even psudo scientific test, you have succsfully made me LOOSE faith in the abilities of science.

each subject in that situation is human, and therefore comprised of way more subjective variables than can be accounted for.

Not to mention, as any student of psychology knows, when people know they are being tested (power relationships) they will act in the way that they think potrays them as the "best" to the scientist. I personally think this bares huge resembelance to stockholm syndrom and has major socio-political ramifications, but thats another topic.

If we did not have some kind of common understanding of these things, there would be no words for them. However, I know what you mean when you say "spicy". It may be a bit different in my head at the moment, but we can communicate until we have a common understanding of the what "spicy" means. And it can be further refined. It can be habanero spicy, or jalepeno spicy, or nutmeg spicy. The same goes for all other experiential things.

thats not scientific, and communication is the worst way to understand information. I posted this earlier:


Communication is very strange, a person formulates an idea based on their subjective interpretation of the subject and their interpretation of the linguistics needed to prevay that subject. The message is then sent and recieved by the other person, who uses their own interpretations of language and life to disect the meaning they think the other is trying to potray.

so much room for error....

so ya.

The subjective, experiential world is not something that is "unknowable" in science. Science does need hard facts to progress, but we can gather hard facts about "subjective" things.

you can make quantitative annylisis about things we can associate a symbol to. You cannot make a fact about the way someone understands something

Physical pain is subjective, but we talk about lessening it, do we not? Thus, it is, in some way, measurable. If it's measurable, it falls within the realm of science.

We do have classifications for pain

minor
intense
major
suffering
starvation
headache
.
.
.

im not just going to list any type of pain i can think of, but you understand what i mean. We are just associating a linguistic symbol on it instead of a number. In the case of pain it often doesn't do anything but distinguish the cause or location of the pain in question.

and please, use science to diferentiate between the minor pain in my throat with the major pain in my toe. (If you need to make up values that i cant give you, feel free)

Booya! That says it all.

I would also add that reality is subject to time, to the recognizable flow of cause-and-effect events. The experiential reality is not, because the consciousness exists only in the present, only "now", making each experience different from any that came before or will come to pass.

*nods*

"you can never cross the same river twice" is one of the truest statements ever - it holds for objective and experiential reality equally.

"you can never cross the same river twice" is one of the truest statements ever - it holds for objective and experiential reality equally.

ive always liked that

You make a good argument, but let's extend it. People with schizophrenia claim to hear God, the devil, angels and demons. This is very similar to what non-schizophrenics claim. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is a matter of degree, not kind. So, we give drugs to schizophrenics, they stop hearing these voices. So, to extend the argument again, if we give the right drugs to religious people, they will stop having religious experiences, yes?

So, a physical substance can stop a spiritual intervention? I don't buy it.

I had a similar conversation with a friend once about possession. It applies there, as well. If we properly medicate someone who is possessed, they stop acting possessed.
My argument was a loose one, and I would agree it could take you to some strange conclusions by extention. However, for clarity, I was not arguing that such secular or physical phenomena are positive evidence for God. I would also agree that schizophrenics and 'possessed' people are ill, rather than divinely inspired. But again, that physical interventions can disrupt the religious experience does not, of itself, disprove the religious experience. According to just about all religions, the 'God channel' can indeed simply be switched off by both action and attitude. If there is a God, one would expect to find reflections of the divinity in the world, not as evidence as such, but just as being there. Those reflections would be subject to the same physical laws as anything else in the world.

The reason that I put up the argument, is that I find it a useful way of thinking. I tend to be over-analytical by nature, but there are other ways of thinking that can take me places that analysis can't touch. If I look at a hill (I like hills), I can admire its form, colour, geology and physical dressing. Alternatively, I can just let its 'hillness' speak to me. Similarly with music - I can admire the quality of its tone, the speed with which it attacks the beat or the cleverness and truth of its lyrics. Or I can switch off the concious analysis and let it make the hairs on the back of neck stand up and my eyes prickle. So, when I found out that flowers bloom best when they are about to die, it made me laugh for about half an hour, because it sounded right in so many different ways, logically, metaphorically and by analogy, it just had to be right.

This is not just a hypothetical way of thinking for me. I'm an analyst by trade, and analysts set great store by their results being intuitively correct. Similarly, scientists with the aesthetic quality of their theories. Basically, if your results don't fit your intuition, you should challenge them, even if the methodology is sound. This will produce one of two possible outcomes: either you find your results were wrong or your understanding expands so that they become intuitively sound. This is practical stuff.

So I'm not arguing for one approach as necessarily better than the other. If I had to go for a synthesis, it would probably be along the lines of Willamena's 'spontaneously synchronous' phenomena.

Wow! Look what I get for playing devil's advocate here! I appreciate everyone not flaming. This is way too much fun to degrade into namecalling.

White Hats, I too am an analyst, and I must admit my bias. I have a chemistry degree and consider myself a scientist. So, my bias would slant toward the scientific. But chains of logic almost always lead into the absurd if taken too far. See Schroedinger's Cat for a good example.

Now, that being out of the way, a few points.

To those who said science will never do something, BITE YOUR TONGUE! History is full of things that science was never going to do. Science was never going to make men fly. Science was never going to cure an illness. We were never going to put a man on the moon. The list goes on and on.

I will cede the point that we analyze everything symbolically. And thus we have to wade through a see of symbolism to get to truth. But you must realize that when science says it has the truth of something, it is A) provisional and therefore B) disprovable. All scientific truth is subject to change. The theory of gravity is just that, a theory. We are all reasonably sure that gravity will continue to hold us onto the earth's surface. But I may wake up one day floating on near the ceiling. If that's the case, then the theory of gravity must be revised to fit new data. But that doesn't mean that there are not truths out there that are "findable".

Those are the only truths that science seeks to find. The subjective is not discarded as untrue or useless. It is discarded as currently untestable, and therefore beyond the realm of science. If you take nothing else away from this post, please take this paragraph.

As to not proving that angels and demons talk to people, and all the other religious stuff, well, the burden of proof lies with the religious to prove to me that they are "supernatural" phenomena. Because, by Occam's Razor, if I can find an explanation that doesn't require the existance of something for which I have no proof, i.e. deity, then I am going with that explanation.

As to studying and repeating religious experiences, I will say this one more time. This has been done. Repeatedly. With a machine. A religious experience that is indistinguishable from a non-mechanical induced experience is the result, according to the participants of the study. And yes, the participants were all self-described religious people. And the non-machine induced religious experiences were tampered with and turned down/off. So, yes, God came down, gave someone something that they described as a religious experience, and scientists stopped it.

And these studies were good, double-blind studies, so the power relationships issue was minimized. I won't say it was eliminated, but steps were taken to minimize, just like any good scientific study should do.

I will, however, cede the point that at least some religions have provided avenues for the "God channel" (good term!) to be switched off. So, drugs/equipment to inhibit religiosity are not contraindicative of deity.

As to the distinguishing characteristics of "blue", well, we all agree on the fact that it is blue, don't we? That means that there is SOME form of absolute value for it, yes? Just because it evokes an emotional response does not make it more or less blue. However, I think that the "subjective blue experience" you are speaking of is actually the emotional responses that a given thing causes. These are, I will agree, highly personal and at this time, not very well measured. Nor are they accurately recordable. But that doesn't mean that they are inherently unrecordable.

To back this statement up, you asked me to scientifically differentiate between the minor pain in your throat and the major pain in your toe. Please see this link:

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020501/tips/3.html

And here's a more in-depth look at it, but it's a pdf, so be warned:

http://www.pulsus.com/Pain/07_04/Pdf/hodg_ed.pdf

Heck, just google "pain severity measurement".

So, there are ways to scientifically quantify subjective, personal experiences. Pain is not the only one, just the one for which I could find the clearest links.

If I missed any points that someone would like me to address as devil's advocate, please nudge me with them.

Wow! Look what I get for playing devil's advocate here! I appreciate everyone not flaming. This is way too much fun to degrade into namecalling.

White Hats, I too am an analyst, and I must admit my bias. I have a chemistry degree and consider myself a scientist. So, my bias would slant toward the scientific. But chains of logic almost always lead into the absurd if taken too far. See Schroedinger's Cat for a good example.

Now, that being out of the way, a few points.

To those who said science will never do something, BITE YOUR TONGUE! History is full of things that science was never going to do. Science was never going to make men fly. Science was never going to cure an illness. We were never going to put a man on the moon. The list goes on and on.

I will cede the point that we analyze everything symbolically. And thus we have to wade through a see of symbolism to get to truth. But you must realize that when science says it has the truth of something, it is A) provisional and therefore B) disprovable. All scientific truth is subject to change. The theory of gravity is just that, a theory. We are all reasonably sure that gravity will continue to hold us onto the earth's surface. But I may wake up one day floating on near the ceiling. If that's the case, then the theory of gravity must be revised to fit new data. But that doesn't mean that there are not truths out there that are "findable".

Those are the only truths that science seeks to find. The subjective is not discarded as untrue or useless. It is discarded as currently untestable, and therefore beyond the realm of science. If you take nothing else away from this post, please take this paragraph.
Ah, but even our language that we use (meaning English, here) has a built-in bias against the subjective. Subjective things are "...merely" or "...only" subjective. After all, it's not like they're real. ;-) The subject is extremely useful, just not for science; and if they're not useful to science, that's all that seems to matter (to the generalized "world at large"). Thank you, Aristotle (*/amused*).

I'm not saying science isn't terrific for what it does --uncovering the natural world --but it necessarily deals with the physical world and the laws that govern it. These laws simply do not apply to what goes on in our heads, which is subject to whims, moods, inspirations, aspirations --in short, everything that makes us "human" --all of which don't even follow normal rules of random behaviour. And science, for the most part, requires a solely objective, logical viewpoint to analyse its findings --though White Hat's observations about intuitions are wonderful! Thank you for that input --and the solely objective viewpoint means ignoring the subjective.

Science also C) accepts workable theories as truth so that they can be expanded and built upon. Not being able to apply millennia of well-defined laws about the natural world to the subjective realm automatically makes it near impossible to "build-upon" in that area. That's why psychological research is in such infancy.

There *is* a branch of study --not scientific, mind you, so not deemed worthy of pursuit --that is at least 6 millennia old, that has studied, examined and defined the 'laws' and 'rules' by which the subjective world operates, and employed them to make quite successful predictions that are subjectively useful to individuals. Unfortunately, this same study has been maligned and scorned since the prime of the Greek civilization as not conforming to their new philosophies of truth and logic. It has been degraded and abused by charletans and fakirs to the point where it is largely never taken seriously to any great degree. It is the foundation and method behind divination techiques like astrology, which seek truths through means other than science.

As to not proving that angels and demons talk to people, and all the other religious stuff, well, the burden of proof lies with the religious to prove to me that they are "supernatural" phenomena. Because, by Occam's Razor, if I can find an explanation that doesn't require the existance of something for which I have no proof, i.e. deity, then I am going with that explanation.

As to studying and repeating religious experiences, I will say this one more time. This has been done. Repeatedly. With a machine. A religious experience that is indistinguishable from a non-mechanical induced experience is the result, according to the participants of the study. And yes, the participants were all self-described religious people. And the non-machine induced religious experiences were tampered with and turned down/off. So, yes, God came down, gave someone something that they described as a religious experience, and scientists stopped it.

And these studies were good, double-blind studies, so the power relationships issue was minimized. I won't say it was eliminated, but steps were taken to minimize, just like any good scientific study should do.

I will, however, cede the point that at least some religions have provided avenues for the "God channel" (good term!) to be switched off. So, drugs/equipment to inhibit religiosity are not contraindicative of deity.
And that's all well and good. That they reinduced a religious experience, but did not repeat a subjective experience, was the point made. These scientists, as you've described them, are testing for an objective, not subjective, experience (i.e. they are stimulating the brain). They do not even being to touch on repeating a subjective experience.

As to the distinguishing characteristics of "blue", well, we all agree on the fact that it is blue, don't we? That means that there is SOME form of absolute value for it, yes? Just because it evokes an emotional response does not make it more or less blue. However, I think that the "subjective blue experience" you are speaking of is actually the emotional responses that a given thing causes. These are, I will agree, highly personal and at this time, not very well measured. Nor are they accurately recordable. But that doesn't mean that they are inherently unrecordable.
They are unrecordable, or rather... I'll believe it when I see it. ;-) At the moment, I simply have no proof of recordability to base any belief on.

To back this statement up, you asked me to scientifically differentiate between the minor pain in your throat and the major pain in your toe. Please see this link:

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020501/tips/3.html

And here's a more in-depth look at it, but it's a pdf, so be warned:

http://www.pulsus.com/Pain/07_04/Pdf/hodg_ed.pdf

Heck, just google "pain severity measurement".

So, there are ways to scientifically quantify subjective, personal experiences. Pain is not the only one, just the one for which I could find the clearest links.

If I missed any points that someone would like me to address as devil's advocate, please nudge me with them.
You're doing a great job. I just think you still do not understand what the subjective is. It's all in the way you look at it. ;-)

There is objective pain and there is subjective pain, and they are the same pain seen from two different perspectives. For the individual experiencing the pain to look at it objectively, he has to imagine himself as someone else apart from himself looking at himself. For the observer, well he is already objective to the subject of the pain; he has to accept that he can never observe the subject's experience because to do so would mean actually putting his consciousness into the other person.

Machines cannot record the subjective. Any "pain severity" measurement by machines is automatically an objective measurement just by virtue of having been measured from outside the subject's perspective; it is not a "subjective thing" that has been measured. It's all about perspectives. Subjective, in this discussion, means "relating to or determined by the mind as the subject of experience".

so, i have a question that has been bothering me for some time, I guess its probably a 2 parter

1) a) Why, if religion and science are two seperate structures of truth, do the religious people feel that their beliefs need to be validated by science?

They are not see here:

http://www.outsidecontext.com/wordpress/index.php?p=48

There is only one type of truth. Everything else is missusing the term.

Nash' :sniper:

There is only one type of truth. Everything else is missusing the term.

Circular reasoning: you assume first that there is one particular kind of truth, and then use that assumption to define what exactly is meant by truth.

*nods*

"you can never cross the same river twice" is one of the truest statements ever - it holds for objective and experiential reality equally.

No, you can never step in the same river once - as you step in it the waters are flowing around you and you yourself are changing. Check your Heraclitus.

Circular reasoning: you assume first that there is one particular kind of truth, and then use that assumption to define what exactly is meant by truth.


I dont assume anything! Read the article through the link. I would post it in total but its probably too long.

EDIT: i have posted the article on the general board under "what is truth? what is knowing?"

I dont assume anything!


I had a skim through it half an hour ago, so here are some recolelctions:

You assume that the world exists outside the perceptions an individual has.

You assume thus that truth can only have one fixed value.

You employ hideously mixed metaphors... pools of ideas being used as bricks to build with...

You provide an example using possession of rocks and then use this to go off on a vague tangent about the nature of mathematical truth: here you not only fail to note that if you were to take your one rock and split it in two you would not half 'two half-rocks', but instead 'two rocks'.

You try and avoid the fact that mathematics is an axiomaic system.

They are not see here:

http://www.outsidecontext.com/wordpress/index.php?p=48

There is only one type of truth. Everything else is missusing the term.

Nash' :sniper:
Truth is truth, but there are multiple ways of looking at it.

"Those words and symbols have no meaning outside of the scientific definition of truth."

Okay. Look at your computer.

Tell the scientists that designed the plastic casing that their symbols have no meaning outside the scientific definition of truth. Tell the electrical engineers that designed the chips that their symbols have no meaning outside the scientific definition of truth. Take a look at this message board - tell the people that designed cables to transmit this information from computer to computer that their symbols have no meaning outside of the scientific definition of truth.

Sheesh, look at a cell phone, make a call - and then assert that Maxwell's Equations have no meaning outside of a rigid scientific framework.

You know why scientists think that their claims to truth apply to reality as a whole? Because those claims are used to build things, design things, and so on. All of those fancy technological gadgets that we take for granted - built on foundations of science.
And that doesnt prove anything.
Lets imagine a tribe thats practising magic,for example one to call thunder.Ever time time they made the ritual(5 times for example),there comes a thunderstorm(which is perfectly possible);does that mean that thunderstorm comes because of the magic?Multiply the number of the rituals with a very big(albeit finite)number and we have science.

Truth only enters this in the moment, that moment when the sun actually is rising, the moment that my idea can be directly related to my perception of reality, in fact the moment that I know.

So my final question “how can i know something is true?”. For me you can only know something at all when you check.
This is truth viewed subjectively, or the "experiential reality". Our concept of reality, as much as people would like to totally objectify it, is very much dependant on the experience of reality. Things are not real until we sense them, or our machines detect them, real-time. Reality occurs "now" and requires that a human consciousness perceive it.

And that doesnt prove anything.
Lets imagine a tribe thats practising magic,for example one to call thunder.Ever time time they made the ritual(5 times for example),there comes a thunderstorm(which is perfectly possible);does that mean that thunderstorm comes because of the magic?Multiply the number of the rituals with a very big(albeit finite)number and we have science.

However, if *one* time occurs when the magic doesn't bring the thunderstorm - then the theory is disproven and changed.

*That* is science.

However, if *one* time occurs when the magic doesn't bring the thunderstorm - then the theory is disproven and changed.

*That* is science.
*polite applause*

However, if *one* time occurs when the magic doesn't bring the thunderstorm - then the theory is disproven and changed.

*That* is science.
NO that is not science.Science is a study based the belief "what we see is true,and whatever is true we can see".The evolution you described above exists in many other philosophical systems.

NO that is not science.Science is a study based the belief "what we see is true,and whatever is true we can see".The evolution you described above exists in many other philosophical systems.

And, the basic tenant of science is that everything is theory until it is disproven. The fact that some philosophical systems follow parts of the scientific method is irrelevant.

Also, science does not claim that "whatever is true we can see." However, those things that we cannot observe are simply outside the realm of science.

Wow! Look what I get for playing devil's advocate here! I appreciate everyone not flaming. This is way too much fun to degrade into namecalling.

agreed

White Hats, I too am an analyst, and I must admit my bias. I have a chemistry degree and consider myself a scientist. So, my bias would slant toward the scientific. But chains of logic almost always lead into the absurd if taken too far. See Schroedinger's Cat for a good example.

lol, as funny as it may sound, i would also consider myself a scientist... more of a skeptical scientist...

Yes, Schroedinger's Cat is absolutly ridiculous. A student in my philosophy class will be presenting it, I am agahst.

Now, that being out of the way, a few points.

To those who said science will never do something, BITE YOUR TONGUE! History is full of things that science was never going to do. Science was never going to make men fly. Science was never going to cure an illness. We were never going to put a man on the moon. The list goes on and on.

Definatly. Science has Done many things. I dont think truth is a goal though. The nature of truth is within ourselves, we define what is true.

I guess what my question is, what quantitative measure do you think that there is of the subjective? What is there that a value can be applied to?

I will cede the point that we analyze everything symbolically. And thus we have to wade through a see of symbolism to get to truth. But you must realize that when science says it has the truth of something, it is A) provisional and therefore B) disprovable. All scientific truth is subject to change. The theory of gravity is just that, a theory. We are all reasonably sure that gravity will continue to hold us onto the earth's surface. But I may wake up one day floating on near the ceiling. If that's the case, then the theory of gravity must be revised to fit new data. But that doesn't mean that there are not truths out there that are "findable".

This is probably the most important part of your post (great post BTW). You outline something that i have been trying to get to. Scientific truth, a truth as defined by science. I believe this is all that science can find. So while i am sure that some day we will be able to compleatly map out the protons work in our brains during subconsious contemplation, what will that tell us about the nature of the subconsious other than it is doing this when it thinks that?

This brings up diferant classifications of truth, religious truth, scientific truths, personal truths... ect, each having a claim to TRUTH. While this may sound like I am trying to synthesize differant meanings of truth, please dont take that. There are some things that are obviously wrong, and all of these truths are defined by rules created by man, and anything made by man is subjective.

Those are the only truths that science seeks to find. The subjective is not discarded as untrue or useless. It is discarded as currently untestable, and therefore beyond the realm of science. If you take nothing else away from this post, please take this paragraph.

exactly. Somthing like God, regardless of your interpretations of his existence, is compleatly outside of the realm of science.

As to not proving that angels and demons talk to people, and all the other religious stuff, well, the burden of proof lies with the religious to prove to me that they are "supernatural" phenomena. Because, by Occam's Razor, if I can find an explanation that doesn't require the existance of something for which I have no proof, i.e. deity, then I am going with that explanation

id agree with you in principal, but it is ignorant to believe that the supernatural is impossible. While it is highly, HIGHLY, unlikly that there are demons or angels talking to people, to compleatly count it out one would have to have a test to determine if a demon/angel was present, and communicating to the person, in every instance where it is possible that one could be talking to someone. Since there is no quantitative idea of what would constitute a demon, the test is impossible, let alone testing EVERY SINGLE ONE.

As to studying and repeating religious experiences, I will say this one more time. This has been done. Repeatedly. With a machine. A religious experience that is indistinguishable from a non-mechanical induced experience is the result, according to the participants of the study. And yes, the participants were all self-described religious people. And the non-machine induced religious experiences were tampered with and turned down/off. So, yes, God came down, gave someone something that they described as a religious experience, and scientists stopped it.

I would disagree with the premise that God has given man a stuidiable religious experience. I am in agreement with you that the people who claim to have a religious experience are probably just having a rush of euphoria. We have no idea what the physiological signs of God comming in contact with man would be, as we have no verifiable interaction of man and God.

And these studies were good, double-blind studies, so the power relationships issue was minimized. I won't say it was eliminated, but steps were taken to minimize, just like any good scientific study should do.

fair enough, I'm sure the proper steps were taken.

I will, however, cede the point that at least some religions have provided avenues for the "God channel" (good term!) to be switched off. So, drugs/equipment to inhibit religiosity are not contraindicative of deity.

I wouldnt agree with you on the idea of man being able to outdo God. If God exists, then the idea is that he wouldn't really be subject to the laws of chemistry or physics. Even if we put a "anti - God" magnetic field around a person, God would HAVE to be able to communicate or be impotent, which is impossible if we accept the concept of God.

As to the distinguishing characteristics of "blue", well, we all agree on the fact that it is blue, don't we? That means that there is SOME form of absolute value for it, yes? Just because it evokes an emotional response does not make it more or less blue. However, I think that the "subjective blue experience" you are speaking of is actually the emotional responses that a given thing causes. These are, I will agree, highly personal and at this time, not very well measured. Nor are they accurately recordable. But that doesn't mean that they are inherently unrecordable.

i disagree. We believe it is blue because the society in which we live has determined that the linguistic symbol for that wavelength of light is "blue".

It is only absolute because the symbol we asigned to it is universally accepted, because a word has no value to it. Blue is worthless, until we define it. Then we can argue what is blue and what is not. Where does blue start on a wave and stop? Why? I'm sure there are reasons to these, but they are contestable points because blue, even when being discussed in terms of wavelength has no meaning outside what is asigned to it.

To back this statement up, you asked me to scientifically differentiate between the minor pain in your throat and the major pain in your toe. Please see this link:

http://www.aafp.org/afp/20020501/tips/3.html

And here's a more in-depth look at it, but it's a pdf, so be warned:

http://www.pulsus.com/Pain/07_04/Pdf/hodg_ed.pdf

Heck, just google "pain severity measurement".

So, there are ways to scientifically quantify subjective, personal experiences. Pain is not the only one, just the one for which I could find the clearest links.

If I missed any points that someone would like me to address as devil's advocate, please nudge me with them.

Interesting, but again, this is just the asignment of numbers to represent a non numerical term. If I hit you in the face, its going to hurt. If your girlfriend hits you in the face, its going to hurt. If your mother hits you in the face its going to hurt. If your son hits you in the face its going to hurt.

Provided that each hits you under the same testable conditions one would have to assume that the pain would be equal. But it wont, because you arent just a numeric point in space, there is no value for an individual person.

And, the basic tenant of science is that everything is theory until it is disproven. The fact that some philosophical systems follow parts of the scientific method is irrelevant.

Also, science does not claim that "whatever is true we can see." However, those things that we cannot observe are simply outside the realm of science.
Dont forget mathmatical proof ... that really is not "seeing" either

NO that is not science.Science is a study based the belief "what we see is true,and whatever is true we can see".The evolution you described above exists in many other philosophical systems.

im sorry but this interpretation is not only biased, but wrong

science is not a study of what is true, but what has happened and what is happening around us

it tries to find truth in facts and evidence that we can observe, and places human intellect at the height of reason.

please, no ignorance

Ah, but even our language that we use (meaning English, here) has a built-in bias against the subjective. Subjective things are "...merely" or "...only" subjective. After all, it's not like they're real. ;-) The subject is extremely useful, just not for science; and if they're not useful to science, that's all that seems to matter (to the generalized "world at large"). Thank you, Aristotle (*/amused*).
I would certainly agree that in this forum, the use of rational, objective language, and thus positions, is inherently favoured. (Which makes your posts all the more impressive. ;) )

I'm not saying science isn't terrific for what it does --uncovering the natural world --but it necessarily deals with the physical world and the laws that govern it. These laws simply do not apply to what goes on in our heads, which is subject to whims, moods, inspirations, aspirations --in short, everything that makes us "human" --all of which don't even follow normal rules of random behaviour. And science, for the most part, requires a solely objective, logical viewpoint to analyse its findings --though White Hat's observations about intuitions are wonderful! Thank you for that input --and the solely objective viewpoint means ignoring the subjective.
Here, you're agreeing with Mickonia that science only deals with the physical, natural world, thus that it requires the objective viewpoint and thus that the subjective viewpoint has no place in science. I'm not sure I necessarily agree.

Setting carefully to one side the question of whether humans are capable of achieving a solely objective viewpoint (always know where your red herrings are, so you don't trip over them later by mistake!), I agree that at some stage, science requires formal, objective proof. However, the subjective, aesthetic evaluation of theories also has a place. You most frequently see it in physics and maths, where scientists will favour or reject theories based on their (subjective) assessment of their aesthetic qualities. However, it can work in other fields. My first degree course was Materials Science, and my motivation for studying that was largely crystallography - I loved the idea that you could detirmine chemical and physical properties largely from a visual representation of the shape and orientation of molecular bonds.

Which is not to deny that an objective viewpoint is a necessary condition for science, just to say that it is perhaps not sufficient.

....

lol, as funny as it may sound, i would also consider myself a scientist... more of a skeptical scientist....

Meh ... me, I'm just a statistician, a professional pragmatist. I may not deal with absolute truth, but at least I get to order chaos and find stuff out.

Skepticism is a useful quality in a scientist, just so long as you balance it with a dash of naivity.

....

I guess what my question is, what quantitative measure do you think that there is of the subjective? What is there that a value can be applied to?

Never forget relative values. They may not be perfect, but the judicious application of the words 'less', 'same' and 'more' can get you a decent working scale.


.....

exactly. Somthing like God, regardless of your interpretations of his existence, is completely outside of the realm of science.
You've made a major assumption about the nature of God here.


....

I would disagree with the premise that God has given man a stuidiable religious experience. I am in agreement with you that the people who claim to have a religious experience are probably just having a rush of euphoria. We have no idea what the physiological signs of God comming in contact with man would be, as we have no verifiable interaction of man and God..
This is where your assumption bites. I actually pretty much agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate and put the case for God:
Let's assume God exists. If that is so, then either the prevalence of religions around the world and through history are a massive coincidence or God does interact with humans. If the latter, then in so far as religions produce observable behaviour the influence of God on humans at some stage passes from the metaphysical to the physical. I don't know how you'd operationalise that step change for a scientific experiment, but the potential is there.


...

I wouldnt agree with you on the idea of man being able to outdo God. If God exists, then the idea is that he wouldn't really be subject to the laws of chemistry or physics. Even if we put a "anti - God" magnetic field around a person, God would HAVE to be able to communicate or be impotent, which is impossible if we accept the concept of God.
Except that most religions allow their followers free will, and the ability to reject God. Very possibly just a useful cop-out, but the religious consensus seems to be that either God is not omnipotent in the conventional sense or is self limiting. In that the expression of skepticism is likely to have a physical counterpart in the chemistry of the brain, it should be possible to induce the same thing by chemical or other means, no?

Never forget relative values. They may not be perfect, but the judicious application of the words 'less', 'same' and 'more' can get you a decent working scale.

i would disagree, because my interpretation of less, same and more are differant than yours and we can have a disagreement about the objective placement of their application. Like with the colour blue, when does it stop being blue and become say, green?

You've made a major assumption about the nature of God here.

I guess I have, but I am just going on what most religions would presume about God, and specifically I guess Christianity.

If it clarifies you can put Christian in front of each mention of God I have and will in the future make

This is where your assumption bites. I actually pretty much agree with you, but just to play devil's advocate and put the case for God:
Let's assume God exists. If that is so, then either the prevalence of religions around the world and through history are a massive coincidence or God does interact with humans. If the latter, then in so far as religions produce observable behaviour the influence of God on humans at some stage passes from the metaphysical to the physical. I don't know how you'd operationalise that step change for a scientific experiment, but the potential is there.

absolutly.

I was speaking of direct physiological or neurological processes that we can trace to an origin of God.

Except that most religions allow their followers free will, and the ability to reject God. Very possibly just a useful cop-out, but the religious consensus seems to be that either God is not omnipotent in the conventional sense or is self limiting. In that the expression of skepticism is likely to have a physical counterpart in the chemistry of the brain, it should be possible to induce the same thing by chemical or other means, no?

But, assume God exists, and he wanted to talk to an athiest. There is presumably nothing that the athiest can do to overpower God, since even the laws of physics would be subject to his will.

i would disagree, because my interpretation of less, same and more are differant than yours and we can have a disagreement about the objective placement of their application. Like with the colour blue, when does it stop being blue and become say, green?
Yes, but your definitions of less, same and more and presumably more or less internally consistent for you, and, depending on the concept being operationalised, can be combined with similar relative scales put up by other people. The results won't be perfect - they will to some degree be ambiguous, but they can be used to describe and predict interesting stuff. Mostly in the softer, social sciences of course. But then that's where the study of religion belongs (pretty much).
Same thing with colours - just because you have uncertainty at the margins or in the boundaries, doesn't mean to say you can't have working definitions. People pretty much agree what blue is and what green is and that there's a useful difference. They may fall out over turquoise (sp?), but hey, that's turquoise for you. (I did mention I don't deal in absolute truth, didn't I?)


I guess I have, but I am just going on what most religions would presume about God, and specifically I guess Christianity.

If it clarifies you can put Christian in front of each mention of God I have and will in the future make

I already had. :p I just thought I'd make the point - I find the unspoken assumption of Christianity in religious discussions in this forums occasionally frustrating.

absolutly.

I was speaking of direct physiological or neurological processes that we can trace to an origin of God.
Ah but, my point was that IF God exists, then it is overwhelmingly likely He does interact with humanity so that humanity's behaviour is affected. This behaviour would have a physiological or neurological root, which we could look for.

But, assume God exists, and he wanted to talk to an athiest. There is presumably nothing that the athiest can do to overpower God, since even the laws of physics would be subject to his will.
Except that we're told that the Christian God wouldn't force the issue. (Obviously a very well brought up God.)

Albert Einstein once said that "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Now I don't think he meant this in the organised religion kind of thing, I think he meant it as a kind of belief/sprituality thing, as Einstein hated patriotism in any form and didn't like people being judged on their religion.

I think this is a valuable point. Science without belief is silly. Darwin believed in evolution, without this belief it would not have been as passionate a theory as it was.

Religion without science is just silly. To base every decision on a belief is ridiculous. You need to base it on fact with a little bit of faith.

This is why religion and science cannot be separated. They are joined by a thread but they are still joined.

Yes, but your definitions of less, same and more and presumably more or less internally consistent for you, and, depending on the concept being operationalised, can be combined with similar relative scales put up by other people. The results won't be perfect - they will to some degree be ambiguous, but they can be used to describe and predict interesting stuff. Mostly in the softer, social sciences of course. But then that's where the study of religion belongs (pretty much).
Same thing with colours - just because you have uncertainty at the margins or in the boundaries, doesn't mean to say you can't have working definitions. People pretty much agree what blue is and what green is and that there's a useful difference. They may fall out over turquoise (sp?), but hey, that's turquoise for you. (I did mention I don't deal in absolute truth, didn't I?)

of course, and i guess this would lead us to understand of non objective truth. But you understand that it wouldnt be one of the scientific truths i was talking about earlier. Its just another structure to find a new determination of what truth is.

i like that though

I already had. :p I just thought I'd make the point - I find the unspoken assumption of Christianity in religious discussions in this forums occasionally frustrating.

ya, it is kinda bad, but this is what we get in an anglo-saxon society.

:(

Ah but, my point was that IF God exists, then it is overwhelmingly likely He does interact with humanity so that humanity's behaviour is affected. This behaviour would have a physiological or neurological root, which we could look for.

fair enough. My point was that we have no evidence that he has interacted, so if he has or is we wouldn't know what we are looking for. If we could get God to come into a lab or something that would be awesome

Except that we're told that the Christian God wouldn't force the issue. (Obviously a very well brought up God.)

lol, i like that last remark

of course he wouldnt, but it stands to reason that he could.

Um, Willomena, can you give me an example of a truth that astrology has led you to? I'm curious.

There seem to be two different arguments (and I don't mean that in a hostile sense) going on this thread. One is that science cannot touch upon the "in my head" world of experiential existance. The other is that there are "outside my head" truths that science can never touch.

Is this accurate? Or am I just a hairless ape getting false positives in my pattern recognition wetware?

Okay, I'm going to try for the "blue" thing again.

Let's take this a step at a time, shall we?

Step one: Light reflects off an object, at a given wavelength/frequency. This is defined as the "scientific" concept of blue light.

Step two: Said light enters the eye and reacts with the cornea.

Step three: The rods and cones in the eye react to the "blue" light and send out nerve impulses to the "sight" centers in the brain.

Step four: These sight centers react with a flood of activity that link out to several other sections of the brain, including the verbal, emotional, creative, etc. modules in the brain.

At this point, every person has experienced the same thing, yes? The light goes into all our eyes in the same way, our eyes react in essentially the same way, our optic nerves all conduct nerve impulses in essentially the same way, and our visual modules all react essentially the same to the same stimuli. The only differences are "mechanical" differences, i.e. my eyesight is slightly different than yours because I can see a bit deeper into the ultraviolet than you can, or you have slightly better distance vision.

Is the "blue experience" different only because of these things? Or is the "blue experience" different because after Step four above, the different modules in the brain start reacting in unique ways? In essence, I am asking if you believe that the "blue experience" is different for mechanical reasons or for some other, mental/biological/"spiritual" reason. I would like everyone's take on this, please. If you would rather telegram me, that's fine. I don't want to bog down the thread. I just need clarification.

Albert Einstein once said that "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."


Einstein, for all his greatness, had his faults. He was extremely uncomfortable with the quantum uncertainty that his own work had turned up. A semi-famous quote of his was "God does not play dice with the universe". And yet his own work, and the work done based on his work, shows that there is quantum uncertainty, and all that implies, whether Einstein was comfortable with it or not.

The above quote is, in my humble opinion, a way for Einstein to assuage his conscience about his own discoveries. Remember, this is someone who had deep regrets about many things he had done over the years, most notably his involvement in the US nuclear weapons program. He had a crisis of conscience more than once in his life, and then, heroically, spent the rest of his life trying to rectify the things those crises pointed up to him as mistakes on his part.

Einstein is one of my heroes. He always has been. He always will be. But that doesn't mean he was always correct.

he (einstein)went on a bit of a decline as he got older. perhaps when someone hits a certain age, they become more set in their ways. maybe quantum mechanics came along too late in his life for him to want to accept them?

but then i can't remember the chronology of all that.

the answer to your questions is that neither religion nor science are mutually exclusive, unless you are someone who close minded.
In truth, the bible encourages us to use science to test the truth of God's word. Unfortunately, God's word is often twisted and misinterpreted.

Woman was taken from Adam's side, to be his equal. If she was meant to be subordinate,she would have been made from a foot bone or something. But she was't. Instead she came from Adam's side. That is just an example.

Yes, but your definitions of less, same and more and presumably more or less internally consistent for you, and, depending on the concept being operationalised, can be combined with similar relative scales put up by other people. The results won't be perfect - they will to some degree be ambiguous, but they can be used to describe and predict interesting stuff. Mostly in the softer, social sciences of course. But then that's where the study of religion belongs (pretty much).
Same thing with colours - just because you have uncertainty at the margins or in the boundaries, doesn't mean to say you can't have working definitions. People pretty much agree what blue is and what green is and that there's a useful difference. They may fall out over turquoise (sp?), but hey, that's turquoise for you. (I did mention I don't deal in absolute truth, didn't I?)


The problem with less, same, and more is that they are consistent within each person only to the extent that the external and internal variables can be accounted for. For example, having blood drawn while donating will hurt less than having blood drawn to be tested while one is sick. More or less doesn't apply to the blood-drawing apparatus, but the situation. And while we may be able to have working definitions for the physical properties of the wave-lengths of light that roughly account for blue, this will in no way tell us what "blue" actually means to an individual. Some may equate blue with serenity, others may equate blue with depression.


Ah but, my point was that IF God exists, then it is overwhelmingly likely He does interact with humanity so that humanity's behaviour is affected. This behaviour would have a physiological or neurological root, which we could look for.


Even if we could find physical proof of interaction, this wouldn't tell us anything about the nature of god(s), if such exist, other than it is in the nature of god to interact. Any further assertions (such as saying this proves a certain religious view true) would be based upon preconcieved notions of god. Therefore, it would no more prove or disprove the existance of a god outside of the natural world, since it is the nature of the natural world to interact.

Is the "blue experience" different only because of these things? Or is the "blue experience" different because after Step four above, the different modules in the brain start reacting in unique ways?

Step 4. At least that is what I have been meaning. And each brain is unique because of unique and unique order of experiences.

Um, Willomena, can you give me an example of a truth that astrology has led you to? I'm curious.

Means of divination were not meant to predict specific events or traits in the physical world. Saying they were is like insisting that the Mona Lisa _means_ that a woman with a funny facial expression posed for a painting or that Zen koans should be taken literally. Their truths are personal and subjective.

There seem to be two different arguments (and I don't mean that in a hostile sense) going on this thread. One is that science cannot touch upon the "in my head" world of experiential existance. The other is that there are "outside my head" truths that science can never touch.

Is this accurate? Or am I just a hairless ape getting false positives in my pattern recognition wetware?

And the third argument would be whether or not these internal and external untouchable truths are the same thing or two different kinds of things.

And, the basic tenant of science is that everything is theory until it is disproven. The fact that some philosophical systems follow parts of the scientific method is irrelevant.

Also, science does not claim that "whatever is true we can see." However, those things that we cannot observe are simply outside the realm of science.
And how does science prove theories?
By observations.(Which is what I meant by the word "see").

Dont forget mathmatical proof ... that really is not "seeing" either
Mathematical proof is included in "seeing" because the axioms in maths are formed by obsevations.
science is not a study of what is true, but what has happened and what is happening around us

Im sorry because you are biased.You accept "what I see is true" so much that you cannot think about it.
.please, no ignorance
agreed.

Means of divination were not meant to predict specific events or traits in the physical world.

I'm sorry but I must disagree here. Divination is used to predict very real things about the world. Take, for example, dowsing for water. This is a form of divination. Dowsers really believe that wherever they indicate is where someone should drill for water, despite the fact that they are never right more often than blind chance would indicate.

This held true in biblical times, as well. See, among a plethora of others, Deut. 18:10

"There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer,"

I would say that this implies a very real, definitive attempt to reveal the future. And this is only the first one that came to mind. There are, as I said, a plethora of other examples in the Bible alone.

And how does science prove theories?
By observations.(Which is what I meant by the word "see").


Science doesn't prove theories. It seeks to disprove them. If a theory is good at predicting future observations, it's used. If it isn't, it is modified or discarded. Science doesn't prove anything. It only tries to disprove.

Mathematical proof is included in "seeing" because the axioms in maths are formed by obsevations.

Definition of axiom:

A self-evident and necessary truth, or a proposition whose truth is so evident at first sight that no reasoning or demonstration can make it plainer; a proposition which it is necessary to take for granted; as, ``The whole is greater than a part;'' ``A thing can not, at the same time, be and not be.''

So, whether they are based on "seeing" or not, they are still accepted by the majority of people, not just in mathematics/science, but by all people. An axiom is something like: a triangle has three sides. If it doesn't have three sides, it's not a triangle. There is no way that a shape can have more than three sides and still retain it's "triangle-ness".

Here's the full entry on dictionary.com:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=axiom

Speaking to the subjective, experiential nature of the "reality in my head": why do we recommend our favorite foods, diners, stores, and other activities/experiences to other people? If our experiences are subjective, then why do we expect others to have similar experiences to our own?

If I stub my toe, it hurts. If I see someone else stub their toe, I know it hurts, and I know roughly how much it hurts. This is the basis for empathy, the ability to project ourselves into the situations of others. So, we possess the ability to compare our experiences with another's, correct? If there is room for comparison, then science at least has a shot at studying it effectively.

I'm sorry but I must disagree here. Divination is used to predict very real things about the world. Take, for example, dowsing for water. This is a form of divination. Dowsers really believe that wherever they indicate is where someone should drill for water, despite the fact that they are never right more often than blind chance would indicate.

This held true in biblical times, as well. See, among a plethora of others, Deut. 18:10

"There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer,"

I would say that this implies a very real, definitive attempt to reveal the future. And this is only the first one that came to mind. There are, as I said, a plethora of other examples in the Bible alone.

I was thinking more along the lines of complex divinatory systems (as opposed to coin flipping). Things such as astrology or tarot are highly symbolic in meaning, and not at all like the bastardized versions promoted by newspaper horoscopes and psychic hotlines.

If you think about, the "personality types" predicted by western astrology make some sense (moreso when nature more closely ruled people's livelihood) in a scientific way. People born at the same times of the year would have had similar earlier experiences - how warm or cold their enviornment was, the order in which they first experienced the seasons, what activities they (being with their parents) participated in first, their parents moods (as season has been proven to affect mood in many) changing how they related to the child, the quality of nutrition recieved via mother's milk and later what types and qualites of solid foods they first tasted. Early experience and nutrition has drastic long term effects on personality. It is only logical that broadly similar experiences early in life would produce very broadly similar effects on personality, and as such it can loosely predict a general state of mind in response to the natural enviornment because of reaction to buried memories. It can't say "you will fall in love" so much as "given the right circumstances your state of mind will make you more inclined to fall in love than you otherwise would be."

In a similar manner tarot can "predict" things because how a person reacts to the art (archetypal symbols) on the cards is indicative of the state of mind that they are in, and tells how they are more likely to react should a given situation arise.

They do not predict so much real things about the world, but more the subjective mindset of an individual in relation to the real world - if that makes any sense.

People can and do use them to make objective predictions, just like some people use the bible to try to make objective predictions - but that is a twisting of what I see as the intent of these symbolic systems.

Speaking to the subjective, experiential nature of the "reality in my head": why do we recommend our favorite foods, diners, stores, and other activities/experiences to other people? If our experiences are subjective, then why do we expect others to have similar experiences to our own?

If I stub my toe, it hurts. If I see someone else stub their toe, I know it hurts, and I know roughly how much it hurts. This is the basis for empathy, the ability to project ourselves into the situations of others. So, we possess the ability to compare our experiences with another's, correct? If there is room for comparison, then science at least has a shot at studying it effectively.

For the first part, usually as a way of stating that we like something or because they asked. I have never expected someone to like the things I like (although I have met people who do, and I consider it very silly). I would say that there is part of us that hopes people we are close to have similar subjective experiences as, if we share enough similar subjective experience with someone, it would indicate that our internal landscapes are somewhat similar to theirs, and our words, the way we attempt to project from the inside out, will resonate our true meaning more clearly in them. Then there are pure econoic reasons too, for example, if _everyone_ likes the same type of cola then it more likely that more stores will continue to carry it ;)

As for the second part, what you describe is the basis for sympathy - knowing how one would feel in another's situation. Empathy is more the ability to pick up on another's feelings (through changes in expression, body language, tone of voice (heard or read), possible pheremonal changes, etc) and understand those feelings regardless of whether the motivation for those feelings is known or understood. Sympathy makes empathy easier, but isn't required.

Um, Willomena, can you give me an example of a truth that astrology has led you to? I'm curious.
Um, sure. One of the truths that astrology has revealed for me is that, because I am dependant upon friends as a source of happiness I will look to my circle of friends to find love, in the form of life-long companionship. This makes it rather difficult for me when friends leave. I know, intellectually, that they have to get on with their lives, but I still very much need them.

There seem to be two different arguments (and I don't mean that in a hostile sense) going on this thread. One is that science cannot touch upon the "in my head" world of experiential existance. The other is that there are "outside my head" truths that science can never touch.

Is this accurate? Or am I just a hairless ape getting false positives in my pattern recognition wetware?
Terra - Domina is arguing a side of God that I would not. That's all I can say about that. ;-)

Okay, I'm going to try for the "blue" thing again.

Let's take this a step at a time, shall we?

Step one: Light reflects off an object, at a given wavelength/frequency. This is defined as the "scientific" concept of blue light.

Step two: Said light enters the eye and reacts with the cornea.

Step three: The rods and cones in the eye react to the "blue" light and send out nerve impulses to the "sight" centers in the brain.

Step four: These sight centers react with a flood of activity that link out to several other sections of the brain, including the verbal, emotional, creative, etc. modules in the brain.

At this point, every person has experienced the same thing, yes?
Yes. And that's a lovely objective description of what everyone experiences when they experience blue. When are we going to start talking about the subjective/experiential? You keep going back to this other view. ;)

You have imagined yourself outside yourself looking at everyone experiencing this equally. You are not being "experiential".

The light goes into all our eyes in the same way, our eyes react in essentially the same way, our optic nerves all conduct nerve impulses in essentially the same way, and our visual modules all react essentially the same to the same stimuli. The only differences are "mechanical" differences, i.e. my eyesight is slightly different than yours because I can see a bit deeper into the ultraviolet than you can, or you have slightly better distance vision.

Is the "blue experience" different only because of these things? Or is the "blue experience" different because after Step four above, the different modules in the brain start reacting in unique ways? In essence, I am asking if you believe that the "blue experience" is different for mechanical reasons or for some other, mental/biological/"spiritual" reason. I would like everyone's take on this, please. If you would rather telegram me, that's fine. I don't want to bog down the thread. I just need clarification.
The "blue experience" is different because it is experienced. And because we are all individuals, we are, by default, having individual experiences of blue. The experiential blue is "blue as we experience it."

When you spy blue with your little eye, do you go through all those thoughts? Do you think "Hmm, light reflecting off molecules... reacting with cornea... rods seeing blue. Go rods!" I'm guessing not. I'm guessing that you simply recognize blue without any thought, like the rest of us.

Experiential blue is not something you have to analyse in order to get; it's something you simply experience.

I'm not explaining this well.

I'm pressing this whole point because it was something I didn't get before I began reading about mythology and other such subjectively interpreted things. It's not something we in the modern world are programmed to think about at all, evidenced in the way you keep going back to the objective view of things. As I said, Aristotle would be proud; we've all been programmed by ancient Greek guys :-) to repress the subjective.

Because religion is an archaic form of science. I try to convince people of the fallacious nature of religion, but if they want to believe in it I will be merely frustrated. If they try to teach their outdated ideologies in science class in public schools, then I'm gonna get pissed off. Especially the idiots who say that evolution is only a theory. They're worse than the people who say that carbon testing is wrong on the dating of the Earth. Of course religion may be taught in theology, anthropology, and some english classes in public schools. The Bible got the order of things appearing right though! With the creatures. The timescale was a bit wrong though… but I doubt they had need for the words "million" and "billion" back then.

Outdated? How can they be outdated if they haven't been disproved? Religion shouldn't be taught in science, religion should be taught in the churches. How is it fallacious? It has not been proven wrong. Neither has it been proven right…

…what are peoples' opinions on Stigmata? And don't try and say they are fake - that's as bad as "carbon dating's wrong".…

Quoting "Divination and the Subject-Object Split"It is a habit of unreflective thought to take for granted that the world can be described without particular reference to the act and context of perception, where the nature of things and the laws underlying phenomena are treated as having a neutral ground of existence independant of any consciousness positing that ground. We even come to see ourselves objectively as "human-things", jostling with all other things in that neutral existence. In speaking of life and experience, we then imaginatively adopt a position somewhere outside, looking down upon "our" life, "our" experience, instead of being that life, that experirence.
Geoffrey Cornealius refers to this as the "the way of scientific imagination, with all its wonderous gifts", a "faculty of the mind". It is an exercise of our mind's ability to objectify the world around us, and it's a very special talent that has led to science and marvelous scientific discoveries. But by recognizing a completely objective way of looking at things, by default we (or more accurately, the Greeks) have created a polar opposite, a subjective way of looking at things. This has also led away from the ability to understand such things as deity, magic and myth that were, at one time, comprehended by other such faculties of mind, ones that had no split between "subjective" and "objective".
The ingrained and largely unquestioned cultural habit of valuing the "objective" has tended to the degredation of understanding deemed to be "merely subjective." This affliction undermines not only art and divination: even philosophy, once a supreme goal of thought, has been relegated to secondary status compared with the "real work" of the natural sciences. Western culture has carried through an earlier Greek and Christian attitude which has divided the realms of spirit and matter, but it has reversed the original philosophical and religous inspiration by learning to seek the foundation of truth in the world of literal and material facts. The conventional description of reality has become sundered into sharply divided objective and subjective realms.
It's the difference between viewing life as its lived, and living life. It's the difference between viewing blue as its experienced, and experiencing blue.Since our habitual leaning is to equate the "real" with the world of objects and things, the world of facts, the arbitration of the real is given over to the objective domain. The content of the subjective world "inside our heads", the totality of ideas and intuitions, theories and imaginations, whether collective or individual, has reality value only to the extent that it allows us to perceive correctly the objective world. The "really real" is outside our heads, the really real things are outside our thoughts about those things.
The subjective is, by default, unique case, unique to each individual (or group, but only the individual case is important here) --it is the view from their perspective, and only that. Why is it so important to take this into account? Because with the advent of science, it went missing, from our langauge, from our ways of thinking... Because it is so often ignored by those who think that god needs to be "proven", people on both sides of the religous debate. Because we are individual humans viewing science on one hand and god on the other, we objectify them. We ignore being the humans experiencing them in favour of taking the view of humans experiencing them. We are not going to find god with our machines ("What does God need with a starship?") or our desciptions of sparks and chemicals in the brain. The only way to find or understand God, as said so many times in the Bible and elsewhere, is to experience him, through the heart (that's the symbolic heart, not the physical organ). Look with your heart and you'll find him; and that's a symbol; and that means a subjective evaluation; and that means viewing the world around us through both subjective and objective eyes at the same time. He is *there*, but not physically real.

…what are peoples' opinions on Stigmata? And don't try and say they are fake - that's as bad as "carbon dating's wrong".…

I'd say the mind is a wonderfuly powerful devise

Originally Posted by Violets and Kitties
Means of divination were not meant to predict specific events or traits in the physical world.I'm sorry but I must disagree here. Divination is used to predict very real things about the world. Take, for example, dowsing for water. This is a form of divination. Dowsers really believe that wherever they indicate is where someone should drill for water, despite the fact that they are never right more often than blind chance would indicate.

This held true in biblical times, as well. See, among a plethora of others, Deut. 18:10

"There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer,"

I would say that this implies a very real, definitive attempt to reveal the future. And this is only the first one that came to mind. There are, as I said, a plethora of other examples in the Bible alone.
Divination is used to make predictions that are subjectively useful to the individual, whether they are about real-world things or entirely subjective things. Dowsing, on the other hand, does not make a prediction; it is a real-time event.

The "Biblical times" you speak of, of Deuteronomy, are circa 1,500-1,000 B.C., if I remember correctly. Divination, especially in those times, is a means of asking the gods for blessing. It was not used to "tell the future" at all, but to ask the gods if a certain future was favourable. "Telling the future" did not come along until the Greek re-invention of astrology a couple millennia later (by scientists, no less :)).

Divinations are used to make real-world discoveries, and that's where the confusion begins. Because modern man's consciousness has split the objective view from the subjective view, and assigned reality to those things we can view objectively, suddenly these predictions are seen to take place in the really-real world, and so become open to scientific interpretation. But the "truth" of them is only for, and only apparent to, the individual for whom the prediction is made. And that's the only person they are meant to be "true" for. (Edit: They are unquely, subjectively true.)

Im sorry because you are biased.You accept "what I see is true" so much that you cannot think about it.


achually, if you pay some attention, ive been arguing that truth is much greater than human conception, and thus not what we see

thats not quite a scientific bias now is it?

Terra - Domina is arguing a side of God that I would not. That's all I can say about that. ;-)

lol, its probably because i would consider religion a cultural phenomina

There seem to be two different arguments (and I don't mean that in a hostile sense) going on this thread. One is that science cannot touch upon the "in my head" world of experiential existance. The other is that there are "outside my head" truths that science can never touch.

Is this accurate? Or am I just a hairless ape getting false positives in my pattern recognition wetware?

kinda... I would say that there are thousands of "truths"

one truth however, which none of such truths are.

Okay, I'm going to try for the "blue" thing again.


definatly

im not disagreeing with you that we all see something that we consider blue, and because we are indoctrinated with its meaning very early, most people have the same associations to blue.

sad
calming
water
sky
Navy

But these similarities are only there because we each throughout our lives have built a subconsious repetoir of experiences, memories and especially lessons (be them moral or educational) that we associate to words (as they have no value outside what they symbolize).

However, does this give us any truth about blue? Even if each person in the world agreed to a symbol, such as the value of 1, what truth does that mean. I still dont place human reason and symbolism at the height of understanding.

Think of it this way, our sentience and reflective consiousness differentiate us in such an extreme way from the rest of the creatures on this planet. Would we ever be able to make a guinea pig aware of our consiousness and sentience and explain it to them? No, because they as animals have certain neurological limits. I'd say truth is one of those things that man's mind isn't capable of comprehending.

Speaking to the subjective, experiential nature of the "reality in my head": why do we recommend our favorite foods, diners, stores, and other activities/experiences to other people? If our experiences are subjective, then why do we expect others to have similar experiences to our own?

If I stub my toe, it hurts. If I see someone else stub their toe, I know it hurts, and I know roughly how much it hurts. This is the basis for empathy, the ability to project ourselves into the situations of others. So, we possess the ability to compare our experiences with another's, correct? If there is room for comparison, then science at least has a shot at studying it effectively.
Right; one person's subjective experience of their own reactions and responses is pretty much their basis for anticipating other's reactions. They use their experiential knowledge to estimate what happens in others.

There is lots of room of objectively comparing two things and discovering new things. Such is science; you are right.

But science cannot allow one person to know the pain that the other person feels subjectively. We can estimate based on our own experience, but we cannot know, because first-hand knowledge would require us to be him or her.

Pain is a poor example when discussing the subjective, actually, as it's a physical response, a part of the body, and hence open to being viewed either objectively or subjectively, even by the subject.

Mathematical proof is included in "seeing" because the axioms in maths are formed by obsevations.

Im sorry because you are biased.You accept "what I see is true" so much that you cannot think about it.

agreed.

Just to mention it, the axioms are not based on anyting. They were just thought up, in a reasonable way. Godel showed that every system of math contains statements that can neither be proven nor disproven and thus that the system is incomplete.
People have built other systems of math using other axioms and these systems have actually been used by scientists in there theories.

Hmm... I've been following this thread for a bit, and I think there's a nice little disconnect in definitions here.

Whether science can deal with the subjective or not is one thing - but it sure as heck can't deal with the undefined.

For science to deal with something, it needs to be defined. What IS it that we're asking about?

What IS this "experience of blue" you're asking us to find things about? I can say that "the experince of blue is all of the neurons that fire when you see the color blue." Then, science can make predictions and descriptions and generalizations - we can find the similarities between the neural firings of different people, try to find out why different people have different patterns, find out how the patterns differ within a single individual with different viewings of "blue."

But according to you, all that can't tell us anything about "The experience of blue." It's some nebulous undefined thing - something that can only be experienced by that one person.

It's true that something like that can't be touched on by science - because it's undefined! Or, rather, you're defining it to be untouchable by science. In that case, yes, science can never tell us "what it is to experience blue." But we can find out things ABOUT the experience - not the complete picture, of course, but things about it.

Hmm... I've been following this thread for a bit, and I think there's a nice little disconnect in definitions here.

Whether science can deal with the subjective or not is one thing - but it sure as heck can't deal with the undefined.

For science to deal with something, it needs to be defined. What IS it that we're asking about?

What IS this "experience of blue" you're asking us to find things about? I can say that "the experince of blue is all of the neurons that fire when you see the color blue." Then, science can make predictions and descriptions and generalizations - we can find the similarities between the neural firings of different people, try to find out why different people have different patterns, find out how the patterns differ within a single individual with different viewings of "blue."

But according to you, all that can't tell us anything about "The experience of blue." It's some nebulous undefined thing - something that can only be experienced by that one person.

It's true that something like that can't be touched on by science - because it's undefined! Or, rather, you're defining it to be untouchable by science. In that case, yes, science can never tell us "what it is to experience blue." But we can find out things ABOUT the experience - not the complete picture, of course, but things about it.
It's not undefined, not at all.

It is defined by each individual in a way that is meaningful for them. And the good news is it doesn't have to be meaningful to anyone else to qualify as "subjective." :-)