* ENLIGHTENED *.....by.....* SCIENCE *

juantoo3 said:
Which came first, religion or science? I think they have the same roots, and stem from the same place in prehistoric human development. One, over time and after many metamorphoses, became what we think of today as science. The other, over time and after many metamorphoses, became what we think of today as religion. Both stemmed from observance of the natural world...and while science today focuses on the directly observable and recreate-able, religion today focuses on the unobservable but no less meaningful as well as serving as the repository for social mores.
Click to expand...

yes, and it was called...magic > alchemy, heavily influenced by astrology [in all civilizations]..still a bit of magic in both camps [or sides] no?
 
nativeastral said:
...still a bit of magic in both camps [or sides] no?
Click to expand...

juantoo3 said:
Absolutely!
Click to expand...

Ummm... you both are trying to make them out as equal when they clearly are not.

I won't deny that there is a "bit" of magic in science, but religion is based almost entirely on it.

But nice try.

Look on the bright side. While science will most likely always trump religion in the realm of reality, religion should be able to maintain its lead in popularity for many, many years to come.

And isn't being in with the in crowd more important anyway?

Most people think so.
 
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
 
Modern Western Science has its roots in Medieval alchemy prior to the combination with folks like the Higher Critics round about 1770 or so, itself an extension of the rationalism that had its roots in the Protestant reformation. Alchemy was a holdout from the paganism that existed prior to the Romanization of Europe (H.R.E.), existing still for a long time unmolested in the rural agricultural areas...until the Kings and Queens got wind of such as the Philosopher's Stone, and by late in the Medieval period brought a lot of alchemists in under contract hoping to increase the coffers...ever wonder why Columbus and all the other Spanish / Portuguese explorers were looking for "gold *and* the fountain of youth," both of which were attributes of the Philosopher's Stone?

Interestingly enough, the Eastern path isn't remarkably different, merely on the opposite side of the world. Science still was rooted in ancient alchemy, and the impetus was the pursuit of gold and immortality in the flesh.
 
citizenzen said:
And isn't being in with the in crowd more important anyway?

Most people think so.
Click to expand...
Haven't you known me long enough to realize that is the least of my concerns?

I am always intrigued by those who wish to distinguish themselves from the crowd, and by doing so merely create another crowd...all wanting to be different in the exact same way.
 
juantoo3 said:
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-Arthur C. Clarke, "Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)
Click to expand...

To the layman it may be indistinguishable from magic.

To the layman!

But not to the scientist.

If somebody saw bright light suddenly spring from a piece of glass, they might think it was magic. But Edison, who worked on the light bulb's development for years, building on the contributions of other developers over the previous three quarters of a century knew that it was anything but magic.

Scientific advances aren't the product of magic. They are the product of countless attempts of trial and error, of theory, math and measurement, of exploration and materials. Science isn't magic, no matter how much it may appear to be, it is the result of intelligence, creativity, hard work and perseverance.

It's time to retire that little saying J23 because it's really saying more about those who don't understand science than about science itself.
 
citizenzen said:
It's time to retire that little saying J23 because it's really saying more about those who don't understand science than about science itself.
Click to expand...

You do realize who wrote that "little saying," don't you? It was a scientist...a world renowned scientist, and author of many, many books...both fiction *and* non-fiction science books, who walked with and worked with other renowned scientists of his day.

So I think I understand a bit more than you give me credit for. No surprise though...
 
Last edited:
citizenzen said:
Scientific advances aren't the product of magic. They are the product of countless attempts of trial and error, of theory, math and measurement, of exploration and materials. Science isn't magic, no matter how much it may appear to be, it is the result of intelligence, creativity, hard work and perseverance.
Click to expand...
I am also amused by people who get all worked up over something they *imagine* I said. I would correct you, but it's more entertaining for me this way.

Isn't a "jump to conclusion" just a variation on the theme of "leap of faith?"
 
juantoo3 said:
Shawn, are you aware that the Gulags and the extermination camps such as Auschwitz, were rationalized in the minds of the people by "scientific" means, specifically Darwinian socialism? In other words, these were products of science, not religion.
Click to expand...

Actually every Nazi concentration camp had both Catholic and Protestant pastors assigned to them. So to argue that science was the salve for the guilt is just as applicable to religion. This is not the first time I have seen you make unwarranted and highly spurious claims trying to paint atheism as evil. The armchair psychologist in me finds it telling.
 
Diagoras said:
That is fine, but do you not think it makes more sense that the complexities of religion - that require a developed language ability - are an appendage that developed because of our much more ancient nature as co-operative social mammals?
Click to expand...
it is of course the best available answer you currently have *if* you exclude the existence of the Divine, Revelation or anything outside the physical world on an axiomatic basis. as i exclude neither, it is merely a mechanism, shared with the higher animals, through which the Divine Will is Revealed. the consciousness of this shared mechanism, however, allows me potentially to recognise the Divine Image in them. now, i dare say none of this is important to you, but it is to me.

Bonobo's and elephants can be kind to one another.
Click to expand...
of course, but i don't think you're arguing that it therefore follows that we are interchangeable. obviously we all have different functions in the natural world. if you're trying to say that an evolutionary explanation of religion is sufficient to make all other considerations redundant, then i would have to disagree with you, for the same reason that i will continue to enjoy heavy metal guitar solos (and Talmudic discourses) despite knowing that they are not all that different in evolutionary terms from the nest of a bower bird. just because something is at one level a type of competitive sexual display behaviour doesn't mean that on another level something more subtle isn't going on at the same time. i am not a bonobo or an elephant. what makes me me is not just evolution, but includes a cultural level which, if you like, overlays that. recognising what we have in common does not mean we should forget about what we do not have in common.

shawn said:
The problem here is that people will place the credit into the domain of an idea. Ideas do nothing. I had an idea to connect with a forum and discuss things, but the idea did not follow through, rather a living being (me) inspired by the idea did the work.
Click to expand...
that is precisely the basis of dawkins' theory of memes as "viruses of the mind". philosophically speaking, however, it is somewhat less straightforward than you suggest, which you will probably dismiss as "word games", but i'm afraid you're mistaken there.

That is like saying Ford or GM built X# of vehicles last year.....when in actuality both entities are merely pieces of paper and the flesh and blood beings who work there in those factories did the actual building of said vehicles. Ford and GM built zero vehicles in their entire history, the people working there can take the credit. Likewise, religion can claim no credit for any good done as all the good (or bad) was again done by people who at the most can say that they were "inspired"; by their religious ideologies.
Click to expand...
companies too can have ideologies, you only have to look at toyota or indeed tesco for that. ideas certainly have a force of their own based on their power to inspire emulation or resistance. an organisation is simply a bounded system of various elements. people are no difference. if you are saying that the system boundary has no meaning, then i think you are mistaken. the more granular you get, the less obvious the boundaries are, but they are nonetheless visible as you get to system and supersystem level.

bhaktajan said:
IE: The race-car-driver has blind-faith that:
All those 'nuts-and-bolts' will hold together and that the rubber-wheels will stay intact etc etc . . .
Click to expand...
you do religion no service by misunderstanding science so wilfully. reliance can be placed on the nuts and bolts holding together because they and countless components manufactured under the same conditions will have been tested and found to behave a certain way within tolerances. in other words, evidence, not blind faith. i think you're fundamentally misunderstanding at what level *trust* functions in the system. it is both rougher and more subtle than experimental data of this order.

Are you absolutely sure you don't understand what I wrote? Or have you fabricated a mental-block?
Click to expand...
yes, that's right, it can't possibly be because most of us think you are writing gibberish most of the time. occasional nuggets of sense pop up, but you have to wade through an awful amount of nonsense to get to them and, frankly, it is rarely worth the trouble.

Dogbrain said:
You are acting EXACTLY LIKE the "religious" people you take a crap upon. You "feel" enlightened. Okay, so where is the SCIENTIFIC MEASUREMENT of this "enlightened" status? What are the units, where is this published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?
Click to expand...
as much as i think dogbrain's tone (as usual - and i've had occasion to warn him about this) is totally unhelpful, i do think this is a valid question.

juantoo3 said:
Shawn, are you aware that the Gulags and the extermination camps such as Auschwitz, were rationalized in the minds of the people by "scientific" means, specifically Darwinian socialism? In other words, these were products of science, not religion.
Click to expand...
juan, you're a good bloke and everything, but science was the means, not the motivation. the motivation was a perverted form of religion replacing G!D with "state", "class" and "race". this is the very definition of idolatry. you too do religion no disservice by using demonstrable old chestnuts like this as an argument and diagoras calls you on it correctly. neither nazism and communism can be correctly described as atheist, although communism thought it was.

citizenzen said:
But while science has advanced well beyond the understanding we had 2,000 years ago, religion is virtually indistinguishable.
Click to expand...
depends who you ask. on the other hand, it seems to me that some of the "virtually indistinguishable" bits seem to have been retained because they do in fact work and make sense. for example, i am routinely informed by friends undergoing marriage counselling that they have been advised to adopt a form of monthly separation that in most respects appears to resemble the jewish laws of taharat ha-mishpakha.

Last time I checked, Christians still read the Bible, Muslims the Qu'ran and Jews the Torah. Now I will agree that these religions have changed some over time and based on the culture in which they're practiced. But I think most adherents would be offended if you argued that their religion strayed from its origins. I think most would try to convince you that their interpretation honors the original more closely than others. But please, tell me how they have changed.
Click to expand...
in the same way that, if you are a parent, you have a different relationship with your children when they are newborns than when they are toddlers, small children, adolescents and adults. you speak to them differently, explain things on different levels, interact with them in a different way. they are still the same person, you are still the same person, but the relationship has developed as it has matured. the same is true of religion. we used to get "smited" for doing bad stuff, now we are expected to behave like grown-ups and learn for ourselves how to do better.

I won't deny that there is a "bit" of magic in science, but religion is based almost entirely on it.
Click to expand...
i think you're failing to distinguish between the sort of religion that falls apart when you take out the magic bits and the sort of religion that can still operate a sustainable human society without magic required. this is an important distinction.

Scientific advances aren't the product of magic. They are the product of countless attempts of trial and error, of theory, math and measurement, of exploration and materials. Science isn't magic, no matter how much it may appear to be, it is the result of intelligence, creativity, hard work and perseverance.
Click to expand...
the same is true of the system of religious law that makes judaism function.

juantoo3 said:
Judaism 2000 years ago was under the Temple system...surely you remember that? Now they are under the Synagogue system...
Click to expand...
er.. except we continue to study the Temple system in exhaustive detail for when it needs to be re-established when the messiah eventually shows up.

b'shalom

bananabrain
 
Things have really gotten far from the point I was making.
The early beliefs in the supernatural were established by various "miracle" workers who were recruited and trained, and injected as agents to found and popularize mass movements and countercultures based on myth, and to undermine and discredit any tendencies towards the emergence of the rational systems of thought that could lead to advanced technology, mastery over the environment and a real challenge then to the position of the overlords.

The superstitions and religions of Earth's early cultures were carefully contrived and implanted.
The beliefs of the Sumerians, the Babylonians, the Mayans, ancient Egyptians, the early Chinese, The native Americans, etc, all were based on notions of the supernatural, magic, legend and folklore.
Primarily, to sap them of any potential for developing logical methods of thought.
The civilizations that grew upon these foundations built cities, developed arts and agriculture, and constructed ships and simple machines, but they never evolved the sciences that could have unlocked significant power to any great degree.
It was always thwarted.

The same pattern traces through to modern times.
The various and sundry saints and apparitions who created legends by conveying messages and performing miracles, were in fact agents who were sent to reinforce and reassure.
The cults and movements that perpetuated beliefs in spiritualism and the occult, in paranormal sciences and other such nonsense that were in vogue in Europe and North America in the 19th century, were manufactured in an attempt to dilute the progress of true science and reason.
And even in the 20th century, the so-called popular reactions against science, technology, positive economic growth, new energy sources and the like were in fact carefully orchestrated.
Click to expand...
That being it seems as if our progress has been intentionally retarded by others who for some reason see this as a good thing.
Religion and other superstitious beliefs have been employed to achieve this goal.
This is the main thrust of the thread.
 
shawn said:
That being it seems as if our progress has been intentionally retarded by others who for some reason see this as a good thing. Religion and other superstitious beliefs have been employed to achieve this goal.
Click to expand...

Is this your opinion now, or feeling, or another "conspiracy fact" ??

Secondly, please define "progress."
 
shawn said:
That being it seems as if our progress has been intentionally retarded by others who for some reason see this as a good thing.
Click to expand...

Hmmm... a little to conspiratorial for my taste.

People can just be idiots... without any "reason" whatsoever. [wordplay intended]
 
bananabrain said:
juan, you're a good bloke and everything, but science was the means, not the motivation. the motivation was a perverted form of religion replacing G!D with "state", "class" and "race". this is the very definition of idolatry. you too do religion no disservice by using demonstrable old chestnuts like this as an argument and diagoras calls you on it correctly. neither nazism and communism can be correctly described as atheist, although communism thought it was.
Click to expand...

You are right BB...my response was an absolute intended to "balance" the alternate absolute that was being argued. Yes, religion did play a role...but the socio-governmental justification (by propaganda...itself an emerging science) was straight out of the social science of the day...not to mention the technologies employed in order to create a production line scale. Religion provided the bias and long standing prejudice.

The US had its own pockets that were sympathetic to Germany prior to Pearl Harbor...I want to believe that the prejudice here was not to the level it was there, but I cannot say with certainty. I do know it existed, but that is yet another one of those "hush-hush" things we refuse to look at about ourselves.
 
juantoo3 said:
You are right BB...my response was an absolute intended to "balance" the alternate absolute that was being argued.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not talking about me... because I wasn't posing an absolute argument.

You must be talking about that shawn dude.

Frankly, I think he's absolutely divine. :D
 
And now for something completely relevant:

- Speaker: Stephen Hawking - 10 days ago in an interview


Q What can a goldfish teach us about the nature of reality?
A Because it lives in a round bowl of water, a goldfish sees a distorted picture of the outside world. It would have a different picture of reality than we do. But how do we know that we have the right picture? We might also be in some giant goldfish bowl. There is no unique picture of reality. The goldfish’s view is as valid as our own.

Inside a Great Mind | Parade.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top