FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > Religion

Greetings!

Religion Discussions on religions, mysticism, and spirituality as well as opposing views such as agnosticism and atheism.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-05-2007, 11:29 PM
Kzirb's Avatar
Kzirb Kzirb is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,404
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via AIM to Kzirb
Hare Krishna

So, I was at my college today waiting for a class and was confronted by a man who is part of a spiritual/religious movement called Hare Krishna, Krishna being the name of The Supreme or "all-attractive" one, and Hare being a call to Krishna's divine energy. At first he presented me with a book, the Bhagavad Gita, which I immediately recognized as one of the most holy books in the Hindu tradition, which is religious in its essence. When I told him of my recognition of this religious text, he claimed that I was mistaken because he felt that the book displays science and fact. At this point, I felt immediately inclined to point out that the teachings and concepts in the Bhagavad Gita are not scientific because they are not backed up by any sort empirical evidence and in no way can mesh into the guidelines of science. I was not telling him that he was wrong, I was telling him that science just simply does not deal with faith. OF course, this stubborn religious idealist gave me a completely unsatisfactory explanation, based on either a lack of knowledge or complete disregard of it. He explained to me that the proof for the science presented in his book is gained through realization after having read the book. What a half assed ploy that was. I decided to point out his misconception about science, and instead of listening to me, he turned and walked away, with a face of obviously suppressed anger and frustration.

Why do so many religious people feel that religion should be included in science? Is it because they don't know the definitions of science? Is it because they feel that science is an agent working to undermine religion?
At first I thought that the man I described above just used the term science in order to capture the interest of the less religious inclined. However, anyone with a reasonable respect for science and a background with it would realize rather quickly that he was mistaken.

Creation "science", intelligent design, the Bhagavad Gita and the such are simply not scientific. This does not mean that everyone in the scientific community believes that these ideals are wrong, they just recognize that they are not scientific in nature.

In a nut shell; Religion and science should (for practical reasons) be kept separate! Just because religion is not a part of science, does not mean that it is considered wrong!
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 12-05-2007, 11:36 PM
0ddity's Avatar
0ddity 0ddity is offline
Bah Humbug
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Galaxy Supercluster
Posts: 9,828
Blog Entries: 37
Science has an air of authority, of authenticity, so they think if they can attach their belief to science, it gives their belief the same.

The other day I was harassed by scientologists trying to get me to see their "free museum exhibit" about the "death industry of psychology."
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-05-2007, 11:43 PM
Kzirb's Avatar
Kzirb Kzirb is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,404
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via AIM to Kzirb
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0ddity
Science has an air of authority, of authenticity, so they think if they can attach their belief to science, it gives their belief the same.
Good point here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0ddity
The other day I was harassed by scientologists trying to get me to see their "free museum exhibit" about the "death industry of psychology."
If your up for some good laughs, have a scientologist or dianetics practitioner run some tests on you with the spiritual capacity meter machine (I forget what it's called). It's clearly a joke, as when the machine does not work how the operator intends it to (more than 50% of the time) you get and endless sting of excuses. Basically, every time it goes as planned, its working, and every time it doesn't there was an error.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-05-2007, 11:49 PM
0ddity's Avatar
0ddity 0ddity is offline
Bah Humbug
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Galaxy Supercluster
Posts: 9,828
Blog Entries: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
spiritual capacity meter machine (I forget what it's called)
The e-meter (electrometer). Basically just a device that measures resistance of electricity through the human body. Interesting by itself? Sure. Useful in any sense for diagnosing spiritual or medical problems? No.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-06-2007, 02:35 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
So, I was at my college today waiting for a class and was confronted by a man who is part of a spiritual/religious movement called Hare Krishna, Krishna being the name of The Supreme or "all-attractive" one, and Hare being a call to Krishna's divine energy. At first he presented me with a book, the Bhagavad Gita, which I immediately recognized as one of the most holy books in the Hindu tradition, which is religious in its essence. When I told him of my recognition of this religious text, he claimed that I was mistaken because he felt that the book displays science and fact. At this point, I felt immediately inclined to point out that the teachings and concepts in the Bhagavad Gita are not scientific because they are not backed up by any sort empirical evidence and in no way can mesh into the guidelines of science. I was not telling him that he was wrong, I was telling him that science just simply does not deal with faith. OF course, this stubborn religious idealist gave me a completely unsatisfactory explanation, based on either a lack of knowledge or complete disregard of it. He explained to me that the proof for the science presented in his book is gained through realization after having read the book. What a half assed ploy that was. I decided to point out his misconception about science, and instead of listening to me, he turned and walked away, with a face of obviously suppressed anger and frustration.
I am not going to defend the Hare Krishna's because it is Hinduism/a religion especially based on faith. But I am not going to allow you get away with the above either. You say science is not based on faith? WRONG. Science conducts experiements testing their hypothesis. You must have enough faith in your hypothesis to test it. Similarly, you say empirical evidence? Wrong again, if you test the hypothesis of yoga you will become a statistic in support of it. But you have NOT tested the yoga hypothesis and it is irrational for you to tell me I am wrong without first having tested it. The best you can do is 'have faith' it is wrong. You know - the very kind of faith you criticize religions for having...... You could say the world must believe in God because the majority of the world does. The majority of the world must have tested God by some means to arrive at the fact that they believe God is real. Only people who know little science talk like you do as you have nothing else. I am far more impressed by what science DOES NOT KNOW than what it does know for all its 'empirical evidence.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
Why do so many religious people feel that religion should be included in science? Is it because they don't know the definitions of science?
I suggest the reverse may be true. It is you who do not know the 'definitions of science.' You do not know. They do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
Is it because they feel that science is an agent working to undermine religion?
At first I thought that the man I described above just used the term science in order to capture the interest of the less religious inclined. However, anyone with a reasonable respect for science and a background with it would realize rather quickly that he was mistaken.
I don't know what he said. But science worshipers (and the worship of science is called scientism) are notoriously atheists so he has good reason to believe science is working to undermine religion. Look at idiot-bain Leonard Susskind inventing 10^500 universe's to explain how life is possible in our universe. That is an excuse. Not an explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
Creation "science", intelligent design, the Bhagavad Gita and the such are simply not scientific.
Says you. These are very distinct things and should not be lumped together. together. Creationism is a Christian thing as far as I know. Intelligent Design has lots of meanings that have nothing to do with Christianity in some cases and in others not religion either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
This does not mean that everyone in the scientific community believes that these ideals are wrong, they just recognize that they are not scientific in nature.
Says you. I could tell you the very funny story of what you call 'scientific in nature.' It is a joke. There is no such thing as 'the scientific method.' That is a lie that has been taught in classrooms for over 50 years but it is not true. There is no such thing. I have references and I don't mean my collection of Philosophy of Science books.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
In a nut shell; Religion and science should (for practical reasons) be kept separate! Just because religion is not a part of science, does not mean that it is considered wrong!
About the most intelligible noise you made. Science has limits. You can get away with a lot of things on this relgion forum with jews and christians. Too bad I am not a jew or christian and don't even think highly of organized religions in general.

What a half-assed post this is. Pedestrian.

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-06-2007, 03:32 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb

Why do so many religious people feel that religion should be included in science? Is it because they don't know the definitions of science? Is it because they feel that science is an agent working to undermine religion?!

There is no such thing as religion w/o science. All science must come from religion - at least it should allude and point to science, which is nothing more than an explanation of the workings of the universe. Science, like history and maths, are faculties which explain, rather than invent, anything in the universe. Newton discovered a pre-existing phenomenon [gravity's working pricess/equations]- he did not invent gravity. Gravity is alluded to in day 4 of the creation chapter in genesis.

The Bagwat gita may be explaining a philosophical, metaphoric meaning of creation, the universe and the creator, via allegory. I am not sure if Krishna is a true historical figure - I doubt it because there is no evidence of it. There is a phenomon whereby a legend, idea or construct of the mind can become a religious devotional belief, even w/o any historicity. If tomorrow there was proof Jesus never existed, or that he was not what is claimed - I doubt if christians would foresake their belief; a syndrome of clinging to a desired falsehood can transcend a undesirable truth. Because it is metaphoric, and ultimately points to a higher phenomenon than the medium which symbolises it. Here, the belief transcends the fact, and represents a deeper phenomenon embedded in all life.

'ALL LIFE KNOWS YOU' [Psalms]
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-06-2007, 03:44 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
It is you who do not know the 'definitions of science.' You do not know.

This is true: not knowing the meaning of a word, means one does not know a portion of knowledge, and cannot think in that word's meaning. The word 'know' has its root in the word 'union' in hebrew: to know someone or something is to unionise with it [adam 'knew' eve and they became as one flesh and bone'/Gen]. At least, this is true for speech endowed humans [other life forms operate by instinct]. This is because speech is alligned with a word, by which the universe was created [there were no tools or elements pre-universe]; and human speech was alligned with and ushered via the breath - 'And Adam became a living soul' - via the breath of the nostrils [Genesis].

IOW, speech is a mysterious phenomenon, it is excluvie to one life form in the universe: there will never be another life form, even ETs, who have speech [as opposed communication] - this is the interpretation of the OT sages. Spiritual beings can communicate with humans from outside the material realm, but they can acquire speech while in this material realm only. Many find the aspect of God 'speaking' at Mount Sinai non-believable; but if they pause and think further, they will see that everything humans have been responsible for - all inventions and discoveries - are based solely on the attribute of speech; IOW, humans create via speech only - not their brains or braun. And this universe was created by a word - which acts as an action of a will of a thought. There is no *OTHER* way the universe could have emerged: there was no science, equations, maths, space, matter, energy, forces or time at one stage. This too is science - a supre science.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-06-2007, 07:37 AM
Kzirb's Avatar
Kzirb Kzirb is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,404
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via AIM to Kzirb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
I am not going to defend the Hare Krishna's because it is Hinduism/a religion especially based on faith. But I am not going to allow you get away with the above either. You say science is not based on faith? WRONG. Science conducts experiements testing their hypothesis. You must have enough faith in your hypothesis to test it.
I don't have very much time right now, so I will respond to some of the other stuff later when I find time.

My bad on some of the wording. Instead of saying science is not based on faith I should have said that scientific claims cannot be proven with faith. Similarly, something that requires faith cannot be proven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
Similarly, you say empirical evidence? Wrong again, if you test the hypothesis of yoga you will become a statistic in support of it. But you have NOT tested the yoga hypothesis and it is irrational for you to tell me I am wrong without first having tested it.
One may reach Vishnu/Krishna/God through the yogas based on devotion, knowledge, selfless actions, or all three of these paths together. I would like you to prove this.

Also note that I did not call you wrong to believe in the yoga hypothesis. I simply am stating that the Bhagavad Gita is not a scientific text in it's entirety . Also keep in mind, that I do not think that something has to be scientific in order to be the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
The best you can do is 'have faith' it is wrong. You know - the very kind of faith you criticize religions for having......
I do not criticize religious followers for having faith. Keep in mind that faith is not backed up by scientific observation and evidence, otherwise, it would not be faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
You could say the world must believe in God because the majority of the world does. The majority of the world must have tested God by some means to arrive at the fact that they believe God is real.
Well, I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon. Sure, the majority of the world may have tested God by some means, but is this testing necessarily scientific? I mean, belief in God can appear in very much the same way that people believe in superstitions. They make correlations between things that are not really correlated. I prayed to God one night, and the next day he answered my prayers, therefore God must be real! Of course on top of this, when people want to believe something, it's much easier for them to do so because they have a spiritual realization every time something goes as planned, and ignore or forget when it doesn't. It's kind of similar to people that have bad days every day because they dwell only on the bad things happening to them and it blinds them from the good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
Only people who know little science talk like you do as you have nothing else.
I can't make much sense out of this. I don't think you could possibly know what I "have". Lets just leave it at that and stay on topic here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
I am far more impressed by what science DOES NOT KNOW than what it does know for all its 'empirical evidence.'
More power to ya.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-06-2007, 07:43 AM
Kzirb's Avatar
Kzirb Kzirb is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 1,404
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via AIM to Kzirb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
Says you. I could tell you the very funny story of what you call 'scientific in nature.' It is a joke. There is no such thing as 'the scientific method.' That is a lie that has been taught in classrooms for over 50 years but it is not true. There is no such thing. I have references and I don't mean my collection of Philosophy of Science books.
Are you able to show me these references? I'm open to new information.

I would also like to hear this very funny story.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-07-2007, 04:08 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
I don't have very much time right now, so I will respond to some of the other stuff later when I find time.
My bad on some of the wording. Instead of saying science is not based on faith I should have said that scientific claims cannot be proven with faith.

Similarly, something that requires faith cannot be proven.

The above does't make sense. A scientist must have faith to test his hypothesis. Thus the hypothesis requires faith until it can be proven or disproven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
One may reach Vishnu/Krishna/God through the yogas based on devotion, knowledge, selfless actions, or all three of these paths together. I would like you to prove this.
No no no you do the proving. I have proved it to myself. Since you don't believe it it is you who needs to do any proving. What you are saying is equivalent to 'prove appletaste.' But appletaste cannot be proven. Appletaste has to be experienced to be 'proven.' Is appletaste 'scientific'?

The yoga I am talking about is raja yoga and is based on concentration. Not dogma. Not faith. No personalities. No rituals. You can concentrate on a pencil or a book/whatever you like. There are yogas like bhakti yoga that are based on devotion like religions and the Hari Krishna's are bhakti's. But that is optional. Not necessary for success in yoga. That is their choice. Yoga has no exclusive domain over God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
Also note that I did not call you wrong to believe in the yoga hypothesis. I simply am stating that the Bhagavad Gita is not a scientific text in it's entirety . Also keep in mind, that I do not think that something has to be scientific in order to be the truth.
No kidding. All of science is based on INDUCTION. There are no number of times you are going to be dropping any shoes to prove a theorem in mathematics. Mathematical truth is based on DEDUCTION.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
I do not criticize religious followers for having faith. Keep in mind that faith is not backed up by scientific observation and evidence, otherwise, it would not be faith.
A scientists hypothesis is faith also. So is the Big Bang. No one has ever produced any Big Bang before so it is not scientific either. Yet most scientists by far believe the Big Bang. Furthermore, General Relativity itself is not yet even completely proven. (Gravitational Inertia/Inertial Frame Dragging)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
Well, I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon. Sure, the majority of the world may have tested God by some means, but is this testing necessarily scientific?
The very fact that the vast majority of the world does believe in God MAKES it scientific. It is empirical evidence ITSELF. Would something in science be considered scientific if most scientists did not believe it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
I mean, belief in God can appear in very much the same way that people believe in superstitions. They make correlations between things that are not really correlated. I prayed to God one night, and the next day he answered my prayers, therefore God must be real! Of course on top of this, when people want to believe something, it's much easier for them to do so because they have a spiritual realization every time something goes as planned, and ignore or forget when it doesn't. It's kind of similar to people that have bad days every day because they dwell only on the bad things happening to them and it blinds them from the good.
Thats why you can't dumb God down to being some kind of mind and think you can understand God by your reason. But that does not mean you need to have faith in God (all your life until you die) at all. That is a bibler false belief. God can be experienced before death. But much like if you do not get a scuba tank, snorkel, take diving lessons, rent a boat and go out on the ocean/prepare for the experience you cannot go outside and yell God are you there? Most importantly if you don't look you never will find. If you did not believe you could move your arm you could not move your arm. The reality we seek is the reality we find. We are the creator of all we attract.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
Only people who know little science talk like you do as you have nothing else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
I can't make much sense out of this. I don't think you could possibly know what I "have". Lets just leave it at that and stay on topic here.
I think you have and don't like it. You talk about knowing what science is as opposed to the Hare Krishna but I have my doubts about that. As I said, it is the people that know the least about science and mathematics that like think it is greater than it actually is. F = ma. Great. Why not F = 2ma ever other Friday night? Science does not know what matter is, energy is or any of the forces. 97 percent of the universe is not on the Periodic Table of elements. 97 percent of the universe is missing as dark energy and dark matter. We are not made of what is even typical in our universe. Science does not know what life is. What healing is. Never has it ever produced anything even remotely close to life. A single cell has billions of atoms and molecules in an arrangement so complex it vastly dwarfs anything man has ever done.

Godel showed that most things that are true cannot be proven - including something as simple as arithmetic.

Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
I am far more impressed by what science DOES NOT KNOW than what it does know for all its 'empirical evidence.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kzirb
More power to ya.
You got that right. Not only is science greatly lacking, so is mathematics and the mind itself. That is why most people believe in God.

Even so, I hear what you are saying. Religion causes a lot of problems in the world. Thats why I am so adamant against dogma like the bible and Quran etc. They dumb God down and use God for poltical power in the world. Cause wars. Burning witches, crusades, die infidel, fanaticism etc. The less dogma a religion has the better and if you take these scriptures literally you comit a grievous error.

Think about this. Most scientists believe superstring theory will be the TOE for the universe. Yet there has yet to be any empirical evidence to be found to support it. (nor not support it) This is so because the theory so elegantly explains to a certain degree all matter, energy, all the forces in one theory. I suggest yoga as I know it without dogma is similar. It is not based on faith. It is testable to the extent appletaste is testable. Yoga provides powrful elegant explanations that are simple and far-reaching. Religions are sort of like Ptolomaic epicycles. The deeper you go into them the more complex and unlikely their explanations become and I mean this especially for the bible.

Galileo came close to being burned at the stake like Bruno for his 'heretical' views. Neptune could not possibly exist the Church said because the Church had not authorized another heavenly body to be in the sky......

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-07-2007, 03:27 PM
QUEST? QUEST? is offline
sailor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: long island n.y.
Posts: 655
there is no faith in science. It is actually based on doubt. If you can't show by reasoned experiment that you are right your statements have no value.all theistic statements are essentially just a matter of opinion by some self proclaimed authority.
the Bhagavad Gita is an interesting book, but there is no science in it. The Hare Krishnas are just on an emotional trip. Unfortunately, there seems to be enough of weak willed people that fall for their tripe.

Last edited by QUEST?; 12-07-2007 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-07-2007, 07:38 PM
SpudWithKnife SpudWithKnife is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,131
I wouldn't call a Hare Krishna "weak willed". They give up sex, meat, intoxicating substances and gambling. Do you call that weak willed?

Let me show you something scientific from the Bhagavad Gita.

"offering the inhaling breath into the exhaling breath, the yogi neutralises both and attains equilibrium" (my paraphrase).

This is simple to explain in physiological terms. Forget the mumbo jumbo about life-force currents. When a person concentrates so well and relaxes so deeply, the breathing begins to slow down until it eventually stops for short periods of time. The deeper you concentrate, the deeper you relax, and the longer you don't need to breathe.

THAT is scientific.

It is testable too. I would give the average person a couple of years to reach the stage where their breath is suspending for fairly long periods of time. If you don't do the test, you failed as a scientist.

Many people of repute have said that science is faith-based. BASED. How do you know for example that the laws science discovers in this part of the universe are applicable in every other part or some distant part of the universe? You DO NOT KNOW. NOBODY DOES. Yet assumptions are made regardless. A theory about how the universe works a certain way needs to be TESTED FIRST. Before you can experiment on a theory to verify its truth you need some type of belief in it. This is blind belief. If you want to say that faith is synonymous with blind belief that is up to you. I say faith is different from belief and i have my reasons. But if you say blind belief is the same thing as faith then you have just proven to yourself that science is based on faith.

Mathematics is incomplete. An incomplete theory remains a theory that is poor. It doesn't become an absolute condition by any means.

So the Hare Krishna will say that the science of yoga is ultimately realised in the person of Krishna. Due to the absolutely rubbish interpretation by Sri Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON, the Bhagavad Gita is the ultimate "science" comprising all forms of philosophy, psychology, material laws and spiritual laws, all religious forms. But this is an erroneous interpretation of the Gita. The Gita says absolutely nothing about evolution, bacteria, disease germs, technology, the origin of life and the universe and so on. For example, Prabhupada cites the Vedas as a source of indisputable knowledge that relates the idea that there are 8 million different species of life on earth. The number is more specific, but the idea is ridiculous. However, a Hare Krishna will accept this nonsense literally as true. In this way the Hare Krishna is brainwashed and their view of "science" skewed. Sanskrit may have an equivalent word for "science" but as far as i know this word and the meaning of it only existed some 400 years ago. Whereas the Gita and the Vedas were written about 3000BC. Clearly then it cannot be the case that science as a method existed in the minds of men in 3000BC. Procedures for testing things obviously existed but they would not be called scientific or make sense to us.

There is only one thing that Prabhupada got right. He said that "life comes from life". He said that scientists cannot produce life from nothing. All science can do is manipulate things that already exist. So at least he wasn't too much of an arse.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-08-2007, 01:57 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
I guess you can't read Quest. Read my lips. A scientist must have faith in their experiment long enough to test it. And in fact, since no amount of testing whatsoever proves anything exactly, a scientist must have infinite faith in their theories. You cannot say with certainty the next time you drop a shoe it will fall to the ground. That is impossible since all of science is based on induction/probability. There is always the possibility that the shoe will not fall to the ground and this is the basis of the Philosophy of Science called Falsification by Karl Popper and gang. A theory can never be proven to be true empirically except to x number of decimal places by y number of tests by population z at time t. That is the nature of science and there is no certainty in science or the universe itself. So scientists as I say are required to have infinite faith by infinite testing of their hypothesis. And as I also said, it is those people that do not even know what science is that are the very ones that have the biggest worship mats. If you don't like what I just said, there is yet a separate reason for what I just said being true and that is quantum mechanics which dispatched certainty from the universe in the early part of the 20'th century. There is no scientific reason why you will not disappear and reappear in the Andromeda galaxy 2.5 million light years away. Quantum mechanics GUARANTEES this possibility exists however small. If you think that is wild just do searchs on quantum tunneling and non-locality. Voodoo has a new name. To make it scientific, science calls it 'non-locality.'

While mathematics is based on CERTAINTY/deduction/if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true, it is the premises themselves that are uncertain bringing you right back to square one with what is certain. Axioms are 'self-evident truths that require no proof'. Unfortunately, 'self-evident' is in the 'eye of the beholder.' Relative itself. Mathematics lost its certainty with non-Euclidean geometry all by itself. Then came Godel proving that most things that are true cannot be proven to be true and even a closed system as simple as arithematic cannot be proven to be complete and consistent. Most things you know/think are true cannot be proven to be true. (See Godel A Life of Logic) Logical Positivism crashed in the early part of the 20'th century when it was shown to be self-referentially incoherent. Frege failed with the simple one line paradox by Bertrand Russell - 'Who shaves the barber in a town where the barber shaves everybody who doesn't shave themselves?' Using its own postulates Logical Positivism could not justify its own existence. Then there is Chaos and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Don't talk to me about certainty in science and mathematics. It simply isn't there except like all other things to x number of decimal places. (See Morris Kline Mathematics The Loss of Certainty). Science and mathematics are simply the best we as minds have. But that is not saying much either as the mind itself is limited.

You don't have your eye on the ball if you worship science and mathematics. You don't know the nature of their limitations. And it is a pretty safe bet to say that most scientists do not know the limits of science and mathematics let alone the limits of their own minds. But when you are an atheist, all you have is your mind and science and mathematics. You do not like to be told the limits of these things. Too bad. I don't think very highly of relgions either but science and mathematics are not worshipable either.

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-08-2007, 06:37 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by QUEST?
there is no faith in science. It is actually based on doubt. If you can't show by reasoned experiment that you are right your statements have no value.all theistic statements are essentially just a matter of opinion by some self proclaimed authority.
the Bhagavad Gita is an interesting book, but there is no science in it. The Hare Krishnas are just on an emotional trip. Unfortunately, there seems to be enough of weak willed people that fall for their tripe.

People make too much of science, and generally have not a clue what this faculty is.

Science is a record of affirmed and agreed determinations of pre-existing phenomena's workings: its like an instruction manual, with index and numbers. Science has equivalent value and is interdependent on numerous other faculties, such as maths, history, geography, philosophy and logic. Science is not an independent and sole diety but must allign with other faculties w/o contradicting them: no need to kneel or prostrate before it.

Eg: if an archeologist says a relic shows Goshen is a 2000 year old city, proven by C14 datings - while a verifiable historical stat with dates and names say Goshen is 3,500 years old: which would you pick as correct - the scientific or historical conclusion?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OSHO Philosophy anil Religion 0 11-26-2006 07:17 AM
Whether Devotees of ISKON are the best devotees anil Religion 0 11-25-2006 01:52 PM
The Resurrection of Christ is a Myth Zhavric Religion 413 10-09-2006 09:07 PM
APPROACH TO GOD dattaswami Religion 1 04-07-2006 07:31 AM
religious conversion in india-a dangarous plot nkgrock Religion 15 02-16-2006 06:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network