Crazy things Creationists have said

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know who first said it but:
"Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and they've had more practice"

Wiki attributes it to Brad Slipiec, but I have my doubts.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stupidity

I prefer the following formulation, as arguing with an idiot seems pointless to me.

Never argue with a fool. They will only pull you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan is correct, it's like telling people that watch American Idol that the show and the performers are cr@p.

And a lot more than that! We are talking about an entire way of life that is very difficult to sustain and requires tremendous dedication. It is also a way of life that is often based on beliefs gained though personal experiences. When people believe that they see God operating in their life, anything that violates that relationship is viewed as evil and/or naive.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it's sexy when women argue. I don't know why, but the more confidently and loudly they assert things, especially stupid ideas, the more it turns me on.

Could be that's off topic, though.

 

[Moridin]

And a lot more than that! We are talking about an entire way of life that is very difficult to sustain and requires tremendous dedication. It is also a way of life that is often based on beliefs gained though personal experiences. When people believe that they see God operating in their life, anything that violates that relationship is viewed as evil and/or naive.

'Our side' is mostly active in trying to sway the big majority of people who are in the middle (not completely scientific literate, but not creationists) towards science.

It's not really the aim of the scientific community to actively try to convert people.

It should be. Science 2.0

 

[Lisa!]

I think it's sexy when women argue. I don't know why, but the more confidently and loudly they assert things, especially stupid ideas, the more it turns me on.

Could be that's off topic, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

'Our side' is mostly active in trying to sway the big majority of people who are in the middle (not completely scientific literate, but not creationists) towards science.

I think only people already on "your side" will respond well to arrogance and rudeness.

 

[Moridin]

I think only people already on "your side" will respond well to arrogance and rudeness.

Unless you are pro-ID / Creationist, my side is your side. The general public does not tend to response with arrogance and rudeness? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Or was it an attempt to attack prominent critics of Intelligent Design?

 

[humanino]

I would like to come back on the idea that science is a kind of religion, because I always found it fascinating how many scientists are nervous about this point. I think the reason this makes them nervous is the following. At some point in there life, they realized that religion is often a mean for people to overcome there fears, or to provide a solution to things they do not understand. Then, those scientist tend to make fun of or have contempt for the intellectual weakness of religious people. However, most of them fail to realize the religious aspect of science.

Why would Nature be understandable at all ? Scientist believe this is the case. This is faith. It is very efficient, and very real, but still. The chaotic behavior of people out there is scary. Riemann hidden under his large beard for instance, would probably have preferred the perfect eternal cold beauty of mathematical object, to the ephemeral human feelings. (IMHO )

In particular, fundamental science and the search for the unification in Nature, which is very efficient, and very real, is faith.

I was born in a religious family, I am very little religious myself anymore, but I am conviced that none of us is completely free from any kind of religious belief.

 

[jostpuur]

By hitting religion so hard with sarcasm and ridicule that people get ashamed from ever having believed in that nonsense.

It's not really the aim of the scientific community to actively try to convert people. Missionaries for Science?

As Dawkins says, Intelligent Design is not "harmless nonsense". Scientists should think more strategically.

 

[Moridin]

Science is still not a religion. In fact, it has nothing to do with religion and has no meaningful relationship.

Why would Nature be understandable at all ? Scientist believe this is the case. This is faith. It is very efficient, and very real, but still. The chaotic behavior of people out there is scary.

1. Methodological naturalism is not the same as philosophical naturalism.

Science uses methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is an a posteriori concept and means that we limit ourselves to studying natural cause and effect because it has been so successful. Agreed, individual scientists may be philosophical naturalists, but science is no such thing.

2. Fallacy of Equivocation

Word X

- Definition 1
- Definition 2

Definition 1 =/= Definition 2

Scientists 'Word X' in science, religious people 'Word X' in the supernatural. Therefore, 'Definition 1' equals 'Definition 2'.

Belief / Faith is defined as what you are willing to wager on, or where your conviction lies. Another definition is 'assume to be true, but cannot successfully motivate'. Scientists have faith in science in terms of having a conviction of it. However, they do not 'assume something to be absolute truth but cannot motivate it', which is the corner stone of basically all religions. Practically, you either have a good reason to believe the things you do or not.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_equivocation.htm
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#equivocation
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm

In particular, fundamental science and the search for the unification in Nature, which is very efficient, and very real, is faith.

Not really, since it is based on methodological naturalism and science does not claim that GUT represents absolute truth.

 

[zoobyshoe]

:!)

 

[humanino]

Agreed, individual scientists may be philosophical naturalists, but science is no such thing.

But that is actually my point. Most of them are, and that is what makes them so nervous when this issue is raised.

Science and religion are two different things, clearly. Religion had a social use in the past, which is no longer necessary, since we have well established political organization. But of course, religion had an individual use as well. To simplify, provide the inidividual with a "trash bin" for all his metaphysical issues. The scientist cannot accept the religion as such, because it is against his scientific methodology, I agree and this is very clear. But science also provides to the individual scientist with the conviction that everything, ultimately, has a logical explanation, or description. This conviction is faith. It is conforting, just as religion, for the individual.

 

[jostpuur]

Sometimes the arguments that physicists use to justify some mathematical trickery are closer to poetry than to natural science. Then claiming the poetry like reasoning to be science, makes it look quite like religion to me.

 

[Moridin]

But science also provides to the individual scientist with the conviction that everything, ultimately, has a logical explanation, or description. This conviction is faith. It is conforting, just as religion, for the individual.

Again, science is about methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Science provides no such thing. To get to strong philosophical naturalism from science, the individual would need to distort science beyond recognition. Such a conviction would be faith only if it is embraced categorically, not tentatively (as I think most scientists who are philosophical naturalists do).

Methodological Naturalism and Philosophical Naturalism: Clarifying the Connection (Barbara Forrest Ph.D)

For an interesting discussion on methodological and philosophical naturalism, see the link above.

Not being poor is also comforting to people, but that does not mean that being able to live a normal life is a religion or contains religious values.

 

[Moridin]

Sometimes the arguments that physicists use to justify some mathematical trickery are closer to poetry than to natural science. Then claiming the poetry like reasoning to be science, makes it look quite like religion to me.

Again, individual scientists may be religious, but that does not in any way translates to science being a religion or even related to it.

 

[jostpuur]

Missionaries for Science?

In fact the thing that I had first in my mind was some kind of entertainment. We should have more scifi action movies, where the storyline circles around some scientific topic instead of good guys fighting against some evil guys. To make science more fashionable.

...no! Even better! There could be some religious guys as the "bad guys" in a movie!

But now when you mentioned missionaries of science, well.. why not? I can already imagine myself ringing the door bell of some mormon family...

 

[Moridin]

We need more people like Carl Sagan.

 

[Evo]

AAAARRGGHGHH, I can't take it anymore.

Moridin, people are not equating science to religion in that they think science is based on supernatural beings and made up excuses and not real, testable results.

If a couple believe science isn't real, ignore them, they're beyond hope. I think you are misunderstanding most of the posters here though.

Edit: This is not in response to Carl Sagan.

 

[Kurdt]

But now when you mentioned missionaries of science, well.. why not? I can already imagine myself ringing the door bell of some mormon family...

Hello sir! Madam!

I don't know if you've ever considered letting God leave your lives...

 

[humanino]

Not being poor is also comforting to people, but that does not mean that being able to live a normal life is a religion or contains religious values.

Physical confort is good, and one can be glad to have it. It should not prevent one from physical exercise however. Here, what I am talking about is an intellectual confort which is not good.

I know that science provides a logical answer to every question, but it does not mean I consider it truth. The all point about me doing science is that I like to find a logical answer, not that I believe it is the true answer, or even that such a thing as the true answer exists at all. Science from this point of view is fun. But also, to many scientists, it is about uncovering the veil behind which Nature hides, revealing the ultimate truth. To them, science seems to actually define truth.

 

[Monique]

Again, individual scientists may be religious, but that does not in any way translates to science being a religion or even related to it.

Moridin, what we are arguing about is the difference between what science can be for the people and what people can be for the science.

Consider high school students that for the first time in their lives learn about all these exciting theories, to them science can be a religion: you start reading all about it and start philosophizing about the implications. You take facts of science and in a sense make it your own personal religion. I've been to popular science lectures of Brian Greene. What is presented is not science, but a popular version of it that mostly is highly philosophical.

People are for the science is that we must scrutinize every detail and test models and come up with evidence. A lecture in this area is one that you would expect at a conference.

So the first example does not say anything about the method of science, but what people do with the information that they are presented.

 

[BobG]

I think only people already on "your side" will respond well to arrogance and rudeness.

Unless you are pro-ID / Creationist, my side is your side. The general public does not tend to response with arrogance and rudeness? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Or was it an attempt to attack prominent critics of Intelligent Design?

Sarcasm is designed to identify fellow members of your own group (identifiable by "getting the joke" and laughing at it). Identifying and grouping with your own kind is a very handy skill, which makes sarcasm a very common response.

I'd use some care in how you use it though. Using such obscure sarcasm that members of your own group don't even get the joke results in separating you from your group rather than uniting you with your group. For example, if you respond to a flight attendant's statement, "We'll be landing in Chicago momentarily", with mock fear, "Will we have time to get off!??", 98.7% (of the 23 people on the plane with you) will think you're an idiot. Somewhere in the back of the head of the 23rd person, the realization that you're referring to the flight attendant's misuse of 'momentarily' is beginning to sink in, but he'll be sitting on his next plane before he laughs, which does you absolutely no good.

If you're going to use sarcasm as a recruiting tool, you need to use even more care. The sarcasm has to be an invitation to membership in your group, which means it has to be understandable even to non-members. It also has to be enjoyable enough that the prospective new member will join your group just for the opportunity to use such a prime sarcastic comment themselves. There's a few of those, comments so choice that you'd be tempted to become a devil worshipper just to use that comment in a conversation, but not many, so you face a tough challenge if you're using sarcasm as a recruiting tool.

Also refrain from the common mistake many teenagers make when first learning to use sarcasm. Don't roll your eyes unless there's actually a member of your group present. Communicating with imaginary friends just annoys people, especially if they don't have as many as you do. It just rubs in how unpopular they are and makes them want to go sulk rather join your group.

Edit: Also, never use sarcasm that might backfire on you. Dick Cavett's comment, "Are we boring you, Mr Rodale?" lost a lot of its effectiveness when it was discovered that Jerome Irving Rodale, a pioneer of organic farming, had died right there on Dick Cavett's stage. The obvious answer was, "Yes. In fact, you bored poor Mr. Rodale to death, Mr. Cavett." (off topic, but a funny moment in TV history).

 

[rewebster]

Again, individual scientists may be religious, but that does not in any way translates to science being a religion or even related to it.

hmm...


Do you have 'faith' in Einstein's theories?

or

Do you 'believe' (have a belief) in his theories?

 

[Moridin]

hmm...


Do you have 'faith' in Einstein's theories?

or

Do you 'believe' (have a belief) in his theories?

I debunked that argument here.

 

[rewebster]

I debunked that argument here.

well, that's an interesting post, but it really didn't answer my specific questions about your viewpoint of Einstein's theories. do you believe (accept) in them?--or have faith (absolute truth) in them? ...or?

 

[Moridin]

well, that's an interesting post, but it really didn't answer my specific questions about your viewpoint of Einstein's theories. do you believe (accept) in them?--or have faith (absolute truth) in them? ...or?

I certainly do not think that they represent absolute truth, but I accept them (the ones that are valid approximations) as a relevant approximation having a high degree of certainty in certain areas with well-defined error bars, supported by scientific evidence, that gets better and better (or discarded for better approximations) as more data is collected.

 

[Evo]

Sarcasm is designed to identify fellow members of your own group (identifiable by "getting the joke" and laughing at it). Identifying and grouping with your own kind is a very handy skill, which makes sarcasm a very common response.

I'd use some care in how you use it though. Using such obscure sarcasm that members of your own group don't even get the joke results in separating you from your group rather than uniting you with your group. For example, if you respond to a flight attendant's statement, "We'll be landing in Chicago momentarily", with mock fear, "Will we have time to get off!??", 98.7% (of the 23 people on the plane with you) will think you're an idiot. Somewhere in the back of the head of the 23rd person, the realization that you're referring to the flight attendant's misuse of 'momentarily' is beginning to sink in, but he'll be sitting on his next plane before he laughs, which does you absolutely no good.

If you're going to use sarcasm as a recruiting tool, you need to use even more care. The sarcasm has to be an invitation to membership in your group, which means it has to be understandable even to non-members. It also has to be enjoyable enough that the prospective new member will join your group just for the opportunity to use such a prime sarcastic comment themselves. There's a few of those, comments so choice that you'd be tempted to become a devil worshipper just to use that comment in a conversation, but not many, so you face a tough challenge if you're using sarcasm as a recruiting tool.

Also refrain from the common mistake many teenagers make when first learning to use sarcasm. Don't roll your eyes unless there's actually a member of your group present. Communicating with imaginary friends just annoys people, especially if they don't have as many as you do. It just rubs in how unpopular they are and makes them want to go sulk rather join your group.

Edit: Also, never use sarcasm that might backfire on you. Dick Cavett's comment, "Are we boring you, Mr Rodale?" lost a lot of its effectiveness when it was discovered that Jerome Irving Rodale, a pioneer of organic farming, had died right there on Dick Cavett's stage. The obvious answer was, "Yes. In fact, you bored poor Mr. Rodale to death, Mr. Cavett." (off topic, but a funny moment in TV history).

Bob, that's a great post!

 

[rewebster]

I certainly do not think that they represent absolute truth, but I accept them (the ones that are valid approximations) as a relevant approximation having a high degree of certainty in certain areas with well-defined error bars, supported by scientific evidence, that gets better and better (or discarded for better approximations) as more data is collected.

Well, that's all I was getting to also. Certain things are 'accepted' by certain people in both areas (science and religion). Both areas (science and religion) came about trying to 'explain' things, were intermingled by most for thousands of years, and they still are by some. Both use the 'what if...' scenario (Einstein: what if you could ride a beam of light? and religion: what if god (the gods?) created light?). Both have a fantasy level in a lot of ways--how can we create a wormhole? or how can we create a 'perfect' world?


According to your answer (as a believer in GRT/SRT--"but I accept them")--then how do you integrate that Einstein believed in God at the same time?

 

[Evo]

According to your answer (as a believer in GRT/SRT--"but I accept them")--then how do you integrate that Einstein believed in God at the same time?

Einstein didn't believe in a god, he was agnostic.

 

[Moridin]

Well, that's all I was getting to also. Certain things are 'accepted' by certain people in both areas (science and religion). Both areas (science and religion) came about trying to 'explain' things, were intermingled by most for thousands of years, and they still are by some. Both use the 'what if...' scenario (Einstein: what if you could ride a beam of light? and religion: what if god (the gods?) created light?). Both have a fantasy level in a lot of ways--how can we create a wormhole? or how can we create a 'perfect' world?

And both science and religion has an 'e', a 'n' and an 'i' in them. Does that makes them related in a meaningful way? The thing you mention is a though experiment and a conversational trick only. Of course science is about asking questions and pushing the frontier of science. I advice you to go over the general characteristics of a religion I posted in my first post in this topic and think about how and if they apply to science, individual scientists or high school students.

Tentatively accepting Einsteinian Theory of Relativity because of its evidence has nothing to do with what Einstein did or did not ultimately believe.

 

[rewebster]

Einstein didn't believe in a god, he was agnostic.

then, why did he evoke 'god' in some of the things he said then, if he didn't have 'some' belief in a 'god' at the times he said those things?

 

[mgb_phys]

then, why did he evoke 'god' in some of the things he said then, if he didn't have 'some' belief in a 'god' at the times he said those things?

For humorous or literary reasons ,like "God doesn't play dice".
Or the same reason I say "Oh God" when I hit my thumb not "Oh quantum fluctuation in the zero point energy"

 

[Evo]

then, why did he evoke 'god' in some of the things he said then, if he didn't have 'some' belief in a 'god' at the times he said those things?

He's been misquoted by those that wish to portray him as believing.

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.

 

[rewebster]

Tentatively accepting Einsteinian Theory of Relativity because of its evidence has nothing to do with what Einstein did or did not ultimately believe.

And that's the way that 'some' have a 'belief' in religion too.

They may think-- "I'll believe this part of it (science-relativity/religion) until it is (definitely) proven to be wrong" ---because it works for me (right now) and until it is proven (/definitely wrong) I'll keep believing it."

 

[rewebster]

For humorous or literary reasons ,like "God doesn't play dice".
Or the same reason I say "Oh God" when I hit my thumb not "Oh quantum fluctuation in the zero point energy"

(and Evo's)

hmm---that well may be, but still by saying such things such as the the 'dice' thing, still puts the 'idea' that it was/could have been in his consciousness as a verbal idea of his underlining ideas. He could have easily used a different phrase to convey the idea---the phrase seems that it was relevant to him in some way.

--Who knows, could it have been a Freudian slip?

-------------------------------

do 'true' agnostics evoke god or his power?

 

[Moridin]

And that's the way that 'some' have a 'belief' in religion too.

They may think-- "I'll believe this part of it (science-relativity/religion) until it is (definitely) proven to be wrong" ---because it works for me (right now) and until it is proven (/definitely wrong) I'll keep believing it."

The problem is that supernaturalism is not supported by conclusive evidence, whereas Einsteinian relativity most certainly is. Furthermore, science has a a posteriori methodology and epistemology, whereas most forms of supernaturalism lack all three of them.

Also, a lot of supernaturalistic beliefs are dogmatic in the sense that they do not encourage questioning of earlier models and does not have such a powerful method of self-correction as science has.

And that's the way that 'some' have a 'belief' in religion too.

There is the equivocation fallacy again. 'Belief' is an ambiguous term. They may be convicted of their supernaturalistic beliefs, but they are not evidence-based.

 

[rewebster]

The problem is that supernaturalism is not supported by conclusive evidence, whereas Einsteinian relativity most certainly is. Furthermore, science has a a posteriori methodology and epistemology, whereas most forms of supernaturalism lack all three of them.

Also, a lot of supernaturalistic beliefs are dogmatic in the sense that they do not encourage questioning of earlier models and does not have such a powerful method of self-correction as science has.



There is the equivocation fallacy again. 'Belief' is an ambiguous term. They may be convicted of their supernaturalistic beliefs, but they are not evidence-based.

and that's the problem--the deeper you dig and question, the more that becomes ambiguous. The medium level stuff in science is supported. Foundation/fundamental ideas/concepts are "accepted" and are not proven or substantiated yet. And that's where religion mostly falls, to the idea that most can't be substantiated, but some still are looked at some things on a scientific level by some, and can't be not disproven-(paraphrasing the Green's statement about time travel).

--------------------------------------
It follows that:
So if you 'believe' Brian Green, you also 'believe' that there is a god.

---------------------
I've got to go--I'll be back momentarily.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Sarcasm is designed to identify fellow members of your own group (identifiable by "getting the joke" and laughing at it). Identifying and grouping with your own kind is a very handy skill, which makes sarcasm a very common response.

I'd use some care in how you use it though. Using such obscure sarcasm that members of your own group don't even get the joke results in separating you from your group rather than uniting you with your group. For example, if you respond to a flight attendant's statement, "We'll be landing in Chicago momentarily", with mock fear, "Will we have time to get off!??", 98.7% (of the 23 people on the plane with you) will think you're an idiot. Somewhere in the back of the head of the 23rd person, the realization that you're referring to the flight attendant's misuse of 'momentarily' is beginning to sink in, but he'll be sitting on his next plane before he laughs, which does you absolutely no good.

If you're going to use sarcasm as a recruiting tool, you need to use even more care. The sarcasm has to be an invitation to membership in your group, which means it has to be understandable even to non-members. It also has to be enjoyable enough that the prospective new member will join your group just for the opportunity to use such a prime sarcastic comment themselves. There's a few of those, comments so choice that you'd be tempted to become a devil worshipper just to use that comment in a conversation, but not many, so you face a tough challenge if you're using sarcasm as a recruiting tool.

Also refrain from the common mistake many teenagers make when first learning to use sarcasm. Don't roll your eyes unless there's actually a member of your group present. Communicating with imaginary friends just annoys people, especially if they don't have as many as you do. It just rubs in how unpopular they are and makes them want to go sulk rather join your group.

Edit: Also, never use sarcasm that might backfire on you. Dick Cavett's comment, "Are we boring you, Mr Rodale?" lost a lot of its effectiveness when it was discovered that Jerome Irving Rodale, a pioneer of organic farming, had died right there on Dick Cavett's stage. The obvious answer was, "Yes. In fact, you bored poor Mr. Rodale to death, Mr. Cavett." (off topic, but a funny moment in TV history).

I second what Evo said: great post.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I advice you to go over the general characteristics of a religion I posted in my first post in this topic and think about how and if they apply to science, individual scientists or high school students.

The problem you have with Monique's assertion results from your insistence on applying rigorous definitions in a conversation that most of the rest of us understand to be casual.

The guy is correct on some points that in some ways science is a religion as well...

It's not clear to me why you're so uncomfortable with what the rest of us automatically understand to be a loose, casual manner of speaking whose meaning is never-the-less clear.

Let me ask you: if someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does it fill you with discomfort, and prompt you to logically parse and refute the assertion?

I suggest you read the first chapter of the second book of Feynman's autobiographical sketches, "What Do You Care What Other People Think?" in which he relates the very casual manner in which his father used to impart good, basic scientific principles to him using examples whose details were made up on the spot and technically inaccurate. Lay in a stock of extra fuses before you do so, though. You may need to change quite a few of them.

 

[BobG]

I'd point out that the original post referred to the beliefs of a specific religious group, not religions in general. Even among different Christian religions, there's wide variations in how science/religion overlap or interact.

If you're talking about science and religion in general, I'd say the simplified answer is that science is a response to a desire to understand the universe while religion is a response to a desire that the universe have meaning. Science doesn't require there to be any meaning associated with the universe. Religion doesn't require that the meaning of the universe be understandable, just that some meaning exists. I imagine that there are a lot of people that would like to do both and consider the first a prerequisite for understanding the second.

Considering them separately, science is willing to accept (at least temporarily) an iterative solution that's approximately correct, especially if each iteration yields a more exact solution. Most scientists would accept the fact that the universe has no meaning, even though quite a few might think it nice if it did.

It becomes almost imperative to many religious groups that there be an analytical solution to the universe - sometimes* so imperative that the 'equation' becomes more important than the reality the 'equation' is designed to describe. Meaning is attached to the relationship between variables. Meaning so important that any failure of the 'equation' to describe reality has to be chalked up to poor laboratory techniques. (* sometimes, because some religions do manage to make clarifications that bring their religious beliefs closer to observed realities).

I don't think an iterative solution excludes meaning from being attached to relationships (in fact, science couldn't understand the universe without understanding how things are related), but that approach seems to be very difficult for organized religions to take. It suggests that religious leaders don't necessarily know what they're talking about and that followers don't necessarily have to believe or do what they're told. That type of attitude makes life as challenging for religious leaders as it does for political leaders. In fact, there's probably a much larger similarity between religions and political parties than there is between religion and science.

That's obviously a gross over simplification of the relationship between science and religion (Leo Kronecker would like it, though), plus that analogy completely glosses over at least one problem: In the Bible, Jesus seems fascinated by circles, yet pi was obviously invented by the devil.

 

[rewebster]

I'm having horse for lunch and pi for dessert.

 

[Moridin]

Let me ask you: if someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does it fill you with discomfort, and prompt you to logically parse and refute the assertion?

It does if the person just watched someone else actually eating a complete horse. Ken Hovind, the speaker in the video, actively believe that science is a religion, point blank in the vulgar, classical sense. In any case, I understood that I may have been too fast in pulling a standard refutation. I freely confess to being a science fanatic.

 

[rewebster]

It does if the person just watched someone else actually eating a complete horse. Ken Hovind, the speaker in the video, actively believe that science is a religion, point blank in the vulgar, classical sense. In any case, I understood that I may have been too fast in pulling a standard refutation. I freely confess to being a science fanatic.

Just as there are different levels, ideologies that make up different groups in religion, I don't mind having groups of different thinking in the Physics area.

(I had to re-write that)

 

[Moridin]

A fanatic need not have anything to do with sects or ideologies.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_/fanatic.html

Definition #2 is the one that I am refer to for myself.

 

[BobG]

Let me ask you: if someone says "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse!" does it fill you with discomfort, and prompt you to logically parse and refute the assertion?

Now that you mention it.

Is that an 'American' statement implying the person is so hungry he could eat horsemeat - a meat considered undesirable in the US? Or does it imply the person is so hungry he could eat an entire horse? If the latter, is he referring to a Shetland Pony or a Clydesdale? If he's referring to one of http://www.guidehorse.org/dispatch.htm, the thought would definitely fill me with discomfort. Consuming a horse this size wouldn't be nearly as impressive, plus it would leave the poor owner blindly groping across a busy street where he'd be struck by a car.

 

[humanino]

Is that an 'American' statement implying the person is so hungry he could eat horsemeat - a meat considered undesirable in the US?

I would have a hard time believing that.

Or does it imply the person is so hungry he could eat an entire horse?

I think this is more likely.
However, a horse is not that bigger than a bull. Maybe "I could eat a whale" would be more sound.

If the latter, is he referring to a Shetland Pony or a Clydesdale? If he's referring to one of http://www.guidehorse.org/dispatch.htm, the thought would definitely fill me with discomfort. Consuming a horse this size wouldn't be nearly as impressive, plus it would leave the poor owner blindly groping across a busy street where he'd be struck by a car.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Now that you mention it.

Is that an 'American' statement implying the person is so hungry he could eat horsemeat - a meat considered undesirable in the US? Or does it imply the person is so hungry he could eat an entire horse? If the latter, is he referring to a Shetland Pony or a Clydesdale? If he's referring to one of http://www.guidehorse.org/dispatch.htm, the thought would definitely fill me with discomfort. Consuming a horse this size wouldn't be nearly as impressive, plus it would leave the poor owner blindly groping across a busy street where he'd be struck by a car.

You'll have to watch the Hovind video. Apparently it contains footage of someone eating a complete horse.

 

[Astronuc]

If you're talking about science and religion in general, I'd say the simplified answer is that science is a response to a desire to understand the universe while religion is a response to a desire that the universe have meaning. Science doesn't require there to be any meaning associated with the universe. Religion doesn't require that the meaning of the universe be understandable, just that some meaning exists. I imagine that there are a lot of people that would like to do both and consider the first a prerequisite for understanding the second.

Considering them separately, science is willing to accept (at least temporarily) an iterative solution that's approximately correct, especially if each iteration yields a more exact solution. Most scientists would accept the fact that the universe has no meaning, even though quite a few might think it nice if it did.

Excellent points.

On the last point, possibly many scientists are agnostic, which is middle of the road, as in - the universe may or may not have meaning, but if it does we probably don't know what it is. Some would accept that the universe just is and accept that. Then there are others who have more religious or theistic view and ascribe a meaning to the universe.

The two quotes posted by Evo about Einstein pretty much express my views as a transcendental existentialist agnostic.

“If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

“I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”

It is my view that one can be agnostic or atheist and still be religious in the sense of adherring to moral and ethical principles and practices as best one can.

I see the Universe and Nature, more or less one in the same, as amazing entity. Sometimes, I just sit back an enjoy it (e.g. watching planets, stars, nebulae, galaxies, . . . ), and other times I get out and actively enjoy it (outdoor activities or gardening. And then there is the particular enjoyment of sharing that with others who share similar interest.

 

[rewebster]

good post, Astronuc--that's a better way than what I said in my Einstein's 'religion' post (I still think Einstein had to have some type 'religion' to use 'God' so relevantly in that dice statement and maybe other statements?--maybe he had 'religion' earlier in his life and was still embedded to some degree)---

It falls into an ideology/spirituality, but not the idea that most think of 'spirituality' (of the spirit world)--more of the 'spirit' to be open minded about almost, if not all, that is presented (including the knowledge of 'religion'). If someone isn't open minded to all knowledge/areas (but still discerning using judgement and reason), the logical deduction is that that person is closed minded.

There are some things studied in the 'sciences' that have always 'crossed over' into the religion area (or vice-versa)---like all the 'psychic' stuff.

 

[Astronuc]

As for Einstein's reference to 'G_d', perhaps he was speaking in the cultural context so that others might understand the point that he was trying to make.

Perhaps Einstein's views on religion/theism changed over time as a matured, as is the case for many.


Thinking of Science and Religion as tools that people use, they can be used productively (to enhance the human exerience) or destructively (to denigrate or hurt the human experience) - it all depends on the user.