Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

So, basically

  1. Oct 8, 2006 #1
    what IS allowed to be discussed on these forums?;P

    I mean as persons with scientific view on world and universe...arent you ashamed or dont you feel there's something wrong with this picture?

    Is it not better to discuss and try to understand things, even if they are bad or illegal?

    Isnt it better to try to explain to your kids about drugs rather than slam the door and yell at them never to mention them again since "drugs r bad, mkay?"

    Is it not better to try approach problems and questions with an open and critical mind?

    Is it not better, even if the post is full of religious vigor, to allow for viewers to read it and then ponder on the strenght of faith?

    With all due respect, science, as far as a non-scientist such as myself understands it, is about being open, keeping a clear and critical mind.

    Let people learn and experience, dont presume that your hoarde of scientific termines and titles and work experience qualifies you to dictate learning. You cant, thats not what science is about.

    thank you
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 8, 2006 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The mods of PF do from experience that religious threads gets flamed very quickly.
    They have chosen not to have that here, and that is that, really.

    Besides, religion is anti-thetical to science, however much religionists try to convince people otherwise.
     
  4. Oct 8, 2006 #3
    True, been on these forums 5 years ago just popped by again and I remember from that time how flamy religious posts would get.

    indeed, this should be environment of calm discussions not about convincing others that your god is right.

    But instead of deleting really problematic posts or just preventing certain posters to post in certain threads if they appear to be too zealous you have chosen to entirely shut down any attempt at scientific discussion of religion (without sarcasm - this is "metaphysics section" yes?)

    Same was with thread about effects of psychadelics on human brain in another section of forums. Simply got shut down? uh well whats non-scientific about inquiring about effects of psychadelic substances on human brain?

    Sincerely, the admin who closed the thread with some really ...crude... comments would do much better job if he/she just understood that some guy is simply interested for an open debate on the field of psychadelics, and if she/he is a concerned parent she/he better get it in his head that if kids dont get anwser when they ask they'll get em on their own.

    So what good was done by closing the thread?

    So, i take it you are mainstream conservative scientists and there's not much that can be done here^^ oh well it's just a shame:-) i like these forums very much, and i think someone has done hell of a good job with this project and the initial idea itself.
     
  5. Oct 8, 2006 #4

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    As for any SCIENTIFIC discussion of religion, you can't have that without as your very first premise being that miracles do not happen or has ever happened, and hence, any report of such phenomena is basically lacking in truth.

    I would have been glad to discuss the causes and effects of the delusions of religion, but that is considered inflammatory towards the religious segment.
     
  6. Oct 8, 2006 #5
    Hmm I seriously doubt that one has to put miracles in every discussion about religion, and trust me, religious people or even theologists dont sip their coffee while talking enthusiastically how local chicken had a golden egg the last day.


    It is extremely hard, or better, wholely impossible to discuss religion from a pure scientific (materialistic) point of view, thats why we have philosophy and, notably, meta-physics.

    But yes, i understand your point, you claim that scientific discussion of religion is only possible to the extent to which religious beliefs manifests themselves in material world (as you put it, "causes and effects of the delusions of religion").

    At this point i'd like to ask you how do you feel about latests (well "latest") discoveries on field of quantum physics? I'd call them...miraculous? But then, quantum physics is an acknowladged (more or less) branch of science and while your reason might reject it's discoveries you will still try to understand them simply because it's something that can be observed (can it be?) and is considered science.


    on the other hand, you swiftly reject in 2 (dogmatic) sentances any connection of science and religion or possibility that science can try and understand religion or religious beliefs.
     
  7. Oct 8, 2006 #6
    As far as I understand it, delusions and illusions of religion come from within human reason/brain.

    As far as science goes so far that is merely a chemical process. So what is un-scientific about it?

    wouldnt it be interesting to find out which chemical process causes people to "believe" or "see miracles"?

    Or are such things merely an unwanted pawn on the chess board of science, with scientists eager to get rid of it so they can send their blistering queen boldly into new discoveries? werent some checkers left undiscovered?

    To what extent do you actually understand the "universalism" of science if you so hastily proclaim that it can not deal with another part of human thinking and universe?
     
  8. Oct 9, 2006 #7

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Religious beliefs are of equal value as the conviction of a man who thinks he is Napoleon.

    You can't prove that the guy claiming to be Napoleon is erroneous in his belief, can you?
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2006
  9. Oct 9, 2006 #8

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There have been dozens of threads discussing hallucinogens, they all go absolutely nowhere and there is no scientific value in them, they end up locked. It's not a discussion on the neurological effects on the brain, but some stoner's skewed perceptions while under the influence. Sorry, there are lots of forums on the internet where people that choose to use drugs can discuss getting stoned, this is not one of them.

    I also raised two intelligent kids that never did drugs, I gave them an answer, drugs will make you feel drugged and pointed out people that did them and let them decide for themselves. Observing the lack of control and/or grasp of reality that people on drugs exhibited was enough to steer them away.

    Arildno is spot on with why we do not discuss religion here.

    This forum does not want to be a place to discuss everything under the sun.
     
  10. Oct 9, 2006 #9

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    No it's not, no matter how much the atheists try to convince people otherwise.
     
  11. Oct 9, 2006 #10

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Yes it is:
    "I believe there is a green elephant floating about the sun, though I haven't the slightest justification for believing it. But you are obliged to regard my utterances as deep and more spiritual than your own"

    Before religionists bother to reply, they might do well to read the following essay by Bertrand Russell:
    http://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2006
  12. Oct 9, 2006 #11

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    (1) Your post is, of course, a parody of religion, rather than an apt analogy.

    (2) Religous people do have a justification for believing in it. Obviously it doesn't live up to your standards (whatever they may be); that's why it's their belief and not yours.

    (3) I challenged you on the claim that religion was antithetical to science -- but you didn't even attempt to argue that for your strawman.

    (4) Where did "spiritual" come from?


    But I'm not just here to point out that you're making flawed assertions; I actually want to argue the opposite position. And your strawman is a sufficient example, because it isn't "antithetical" to science.


    Assuming that there is a green elephant floating about the sun is not diametrically opposed to the scientific method. In fact, it's quite compatable: once we make this assumption we can turn to science to tell us what orbits it could inhabit, and by observation put bounds on how large the elephant might be.

    Yes, this assumption is not a scientific hypothesis. But so what? The only thing to which it's antithetical here is your implied position that empiricism is the only road to "truth".

    Something that offends me1 both as a Christian... and as a mathematician. :tongue:

    If you want to take absolute empiricism as the foundation of your belief system, then fine. But don't try to impose your beliefs on everyone.


    1: Okay, I admit I'm being melodramatic. I find it more amusing than offensive, at least at this point in time.
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2006
  13. Oct 9, 2006 #12

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    How do you know that green elephants are observable?

    Or do you find it utterly meaningless to speak of invisible entities?

    Or is it meaningful to speak of invisible entities as long as we provide them with omnipotence?

    Okay, then, my elephant is omnipotent, it then logically follows it possesses the power to hide itself from our instruments.
     
  14. Oct 9, 2006 #13

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Okay, I'll play along.

    OOC: This post written as if I was a believer in a green elephant floating around the sun

    I don't.

    Of course not. I should hope that you don't either! (It is safe to assume you believe in things like electrons, right?)


    OOC: The following is written as if I also believe said green elephant is omnipotent

    Yes it does. So what?
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2006
  15. Oct 9, 2006 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The belief in the existence of electrons is validated by that the consequences of the predictions that can be made out of that hypothesis are empirically found to hold.

    I am shocked that you would imply that the belief in God is of the same order as the "belief" in electrons.

    edited by Evo
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 9, 2006
  16. Oct 9, 2006 #15

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    In other words, it's not utterly meaningless to speak of invisible entities.

    I didn't mean to. I was just responding to your implication that it is utterly meaningless to speak of invisible entities.

    Besides, they are entirely different types of beliefs. We obviously have differing opinions on them, but their respective merits are not what is on trial in our discussion -- the issue is whether they are compatable, as I claim, or antithetical, as you claim.

    (At least... that's the issue I was trying to discuss)
     
    Last edited: Oct 9, 2006
  17. Oct 10, 2006 #16

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The belief in God is as intelligent as the belief in the green invisible elephant floating about the sun.

    It is that simple, and Christians are entitled to as much respect for their belief in God as I am willing to respect the ideas of the green elephant believer or the guy who thinks he is Napoleon.


    It has nothing whatsoever to do with the tolerance/intolerance issue, rather it has to do with that private knowledges or beliefs are just that, private. The individual having those essentially unjustified beliefs cannot go about demanding that his personal fantasies are to be accorded the same degree of respect as for example those beliefs that are founded on reason and objective evidence is accorded.

    To do so (demand equal respect), is just sheer arrogance on the part of the believer, nothing else.
     
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2006
  18. Oct 10, 2006 #17

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Since I've explicitly challenged it at least two times, and you haven't attempted to present a defense, I'm going to assume that you are abandoning your assertion that religion is antithetical to science.

    The fight you're trying to pick is precisely what is against forum policy. If you really want a response, you're going to have to take it to PMs.
     
  19. Oct 10, 2006 #18

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The religious attitude is indeed wholly anti-thetical to science, since private unscrutinized fantasies are regarded of equal weight as ideas founded on reason&observation.
     
  20. Oct 10, 2006 #19

    Hurkyl

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Non sequitor. However, if you replaced "science" with "empiricism", I would agree with you.

    Again, I'm not going to respond to the fight you're trying to pick: this forum is not the appropriate place for it. I know you have an axe to grind, but I had hoped you would be able to restrain yourself so that we could discuss the issue.
     
  21. Oct 10, 2006 #20

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    You are the one showing yourself unable to discuss this rationally, not me.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: So, basically
  1. Basics (Replies: 6)

  2. Basics ? (Replies: 11)

  3. So cold (Replies: 43)

  4. This is so unfair (Replies: 92)

Loading...