Society/Culture Nobody has anything new to say about God.

[Snake_Baker]

Are you kidding? Scientism is the very definition of an ego trip.

This is where you come undone. You don't even understand how scientific method works.

That’s why they are in such a rush to put their names to their discoveries.

You really are ignorant. Look around all the stuff that surrounds you right now and try to name the scientists that are responsible for creating it. I doubt you could name one.

I’d respect a scientist more if they used a pseudonym for their published work like some of the great authors did, so it wasn’t their ego that was stroked and the focus went onto the work itself.

As for putting a name on any work, it's simply a reference point for feedback and evaluation. If some scientist invents a better method for isolating some protein and I am doing similiar work and want to get in contact, then how else am I supposed to do it if they remain nameless? FFS, most of the time they give their work a reference name just in the hope they can get a ****ing research grant approved/extended.

Scientists are overwhelmingly humble people, and the nature of their professional existence demands it!

 

[Janus]

This is where you come undone. You don't even understand how scientific method works.



You really are ignorant. Look around all the stuff that surrounds you right now and try to name the scientists that are responsible for creating it. I doubt you could name one.



As for putting a name on any work, it's simply a reference point for feedback and evaluation. If some scientists invents a better method for isolating some protein and I am doing similiar work and want to get in contact, then how else am I supposed to do it if they remain nameless? FFS, most of the time they give their work a reference name just in the hope they can get a ******* research grant approved/extended.

Scientists are overwhelmingly humble people.

I’m not talking about science. I’m talking about scientism - those who believe that science has all the answers and if it doesn’t, it’s only because they haven’t discovered it yet.

The people who invented things like plastic, LCD, plasma, the combustion engine etc. didn’t do so thinking to themselves that their invention was going to prove or disprove the existence of god. They knew one had nothing to do with the other. Got no problem with that.

Those who postulate theories that have substantial holes in them but state that “Hey, this is our best answer at the moment, but put your faith in us and not in god because we will definitely work it out” - those are the people I’m referring to.

Incidentally, most technological advancement happened before the Second World War...back when people still had a high belief in god. The best things to happen after that was shit like television, computers, smart phones...and sliced bread. Are we better or worse off for these inventions? It’s highly debatable. In fact, there are those that believe that the advent of the frequencies used in wi-fi, mobile phones and television is the very reason why the world is in the state that it’s in. Like a net of electromagnetic interference affecting the natural magnetic field of the earth, creating a sense of despair.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I’m not talking about science. I’m talking about scientism - those who believe that science has all the answers and if it doesn’t, it’s only because they haven’t discovered it yet.

Science never has "all the answers"

The people who invented things like plastic, LCD, plasma, the combustion engine etc. didn’t do so thinking to themselves that their invention was going to prove or disprove the existence of god. They knew one had nothing to do with the other. Got no problem with that.

So I will conclude that your statement:

I’m saying that belief in god was the progenitor of mathematic and scientific study,

.......is just a throwaway line based on your interpretation of history.

It has no basis now.

A "god" is simply not required now, correct?

Those who postulate theories that have substantial holes in them but state that “Hey, this is our best answer at the moment, but put your faith in us and not in god because we will definitely work it out” - those are the people I’m referring to.

Who states that?

Science doesn't compete with god, overwhelmingly it doesn't even acknowledge a god in it's processes.

Incidentally, most technological advancement happened before the Second World War...back when people still had a high belief in god. The best things to happen after that was shit like television, computers, smart phones...and sliced bread. Are we better or worse off for these inventions? It’s highly debatable. In fact, there are those that believe that the advent of the frequencies used in wi-fi, mobile phones and television is the very reason why the world is in the state that it’s in. Like a net of electromagnetic interference affecting the natural magnetic field of the earth, creating a sense of despair.

Here you go making ambiguous historical statements again. Prove it.

 

[Janus]

Science never has "all the answers"



So I will conclude that your statement:



.......is just a throwaway line based on your interpretation of history.

It has no basis now.

A "god" is simply not required, correct?



Who states that?

Science doesn't compete with god, overwhelmingly it doesn't even acknowledge a god in it's processes.



Here you go making ambiguous historical statements again. Prove it.

Ever hear of the Industrial Revolution?

The combustion engine, the telephone, the radio, flight, nuclear energy, electrical generation (both AC and DC power)...all before the end of the Second World War.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Actually that’s not what I’m saying at all.

It wasn’t that Pythagoras was correct about something. It was that the Egyptian cults were studying mathematics long before he ever came on the scene, because they needed to have an understanding of it to chart astronomical events and build the pyramids. The shafts were designed to look out at specific constellations (like Sirius).

I’m saying that belief in god was the progenitor of mathematic and scientific study, and that it’s only recently that these two areas have been seen to be incompatible.

You can believe or not believe, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is this binary opinion that if you believe in the divine that instantly means you must be some illogical imbecile, or if you don’t that means you’re super smart.

The fallacy people have is that the progression of enlightenment is linear, when the reality is that like anything, it oscillates in waves. At the moment the waveform of belief in god is at its lowest (which causes extremist behaviour in those that do believe) while belief in science is at its highest - this gives us the rampant materialism we see today. The other way - high belief in god, low belief in science - gave us the dark ages.

The golden age is when both meet in the middle - belief in god to explain the things that can’t be explained, like consciousness, and belief in science to explain the things that can.

Some people may have started out with a belief in god, and their inquiries might have been about understanding god better. There were early geologists who went out seeking proof of Noah's flood, there were early archaeologists who went out seeking confirmation of the Bible like Moses and the Exodus. They all eventually got to the point where their search directly contradicted their faith because the evidence spoke for itself. Science no longer needs god, it can stand alone without god or reference to god.

You are still desperately clinging to the idea that both can be reconciled to reveal some great mystical understanding that unifies the modern with the ancients. This is unnecessary and is really a waste of your time - to give an analogy - it is like trying to build a hybrid steam/diesel railway locomotive to get something modern and powerful but with all the romance of a steam engine. You are really just searching for a way of adding mystery and romance in science, but science doesn't need it. This is your own personal quest, to satisfy a need you have, but it is not some great insight or improvement for the rest of us.

Or to put it another way, you are seeking for elements in science that you can incorporate into your mystical beliefs in order to validate them. Once again this is your own personal quest, looking for validation of your beliefs. For the rest of us it is neither here nor there, we can have science without mysticism.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Some people may have started out with a belief in god, and their inquiries might have been about understanding god better. There were early geologists who went out seeking proof of Noah's flood, there were early archaeologists who went out seeking confirmation of the Bible like Moses and the Exodus. They all eventually got to the point where their search directly contradicted their faith because the evidence spoke for itself. Science no longer needs god, it can stand alone without god or reference to god. You are still desperately clinging to the idea that both can be reconciled to reveal some great mystical understanding that unifies the modern with the ancients. This is unnecessary and is really a waste of your time - to give an analogy - it is like trying to build a hybrid steam/diesel railway locomotive to get something modern and powerful but with all the romance of a steam engine. You are really just searching for a way of adding mystery and romance in science, but science doesn't need it. This is your own personal quest, to satisfy a need you have, but it is not some great insight or improvement for the rest of us.

Human consciousness & the historical record are what ties the ancients to us moderns.....Attempting to circumvent that thread means losing touch with our tradition & our heritage....Of who we are & where we have come from.

Yours is a recipe for denial & a cutting off from the spiritual source of our ancestors....Hubris by any other name.

Science run amok & loose of it's place & it's moorings is what leads to global warming & the destruction of our planet through the development of needless atomic bombs....Of being too clever by half & losing sight of where it is our humanity is both grounded & situated within.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Human consciousness & the historical record are what ties the ancients to us moderns.....Attempting to circumvent that thread means losing touch with our tradition & our heritage....Of who we are & where we have come from.

Yours is a recipe for denial & a cutting off from the spiritual source of our ancestors....Hubris by any other name.

Science run amok & loose of it's place & it's moorings is what leads to global warming & the destruction of our planet through the development of needless atomic bombs....Of being too clever by half & losing sight of where it is our humanity is both grounded & situated within.

There is nothing wrong with that, and no danger. We are tied to the ancients through DNA. Tradition and heritage are meaningless if they are not based upon verifiable truth. Myth, legend, fables are mere romances for entertainment value.

 

[Janus]

Some people may have started out with a belief in god, and their inquiries might have been about understanding god better. There were early geologists who went out seeking proof of Noah's flood, there were early archaeologists who went out seeking confirmation of the Bible like Moses and the Exodus. They all eventually got to the point where their search directly contradicted their faith because the evidence spoke for itself. Science no longer needs god, it can stand alone without god or reference to god.

You are still desperately clinging to the idea that both can be reconciled to reveal some great mystical understanding that unifies the modern with the ancients. This is unnecessary and is really a waste of your time - to give an analogy - it is like trying to build a hybrid steam/diesel railway locomotive to get something modern and powerful but with all the romance of a steam engine. You are really just searching for a way of adding mystery and romance in science, but science doesn't need it. This is your own personal quest, to satisfy a need you have, but it is not some great insight or improvement for the rest of us.

Or to put it another way, you are seeking for elements in science that you can incorporate into your mystical beliefs in order to validate them. Once again this is your own personal quest, looking for validation of your beliefs. For the rest of us it is neither here nor there, we can have science without mysticism.

Hey, if Doc Brown could invent a time machine that runs on steam...

 

[Snake_Baker]

Ever hear of the Industrial Revolution?

The combustion engine, the telephone, the radio, flight, nuclear energy, electrical generation (both AC and DC power)...all before the end of the Second World War.

Yeah, science.

Heard of the technological revolution?

 

[Janus]

Yeah, science.

Heard of the technological revolution?

I have.

The jury is out on whether it was an advancement or a step backward in human development.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I have.

The jury is out on whether it was an advancement or a step backward in human development.

Science cares nothing for moralistic classifications.

 

[Leeda]

Ever hear of the Industrial Revolution?

The combustion engine, the telephone, the radio, flight, nuclear energy, electrical generation (both AC and DC power)...all before the end of the Second World War.

so what are you saying? trains and belt transporters are over rated... stand near the southern cross and you will see the necessity of
trains and their composite...

 

[Procrastinator35]

so what are you saying? trains and belt transporters are over rated... stand near the southern cross and you will see the necessity of
trains and their composite...

Never heard of the Luddites then?

A good example of movements that are anti-machinery, is the Amish culture....Their philosophy is prefaced upon keeping in harmony with the natural world & it's cycles....God & nature as one.

 

[Roylion]

Incidentally, most technological advancement happened before the Second World War...back when people still had a high belief in god.

One variable.... 'most technological advancement'' has little to no relationship with the other.... 'high belief in god'.

Assuming the existence of 'God', 'gods' (of whatever shape, coliur, gender or material etc.), 'divine intervention' or the 'supernatural 'has been of little to no value in helping us understand the universe.

 

[Procrastinator35]

One variable.... 'most technological advancement'' has little to no relationship with the other.... 'high belief in god'.

'God' has been of little to no value in helping us understand the universe.

You mean, other than that conscious awareness with which humanity has been furnished with in the first place.....Happy to assist.

 

[Roylion]

You mean, other than that conscious awareness with which humanity has been furnished with in the first place.....Happy to assist.

Assuming the existence of 'God', (the supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient creator and ruler of the universe having power over nature or human fortunes), 'gods' (of whatever shape, colour, gender or material etc.), 'has been of little to no value in helping us understand (the workings of) the universe.

And by extension not worthy of adoration or worship (through claims of divine and selective revelation, adherence to scripture or observance of dogma) most of which is faith based.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Assuming the existence of 'God', (the supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient creator and ruler of the universe having power over nature or human fortunes), 'gods' (of whatever shape, colour, gender or material etc.), 'has been of little to no value in helping us understand (the workings of) the universe.

And by extension not worthy of adoration or worship (through claims of divine and selective revelation, adherence to scripture or observance of dogma) most of which is faith based.

Yes....but.

You cannot circumvent the ontological primacy of the human consciousness Roylion, in any understanding or comprehension about the universe itself.

No spiritual awareness = zero understanding of the workings of the universe.

You're in my field now; & all your historical knowledge won't help you one iota here.

 

[Janus]

so what are you saying? trains and belt transporters are over rated... stand near the southern cross and you will see the necessity of
trains and their composite...

I wasn’t giving a blow by blow account of every invention.

 

[Boston tiger]

One variable.... 'most technological advancement'' has little to no relationship with the other.... 'high belief in god'.

Assuming the existence of 'God', 'gods' (of whatever shape, coliur, gender or material etc.), 'divine intervention' or the 'supernatural 'has been of little to no value in helping us understand the universe.

Stacy Trasancos
Science Was Born of Christianity: The Teaching of Fr. Stanley L. Jaki

Give Dr Trasancos a read it may add some strings to your bow.

 

[Janus]

Science cares nothing for moralistic classifications.

And that’s the whole problem.

As Jeff Goldblum says in Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with figuring out if they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

The moralistic classification is exactly where belief in a deity - or any higher power that one has to answer to - comes into play.

 

[Roylion]

You cannot circumvent the ontological primacy of the human consciousness Roylion, in any understanding or comprehension about the universe itself.

Can't you? If you take the brain out of the equation does consciousness exist at all? Does consciousness cease to exist when the brain ceases to function?

Consciousness is generally thought of as being comprised of two critical components - arousal and awareness. Arousal is likely regulated by the brainstem - the portion of the brain that links up with the spinal cord - seeing as it regulates when we sleep and wake, and our heart rate and breathing.

Researchers at Harvard University think they might be closer to identifying the physical origins of consciousness, after a study pinpointing a network of three specific regions in the brain that appear to be crucial to consciousness.

That research published in November 2016, found one small area of the brainstem - known as the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum was significantly associated with coma. They did this by looking at 36 patients with brainstem lesions - 12 of them were in a coma (unconscious) and 24 were defined as being conscious. Ten out of the 12 unconscious patients had damage in the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum, while just one out of the 24 conscious patients did.

The same research identified two areas in the cortex that were linked up to the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum, and were most likely to play a role in regulating consciousness. One was in the left, ventral, anterior insula (AI), and the other was in the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex (pACC).

To double check their work they then conducted fMRI scans of a further 45 patients either in comas or vegetative states (i.e disorders of consciousness) which showed that all of them had the network between the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum, the ventral, anterior insula and the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex disrupted.

Work is continuing.

No spiritual awareness = zero understanding of the workings of the universe.

Thanks, but I'll go instead with NASA's investigations and observations with the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE), the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope at various locations such the Planck observatory, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, NuSTAR. They do of course add to our knowledge in the various fields of cosmology, astrophysics, and fundamental physics in further developing our understandings of the workings of the universe.

You're in my field now; & all your historical knowledge won't help you one iota here.

My scientific knowledge might though. I read widely.

 

[Roylion]

The moralistic classification is exactly where belief in a deity - or any higher power that one has to answer to - comes into play.

I have no interest, desire or inclination to answer to any 'deity' or 'higher power' for any action I might take during the course of my life.

 

[Procrastinator35]

Can't you? If you take the brain out of the equation does consciousness exist at all? Does consciousness cease to exist when the brain ceases to function?

Consciousness is generally thought of as being comprised of two critical components - arousal and awareness. Arousal is likely regulated by the brainstem - the portion of the brain that links up with the spinal cord - seeing as it regulates when we sleep and wake, and our heart rate and breathing.

Researchers at Harvard University think they might be closer to identifying the physical origins of consciousness, after a study pinpointing a network of three specific regions in the brain that appear to be crucial to consciousness.

That research published in November 2016, found one small area of the brainstem - known as the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum was significantly associated with coma. They did this by looking at 36 patients with brainstem lesions - 12 of them were in a coma (unconscious) and 24 were defined as being conscious. Ten out of the 12 unconscious patients had damage in the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum, while just one out of the 24 conscious patients did.

The same research identified two areas in the cortex that were linked up to the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum, and were most likely to play a role in regulating consciousness. One was in the left, ventral, anterior insula (AI), and the other was in the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex (pACC).

To double check their work they then conducted fMRI scans of a further 45 patients either in comas or vegetative states (i.e disorders of consciousness) which showed that all of them had the network between the rostral dorsolateral pontine tegmentum, the ventral, anterior insula and the pregenual anterior cingulate cortex disrupted.

Work is continuing.

Thanks, but I'll go instead with NASA's investigations and observations with the Cosmic Microwave Background Explorer (COBE), the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope at various locations such the Planck observatory, the Chandra X-ray Observatory, NuSTAR. They do of course add to our knowledge in the various fields of cosmology, astrophysics, and fundamental physics in further developing our understandings of the workings of the universe.

My scientific knowledge might though. I read widely.

This is all well & good Roy, but you're still making the same fundamental category error that you always fall into.....Of mistaking a physical explanation for a spiritual phenomenon....Mankind requires the interplay between the 2 dimensions in order for there to be any comprehension of the physical world at all....Of the union & interchange between opposites....Of the Noumena & phenomena.

 

[Roylion]

Stacy Trasancos
Science Was Born of Christianity: The Teaching of Fr. Stanley L. Jaki

Give Dr Trasancos a read it may add some strings to your bow.

Is this the same Stacy A. Trasancos who earned a doctorate in chemistry from Penn State University and a master’s in dogmatic theology from Holy Apostles College and Seminary and is now a Christian apologist and practicing Catholic? Who then herself wrote about a Catholic priest that himself argued that Christianity essentially founded Science?

 

[Roylion]

This is all well & good Roy, but you're still making the same fundamental category error that you always fall into.....Of mistaking a physical explanation for a spiritual phenomenon....

That it is an error is merely your opinion. An opinion I don't share and also one I don't value that highly.