Forgiveness

[phart]

10 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

Playing devil's advocate.... Could you please list the folk that that would not apply to?

Correct. New IP and new username.

The full quote is " will you let it sit for a few hours so everyone can see it before deluging it with reams of your beliefs that were written by someone else, please? "

It doesn't apply to me mostly, sure my beliefs are hugely influenced by other folk, but when i write it here i mostly put it in my own words.

[Ally Bongo]

8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

I'm not exactly sure what you are on about, but how would you go about challenging The Dead Sea Scrolls?

https://www.gotquestions.org/dead-sea-scrolls.html

 

Google sites that are not biased towards your way of thinking ?

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_eisenman_wise_uncovered.htm

[DonnyTJS]

On ‎31‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 4:21 PM, Ally Bongo said:

You have to wonder what evidence ...or more appropriately ..information they read or hear to get them to revert

Fearing death is usually up there i guess

Peter Hitchens for example is a mystery to me but it's probably just all down to having to be directly opposed to his brother which no doubt helps financially

 

I don't find it particularly weird. An unquestioning faith in the natural sciences having all the answers seems to be as blinkered as an unquestioning belief in some form of interventionist God.

The science thing is interesting because so much scientific theory still rests on interpretation, and sometimes, at the most fundamental levels, the most straightforward interpretations seem to point to something metaphysical. The role of the observer in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has been known about for getting on for a century. The anthropic principle - the fact that many of the physical constants that underlie the structure of the universe are such that they enable the emergence of organic life, but there is no reason why they need to be - is completely remarkable, and yet very rarely remarked upon because the implications stretch beyond the borders of science.

I'm deeply agnostic, but have no problem with people who think there is something beyond, beneath or between the basic structures of the universe. Many of the twentieth century's greatest minds seem to accept something 'other' that isn't subject to interrogation by physical science. The world's religions are different paths that people have developed to reach an understanding of this 'other'. Many of those who choose to follow particular Faiths don't think that their doctrines or scriptures hold literal explanations; they are just gropings toward the ineffable. However, those who hold the contrary opinion are increasing in number, and that's silly and, when they come to hold positions of power, worrying.

[phart]

1 hour ago, DonnyTJS said:

I don't find it particularly weird. An unquestioning faith in the natural sciences having all the answers seems to be as blinkered as an unquestioning belief in some form of interventionist God.

The science thing is interesting because so much scientific theory still rests on interpretation, and sometimes, at the most fundamental levels, the most straightforward interpretations seem to point to something metaphysical. The role of the observer in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has been known about for getting on for a century. The anthropic principle - the fact that many of the physical constants that underlie the structure of the universe are such that they enable the emergence of organic life, but there is no reason why they need to be - is completely remarkable, and yet very rarely remarked upon because the implications stretch beyond the borders of science.

I'm deeply agnostic, but have no problem with people who think there is something beyond, beneath or between the basic structures of the universe. Many of the twentieth century's greatest minds seem to accept something 'other' that isn't subject to interrogation by physical science. The world's religions are different paths that people have developed to reach an understanding of this 'other'. Many of those who choose to follow particular Faiths don't think that their doctrines or scriptures hold literal explanations; they are just gropings toward the ineffable. However, those who hold the contrary opinion are increasing in number, and that's silly and, when they come to hold positions of power, worrying.

Donny i was actually going to PM you i found this twitter. https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview   I think you'll like it

 

an example

http://irqr.ucpress.edu/content/7/4/52

 

ps. I was speaking about the double-slit experiment last night at my mates, it's still mental.

Also replicability problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

Edited January 3, 2018 by phart

[Eisegerwind]

59 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I don't find it particularly weird. An unquestioning faith in the natural sciences having all the answers seems to be as blinkered as an unquestioning belief in some form of interventionist God.

The science thing is interesting because so much scientific theory still rests on interpretation, and sometimes, at the most fundamental levels, the most straightforward interpretations seem to point to something metaphysical. The role of the observer in the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics has been known about for getting on for a century. The anthropic principle - the fact that many of the physical constants that underlie the structure of the universe are such that they enable the emergence of organic life, but there is no reason why they need to be - is completely remarkable, and yet very rarely remarked upon because the implications stretch beyond the borders of science.

I'm deeply agnostic, but have no problem with people who think there is something beyond, beneath or between the basic structures of the universe. Many of the twentieth century's greatest minds seem to accept something 'other' that isn't subject to interrogation by physical science. The world's religions are different paths that people have developed to reach an understanding of this 'other'. Many of those who choose to follow particular Faiths don't think that their doctrines or scriptures hold literal explanations; they are just gropings toward the ineffable. However, those who hold the contrary opinion are increasing in number, and that's silly and, when they come to hold positions of power, worrying.

I know this is your 'specialist subject', but I'm not buying a lot of that. The constant comparisons of religion/faith and science are spurious, they are two different things and not necessarily exclusive.

Using expressions like' unquestioning faith in the natural sciences'   is just an attempt to make religion and science seem alike, they're not.

Most religions are not attempts by people to understand the 'other'. They are attempts by powerful elites to control and subjugate through fear, terror and ignorance.

 

[DonnyTJS]

14 minutes ago, phart said:

Donny i was actually going to PM you i found this twitter. https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview   I think you'll like it

 

an example

http://irqr.ucpress.edu/content/7/4/52

 

ps. I was speaking about the double-slit experiment last night at my mates, it's still mental.

Also replicability problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

I was about to respond with something on the reproducibility crisis and you added your edit while I looked for  the Nature article. 

Some fun stuff in those links which, although they're mainly 'human sciences' still point to one of the causes behind the reproducibility crisis - the pressure to publish in American academia.

9 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

I know this is your 'specialist subject', but I'm not buying a lot of that. The constant comparisons of religion/faith and science are spurious, they are two different things and not necessarily exclusive.

Using expressions like' unquestioning faith in the natural sciences'   is just an attempt to make religion and science seem alike, they're not.

Most religions are not attempts by people to understand the 'other'. They are attempts by powerful elites to control and subjugate through fear, terror and ignorance.

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I agree that religion and science - or faith and reason - are two different things, but you then go on to say that they are "not necessarily exclusive". That suggests you think that you can use one to interrogate the other. I'm not sure that you can, but I do think that interpretations of good scientific findings, as I suggest above, lead into areas that science is not equipped to explore.

My use of the phrase to which you object was really aimed at Ally, to whom I was replying, because it seems to me, perhaps unfairly, that he does take an unquestioning attitude without exploring some of the metaphysical implications.

I think that you have a point about powerful elites, although I was really thinking about how the world's religions developed, before they became powerful enough to develop dangerous elites - in other words, how their scriptures came about. Having said that, there are plenty of people today who subscribe to Faiths with the best motives.

[Eisegerwind]

8 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

I was about to respond with something on the reproducibility crisis and you added your edit while I looked for  the Nature article. 

Some fun stuff in those links which, although they're mainly 'human sciences' still point to one of the causes behind the reproducibility crisis - the pressure to publish in American academia.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I agree that religion and science - or faith and reason - are two different things, but you then go on to say that they are "not necessarily exclusive". That suggests you think that you can use one to interrogate the other. I'm not sure that you can, but I do think that interpretations of good scientific findings, as I suggest above, lead into areas that science is not equipped to explore.

My use of the phrase to which you object was really aimed at Ally, to whom I was replying, because it seems to me, perhaps unfairly, that he does take an unquestioning attitude without exploring some of the metaphysical implications.

I think that you have a point about powerful elites, although I was really thinking about how the world's religions developed, before they became powerful enough to develop dangerous elites - in other words, how their scriptures came about. Having said that, there are plenty of people today who subscribe to Faiths with the best motives.

Meant to say 'mutually exclusive'. Guess it's no too hard to be some wishy washy god botherer and still a biologist for example, being a fundamentalist flat earth god botherer and an astronuat might pose a few issues!

[DonnyTJS]

1 minute ago, Eisegerwind said:

Meant to say 'mutually exclusive'. Guess it's no too hard to be some wishy washy god botherer and still a biologist for example, being a fundamentalist flat earth god botherer and an astronuat might pose a few issues!

Of course. As I mentioned - such fundamentalism is silly. However, I do think it's worth thinking deeply about the implications of the anthropic principle before binning all notions of the metaphysical.

[Goozay]

47 minutes ago, DonnyTJS said:

Of course. As I mentioned - such fundamentalism is silly. However, I do think it's worth thinking deeply about the implications of the anthropic principle before binning all notions of the metaphysical.

I'd be interested to know who these fundamentalists are that have unquestioning faith in the natural sciences.

Even Richard Dawkins gives himself a 7 out of 8 (or equivalent) on the atheist scale.

[phart]

1 hour ago, DonnyTJS said:

Of course. As I mentioned - such fundamentalism is silly. However, I do think it's worth thinking deeply about the implications of the anthropic principle before binning all notions of the metaphysical.

The "three greatest physicists" Newton,Maxwell and Einstein all spoke on the metaphysical as if the implications of their science outran the science so to speak.

You can argue who the 3 greatest are, but that's not the point, those three brought a lot of things together though.

[phart]

12 minutes ago, Goozay said:

I'd be interested to know who these fundamentalists are that have unquestioning faith in the natural sciences.

Even Richard Dawkins gives himself a 7 out of 8 (or equivalent) on the atheist scale.

self marking, very scientific

[DonnyTJS]

1 hour ago, Goozay said:

I'd be interested to know who these fundamentalists are that have unquestioning faith in the natural sciences.

Even Richard Dawkins gives himself a 7 out of 8 (or equivalent) on the atheist scale.

I think I already answered that one  ...

2 hours ago, DonnyTJS said:

My use of the phrase to which you object was really aimed at Ally, to whom I was replying, because it seems to me, perhaps unfairly, that he does take an unquestioning attitude without exploring some of the metaphysical implications.

 

[Ally Bongo]

"But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the Universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying ...it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity"

Dawkins gave himself a 7 out of 8 on the atheist scale when he also applied it to fairies being at the bottom of his garden ...