Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Theology Overrides Science


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 petrushkagoogol

petrushkagoogol

    SMIEEE (Jerk who took engineering)

  • Members
  • 582 posts

Posted 14 March 2019 - 01:52 AM

Theology overrides Science

 
A) For a Chemical Engineer - Coke is the purest form of Carbon
 
B) For a Theologian - A Saint is the purest form of carbon
 
Who do we trust A or B ?


#2 GAHD

GAHD

    Eldritch Horror

  • Administrators
  • 2572 posts

Posted 14 March 2019 - 02:25 AM



I admit I enjoy the pun but...Religion is a mental illness that should be medicated.



#3 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 14 March 2019 - 03:43 AM

 

Theology overrides Science

 
A) For a Chemical Engineer - Coke is the purest form of Carbon
 
:cool: For a Theologian - A Saint is the purest form of carbon
 
Who do we trust A or B ?

 

 

A theologian discusses imaginary things like gods, that have perhaps no proof of existence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology .

 

Saints are amusingly selected by various religions as examples of what kind of behavior is considered good. This includes such things obedience, accepting suffering, even inflicting suffering on them selves etc.

 

Religion is nothing but smoke and mirrors, intended to control the minds and hearts of its followers. With extreme religions it causes human distress and hatred, and many of the wars in history. Humanity would be better off without it.

 

Religion appears to be something that can be imprinted on the minds of children that stays with them for life, possibly as some kind of mental abuse. 

 

I trust the chemical engineer over the theologian who probably does not even know how to wire an electrical socket.


Edited by Flummoxed, 14 March 2019 - 03:43 AM.


#4 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 14 March 2019 - 09:58 AM

For far too many "science," which they don't even understand, IS a religion.

 

I swear I could not find a fundy who had a more simple-minded, yet absolute, faith in, and devotion to, their ideology than some people who claim to believe only in "science."

 

For that matter, atheism adopts a basic theological and metaphysical stance.  By it's very nature, it too is a religion.  Many atheists (of the militant variety) even admit that it is their new religion.  They even have "churches" which atheists attend regularly to listen to some guy preach from a pulpit about the virtues of atheism.

 

Don't even get me started on the modern day disciples of the ancient pythagorean cult who believe that numbers are, and provide access to, the ultimate truth.  A great many so-called "scientists" belong to this sect.


Edited by Moronium, 14 March 2019 - 10:29 AM.


#5 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 14 March 2019 - 10:53 AM

For far too many "science," which they don't even understand, IS a religion.

 

I swear I could not find a fundy who had a more simple-minded, yet absolute, faith in, and devotion to, their ideology than some people who claim to believe only in "science."

 

Maybe I should reword the above to :-

 

???????????? is nothing but smoke and mirrors, intended to control the minds and hearts of people.  Looking at all the new theories out there today, its like a candy store. Taking the average they all may be partly right in some N dimensional way. Maybe the truth will be emerge nt someday Eh :)

 

Absolute faith in "general relativity" leads to dark matter, which is likely not matter at all, but an effect of how space works. I absolutely agree, some believe in the absolute correctness of relativity, like a religion :) You have to admit its predictions are pretty accurate, but then so are quantum mechanics, and the two theories are not currently compatible, although one day it might emerge that they are eh !



#6 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 14 March 2019 - 11:58 AM

Yeah, I agree, Flum.  The greatest obstacle to understanding is dogmatism:

 

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” (Bertrand Russell)

 

 


 

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so. (Mark Twain)

 

 

 

Faith does not move mountains.  On the contrary, it erects mountains where none existed (F. Nietzsche)

 

 

 

 

"Education, n.: That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding." (Ambrose Bierce)

 

 

There is no fool quite like an educated fool, eh?


Edited by Moronium, 14 March 2019 - 12:00 PM.

  • Flummoxed likes this

#7 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 06:04 AM

Absolute faith in "general relativity" leads to dark matter, which is likely not matter at all, but an effect of how space works. I absolutely agree, some believe in the absolute correctness of relativity, like a religion :) You have to admit its predictions are pretty accurate, but then so are quantum mechanics, and the two theories are not currently compatible, although one day it might emerge that they are eh !

 

 

In QM time is absolute and there are only 3 dimensions of space.

 

GR tries to make time a 4th dimension, perpetuating the atrocious concoction which Minkowski called "spacetime."

 

As convenient as the "spacetime" concept may be for mathematical purposes, it makes no physical sense.

 

This difference is at the heart of what makes them incompatible.

 

John Stuart Bell, Karl Popper, and many other preeminent theoretical physicists have stated that the notion of spacetime has to be abandoned.  I agree.

 

If only one or the other could be right, then the obvious choice is to pick QM over GR (which creates enough problems all on it's own to begin with).

 

Entire books (not to even mention innumerable academic papers) have been written which demonstrate that the "spacetime" concept is by no means necessary to completely explain relativity.  For example:

 

Relativity without spacetime.

Author:  Cosgrove, Joseph K. 

From a book review by Enzo Bonacci (2018)

 

...the author challenges a centennial vast consensus on Minkowski’s theory as essential for Einstein’s General Relativity trying to explain why it was so successful although not giving a faithful description of the physical world.

 

The validity of Minkowski’s mathematical “merging” of space and time has rarely been questioned by either physicists or philosophers since Einstein incorporated it into his theory of gravity.  Physicists often employ Minkowski spacetime with little regard to whether it provides a true account of the physical world as opposed to a useful mathematical tool in the theory of relativity. Philosophers sometimes treat the philosophy of space and time as if it were a mere appendix to Minkowski’s theory.

 

The mathematician Hermann Minkowski introduced his four-dimensional “spacetime” interpretation of the theory. Einstein initially dismissed Minkowski’s theory, remarking that “since the mathematicians have invaded the theoryof relativity I do not understand it myself anymore.” Yet Minkowski’s theory soon found wide acceptance among physicists...

 

In this critical study, Joseph Cosgrove subjects the concept of spacetime to a comprehensive examination and concludes that Einstein’s initial assessment of Minkowksi was essentially correct.

 


Edited by Moronium, 15 March 2019 - 03:29 PM.


#8 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 10:27 AM

Moronium, IQ tests have to be changed to include questions on religion in order to more closely assess intelligence. The problem that now needs to be dealt with is allowing somebody who's been indoctrinated into believing at childhood and is therefore devoid of intelligence on that topic alone. Just how much it should influence a person's final score is the big question. But all else being equal between two people of equal intelligence on current tests, the one who is not a believer should come out being rated higher. Wouldn't you agree?

 

Can you think of it in terms of a well-rounded aptitude being more important than a very limited aptitude? Did Stephen Hawking have a well-rounded aptitude to go along with his very high IQ? I think so. He certainly was well above the level of any others who were striken with religious beliefs. 



#9 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 12:46 PM

Just how much it should influence a person's final score is the big question. But all else being equal between two people of equal intelligence on current tests, the one who is not a believer should come out being rated higher. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you saying ALL supreme court judges are of lower than average intelligence 

https://www.atheists...ker-statements/ https://www.bbc.com/...gazine-33103973 . If you want to get on in America in the Legal Profession, you need to be religious.  :sherlock: 

 

I understand to get elected President in America today you have to be religious, only Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson have no known religious affiliation https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States

 

Are atheists discriminated against in America in their working lives especially in the Law, Politics, and the Forces? I think so.

 

The religious meme children are implanted with defends itself quite well in America, wouldn't ya all say ?  :innocent:

 

The ones who are not believers are unlikely to progress in their careers, as well as believers  :shocked:

 

The original big bang was dreamt up by a catholic priest LeMaitre, his theory has now been replaced with various competing inflationary theories.

 

Amusingly Hoyle was an atheist and he coined the phrase big bang as a joke, and the catholic church home of the kiddy fiddling priests adopted the Big bang theory. 

 

Does religious programming in child hood affect a persons IQ?

 

Hoyles theory on nucleo synthesis still stands https://en.wikipedia...wiki/Fred_Hoyle. He had a few not so well known wacko ideas as well. 


Edited by Flummoxed, 15 March 2019 - 12:49 PM.


#10 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 02:44 PM

But all else being equal between two people of equal intelligence on current tests, the one who is not a believer should come out being rated higher. Wouldn't you agree?

 

 

I'm not an adherent of any revealed religion myself, but, no, I wouldn't agree.  People can associate themselves with various religious organizations (catholic, baptist, buddhist, whatever) and still have wide differences in what parts they belive.  Flum mentioned Jefferson, for example.  Jefferson was, and considered himself to be, a "christian."  But he had his own version of the Bible, where he had cut out all references to miracles and the supernatural in general (look up "Jefferson Bible") on google.

 

It's really not a matter of cognitive thinking.  People associate themselves with a religion for a variety of "spiritual" reasons.  It's not designed to be a logic class. Much of it can be understood as metaphorical and/or interpreted as an ethical values system. Many extremely brilliant men have also been very "religious." Newton, for example.

 

As Flum also noted, there are innumerable aspects of modern physics which could only be categorized as "supernatural" speculation and essentially metaphysical in character.  The acceptance of many "mainstream" beliefs of physicists requires huge "leaps of faith."


Edited by Moronium, 15 March 2019 - 03:25 PM.


#11 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 03:16 PM

 

Are atheists discriminated against in America in their working lives especially in the Law, Politics, and the Forces? I think so.  The ones who are not believers are unlikely to progress in their careers, as well as believers  :shocked:

 

 

I don't buy this.  If anything the opposite is probably true these days.  The atheists are among the most intolerant and authoritarian groups that can be found, and their "discrimination" against religious types is quite apparent and often quite passionate. Take Stalin as a prototype for this.


Edited by Moronium, 15 March 2019 - 03:35 PM.


#12 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 03:50 PM

Yeah, I agree, Flum.  The greatest obstacle to understanding is dogmatism:  There is no fool quite like an educated fool, eh?

 

 

The story goes that the Oracle in ancient Greece declared that Socrates was the wisest man in the land.  Upon hearing this, Socrates at first said that the Oracle could never have said such a thing.  He didn't believe it.

 

After being constantly assured that is was an official pronouncement he finally said:

 

"If I am the wisest man in Greece, it could only be for one reason.  I know that I know nothing."

 

Human nature being what it is, the average bear just cannot be satisfied unless he thinks that he KNOWS something very important that few others know.  This type of hubris is regularly displayed at this site, and every other similar site I've ever been to.


Edited by Moronium, 15 March 2019 - 03:55 PM.


#13 montgomery

montgomery

    Questioning

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 05:46 PM

Let me put it to you this way: Religious believers must be excluded from being among the ranks of the world's most intelligent. Can you dispove that? 

 

High intelligence within the ranks of the believers is limited. Religious beliefs is nothing more than a childhood indoctrination that can't be discarded when one comes of age to understand that organized religion is all suprestitious hocus-pocus. For the same reason that the baby duckling can never understand that the fox that wants to eat him is not its protecting mother. But I say that childhood indoctrination can be escaped from by the super intelligent such as Hawking. Or, the other possibility is, super intelligent people were never indoctrinated into religious beliefs at childhood. Therefore, to become a Stephen Hawking or his equivalent, the child couldn't have been indoctrinated. I perfer the former but add the latter for your consideration.

 

That nonsense which was accepted as rational beliefs in Thomas Jefferson's time is no longer an issue that needs to be considered in any conversation such as this.Unless you have difficulty discarding bullshit such as the Noah's ark story? If that's the case then I'll duck out of this topic, with you at least.

I'm not an adherent of any revealed religion myself, but, no, I wouldn't agree.  People can associate themselves with various religious organizations (catholic, baptist, buddhist, whatever) and still have wide differences in what parts they belive.  Flum mentioned Jefferson, for example.  Jefferson was, and considered himself to be, a "christian."  But he had his own version of the Bible, where he had cut out all references to miracles and the supernatural in general (look up "Jefferson Bible") on google.

 

It's really not a matter of cognitive thinking.  People associate themselves with a religion for a variety of "spiritual" reasons.  It's not designed to be a logic class. Much of it can be understood as metaphorical and/or interpreted as an ethical values system. Many extremely brilliant men have also been very "religious." Newton, for example.

 

As Flum also noted, there are innumerable aspects of modern physics which could only be categorized as "supernatural" speculation and essentially metaphysical in character.  The acceptance of many "mainstream" beliefs of physicists requires huge "leaps of faith."



#14 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 05:56 PM

I say that childhood indoctrination can be escaped from by the super intelligent

 

The usual dogmatism from you, eh, Monty?  And you think you're super-intelligent.  No surprise there, either.  As I just said:

 

Human nature being what it is, the average bear just cannot be satisfied unless he thinks that he KNOWS something very important that few others know.  This type of hubris is regularly displayed at this site, and every other similar site I've ever been to.

 

You represent the consummate "average bear," I'm afraid.


Edited by Moronium, 15 March 2019 - 06:03 PM.


#15 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2894 posts

Posted 15 March 2019 - 06:36 PM

As far as your hero, Hawking, goes, if he was so damn smart, then he wouldn't be losing so many scientific bets, eh?

 

On December 10, 1974, Hawking made a bet with Caltech theoretical physicist Kip Thorne over whether Cygnus X-1, a massive x-ray source in our galaxy, was a black hole...when push came to shove, Hawking bet against Cygnus X-1.  Nowadays, the object is widely accepted to be a black hole.

 

...Years later, Hawking entered another black hole-related bet with Thorne and Caltech theoretical physicist John Preskill. In 1997, the trio wagered over whether a black hole destroys the information encoded in the objects it gravitationally devours. Thorne and Hawking bet that black holes do in fact destroy information—seemingly breaking a tenet of quantum mechanics. Preskill disagreed.  In 2004, Hawking conceded the bet, buying Preskill a baseball encyclopedia as a prize.

 

...Black holes weren’t the only targets of Hawking’s scientific gambles.   “About a decade ago, I was in a conference in Korea, and Stephen was there,” Kane said in a 2012 interview with NPR. “And Stephen said, I'll bet you that there is no Higgs boson. So, I immediately said, I'll take that bet.  Then when we arranged the details a little bit and settled on $100.”

 

In 2012, scientists at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider made history when they discovered hints of the Higgs boson—the long-sought missing piece of the standard model of particle physics.  When news broke of the Higgs boson’s discovery, Hawking praised Higgs for his work—and noted that he had lost the bet.

 

 

https://news.nationa...s-bets-science/

 

I don't know, but it probably says somewhere in the Bible that you shouldn't bet.  He would have been better off consulting it than his own "brilliance," it seems.


Edited by Moronium, 15 March 2019 - 09:41 PM.


#16 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 16 March 2019 - 04:02 AM

I don't buy this.  If anything the opposite is probably true these days.  The atheists are among the most intolerant and authoritarian groups that can be found, and their "discrimination" against religious types is quite apparent and often quite passionate. Take Stalin as a prototype for this.

"

Article Two of the United States Constitution requires the President of the United States to nominate Supreme Court Justices and, with Senate confirmation, requires Justices to be appointed. " https://en.wikipedia...e_United_States

 

The current president appears to surround himself with religious nuts, it is highly unlikely he will nominate an Atheist as one quick example of prejudice at the highest levels. 

 

The republican party has no atheist senators, perhaps an example of selection based on religious beliefs, again discrimination.

 

Are atheists just as likely to get promoted through the ranks, as religious nuts, for example why are foundations needed https://www.military...ce-general.html if regular abuses do not take place. 



#17 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 607 posts

Posted 16 March 2019 - 04:22 AM

I don't buy this.  If anything the opposite is probably true these days.  The atheists are among the most intolerant and authoritarian groups that can be found, and their "discrimination" against religious types is quite apparent and often quite passionate. Take Stalin as a prototype for this.

 

I am an atheist, and I think tolerant. I even amuse myself in a friendly way with the odd Jehovas witness that is stupid enough to want to discuss their religious beliefs with me.

 

You can always go through history and find examples of genocide or war in the name of a religion or a political belief. You could take as an example the Roman empire, and perhaps emperor Constantine and the creation of Christianity in 325AD. The religion he created based around his sun worship is likely responsible for more deaths and genocide than any other religion today, take the crusades for example. 

 

I understand in the USA the murder rate is much higher in religious republican areas than in less religious areas, I think this demonstrates intolerance.

 

Also on a recent visit to the states I visited a large Aquarium and was discussing evolution of various fish species with a guide, when a crowd came in, and he advised me that he could no longer discuss evolution as he would lose his job if any one heard him.  


Edited by Flummoxed, 16 March 2019 - 04:22 AM.