A Hatred of Science is Killing the Church

[_SPG]

Good for you, SPG. Believe whatever you want.

Wow, you make this sound like a sin. Of course I'll believe whatever I want, and so will you.

Even though you claim to be "smarter than religion" you actually carry one their most annoying traits. And that is thinking that you understand things so much better then everyone else. I'll think whatever I want, because that is what people do, but I am being far more scientific by maintaining a sense of question on issues we really don't know about.

You are more self-righteous then the TBM's I've run into on these forum. Even though you think you know, you don't. What you believe is no more valid than what I believe. That you think so, is just the spirit that forms cults filled with people that "know the truth" and cursed be anyone that thinks different.

[_SPG]

But your sloppy use of language and concepts and your lack of interest in actually researching any of the subjects you opine on makes you, to use a DrW word, ridiculous.

To add to my rant:

The idea of "being right" is made of the same material of the idea of a "triangle" but with many more facets. When consciousness imagines a triangle, that idea will have certain effects depending upon the consciousness that holds it. When a person thinks they are right, it has so many different effects, depending upon the configuration of consciousness. You and I both have some version of this idea of "being right." But how you use it really isn't different then some rabid terrorist determined to destroy anyone that doesn't agree with him.

The world of forms is infinite and how humans manifest the different forms is both scientific and an art. But seriously, the idea of marriage is just valid as a triangle. It has a function, that if done properly can have wonderful benefits. If done wrong can be a disaster. Even the idea of an electrical switch is very simple in the world of forms, but can be very difficult to manifest. To manifest of an electrical switch can be infinitely complex, depending upon your needs.

I might be sloppy in my terms, but your soul is dead in terms of imagination. (Note how sloppy I am, because you are not actually dead.) But seriously, dude, stop being a Debby Downer.

[_Maksutov]

Good for you, SPG. Believe whatever you want.

Wow, you make this sound like a sin. Of course I'll believe whatever I want, and so will you.

Even though you claim to be "smarter than religion" you actually carry one their most annoying traits. And that is thinking that you understand things so much better then everyone else. I'll think whatever I want, because that is what people do, but I am being far more scientific by maintaining a sense of question on issues we really don't know about.

You are more self-righteous then the TBM's I've run into on these forum. Even though you think you know, you don't. What you believe is no more valid than what I believe. That you think so, is just the spirit that forms cults filled with people that "know the truth" and cursed be anyone that thinks different.

I'm not surprised that you don't like what I have to say. It means that you're finally paying attention. That's another point in your favor. Now tell us again how pseudoscience and mysticism Trump modern empirical science because you think the universe is run like a politically correct department of fools.

[_Maksutov]

But your sloppy use of language and concepts and your lack of interest in actually researching any of the subjects you opine on makes you, to use a DrW word, ridiculous.

To add to my rant:

The idea of "being right" is made of the same material of the idea of a "triangle" but with many more facets. When consciousness imagines a triangle, that idea will have certain effects depending upon the consciousness that holds it. When a person thinks they are right, it has so many different effects, depending upon the configuration of consciousness. You and I both have some version of this idea of "being right." But how you use it really isn't different then some rabid terrorist determined to destroy anyone that doesn't agree with him.

The world of forms is infinite and how humans manifest the different forms is both scientific and an art. But seriously, the idea of marriage is just valid as a triangle. It has a function, that if done properly can have wonderful benefits. If done wrong can be a disaster. Even the idea of an electrical switch is very simple in the world of forms, but can be very difficult to manifest. To manifest of an electrical switch can be infinitely complex, depending upon your needs.

I might be sloppy in my terms, but your soul is dead in terms of imagination. (Note how sloppy I am, because you are not actually dead.) But seriously, dude, stop being a Debby Downer.

There's no shortage of imagination in the world. And in many places it's applied productively. In other places it's a form of cultural delirium that derails progress.

The internet is full of channeled texts from people who all had their conduits to the divine, the astral, the mystical, and come back to us with denigrations of science and history, demanding that we substitute their own texts and theories. You aren't offering anything new or enlightening, but a lot that is nonsensical and subjective. That may be a great realm for poetry and art, so I would encourage you in that direction rather than debates over science.

[_Lemmie]

But seriously, dude, stop being a Debby Downer.

Only a downer to you, apparently. I find Maksutov's (and by extension, DrW's) logic refreshing and meaningful.

You aren't offering anything new or enlightening, but a lot that is nonsensical and subjective. That may be a great realm for poetry and art, so I would encourage you in that direction rather than debates over science.

Thank you for saying that. The pseudo-science was really getting ridiculous, and the casual re-defining of terms based on whatever whimsy strikes the soul is just irritating. How do you have a conversation with someone who objects to standard definitions of words by saying, "you don't own that word"??

[_SPG]

I'm not surprised that you don't like what I have to say. It means that you're finally paying attention. That's another point in your favor. Now tell us again how pseudoscience and mysticism Trump modern empirical science because you think the universe is run like a politically correct department of fools.

Is that how you read that, as me paying attention?

I never implied mysticism and pseudoscience "Trump's" empirical science, merely argued that it has its place in reality.

The truth of the mechanical wonders of the universe are simply too complex to understand. I mean, take for example the new I7-7700 chip humans have created. I mean, I know that perhaps a couple of people might understand how to make it, but basically it takes a group of humans applying some of our most advanced technology to make. Even if I took, say the top 100 engineers of that built that chip and dropped on them Mars, I bet they couldn't build a new one in their lifetimes. Yet, even as cool as that chip is, it doesn't compare to the human brain.

Within every human is the technology to rebuild another human, (give or take a couple of parts.)

But what created us? We talk of evolution as if it is just this dead thing that is happening, all accidental like. How many times has a person claimed that they had a vision of some sort that came true? So our scientists say, "ok, put them in a double blind study and see if they can predict the lottery numbers." Of course, nothing, so "pre-cognition is false, because we cannot reproduce it in a controlled environment. Yet, in another breath, we admit that when trying to observe photons that the photons will choose an unexpected path. Academic science admits, by observing the universe, we change it. But, even though there are hundreds of thousands of accounts of pre-cognition, science poo-poos it. Buddha said that life was an illusion 2500 years ago, now Morgan Freeman hints at it on "into the wormhole."

My truth is, when it comes to the science of consciousness, all things are possible. A triangle is a simple mathematical idea. It's not a real thing, its a theory, or concept. Yes, consciousness has embraced this simple idea and used it in countless ways. That same is with marriage. Marriage isn't a real thing, but when consciousness embraces that idea, that idea shapes the reality of that consciousness that embraces it. This is truth with any idea. Even a rock really isn't a rock, we just apply the idea of rock to it. If we got into the technical aspects of what a rock is, we really couldn't call it a rock, because it's a clump of atoms, vibrating at as specific pace, having decayed in energy from their birth, etc.

Everything people want to call facts, are just accepted ideas. A physical triangle ISN'T really a triangle. It's something that we all agree meets many aspects of a triangle, but it is impossible to make a perfect triangle. So everything we claim as "fact" is really pseudo-fact.

If you picked up the phone and called your mom, the world would agree that you communicated with your mom. But if you mom called you and said, "I just felt like something was wrong, so I called" the world would call her crazy. Mother's intuition hasn't passed any science validated studies, so obviously cannot be called a real thing. But, a huge part of the world will agree that it is a real thing. That is pseudo-science and I think it has a validate place at the table of reality.

Oddly, I really do consider myself more scientific than any I have met here. I know enough to know that I know nothing. I question everything, but I also realize the benefit of believing. I actually crunch numbers for studies on drugs for a living. I do understand what science is. And I also understand that what people believe, has a massive effect on how the world reacts to them. Years ago, a warrior might go into battle because of his lucky rabbit's foot, believing it would keep him safe. I bet my lunch money, that if we could do a study on warriors that had lucky rabbits feet, they survived longer than those that didn't. Faith is incredibly powerful.

[_DrW]

Oddly, I really do consider myself more scientific than any I have met here.

Really?

Perhaps you have not yet met that many of us here.

Perhaps you have an extraordinarily (and unjustifiably) high opinion of yourself when it comes to scientific understanding.

Or perhaps your don't have a clue what you are talking about and would therefore be simply incapable of determining whether someone you met here were "more scientific" than you, or not.

[_SPG]

Thank you for saying that. The pseudo-science was really getting ridiculous, and the casual re-defining of terms based on whatever whimsy strikes the soul is just irritating. How do you have a conversation with someone who objects to standard definitions of words by saying, "you don't own that word"??

When I say, "You don't own that word" I have a good reason.

For years, different groups have claimed they had the right to define words like, "marriage, truth, faith, right, wrong" etc. You think you can say "science" and that anything I say doesn't fit.

generic internet definition of science is:
"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

When I say religion is science, it has a rich history of scholars (mostly called monks) that would dedicate their lives to healing, lifestyle, teaching, community develop, family structure, feel good beliefs, benefits of honor, hope, charity, faith, ad infinitum.

Many atheist type blame religion for holding down people like Copernicus. But that wasn't so much religion as it was politics. Religion had embraced science but figured they knew everything because they had Aristotle. It's a common mistake.

But, you cannot exclude me from the use of the word "science" just because you don't like my political affiliations. There is a tremendous amount of science in religion. People who claim to religion free are not smarter then those that have religion, you guys have proved that.

Religion helped people build traditions, maintain stable family structures, stable communities, etc. And even though some of the structures of politically incorrect, and even emotionally damaging, they did work. As religion fails, families fail. As we try to blend all the communities together, the stress is unbearable. People might live in the same communities, but they don't know their neighbors.

I'm not saying religion has everything right, but I am saying they had a science that in its time was very functional. Now we let the women out of the house, sometimes even give her shoes, and things have never been the same. But, it kept society stable for a time. It will be interesting to see how things go once people get to believe anything they want. I was told last night at a party that there are 58 different genders. I'm not saying that isn't true, but in a plumbing store. . . . male and female get it done. It's even scientific.

[_SPG]

Oddly, I really do consider myself more scientific than any I have met here.

Really?

Perhaps you have not yet met that many of us here.

Perhaps you have an extraordinarily (and unjustifiably) high opinion of yourself when it comes to scientific understanding.

Or perhaps your don't have a clue what you are talking about and would therefore be simply incapable of determining whether someone you met here were "more scientific" than you, or not.

This could be true, but it isn't. I have a very humble opinion of myself, albeit a lofty humility.

I do have clues, and I use them. I don't know much, but I have many clues. That many here would dismiss the structure of consciousness, family, community, culture, etc, as unscientific says volumes.

Take for example the awesome cathedrals made in Europe. Granted, that was some cool science. Even spawned a secret society called the Masons that more or less worshiped scientific logic. But what about the social science that got people to build the cathedrals? We can look back and think that perhaps the methods used to build those wonderful buildings was manipulative and perhaps cruel, but it wasn't just random inspiration that build those buildings. It was religion. If someone had said, "Hey, lets build a science lab". . . . . we would never know, because they never did. Not until a lot later.

But that you think that the study of the human psyche, the soul, human desires, human healing ability, family structure, etc, as unscientific, then yeah, you are not very scientific. I don't care if you have a Ph.D. chemistry. The concepts of chemistry don't just apply to elements of nature, they also apply to people, religion, community. Political science is about understanding how people will react to different stimuli. Give people a little anger here, some hope there, confusion over there, etc, and you can predict how the masses move.

But how about a person? Give a person some hope, even false hope, and they move. They try. And trying is 50% of the battle. So please, impress me with your scientific views. Tell me how beliefs have nothing to do with reality, how faith does nothing in society.

I made a new law for myself. "If it has influence, it is real." That might seem very unscientific, but if you are unwilling to assign cause to some invisible object you are going miss a lot what makes the world go around. Like, how many people get up in the morning because they believe God will keep them safe? How many people go on when they want to quit because they think God wants them too?

How can anyone ignore the very real power of belief? It's what makes our world work.

How many people try to be a good father, or good mother, a good teacher, or good anything because they "believe" it will do something for them? There is no scientific proof that being a good person gets you what you want. We do most of what we do because we "believe" something that cannot be scientifically proven. And correlation does not prove causation. Just because many good people succeed, doesn't prove that is how it works, because many good people also fail. We do what we do because we belief. We cannot even prove the sun will come up tomorrow, or that our jobs will be there. But we have faith and we don't even think about it. But a long time ago, humans were afraid to go to watering hole. We developed our systems and put faith in them. And all of it was scientific in some way or another.

[_Maksutov]

There is no conflict between science and religion. There is a conflict between bad religion and reality, between fake science and reality. And yes, reality is still an operative concept. There are objective things that can be agreed upon unless one seeks infinitely self regressing solipsism and wants to stagger through a world of shadows, muttering circular statements like a Samuel Beckett character. I have no certainties. I recognize the profound limitations of our sensorium and cognitive apparatus, let alone the organic cultural materials that influence many of our perceptions. We exist in a spatiotemporal context, children of a time and a place, unavoidably.