U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Halloween!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 10-24-2010, 03:43 AM
 
Location: Bradenton, Florida
27,238 posts, read 26,298,625 times
Reputation: 10565
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
So then according to your way of thinking, when you are alone, nothing exists except you and what you sense around you? All I have to say about that is....weird.
actually, nothing at all exists. I'm not even sure that I exist.

 
Old 10-24-2010, 04:07 AM
 
Location: London, UK
15,498 posts, read 7,491,115 times
Reputation: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof View Post
Words in natural language often have multiple meanings. Philosophers distinguish two meanings of 'sound.'

1) Sound = the contents of a auditory experience; that which causes the experience, or that which the experience represents. (e.g., vibrations in air molecules.)

2) Sound = the particular auditory qualitative nature of the experience. The sound qualia.

Obviously, in the first sense, sound exists whether anyone hears it or not. In the second sense, most people would say it only exists so long as someone is hearing it. So the answer to the question "Does the sound exist when no one it there to hear it" depends on the what you have in mind when asking the question.

I go out on a limb and suggest that sound qualia exists unconsciously even when no one hears it. But this depends on my weird belief that the world is fundamentally experiential. To make this work I go back to Aristotle's distinction between actual and potential. A potential is real, even if it is not actualized. The sound qualia of the tree falling are real, even if no on hears them.

The reality of potentials can be understood in terms of quantum mechanics. The paths not taken by an electron in a double-slit experiment are real in the sense that they must be taken into account by our theories of physics. If they were not "real" in some important sense, why would we have to take account of them in order for the theory to work?

I suspect that "unheard auditory qualia" (i.e., the sounds of the tree in the forest) are real qualia ("real" in the sense that a perfect theory of physics would have to account for them), even though they are not actualized as qualia in the experience of an actual observer.
I agree. This is very much like the 'Does a leaf remain green in the dark..' question.

It comes down to semantics - what does one mean by 'green' and 'sound'?

To say that the sound does not exist simply because someone has not the ability to transmit the air - pressure into mental noise - signals is silly as to say that the chlorophyll which reflects green -wavelength light vanishes from the leaf whenever its dark is silly.

It's why we need to begin with the concepts rather than the definitions, since definitions are often popular usage and scientific shorthand, at best!

Now, we know how light and sound works thanks to science. No-one who claims to be logical and scientifically credible would doubt that. However, to argue that there may well be 'other things out there wot we wot not of' just as the green cannot be seen in the dark or the sound cannot be heard if no -one is there, is illogical and unscientific. We can only say some things are so if we have evidence.

Whatever else is out there is speculation and speculation it must remain.
 
Old 10-24-2010, 04:10 AM
 
Location: London, UK
15,498 posts, read 7,491,115 times
Reputation: 2593
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
actually, nothing at all exists. I'm not even sure that I exist.
I'm quite sure that I don't. I am actually a complete illusion. Fortunately, I am a reliably recurring one.
 
Old 10-24-2010, 05:33 AM
 
Location: Western Cary, NC
4,349 posts, read 4,424,072 times
Reputation: 7221
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane View Post
This was a great article, which I was surprised to see coming from USA Today. Some of the numbers are dated, and the shift away from religion is making deeper inroads into the religious myths of our past, but other than that I would say this article hit a lot of nails on the head.
I personally dont see any way to mix science with religion, and if I were to run across an accredited science researcher who followed a fundamental religious view I would question his scientific research data and abilities. Religion hopes it can tag along with science, but having tried to kill it for the last 2000 years, I think most science oriented people, myself included, just want to read their obituary.
 
Old 10-24-2010, 02:21 PM
 
271 posts, read 171,693 times
Reputation: 35
Senior MemberJazzymom
stated that
Quote:
You ought to add Islam to that too.....
Islam is not less corrupted, and it is as full of those who are over the top as Christianity as.
and Truth light is still waiting Jazzymom to enlight him how Islam and science aren't friends

Truth light think that Jazzymom need that link to prove his point of view http://quran.com/
from Quran. I can't imagine Quran is against science by any means.
 
Old 10-24-2010, 07:39 PM
 
22,849 posts, read 10,714,584 times
Reputation: 3850
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truth light View Post
Senior MemberJazzymom
stated that
and Truth light is still waiting Jazzymom to enlight him how Islam and science aren't friends

Truth light think that Jazzymom need that link to prove his point of view The Holy Qur'an - القرآن الكريم
from Quran. I can't imagine Quran is against science by any means.
Science research is coming under increased religious scrutiny and censorship in Islamic nations according to the journal Nature. It is becoming quite widespread.
 
Old 10-24-2010, 09:42 PM
 
Location: 30-40N 90-100W
13,856 posts, read 13,418,077 times
Reputation: 6448
Reading the article it seems to be a good deal about how religion fails to be science. And it is true that scientism, the belief that everything should be or is science, is not compatible with any religion I know of. (Except maybe the Positivist Church)

However he starts to claims that scientism does no abuse and kills no one, which is obviously nonsense. Scientists may not kill over theories, but it's not unheard of to kill or torture to test theories. There's Tuskegee and various experiments on the mentally disabled kind. What stops that isn't some scientifically created ethic, but ethics as it was already known by non-scientific means. In addition totalitarian societies really could not have existed, as we know them, without the kind of tools science offers. I don't think science is "evil" or "bad", but if you want or need science to be everything I do think that kind of sucks for you.

Well it does more than that I suppose. The kind of atheist scientism that becomes "there is only a single path to truth, a single method of thinking that leads anywhere of value, etc" is, for lack of a better word, evil and should be fought against. I'd like to think if I was atheist I would fight against it no less strongly.
 
Old 10-25-2010, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Metromess
11,806 posts, read 13,821,570 times
Reputation: 4750
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R. View Post
The kind of atheist scientism that becomes "there is only a single path to truth, a single method of thinking that leads anywhere of value, etc" is, for lack of a better word, evil and should be fought against.
That sounds much more like a religious point of view. As for a "single method", the scientific method is the way of science. Go figure.
 
Old 10-26-2010, 12:36 AM
 
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,292 posts, read 11,528,963 times
Reputation: 10766
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I would be surprised though, if ALL scientists were atheists, or even agnostics.

SURPRISE>>>>>
List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Roman Catholic scientist-clerics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of Muslim scientists - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I too see Religion attacking Science...seldom the other way around; but when Science contradicts religious dogmas that's when religions get defensive. And when religion attacks established scientific facts then Science will respond accordingly..
 
Old 10-31-2010, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Las Flores, Orange County, CA
26,362 posts, read 54,170,320 times
Reputation: 16312
Come on, there is compatibility between religion and science.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top