Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I think your field of study is how to be 'Johnny One Note'.
You give none of us a basis for believing your tale.
As hard as you may find this to believe, Phet, I am not remotely concerned about you "believing my tale." I am only concerned that you understand it accurately. Its impact on you and your life is entirely up to you and anyone else who understands it.
as hard as you may find this to believe, phet, i am not remotely concerned about you "believing my tale." i am only concerned that you understand it accurately. Its impact on you and your life is entirely up to you and anyone else who understands it.
Perhaps one of the reasons why I feel this way is due to seeing this thing from the background of scientists, and their possible resources to use in making change. Its my speculation that as a group, your average scientist comes from a steady upbringing. (Compared to most folk) Most people who come from the dirt, don't have the luxury to think about science, much less wanting to become one who study it for a living. So I'm thinking most scientists come from families with resources. I would see this similarly from those who become doctors.
I say all that to point out if scientists wanted to, they can pull their resources in order to accomplish something for the least of us. They have folks in their circles, who are close to those with resources, to form a mission to the ignorant. If science deals with the application of what is true, why wouldn't they want to teach this way of thinking to the downtrodden? Yet for those who do, using Neil deGrasse Tyson again, they don't get far enough into the mud. I don't see them having an impact at the lowest possible levels of society. They mostly go where they might get attention from media. Tyson being a ADOS man (American descendant of slavery), I don't see him having an impact with the community he's from, which this community is at the bottom of America due to our history. So we as a group are in the dirt here in America, and hardly any one from the science community is teaching us anything.
So I see scientists will mainly stick to their circles. Yet again if science is our best bet at obtaining the truth of reality, why not seek to share this truth with the masses? Religion claims to know the truth, and thus practitioners do seek to share it even among the oppressed. (At least in terms of Christianity) Yeah there are evil people within religion who seek for power and destruction, but its overall theme is to enlighten everyone with the truth. In Christianity, its stated the last will be first, and Jesus said blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs's is the Kingdom of Heaven. (And of course Heaven holds all the riches there are) So the overall mission is taking this truth, seeking and helping the oppressed. That is how Christianity began and it spread like wildfire among the poor. So much so, that it convinced the most powerful empire in the western world to accept it as their religion. If science is better than this, they haven't taken the teaching of science to the poor. What good is it if no one knows or cares about it?
In my opinion the responsibility of teaching science mostly falls on those who are the scientists.
I am curious about this "background of scientists" you seem to be referring to, and all the rest that gives you this perspective about what scientists do or don't do as a rule. To my way of thinking, the pure scientist doesn't have the needs, wants or goals of society in mind when doing what most scientists do. Also of course they are going to work within scientific circles, among people who understand and respect the importance of the scientific method. They are trying to understand how things work. No matter how things work or how the knowledge they reveal will suit society or not. Then too of course there are all the scientists who DO teach what they know at high schools, universities, conferences, publications and all kinds of other channels they can and do use to pass along what they can. Many may or may not be actual scientists, but many people do teach science either way.
I am not sure where it is you get all your impressions of scientists as a group or as individuals, but I have read an awful lot about scientists going back to when science wasn't even really a thing. Lots of history along these lines. About all kinds of "scientists" (to use the term that didn't even exist then) going back to Ancient Egypt anywhere around 3000 BC. Math, astronomy, medicine and all the rest that one way or another in one discipline after another slowly allowed us to understand what before we didn't. Some took on the additional responsibility or effort to teach others. In some cases at great risk to themselves. Many did in fact, but I don't know how anyone can categorize the entire development of scientific progress the way you do. Or how you sum up what scientists do present day.
Either way, I'm less inclined to suggest scientists should do more or different from what they do as a large diverse group from all over the world. There is plenty enough going on there I don't think you or I know all that much about. Instead I'm more inclined to simply recognize the importance of their work and perhaps in the context of this forum to compare and contrast what they do with what religious leaders do. I'm not sure I agree with how you describe what religion is all about either, but it's not all good or bad in any case. As I attempt to explain and summarize by way of these "Ten Truths."
There is a good deal more to the story and history as well. As I think we all know or should know...
You may ask, but I am being very circumspect to retain my anonymity and protect my professional progeny from any taint from my mystical views. I can say I am a polymath in addition to my primary doctorate fields of study and have encompassed many fields in my lifetime.
I am curious about this "background of scientists" you seem to be referring to, and all the rest that gives you this perspective about what scientists do or don't do as a rule. To my way of thinking, the pure scientist doesn't have the needs, wants or goals of society in mind when doing what most scientists do. Also of course they are going to work within scientific circles, among people who understand and respect the importance of the scientific method. They are trying to understand how things work. No matter how things work or how the knowledge they reveal will suit society or not. Then too of course there are all the scientists who DO teach what they know at high schools, universities, conferences, publications and all kinds of other channels they can and do use to pass along what they can. Many may or may not be actual scientists, but many people do teach science either way.
I am not sure where it is you get all your impressions of scientists as a group or as individuals, but I have read an awful lot about scientists going back to when science wasn't even really a thing. Lots of history along these lines. About all kinds of "scientists" (to use the term that didn't even exist then) going back to Ancient Egypt anywhere around 3000 BC. Math, astronomy, medicine and all the rest that one way or another in one discipline after another slowly allowed us to understand what before we didn't. Some took on the additional responsibility or effort to teach others. In some cases at great risk to themselves. Many did in fact, but I don't know how anyone can categorize the entire development of scientific progress the way you do. Or how you sum up what scientists do present day.
Either way, I'm less inclined to suggest scientists should do more or different from what they do as a large diverse group from all over the world. There is plenty enough going on there I don't think you or I know all that much about. Instead I'm more inclined to simply recognize the importance of their work and perhaps in the context of this forum to compare and contrast what they do with what religious leaders do. I'm not sure I agree with how you describe what religion is all about either, but it's not all good or bad in any case. As I attempt to explain and summarize by way of these "Ten Truths."
There is a good deal more to the story and history as well. As I think we all know or should know...
In my mentioning of the background of your average scientist, I use it as a reference for the resources they could pull from to accomplish a task. When we look at Neil deGrasse Tyson, (according to wiki) his father was a sociologist and a HR commissioner for the mayor of New York City. His mother was a gerontologist working for the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. So this is a steady upbringing, there are resources and influence. I imagine for most scientists, particularly current scientists who are in their 40s-50s, they too have had steady upbringings. Today having even more resources and influence, they could use those things to freely educate the populace. They don't have to wait for government funding for everything. Just get out there in the dirt. And ultimately this is all in the context if science is truly the best bet at progress overall.
I commend the work our teachers put in, and I commend the work scientists like Tyson do as well in teaching the common man, but there has yet to be a wildfire impact. When we look at my religion of Christianity, there was a commission to teach this truth to the whole world. The kingdom of heaven was about lifting up the people, with a primary focus on those who knew they were oppressed. When we look at what is recorded in Acts, we see the church had things in common, giving to each other as there were need. The message grew from there. So when it comes to science and scientists, the main objective is to research and make the information available. Yet what good is the information if the common man isn't applying it and making use of it? How can it be our best bet at progress if no one cares to apply it?
I believe if science is truly our best bet at overall progress, it will need to reach the masses. Christianity I believe involves the truth of our existence, yet it is also a message of fellowship, one that makes everyone equal in Jesus and one with God. I definitely agree there were and are good and bad among those who fly the religious flag. However when it comes to reaching people, religion does a better job at outreach. If science gives us better answers than religion, I don't see this thrill to get the message out, especially to the oppressed. If science only benefits a few, it cannot be the answer for ultimate progress.
Interestingly enough, when Jesus comes back, we believe we will turn our technology used for war, into instruments used to cultivate the land. I imagine there will be an explosion of clean energy uses throughout the entire world, where we will even make the Sahara Desert into a garden paradise. Why aren't scientists inspiring the masses to embrace clean and new forms of energy? (I'm not saying there aren't those doing this, but they are not pulling their resources and imagination together to make change) Scientists who know the effects of global warming, aren't taking this message to everyone, and they aren't teaching to those who are willing to listen and learn. Jesus is going to get this thing popping, and will make the entire planet like the Garden of Eden.
Having absolutely no respect for the different beliefs of different cultures and countries, and often sending thousands to their deaths.
Nobody died from the hands of Christians in the beginning. And Paul showed us how to become all things to all people, so that definitely shows respect to other cultures. Men's traditions of forcing stuff down the throat and oppression came in when Christianity became an official religion by the Roman Empire. Ultimately, in terms of science, there is no similar commission to get the word out, particularly to the oppressed.
In my mentioning of the background of your average scientist, I use it as a reference for the resources they could pull from to accomplish a task. When we look at Neil deGrasse Tyson, (according to wiki) his father was a sociologist and a HR commissioner for the mayor of New York City. His mother was a gerontologist working for the US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. So this is a steady upbringing, there are resources and influence. I imagine for most scientists, particularly current scientists who are in their 40s-50s, they too have had steady upbringings. Today having even more resources and influence, they could use those things to freely educate the populace. They don't have to wait for government funding for everything. Just get out there in the dirt. And ultimately this is all in the context if science is truly the best bet at progress overall.
I commend the work our teachers put in, and I commend the work scientists like Tyson do as well in teaching the common man, but there has yet to be a wildfire impact. When we look at my religion of Christianity, there was a commission to teach this truth to the whole world. The kingdom of heaven was about lifting up the people, with a primary focus on those who knew they were oppressed. When we look at what is recorded in Acts, we see the church had things in common, giving to each other as there were need. The message grew from there. So when it comes to science and scientists, the main objective is to research and make the information available. Yet what good is the information if the common man isn't applying it and making use of it? How can it be our best bet at progress if no one cares to apply it?
I believe if science is truly our best bet at overall progress, it will need to reach the masses. Christianity I believe involves the truth of our existence, yet it is also a message of fellowship, one that makes everyone equal in Jesus and one with God. I definitely agree there were and are good and bad among those who fly the religious flag. However when it comes to reaching people, religion does a better job at outreach. If science gives us better answers than religion, I don't see this thrill to get the message out, especially to the oppressed. If science only benefits a few, it cannot be the answer for ultimate progress.
Interestingly enough, when Jesus comes back, we believe we will turn our technology used for war, into instruments used to cultivate the land. I imagine there will be an explosion of clean energy uses throughout the entire world, where we will even make the Sahara Desert into a garden paradise. Why aren't scientists inspiring the masses to embrace clean and new forms of energy? (I'm not saying there aren't those doing this, but they are not pulling their resources and imagination together to make change) Scientists who know the effects of global warming, aren't taking this message to everyone, and they aren't teaching to those who are willing to listen and learn. Jesus is going to get this thing popping, and will make the entire planet like the Garden of Eden.
Though I appreciate the exercise of comparing and contrasting science with religion or vice versa, I almost always cringe more than just a bit when I see the comparison through the eyes of someone with your perspective. This is quite the subject actually, but in short I think you under appreciate what science has done for mankind and inflate what Christianity has done. The two have different agendas in any case and Neil deGrasse Tyson is a rather special case when it comes to most scientists in the entire world scientific community.
A book I have highly recommended in this forum on more than a few occasions, having much to do with the earliest of "scientists" up until today, is this one: "A Brief History of Creation: Science and the Search for the Origin of Life," by Bill Mesler and H. James Cleaves II. I've probably made mention of this book in this very thread before in fact. I can't remember, but I'm glad to have this additional opportunity to recommend it again. You might find it interesting and learn something that might alter your perspective about science just a bit.
Nobody died from the hands of Christians in the beginning. And Paul showed us how to become all things to all people, so that definitely shows respect to other cultures. Men's traditions of forcing stuff down the throat and oppression came in when Christianity became an official religion by the Roman Empire. Ultimately, in terms of science, there is no similar commission to get the word out, particularly to the oppressed.
Oh, so it didn't happen "in the beginning", so that makes it okay.
Apparently you're unaware of what happened to the indigenous people of Central and South America at the hands of the Spanish with their priests very much a part of it.
Oh, so it didn't happen "in the beginning", so that makes it okay.
Apparently you're unaware of what happened to the indigenous people of Central and South America at the hands of the Spanish with their priests very much a part of it.
Today we see how evil people were using the name of Christ. We can clearly see Jesus never commanded anyone to murder, rape, pillage, and all the demonic things that were done. Jesus didn't even command to force this message onto people. If an area rejects the message, He told us to shake it off and move on. Now that more people can read the the NT for themselves, we can judge who truly preaches Jesus' message. The only ones who were to be persecuted, were Christians themselves. So all of what was done by empires etc., they were dead wrong through and through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
Though I appreciate the exercise of comparing and contrasting science with religion or vice versa, I almost always cringe more than just a bit when I see the comparison through the eyes of someone with your perspective. This is quite the subject actually, but in short I think you under appreciate what science has done for mankind and inflate what Christianity has done. The two have different agendas in any case and Neil deGrasse Tyson is a rather special case when it comes to most scientists in the entire world scientific community.
A book I have highly recommended in this forum on more than a few occasions, having much to do with the earliest of "scientists" up until today, is this one: "A Brief History of Creation: Science and the Search for the Origin of Life," by Bill Mesler and H. James Cleaves II. I've probably made mention of this book in this very thread before in fact. I can't remember, but I'm glad to have this additional opportunity to recommend it again. You might find it interesting and learn something that might alter your perspective about science just a bit.
Thanks for the recommendation. I will look it up. I'm not as disciplined as I should when it comes to reading books I have two I've ordered within the last few months, and only read a little of a third the way through with the first of them.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I have two I've ordered within the last few months, and only read a little of a third the way through with the first of them.
