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 the Large Hadron Collider is great. I'm in favor of expanding our knowledge of the universe in which we live, and searching for answers to the Big Questions.
Of course, what I'm really looking forward to is what kinds of cool new products Apple will come up with based on discoveries made by the LHC team. I'm envisioning the iGod, a small, hand-held device that will allow people to create miniature universes inside the enclosed Nanocollider. I'm not yet sure what we'll do with these universes, but I have every confidence that the apps developers will think of something.
Actually, vp, it's a "Religion & PHILOSOPHY" sub-forum. I asked a philosophical question that also has deep religious consequences. Christians generally don't give a hoot about new scientific discoveries, like a better TV or a safer car or better dental hygiene. But if it impacts the Genesis account, or presumed biblical inerrancy, lord step back from the line in the sand!
"Philosophy" has nothing to do with this big particle whatever-the-hell-it-is. That is the hard sciences and there is a science board for it. As for Genesis, which I do not believe in as being literall, I do not see what the heck this has to do with it.
Metaphorically speaking, Genesis is completely true: The six days are an allegory for creation taking a set number of stages to take place, i.e., first the big bang, then the formation of matter, the sun, life, and humanity lasts. The two naked people represent humanity at it's earliest stages, before the coming of true sentience. It was a ignorant yet blissful time, and we were closer to that-which-transcends intellectual thought (God) so much that God was right there (walking around in the garden with Adam and Eve, Genesis 3:8)
The serpent represents something alien, that being sentience to primitive man, which, at that time, was alien to humanity, and the apple is the sentience it's self. The fact that Adam and Eve realize they are naked shows that we became sentient and removed ourselves from the natural world (creating fig leaves to wrap over ourselves, the first biblical use of tools) and were punished by that which was above (god) by being kicked out of the garden (our primitive existince) and being forced to exist in the land of Nod (civilization) and work the soil (agriculture, no longer hunter gatherers)
That is the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM with hard science minded anti-theist attacking religion as a whole: ALL THOSE YEARS OF READING TEXT BOOKS, AND THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ SOMETHING AS ANYTHING BUT LITERAL. An acid and a base make a neutral: simple as that. This is literal true and is a literal statement meant to be read right to left in a grade school text book and is absolutely true. HOWEVER, scripture is not like that. It is full with metaphors and allegories and needs to be interrupted, unlike a hard science which is simple set in stone.
Hence, in a way, it can be more difficult to understand religion than it is to understand science, because a hard science has no allegories, no metaphors, and is just straightforward, while religion is full of twists and turns and esoteric understandings and multiple interrupations of each point.
Anyway, I already wrote a thread on this that no anti-theist was able to refute:
It's not specifically physics or science per se that most Christians dislike. It's thisparticular LHC collider research and it's potential. Just like they buy into bacteriology but specifically deny Evolution. They believe in God's insta-creation implausibility, but won't even go to a natural history museum and view the fossils right there in front of them. "They're all faked!" they yell. Selective denialism, I call it.
Actually, the Catholic church, the largest christian demonination on Earth, is in favor or Darwin's theory of evolution,
As are the United Methodist Church, the Lutherans, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, the Society of Friends, and a bunch of other churches. So, where does this "most Christians deny evolution" thing come from, I do not know. I would agree that the most vocal Christians, the crazy fundy "JEEEEEZZZZZZUSSSSS IS LORRRRRRRRRD!" crowd deny evolution, agreed, but I would say that it is at least fifty fifty when it comes to Christian belief in evolution, not to mention the countless other religions that do not have any problem with evolution (Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Wicca, Gnosticism, Deism, etc)
Quote:
But it's OK. Go back to your religious studies and ignore this seminal research into the possible origins of the universe. Ignore the role and achievements of science in this world. In your personal world.
I never said I "ignored the achievements of science", just that I am not into it. Just as someone who is a classical composer might not be all that intrested in botany or a pyshcologist might not care that much about a new discovery in geology. It is called "Division of Labor."
Anyway, religion is one of the greatest driving forces of humanity as has shaped are world, for better and for the worse, like nothing else has. Even our everyday language, with terms like "The Good Samartian" and "the blind leading the blind" in our everyday speech and which many people do not know the religious origins of, we can see that religion is a massive part of human civilzation. Ignore religion, and one ignores human civilization.
Last edited by victorianpunk; 03-31-2010 at 01:30 PM..
honuman: that's funny. so what i heard that to some people steve jobs is a god is no joke then huh? what can u say about his iPAD... everyone hates it. i think it bombed?
personally, any apple product for me is a luxury rather than a necessity. what is so special about their product that it is always half overpriced?! that's why i am a supporter of hackintosh and i might just try one soon.
That is the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM with hard science minded people talking about religion: ALL THOSE YEARS OF READING TEXT BOOKS, AND THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ SOMETHING AS ANYTHING BUT LITERAL.
Oh, I think that rifleman completely understands the allegorical nature of the Bible, but taking the Bible literally, as more than a few comments on this forum would show, isn't the problem of atheist.
Stick around, the Church of City Data rarely disappoints.
Self-fulfilling! You are one prophetic human, Ovcatto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Oh, I think that rifleman completely understands the allegorical nature of the Bible, but taking the Bible literally, as more than a few comments on this forum would show, isn't the problem of atheist.
It's almost insulting to think that VP thinks "science minded people" don't read something other than textbooks. Inferiority complex for not being able to understand science?
That is the NUMBER ONE PROBLEM with hard science minded people talking about religion: ALL THOSE YEARS OF READING TEXT BOOKS, AND THEY DO NOT KNOW HOW TO READ SOMETHING AS ANYTHING BUT LITERAL.
I can't speak for everyone, but most hard-science-minded people do take the Bible and other religious texts as metaphor. As metaphor, myth, allegory, and parable, I think religious texts are wonderful. They illuminate truths about the human condition. My problem is with religious fundamentalists who take scripture as literal, deny all scientific discoveries that contradict their literal interpretations, and use their literal interpretations as the basis for imposing laws that everyone has to adhere to. Most atheist rants are aimed at such fundamentalists.
It's almost insulting to think that VP thinks "science minded people" don't read something other than textbooks. Inferiority complex for not being able to understand science?
Okay, as I use to say back in Highschool, "I bad". I didn't mean it that way, what I meant to say is that hard science minded critics of religion, like Dawkins and such, do not take the bible as anything but literall and cannot understand that one can be a religious person while not taking scripture as anything but metaphor.
Okay, as I use to say back in Highschool, "I bad". I didn't mean it that way, what I meant to say is that hard science minded critics of religion, like Dawkins and such, do not take the bible as anything but literall and cannot understand that one can be a religious person while not taking scripture as anything but metaphor.
And how exactly do you define which parts to take metaphorically and which parts to take literally?
If the entire thing is metaphor, you have no serious qualms about the derisive comments we make of religion, or the idea that we find it 1. a creation of mankind and 2. false, ancient, and not necessary to living.
Otherwise, your investment in "religion as metaphor" goes far beyond that.
(NOTE TO ALARMISTS: of course, it didn't happen....)
Not only did it not happen, there's strong evidence to indicate that it can't happen -- any so-called 'black hole' that's formed would be ripped to shreds by the earth's gravity several microseconds after forming, and it wouldn't be large enough to do anything but pass harmlessly through the earth if it somehow did survive.
I've always thought that since religion in general has such strong arguments about 'how the world began' that they'd be interested in finally finding out once and for all -- but then, religion suffers from such a massive superiority complex that I'm not suprised they're scared of finding out that they're not the be-all and end-all of existance.
And how exactly do you define which parts to take metaphorically and which parts to take literally?
If the entire thing is metaphor, you have no serious qualms about the derisive comments we make of religion, or the idea that we find it 1. a creation of mankind and 2. false, ancient, and not necessary to living.
The problem I have is just that, derisive comments about RELIGION, as opposed to LITERALISM or even one particular religion or another. When one says "religion" they mean all religions, and excuse me for pointing out the egg on their faces. Just like if someone made a comment about "all black people being unemployed" I would point out that Oprah has a pretty good gig if you ask me. If one attacked literalist religion, I would have no problem with it.
As for "what to take literally?" the answer is obvious: that which does not contradict what is known. But, is taking anything in Myth literal even necessary to have a religion? Of course not, as it is ultimately the teachings that matter, and not what historic facts behind them might or might not have been true. Example: Lao Tzu said:
Quote:
Weapons are the tools of violence;
all decent men detest them.
Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?
He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral
-Tao Te Ching, 31
So, if we find out Lao Tzu did not exist, what, does that mean war is suddenly not such a bad thing after all?
Of course not! Like I said in my post about a math word problem, the Myth is a tool used to convey a universal truth about the nature of humanity, life, ourselves as individuals and the human condition.
So, the doctrine behind religions cannot be proven or disproven, and neither can allot of the more "supernatural" elements. I mean, can science ever disprove the existince of the soul? It cannot. Nor can it disprove the existince of many, many other things, like demons or God it's self. All science can say is that it has no way to prove or disprove these things.
Even if this big collider thing-a-ma-gig proves that there are other universes acting on this one and that played a role in the creation of the universe, it just opens another set of question: where did the other universes come from? And, for that matter, what the heck is in those other universes? Demons? Hells? Heavens? Cthulhu? God it's self? The final resting place of Jimmy Hoffa? (much the the Jersey Turnpike's dismay)
The most this collider thing can do is ask more unanswerable questions.
Quote:
Otherwise, your investment in "religion as metaphor" goes far beyond that.
I never said religion was a metaphor. Religion exist: PERIOD. One can go into any church temple or mosque and see it in practice. I said that the religious Myths were metaphors and that, perhaps, God it's self is just a metaphor. That does not detract from the validity of religion as a possible force for good in the individual's life. As Joseph Campbell once said:
"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble."
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.
