Where Is Now? The Paradox Of The Present

[aliantha]

Holsety -- I don't know much about biology either, but I'm sure you're right. The whole human body doesn't reboot in just a couple of weeks.

On the gripping hand: You should have shot him [or at least called the cops and had him arrested] for trespassing and other stuff...after all you never invited HIM into your house.

Dammit! I wish I'd thought of that at the time! (I was pretty much speechless. This was while was living rent-free in my basement. I should've kicked him out right then; alas, he talked me into letting him stay several more months. Ya live and learn...)

[Holsety]

Holsety -- I don't know much about biology either, but I'm sure you're right. The whole human body doesn't reboot in just a couple of weeks.

Not only that, the cells are mostly duplicates of the prior cells, meaning little has changed.

There is, of course, mutation...

[Avatar]

As a math major, I take offense to this piece of logic!
Think of an infinite sheet!

(Tell me whether you want to resolve this one yourself; if not, I'm thinking of posting pictures of parametrized surfaces. But first I would have to find or create such pictures... and I am lazy.)

I think you should start a thread, because it sounds interesting, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

Although... this could be a sidetrack... I mean, to me it's just as important that God be immutable throughout time, and if He could be "shaped" He's clearly not immutable...

God can't be immutable, surely? Otherwise how can we have the differences between the old and new testament? Didn't the approach sorta change from "kill everybody" to "love everybody"? (I exaggerate for effect...you know what I mean.)

--A

[Fist and Faith]

And visit the math thread, too!

[Avatar]

Ah, the math thread.

--A

[Holsety]

OH NO. Everyone is becoming a math person but me? I'm DOOMED.

God can't be immutable, surely? Otherwise how can we have the differences between the old and new testament? Didn't the approach sorta change from "kill everybody" to "love everybody"? (I exaggerate for effect...you know what I mean.)

Let's take the rape of dinah story (actually arguable if it is a rape). The guys who did it get cursed down the line. There are other, similar stories where the violence done by the jews, in the larger narrative of the old testament, can be seen as proof that the violence is not always condoned by god IMO.

I believe that Rus would argue that the new testament is a logical taking on of the old testament, and he is probably right that in some way the stories of the new resolve the problems of the old without contradiction. There is always a way, with enough semantics, to play around and teach a new lesson. I think that in terms of, at the very least, core beliefs, judaism and christianity and islaam make a good thesis - antithesis - synthesis relationship.

[Avatar]

My point is however, that there is change.

--A

[Linna Heartbooger]

Although... this could be a sidetrack... I mean, to me it's just as important that God be immutable throughout time, and if He could be "shaped" He's clearly not immutable...

God can't be immutable, surely? Otherwise how can we have the differences between the old and new testament? Didn't the approach sorta change from "kill everybody" to "love everybody"? (I exaggerate for effect...you know what I mean.)

It has bothered me before, bothers me regularly, and will bother me again.
Actually reading through the Old Testament was one thing that made bother me less.
For awhile.

I think what I find stranger is the intermingling of those two attributes - episodes of excruciating Divine patience within the Old Testament, or the apparent severity of the words of Jesus and others within the New.

[Holsety]

My point is however, that there is change.

--A

Agreed. However, it often seems to be on the order of creating further stability. For instance, god sends a dove (think I'm right here) to signal that the world will not be flooded (though of course we say that the world will, naturally enough, end in flames for all of us the next time, except maybe for the good man left over) again in order to remove evil in order to make way for the good.

I think what I find stranger is the intermingling of those two attributes - episodes of excruciating Divine patience within the Old Testament, or the apparent severity of the words of Jesus and others within the New.

I personally believe it is what is EMPHASIZED, either by the text itself or by the believers, not what is contained within the whole, that makes a religion, or more importantly a person, valuable. That is why I would say that Christianity would probably be a better religion for me than Judaism, because it emphasizes - if emulation of christ is not hubris - sacrifice of the self for others. Judaism is not a religion that denies self sacrifice, but I would say that generally it makes of jews a people who should be loyal primarily to their own people and not to the world as a whole, at least in the writings (remembering all the passages about how to treat a jewish person vs nonjewish person in various circumstances, though of course there are rules about leaving out corners of your fields for beggars, etc).

[Vraith]

My point is however, that there is change.

--A

Hmmm...that can't be so for the Chrisitian definition of God. Any appearance of change is because we changed, not cuz God did.

Rephrasing what someone already implied: a mutable God isn't God.
And a natural consequence of that is that there is no free will, no past/present/future...both are simply the pipe-dreams of bio-physi-chemical processes suffering from total impotence.

Of course, I think the Christian God idea/definition [and most others, too] is balderdash, so I don't worry about it.

[Avatar]

Oh, I don't worry about it either. I just wonder how people reconcile it?

--A

[Cambo]

Often by ignoring it, it seems to me .

[Holsety]

Often by ignoring it, it seems to me .

Well, they really don't have the time to focus on it fully in their everday lives and actually build an argument to fully compatibilize religion with science, or build a grander scheme of the universe than there actually is in order to prove god. That's why it's called a "belief."

Moreover, humans were left imperfect, god understands that and is willing to continue to try guiding them towards heaven anyway, because god's patience is (as pointed out earlier) at times infinite and at times almost nil (thus casting out or at least allowing to be cast out the Jews from the Holy Land).

We often ask ourselves if we were any happier today then we were any other day. If humans as a whole were, I mean, in the grand scheme of history. All evidence seems to indicate that there's not really any really easy way to measure happiness, especially because happiness takes different forms. Now, the hubris of science is that it attempted to explain god in a way more useful and simple than god himself originally stated his rules. Science is something like the high priest of the temple, who has been lowered into a hole to whisper the true name of god, shouting it out for all to hear once he comes back out. When you attempt to explain everything away as the result of biochemical processes, I can't help but facepalm as a believer in god. Again, note the Abrahamic argument: it is perfectly acceptable for the believer to throw the words of god in god's face, and it is rare that he does not in his mind weigh the words of god carefully before making his decisions to argue against god.

If you ask me today, science vs religion? I say, depends upon time and place. That is why you do not see me putting a great deal of effort into converting you into a belief in god. Superficially, I owe a little more to Einstein than to god for that answer, but Einstein was a jew. I have no idea as to his beliefs, nor do they particularly concern me. The theory of general relativity is an interesting enough equation because it is simple, but I know little of from what it is derived in physics.

[Cambo]

Holsety- I was meaning less about science vs religion (I see that as a pointless debate myself) and more about seeming internal inconsistencies within their own doctrine.

[Avatar]

We often ask ourselves if we were any happier today then we were any other day. If humans as a whole were, I mean, in the grand scheme of history.

Happiness is really a relatively recent invention. In fact, in all languages, IIRC, it is really descended from the root word for "luck."

We don't really know what happiness is, (as you point out), and most of what we assume about it, (like how long it will last or how "happy" we will be when something happens) is wrong.

--A

[Holsety]

Holsety- I was meaning less about science vs religion (I see that as a pointless debate myself) and more about seeming internal inconsistencies within their own doctrine.

Ah ha. Well, why do you think that reforming internal inconsistencies within one's own doctrine is so important? We are all SRD fans here and, since this is the close, I feel quite comfortable in saying that I have a tendency to believe in god right now even when, as a result of paranoid delusions, I am feeling bad (as opposed to happy). I don't particularly believe in Taoism, or other beliefs in a non-active or non-conscious god unconcerned with our existence, because I believe it relies on logic in order to function and I don't see why logic is, by virtue of appearing correct to the human mind as a part or a whole, necessarily correct. There are many aspects of "truth" which, to me, reduce down to the same thing. Maybe I should not have gotten a B+ in rationalism and empiricism, eh? (2nd time round - first time F)

[Fist and Faith]

"Science" never attempted to explain God. There is no such thing as "science" in that sense. Some people have attempted to prove or disprove the existence of God using the scientific method. Which, in the words of wikipedia, which seem very good, means:

Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

Observe what is observable. See what intrigues you. Make guesses about how it works. Examine it more closely, and repeatedly. Predict how it will work the next time, and how it will work if you change things around a little. Etc. THAT is "science".

I heard about two atheists who became believers after trying. It was a fool's quest, but you have to admire them for not fudging whatever test results they came up with. They were good scientists, who failed miserably attempting to do something that cannot be done, and NEED not be done.

Francis Collins is a very strong believer whose science was impeccable as he headed up the Human Genome Project.

A Jehovah's Witness pamphlet I once saw attempted to discredit evolution using the most pathetic "science" I've ever seen.

The scientific method has lead to more changes, and improvements, in our lives than we could ever name. Including our ability to communicate in this way.

Trying to use science to discredit faith, or faith to discredit science, is a waste of time, doomed to fail, and will reveal things about you ("you" in the general sense) that you should wish were not a part of you.

[Holsety]

"Science" never attempted to explain God.

Really? Dawkins and Hawking, both eminent scientists, have both submitted proofs against him in one way and another (I heard about Hawking's proof on the radio). I agree that "science" did not, but can you understand the usefulness of my metaphor? If they attempt to disprove god without explaining it that is highly irrational, and these are some of science's leading thinkers. Or at least they were.

I would agree that since science is unconscious, it itself has never tried to disprove faith, but HLT was the first one on the close to claim that science had a personality and a life of its own (he said "science is laughing at you")

Observe what is observable. See what intrigues you. Make guesses about how it works. Examine it more closely, and repeatedly. Predict how it will work the next time, and how it will work if you change things around a little. Etc. THAT is "science".

All I have seen RECENTLY is that a great deal of the world is far better and more intelligent than I am, and probably always was, which is exactly what I asked for. The sad thing is that it doesn't seem to have made them any happier. I have no idea what to do about that one.

Trying to use science to discredit faith, or faith to discredit science, is a waste of time, doomed to fail, and will reveal things about you ("you" in the general sense) that you should wish were not a part of you.

Now you're should'ing me? Explain the moral code that says that science and faith should be kept mutually exclusive? It is, frankly, beyond me.

Anyway, yes I see parts of myself I wish weren't a part of me, but what do I do when the world refuses to cauterize them in any sort of easy or useful way, but takes the longest and most painful possible route?

[Fist and Faith]

"Science" never attempted to explain God.

Really? Dawkins and Hawking, both eminent scientists, have both submitted proofs against him in one way and another (I heard about Hawking's proof on the radio). I agree that "science" did not, but can you understand the usefulness of my metaphor? If they attempt to disprove god without explaining it that is highly irrational, and these are some of science's leading thinkers. Or at least they were.

As you say, '''science" did not.' And "science" should not be cast in a bad light because of scientists doing things badly, or doing bad things.

I would agree that since science is unconscious, it itself has never tried to disprove faith, but HLT was the first one on the close to claim that science had a personality and a life of its own (he said "science is laughing at you")

I didn't read his post, so have no idea what the exchange was. But I'll gladly say science is laughing at you if you say science is arrogant ("...the hubris of science..."). But better to try to make you understand. Your view of science is flawed in a very basic, yet profound, way. Deeply religious people have used the scientific method to advance our understanding of the world without casting the smallest bit of doubt on faith. Galilei, Pasteur, and Newton were very strong believers. Mendel was a monk, and Copernicus was a cleric. THEY saw no conflict with faith and trying to learn how the universe worked.

Observe what is observable. See what intrigues you. Make guesses about how it works. Examine it more closely, and repeatedly. Predict how it will work the next time, and how it will work if you change things around a little. Etc. THAT is "science".

All I have seen RECENTLY is that a great deal of the world is far better and more intelligent than I am, and probably always was, which is exactly what I asked for. The sad thing is that it doesn't seem to have made them any happier. I have no idea what to do about that one.

Intelligence and facts don't have anything to do with happiness. It sure would be cool if they did, eh?!?

Trying to use science to discredit faith, or faith to discredit science, is a waste of time, doomed to fail, and will reveal things about you ("you" in the general sense) that you should wish were not a part of you.

Now you're should'ing me? Explain the moral code that says that science and faith should be kept mutually exclusive? It is, frankly, beyond me.

There is no need to try to keep them mutually exclusive. They are different fields. They do not contradict each other any more than music and cooking do.

Anyway, yes I see parts of myself I wish weren't a part of me, but what do I do when the world refuses to cauterize them in any sort of easy or useful way, but takes the longest and most painful possible route?

Don't wait for the world to do it. Cauterize them yourself.

[Holsety]

As you say, '''science" did not.' And "science" should not be cast in a bad light because of scientists doing things badly, or doing bad things.

Fine. Science is a school of thought which is value neutral and should not be judged good or bad. My apologies.

Galilei, Pasteur, and Newton were very strong believers. Mendel was a monk, and Copernicus was a cleric. THEY saw no conflict with faith and trying to learn how the universe worked.

Makes sense to me in part since god created the universe. However, there is the babel story with, for instance, language creating a unity of understanding of the world for humanity that god must then crush, in order to maintain separation between humanity and god. (god actually fears the unity, fears that humanity will equal god in one translation I read)

Moreover, this suggests that merely because they made great discoveries, they were great people and that the division between science and faith that they managed is what allowed them to make their discoveries. This seems highly improbable. Most science teachers would tell you the discoveries were something of an accident, not a moral reward for keeping two aspects of studying the world divided.

Intelligence and facts don't have anything to do with happiness. It sure would be cool if they did, eh?!?

Nah, I don't know how intelligent I am so I don't know that it would be cool.

Don't wait for the world to do it. Cauterize them yourself.

Somehow I am reminded of Tartarus, the one guy in it (may be named Tartarus) who is trying to roll a boulder up a hill and, when he nearly reaches the top, he messes up and it rolls to the bottom. Kind of asymptotic, ain't it?