Angels & Demons
discussion
Would you rather live in a world without science...or in a world without religion?
Travis wrote: "Moth man"
You just had to bring up Mothman.... I mistook a snowy owl, flying in front of my car at dusk, for Mothman once. I mean, I thought ... surely not. Mothman was a myth. But, it was the freakiest looking thing I've ever seen in my entire life.
In point of fact, I'm still not sure it wasn't Mothman. I'm only 97% sure.
You just had to bring up Mothman.... I mistook a snowy owl, flying in front of my car at dusk, for Mothman once. I mean, I thought ... surely not. Mothman was a myth. But, it was the freakiest looking thing I've ever seen in my entire life.
In point of fact, I'm still not sure it wasn't Mothman. I'm only 97% sure.
I believe in all things we need balance. Both science and religion have a very powerful role in our world so it would be beyond chaos to remove either one. It is true that science brings order and some very universal truths. But one can easily say the same about religion. It is also true that religion has spawned the most destructive of all things-WAR. But science is what created the ultimate weapon. And I also believe both are just two sides of the coin we call spirituality.
I left the Church a few years back. The guilt that one is made to feel was too much. I've never looked back and can say I am a better person now. So my answer is, no religion.
I still can't believe that I broke my computer a while ago... Finally get a new Internet fix come back and we are still at it on here .. Now that is true devotion
Shannon wrote: "What word should we use? You guys are the science guys. Feeling I'm in the realm of science on this one. Suggestions. Should I go with native?":-/ I'm sorry. That's the problem sometimes I think. Certain everyday words have "common sense" meanings that everyone thinks they understand, yet they are often rooted in a base set of assumptions which is often based on our own subjective perception. Scientists train to see these subjective assumptions and attempt to remove the intrinsic bias by rigorous objectivity. Hence sometimes it is hard to correlate.
For example the terms "native" and "natural" are highly subjective, but there is no real avoiding that. The entire concept of a "native people" is one of precedence rather than an absolute. For example the Native Americans likely had their genesis in the previous Clovis culture, and all evidence suggests that those people colonised America from Europe and from there Africa. Yet even then we delineate an artificial line between "human" and "pre-human" as our distant ancestors may have evolved in a different continent and ultimately the seas.
In a similar manner the term "nature" implies an intrinsic property of something. Yet this means that terms like "unnatural" or "supernatural" are subjective judgements on what is nature or not. For example, proof of ghosts would not really be proof of the "supernatural" as if they existed it is then their "nature" therefore they would be natural. In a similar manner a god/creator would be a nature or even "the" nature of the universe and therefore not separate and "supernatural" but rather simply "natural".
So it's not the terminology that is the problem but the inherent assumptions that certain terminology makes.
I'm sorry that may be unsatisfying answer, but that is the best way I can put it.
Shannon wrote: "This is what I'm talking about. I can say "native" or something else if you have an idea. And, this is my concern regarding colonization. One species paying a price for the other. Further, again, I'm not the science person, but .... I'm guessing here, but ... if a non-native species is introduced to an environment that its never existed in before and it's an invasive species or becomes one and destroys native species, very, very bad things could happen. Couldn't that throw off the entire area, eco-system? "
You are quite right, and it is an important point. Indeed eco-systems can be devastated and to our species the consequences could be vast. Yet according to our best understanding of the history of life the devastation of eco-systems and species invading is not only natural, but the devastations that happen are then usually responsible for rapid evolution afterwards. We almost certainly owe our existence to these disasters.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that the argument from what is "natural", "native" or "intrinsic" to a place is so subjective that I feel that a separate ethical argument needs to supplement it to define it or to define how we make the unavoidable value judgement we must make to decide between colonisation or not. After all denying colonisation is as much a value judgement on humanities right to expand as a race at all as it is one to allow colonisation.
cHriS wrote: "Not a good analogy."Why?
Again you make a claim without presenting reason or evidence and expect people to take your opinion on faith.
cHriS wrote: "Yes more or less, you are correct. I would understand if you as a person with years of study of cosmology, wanted to add more information or elaborate on the answer. But you dismiss it completely."
I dismiss the question because with my knowledge I realise that you must understand the mistakes in the assumptions the question makes.
cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote:"
I assume that's an editing error as I didn't write the following.
cHriS wrote: "You seem to have years of study on many scientific or religious subjects and that is not a criticism, more an observation. The problem I have with that is, all that knowledge has to have it’s limitations and people with less knowledge on those subjects will take what you say as gospel, which I do most of the time; but on occasions in the past you have not been correct and it is those occasions where you gloss over the issue or deflect from the issue. "
In your opinion I was not correct, and your opinion was backed by an unsupported claim, where I provided reason and evidence. I am not claiming to be perfect, and occasionally I may make mistakes in details, yet you accuse me of deliberate deception. Meanwhile you will not admit to being wrong even when presented plenty of evidence and reasoning and then try to deflect this by claiming dishonesty.
cHriS wrote: "One, I will take the answer as more or less correct even though I understand that a two sentence answer may not do the question justice. Two, I have read another scientific ‘hypothesis’ that may contradict that answer. Are both answers wrong or are both correct. My understanding is the answer is correct if it fit’s the theory."
You miss the point that you may have not understood the context of the answer to the question because of certain erroneous assumptions you have made. For example your assumption of absolute space and time in the previous example.
Let's not forget that the entire reason you brought up the mistaken hypothesis was to claim that science was somehow bias or inherently equivalent in assumption to religion yet that claim was based on a misunderstanding of that hypothesis.
cHriS wrote: "Gary wrote: Citation needed.
This is what puzzles me about your knowledge. You are the expert but you want a reference to what I am referring to. As a non expert but as someone who has an interest; another hypothesis/theory is the bubble theory, which seems to make some sort of sense and would fit into the ‘edge of the universe’ reference Prof. Cox was suggesting."
The puzzle here is that I have tried to point out how your hypothesis is not consistent with known physics for over a century, then you make a vague claim to some scientists still supporting your 19th century concept which was an appeal to authority, an authority that you didn't define.
cHriS wrote: "……. although incomplete?…. and that is the paradox of science. It’s deemed right until it is proven not to be so; a bit like religion. ‘We’ should not question, that is the job of science."
Wrong. Science is not "deemed right" scientific theory is right because it makes provable predictions. Most of science is not "proved wrong" in your simplistic viewpoint. Actually what happens is that new theories appear that are more accurate, or supplement existing theory.
For example, atomic theory assumed that everything was made up of tiny indivisible particles called atoms that arrange into molecules whose properties and reactions can predict. Then particle theory came along and showed that atoms weren't indivisible but explained different atoms using electrons and protons. This did not mean that "atomic theory" was wrong, just that it was not as detailed as particle theory. Then nuclear theory explained even more, then QCD explained more until we reach what we call the "standard model" of particle physics.
Physics now has two main pillars, Quantum Theory and Relativity, both of which are powerful but they do not work well together and unfortunately things like understanding the origin of the universe needs to link the theory of the very big (relativity) to the very small (quantum physics).
Meanwhile religion makes claims to perfect knowledge, yet is repeatedly demonstrated to be erroneous and then religion retreats somewhat. Like the infamous case of Lightening Rods on Churches.
The fact that we say scientific theory is incomplete is because scientists have the humility to realise that we don't know everything yet.
cHriS wrote: "And when the General Theory of Relativity, one of the pillars of modern Physics is held in esteem….. along comes ’dark energy’ to put a cat among the pigeons. "
Why is that a problem? Dark Energy does not disprove relativity. In fact Dark Energy is not a problem but an exciting opportunity. Dark Energy is evidence of physics we do not yet know and understand. This is the true "speculation" that you scoffed at in your original post. Scientists do not generally speculate on the existence of "god" because their is no evidence and indeed no consistent testable definition of that hypothesis. Meanwhile Dark Energy is evidence of something we don't yet know about which may lead us to a more complete understanding of physics and even link Relativity with Quantum Physics.
Your idea that this put a "cat among the pigeons" is based on your flawed concept that science is based on belief and dogma. Scientists welcome new discoveries because this leads to better understanding. It's only religious fanatics that get upset by "new" evidence spoiling their beliefs. (New like the 100+ year old theory of relativity, or the centuries old theories of evolution or heliocentrism.
Science embraces the unknown for what it can teach us, religion generally allocates the unknown to the assumption of a god, gods or other hypothetical entity based on cultural assumptions.
cHriS wrote: "That did not answer the question."
Which question specifically? I was pointing out that the theory you had dismissed was a highly regarded and important one. The other paragraphs were the answer to your question (or rather the explanation for why the question was invalid).
cHriS wrote: "Where I come from that’s called having a different opinion, you seem to see it as not agreeing with Gary."
Exactly, you regard evidence, reason and proof as "another opinion". This is the same thing that snake-oil salesman and others have been relying on for years.
Scientific evidence is not an "opinion", it is rigorously tested and independently verified proofs that are a close to "truth" as can be reached without the dishonesty of absolute claims.
By your logic there is no need to learn another language to communicate with other people as your "opinion" for what they meant is as valid as their "opinion" of what they meant, whether or not you understood a word. It is the same as claiming that you can repair a broken computer based on your "opinion" of how to fix it being equivalent to that of an electronics expert. It's smug and arrogant.
cHriS wrote: "Anyway if science does not occasionally refute others work, we would still think the earth was flat."
Yes, that is fine. Which is why we need evidence and reason to refute rather than baseless claims that scoff at rigorous work. Since some people still do think the world is flat and smugly disagree with over 2000 years of proof to the contrary your point illustrates the problem with your idea that all opinions are equally valid.
cHriS wrote: "He gave the answer to the question. If you like and to simplify things; think of me as the messenger. You are disputing his reply to the question."
No. I think that Professor Cox was right, I am disputing your comprehension of his answer, or lack of same. You are not a messenger because you have used your own interpretation containing assumptions that are not assumptions a modern physicist would make.
Since your original claim was to try to allude to the limitations of science, using your own limited understanding to justify dismissing the understanding of others is, at best, misguided.
Gary wrote: "After all denying colonisation is as much a value judgement on humanities right to expand as a race at all as it is one to allow colonisation. "
Likely right ....
It also seems very dependent, in my opinion, on which group one belongs to. Yes?
The group that has used all its resources and needs/wants more and will take from others to meet their needs, or the "native" group who has always lived in the place and made it home, whether human, plant or animal ....
Likely right ....
It also seems very dependent, in my opinion, on which group one belongs to. Yes?
The group that has used all its resources and needs/wants more and will take from others to meet their needs, or the "native" group who has always lived in the place and made it home, whether human, plant or animal ....
I think I'd rather live in a world with science, I'm still yet to find the faith of religion. Saying that, maybe one day science will enlighten us further about religion, and maybe one day this will convince me to prefer religion?
Shannon wrote: "It also seems very dependent, in my opinion, on which group one belongs to. Yes?"Indeed, but sometimes moral decisions are not black and white.
Shannon wrote: "The group that has used all its resources and needs/wants more and will take from others to meet their needs, or the "native" group who has always lived in the place and made it home, whether human, plant or animal .... "
Can you see the point I am making. Here you say "used all its resources" and then "need/wants more". Here you have the assumption that the group had a right to the first set of resources and yet didn't have the right to the other set, but both of these are essentially arbitrary value judgements.
If you extrapolate that argument then you reach the point where you can state that we do not have the right to eat because we are claiming the resources of other lifeforms (their bodies) and consuming them for our own use. The same could be said for every organism except plants but without animals to cycle carbon back into the air as CO2 plants would suffer to.
This is why you need some other ethical imperative to provide the constraint to the value judgement of what is rightfully one groups and what isn't. That of course is indeed a moral quandary and at some level there needs to be an arbitrary decision. However I think it's important to acknowledge the arbitrary nature of such a choice because as you pointed out in the past that arbitrary level has shifted to the point that certain people where denied rights. After all a significant justification (i.e. perhaps an excuse rather than reason) for the European conquest of the Americas was to bring what was judged to be a superior morality and culture to those that didn't have it, and also an opportunity to escape "persecution" that those Europeans were subjected to. (Apparently that persecution had been the denial of the right to persecute others in a puritanical religion).
I have considered this question over things like the morality of vegetarianism etc. and my current ethical understanding would be something like;
We are animals and we must consume to exist, meanwhile as concious thinking entities that are able to reason our greatest duty is to other entities that also think and reason rather than consume without forethought or care. Therefore, if we wish to claim resources be it the flesh of another organic being (plant or animal) then we need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that those resources are not in use by another entity that could reason and thereby show restraint.
This ethos may be somewhat humanocentric and may be imperfect, but it is a positive ethos which does not avoid the hard questions that the assumptions contained within other methods often employ, and is better than not thinking about it at all.
Did that make any sense?
Religion is what at end of the day helps man survive all failures caused by science.
Charmain wrote: "I think I'd rather live in a world with science, I'm still yet to find the faith of religion. Saying that, maybe one day science will enlighten us further about religion, and maybe one day this wi..."That is one of the ironies regarding this question. At the most simple level science is a search for knowledge about what is real and how it works. Therefore logically if gods exist science should and would eventually discover that. However at that point we would no longer require belief and faith and therefore religion would be replaced by science even if god wasn't.
Aiman wrote: "Religion is what at end of the day helps man survive all failures caused by science."Like?
Are you referring to praying away fallout or something?
What failures of science are you talking about and are they failures of science really or failures of man's use of science.
After all many swords have been made with the science of metallurgy, as has many ploughs, but it has been ideology and belief that has caused more swords to be picked up in hate and anger than reason and rationality.
Travis wrote: "Shanna wrote: "Travis wrote: "We have reached the point where we are using cryptozoology to defend the bible?"Nope just a little sidetrack.... :)
Though it is interesting in an amusing way...
h..."
:D
Gary wrote: "Aiman wrote: "Religion is what at end of the day helps man survive all failures caused by science."Like?
Are you referring to praying away fallout or something?
What failures of science are you..."
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17...
and science with due respect cannot help man find God or even a trace of him because the presence of God can only be felt.
And you say you can't see Him!
It's only Him you see ,when you can see nothing else.
When you are stranded in an unilluminated dead end alley with no way back......
And you say you can't see Him!
Gary wrote: "Can you see the point I am making. Here you say "used all its resources" and then "need/wants more". Here you have the assumption that the group had a right to the first set of resources and yet didn't have the right to the other set, but both of these are essentially arbitrary value judgements.
If you extrapolate that argument then you reach the point where you can state that we do not have the right to eat because we are claiming the resources of other lifeforms (their bodies) and consuming them for our own use. The same could be said for every organism except plants but without animals to cycle carbon back into the air as CO2 plants would suffer to."
Actually, I do see the point. I also know you see my point.
We could, perhaps, say the group, be they human, animal or plant, don't have the "right" to the resources of their area. However, I think it's fair to say they have more of a "right" to those resources than to the resources of other lands or planets, especially if those places are already inhabited.
The latter is a wee extreme, yes?
There's a difference between, for example, Europeans eating the food and living on the land of their area, their area for generations VS going to another land and practicing genocide, intentional and unintentional, on the people who lived there previously. Of course, that really sounds extreme. Unfortunately, it actually happened.
If you extrapolate that argument then you reach the point where you can state that we do not have the right to eat because we are claiming the resources of other lifeforms (their bodies) and consuming them for our own use. The same could be said for every organism except plants but without animals to cycle carbon back into the air as CO2 plants would suffer to."
Actually, I do see the point. I also know you see my point.
We could, perhaps, say the group, be they human, animal or plant, don't have the "right" to the resources of their area. However, I think it's fair to say they have more of a "right" to those resources than to the resources of other lands or planets, especially if those places are already inhabited.
The latter is a wee extreme, yes?
There's a difference between, for example, Europeans eating the food and living on the land of their area, their area for generations VS going to another land and practicing genocide, intentional and unintentional, on the people who lived there previously. Of course, that really sounds extreme. Unfortunately, it actually happened.
Aiman wrote: "http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17..."So one person didn't believe in god and now does, well I used to and now don't so does that prove god doesn't exist?
Aiman wrote: "and science with due respect cannot help man find God or even a trace of him because the presence of God can only be felt."
So being able to be felt means that he is detectable therefore why can't science find him?
Science is the study of what is real, so if god is beyond science then he belongs to the category of objects and entities outside of that which is real.
Aiman wrote: "When you are stranded in an unilluminated dead end alley with no way back......"
Can you locate this alley on Google Streetview for us?
Aiman wrote: "And you say you can't see Him!"
Did I say that? Or where you putting words in people's mouths? Besides you claim he can only be felt so he is detectable to touch not sight. However, since touch requires certain interactions does that mean we can see god on radar?
Aiman wrote: "http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17..."Oh and I am a British non-theist and I never heard of "Antony Flew" before your link, so world leading when someone from the same country has never heard of him???
Oh and it wasn't really an answer to the question "What are the failures of science that religion has saved us from" was it?
Gary wrote: "Aiman wrote: "http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17..."So one person didn't believe in god and now does, well I used to and now don't so does that prove god doesn't exist?
Aiman wrote: "and scie..."
hahahahaha You're funny. Time will help you mate...it's about one's experiences with things he beyond his power or anybody else's or beyond science's power for that matter.
and yes He can only be felt and seen through his manifestations- the trees, the scorching deserts, the mountains and list goes on.
Have you ever wondered who created them? Science can of course explain how they've formed over years but Who is He who ordered their creation?
and i don't put words into peoples mouth. If you don't agree with me that's okay.
No google street view can't do that for us, unfortunately science can't find them. These alleys exist everywhere only those who are meant to see/experience them can understand.
As for detecting God using radar....now that's epic. Tell me if your science can measure or even prove the existence of love? Now love can be felt and seen like God but cannot be measured or detected using radars.So love doesn't exist?
Shannon wrote: "We could, perhaps, say the group, be they human, animal or plant, don't have the "right" to the resources of their area. However, I think it's fair to say they have more of a "right" to those resources than to the resources of other lands or planets, especially if those places are already inhabited. "But that only draws an arbitrary geographical line on what is rightfully theirs or not. You could say that a modern American now has a right to live in America, but how many really do when the resources they consume are actually planet-wide? In times past the link between people and the land they live on was more direct, however not so much anymore.
The latter is a wee extreme, yes?
Shannon wrote: "There's a difference between, for example, Europeans eating the food and living on the land of their area, their area for generations VS going to another land and practicing genocide, intentional and unintentional, on the people who lived their previously. Of course, that really sounds extreme. Unfortunately, it actually happened."
Yes I know. Which is why I regard colonisation through a similar lens that I view cleaning. If cleaning required the genocide of another thinking species then I would find it abhorrent, but the carnage wrought by disinfecting my kitchen surfaces, not so much.
Hence my contention that the colonisation of almost certainly sterile planets to be acceptable, as long as the destination is carefully studied and the absence of complex or intelligent life to be confirmed to be absent beyond reasonable levels.
Events like the colonisation of the Americas, or more correctly the conquest of the Americas, are indeed a sad feature of our history, repeated endlessly since the rise of the Empire of Ur. However, would you equate such travesties with the inhabiting of Earth's Orbit by means of the ISS? The chances of us invading and destroying life in our orbit is about the same as the chances of doing the same by colonising the Moon, however it is perhaps our heritage to regard the link between physical land and ownership rights that gives people pause?
Aiman wrote: "it's about one's experiences with things he beyond his power or anybody else's or beyond science's power for that matter.""Power" and "might" are a common feature in the lexicon of many fundamentalist theists yet they seem to forget that "might" is the threat of force, so what then is the "Almighty"?
It's not about power, its about knowledge and humility in the face of the unknown.
Aiman wrote: "and yes He can only be felt and seen through his manifestations- the trees, the scorching deserts, the mountains and list goes on."
Your argument is that god is made of wood and silicates? Or perhaps that there is "stuff" and god is also "stuff" therefore "stuff" exists?
What exactly is it about trees that points to a giant invisible powerful person who has traits and emotions suspiciously similar to ones own?
Aiman wrote: "Have you ever wondered who created them?"
Trees were not created, they existed as other matter and were rearranged. Rocks were the same.
Aiman wrote: "Science can of course explain how they've formed over years but Who is He who ordered their creation?"
Show me anything that has been "created". For things to be "created" there has to be a time that they did not exist. Meanwhile the way that matter is rearranged by physical processes is fairly well understood without needing a magician.
Aiman wrote: "and i don't put words into peoples mouth. If you don't agree with me that's okay."
You said "and I say that I can't see him!" as if this was surprising. In fact I do agree with you that I don't see him, but I didn't even when I believed in him with all my heart.
Aiman wrote: "No google street view can't do that for us, unfortunately science can't find them. These alleys exist everywhere only those who are meant to see/experience them can understand."
I have debated apologists for many years and I have to say the hypothesis of invisible alleyways is a new one for me. At least that's a new version of the tired circular argument that to believe is to know and therefore to know is to believe.
Aiman wrote: "As for detecting God using radar....now that's epic. Tell me if your science can measure or even prove the existence of love?"
Yes.
Aiman wrote: "Now love can be felt and seen like God but cannot be measured or detected using radars.So love doesn't exist? "
Actually it can be detected by MRI imagery of certain portions of the brain and levels of certain hormones in the blood via apparatus that are not too distantly related to radar.
Of course what we call "love" is not a simplistic magical force like some people believe, but is instead a far more interesting, beautiful and complex classification of interactions.
So actually we also understand love quite well, not only how it operates, but why it exists and how it effects us. However, that does not make the experience any less worthwhile than if it was caused by a diminutive cherubim shooting arrows.
Assertion of creation.
Appeal to beauty.
Assertion of revelation.
Argument of personal incredulity.
Reification of abstracts.
I am close to filling a line on apologist bingo! :-)
Gary wrote: "Aiman wrote: "http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17..."Interesting though. A quick bit of research on a few sites was very interesting. Has anyone else heard of him? Apparently his "conversion" was at the age of 81 and it wasn't to Christianity, but to a form of Deism and a belief in an Aristotlean style "prime mover" entity that did not interact with the world like the Christian or Muslim god and was still highly critical of both. Six years later he died, but before that he released at least one book on his new release that was co-authored but contained a lot of Americanisms showing that he was likely not the author of much of the text. Several people have indicated that he seemed to be in mental decline at the time and were very suspicious of his collaborators motives in helping him write these new books.
Unfortunately I cannot find what he died of, and at 87 it would likely be simply recorded as "old age" but there were several who thought that he had started losing his mental faculties. A review in the New York Times by Anthony Gottlieb said “Far from strengthening the case for the existence of God, [the book] rather weakens the case for the existence of Antony Flew.”
Aiman wrote: "Gary wrote: "Aiman wrote: "http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17..."So one person didn't believe in god and now does, well I used to and now don't so does that prove god doesn't exist?
Aiman wro..."
Exactly Aiman! You go!x
Is this a real question? The answer is a world without religion.
Gary wrote: "Events like the colonisation of the Americas, or more correctly the conquest of the Americas, are indeed a sad feature of our history, repeated endlessly since the rise of the Empire of Ur. However, would you equate such travesties with the inhabiting of Earth's Orbit by means of the ISS? The chances of us invading and destroying life in our orbit is about the same as the chances of doing the same by colonising the Moon, however it is perhaps our heritage to regard the link between physical land and ownership rights that gives people pause? "
No, I don't link the ISS or colonization of Mars with what happened to my people and the other native tribes when the Europeans colonized/conquered the Americas. However, given this and the track record humans have regarding natural resources and colonization, talk of new colonization, as I said, makes me uncomfortable. I feel it's important for me to give voice to this perspective; it's a point of view worth considering.
No, I don't link the ISS or colonization of Mars with what happened to my people and the other native tribes when the Europeans colonized/conquered the Americas. However, given this and the track record humans have regarding natural resources and colonization, talk of new colonization, as I said, makes me uncomfortable. I feel it's important for me to give voice to this perspective; it's a point of view worth considering.
Gary wrote: "But that only draws an arbitrary geographical line on what is rightfully theirs or not. You could say that a modern American now has a right to live in America, but how many really do when the resources they consume are actually planet-wide? In times past the link between people and the land they live on was more direct, however not so much anymore."
Hmmm.... Need more information on this.
We could say a modern American now has the right to live in America, but how many do when they consume things from ... other areas? Would that include all peoples or just Americans? Where should we live?
Does this idea have more to do with consumption than with where one lives? As in, do Americans have the right to consume more than people from other areas? ?
Or, does it extend to land use?
Does China have the "right" to pollute and decimate "their" land, since it's their land, in their work to modernize and commercialize? Do they have the "right" to live there if they're harming the planet in a way that will impact the rest of us?
Hmmm...?
Again, I need more info regarding your thoughts on this point to truly understand where you're going.
Hmmm.... Need more information on this.
We could say a modern American now has the right to live in America, but how many do when they consume things from ... other areas? Would that include all peoples or just Americans? Where should we live?
Does this idea have more to do with consumption than with where one lives? As in, do Americans have the right to consume more than people from other areas? ?
Or, does it extend to land use?
Does China have the "right" to pollute and decimate "their" land, since it's their land, in their work to modernize and commercialize? Do they have the "right" to live there if they're harming the planet in a way that will impact the rest of us?
Hmmm...?
Again, I need more info regarding your thoughts on this point to truly understand where you're going.
Shannon wrote: "However, given this and the track record humans have regarding natural resources and colonization, talk of new colonization, as I said, makes me uncomfortable. I feel it's important for me to give voice to this perspective; it's a point of view worth considering. "Agreed.
Shannon wrote: "Hmmm.... Need more information on this. We could say a modern American now has the right to live in America, but how many do when they consume things from ... other areas? Would that include all peoples or just Americans? Where should we live?"
My point is where we (at least in the modern world) live is no longer directly linked to where we live off, so to speak. The food on our plates is sourced from around the world, as is the labour that builds our "things", the lumber in our furniture and the fuel in our cars and even the oil that is pumped into our own farms and fertilisers. People in the first world live globally and therefore historical concepts such as nationality mean a lot less.
It is similar I suppose to the British Empire or the Roman Empire, where an elite benefited from the collective efforts of many people who do not share in the wealth.
Shannon wrote: "Does this idea have more to do with consumption than with where one lives? As in, do Americans have the right to consume more than people from other areas? ?
Or, does it extend to land use?"
I'm going to go with "yes" :-) basically it used to be that humans consumed from where they lived, but increasingly we consume from the planet in general to a disproportionate degree. As travel and trade have gone global so has our individual footprint been de-localised.
Is our historic support of despotic regimes in the Middle East in order to secure reliable oil supplies any more ethical than going there, colonising and setting up our own despotic regime?
Shannon wrote: "Does China have the "right" to pollute and decimate "their" land, since it's their land, in their work to modernize and commercialize? Do they have the "right" to live there if they're harming the planet in a way that will impact the rest of us?"
Exactly. Obviously it can be seen to be unethical to try to deny others the advantages we enjoy through selfishness but at the same time we now are starting to understand the damage we have wrought and that they are now contributing to. It doesn't matter if a ton of pollution is pumped into the air in China or the US if we all share it in the end. Pollution does not respect borders.
Shannon wrote: "Again, I need more info regarding your thoughts on this point to truly understand where you're going. "
Simply that lines on a map are arbitrary compared to the people that we effect. The atrocity of the Europeans was not taking Native American's lands but taking their resources and their lives. Hence why I would oppose colonisation of anywhere that we have reason to believe holds conscious life, but would be fine colonising somewhere that does not, especially if it could in the long run teach us to use resources sensibly and efficiently.
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Hmmm.... Need more information on this. We could say a modern American now has the right to live in America, but how many do when they consume things from ... other areas? Would t..."
The word you're looking for is globalization.
Rob wrote: "The word you're looking for is globalization. "I tend to steer away from that word as it is thrown up as a spectre of evil in some political debates.
Gary wrote: "My point is where we (at least in the modern world) live is no longer directly linked to where we live off, so to speak. The food on our plates is sourced from around the world, as is the labour that builds our "things", the lumber in our furniture and the fuel in our cars and even the oil that is pumped into our own farms and fertilisers. People in the first world live globally and therefore historical concepts such as nationality mean a lot less.
It is similar I suppose to the British Empire or the Roman Empire, where an elite benefited from the collective efforts of many people who do not share in the wealth. "
Two thoughts ....
Here in New England, a lot of people are still directly linked to the land. A great many have their own gardens. We have tons of farmer's markets through the year, even in the cold months ... pickled everything. It's a BIG thing now to have your own chickens. I know a lot of people who have their own chickens. I had a bunch of students through the years (and still do) who have their own animals, are members of 4-H, show their animals at fairs, etc.... Several of my students at this moment log their own firewood. There are HUGE programs here to prompt people to buy locally. Even before it was cool to do so ... prior to all things GREEN, my mother always shopped locally and encouraged me to do so. Some of us even knit using yarn made by local women on local farms with locally raised animals.
Granted, I know there are some things we buy from elsewhere, but .... Some still have a very definite link.
My question would be .... Even if we didn't, would we not have the "right" to call this place our home ... the "right" to live here?
??
Bell just rang ... don't have time for the rest right now.
It is similar I suppose to the British Empire or the Roman Empire, where an elite benefited from the collective efforts of many people who do not share in the wealth. "
Two thoughts ....
Here in New England, a lot of people are still directly linked to the land. A great many have their own gardens. We have tons of farmer's markets through the year, even in the cold months ... pickled everything. It's a BIG thing now to have your own chickens. I know a lot of people who have their own chickens. I had a bunch of students through the years (and still do) who have their own animals, are members of 4-H, show their animals at fairs, etc.... Several of my students at this moment log their own firewood. There are HUGE programs here to prompt people to buy locally. Even before it was cool to do so ... prior to all things GREEN, my mother always shopped locally and encouraged me to do so. Some of us even knit using yarn made by local women on local farms with locally raised animals.
Granted, I know there are some things we buy from elsewhere, but .... Some still have a very definite link.
My question would be .... Even if we didn't, would we not have the "right" to call this place our home ... the "right" to live here?
??
Bell just rang ... don't have time for the rest right now.
Gary wrote: ...Let's not forget that the entire reason you brought up the mistaken hypothesis was to claim that science was somehow bias or inherently equivalent in assumption to religion yet that claim was based on a misunderstanding of that hypothesis."
Let’s not, except that you have.
I ‘brought’ it up in a reply to Shannon back in message 8213 and you commented on it in message 8219.
As you don’t recall, I said…..
“There is no god and nothing can travel faster than light, so some people believe. So where does the light go when it reaches the edge of the universe“?
Having just watched a programme that explained the answer.
You responded by saying…..
“no object in mass can travel at the speed of light because it takes infinite energy to get there, which means no material object can be accelerated past the speed of light. However, it says nothing about entities that already travel faster than light, though none have yet been detected and it would cause problems for the concept of causality.”
This information that you provided us with, although interesting, was nothing really to do with what I had said.
I was not talking about objects travelling faster than light, nor was I referring to ‘stuff’ that could travel faster than light if indeed it existed or if we knew of its existence.
You have this habit of miss quoting people to fit in with your replies.
Shannon wrote: I can envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding..."
…..and my response was to her….
I wrote: There is no god and nothing can travel faster than light, so some people believe. So where does the light go when it reaches the edge of the universe? It never reaches the edge because the universe expands faster that light. And that’s where science has to stop. It will speculate about what may or may not be beyond the universe but is unwilling to speculate about a god.
My analogy was that many people believe there is no god and nothing travels faster than light.
So a reasonable question for a person to then ask is ‘what happens to the light’ and if there is no god how did we get here etc……….
Since the science programme I watched answered the question about light (although not to your satisfaction) it may also one day respond to Shannon’s reflection that she “can envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond her understanding”.
…………….and nothing to do with your interpretation ….
Gary: Let's not forget that the entire reason you brought up the mistaken hypothesis was to claim that science was somehow bias or inherently equivalent in assumption to religion yet that claim was based on a misunderstanding of that hypothesis.
---------------------------------------------------
Gary wrote: Wrong. Science is not "deemed right" scientific theory is right because it makes provable predictions. Most of science is not "proved wrong" in your simplistic viewpoint. Actually what happens is that new theories appear that are more accurate, or supplement existing theory..
That is true from inside the ‘science’ bubble where you live. Just as those who live inside the ‘religious’ bubble see things from their perspective.
Science is not right, but the scientific theory of the moment is right until a better one comes along. Not much different from inside the religious bubble: their theory is right until a better ones comes along as well.
You can argue that science had ‘proved’ their ‘theory of the moment,’ but if it later turns out that the theory was not correct, you will say it was correct on the evidence science had at the time. I bit like a scientific get out of jail free card, much the same as religion has.
I am glad that I am able to, like Shannon……..“envision knowing there is an amazingly phenomenal power that is beyond my understanding”.
Aiman wrote: "Religion is what at end of the day helps man survive all failures caused by science."I find it too be the other way around, myself.
Aiman wrote: "Gary wrote: "Aiman wrote: "http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17..."So one person didn't believe in god and now does, well I used to and now don't so does that prove god doesn't exist?
Aiman wro..."
and since god is love and love is blind and Ray Charles is blind, then logically...
Shannon wrote: "Gary wrote: "Events like the colonisation of the Americas, or more correctly the conquest of the Americas, are indeed a sad feature of our history, repeated endlessly since the rise of the Empire o..."You have some good points, but since the only places we are looking to colonize for the foreseeable future are lifeless, (unless Arthur C Clark knew something we didn't...) it seems you are getting concerned out of proportion.
Feels like you are in the middle of the sahara, worrying because you can't swim.
We haven't even gotten to step one of colonization and you are already at step 42.
Gary wrote: "Rob wrote: "The word you're looking for is globalization. "I tend to steer away from that word as it is thrown up as a spectre of evil in some political debates."
We are on page 169 of a debate about religion vs science and you don't want to upset anybody by mentioning globalization...?
this thread needs a 'like' button.
Gary wrote: "Rob wrote: "The word you're looking for is globalization. "I tend to steer away from that word as it is thrown up as a spectre of evil in some political debates."
This makes no sense. You don't want to use the word, yet you describe exactly that. What? Huh? Your reasoning for not writing this, apparently to you, dirty word is just as nonsensical.
Travis wrote: "You have some good points, but since the only places we are looking to colonize for the foreseeable future are lifeless, (unless Arthur C Clark knew something we didn't...) it seems you are getting concerned out of proportion.
Feels like you are in the middle of the sahara, worrying because you can't swim. We haven't even gotten to step one of colonization and you are already at step 42. "
Taking your last point first, that's how my brain tends to work. Not just regarding this issue but in general. I think it has something to do with teaching. If you want things to go well in your classroom, you have to see everything from start to finish, including, perhaps especially, things that could go wrong. It allows one to scrap the plan in favor of something else or to troubleshoot foreseeable problems. So, yes, I tend to see Step 42 when on Step 1. For sure.
Then, you have my background. It's not just that I know I have ancestors who paid a price due to colonization. It's that I actually take part in activities in my area for American Indians. Pow Wows. Red Road Home events. Etc.... I've heard talks on colonization, etc... It's in my mind and my thoughts in a way it might not be for others.
Regarding the first bit, .... Well, last I checked, I'm not running naked through the streets of VT and NH, screaming about colonization and chaining myself to a science building at UVM or Dartmouth while calling the press to ask them to take my statement on the woes of space colonization.
That would be "getting concerned out of proportion" .... ;)
Right now, I'm just taking part in a conversation and admitting that I'm concerned.
Feels like you are in the middle of the sahara, worrying because you can't swim. We haven't even gotten to step one of colonization and you are already at step 42. "
Taking your last point first, that's how my brain tends to work. Not just regarding this issue but in general. I think it has something to do with teaching. If you want things to go well in your classroom, you have to see everything from start to finish, including, perhaps especially, things that could go wrong. It allows one to scrap the plan in favor of something else or to troubleshoot foreseeable problems. So, yes, I tend to see Step 42 when on Step 1. For sure.
Then, you have my background. It's not just that I know I have ancestors who paid a price due to colonization. It's that I actually take part in activities in my area for American Indians. Pow Wows. Red Road Home events. Etc.... I've heard talks on colonization, etc... It's in my mind and my thoughts in a way it might not be for others.
Regarding the first bit, .... Well, last I checked, I'm not running naked through the streets of VT and NH, screaming about colonization and chaining myself to a science building at UVM or Dartmouth while calling the press to ask them to take my statement on the woes of space colonization.
That would be "getting concerned out of proportion" .... ;)
Right now, I'm just taking part in a conversation and admitting that I'm concerned.
Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "You have some good points, but since the only places we are looking to colonize for the foreseeable future are lifeless, (unless Arthur C Clark knew something we didn't...) it seems ..."That's fine....especially glad to hear you aren't running around naked....NH in january... yikes!
I won't even be taking off my sweater for another three months.
Travis wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Travis wrote: "You have some good points, but since the only places we are looking to colonize for the foreseeable future are lifeless, (unless Arthur C Clark knew something we didn..."
And, ... it's snowing. Snow that is supposed to turn to a wintry mix. It would be quite unpleasant. ;)
And, ... it's snowing. Snow that is supposed to turn to a wintry mix. It would be quite unpleasant. ;)
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Again, I need more info regarding your thoughts on this point to truly understand where you're going. "
Simply that lines on a map are arbitrary compared to the people that we effect. The atrocity of the Europeans was not taking Native American's lands but taking their resources and their lives. Hence why I would oppose colonisation of anywhere that we have reason to believe holds conscious life, but would be fine colonising somewhere that does not, especially if it could in the long run teach us to use resources sensibly and efficiently. "
Mmmm.... If the Europeans had not come to and taken our land to begin with, they'd not have been able to take our resources and our lives. They are connected.
Further, while talking about American Indians, we're taught to value all life, conscious or not. (No, you don't need to argue again that this line of thought could lead to suicide or something like, given the fact that humans need to eat, etc....)
Simply that lines on a map are arbitrary compared to the people that we effect. The atrocity of the Europeans was not taking Native American's lands but taking their resources and their lives. Hence why I would oppose colonisation of anywhere that we have reason to believe holds conscious life, but would be fine colonising somewhere that does not, especially if it could in the long run teach us to use resources sensibly and efficiently. "
Mmmm.... If the Europeans had not come to and taken our land to begin with, they'd not have been able to take our resources and our lives. They are connected.
Further, while talking about American Indians, we're taught to value all life, conscious or not. (No, you don't need to argue again that this line of thought could lead to suicide or something like, given the fact that humans need to eat, etc....)
Gary wrote: "Shannon wrote: "Does China have the "right" to pollute and decimate "their" land, since it's their land, in their work to modernize and commercialize? Do they have the "right" to live there if they're harming the planet in a way that will impact the rest of us?"
Exactly. Obviously it can be seen to be unethical to try to deny others the advantages we enjoy through selfishness but at the same time we now are starting to understand the damage we have wrought and that they are now contributing to. It doesn't matter if a ton of pollution is pumped into the air in China or the US if we all share it in the end. Pollution does not respect borders."
So, if we were to take this idea out of the realm of theory and make it a reality, what would that look like?
Exactly. Obviously it can be seen to be unethical to try to deny others the advantages we enjoy through selfishness but at the same time we now are starting to understand the damage we have wrought and that they are now contributing to. It doesn't matter if a ton of pollution is pumped into the air in China or the US if we all share it in the end. Pollution does not respect borders."
So, if we were to take this idea out of the realm of theory and make it a reality, what would that look like?
Mahz wrote: "Do I believe in the bible fully? No!..."So how do you choose which bits to believe and which bits to ignore?
Mahz wrote: "There are proofs around the world, but I guess if you want to look for something, you need to actually look, and not just believe what you see every time! "And these 'proofs' are?
Debbie wrote: "God gave the scientists the ability to use their mind. but that is just my opinion. So without God the scientists wouldnt have their inquisitive minds. So why cant we have both?"Because religion relies on 'faith', on not questioning the 'knowledge' that already exists and is delivered to you in whatever book it is your religion relies on. If evidence arises that conflicts with that 'knowledge' you are expected to ignore the evidence. Scientists with their 'inquisitive minds' are doing exactly what religion (and presumably god) doesn't want, they're asking questions, requiring evidence, and willing to change the orthodoxy if the evidence is sufficient.
Robert wrote: "...that the line between God and science is becoming smaller and smaller"Do you have examples of this?
Melissa wrote: "And I also believe both are just two sides of the coin we call spirituality"I think we need a new version of Godwin's Law for the "two sides of the coin" analogy. Please read back through the thread, this comes up all the time, and there are plenty of responses showing why this is not the case.
Aiman wrote: "Religion is what at end of the day helps man survive all failures caused by science."How? Examples?
Cerebus wrote: "Melissa wrote: "And I also believe both are just two sides of the coin we call spirituality"I think we need a new version of Godwin's Law for the "two sides of the coin" analogy. Please read back ..."
I am curious, what is your response to it? How would you show why this is not the case?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Books mentioned in this topic
Vector Calculus (other topics)The Devil's Collection: A Cynic's Dictionary (other topics)
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (other topics)
God Hates You, Hate Him Back: Making Sense of the Bible (other topics)
The New Money System: When Your Money Fails (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Ray Kurzweil (other topics)Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Stephen King (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
Wendy Joyce (other topics)
More...
Nope just a little sidetrack.... :)
Though it is interesting in an amusing way...
http://www.bible..."
As a fan of cryptozoology, I think it's amusing/interesting.
If only there were jackalopes in the bible...!
Loved the forum where the guy is using a list of cryptos from the bible as a way to discredit evolution.
Because, you know, the Moth man and Unicorns completely blow away that Darwin joker and his goofy ideas.