Question 8 for Christians

[Mare Tranquillity]

You have taken the pure product and polluted and diluted it to the point that there may very well be no truth left in it at all. Religion claims to have god-like truth, but has nothing repeatable to which it can point as being the accomplishment of more than 2000 years of religious wars and theological infighting.

I don't actually understand what you mean by "repeatable," but there are two logical responses to this:

(1) The most important benefits of religion, if indeed it is correct, are naturally unobservable; and

(2) You ignore entirely its massive contributions to culture, government, education, humanitarian efforts, and yes, science.

I don't see why you regard it as fundamentally impossible to acknowledge that organized religion has done wrong and similarly acknowledge that it has also done right.

What I meant by "repeatable" was that science has proved with repeatable experiments that some things are true, religion has not been able to do this in 2000 years. All this time and there is still nothing of substance which could be brought into a court of law and used as proof.

(1) So what, if the benefits are unobservable then they may or may exist. There may be an angry Unicorn on the backside of the Moon, but so what? We don't know if religion is correct and 2000 years of Christian maundering hasn't brought us a single step closer to discovering the truth.

(2) I don't entirely dismiss religions contributions, but I will note that war has made contributions in all of those same fields. War has shaped culture in extraordinary ways, it has created and protected government, war is an amazing tool for education--it teaches like nothing else can, and war has spurred many humanitarian efforts. War has probably stimulated more scientific research and innovation than any other force on Earth.

I accept and acknowledge that orgainized religion--like organized science or organized anything--has done good and bad. I campaign against the things I see that I think are bad--in relgion or out.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There is quite the case to be made that Jesus preached a "divine violence" against the Roman occupiers of the day and that his message was solely directed towards an oppressed people. The claim that the Bible does not have undertones and outright examples of horrible violence brought about by God or people "doing God's work" is outrageous.

The message of "turn the other cheek" can easily be seen through the lens of an occupied people who have no recourse for their suffering. The whole Kingdom of God notion would appeal to them because it would be a kingdom without Roman rule and a kingdom where God would avenge their suffering in a perfect example of divine violence.

What's your point? Did Jesus advocate violence or did He forbid it? God judges, not people. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, not people's vengeance.

I never said that the Bible didn't have violence done by God or ordered by God, but that's not what we are talking about, we're talking about people deciding to go to war and that is not condoned in the teachings of Jesus. In fact Jesus' teachings expressly forbid violence and His own example reinforced that prohibition. Bless them that curse you. How much clearer can it be said?

 

[BigRob]

What's your point? Did Jesus advocate violence or did He forbid it? God judges, not people. Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, not people's vengeance.

I never said that the Bible didn't have violence done by God or ordered by God, but that's not what we are talking about, we're talking about people deciding to go to war and that is not condoned in the teachings of Jesus. In fact Jesus' teachings expressly forbid violence and His own example reinforced that prohibition. Bless them that curse you. How much clearer can it be said?

Not all religions are based on Jesus, and there are some cases that can be made that Jesus would accept and condone divine violence. The problem comes about when religions associate texts as the literal word of god, instead of a collection of stories with metaphors written for a certain group of people.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Excusing religious wars because other people have wars is hardly valid. Where in all of Jesus' teachings does He say that His followers can engage in war? I don't know, Fed Farm, you act like an intelligent, educated person trying to make a case for superstitious violence without anything rational to go on.

Jesus is billed as the Prince of Peace, but somehow His followers just don't get the message. What part of "turn the other cheek" and "return good for evil" and "love others as yourself" lets you wage war?

Nobody but you is "excusing" anything, and you're trying to do it by utterly fallacious means, that are completely transparant to anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

You're also reading WAAAYYY too much into a simple conversation. I'm not making a case for anything other than intellectual honesty.

You're running around trying to blame all the ills of the world on religion without acknowledging that all of the problems you mention predate religion by millions of years. If you believe in science at all, then you have at least a basic understanding of the Hypothesis of Evolution, so you should be able to grasp the concept that strife and hostility are a basic part of the survival instincts of humans, and that it goes all the way back to the very beginning. Religion has only been around, at least in anything we would consider it to be in modern terms for, what, 6000 years or so? That's not even one second on the "evolutionary" clock, so I know you're not suggesting that we humans, regardless of our best efforts, could possible be able to fight off the instincts of millions of years of evolution in that short a span of time are you? Some of us are able to succeed, some are not, and some who 'claim' to be part of one religion or another, are simply paying lip service to it for their own gain (part of that whole survival thing I mentioned earlier).

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not all religions are based on Jesus, and there are some cases that can be made that Jesus would accept and condone divine violence. The problem comes about when religions associate texts as the literal word of god, instead of a collection of stories with metaphors written for a certain group of people.

If you are going to go on inference, then that opens up the door to all kinds of things doesn't it? Smearing a person's feces in their face, owning slaves, being able to beat those slaves to death without punishment, selling children... There are a lot of things in the Bible that you may not want to find being practiced on you personally.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nobody but you is "excusing" anything, and you're trying to do it by utterly fallacious means, that are completely transparant to anyone with an above room temperature IQ.

Anyone with a room temperature IQ can spell transparent too.

You're also reading WAAAYYY too much into a simple conversation. I'm not making a case for anything other than intellectual honesty.

I'm alright with intellectual honesty, but it's hard to find sometimes and even harder to recognize sometimes.

You're running around trying to blame all the ills of the world on religion without acknowledging that all of the problems you mention predate religion by millions of years.

You're reading WAAAYYY too much into my posts. I am objecting to the abuses by self-identified Christians in the US today.

If you believe in science at all, then you have at least a basic understanding of the Hypothesis of Evolution, so you should be able to grasp the concept that strife and hostility are a basic part of the survival instincts of humans, and that it goes all the way back to the very beginning. Religion has only been around, at least in anything we would consider it to be in modern terms for, what, 6000 years or so? That's not even one second on the "evolutionary" clock, so I know you're not suggesting that we humans, regardless of our best efforts, could possible be able to fight off the instincts of millions of years of evolution in that short a span of time are you? Some of us are able to succeed, some are not, and some who 'claim' to be part of one religion or another, are simply paying lip service to it for their own gain (part of that whole survival thing I mentioned earlier).

I went to college. I don't think that we should excuse our excesses of today by claiming that we are just "nasty by nature". Nor do I think that people who deny evolution from a religious standpoint should be able to excuse their religious excesses by arguing that they just haven't evolved enough yet.

 

[Libsmasher]

Good, and my field is Civil Engineering, so I'm "familiar" with it too (although you're probably up on the more recent strives in the field than I), but neither of us has worked in the field, on a daily basis, so we're both taking a lot of it on 'faith'. Given that I don't work in the field, I 'believe' that those who do work in the field are in fact sticking to the basic principles of the scientific method, and haven't succumb to the temptation of "then something miraculous happened here" by way of explaination in their calculations, and I suspect that you do the same, so again, we are both 'taking in on faith' even though we don't know for certain, especially since it is merely a theory and not a scientific Law (like gravity). As an astronomer, I'm sure that you're more than aware of the many "theories" that have been posited over the years that simply turned out to be completely wrong, regardless of how widely they were believed at the time they were popular. That's simply the nature of science, you observe, hypothesize, test, eventually postulate a hypothesis, and test again, but very few "truths" and "facts" have been forthcoming.

Even Einsteins Generaly Law of Relativity has been challenged recently, by these same Quantum scientists and that's been accepted for...how long?

One of my professors told me a long time ago (and I'm paraphrasing here), "science is the journey, but never the goal, because if it were the goal, you wouldn't have a need to continue on".

Most scientists will agree that the dawn of quantum theory was in October 1900, when Max Planck presented his explanation for the continuous radiation spectrum of heated "black bodies" at the German Physical Society. That means the theory is now over 100 years old, and nobody has shot a hole in it yet. To believe that the many experiments and applications devolving from quantum theory are part of a grand conspiracy to lie to the public is ridiculous. People can challenge einstein's theory all they want, but nobody has disproved that, either. Einstein said that a single experiment that went other than he predicted would disprove it - the disproof has yet to be shown, even though general relativity is approaching the century mark.

(P.S.: I am not an astronomer.)

 

[numinus]

Most scientists will agree that the dawn of quantum theory was in October 1900, when Max Planck presented his explanation for the continuous radiation spectrum of heated "black bodies" at the German Physical Society. That means the theory is now over 100 years old, and nobody has shot a hole in it yet. To believe that the many experiments and applications devolving from quantum theory are part of a grand conspiracy to lie to the public is ridiculous. People can challenge einstein's theory all they want, but nobody has disproved that, either. Einstein said that a single experiment that went other than he predicted would disprove it - the disproof has yet to be shown, even though general relativity is approaching the century mark.

(P.S.: I am not an astronomer.)

But einstein's general relativity does not fit in the atomic scale of quantum theory. A theory to describe the fundamental forces of nature in the atomic scale that does not include gravity has a gaping hole, fyi.

 

[Libsmasher]

But einstein's general relativity does not fit in the atomic scale of quantum theory. A theory to describe the fundamental forces of nature in the atomic scale that does not include gravity has a gaping hole, fyi.

While that is technically true, one might as well say there is a "gaping hole" in quantum theory - whereas it does nothing to contradict general relativity, it does nothing to explain the universe on large scales. The proper way to view this is the theories haven't yet been unified.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Anyone with a room temperature IQ can spell transparent too.

OH JESUS H. CHRIST ON A CRUTCH! Not ANOTHER "spell check" policeman! You know, when you have to stoop to that sort of BS to try to score points, all you're doing is proving that you DON'T have a point. But since you insist on trying to be the "spell check" police, you ARE aware aren't you that your own screen name is mis-spelled. It's MARE TRANQUILLITATIS. Even if you try to claim that it was supposed to be "Tranquility", you STILL blew it.

(idiota)

I went to college.

Where? The San Quentin Jr. College of Beauty?

I don't think that we should excuse our excesses of today by claiming that we are just "nasty by nature". Nor do I think that people who deny evolution from a religious standpoint should be able to excuse their religious excesses by arguing that they just haven't evolved enough yet.

Again, nobody is excusing anything. Making a statement of fact is NOT making an "excuse". Also, who is "denying" evolution? Please tell me you're not one of those nimnods that calls anyone who thinks that anthropogenic Global Warming is nonsense, or that evolution is a nice hypothesis, but has the temerity to note that much of it fails egregiously to meet the standards of a proper scientific theory, a "denier". That whole "denier" thing is a bunch of BS, and anybody who "went to college" should know that.

One last point, and that is your fallacious statement that anyone is in any way trying to excuse ANY excesses on their religion. The fact of the matter is that YOU are the one who is contorting the facts into some warped vendetta against religion. What's the matter, didn't you get your "Jesus wafer" when you went to Church and you're still all bent out of shape about it? Grow up.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Most scientists will agree that the dawn of quantum theory was in October 1900, when Max Planck presented his explanation for the continuous radiation spectrum of heated "black bodies" at the German Physical Society. That means the theory is now over 100 years old, and nobody has shot a hole in it yet. To believe that the many experiments and applications devolving from quantum theory are part of a grand conspiracy to lie to the public is ridiculous. People can challenge einstein's theory all they want, but nobody has disproved that, either. Einstein said that a single experiment that went other than he predicted would disprove it - the disproof has yet to be shown, even though general relativity is approaching the century mark.

(P.S.: I am not an astronomer.)

Hi Lib,

Firstly, as far as "shooting holes in it", well, they've developed such a, for lack of a better word, convoluted, set of "laws" for it that it's not surprising. For instance, saying that something cannot be observed, because if you observe it, you change it, smacks of "it is what it is because I say so, and you can't prove otherwise", which IMHO, falls well short of the definition of a proper theory. That's not to say that I think they're trying to deceive anyone, only that the fact that it is such a limited field, and that all of those practicing in the field learned from those of the same school of thought (since those who 'buck the system' are rarely allowed to teach), it calls into question whether a lot of it could fall prey to "self fulfilling prophesy".

Take for instance the long feud about "String Theory", which, if I recall correctly, for years has primarily centered around the precise number of dimensions they believe there are. Also, the fact that "String Theory" is even called a theory only provides more evidence that the word "theory" is being used today a lot more than it properly should be, since it has yet to be tested, primarily because they still haven't finished developing a proper "theory". The fact is that most people don't really understand the difference between "theory" and "Theory", which is one of the biggest stumbling blocks, and I place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the "scientific community" for bandying the word about as if they were saying "coffee". Words have meaning, and should be used accordingly.

One last thing, I apologize for my assumption. It didn't occur to me that one would do all of the work work necessary to achieve a Masters in Astronomy and not pursue a career as an astronomer.

 

[numinus]

While that is technically true, one might as well say there is a "gaping hole" in quantum theory - whereas it does nothing to contradict general relativity, it does nothing to explain the universe on large scales. The proper way to view this is the theories haven't yet been unified.

I'm sorry but that is just not the case. There is no reason why a PHYSICAL LAW does not work in very large and very small scales. At the very least, some sort of reciprocity should be demonstrated.

For instance, the concept of flux as it relates to inverse-square forces used by maxwell to unify electro-static, elastic, gravitational, magnetic, etc froces.

A theory that purports to explain large and small forces, but does not include gravity as explained in general relativity, is, at best, deficient.

 

[Libsmasher]

I'm sorry but that is just not the case. There is no reason why a PHYSICAL LAW does not work in very large and very small scales. At the very least, some sort of reciprocity should be demonstrated.

For instance, the concept of flux as it relates to inverse-square forces used by maxwell to unify electro-static, elastic, gravitational, magnetic, etc froces.

Maxwell's equations have only to do with electromagnetic forces.

A theory that purports to explain large and small forces, but does not include gravity as explained in general relativity, is, at best, deficient.

As I said, nobody has YET unified quantum theory and gravitation. Gravitation theory appears to break down at very small scales, but the reverse is true: start with Schroedinger's Equation and prove to me that planetary orbits should be conic sections.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

OH JESUS H. CHRIST ON A CRUTCH! Not ANOTHER "spell check" policeman! You know, when you have to stoop to that sort of BS to try to score points, all you're doing is proving that you DON'T have a point. But since you insist on trying to be the "spell check" police, you ARE aware aren't you that your own screen name is mis-spelled. It's MARE TRANQUILLITATIS. Even if you try to claim that it was supposed to be "Tranquility", you STILL blew it.

Where? The San Quentin Jr. College of Beauty?

Again, nobody is excusing anything. Making a statement of fact is NOT making an "excuse". Also, who is "denying" evolution? Please tell me you're not one of those nimnods that calls anyone who thinks that anthropogenic Global Warming is nonsense, or that evolution is a nice hypothesis, but has the temerity to note that much of it fails egregiously to meet the standards of a proper scientific theory, a "denier". That whole "denier" thing is a bunch of BS, and anybody who "went to college" should know that.

One last point, and that is your fallacious statement that anyone is in any way trying to excuse ANY excesses on their religion. The fact of the matter is that YOU are the one who is contorting the facts into some warped vendetta against religion. What's the matter, didn't you get your "Jesus wafer" when you went to Church and you're still all bent out of shape about it? Grow up.

You're an odd duck, Fed Farm, you sometimes posts like an intelligent, educated, rational person and then you flip out and get totally pissy.

My reference to your spelling was in response to your cheap shot about room temperature IQ.

The spelling of my name in English is correct, few of us use Latin spellings except in special cases--not on discussion boards. It is also true in English that a person my spell and pronounce their own proper name in any way they wish: Smith may be pronounced "Jones" if the owner so desires.

If I misunderstand your position you don't need to flip **** at me, you completely missed the point I was making about using evolution as an excuse for one's behavior--oh well...

The distorted mess that we call the practice of Christianity today has little or nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, but instead has devolved into the theocractic police force trying to make everybody follow their rules. They make no apologies for their incessant attacks on me and I make none for my mine upon them. Don't like? Don't read my posts, there is an ignore feature on your control panel.

 

[Libsmasher]

Hi Lib,

Firstly, as far as "shooting holes in it", well, they've developed such a, for lack of a better word, convoluted, set of "laws" for it that it's not surprising. For instance, saying that something cannot be observed, because if you observe it, you change it, smacks of "it is what it is because I say so, and you can't prove otherwise", which IMHO, falls well short of the definition of a proper theory. That's not to say that I think they're trying to deceive anyone, only that the fact that it is such a limited field, and that all of those practicing in the field learned from those of the same school of thought (since those who 'buck the system' are rarely allowed to teach), it calls into question whether a lot of it could fall prey to "self fulfilling prophesy".

I'm not sure what you are saying, and I'm not aware of any convoluted laws in QM. You seem to be laboring under a common misconception about what is known as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This principles says that there are joint observables, for which the accuracy of measurement of one is inversely proportional to the other. And example is position and momentum: for subatomic particles, you can measure the position of a particle up to the accuracy limits of your instruments, but momentum will be correspondingly less accurate. Likewise, the energy of a state, and the duration of the state, have a similar joint uncertainty. This phenomenon is not a questionable part of a theory, but rather an EXTREMELY well-observed property of matter.

Take for instance the long feud about "String Theory", which, if I recall correctly, for years has primarily centered around the precise number of dimensions they believe there are. Also, the fact that "String Theory" is even called a theory only provides more evidence that the word "theory" is being used today a lot more than it properly should be, since it has yet to be tested, primarily because they still haven't finished developing a proper "theory". The fact is that most people don't really understand the difference between "theory" and "Theory", which is one of the biggest stumbling blocks, and I place the blame for that squarely on the shoulders of the "scientific community" for bandying the word about as if they were saying "coffee". Words have meaning, and should be used accordingly.

String theory is wayyyyyyy out there in the realm of speculation - by contrast the behavior of semi-conductors is inexplicable except by quantum mechanics, and I read somewhere that semiconductors are involved in producing 1/3 of the country's GDP - QM is firmly grounded in practical reality.

One last thing, I apologize for my assumption. It didn't occur to me that one would do all of the work work necessary to achieve a Masters in Astronomy and not pursue a career as an astronomer.

I assure you that many people get all kinds of degrees, but end up working in another field.