SHP Forums

Thanks for replying, Dane.

I can't say that I agree with you view of the world - Weltanschauung to use the proper philosophical word -, being a convinced atheist, a strong supporter of science over faith and Existentialism over religion, but thanks for explaining these things.

Collector wrote: It would not be unreasonable to call any denomination that has its roots back to the Reformation as Protestant, but the Church of England comes from a different split with the Church of Rome and so, then too, the Episcopalians and thereby Methodists. Yet most would call these Protestant, as well. You may well have a point about the Mormons and some of the other more modern "flavors" of Christianity. The Mormon church was more of an invention of the 19th century than arising out of an specific tradition.

Huh.. did not know that the Episcopalians and Methodists were splits from the Church of England.. thanks for that info..

AndreaDraco wrote:I can't say that I agree with you view of the world - Weltanschauung to use the proper philosophical word -, being a convinced atheist, a strong supporter of science over faith and Existentialism over religion, but thanks for explaining these things.

hahahaa... it's okay, you don't need to agree with me.

On a related note, I find it most intriguing that science is so often pitted against faith. I believe quite firmly that the both can and do coexist nicely (and "by design"). I have heard countless stories over the years of various scientists whose findings continue to lineup with a "master Creator" and biblical timelines of events, etc etc, but most of that stuff *never* hits mainstream media.

..dane

It's what has happened throughout the ages, for example Isaac Newton was busy proving there was a God while formulating his laws. Which, to most physics students doing their best to master F=m*a, is about as important as the fact he's the inventor of the cat flap.

For my islam classes we had to write an essay on a Qu'ran theorist who claimed important scientific discoveries were already announced in the words of Muhammad. I wish I could recall his name (I'll look him up for you), but at any rate he was keenly dismissed as "not paying attention", "totally irrelevant", "highly creative exegesis" and "product of wishful thinking", particularly since the theories he saw being described, were flawed. EG according to Islam Heaven has 7 layers, and according to the author, that described the 7 layers of Earth's athmosphere. In real life theory, the athmosphere has 4 layers, or 5 if you count exosphere.

From how you describe such research, it seems like they'd only be used in a theology class. Particularly if the research would resemble that of the author I described above. I'm sure if there would be anything groundbreaking, the world would know.

BBP wrote:Particularly if the research would resemble that of the author I described above. I'm sure if there would be anything groundbreaking, the world would know.

I doubt it. If you believe in strong forces such as God, you must also believe in strong forces that are against God doing what the can to draw people (and thinking) away from God. But if that's a crackpot idea to anyone, then let's actually go TO science for a moment to give some actual, real-world examples... Fourteen (14) of them in fact in this article.

Evidence for a Young World -- Yes this paper is produced by a creationist group (Institute for Creation Research), but also clearly quotes plenty of mainstream sources (scientific american, national geographic, annual review of nuclear science, geophysical research letters, science, nature, etc).

And this one (New RATE Data Support a Young World) that discusses the decay-rate of various isotopes and new data that shows these isotopes decay at such-and-such a rate, yet (very) old rocks/etc are continually found to have way too much of the stuff (extremely crude summary).

I think there are a great many "groundbreaking" discoveries that are both made-and-dismissed (the "that can't be right" approach to science, where the investigator keeps trying until they get an answer that they expect, changing variables and test methods in the process), as well as those that are made-and-reported but so few believe it and so help the sweeping of the report under the proverbial rug.

I think the deeper science digs, the more it will reveal God really is behind it all. But again, that's just my belief, and if nobody agrees with me, that's just fine.

cheers,
..dane

audiodane wrote:I think the deeper science digs, the more it will reveal God really is behind it all. But again, that's just my belief, and if nobody agrees with me, that's just fine.

Philosophers have tried for ages to prove the existence of a god and they all failed miserably. If you believe, it's only a matter of faith. Science, on the contrary, is based on facts, evidence, logic. And there are no facts, evidence or logic behind the belief in a god, being it the Christian one or one of the Greek pantheon. That's the essence of faith, no?

Anyway, to sum up my view on the subject, allow me to quote two of my favorite philosophers of all time. As Ludwig Feuerbach said, god is a chimaera, a conceptual and outward projection of the human nature, while religion, to put it in the words of Karl Marx, is "opium of the people."

This is my idea, of course, and I hope it doesn't come off as offensive to anyone.

BBP wrote: For my islam classes we had to write an essay on a Qu'ran

As a side note, their religion reminds me of the Qun. (Those who play Dragon Age II will understand).

AndreaDraco wrote:

audiodane wrote:I think the deeper science digs, the more it will reveal God really is behind it all. But again, that's just my belief, and if nobody agrees with me, that's just fine.

Philosophers have tried for ages to prove the existence of a god and they all failed miserably. If you believe, it's only a matter of faith. Science, on the contrary, is based on facts, evidence, logic. And there are no facts, evidence or logic behind the belief in a god, being it the Christian one or one of the Greek pantheon. That's the essence of faith, no?

regarding the section I bolded above -- there are many who believe clinical depression is a "choice of the mind," until they actually encounter it themselves. My wife has been through it. 18 long months of it. Once she finally got back through to the light end of the tunnel, she was able to reflect on it. None of it was self-induced or a "mental decision." It was a medically explainable messup in her body's chemistry. But the point is the first statement-- until you experience it, there's no way you can understand it. So the facts, evidence, and logic regarding clinical depression are as clear to her as her hand in front of her face. But because it was largely an experienced phenomena, it wouldn't go far in the scientific community. She didn't subject herself to daily chemical testing and the riggors of the scientific method-- but that makes it no less real.

I think there are facts, evidence, and logic for the existence of God. But that doesn't mean I can force others to see (much less agree with) that same perspective. Your statement of "there are no facts, evidence or logic behind the belief in a god" is just as subjective a statement as my saying there are facts, evidence, and logic behind a belief in a god. We could take the same example (ANY example.. you name it), and I could explain it with Pro-God statements and you could explain it with No-God statements.

Science "explains" things with more and more fundamental principles. All that does is break it down into smaller pieces. It does nothing to diminish God's ability to have put it all into place. Therefore, the world is inevitably lensed by its inhabitants' perspectives. The same science experiment can lead one scientist towards God and another away from God, no matter how deep one digs. Just because we keep finding more fundamental building blocks does not disprove God in the slightest. But the contrary is also true-- it doesn't prove God in the slightest either. It's all just more evidence of our physical world.

Bottom line: I can't prove God exists. But neither can you that he doesn't.

AndreaDraco wrote:This is my idea, of course, and I hope it doesn't come off as offensive to anyone.

No offense taken! Each of us may freely believe whatever we'd like. Ahhh the beauty of free will.

..dane

To add my few cents to the topic as it is quite interesting, Andrea.

The only few I believe there is a possibility of being true are spirits/ghosts, UFO's/extraterrestrial life and ESP.

Of course some UFO sightings are faked and have been proven fake. For example one TV show debunked a photo where the guy pasted a saucer into a photo of his back yard into Photoshop. For those who know Photoshop, the debunking team increased the amount of curves which resulted the difference in pixellation. Busted! But as for the cases that were not able to be debunked, I do believe there could be some truth in them. I do believe we are not the only living beings, whether it'd be animal or vegetable (and of course, mineral, we already know that), in this vast supposed endless universe. So my opinions are open with this topic.

Spirits/ghosts/hauntings I'll group together in a category encapsuling all entities in a different "wavelength" so to speak. I've been on ghost tours but never saw anything other than the usual orb. My family drove from PA to visit me two weeks ago and we stayed a night at The Myrtles which has been one of the most haunted places in the USA. Well, I was taking photos at night when one photo revealed tons of orbs, literally tons! The instant I saw this on my camera display, I took another photo of the same spot exactly 20 seconds later (according to the time stamp) and it revealed ZERO orbs. Whether this was a cloud of dust that just so happened to amscray within a few second's time, the camera was angled differently for the second shot, or there really was an entity there, who is to say the truth? Considering this and many unexplained accounts of what we see on TV, I will keep my window of options open with this topic as well. I'll attach these two untouched photos to this post. If you save them to your computer you can see the time they were taken. You be the judge. I would love to hear your opinions.

As for ESP, I do have to believe in this at least slightly only because I experience a very minute bit myself. I suppose some may call it an acute sense of instinct but there have been too many cases of "just knowing" something was about to happen. The first instance was at a county fair about seven years ago back when I still lived in PA. Of course it's a big event and you're most likely bound to run into someone you know. For some reason the name of a guy I went to high school with, someone who I hardly spoke to and would never think of in a million years, his name popped into my head. Minutes later I see him standing at a funnel cake stand talking with his buddies. SO weird! After brushing it off as coincidence, it started happening again, and after a while I could not just brush it off as coincidence anymore. I've found the more I refuse to believe it's "just nothing" the more it happens. It happens sporadically, not whenever I wish but within the past year it has happened every few months. Whether it's instinct, coincidence or watching too much True Blood , whatever it is, it's something!

You are now free to call me crazy.

The two photos are certainly very interesting, Jules.

I'm not very familiar with the orbs phenomenon but it's fascinating and worth looking into. I have absolutely no idea what those grey spots could be but the fact that twenty seconds later they where gone is intriguing. Incidentally, the place, orbs or no orbs, looks very nice and spooky!

As for ESP, what you describe is a typical example of precognition. I really don't know how much I myself believe in these phenomena, but hey, don't the scientists always say that we use only a tiny portion of the human brain? Who knows what could happen if we could use more!

AndreaDraco wrote:As for ESP, what you describe is a typical example of precognition. I really don't know how much I myself believe in these phenomena, but hey, don't the scientists always say that we use only a tiny portion of the human brain? Who knows what could happen if we could use more!

Although I've never researched it, that sounds like that could be it.

AndreaDraco wrote:The two photos are certainly very interesting, Jules.

I'm not very familiar with the orbs phenomenon but it's fascinating and worth looking into. I have absolutely no idea what those grey spots could be but the fact that twenty seconds later they where gone is intriguing. Incidentally, the place, orbs or no orbs, looks very nice and spooky!

As for ESP, what you describe is a typical example of precognition. I really don't know how much I myself believe in these phenomena, but hey, don't the scientists always say that we use only a tiny portion of the human brain? Who knows what could happen if we could use more!

Actually, we use 100% of our brains. The "10% brain myth" came about from several different misquotes, often attributed to important scientific individuals, like Albert Einstein or William James.

The idea that 90% of our brain remains untapped is ridiculous. People have suffered devastating strokes (or other conditions, like Parkinson's) where FAR LESS than 90% of their brain was injured.

Furthermore, different areas of the brain have different purposes. Much of the brain is designed to control motor skills and autonomic functions. These areas have little-to-nothing to do with actual thought.

You don't think about seeing, right? Well, the occipital lobe (in the back of the brain) is responsible for our ability to see. Sure, our eyes take in the information, but if the occipital lobe was damaged or destroyed, it wouldn't matter.

How about our heart? We don't "tell" it to beat. The brain does that as part of its many autonomic functions. Short of causing an injury ourselves, we can't even willingly force our heart to stop.

Numerous neurological tests (like MRIs, PETs, EEGs, CTs) have proven again and again that we use all of our brain -- we just don't use it all the same way or at the same time.

I think the reason this myth has persisted is because it's somewhat hopeful. Who doesn't like the idea that we have some sort of "extra potential" hidden away in our brains?

Thanks for the clarification, DPX. I must confess that I never really liked science very much and, while I usually check with my boyfriend (who studies Natural Sciences at the University) before writing some some stupid thing, this time I didn't ask him because I was pretty sure of this info. However, I looked it up and you're very right. I found an interesting article, though, that while supporting your theory, concludes: "[...] out of all the brain's cells, only 10 percent are neurons; the other 90 percent are glial cells, which encapsulate and support neurons, but whose function remains largely unknown. Ultimately, it's not that we use 10 percent of our brains, merely that we only understand about 10 percent of how it functions."

What do you guys think?

That sounds reasonable. I suppose it contributes to the fact that cavemen's foreheads were a lot smaller than what we have today. If we truly only used 10% of our physical brain matter, our brains probably would not have grown as fast. But then we're talking about many many many thousands of years and I don't have a scientific equation of brain/bone growth so that's just speculation.

I think what Andrea was getting at was that our brains have the potential of doing a lot more than what we believe capable of.

AndreaDraco wrote:

audiodane wrote:I think the deeper science digs, the more it will reveal God really is behind it all. But again, that's just my belief, and if nobody agrees with me, that's just fine.

Philosophers have tried for ages to prove the existence of a god and they all failed miserably. If you believe, it's only a matter of faith. Science, on the contrary, is based on facts, evidence, logic. And there are no facts, evidence or logic behind the belief in a god, being it the Christian one or one of the Greek pantheon. That's the essence of faith, no?

Please allow me to quote also - not philosophers but two of my favourite authors:

Terry Pratchett, in the book Feet of Clay wrote:Atheism Is Also A Religious Position, rumbled Dorfl (a golem, newly recruited to the City Watch -Ed.)

'No it's not!' said Constable Visit. 'Atheism is a denial of a god.'

Therefore It Is A Religious Position,' said Dorfl. 'Indeed, A True Atheist Thinks Of The Gods Constantly, Albeit In Terms of Denial. Therefore, Atheism Is A Form Of Belief. If The Atheist Truly Did Not Believe, He Or She Would Not Bother To Deny.'

Douglas Adams, in the book Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy wrote:The Babel fish is small, yellow, leechlike, and probably the oddest thing in the Universe. It feeds on brainwave energy received not from its own carrier but from those around it. It absorbs all unconscious mental frequencies from this brainwave energy to nourish itself with. It then excretes into the mind of its carrier a telepathic matrix formed by combining the conscious thought frequencies with nerve signals picked up from the speech centers of the brain which has supplied them. The practical upshot of all this is that if you stick a Babel fish in your ear you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language. The speech patterns you actually hear decode the brainwave matrix which has been fed into your mind by your Babel fish.

Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the NON-existence of God.

The argument goes like this:

`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'

`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'

`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys, but that didn't stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme of his best-selling book, "Well, That about Wraps It Up for God."

Meanwhile, the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different races and cultures, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.

I certainly don't mean these two quotes to be offensive, but hopefully they made you laugh - and think!

The two quotes are interesting, Rath. I knew them beforehand and rememberd them clearly, especially Adams' one, which is very funny indeed... except for the last line, which is chilling. And true.