Religion

[Lord J]

Survival of the fittest...

[nemafakei]

Dune also points out that religion is redundant, demonstrating the BG view of it as a sort of social tool, rather than anything scientific. The OC bible is more of a moral/logical code than anything else.

But dune at this point may complicate things... ah well.

[The_old_worm]

Wow, Edric, so much hostility.

"...Leave it to old Lucifer to come up with an impressive light show..."-- Edric

That's a pretty weak argument, let me help you out.  Perhaps the Kingdoms shown are only visions, not literally seen, but experienced through some kind of hypnotic trance. Now, there's a much better argument for your side. This is theory is very possible, but given the knowledge of the time, it makes more sense that they would believe that, on a high enough mountain, you could see everything.

About my "utopian" view of science, I recognize the dangers inherent in discovery, and the danger of man's misuse of that knowledge.  We could very well destroy ourselves.  But stagnation leads to death.  It was our curious nature and will to survive that drove our ancestors out of Africa, and allowed the advancement of human society.  

"What's the difference between the two assumptions?"--Edric

First of all, our assumption of existence is based on a wide variety of evidence.  True, this evidence could be false, but we cautiously accept the most likely explaination due to the facts that we are given. God, is based on faith, and by definition, has no evidence, therefore, his existence is no more likely than aliens creating the Earth and putting us on it for their amusement. One theory is based on evidence, and the other on guesses.

"I challenge you to show me any significant improvement in the general welfare of the human race...since the stone age. Sure we have better medication, protection from natural disasters, etc..."

Didn't you just answer your own question?  Let me fill in the etc's, better understanding of our genetics, allowing us to pinpoint genetic diseases, and hopefully in the future cure them, transportation and communication has made the world a global village, in which a person can aquire just about anything he wants (granted this is not always for the good),  we have better knowledge of history, teaching us about politics, and world affairs, a better knowldedge of psycology, helping us to treat people with mental disorders instead of throwing holy water at them and saying "demon get out!!!", and many, many other improvements in the average life.

I think the most important improvement since the stone age is the freedom of choice. We choose now, how we want to lead our lives (at least in free countries we do).  We are not limited to the necessity for food and shelter dictating all that we do. We now, can choose careers and activities that we enjoy.  We can learn new things, and believe what we want to believe because we have more leisure time.  This has led to a great advancement in our knowledge.

[The_old_worm]

"What if we don't care about your beloved search?"---Edric

Then you are a hypocrite, because you reap the benefits from the search everyday.

[Anathema]

Gryphon I never said the struggle for survival would ever end ;). I was pointing out that scientific discoveries made mankind the dominant species, whereas Edric O said most people don't benefit from scientific discoveries and technological advancement.

[gryphon]

"What if we don't care about your beloved search?"---Edric Then you are a hypocrite, because you reap the benefits from the search everyday.

[Acriku]

Well the adaptive radiation theory is the survival of the fittest theory. I believe he made it, but I don't know.

[Anathema]

Yep. It should have been "survival of the best adapted".

Science is not the quest for truth, indeed, but the quest to understand things and put that knowledge to use. "The quest for truth" would be more like questions that have been unanswered for thousends of years, like the existense of God (wich would be futile to try to prove right or wrong).

[Lord J]

*bows*

Thanks for clearing that up gryphon.  I've always thought the whole point of the BBS is learning things.  About oneself, about the universe, about games and general knowledge.

I never thought Dune as being so much against religion, as the effect of a Messiah in a future sense.  Once again, don't mistake the religion from its worshipers.  However, the "point" of the Dune storyline could be argued from here to the re-birth of the Universe.  *That* is what makes a good book :)

Like I said before in the "Nuclear War" topic.  War is a probibility (I should had said inevibility).  I see religion the same way.  As long as people are hurting, as long as there is some injustice (percieved or real), as long as science *can't* provide the perfect answer and time stays as a linear sense, religions, of any type will be here.  People of science, just be careful the *science* doesn't become your religion...

[gryphon]

"People of science, just be careful the *science* doesn't become your religion... "

Nice :)

Acriku, not the strongest creature survives, but the best adapted to the situation or the creature able to adapt rapidly to the situation it's in. This is the theory darwin made, with some inspiration of Perlay, Alfred R. Wallase and a trip to the Galapagos islands. That's why it's not the strongest or the smartest creature that survives.

- just to clearafy ;)

[The_old_worm]

I'm going to say this one more time, because I don't think you are understanding me, Gryphon.  I DO NOT SEE SCIENCE AS THE ONLY TOOL FOR FINDING TRUTH!!!!!  So stop trying to peg me with that idea.  SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, and IMAGINATION, are all part of the search.  The person who truly seeks truth, will use all of these to find it, with a completely open mind, without preconceptions                                                    .  The religious only use imagination, mixed with a little philosophy, along with their preconceptions of God, which amounts to guesses.  If you don't throw in science, then you have no way to validate your theory.

No, science, alone, does not find truth, but you can't find truth without it.

Science does become a religion for many people, I think we discussed that a while back.  I have said many times, that we accept likely truths with the understanding that we could be wrong.  Realizing our fallability and having the flexibility to change with whatever new knowledge is gained, is a virtue that religion does not have. This is what seperates true science from religion.

[Acriku]

Which is similar to the adaptive radiation theory - species are made to either conquer or be conquered. The ones made to conquer will fill in the niche's(imperfections) of their genetic coding and continue to survive. The ones made to be conquered cannot fill in the niche's and die out.

[DjCiD]

*does a funny 'lil dance and turns around*

What if the hokie pokie IS what it's all aboot?

a lot of different view points in here....  what if we're all wrong and only the flower children and the french get into heaven ;D

~no offense indented just trying to get a laugh~

[gryphon]

I know your position Old Worm, but probebly fail to make my point clear. That's my mistake. :)

I do know you see the combination of those "theory's" as a tool to find truth. And as you say they are all part of the searth. YES, I DO UNDERSTAND. :)

But I go way further, they are all processes of humand, of man, of OUR BRAIN. processes in us, limited by us, by there needs and by there own limitations. It's the position of the scepticus. There is no truth. The only reality is in the insides of your head.

The persone who truely seeks truth might be the most stupid persone alive. There migth not be any truth. None, noppes, nada, niente. My point is verry simple. Religion can not be proven. No one can prove or disprove God. But that reflects on science, our sences and our verry existence. We can't proove a darn thing. Truth doesn not need to exists. Our brain can only function and make calculations based on logical and orderd information. So what do our sences give us ? Exactly, orderd information. No matter if it's orderd out there, our sences give us orderd information.

Why ? Becuase our eyes vieuw the world upside down, and that's not possible to our brain. Heard of the Anonimous Card Experiment ? We don't SEE changes around us ! No matter if they happen or not. They psych test, look at a monitor and then see what changes. We can see changes below o certain speed and above an certain speed. Nor can we see gradual differences in collor and shape.

All the info in our head HAS TO BE ORDERD inable to BE IN OUR HEAD, else our brain can't handel it and make calculations with it. Just as a computer, or better an analog or digital power resiever. Our brain is digital, not binairy but at least quartairy [ thought you call it like that ] but mayby a lot more. So signals have to be "1" or "0", anything else is not an option for our brain and will be rounded down or up as the rules see fit. Now comes the radio resiever back into the story. Remember the old analog ones ? The sound quality is way better in analog then digital, digital compresses data. And some is undoubtebly lost. Gone rounded down or up.

Our brain does the same thing. It has to order and categorise incomming information in order to function. So everything we know, have ever known and will ever know. everything that we can think of must be orderd to the and at the verry same lever as our brains and sences work together

The world around us is beeing created by our sences, and with the input from our sences and the combined function of our brains we can see, understand, categorise and live in this world. we can make science only with the help of our sences. When our brain is gone, when our sences are gone, our univers is gone. And those sences dont't only create science and our identety. When we are born those verry sences combined with our brain have a predeterment idea of something greater, something bigger than us. As supperior force. Just as jong ducks, when they get our of the egg, the verry first big thig they see they attatch to for the rest of there lives. Well, that's the same with religion. No matter if you believe, the idea of a superiour force is in our brain, in our body, in the way we think and in the verry way we judge the world and ANYTHING in it.

[ not to mention that the fact that we have sertain censes already has created our world before we are born, these sences give us the abilety to see a certain part, and that's the only part we will ever be able to know. No more. So our "maximun possible world has been created even before we are aware of it. ]

And this goes way before science [ in a way becuase science give us this information about the brain and it can be wrong ]. It is not science can possibly describe, not our science. We are not perfect and capable to see a possible "real truth" that can or should be out there. We simply see a part, a verry small part of reality, a verry verry small part of it. So when there should be a universal law, something true above all other truths. We can't know it. It's tpo big, way way beyond our capabilety of perception, of understanding and of insight.

[Acriku]

Are we reciting Buddhist beliefs or something? This whole "probable anti-reality" argument is without boundaries. You can't be proven wrong, and you can't be proven right. And our senses are limited, but that's when science comes in - we use tools around us and made by us to enhance our senses directly and indirectly (stop-frame filming to see things that happen in the nanoseconds, microscope to see things our eyes cannot, etc).

[gryphon]

So not just you are wrong, all of us can never find that "possible truth".

The question can be placed back upon science with great eas.

Why does science [ interpret in a verry great perspectieve ] imposes, or suggests the existens of a "truth" ?

The only answer possible is basically becuase we believe it does, we believe there is one and we project it, unaware as we might be ourselfs of this upon the world. Truth could verry possibly not exists without us, without our brain that has created it for us in order to understand our world.

No matter what tools yo uuse to find truth, you already desided that you are going to seartch for it. And thus is must exists. Or not "exist" but that's negatve "existance" and that can not exists without the possible confermation of the existance of it. So the seartch greates his own end. But this doesn't have th ebe there. It is our creation, from us, for us.

It doesn't only effect your statements, all statements in this topic are effected by this. Even mine.

So again the question, Why does truth or God exists ? Becouse it's in our head. we created it. But it doesn't have to be out there.

[ it's all in your head ;D ]

[gryphon]

Man made sences can not enhance our given sences, as I mean above.

[ can't explain right now, sorry ]

No, species that are made to conquer or be conquered will die. According to Darwin. When they are conquerd themslfs they die, and when they conquer others they will die to.

It's the balans between it that makes them survive.

[Acriku]

In a sense I didn't mean actual conquering, but really surviving.

[cyka_delik]

hey don't you knock the know reigion thing i have no religion as such but if i were forced to I choose the devil as he always has the last word.  

[gryphon]

Think it's about right when you mean surviving. It's basically that a creature adapts to survive in it's enviorment and will continue to adapte [ no adapting will lead to stagnation and eventually to death ] and the surroundings [ other creatures and the enviorment ] adapts out of itself just as the creature as well towards the adaption of the creature.

The only way to survive is t make shure the adaption is adequate to survive. I know, it's [ alomst ] a circle, and we don't know what adaption will be nessesay to survive, just that we will try to adapt and nature desides if this adaption has been sufficient.

[nemafakei]

Our brains are actually analog to an extent of accuracy... but anyway, your point remains valid.

Truth... well, the truth is merely what *is*. if there is no truth, then nothing exists, not even our on perception of life etc. Which we know not to be true. There is, therefore truth, although it may be difficult to comprehend.

Truth is there by definition. It is an abstract concept that must exist, even if to say that there is very little (or even none) absolute truth...

[gryphon]

That's my basic point in this topic I think. Religion can't be proven, but them what can. And who are we to say it is not likely possible. Just as there is no direct evidence to prove it. Nor is there direct evidence to disprove it. So be realistic in your position and don't hope luck is with you. Exept the posebilety that we realy don't know if god or whatever should exists. And don't hide behinnd things to say "I think . .

[gryphon]

Nema, when you say difficult to comprehend, is that including an option that it is out there but we as humans can not know it ?

If so, I agree. We could know it, but I also believe it might be impossible for us to know.

second note: when you say "Which we know not to be true.", don't you mean we "assume" [ with a verry strong must in it so it's absoluately not doubteble ] it ? I don't believe that myself, but I think that without the option of "it all being not existing", you are not truely open to every option. [ but then if that should be nessesary is a second ]

But I agree on the part that it has to be true [ in that way ], we have to have something to start from. We have to exept the possibilety, no fact that we are alive and that the world exists inorder to say anything about it.

And your right about the "analog brain" I exedentally mixt it up with the way we store date in our brain and gene's and sutch. Won't edit it, I think as you've mentiond the point is clear. :)

[The_old_worm]

Very well said Gryphon.  I see your point.

It is more likely though, due to the evidence collected from our "senses", that there is indeed an outside world that we are living in, and interact with, and this is a constant, which we deduce from evidence provided to us from generations past, along with new discoveries. For the most part this world has worked the same for a very long time, regardless of what we believed, again supported by evidence from others, and from observations that we see ourselves.

We are made to interact with the universe around us, and in doing so, find those reflections of possible truths around us.  Our senses must be fairly adept at finding some semblance of truth, or we would not have survived. Using the theories supported by whatever evidence that we can find, using logic, imagination, and science, is still a better tool for the search, than guessing at the answers.  That is what makes one more likely than the other. (note, I am not saying that it is more correct).

I compare us to the blind cave fish.  It's world exists within it's own perception. colors, light, areas outside the water are all outside of his perception. It gathers whatever knowledge it can about it's world in order to survive, but remains oblivious about the world outside of his cave.  

However, unlike the cave fish, we have the ability to imagine what is outside of our cave. Some do it through guesses, and some do it by finding whatever evidence they can find. And while we may never be able to experience colors or light, we can find other amazing things about our world.

I did, very much, like your post, Gryphon, and it certainly makes me think very hard about my own position.      

[burseg_candor]

I believe that humans live in a sphere of knowledge and all that is outside the sphere is our religion. We constantly seek to go out of the sphere but the sphere is always growing so we can never leave. I think that is the basis of religion.