Monday, December 11, 2006

The Beyond Beliefs Conference

In twenty hours of presentations it is hard to know here to begin. however, begin I shall.

One of the presenters made the comment, "How do we advance science in a fundamentally irrational world."

Firat, we have to accept the idea that we live in a rational universe. A universe controlled by universal laws that are immutable in the universe in which we live. ... the speed of light, the Newtonian Laws of gravity... and so on...

But there are those of a religious bent that claim that we do *NOT* live in a rational universe. That there are supernatural and supernatural reasons for why humans are different from the universe.

Most of this opinion from religious people really falls into an anti-enlightenment view.
As an example, "The enligtenment event is under threat as powerful and as well funded sources wage war on modern enlightment humanitarism philosophies and are values, spoken or doubted, really qustions of reason -- particularly in the sciences."

There is a fear of rational thought from the irrational religious. They may not admit it openly, but it is there in the same way it was there in the 14th century.

Hopefully, like Galileo discovered 350 years after his death science and reas0n will win out over church theology.

In every case I can thnk of where the church has opposed science in the past 300 years, the church has lost the argument. Evidence is more important than belief.

Too bad for the church.

But it is going to repeat ... in the present efforts to do thier church politics, and oppose science, whether it be stem cell research or the truth of organic evolution, the church will come to the end of the game looking stupid, and will give it up -- no matter what they have tried to inculcate their paritioners with thinking ... the people will recognize the truth -- -and the church will lose the truth game.

16 Comments:

Blogger Jacke M. said...

"But there are those of a religious bent that claim that we do *NOT* live in a rational universe."

To believe that would be to believe that God is irrational. That's an irrational thought on it's face to "those of a religious bent," John.

"...in the present efforts to do thier church politics, and oppose science, whether it be stem cell research or the truth of organic evolution, the church will come to the end of the game looking stupid"

Straw man. Religious folks don't "oppose science," they support "ethical" science. :)

5:53 PM, December 11, 2006  
Blogger John Stone said...

That is a strawman or even worse JackeM from your POV ...

You are specifcantly denying the truths of science as they have been presented to you.

This is fundamentlly dishonesnt on your part.


Perhaps it is from ignoraqng]ce .. I don't know ... but for whatever reason, you will lose this argument...

evidnce will always win...

6:03 PM, December 11, 2006  
Blogger John Stone said...

"Ethical Science" I don't know what the hell you mean .. if you mean science that agrees with your viewpoint of what he world should be according to your views ... forget it .. that is not our role in making you think about your beliefs .. our role is to lead you to some cosmic truth ... and that truth can be found in science ..not your speacher .. because it you recall .. science works.

6:22 PM, December 11, 2006  
Blogger John Stone said...

And I might add that there has not been a single human advancement by religion ... not a single one .. and I will challenge you to tell me one . .brought about by religion, rather than science ... not in medicine, not in the environment ... not even in war ....

In other words ... religion provides us nothing ... science provides us everything ....

7:37 PM, December 11, 2006  
Blogger Jacke M. said...

How can you tell me that I have delivered a "straw man" argument when you have absolutely NO idea what I believe, John? Hmmm.

8:46 PM, December 11, 2006  
Blogger Jacke M. said...

John, I don't know what has given you the impression that religion and science are in the boxing ring waiting for the bell to go off and enter into round...whatever but I don't view science and religion as opposed at all and when science presents clear evidence of anything I am 100% accepting of scientific fact...with a distinction between fact and theory. I view science and religion as parallels working in unison, one balancing the other and I accept evidence. This is the difference between us. I can accept your scientific evidence, I'm not sure you can accept my faith.

In a nutshell, science and religion are not in opposition to one another, they are entirely complimentary of one another. :)

9:01 PM, December 11, 2006  
Blogger Jack said...

The majority of Christians would vehemently deny that science and religion are complimentary of one another. Listen to the varioius TV evangelists such as Pat Robertson, John Hagee, and the like.

There are, indeed, some liberal Christians (liberal being a complimentary term in my mind) who believe that science and religion are complimentary. In fact, there is an idea, that says that evolution and genesis are the same story, just told from different points of view. Majority of Christians freak when they hear that.

But there is no denying that the mainstream, typical Christian views science and faith as being a nasty Ultimate Fighting grudge match. To say otherwise is to not know our culture. So says this Christian.

3:57 AM, December 12, 2006  
Blogger John Stone said...

Stephen J. Gould presented this idea as NOMA -- non overlapping magisteria -- that the church and science are two separate and separated endeavors and they sould stay the hell out of each other's business. Most scientists I know, reject the idea -- for various reasons. The fact is, that religion wants to control science as much as it wants to control your sex life. Power accumulates to them by control. They are not above lying, or just making stuff up to justify their position (look at the stem cell issue).

There is absolutely no place for accommodation between the two. No scientist in the modern age of science that I am aware of has ever let his religious, or for that matter, his non-religious -- views effect his science in any way. If he does, he is thrown out of the fraternity for not being a scientist in the first place. Punishment for wrongdoing in science is very harsh.

In my next entry on this conference I am going to point out the physiological and genetic pathology of religious awe. If you want a head start -- look up temporal lobe epilepsy/seisure.

7:27 AM, December 12, 2006  
Blogger Jacke M. said...

Jack, you *could* have a point in your statement that "the majority of Christians would vehemently deny that science and religion are complimentary of one another." I must admit that I do NOT listen to television evanglelists Pat Robertson and John Hagee. I don't know who "the like" are. I don't pretend to speak for a majority of Christians, conservative or not. I try to educate people about what THIS Christian who happens to be politically conservative thinks and I try to remind people that we are all individuals, not automatons.

I might take issue with your labeling Christians who view science and religion as complimentary as "liberal." I certainly don't consider myself a liberal Christian and yet I view science and religion as complimentary that said, I *might* be convinced to concede that the majority of Christians would "freak" if they heard that "evolution and genesis are the same story...from different points of view," just as with all things people learn what they are ready to learn and generally people, all people, resist change. I can tell you that thought doesn't "freak" ME out.

I am open also to your general thought that the "mainstream, typical Christian views science and faith as being a nasty Ultimate Fighting grudge match," I don't know that I can accept that as a general fact or not, because I'm not sure that it has been validated as fact, but I'm an open-minded sort of person.

This is where my problem lies, primarily. In our post modern culture there seems to be this tendency among many people to pin everything and everyone down and file them into neat little categories, slap a label on them and assume that because they are what we have labeled this, that, or something else that we know everything about them and what their views are on any given topic, this gives people license to disrespect one another and be closed minded to discussion.

Some generalization of certain groups of people is to be expected and some generalization can certainly even be true, but we carry it too far and when we do so we shut down dialog of any kind. Why would there be a need for dialog between individuals if each individual has been labeled with a certain moniker and as such one thinks they know all there is to know about that person?

If there was any denial of culture on my part, it was a denial of being shoved, personally, into a little box with the proverbial little, invisible key turned at my lips as if to say..."you are a Christian, you are a conservative, therefore there is no need for you to speak, I know all about you." I am weary of people, many of whom are neither Christian nor conservative, pretending they can speak for me and tell the world what I believe when, in fact, they have no idea what I believe or what is in my head beyond their stereotypical cartoon characterization of a "Right-win Christian." I am an individual, John Stone is an individual and you, Jack, are an individual. In the words of Joan Rivers "can we talk?"

8:26 AM, December 12, 2006  
Blogger Jacke M. said...

John, after reading your last reply I am becoming more and more convinced that you are simply on the prowl for any tidbit of information with which to attack Christians and Christianity.

I have no idea whether you are presenting the conference with balance or integrity but it is obvious that your primary goal is and has long been to ridicule the Christian faith, after all it is the primary club with which you beat Vincent David Jericho.

True enlightenment would dictate that we teach, that we promote individual growth, that we be considerate of others in bridging a gap between different factions of society and try to find common ground, in my opinion.

It simply appears to me that your intention is to use this conference as a club to beat Christians with whom you disagree over the head and find ways to attack them for their faith. You appear to seek to convince others that if one believes in God or has faith in unseen promise that they are stupid, or crazy or some combination of the two. That, of course, is your right but it is becoming increasingly evident to me that *we* CAN'T talk. I wish you well.

8:47 AM, December 12, 2006  
Blogger John Stone said...

"It simply appears to me that your intention is to use this conference as a club to beat Christians with whom you disagree over the head and find ways to attack them for their faith."

I'll use the biggest club I can find.

Let's not forget that it is religion who is the cause of strife. Scientists could care less about religious belief. It is the religionists who are trying to pass laws, regulate us in our bedrooms, demand that anyone who doesn't accept their way of viewing the universe, be excluded from all sorts of rights that religious enjoy -- marriage for instance.

It has become even worse in my lifetime where political endorsements come directly from the pulpit, hwere preachers and priests tell people that they cannot be good xtians if they vote for a particular party or issue. That pfat pfool VD(j) even says that you cannot be a good xtian and vote for a democrat.

So if this pathology and exposure of power grabbing bothers you because it means guilt by association, I'm sorry. But that is the reality of the world we live in today. I suggest you start to follow a leader who can be spiritual and let others live their way truely -- without being a hypocrit. I suggest the Dali Lama.

9:34 AM, December 12, 2006  
Blogger Jacke M. said...

"I'll use the biggest club I can find."

Awwwwww, and in spite of that I still luv ya! "Greater is He that is in me...!" Smoochie, smooch! ;)

1:16 PM, December 12, 2006  
Blogger John Stone said...

How much will you pay me to keep that quote away from your hubby ... and keep my family jewels intact?
OK ... I'm just a guy with a dirty mind ...

Would you like to see my collection of oriental etchings??

BTW ... comming up today will be another entry on the Beyond Beliefs Cinference ... since you don't have broadband, and will be certainly interested in what I will be saying, I offer to run off a DVD of the entile conference and give to you at the next boogers meetup ... let me know.

2:27 AM, December 13, 2006  
Blogger Jacke M. said...

"comming up today will be another entry on the Beyond Beliefs Cinference"

Uh, John? It's "beyond" today. :P

12:21 PM, December 14, 2006  
Blogger John Stone said...

Deadlines are for reporters and train conductors ... I needed to rework some quotes and fining them in a three hour presentation just is taking awhile ...

Most stuff I whack-off without much thought, when I talk about science I am a lot more careful ....

2:14 PM, December 14, 2006  
Blogger Jacke M. said...

I wasn't trying to pressure you. Just going by what you wrote....

6:03 PM, December 15, 2006  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

<