Oh My f**king God America... What The Hell Is Wrong With You?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Consequently, Christianity orignating from Christ, popularized by the Bible doesn't instantly define later expressions that fall under the same general title. There are meaningful historical ties, and some things may remain the same but not neccesarily all things. Some manifestations of Christianity are a problem but some are and have been helpful to humanity.

As I've said before, I feel this is the standard mistake of mistaking a part for a whole. Christianity is such a broad term and can't be defined simply as a "religious system whereby a Christian is only a Christian if they rigidly subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible". I'm pretty sure that would cause a confusing problem for what we would call the Christians that preceeded the Bible.

But that's it- they all had to originate from 'Christ'. At the very best he was just a regular dude standing up for the rights of the oppressed. There was no 'God' or miracles involved, that's just all tall tales. As such anyone who identifies themselves as Christian must believe to some degree that of all the bits of the Bible they don't believe, they do believe that Christ was the son of a 'God'. By definition I therefore don't see any merit in Christianity as it is built on a foundation of lies, deceit and fairy tales. Now that almost certainly wasn't the way it was supposed to be considered by the authors but now I would hope we've progressed far enough to realise that just maybe it leaves something to be desired in terms of explaining the origin of life and the unanswered questions...

With regards science being our saviour, I don't think we really deserve a saviour! Sooner or later something's going to happen which may well result in the extinction of our species. Maybe when nature rebuilds itself and evolves into semi-intelligent beings they'll make a better job of things than we have!

[Ross McArthur]

So thats where Ashton got his frame design from.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

So thats where Ashton got his frame design from.

[1a2bcio8]

But that's it- they all had to originate from 'Christ'. At the very best he was just a regular dude standing up for the rights of the oppressed. There was no 'God' or miracles involved, that's just all tall tales. As such anyone who identifies themselves as Christian must believe to some degree that of all the bits of the Bible they don't believe, they do believe that Christ was the son of a 'God'. By definition I therefore don't see any merit in Christianity as it is built on a foundation of lies, deceit and fairy tales. Now that almost certainly wasn't the way it was supposed to be considered by the authors but now I would hope we've progressed far enough to realise that just maybe it leaves something to be desired...

Here's the thing again, that leap of faith, for which you criticize Christians in general for regarding their faith in God. How is you know so certainly about these lies, deciept, etc? How about the interpretation of Religion as Myth, to express certain cultural and spiritual values, constructed and realised respectively as a valid interpretation? Is a myth synonymous with a lie or does it have some other intent? How do you know there aren't Christians who appreciate Christ simply by virtue of his moral standard? How do you know Jesus didn't mean something symbolic by the term God, rather than a literal being?

You create assumptions which forms your definition but questions quickly arise that bring into dispute those assumptions. It's true that we do always have to make assumptions but that doesn't stop there being better and worse ones.

I have to finish now as I'm already really late for meeting my female

[MadManMike]

Technology for the win.

Would you rather build a bridge over water or risk walking through it and hope it parts?

You can go as in depth as you like, but two letters up the page summarised it all...

"BS".

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Here's the thing again, that leap of faith, for which you criticize Christians in general for regarding their faith in God. How is you know so certainly about these lies, deciept, etc? How about the interpretation of Religion as Myth, to express certain cultural and spiritual values, constructed and realised respectively as a valid interpretation? Is a myth synonymous with a lie or does it have some other intent? How do you know there aren't Christians who appreciate Christ simply by virtue of his moral standard? How do you know Jesus didn't mean something symbolic by the term God, rather than a literal being?

Fair enough but you can't deny that 99% (guestimate) of Christians take the religion at face value believing in Jesus as a miracle working son of God (the guy upstairs with the beard) and consider that by being Christian they should secure themselves a place on a cloud with a harp and a halo? Of course there will be those who read deeper into it all and consider the true meaning behind the Bible and its teachings but at the end of the day I would guess that most are simply sheep following what they've been brought up to believe. I guess it is that majority which pisses me off- those who don't question or look around them to consider things for themselves.

[1a2bcio8]

Fair enough but you can't deny that 99% (guestimate) of Christians take the religion at face value believing in Jesus as a miracle working son of God (the guy upstairs with the beard) and consider that by being Christian they should secure themselves a place on a cloud with a harp and a halo? Of course there will be those who read deeper into it all and consider the true meaning behind the Bible and its teachings but at the end of the day I would guess that most are simply sheep following what they've been brought up to believe. I guess it is that majority which pisses me off- those who don't question or look around them to consider things for themselves.

On my bitch's machine now.

Anyway, I would say that most Christians believe in God as an entity but I'm not so sure they all view him in the same descriptions contained in the Bible. No doubt a lot do and I find this imagery very unlikely. In so much as we don't try to anthropomorphise God or try to say too much about what God is like, I find the idea of a God more possible. Mostly, I'm really confused however. How did all this come to be? Nobody really has a clue. We have reasoned guesses but they all fall short of anything confident.

But yeah, any individual who doesn't question their view and accept where it lacks, well, I don't think this is healthy or sane. Unfortunately, such attitudes occur in all walks of life including science. Especially now with science because of the prestige it holds, whereby it's excellence is simply assumed by virtue of the prestige, which is kind've a circular way of thinking. We are all easily secular, scientific or religious sheep...

Edited March 2, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

You missed the 'QFT', Ben .

Anyway, go to your female! Now they really are unimaginably complex creatures... and after all, "The devil, my friends, is a woman just now. 'Tis a woman that reigns in Hell."

[beigemaster]

“All that's all well and good but it in no possible shape or form goes any way to support the Bible's version of God.”

No doubt, 100% agree with you there. But, it justifies the first step in the supposition that there could be a creator God as opposed to a “first cause” god which is one step in a complicated justification in defending a theistic God. On a side note, Peter Williams (the big bloke with the glasses) did his MA at Sheffield (where I am currently studying) and co wrote a book called The Matrix Revelations which I highly recommend to anyone who either loves the Matrix films or wants an introduction to philosophy.(note there are copies going for 1p)

“There's 1 planet in an unimaginable number of other planets that has life now that's what I call a Universe designed for life. Life has developed and survived over millions of years. To say God created it is insulting and I find it offensive, Ignorant and unappreciative. Billions of life forms have suffered and persevered to recreate and get to this amazing place where we are now. To give all the credit to a divine being that does nothing is ridiculous…….We as a species should all be working together to develop science, technology and an understanding of everything rather than basing life choices on an old book full of bullshit stories.”

Although Ben has already picked up on this, what I find fascinating with that statement is that although you obviously find the rationale of science very appealing (with good reason) you have actually then produced a moral and (dare I say it) ‘spiritual’ declaration. So (as Ben asked) what is this based on exactly out of interest, it’s not a scientific statement nor has science any grounds to comment on morality (Dawkins’ words not mine).

I suppose a big issue on all this is the question of whether morality can be independent from God, since a lot of people of here seem to have a problem with the concept of people following God just because he commands it. This question goes back a long way, even Plato was asking it, “Is something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral”. Personally, I think morality can (like the laws of logic) exist outside of God because, one can always beg the question of ‘why is it moral to follow God’s laws?’. In short, morality is a positive trait to follow even without God’s instructions. Hence, I would try and follow a moral code regardless of whether a God (or anyone else) told me to.

“I guess it is that majority which pisses me off- those who don't question or look around them to consider things for themselves.”

Monkey, on that point I really do 100% agree with you. But I wouldn’t just restrict that statement for people who follow Christianity, I would wish that people of all positions followed that rule.

[Al_Fel]

But to be a Christian doesn't mean you have to be an evangical Christian, taking word for word, as literally true, all that the Bible says. It's not difficult to recognise that those who contributed to the Bible could easily have placed their own spin on what Christianity was supposed to represent as many Christians do acknowledge. Modern Science and we hope better science, has developed from older, we assume less accurate, science but again, we don't identify the two as exactly the same. We think of Science 1710 and Science 2010 and judge each of their individual merits. Consequently, Christianity orignating from Christ, popularized by the Bible, doesn't instantly define later expressions that fall under the same general title. There are meaningful historical ties and some things may remain the same but not neccesarily all things. Some manifestations of Christianity are a problem but some are and have been helpful to humanity.

As I've said before, I feel this is the standard mistake of mistaking a part for a whole. Christianity is such a broad term and can't be defined simply as a "religious system whereby a Christian is only a Christian if they rigidly subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible". I'm pretty sure that would cause a confusing problem for what we would call the Christians that preceeded the Bible.

So you have faith in Science and Technology as our saviour then? Can you elaborate on the reasons for this?

Because I'm sat here at a computer that was designed by man and science, I'm not dead of a hundred different diseases that would have killed me if it had not been for science and I'm not starving to death or hunting for food.

If everyone in the world believed in God and that we would be going to a better place then what's the point in advancing our civilization?

Edited March 3, 2010 by Al_Fel

[Ross McArthur]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8546706.stm?ls

Pray to the Bog!

[manuel]

But yeah, any individual who doesn't question their view and accept where it lacks, well, I don't think this is healthy or sane. Unfortunately, such attitudes occur in all walks of life including science. Especially now with science because of the prestige it holds, whereby it's excellence is simply assumed by virtue of the prestige, which is kind've a circular way of thinking. We are all easily secular, scientific or religious sheep...

its slightly different in science though - Finding out say E=mcsquared is not entirely true would not totally negate everything that had been before. The point would be that E=mcsquared has served us perfectly well up to now and has helped us with other scientific/technological feats, but as soon as we know that E= something else (say) then E=mcsquared would not be used (although maybe as an approximation) again. Science can do that - develop - you cant be ignorant if everybody on the planet is the same !! The problem with christianity is that we have long since passed a time when we actually have any real need for it (CONTROL !!) and it refuses to move on despite a great many things all pointing toward it all being BS ... (quoted for amusement)

I suppose a big issue on all this is the question of whether morality can be independent from God, since a lot of people of here seem to have a problem with the concept of people following God just because he commands it. This question goes back a long way, even Plato was asking it, "Is something moral because God commands it or does God command it because it is moral". Personally, I think morality can (like the laws of logic) exist outside of God because, one can always beg the question of 'why is it moral to follow God's laws?'. In short, morality is a positive trait to follow even without God's instructions. Hence, I would try and follow a moral code regardless of whether a God (or anyone else) told me to.

yes.

dictionary doesnt mention god anywhere...

you shouldnt "follow" a god that shows no sign of existance. at all. whatsoever. that is just rediculous.

You can however choose to follow a moral code because you believe it to be the best for the advancement of the human race.because that would be entirely NATURAL

[beigemaster]

Because I'm sat here at a computer that was designed by man and science, I'm not dead of a hundred different diseases that would have killed me if it had not been for science and I'm not starving to death or hunting for food.

Which is a very good point, without scientific progress, we literally couldn’t be here having this online discussion. But unfortunately, what science giveth with one hand it taketh with the other. Because of scientific progress, we now have very sufficient and ingenious ways of killing a lot more people (say roasting them with an atomic bomb) and destroying our natural environment. I am not saying that science is in anyway evil, but that it is simply amoral. As Tony Benn put it, it doesn’t matter if you kill your enemy with an arrow or a shotgun, the technology moves on but the ethical questions stay the same.

1. you shouldnt "follow" a god that shows no sign of existance. at all. whatsoever. that is just rediculous.

2. You can however choose to follow a moral code

1. I agree, but where we disagree is whether the evidence is sufficient.

2. Without wanting to sound too much like the child, but by claiming to "follow a moral code because you believe it to be the best for the advancement of the human race. because that would be entirely NATURAL" is simply begging the question. WHY SHOULD we want to benefit the human race exactly, once again that is a moral claim that needs justification. I'm not sure appealing to natural selection will be sufficient. Because, at best, it describes how we ONCE behaved but fails to justify how or why we should behave now.

[manuel]

Which is a very good point, without scientific progress, we literally couldn't be here having this online discussion. But unfortunately, what science giveth with one hand it taketh with the other. Because of scientific progress, we now have very sufficient and ingenious ways of killing a lot more people (say roasting them with an atomic bomb) and destroying our natural environment. I am not saying that science is in anyway evil, but that it is simply amoral. As Tony Benn put it, it doesn't matter if you kill your enemy with an arrow or a shotgun, the technology moves on but the ethical questions stay the same.

1. I agree, but where we disagree is whether the evidence is sufficient.

2. Without wanting to sound too much like the child, but by claiming to "follow a moral code because you believe it to be the best for the advancement of the human race. because that would be entirely NATURAL" is simply begging the question. WHY SHOULD we want to benefit the human race exactly, once again that is a moral claim that needs justification. I'm not sure appealing to natural selection will be sufficient. Because, at best, it describes how we ONCE behaved but fails to justify how or why we should behave now.

1. Ive not been involved much in this thread, but are you saying that you believe in Christianity and there is significant proof for this to be the "correct" religion ? If so what is it ? If not - what did you mean ?

2. How is it anything but natural to not want to die and to live as long as possible ?

If the human race prospers Iam likely to live longer. basic and natural want.

[Al_Fel]

Which is a very good point, without scientific progress, we literally couldn’t be here having this online discussion. But unfortunately, what science giveth with one hand it taketh with the other. Because of scientific progress, we now have very sufficient and ingenious ways of killing a lot more people (say roasting them with an atomic bomb) and destroying our natural environment. I am not saying that science is in anyway evil, but that it is simply amoral. As Tony Benn put it, it doesn’t matter if you kill your enemy with an arrow or a shotgun, the technology moves on but the ethical questions stay the same.

1. I agree, but where we disagree is whether the evidence is sufficient.

2. Without wanting to sound too much like the child, but by claiming to "follow a moral code because you believe it to be the best for the advancement of the human race. because that would be entirely NATURAL" is simply begging the question. WHY SHOULD we want to benefit the human race exactly, once again that is a moral claim that needs justification. I'm not sure appealing to natural selection will be sufficient. Because, at best, it describes how we ONCE behaved but fails to justify how or why we should behave now.

It's all about self preservation. The human race is where it is now because everyone that has lived and reproduced has wanted to. If the trait of not wanting to reproduce was present that person didn't and didn't pass on that trait.

People asking stupid questions like Why are we here? What is our purpose? and What is the meaning of life? are idiots.

We are here because every ancestor you have ever had has fought to live and reproduce for millions of years. If you want to think "God put us here to test us for heaven" you're a f**king idiot and a let down to the achievements life has made.

Our purpose is to improve and reproduce. Every time something reproduces the better version suited to its environment prospers and reproduces again.

There is no meaning to life. Life doesn't need a meaning its just here happening. What's the meaning of space? Nothing its just there (or not there because it's nothing). Space can never not exist because it doesn't exist (Yeah I meant every word of that).

If you want to be pathetic and believe there is a god that put us here for a reason and ignore millions of years of evolution you are a fool. God didn't tamper with the universe so life could exist. Life exists because its possible for it to exist. All this bullshit saying "if the earth was a tiny bit closer to the sun or a tiny bit further away then life wouldn't exist so there must be a god who put the earth in the right place" is ridiculous. If the earth wasn't where it is then there wouldn't be any life just like the billions of other planets with no life on them.

I really can't understand how you can pick a religion (Christianity) that's been moulded, changed and hand picked over hundreds of years and live by it. There might be some good lessons to learn from the bible but f**k me I can work that shit out myself. Are you* really such an imbecile that you need the threat of eternal damnation to be nice and do nice things? I really don't believe it.

*When I say "you" I'm not aiming that at anyone in particular.

[1a2bcio8]

If everyone in the world believed in God and that we would be going to a better place then what's the point in advancing our civilization?

Advancement doesn't have to be about scientific advancement though. In fact, I think it's probably worth slowing or even halting certain technological developments until our morals are properly in accord with the current technologies available. As Beigemaster rightly pointed out technology has, relative to lacking morals found in secular government, allowed for the destruction and harm of life in the past and it continues to do so. Moral development is probably more important than technological development, although I wouldn't try to deny that they have a relationship in the sense of being able to focus on morals by being freed from certain restraints by technology. Most essentially though, life is about balance between the varying considerations of the world that arise in the human condition. Scientifc, humanistic, moralistic, religious and so on. Focusing on Science as the saviour to the exclusion of other approaches won't stop us using morals, being psychological, being religious and so on, but will make us not very good at them. You're not usually good at what you don't practice.

its slightly different in science though - Finding out say E=mcsquared is not entirely true would not totally negate everything that had been before. The point would be that E=mcsquared has served us perfectly well up to now and has helped us with other scientific/technological feats, but as soon as we know that E= something else (say) then E=mcsquared would not be used (although maybe as an approximation) again. Science can do that - develop - you cant be ignorant if everybody on the planet is the same !! The problem with christianity is that we have long since passed a time when we actually have any real need for it (CONTROL !!) and it refuses to move on despite a great many things all pointing toward it all being BS ... (quoted for amusement)

Actually, older theories are often still maintained but are restricted to certain domains of usage. Newtonian physics is still applicable despite the advent of Relativity and Quantum Theory but in limited domain. The idea of applicability to limited domain bares a similarity to the situation of science relative to other systems of knowledge and systems of value (humanities, ethics, religion, art, etc.).

This is specifically the reason why the attempt to replace religion with science doesn't make sense. Science is quite awesome at gaining physical knowledge but it doesn't really inform us about how to interpret the world on the basic psychological level of every day living (meaning). It doesn't inform me how it's healthy to react to the varying emotional events I go through on a day to day basis, especially regarding how I might feel about the broad fact that I exist. Religion happens to be a system that offers a way of interpreting broad facts, such as existence, that aren't open to science. What's really important here is that religion won't go away if we simply emphasise science especially in the sense that science has a dependency on a religious attitude.

Religion, in its broadest sense, sets the tone of reverence and awe that we feel toward the world and which motivates us toward wanting to understand this confusing and amazing situation we find ourselves in. So you say that we are past Christianity and in many regards I would agree with you but in it's most fundamental sense, we are not and probably never will be. At its core is a human need that is evident in the standard stereotypical atheists reverence, awe and faith in evolution as a complete description of our core existence, as displayed by Anal. Although I agree with evolution it does however only tell me a very limited amount about my existence. In fact this seems so evident to that I don't think it even needs stating further?

So we will always be religious but importantly we can manifest better and worse religions. Reverence and awe for science is quite appropriate but only in so much as it doesn't lead to the blind faith so common in popular and scientific culture, to the detriment or better faith that properly considers the varying evidence available, found mystically, philosophically, scientifically and so on and consequently properly considers a system of knowledge in an appropriate and humanly serving way.

Christianity has and will constinue to shape itself according to the changing needs of humans. There are areas within the religion that are better and worse at this, some that are clearly awful. Picking on the bad parts and representing them as a whole is at best a confusion, at worst a gross misrepresentation.

I meant to write more but I have a prior engagement. Please excuse any incoherrence.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Ben Rowlands

[manuel]

Actually, older theories are often still maintained but are restricted to certain domains of usage. Newtonian physics is still applicable despite the advent of Relativity and Quantum Theory but in limited domain. The idea of applicability to limited domain bares a similarity to the situation of science relative to other systems of knowledge and systems of value (humanities, ethics, religion, art, etc.).

any time science chooses to use an older theory as an approximation to the "real" result it does so appropriately and will probably recognise the result as an approximation. Last time I looked there were still creationists (that take that story as fact) around that refuse to update their knowledge, which is an extreme example of how science and religion differ.

This is specifically the reason why the attempt to replace religion with science doesn't make sense. Science is quite awesome at gaining physical knowledge but it doesn't really inform us about how to interpret the world on the basic psychological level of every day living (meaning). It doesn't inform me how it's healthy to react to the varying emotional events I go through on a day to day basis, especially regarding how I might feel about the broad fact that I exist. Religion happens to be a system that offers a way of interpreting broad facts, such as existence, that aren't open to science. What's really important here is that religion won't go away if we simply emphasise science especially in the sense that science has a dependency on a religious attitude.

agreed - currently science cant explain existance, but there is nothing to say it cant be more accurate in explaining it in the future - Religions cannot get any more accurate, they are set. And unfortunately science probably can explain all the feelings and emotions you get every day in response to events in your day. Experiments on brain activity/emotion etc have been going on for a long long time ... your brain follows the same rules as the rest of science.

Religion, in its broadest sense, sets the tone of reverence and awe that we feel toward the world and which motivates us toward wanting to understand this confusing and amazing situation we find ourselves in. So you say that we are past Christianity and in many regards I would agree with you but in it's most fundamental sense, we are not and probably never will be. At its core is a human need that is evident in the standard stereotypical atheists reverence, awe and faith in evolution as a complete description of our core existence, as displayed by Anal. Although I agree with evolution it does however only tell me a very limited amount about my existence. In fact this seems so evident to that I don't think it even needs stating further?

Im pretty sure I can have the same awe and wonder for the world as a Christian. The difference is Im not told to believe fairly far fetched ideas to try and make me conform. Yes not being able to understand my existance is a bitch but its not gonna make me so weak as I follow some pretty crazy book my whole life in the hope that when I die my life might continue and it will all be brilliant.

So we will always be religious but importantly we can manifest better and worse religions. Reverence and awe for science is quite appropriate but only in so much as it doesn't lead to the blind faith so common in popular and scientific culture, to the detriment or better faith that properly considers the varying evidence available, found mystically, philosophically, scientifically and so on and consequently properly considers a system of knowledge in an appropriate and humanly serving way.

You CANNOT have a "faith" in science because of the way science works - thats the whole point. People who you say have a blind faith in science have actually a blind faith in something else - maybe scientists !!

Christianity has and will constinue to shape itself according to the changing needs of humans. There are areas within the religion that are better and worse at this, some that are clearly awful. Picking on the bad parts and representing them as a whole is at best a confusion, at worst a gross misrepresentation.

Yes Christianity has shaped itself a little - but its fundamental principles remain. Heaven and Hell and God are fact. It cannot change these and that is where my problem lies - Why oh why should I take these as fact in my life? I dont need to have a set explanation of my existance to keep me from going crazy or going on a gun wielding rampage.I dont think humans need christian "fact" anymore I think we have reached a stage where we can make our own minds up and live in such a time as the controlling factor of religion is not required either.

I meant to write more but I have a prior engagement. Please excuse any incoherrence.

to put it shortly -

It is not at all logical or scientific to take anything any of the major religions say are facts as actual facts. So why should I ? Why should anyone ?

I think the current Pope saying

humanity needs 'saving' from homosexuality

kinda says it all...

people can be nice without religion so all religion really offers the human race is bad times ....

[1a2bcio8]

What is it you mean by "'real" result" exactly?

Regarding Creationists, I have mentioned before that it is essentially a nonsense, in so much as it claims to be scientific. Creationism is a prime example of religion attempting to say more than it can. Science is the authority on Cosmology and in this sense, religion should bow down to it. It is fine for religion to adopt scientific theories/facts to inform its system of meaning but it is inappropriate for it to claim authority over science about those theories/facts. Religion has often but definitely not completely failed in this sense. Some of the most succesful scientists in History have been both scientific and religious. Einstein was clearly religious although he didn't subscribe to any of the mainstream religions. This didn't stop him making statements, that both motivated his interest in the universe and also arose from his scientific studies, sounding similar to that of religious sage or mystic. Most importantly however, Einstein recognised this religious element, appreciating it for what it was and in so much as he accepted it, this awareness allowed him to moderate it appropriately. When people try to deny a religious element to their lives, they continue to have it anyway, only they are blind to it and it potentially runs rampant as it evident with the sociobiologists, Edwards and Monod, who make religious claims that require the same degree of bad faith found in bad religion. Faith is inevitable, even in science, only there is better faith and worse faith regarding the processes that lead us to a faith - reasoning, observation, etc. This is where I accept beigemasters feelings towards the existence of God. There is some sound reasoning underlying the potentiality of a God. There is also some good reasoning against God. Neither reaches some final evidence that ends the debate. At the end of our reasoning, we each take a leap of faith. My leap of faith is that I don't feel I can be sure either way. Perhaps I can though? I certainly don't feel it's important for me to take a definite side in terms of living my life.

Due to the nature of science, as I understand it, my faith about it having a future whereby it can explain existence or have a "theory of everything". Science can describe a narrow range of reality. Again, Einstein recognised this. Physics is rather meaningless to my feelings about whether it's healthy for me to slap my bitch about when she doesn't cook my sausages how I like them. Other practices such as psychology (in psychoanalytic terms not bio-psychlogical terms), philosophy and religion can offer help there however.

That last point leads me to address the idea of science informing our everyday psychological situation. I'm afraid I have to also strongly disagree with this. An initial cause of my becoming disinterested in neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience, which probably explained part of how dry I found learning about some of it, is that a lot of our supposed understanding regarding the correlation between brain activity and psychology has been grossly overstated. The cause is a conceptual confusion about terms which are applicable to the brain and terms which are only applicable to the human as a whole. This is called the merelogical fallacy. Specifically, scientists have been oversimplifying the situation by claiming that this part of the brain is happy and that part thinks and that other part hears and so on. But that's not true. All we that we see areas of a brain do is become excitable in correlation to an assumed psychological state. The rules of defining these correlated activities differs. We say a human is happy when they smile and sing and so on but a brain never does this. All we can observe a brain, through an instrument, being excitable. Clearly there is a dependency of behaviour on the brain but our understanding of what the brain means in relation to behaviour is greatly lacking in understanding. There's little reason to think that this will change, although it might. The idea that science will simply continue its understanding however is a form of faith and I think a form of bad faith. It seems to arise from the escalator model incorrectly applied to Evolutionary theory.

You certainly can, but this is the awe and reverence which we will term religious and which gives rise to the religious system and motivates science. Without the religious system which incoporates mystical, philosophical understanding, etc. to moderate and properly channel that awe and reverence, we end up with bad faith. For isntance, everyone is motivated towards happiness but some people lack good insight on how to be happy, thus they blindly end up adopting means like robbery, murder, etc. These are poor means. The same can occur from our approach to science, which ends in bad religion surrounding science, as evidenced by Monod and Edwards.

People have faith in science that it will solve all our problems. Alan gave an indication with this and that's the point where I asked him about his faith. All scientists have a degree of faith in practice also. They have faith in the processes of deductive and inductive reasoning whereby certain observations lead to propositions about unobservable realities. Evolution requires a faith in the sense that we can't observe the history that it refers to. We can with good reason and evidence assert that truth but it requires a degree of faith that the processes we use are reliable. This, I think you'll dislike to hear, isn't entirely different to the reasoned process of considering the existence of a God.

Again, I'll say that the idea of a God isn't entirely unreasonable. I think it's less reasoned when Christians claim to know with absolute certainty but then the same is true with Atheists and the opposing view. It's also bad reasoning, I think, to assume you might know much about the nature of this God. Not every view has to change. Science, assume (has faith) that there are definite unchanging laws that govern the universe. If these laws were, within the realm of science, were to be found, would they need changing?

To use Beigemasters frequent device, you're also using a straw man to knock down Christianity in terms of representing it entirely with it's worse parts. Christianity is diverse and contains parts that I personally both respect and dislike. It is not just fundamentalists. It is also loving and selfless people who have the desire to be good to the person next door because they've learnt it's a good thing from their religion. Science doesn't teach me that. Like systematic science is good at developing empirical understanding, religion is good at developing moral and mystical understanding.

Again, no time to finish. Excuse typos, etc. No time to review what I've written.

I look forward to returning to Bristol, Rowan so we can argue in circles about religion and science

[Al_Fel]

I look forward to returning to Bristol, Rowan so we can argue in circles about religion and science

I want a trials forum God talk around a camp fire ha ha.

I'm aiming this video at beigemaster since he's a Christian. I'd really like to hear what you think of this.

[Tony Harrison]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8071865.stm

Look how pathetic we've become.

"We've had a tough couple of months; my mum's been really ill and it's comforting to think that if he is there, he's watching over us."

Seriously, is this all it takes? Shall we just get the NHS to start sending people pictures of Jesus to make them feel better? How are some people so easily reassured? Of all the reasons to believe in God and Jesus (and I've heard some seriously deranged ones), this one scores pretty highly: because I saw him in my Marmite.

[Al_Fel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8071865.stm

Look how pathetic we've become.

"We've had a tough couple of months; my mum's been really ill and it's comforting to think that if he is there, he's watching over us."

Seriously, is this all it takes? Shall we just get the NHS to start sending people pictures of Jesus to make them feel better? How are some people so easily reassured? Of all the reasons to believe in God and Jesus (and I've heard some seriously deranged ones), this one scores pretty highly: because I saw him in my Marmite.

Ha ha ha ha that funny shit that man. That's not Jesus anyway its Ben Rowlands.

[JT!]

It's that same ignorance to seeing things that aren't there and probability that makes religious people disbelieve evolution.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

I was speaking to a student today who's moving out to Texas to work. He was telling me about how the local basketball stadium (as in seats a few thousand) has been turned into a 'church'. Everyone who attends is basically pressured into donating 10% of their earnings to the church. Even the kids will give 10% of their pocket money to them! On Sundays they run something stupid like 6 services to accomodate everyone who wants(?!) to attend. It really is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. The people who run the church must be literally rolling in money! As L Ron Hubbard "You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!".

I don't suppose you can expect much more from people who don't teach evolution in schools and can carry concealed guns with them if they fancy...

[1a2bcio8]

I was speaking to a student today who's moving out to Texas to work. He was telling me about how the local basketball stadium (as in seats a few thousand) has been turned into a 'church'. Everyone who attends is basically pressured into donating 10% of their earnings to the church. Even the kids will give 10% of their pocket money to them! On Sundays they run something stupid like 6 services to accomodate everyone who wants(?!) to attend. It really is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard. The people who run the church must be literally rolling in money! As L Ron Hubbard "You wanta make real money, you gotta start a religion!".

I don't suppose you can expect much more from people who don't teach evolution in schools and can carry concealed guns with them if they fancy...

That is indeed bad religion. I can imagine an implied pressure coming in the form of, "your Christianity is measured by the openess of your wallet".

I'd be curious to see exactly how donations are spent as well.

My God, Dave; we've actually agreed on something in a thread!

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

My God, Dave; we've actually agreed on something in a thread!