Try this experiment:

Ask yourself: how did life form on Earth, why do I have a consciousness?

Will you search the internet for answers, become an expert on the subject and form your own theories, taking lots of time and energy and devoting your entire life to the subject?

Or will you just brush the whole thing off and say: "it was god, a supreme being."

Religion is the easy way out of scientific thinking. You can learn and know through science or speculate your entire life for religion. You can commit and take risks with science or just go with the flow with religion.

Which do you choose?

The question is: do you want to take one person's word for what happened, or seek a range of different opinions and decide for yourself?

that applies to both religion and science.

True, shrike. But if you pick one religion (e.g. Christianity), there is one ultimate authority (e.g. the bible). You're not allowed to question that. All other opinions derive from interpreting that authority.

In science there is no supreme authority. Ideally, all views are judged equally according to whether they are supported by evidence. Questioning is allowed - even encouraged!

Yes but in religion you have (as far as I know) the freedom to pick another from a good amount of choices. What you say about science is correct for the most part but a radical discovery found by an unpopular or unknown scientist that may in fact be correct could be shot down by the more popular folks like steven hawkins etc.

I hope I don't sound like I'm going against my own opinion!

shrike:

<i>Yes but in religion you have (as far as I know) the freedom to pick another from a good amount of choices.</i>

But you can only choose one religion at a time. And they <i>all</i> claim to have a monopoly on truth. Which one should you believe? How can you decide?

<i>What you say about science is correct for the most part but a radical discovery found by an unpopular or unknown scientist that may in fact be correct could be shot down by the more popular folks like steven hawkins etc.</i>

A person putting forward any scientific theory expects that other scientists will try their best to shoot it down. If they succeed, it mustn't have been a good theory. If they fail, the theory gains credibility.

The popularity or influence of certain scientists may inhibit the publicisation of a theory initially, but good ideas are very hard to suppress in the long run, especially if they're right!

*Originally posted by shrike
Try this experiment:

Ask yourself: how did life form on Earth, why do I have a consciousness?

Will you search the internet for answers, become an expert on the subject and form your own theories, taking lots of time and energy and devoting your entire life to the subject?

Or will you just brush the whole thing off and say: "it was god, a supreme being."

Religion is the easy way out of scientific thinking. You can learn and know through science or speculate your entire life for religion. You can commit and take risks with science or just go with the flow with religion.

Which do you choose? *

You're saving everyone a lot of time by getting down to the nitty-gritty.
I choose the easy way.
Why?
Because it's easier.

I do have a minor quibble, though.
You claim to learn and know through science.
What is it that you know?

You also seem to be unaware of the meaning of the term "speculate."
That is understandable, since you "learn" through science.
Before long, you will have learned so much that you won't understand much simpler words.

---speculate \Spec"u*late\, v. i. [L. speculatus, p. p. of speculari to spy out, observe, fr. specula a lookout, fr. specere to look. See Spy.]
1. To consider by turning a subject in the mind, and viewing it in its different aspects and relations; to meditate; to contemplate; to theorize---

You see, it is science which theorizes.
Science deals with theory, i.e. speculation.

See how science has already addled your brain to the point where you cannot distinguish opposites.
Nothing personal there; that happens to a lot of people who get enmeshed in the clutches of science.

*[i]Originally posted by James R
But if you pick one religion (e.g. Christianity), there is one ultimate authority (e.g. the bible). You're not allowed to question that.*

Of course, one is allowed to question it.
Where do you think atheists come from?

The point is not about questioning authority, the point is about questioning answers.

Because of the absence of both questions and answers, science would offer deafening silence, so questions are welcomed because there are no answers.
In Christianity, questions are basically silly, because you already have the answers.
The only point in asking questions is if YOU don't know, not because nobody knows.
In science, nobody knows, so everyone is asking questions.

*Originally posted by shrike
I hope I don't sound like I'm going against my own opinion!*

That is a major risk in science, due to the contradictory nature of having a large group of people with questions but no answers.

*A person putting forward any scientific theory expects that other scientists will try their best to shoot it down. If they succeed, it mustn't have been a good theory. If they fail, the theory gains credibility.*

Religion is like that, too.
Of course, as is well known, science can't make a dent in religion, Christianity in particular.
That is why Christianity has credibility.

Religion itself is also a theory, it's just that no believer wants to admit to it.

tony1,

There's enough fuzzy thinking in your last post to start a Velcro factory.

<i>I choose the easy way. Why? Because it's easier.</i>

Yes. I'm guessing you're basically too lazy to make the effort required to understand science.

<i>You claim to learn and know through science. What is it that you know?</i>

Probably much more than you'll ever understand, unless you decide to make the effort yourself.

<i>Science deals with theory, i.e. speculation.</i>

An established scientific theory is somewhat better than mere speculation. For example, Newton's theory of gravity lets us plot a trajectory which can get us to the moon and back. Very practical, really.

I said: <i>If you pick one religion (e.g. Christianity), there is one ultimate authority (e.g. the bible). You're not allowed to question that.</i>

You said: <i>Of course, one is allowed to question it. Where do you think atheists come from?</i>

What I meant was: you're not allowed to question and still remain a follower of the religion. But I suspect you knew that.

<i>Because of the absence of both questions and answers, science would offer deafening silence, so questions are welcomed because there are no answers.</i>

As far as I can tell, this is a meaningless sentence.

<i>In Christianity, questions are basically silly, because you already have the answers.</i>

Yes. Same for most religions. Moderate Christianity is not a problem and does not clash with science. But Fundamentalist Christianity claims to have <i>all</i> the answers. That would be ok too, provided those answers were right. Sadly, they can be shown in numerous instances to be wrong. Nevertheless, the fundamentalists won't budge an inch.

<i>In science, nobody knows, so everyone is asking questions.</i>

Science knows a lot of things.

Regarding Christianity's credibility: Yes, it is credible as a system of morals. It is credible in terms of some historical events. It is credible in so far as it is compatible with modern science. What is not credible is the Christian Fundamentalist concept of the literal truth of the bible, which contradicts most science and much common sense, too.

See how science has already addled your brain to the point where you cannot distinguish opposites.
Nothing personal there; that happens to a lot of people who get enmeshed in the clutches of science.
So, is this like the brainwashing the Bible seems to do to people? Just believe it or you'll perish in everlasting fire?
In science, nobody knows, so everyone is asking questions.
Yeah, I mean, of course there are hordes of scientists standing around still asking eachother how computer circuits work. Oh look, theres a bunch over there trying to figure out why a pendulum swings from side to side. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by shrike
Religion is the easy way out of scientific thinking. You can learn and know through science or speculate your entire life for religion. You can commit and take risks with science or just go with the flow with religion.

Do you know what religion is?

Love

Jan Arden.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Religion itself is also a theory, it's just that no believer wants to admit to it. *

Why would a believer admit to that?
It may have been a theory at one time, but since it has been proven, it is now fact.

*Originally posted by James R
I'm guessing you're basically too lazy to make the effort required to understand science.*

That would be the lazy man's way to reason.
How would I know that Christianity is easier unless I tried both roads?
Comparisons without an opposite are invalid.

I know that Christianity is easier because I also know what a rat's nest of endless work all scientific endeavor is.
Not to mention the absence of rewards.

*What I meant was: you're not allowed to question and still remain a follower of the religion. But I suspect you knew that.*

I had to allow for all possible meanings there.
Of course, one is allowed to question the authority of the Bible.
That's how one gets atheists.

However, I suspect there is some fine distinction in there somewhere that we can address.

Many people question the authority of the Bible, become atheists, and continue to attend church.
Many people question the authority of the Bible, become crazy and get hauled off to the nut house, too.

Maybe what we need to address is the application of your scientific method to the Bible.
Generally what appears to happen, is that people begin to question the paper and ink, so to speak, that the Bible is written on.
To me, that is seriously missing the point.
Anyone who understands even a little bit of what is written in the Bible would immediately see the gross limitations of the scientific method, thus those who persist in applying the scientific method to the Bible on their own terms, are those who don't understand the Bible.

*As far as I can tell, this is a meaningless sentence.*

It's only meaningless because you are no longer familiar with the concept of "answer."

*Yes. Same for most religions. Moderate Christianity is not a problem and does not clash with science.*

My mistake.
I should have stated that Christianity has the correct answers.
Other religions have the wrong answers.

Moderate Christians would not be a problem for scientists for the simple reason that they are fence-sitters, i.e. they agree with anybody.
That fools some people, most notably the fence-sitters themselves.

*But Fundamentalist Christianity claims to have all the answers. That would be ok too, provided those answers were right. Sadly, they can be shown in numerous instances to be wrong. Nevertheless, the fundamentalists won't budge an inch.*

I wouldn't budge an inch even if I weren't Christian at all, based on what I've seen for arguments for evolution, the scientific method, etc, etc.
What I see is a bunch of misguided people, all of whom believe that consensus=truth.
Magicians count on that for a good show.

*Originally posted by Xelios
So, is this like the brainwashing the Bible seems to do to people?*

Not in the least.
Brainwashing the Bible way actually cleans the crap out of your brain, whereas science does peculiar things like causing people to lose the ability to distinguish between knowledge and speculation.

*Yeah, I mean, of course there are hordes of scientists standing around still asking eachother how computer circuits work. Oh look, theres a bunch over there trying to figure out why a pendulum swings from side to side.*

Perhaps you could enlighten us on how they work?

Why would a believer admit to that?
It may have been a theory at one time, but since it has been proven, it is now fact.
It has never been proven. Just because someone decided to write a book about it one day doesn't mean a thing.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on how they work?
No, I can't. I'm not a computer technition, nor do I fully understand pendular motion (I'm only in Grade 11 after all). I can give you approximations to how they work, but if you really want to know just post it at http://www.madsci.org/ask.html and I'm sure they can find somone qualified to give you an answer.

But in the mean time, I can give you an approximate answer to how a pendulum works. You see, when you pull this little ball on a string to one side, and then let it go, it will swing back and forth. This is due to gravity, momentum and conservation of energy. Potential energy (at the hight of it's swing) will always equal kinetic energy (at the bottom of its swing) in a frictionless environment. Thus, it will keep swinging from side to side until an outside force acts upon it (such as friction). Very simple stuff really. I'm surprised you didn't know it already.

*Originally posted by Xelios
It has never been proven.*

Oh yes it has.
What you mean to say is...
1. You don't know what the proof is
2. You wouldn't recognize it as proof
3. You don't want proof because you would have to change your mind

*Just because someone decided to write a book about it one day doesn't mean a thing.*

Exactly why I don't believe in evolution.
Somebody just decided to write a book one day.

*No, I can't. I'm not a computer technition, nor do I fully understand pendular motion (I'm only in Grade 11 after all).*

The easy way out.
Granted, computer circuits are difficult enough to explain even by experienced bafflegab artists.
But, pendulums?
You talk a blue streak about sci-fi and you don't understand pendulums?

*I'm sure they can find somone qualified to give you an answer. *

I'm sure they can't.
You're actually right in refusing to attempt to explain pendular motion.
Science is rather weak at explaining things.
You see what I would get is a description of someone else's description of what happens while a pendulum is swinging.
What I wouldn't get is an explanation.
The description would, however, be called an explanation.

*But in the mean time, I can give you an approximate answer to how a pendulum works. You see, when you pull this little ball on a string to one side, and then let it go, it will swing back and forth. This is due to gravity, momentum and conservation of energy. Potential energy (at the hight of it's swing) will always equal kinetic energy (at the bottom of its swing) in a frictionless environment. Thus, it will keep swinging from side to side until an outside force acts upon it (such as friction). Very simple stuff really. I'm surprised you didn't know it already. *

Yes, just like that.
A description which is called an explanation.
But I ask you, why would I want someone to describe what I'm looking at myself?
Science answers with obvious, simple-minded descriptions, and no explanations.

Oh yes it has.
What you mean to say is...
1. You don't know what the proof is
2. You wouldn't recognize it as proof
3. You don't want proof because you would have to change your mind
Actually, I'm quite interested in hearing this proof. Please share it with me.
The easy way out.
Granted, computer circuits are difficult enough to explain even by experienced bafflegab artists.
But, pendulums?
You talk a blue streak about sci-fi and you don't understand pendulums?
I explained a pendulum to you.
Yes, just like that.
A description which is called an explanation.
But I ask you, why would I want someone to describe what I'm looking at myself?
Science answers with obvious, simple-minded descriptions, and no explanations.
No, a description of a pendulum would be: Push a ball suspended by a string to one side and it swings back and forth.
What I posted is an explanation of why this happens.

I don't understand why you are so reluctant to post that question on the madsci network. You seem so intent on finding an "explanation" for pendular motion, yet you don't want to take the steps in finding the answer. Strange.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Actually, I'm quite interested in hearing this proof. Please share it with me.*

I did, you said you didn't understand it.

*I explained a pendulum to you.*

See, that's what school does to a perfectly good brain.
You didn't explain anything, you described a pendulum swinging.
Not only that, you did it right after I told you that descriptions aren't explanations.
AND after I asked why I would want someone describing what I could see myself.

*No, a description of a pendulum would be: Push a ball suspended by a string to one side and it swings back and forth.
What I posted is an explanation of why this happens.*

School is more pernicious than I thought.
What you wrote is a description of starting a pendulum swinging.
You didn't even touch on "why" anything happens.

Get this straight.
Your teachers are feeding you garbage.
If you remember that, you can feed them their garbage back and get good marks, AND you can learn what is really going on.

Just look at your own "explanation" and see if there is actually any explaining going on.
By scholastic standards it all looks good enough to fool even the brightest teacher, but in real life you would be just fooling yourself.

*I don't understand why you are so reluctant to post that question on the madsci network. You seem so intent on finding an "explanation" for pendular motion, yet you don't want to take the steps in finding the answer. Strange. *

I wasn't the least bit intent on finding an explanation.
You simply made a foolish assertion that science could explain pendulums.
You were wrong.

tony1,

<i>I know that Christianity is easier because I also know what a rat's nest of endless work all scientific endeavor is. Not to mention the absence of rewards.</i>

There are plenty of rewards to be had from science, in my experience.

<i>Maybe what we need to address is the application of your scientific method to the Bible. Generally what appears to happen, is that people begin to question the paper and ink, so to speak, that the Bible is written on. To me, that is seriously missing the point.</i>

Again, I'm not following your meaning here. As I understand it, some people choose to question the accuracy of what is written in the bible.

<i>Anyone who understands even a little bit of what is written in the Bible would immediately see the gross limitations of the scientific method, thus those who persist in applying the scientific method to the Bible on their own terms, are those who don't understand the Bible.</i>

It's quite simple, as I see it. Either the bible is literally true, or it is metaphorical, or it is meaningless. Literal truth is easily ruled out, leaving us with only two possibilities. I'm in favour of the metaphorical interpretation myself, since I don't think the bible is the ravings of a lunatic.

<i>I wouldn't budge an inch even if I weren't Christian at all, based on what I've seen for arguments for evolution, the scientific method, etc, etc. What I see is a bunch of misguided people, all of whom believe that consensus=truth.</i>

Right back at you, tony1. Still taking the easy shots?

*Originally posted by James R
There are plenty of rewards to be had from science, in my experience.*

Wheelchairs seem to be a common one.

*As I understand it, some people choose to question the accuracy of what is written in the bible.*

What I was referring to was the tendency to question that on the basis of, say, the age of some piece of parchment.

*Either the bible is literally true, or it is metaphorical, or it is meaningless. Literal truth is easily ruled out, leaving us with only two possibilities. I'm in favour of the metaphorical interpretation myself, since I don't think the bible is the ravings of a lunatic.*

OK, so we can eliminate meaningless.

Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath bringeth forth strife.
(Proverbs 30:33, KJV).

Based on that verse, metaphorical seems lame, at the very least.
It looks pretty literal.

*Right back at you, tony1. Still taking the easy shots? *

Hasn't it occurred to you to ask why they are so easy?
You've repeatedly proven that, to scientists, consensus=truth.
Now you call it a cheap shot.

Well, you proved it to me.
Why are you taking cheap shots at your beloved science?

I did, you said you didn't understand it.
Sorry tony, but a Bible quote is not proof.
See, that's what school does to a perfectly good brain.
You didn't explain anything, you described a pendulum swinging.
Not only that, you did it right after I told you that descriptions aren't explanations.
AND after I asked why I would want someone describing what I could see myself.
No, I explained why it behaves the way it does. AKA, and explanation.
School is more pernicious than I thought.
What you wrote is a description of starting a pendulum swinging.
You didn't even touch on "why" anything happens.
You seem to have missed that part, so here it is again:

This is due to gravity, momentum and conservation of energy. Potential energy (at the hight of it's swing) will always equal kinetic energy (at the bottom of its swing) in a frictionless environment. Thus, it will keep swinging from side to side until an outside force acts upon it (such as friction).
Your teachers are feeding you garbage.
Did you have a bad experience at school or something? Did one of the teachers, I dunno, touch you? Because it sure seems like it...
I wasn't the least bit intent on finding an explanation.
You simply made a foolish assertion that science could explain pendulums.
You were wrong.
No, it appears you were wrong, as science can explain the motion of a pendulum. If you don't believe me, look it up at your local library (that's right tony, the Bible isn't the only book out there). That or just drop it, but please stop plugging your ears and humming because you were proven wrong.
Wheelchairs seem to be a common one.
As it is with religion. You really should stop with the 2-way arguements here tony, it's not getting you anywhere.

*Originally posted by Xelios
Sorry tony, but a Bible quote is not proof.*

In school, maybe not.
In the real world, it is.

*No, I explained why it behaves the way it does. AKA, and explanation.*

You've been institutionalized too long.
You described WHAT happens.
WHY is nowhere to be seen.
You've just been sucked in by the typical educational jargon.

*This is due to gravity, momentum and conservation of energy. Potential energy (at the hight of it's swing) will always equal kinetic energy (at the bottom of its swing) in a frictionless environment. Thus, it will keep swinging from side to side until an outside force acts upon it (such as friction). *

Great description of WHAT happens.

*Did you have a bad experience at school or something? Did one of the teachers, I dunno, touch you?*

Nah, like I said, you're a rotten guesser.
I left high school with big-dollar scholarships, top marks, and my choice of schools begging me to attend.

But, that was because I recognized the garbage early on, and played the game, fast and loose, mind you, but played.

*No, it appears you were wrong, as science can explain the motion of a pendulum.*

You still can't tell the difference between an explanation and a description.
Oh well, I watched many an otherwise bright student crater because of simple little things like that.

*As it is with religion. You really should stop with the 2-way arguements here tony, it's not getting you anywhere. *

You're confusing religion with Christianity now, too.
Partly my fault, since I used the term "religion."

In school, maybe not.
In the real world, it is.
No tony, in your world it is. The real world requires more than just a line of letters written by some guy 2000 years ago.
You've been institutionalized too long.
You described WHAT happens.
WHY is nowhere to be seen.
You've just been sucked in by the typical educational jargon.
You seem to have missed the why once again. So here it is one more time:
This is due to gravity, momentum and conservation of energy.
I left high school with big-dollar scholarships, top marks, and my choice of schools begging me to attend.

But, that was because I recognized the garbage early on, and played the game, fast and loose, mind you, but played.
Wow, you're just perfect aren't you tony? :rolleyes:
You're confusing religion with Christianity now, too.
Partly my fault, since I used the term "religion."
You know what I meant.

*Originally posted by Xelios
The real world requires more than just a line of letters written by some guy 2000 years ago.*

That's just what your teachers told you.
They said you have to work hard.
That's for you.

For me, ha ha, I can cruise, because it does only take a line from the Bible.

*You seem to have missed the why once again. So here it is one more time:
This is due to gravity, momentum and conservation of energy.*

LOL!!
Oh yeah, thanks for reminding me.
That was one of tricks I used to use.
Place the phrase "due to" in front of a description, and presto! an explanation no teacher could argue with!
I had pretty much forgotten that one.
*chuckle*

*Wow, you're just perfect aren't you tony?*

Life is good.
You should try it sometime.

*You know what I meant. *

Believers can't be found in wheelchairs.

I agree tony, life is very good. Except for people like you who tend to bring it down a notch. But once again, I've made my points and views very clear now. Tolerate them or keep your mindless rants to yourself, but do one of the two.

If your points and your views are very clear, then your point must have been that you are very confused.

If you say so tony.

The fire seems to have gone out under your arguments.

Don't you undertand the reason Tony?!
It is so obvious.
A lot of people are just tired of your never-ending bible quotes, which state only tht tht you don't have your own opinion.
Your illogical statements and how you quote posts mainly replying only to that to what you can object or don't really undrertstand. People see that talking to you is like to a brick wall. You don't prefer interesting discussions, you only attack and turn any deep discussion into a fighting ring.
You degredate our threads and change the course of evolution in which you don't really beleive. If anybody followed your opinions, we would soon find ourselves in Dark Ages. We don't want that Tony.

And while we coexist with you, you can not ask from us to respect you.

Burn in "the lake of fire" if you want, but don't pull in the rest with you.

Happy winter-solstice Tony!

*Originally posted by Avatar
Don't you undertand the reason Tony?!
It is so obvious.*

I understand the reason, the poor kid's at home on Christmas, and spending no time with his family.
That is a problem.

*Your illogical statements and how you quote posts mainly replying only to that to what you can object or don't really undrertstand.*

Grind, grind, grind.
I quote posts the way I do to save space.
You don't seriously think I'm going to quote every single word?
I quote enough to give a reference point.

*You don't prefer interesting discussions, you only attack and turn any deep discussion into a fighting ring.*

And that isn't interesting?
Jokes aside, if your ideas can't survive in the real world without careful coddling, then why do you hold weak ideas like that?
Besides, who would you complain about if I weren't here?

*You degredate our threads*

What do you mean your threads?

*and change the course of evolution in which you don't really beleive.*

If I don't believe it, why would I be concerned about changing the course of evolution?
Besides, if evolution is true, how could I change the course of it?

*If anybody followed your opinions, we would soon find ourselves in Dark Ages.*

I'm not Catholic.

*And while we coexist with you, you can not ask from us to respect you.*

Have you ever noticed me asking for that?

*Burn in "the lake of fire" if you want, but don't pull in the rest with you.*

Hey, I wouldn't want to kick you out of your apartment.

*Happy winter-solstice Tony! *

Thanks?

"And that isn't interesting?
Jokes aside, if your ideas can't survive in the real world without careful coddling, then why do you hold weak ideas like that?
Besides, who would you complain about if I weren't here? "

I didn't say it is not intereting, I only said tht you kick us off the main theme.

What's wrong with my ideas Tony? And why do you think they can not survive? I'm still here and tht means my ideas are alive too. And Vice Versa

tony1,

You seem to have missed my point regarding cheap shots, so let me patiently explain it so you can understand. (It's ok - I realise that some things can be subtle.) Let's take one example from above. You said:

<i>I wouldn't budge an inch even if I weren't Christian at all, based on what I've seen for arguments for evolution, the scientific method, etc, etc. What I see is a bunch of misguided people, all of whom believe that consensus=truth.</i>

And I replied:

<i>Right back at you, tony1. Still taking the easy shots?</i>

Why is that an easy shot? Because I could easily have said:

"I wouldn't budge an inch even if I didn't believe in evolution, based on the arguments I've seen for creation, God etc. What I see is a bunch of misguided people, all of whom believe that consensus=truth."

See? It's an empty, rhetorical device. So let's drop the easy shots and concentrate on the evidence, ok? I'm sure you can do it if you try.
------

Now, was there any substance to your last post? Hmm....

<i>What I was referring to was the tendency to question that on the basis of, say, the age of some piece of parchment.</i>

Science questions far more than the provenance of religious texts. It also addresses the content of those texts. Surely you've seen that kind of thing even on this forum?

<i>[bible quote] Based on that verse, metaphorical seems lame, at the very least. It looks pretty literal.</i>

Anybody can be selective, tony1. Some quotes can safely be taken literally, but not all. That's my point.

The fire seems to have gone out under your arguments.
Yes it has. Mainly because I'm sick of talking to you.

No, you're not.

You've just got nothing.
No proof.
No proof of evolution.
Your teachers lied to you, and you've got nothing.

maybe someone lied to you.