Registered: Oct 2009
Location: Miami Metropolitan Area
To have external moral and emotional support you don't need religion. I get my emotional scaffolding from literature and exploring the world through my writing, along with my studies and any little artistic endeavors I undertake day to day. I'm not a scientist, but I imagine that many of them receive the same sort of emotional fulfillment and sense of self-actualization from their work as I get from mine.
I would say the way you've always talked about science and the way you've treated science falls in line with a kind of ersatz religious grace.
__________________
“Where the longleaf pines are whispering
to him who loved them so.
Where the faint murmurs now dwindling
echo o’er tide and shore."
-A Grave Epitaph in Santa Rosa County, Florida; I wish I could remember the man's name.
I was a skeptic of religion ever since I heard the expression "Imaginary Friend for Grownups" at 6 years old while I was still attending church, at about the same time I uncovered the absurdity of Santa, the Tooth Faerie, and the Easter Bunny. Skepticism turned into atheism when I turned 13.
I just figure I should stop treating science like a Sci Fi Fantasy (which I still do, and it still invigorates me); as you've criticized me for, and leave out any self-conceptualized idols I create out of wild fantasy while learning about how things work. I've been prone to that, and that is not science. That is "Woo Woo"; a reference to a video inimalist posted an the other thread. I won't be subjected to the super-natural just because I start behaving in a Christian way, and truly believe that will help me. But I'm at a point where I'm not sure that would be a good idea either, as if I don't fully believe any actions I take will be meaningless, according to other members at my church.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 03:25 AM
I never said that was likely or unlikely, merely that it's not impossible. The main point I'm trying to get at is that if one is a Christian and decides to do scientific work, than this person must momentarily abandon any scientifically-illiterate presumptions and use empirically learned knowledge for his or her work. However, if it were just an extremely complex math problem, than religious beliefs needn't be compromised at all in order for the problem to be worked on because modern arithmetic has never been elaborated on in biblical text. My point is, religion doesn't have to get in the way of science - and science doesn't have to get in the way of religion if one can just be complacent with that kind of simplicity. More and more I seek simplicity.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 04:03 AM
Ok, so if they're doing a math problem they can still be religious. Woo.
But if they discover everything science has taught us, it can and should call into question numerous religious beliefs. To say otherwise is to live in a bubble, insulated from anything that disagrees with whatever preconceptions you might have. It is willful ignorance, which is the worst kind. It's actually much more forgivable to me to be unknowingly ignorant of that which opposes your worldview.
You're also still failing to address my central point, which is the LARGE overlap science and religion have in many areas. What about all of those beliefs that infringe upon territory that science can investigate? Are you just ignoring those?
To me, it is more probable than not, that magical* unicorns, with properties that most resemble healing magic*, exist somewhere in this universe.
*To put it more smiply, it seems like magic but can be perfeclty explained by a specific science that is advanced enough to model the mechanisms by which the healing can occur.
But I don't actively go about my life thinking and dwelling on such a reality. That's pretty much how I treat my mostly diestic God (which is the type I believe in).
I don't think this "willful ignorance", or an altruistic and positively driven morality that is necessarily based on an unlikely or even contradictory worldview, is so terribly bad. It means one's at least aware enough to not let it inhibit the creative potential of an intelligent and mind through science. At the same time, this mind is given a whole community of spiritual and loving people (so long as they represent the non-extremist majority of theists) who'll help him to uphold these moral guidelines, and make this person all the more better for society - I know for me this will help me avoid forming false "woo woo" absolutes when looking at things like non-locality or as I have in the past.
I think that attributing a sense meaning in pure science is a lot like spirituality, in that it doesn't really prevent us from becoming set in our ways. That can be bad for people like me, who are given to egocentricism, who pursue vain agendas (this is exactly what the Bible refers to as idolatry).
Ironically, I'm in error either way: If I'm theistic, I'm accepting the existence of things that are not only unsubstantiated, but scientifically falsified; but, if I'm an atheist, I am forming a view of the world that's based on rejecting the simple fact that even these falsities can be falsified.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 05:18 PM
By being an "insincere" scientist, I am doing science only out of necessity; whereas my beliefs may be unscientific, my work is very scientific in that the process of the scientific method is upheld regardless of my belief. There's a difference between practice and belief, one's scientific literacy can be in a purely practical sense, whereas their true beliefs are non-practical. The work in and of itself can still benefit society, and therefore my belief-system does not have to conflict with my ability to do science, because my work still bares out scientifically verifiable results.
Why is it a good thing to be like this, though? One's intellect and creativity can benefit two mediums (science and religion) - that are both beneficial to society in their own right. Religion benefits people in ways science can't, science benefits people in ways religion can't. Perhaps if more people were choosing to be illogically two-faced like me, than the world would be a better place.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 05:49 PM
Your ancestors called it magic, and you call it science. Well I come from a place where they're one and the same thing.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 06:02 PM
That's not really what atheism is. It can be a lack of belief. I don't need actively reject anything for it to be a non-entity in my worldview. So, you've never thought about a 5th-dimensional hyper-fairy named Stuart who created the universe. You are a Stuart atheist, not because you can actively reject his existence (you can't), but because you lack any belief in him whatsoever.
Ok, sure. But your hypothetical science unicorn doesn't need anything resembling the concept of God or spirituality, or anything other than material reality. To bring in such words or concepts is unnecessary, frivolous, or an attempt to maintain a sense of religion where none is needed.
Coincidentally, "Science Unicorn" is not too far off from my Halloween costume this year. Pics in about a month.
That would be correct for some versions of God, but not mine. Don't forget that I think God is within "science", as well. Meaning, with enough knowledge and capability, even the version of God that I believe in can be understood by scientific means. However, I believe that it would require virtual omniscience (don't get excited, Dolos, not that kind of "virtual") to reach a point of practical understanding. As long as God creates rules by which God must interact with this universe, God is testable and verifiable even if God is mostly or completely deistic.
This idea is far from original. It seems to be explored a bit too often in Japanese Manga and Anime.
You're gambling, here: that's either going to be absurdly awesome or very dumb.
You are poo-pooing religion because it is unscientific, my main point of confliction with that line of thought is that being unscientific on a "choosing to be ignorant"-level doesn't necessarily prevent a person from doing science on a practical-level; and that religion helps people in ways science can't, and vice versa.
In regards to your definitions of atheism:
Half full, half empty; same diff; from my point of view; your prerogative; etc.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 07:19 PM
Forget my last response, and replace with this one if you can:
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 07:40 PM
Eerg, they need to lengthen the time limit on edits.
Basically, forget the second part of the last two posts. I concede on theism being unscientific. However, my stance is that theism is a special case in which it is logical to be unscientific when conceptualizing it because, when one does such a thing, they are able to maximize their creativity and intellectual potential in the bettering of society in both scientific and religious mediums. It's better to be able to work in both mediums due to the fact that science and religion help in their own unique ways. Okay?
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 07:53 PM
I think such a deistic God would further complicate things. How would It come to have existed? At least the religious types use an a priori argument of "God Just Is" to justify the problem of initial complexity (poorly, imo, but anyway). Your potentially knowable god has no such luxury.
And I don't gamble with Halloween. It's going to be all kinds of awesome.
This seems like an unseriousness question because you probably know the answer/argument for that question.
Ah, I see. So you did know the answer.
I just don't understand why you would allow for an eternal being that cares about our genitals, our sins, and our most private thoughts to be eternal but a mostly deistic God for some reason cannot possesses such an attribute.
Bring me to your level, bro.
Basically, Dawkins puts it better than I can, here:
Side note: that's also why I think the Trinity concept is just dumb.
You had better or I will be as pissed as Mumm-ra the Everliving at your fail.
I believe I will be going as Tyler Durden this Halloween.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Sep 23rd, 2013 at 10:33 PM
Well, I DON'T allow for a theistic deity to be eternal, I was just saying that's how they explain it to themselves. I was just curious how you dealt with the same problem, since the "God is eternal" argument seems incompatible with your deistic god.
Nerd costumes often fall for the same trap - only a certain subset "gets" it. Mine is the best of both worlds. Awesome to the casual observer (or rather, amusingly absurd), but profoundly more clever to those who will get the added reference.
I thought you said you just recently became a Born Again Christian?
TROLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Well, as a necessity, "a being that transcendds time and space" must be eternal. Regardless of whether or not such a being takes a massively proactive participation role or not is what I am debating with Christians and other theists.
Be sure and post pictures (I think you already said you would...but I am having a moment).
Sep 23rd, 2013 12:06 AM
