On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Judah McAuley wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:54 PM, Mary Jo Sminkey wrote: >> But again, you are making a supposition that only a irrational person can >> believe in God. Rationality does not mean one has to put all their faith >> solely in what science can tell them. It means only that one uses their >> logic and reason in how they view the world, rather than being guided solely >> (or predominantly) by emotion. Frankly, I see people both religions *or* >> atheist that are far from rational in their thinking. > > I didn't say that people who are religious are irrational. I said that > belief in God is irrational. No person is consistently rational or > irrational. They may be generally one way or another but it is the > belief in certain things which is rational or irrational that I'm > talking about, not the people in general. If you define God as being a > super-natural phenomena (which you have) and there can be no direct > proof of this being's existence, then the belief in such a being is > irrational. Which does not mean it is wrong. It just means that it has > nothing to do with rationality.
Um, belief in God is irrational? Do you know what "rational" means? Er, How about "logic"? You telling me there's no rational/logical place for God? Nowhere for a power "higher" than ourselves to be, in your philosophy? Where did all "this" come from? What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything? Do I think, or just think I'm thinking? "Science" is just a tool for Logic, my friend. Thus logic "trumps" science. Science is nothing without context. What about the Gödel's incompleteness theorems? Plato's Third Man Argument? ... What about, "the box"? Philosophy just *destroys* Science. You ever read "The Silkie" by Van Vogt? The idea of "logic levels" was pretty fun. Some people don't understand that science is just thought-- they use Science like Bad Religion-- supplanting Logic with it. Speaking of bad religion: and the world wont wait for the truth upon a plate but were ready now to feast on an atheist peace. No person is consistently rational or irrational? Um, Seriously? Dude, define sanity for me next! >>> God is supposedly a being with certain >>> defining characteristics. Why would it be laughable to say that you should >>> be >>> able to set up an experiment to explore the existence a being with >>> those characteristics? >> >> Again, you are putting science into a box of explaining things it was never >> meant to explain. Science is solely involved with the natural world. If >> there *is* a supernatural being, science is not equipped to deal with that, >> because that falls outside the box of what science looks at. A belief that >> the natural world is all there must be because that's all science is >> equipped for is just as much a leap of faith as a religious belief is. >> > > Actually, *you* are putting science in a box. And that was precisely > my point. Science (formerly Natural Philosophy and other names prior) > has been repeatedly told to keep its nose out of X,Y and Z, that those > things were beyond it's pervue and were not things which should be > studied by the flawed hands and minds of rational people. The people > that not-so-politely told scientists to butt the hell out were proven > provincial and wrong time and again. Perhaps science can explain the > existence of God. Perhaps not. I don't know and I'm pretty damn well > sure that you don't either. You seem to suffer from the "God hates Science" syndrome, Jay-dizzle. The "battle" between science and religion (or spirituality). :)p Newton was a great thinker, neh? He didn't act like a couple parents fighting and trying to make their kid choose a favorite. Lots of Great Thinkers don't have this cognitive dissonance going on about, at the heart, Logic. (or reason, if you like.) Some see "the face of god" everywhere they look, and it jives perfectly well with what they see. Science puts *itself* in the box, and is /damn happy to be there/. That's the whole point of Science. It's like a box. (a lock-box, if you will-- /gore + j/k) Have you heard the term "think outside the box"? Do you really grok what it means? Science is just like, this little piece of the whole logic puzzle, ya know? It's like this, frankly: do you ever think we'll run out of questions? >>> It seems as foolish to say that anything >>> is outside the realm of science as it does to say that science will >>> inevitably explain everything. >> >> Again, these are simply not two sides of the same coin, they are totally >> different coins. Science can *only* ever explain that which happens in the >> natural world. The most it ever can do is show that something has a natural >> explanation and therefore is not supernatural, but it by definition cannot >> prove the existence or not of something supernatural. The natural world may >> be all there actually is, but the fact that science cannot measure anything >> else does not therefore prove nothing else is there. It's simply ludicrous >> to even say that it could. >> > > You seem hell bent on defining what science cannot, in your mind, do. > Why is that? You believe. That's great. I've known many scientists who > believe in God as well. They have had differing opinions when I asked > whether they felt that God was something that could be studied > scientifically. But even those who felt it probably couldn't be > studied scientifically felt knew that they could easily be wrong, it > was just their gut instinct. She seems to have a better grasp of Science than you do. ;-) My main gripe with Science (it's not really a beef with science) is interpretation. People who treat science like religion. That scientist who went to my "special" school and told us future doers that "faster than light travel is impossible-- ""real life"" isn't like ""Star Trek""". Screw that noise! Science don't know squat, really, as (like I've reiterated endlessly) *science is just a tool*. (Plus, the "not really knowing" is sorta built into it, but I digress) "We" apply meaning, and put things in context. And we can do awesome things like ponder paradoxes and conundrums. > Again, I'm not an atheist. And I don't really care for most of Dawkins > work on this subject. But why are you so adamant that science has > absolutely no place here? I won't talk for MaryJo, but I proffer this: It's not that science has no place, it's that "the place" has no place-- the "place" is "outside" the box, and ever will be, by definition (course by defining it, we just put it in the box, so to speak... oh noes!). Good thing you're not an evil computer, Judah, or a simple sentence like "this sentence is true and false" could spell the end. :-] WALL-E didn't have any trouble with the spork, so, heh, it obviously only affects bad computers. (and that's Science! er, Logic?) Anyways, don't believe anything I say unless it rings true, to you personally-- or however that goes. |den -- Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it. Confuci ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308420 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
