6 ms·

The more I look at it most of what is called science is just as magical when you move outside of the directly observable. Take the big bang, people proclaim th

The more I look at it most of what is called science is just as magical when you move outside of the directly observable. Take the big bang, people proclaim that it answers the question of where the universe comes from but it does no better of a job than religion. Both start from a place of preexistence, either god or the energy required to create the universe exist prior to the start of the explanation. Neither actually answer the question. It is supreme arrogance to assume we have it right and all the ones before us had it wrong. Truth is we have no idea about much of anything, especially the universe or ourselves and it's all essentially blind faith. Scientific consensus is just the new papal decree.

simion314 7y ago
Let me tell you my main point, and it is not related with science or who created the universe. Most religions(I am a ortodox christian in Romania) tell that God is good and fair, I look around me and I do not see a fair and good world, so using my own intelect I decide that there are 2 possibilities: 1 a fair and kind god does not exist ( a healthy in the mind human won't let children die) 2 god exists but and his actions or inactions are not on my liking, I can't respect and worship such a god. Now some religios people will appear and tell stories about how we can't understand why god does X but it never convinces me. Again is not about science, I can ignore the creationists stories as just stories, the full God is kind and fair is what makes me convinced that there is nothing like this in this world.
- anon4242 7y ago
  What if there's a third possibility?
  - simion314 7y ago
    Can you tell me? Something like I am too stupid to understand why the bad things happen? How kindly god lets children die when any human would do better? Sorry I won't worhip a god that is inhuman.
    - anon4242 7y ago
      "Free will" is the possibility I was thinking about. Basically that God has relinquished control over a lot of things so that we can have a true free will. That means that our actions must have irreversible consequences.
      - simion314 7y ago
        I accounted for this, if God exists but he is just watching like a scientists watches ants then for me is not a good/kind god, a father so I can't respect and worship that. I am thinking at a story in the Bible where God and the Devil discuss about a guy (not sure his english name, it is named Iov in my language) and God agrees to test the guy and kills his children, Iov continues to worship God and at the end God gives him other children, for me children are not like objects, you kill them to test my reactions and if I pass you give me other children or other reward, for me this shows a God that has no empathy or humanity, maybe I am too low level to understand the superior plan but you have Judas that should have seen miracles daily and he lost his faith, how you expect someone that never sees any miracle, that sees the world how unfair it is to believe (considering the most priests still try to convince you that the wold is only 5000 years old and tons of other crap in the Old Testament)
        anon4242 7y ago
        I don't think that free will means that God watches detached like a scientist. The first story you recount is about Job. My personal take about Job is that the story about God and the Devil is an explanation for why bad things happen to good people, i.e. one of the consequences of free will means that Karma doesn't work. Sure God let it happen to Job but not because He was in cahoot with the Devil but because of free will. The second story about Judas, I don't think it's true that he lost his faith. I think either Judas was plain greedy or more likely he saw all those miracles and thought that by turning Jesus over to the Jewish leaders he would force Jesus' hand to use His power to overthrow the Roman government and let Jews rule their own kingdom with Jesus as king. > considering the most priests still try to convince you that the wold is only 5000 years old I agree with you here. My personal ideology is to always follow the truth with an open mind and not be afraid of where that leads me. Some say that religion is truth but I don't see it as a tautology. Even a religion needs to prove its claims of the truth.
chongli 7y ago
It is supreme arrogance to assume we have it right and all the ones before us had it wrong. Truth is we have no idea about much of anything, especially the universe or ourselves and it's all essentially blind faith. Scientific consensus is just the new papal decree. We have been to the bottom of the ocean and orbited the globe. We have put people on the moon and robots on Mars. We have sent probes beyond the far reaches of the solar system and we have peered into the depths of the universe. All of these things we've done, not with arrogance, but with humility. The central scientific principle is that we are fallible creatures who have no privileged access to the truth. Only through the hard work of experimentation and repetition can we build any semblance of a model for reality. And yet we maintain that "all models are wrong, some are useful." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong
ska 7y ago
and it's all essentially blind faith. This just really isn't true. I do think there is a problem with something I'll call "science-ism", which involves people picking and choosing from "science" to support a position or worldview they have, without any critical thinking involved. And to some degree, in some populations this unquestioned adherence to a vaguely claimed result from "science" has replaced a unquestioned andherence to one taken from "religion". But that is not what science is. Science, for all of its flaws and challenges, is simply the best systemic approach for understanding the world around us that human beings have ever come up with. It's not even a close contest. It isn't perfect. It makes errors and is too slow to correct them. There are interesting a meaningful questions it can't really address. It is hard work to do well. But it does work - and has led to most of the large improvements in human lives that we've seen in centuries, at least. And it does that work by being the opposite of what you claim. Understanding that we too have it wrong, that we are building on the work of those who came before, and we are iteratively building a better understanding. Your comment about cosmology is telling. The ideas behind the big bang theory are categorically different than religious cosmology. Consider two things 1) They didn't come from "just" and idea, they were arrived at by trying to understand the implications of the models we saw agreeing very, very well with observed physics. 2) If a better explanation comes along, physics will (begrudgingly perhaps, and slowly perhaps) adopt it and throw out the big bang theory.

simion314 7y ago

Let me tell you my main point, and it is not related with science or who created the universe. Most religions(I am a ortodox christian in Romania) tell that God is good and fair, I look around me and I do not see a fair and good world, so using my own intelect I decide that there are 2 possibilities: 1 a fair and kind god does not exist ( a healthy in the mind human won't let children die) 2 god exists but and his actions or inactions are not on my liking, I can't respect and worship such a god. Now some religios people will appear and tell stories about how we can't understand why god does X but it never convinces me. Again is not about science, I can ignore the creationists stories as just stories, the full God is kind and fair is what makes me convinced that there is nothing like this in this world.

anon4242 7y ago
What if there's a third possibility?
- simion314 7y ago
  Can you tell me? Something like I am too stupid to understand why the bad things happen? How kindly god lets children die when any human would do better? Sorry I won't worhip a god that is inhuman.
  - anon4242 7y ago
    "Free will" is the possibility I was thinking about. Basically that God has relinquished control over a lot of things so that we can have a true free will. That means that our actions must have irreversible consequences.
    - simion314 7y ago
      I accounted for this, if God exists but he is just watching like a scientists watches ants then for me is not a good/kind god, a father so I can't respect and worship that. I am thinking at a story in the Bible where God and the Devil discuss about a guy (not sure his english name, it is named Iov in my language) and God agrees to test the guy and kills his children, Iov continues to worship God and at the end God gives him other children, for me children are not like objects, you kill them to test my reactions and if I pass you give me other children or other reward, for me this shows a God that has no empathy or humanity, maybe I am too low level to understand the superior plan but you have Judas that should have seen miracles daily and he lost his faith, how you expect someone that never sees any miracle, that sees the world how unfair it is to believe (considering the most priests still try to convince you that the wold is only 5000 years old and tons of other crap in the Old Testament)
      - anon4242 7y ago
        I don't think that free will means that God watches detached like a scientist. The first story you recount is about Job. My personal take about Job is that the story about God and the Devil is an explanation for why bad things happen to good people, i.e. one of the consequences of free will means that Karma doesn't work. Sure God let it happen to Job but not because He was in cahoot with the Devil but because of free will. The second story about Judas, I don't think it's true that he lost his faith. I think either Judas was plain greedy or more likely he saw all those miracles and thought that by turning Jesus over to the Jewish leaders he would force Jesus' hand to use His power to overthrow the Roman government and let Jews rule their own kingdom with Jesus as king. > considering the most priests still try to convince you that the wold is only 5000 years old I agree with you here. My personal ideology is to always follow the truth with an open mind and not be afraid of where that leads me. Some say that religion is truth but I don't see it as a tautology. Even a religion needs to prove its claims of the truth.

chongli 7y ago

It is supreme arrogance to assume we have it right and all the ones before us had it wrong. Truth is we have no idea about much of anything, especially the universe or ourselves and it's all essentially blind faith. Scientific consensus is just the new papal decree. We have been to the bottom of the ocean and orbited the globe. We have put people on the moon and robots on Mars. We have sent probes beyond the far reaches of the solar system and we have peered into the depths of the universe. All of these things we've done, not with arrogance, but with humility. The central scientific principle is that we are fallible creatures who have no privileged access to the truth. Only through the hard work of experimentation and repetition can we build any semblance of a model for reality. And yet we maintain that "all models are wrong, some are useful." [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_models_are_wrong

ska 7y ago

and it's all essentially blind faith. This just really isn't true. I do think there is a problem with something I'll call "science-ism", which involves people picking and choosing from "science" to support a position or worldview they have, without any critical thinking involved. And to some degree, in some populations this unquestioned adherence to a vaguely claimed result from "science" has replaced a unquestioned andherence to one taken from "religion". But that is not what science is. Science, for all of its flaws and challenges, is simply the best systemic approach for understanding the world around us that human beings have ever come up with. It's not even a close contest. It isn't perfect. It makes errors and is too slow to correct them. There are interesting a meaningful questions it can't really address. It is hard work to do well. But it does work - and has led to most of the large improvements in human lives that we've seen in centuries, at least. And it does that work by being the opposite of what you claim. Understanding that we too have it wrong, that we are building on the work of those who came before, and we are iteratively building a better understanding. Your comment about cosmology is telling. The ideas behind the big bang theory are categorically different than religious cosmology. Consider two things 1) They didn't come from "just" and idea, they were arrived at by trying to understand the implications of the models we saw agreeing very, very well with observed physics. 2) If a better explanation comes along, physics will (begrudgingly perhaps, and slowly perhaps) adopt it and throw out the big bang theory.