AdamSmith Posted September 18, 2012 Posted September 18, 2012 For me "Jesus died on the cross for our sins", "Jesus loves us", "God loves us" and etc... are in the category of belief... That's what I meant... OK, begging this dead horse's pardon (meaning this subject matter, not you, hito!)... Of course we grant that many religious precepts are not subject to scientific proof or disproof, the existence or nonexistence of the Deity being a prime example. There is a good argument that religion is at its most valuable whenever it is specifically not on grounds subject to scientific discussion -- expressing transcendent emotion, imagination, yearning, ideals (even granting these may one day fall under the understanding of psychobiology); teaching and imparting of compassion, morals and justice through parables (I confess my view of Jesus as peasant social revolutionary is showing there); etc. But the relevance of the Dalai Lama's quote, it seems, is that many other categories of belief that are held core by many believers are very much subject to disputation and discrediting by science -- for example, the manifold arguments by religionists that the existence of the Deity is necessary in order to explain the existence of the universe. A simple form of the scientific answer to that is this: Positing an unknowable entity in order to "explain" a knowable one does not really explain anything, does it? A more sublime form of the answer was the one given by Laplace: Laplace went in state to Napoleon to present a copy of his work [on the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter]... Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, 'M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." ("I had no need of that hypothesis.") http://en.wikipedia....e-Simon_Laplace (Actually this old scientific saw is further expanded on and fascinatingly corrected in the above Wiki article. But the point remains unchanged.) JKane 1 Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 "(Issac) Newton saw a monotheistic God as the masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation." Yet he contributed so much in science and is considered to be one of the greatest scientists. I wonder how this FACT will be interpreted by Nye... I will ask him if I get to see him... "Creationism is not for children"???? Why not? We read fairy tales to kids and maybe that needs to be stopped since it is not so scientific???? - Hitoallusa 2012 Quote
AdamSmith Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 Newton was a genius. Religiously, he was a crank nutcase. He was in many regards fully as crazy as he was brilliant. You know his bio -- he was just stark raving loony in so many aspects of life outside of fluxions. P.S. Fairy tales are completely scientific. Re-reading the Brothers Grimm, eerie how they prefigured Freud so uncannily. Brothers unwittingly marrying their sister, parricide, Rumpelstiltskin, etc., etc. When I can't sleep, I pull down that book and find GOOD reason to stay awake all night. Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 27, 2012 Posted September 27, 2012 My point is that... One doesn't have to be denied creationism to be successful in science... As I have numerously said, I'm just pointing out an error of Nye and that kind of thinking is harmful for children also.. On the other hand, Nye and I undermine the brilliant mind of young children these days.. Maybe that is the problem adults trying see the world according to their own perspectives and forcing them to their children... Children interact with other constituents of a given society and develop their own perspective on things. That is the strength of us. We don't stagnate and change to adapt to new situations. Newton was a genius. Religiously, he was a crank nutcase. He was in many regards fully as crazy as he was brilliant. You know his bio -- he was just stark raving loony in so many aspects of life outside of fluxions. Quote
Members JKane Posted September 28, 2012 Members Posted September 28, 2012 I figured the photo above was an appropriate reply to the continued argument that somehow somebody's magical invisible friend in the sky created the universe should be taught as science... but this pic does it pretty well too: Quote
AdamSmith Posted September 28, 2012 Posted September 28, 2012 #5 might alternately be captioned "What Michelangelo Got Paid to Say Happened." Same thing in the end, I guess. When Ben Franklin was charming Paris, one of the philosophes rampant at the time asked another if he knew anything about Franklin's religious beliefs. The other was proud to be able to claim Le Franquelin as one of their own: "He worships Great Nature!" Quote
Guest hitoallusa Posted September 28, 2012 Posted September 28, 2012 Thanks As long as it's in there I'm fine with it... I think that's fair and let people decide... I figured the photo above was an appropriate reply to the continued argument that somehow somebody's magical invisible friend in the sky created the universe should be taught as science... but this pic does it pretty well too: Quote
