How are intelligent, critical thinkers still religious?

robindch wrote: »

At the quantum level, random behaviour appears to be an intrinsic property of nature.

Do you know this for a fact or are do you "know" this because a few scientists and quantum mechanics claim this (yet have not provided solid proof)

kinda sounds like Christians following the Church.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is why they are still Chrsitian theologians :P

Well yes that was part of the point. You can't really objectively state that this or that is more surprising than some other things. It depends on what you know about the subject. Now I know nothing about theology, But I'll wager it's not as complex as science. There are new things discovered by scientists all the time. Just as there are new papers and interpretations taking place in the arts all the time. You could say to the layman some amazing break through in quantum mechanics, and it would probably mean nothing to him. It wouldn't be surprising to him because he wouldn't even know what you are saying. Likewise, he would not know what a theologian was saying if he were to say that a particular paper was revolutionary.

No they weren't. They were, as I said, mental masturbation, putting illogical words and concepts together and then saying it was all unimaginable. We can't imagine what God is like because he is all these contradictory things I've just imagined and slammed together to stand back and think I've discovered something new.

Well you can't really call somethign illogical without reference to somethign else. But your post is fast detiorating into nothing more than beligerence, which I guess is understandable since ye probably feel that the illogic of religion is well established in this forum. I don't know how you can sit here and pretend to know what that thread was about when you demonstrated an obvious inability to understand the precepts in the thread itself.

That isn't what I'm talking about with relation to science, which is actual discovery. A blue green thing is unimaginable but only because it is nonsense. A round square like wise. They all fit within the realm of easy to imagine concepts, they are just slammed together to form nonsense terms and saying how wondrous it all is (which is basically all theology is) is not a serious exploration of reality.

It's not a serious exporation of material reality, as you see it.

If you find that amazing more power to you. I personally find it idiotic.

Well it's got nothign to do with what i find amazing. It's got to do with your objectively stating science is more amazing than other things.

Wicknight wrote: »

True but that isn't relevant to the point. We can imagine a blue green thing simply by getting the concept of a blue thing and a green thing and combining the parameters. We can imagine a small big thing, or a heavy light thing. But none of those things are amazing or surprising.

Same with theology. Theology just slams concepts together and sees which ones they like the best. None of that is amazing or surprising. It just produces incoherent nonsense, because people pick the concepts to keep not based on how they relate to reality (since there is no way to examine if any of the theological concepts are actually real) but on how pleasing to the eye ear or mental faculties they are. As such it is the exact opposite of surprising or amazing.

Well I think if you studied some mathematics you would see how surprising or amazing a defined idea can be when you extend it and travel on from it's axioms. If you studied arguments you would see this.

I never said that the only use of maths was its practical application, did I?

Your post seemed to suggest that having practical applications was a major determinant of the worth of an area of study. But perhaps it's only so for things like theology.

No, I'm saying comparing things to the Nazi's is so 2009. If you don't watch the Daily Show with John Steward you probably won't get the reference.

Ah no I don't, I just read a thread abotu shouting and thought it was about the exclamation marks I used.

King Mob wrote: »

No you said:

I gave you a very valid part it plays in appreciating the beautiful universe.
Separated but not exclusively so or at odds with each other.

Well there's no point in going over it, what I was saying was quite clear. Through the use of reason alone we cannot appreciate anything. I was very clear about that from the start. That's what I meant, you can find this other meaning in that, that it had nothing at all to do with thigns we can apply aesthetic appreciation too, but it's obvious from other thigns I've said (amongst which was that sentence) that the first meaning was what I intended.

Unless of course you're rationally examining the concept of aesthetics.
Or in the example of art, learning about the life and times of the artist to understand his work.
Or any of nearly endless other examples.

This would give us a series of ideas and sentences abotu aesthetics, not aesthetic appreciation itself. Unless you want to argue that appreciating the value of things can be done logically and rationally. That's what you should argue if you'd like to take issue with I've said. Anythign else is not a response to what I said.

Actually it's more along the lines of "Oh! phenomenon A exhibits behaviour X, this can explain phenomenon B, and that's pretty awesome."

Ok so you're appreciating, and subjectively stating this thing uncovered by your reason is awsome. Awsome is a subjective value term.

Or in the example given by Richard Feynman in the video which you apparently didn't watch, rationality lets you understand the processes that lead to the flower and the processes still going on in the flower, and appreciate both these as well as the amazing fact that they led to the flower in the first place.

It wouldn't make a difference whether i watched it or not. You didn't understand my point, or perhaps deliberately mis-interpreted it. There is a difference between value statements and logical ones. That's very simple

Now the question is how does the absence of rationality in this add anything?
Or worse, saying the equivalent of "a wizard did it!"?

Here's a more important question, how did you twist my argument in such a way that nonsense like this is considered as an appropriate response to it?

Because obviously what I've been saying is that rationality impares one's ability to appreciate things. I hate science so much!

Again showing a complete lack of understanding on your part.
Go watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

Now that's not a very nice tone to take. I merely explained for people why the term "cold rationality" exists. Go think about the difference between value statements and logical ones. Then go read my initial post, read the posts after it. Look up all the words in the dictionary. And put the definitions together, using the context to eliminate definitions which are incorrect.

It seems people take offense to hearing counter arguments on this forum.

Wicknight wrote: »

I wasn't objectively stating anything, I don't think something can be objectively amazing. I would have thought that when you start talking about something being "amazing" it is implicate that you are talking about opinion.

Well, were you not saying that science is more amazing than other things? Your tone suggested you were making an absolute statement. But I actually can't remember. I think the things that I came into this thread to discuss are no longer being discussed.

I do know what theologians are saying. It is still not amazing or surprising (to me, if that wasn't clear). In fact I agree with you and wouldn't feel confident saying that if I didn't know what theologians are saying.

You will find most atheists on this forum are very familiar with theology.

Well yes, familiar maybe, as familiar with theology as reading popular science makes you with science perhaps. But do not disparage a subject just because it's in the arts, perhaps you understand it to some degree, but not at the same level at which it's understood by those spending their lives studying it.

It's not ridiculous either to say that "most atheists on this forum" may be somewhat biased in their studies of theology. There is a nice bertrand russell quote somewhere about interpretting the pre-socratics which I think would be appropriate here.

You can call something illogical based on the rules of the system. For example a good God that is evil is an illogical statement since good and bad are opposite concepts.

Well, this was addressed in that thread. Perhaps you've forgotten it. Or maybe this is all just sophistry.

Considering you just confessed to know nothing about theology that seems a bit of a silly statement.

I am not so arrogant as to presume I know as much as people spending their lives studying it know. Nor would I be so arrogant to say that I have a full understanding of current scientific theories.

You know nothing about theology but you know enough to know that I'm pretending when I say I followed the thread that I actively partook in and didn't find it in anyway surprising or amazing?

Well, this was actually also covered in the thread. Anyway, nevermind that about things being amazing. If we agree that different people find different things amazing then that is settled.

I don't, but then that is just my subjective opinion.

I'm sure those people studying darth vader understand that he is a character in starwars. My point was that things are often designated other planes of existence.

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you understand that science is not a question of faith in scientists. The scientists produce experiments that anyone can replicate and results that anyone can study.

How is this like Christians and the Church? Can I replicate the Pope speaking to God?

No science isnt but many people just believe scientists tell the truth.

for example you say science produce experiments but do you know of any experiments that have been carried out that proves randomness exists?

Im guessing no, however you believe one does exist because scientists say one exists.

Des Carter wrote: »

No science isnt but many people just believe scientists tell the truth.

for example you say science produce experiments but do you know of any experiments that have been carried out that proves randomness exists?

Im guessing no, however you believe one does exist because scientists say one exists.

Thats a farcical argument so scientists can't be trusted is that it ? if no source can be trusted how can you be so sure Jesus existed or that he was the Son of god and not just a charismatic preacher, if the old testement is suspect in your eyes what makes you think the rest of it is anymore accurate .

Des Carter wrote: »

Des Carter wrote: »

Do you know this for a fact or are do you "know" this because a few scientists and quantum mechanics claim this (yet have not provided solid proof)

kinda sounds like Christians following the Church.

How is this a facepalm, you are assuming that quantum physics explains randomness yet you dont know the first thing about quantum physics therefore you are just assuming it has the answers when maybe it doesnt.

Actually I don't know whether QM explains randomness, in fact, I don't think it does but that's beside the point. QM happens to be the MOST experimentally tested scientific theory of all time. There are literally dozens of experiments that show the randomness of QM the classic example is the double slit. Basically QM can be summed up as follows: When left in isolation, an object is doing something, nothing, and both, something and nothing, all at the same time.

The reason I facepalmed you was because of how you equated science to a religion. If you take nothing else away from this thread, then please realise that faith in science is faith in the possibility of being wrong. Faith in religion is concept that you are right and, if you have doubts , you don't really have faith. Science is cognitive dissonance it is about looking at data and accepting it even if goes against your intuitions. Feynman said it best if the data doesn't match your prediction then the prediction is wrong not the data. Religion is merely following your instincts and intuitions. For religion if the data disagrees with your intuition or instincts then the data is wrong and your intuition is right. Of course, scientists are human so the sticking with the predictions will invariably happen a lot of the time.

Des Carter wrote: »

Again you are talking about the Old Testament - Something I as a Christian dont believe in. It is a load of rubbish if it is to be taken literally. I have said this numerous times that it is the Catholic Church who push these teachings - not Jesus. CHRISTianity should be about the teachings of Jesus CHRIST.

Really? You might want to check what Jesus himself actually said about the Old Testament:

1) “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)

2)"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

He clearly thinks the old testament rules still apply and still are required to get into heaven (so make sure to execute your disobedient kids (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and keep good care of your testacles (Deuteronomy 23:2) if you want into heaven ).

Jesus believed that the Old Testament was divinely inspired, the veritable Word of God. He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). He referred to Scripture as "the commandment of God" (Matthew 15:3) and as the "Word of God" (Matthew 15:6)

When dealing with the people of His day, whether it was with the disciples or religious rulers, Jesus constantly referred to the Old Testament: "Have you not read that which was spoken to you by God?" (Matthew 22:31); "Yea; and have you never read, 'Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babes thou hast prepared praise for thyself'?" (Matthew 21:16, citing Psalm 8:2); and "Have you not read what David did?" (Matthew 12:3).

Jesus believed the story [of Adam and Eve] to be true (Matthew 19:1-6).

(Source)