Explain Judaism

[swilow]

It's not a trap. I'm not going to teach you the entire history and progress of psychology, neuroscience, and evolutionary science because the result of that conversation is already predetermined. You know as well as I do that science has made great strides in understanding the mind. You either don't care to learn about it, don't understand it, or (like willow) want the answers now.

I just do not see how the scientific method can ever be employed in making real discovery about the nature of the mind, or thought or love or art or inspiration and so forth. That is the stage of ultimate subjectivity and science does not neccesarily have a way to quanitify personal experience.

Is is that hard to admit that science, whislt incredibly effective at elucidating physical truths, is not that useful at exploring the nuanced inner life of humans?

I'm content to wait for them because I've seen how far we've come and where we're going.

Whilst I am not really involved in your argument with ForEverAfter, that is faith based statement. Provide some evidence for this, because it implies a certainty that science itself is often careful to avoid implying. Its an unscientific observation

Either we'll get there or we won't (because we're all dead), but I highly doubt the latter will be ultimately true. Impatience with science is no reason to turn to pseudoscience and arationality.

That is correct. But no-one is talking about either pseudoscience or "arationality". People are talking about their own spiritual experience. It is arrogant to try and reduce it in the way you have.

I actually do feel that science has disproven, or rendered highly unlikely, the idea of a personal god. Only an anthropocentric god would deign to put aside all physical constants to answer the selfish prayers of one individual, and, in this vast universe, it seems unlikely that god would be an idealised human. That, however, does not preclude something else.

My impression is you keep framing science in religious terms because it's how you think and you can't imagine thinking differently. Based on your posts in this thread you fundamentally misunderstand science at a basic level. I've been on both sides, myself, so I understand where you're coming from. But it's clear that you're not going to understand where I'm coming from, which is unfortunate in my opinion. I know people find great joy and comfort in religion, and it's instilled in us so early (in a manner indistinguishable from brain washing) that it can be difficult to let go. I realize how patronizing this sounds, but I'm not really a sugarcoater and I'm speaking from experience. In any case, I wish you the best.

Have you simply transferred your programming?

I think you are wrong in taking sides. Its a duality that doesn't really exist.

 

[Ninae]

No, he has reversed his programming - see how well he has been taught.

 

[swilow]

^I don't get it....?

 

[Ninae]

Well, that sounds a bit offensive. I didn't mean it like that. Just pointing out that he seems to be taking the same approach to his outlook now as he did then. i.e. more based in blind faith and as he says as far as he's concerned 100% of believers are that way.

It's funny how different people are and we can't exchange backgrounds. I also know what it's like from the other side as I used to be an agnostic/atheist until I couldn't make any more sense of it. But I'm still the same I was then in the sense that I question everything, hardly trust in anything, always want more, find things to criticise about good things, find good things in bad things, and generally feel there must be something I haven't achieved yet, etc.

 

[swilow]

^Settle down, I literally wasn't sure what you meant. I apologise if I was too blunt.

 

[Ninae]

I meant it could be offensive for him.

 

[Birc0014]

Read the second and third page of this thread:

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...ess-Moves-to-Another-Universe-Afterdeat/page2

The member I quoted says that because Hawking makes a theory, it is true / the best theory... and objects to me questioning anything about the man. Obviously he doesn't think he is infallible. In a documentary, recently, he questioned whether or not he was famous because of his theories or his disability... But that doesn't stop ignorant people from blindly believing in everything he says. I encounter it all the time.

This "talking point" thing you keep repeating is evidently untrue.
Lots of people, unfortunately, have (a misguided) blind faith in science and/or scientists.

You also repeatedly refer to him as an idiot, and someone who doesnt know what he is talking about in his field. This is a field that has been largely revolutionized by his theories, a field in which he has repeatedly proven himself as an authority in. I'm assuming you have yet to be recognized by your peers or a nobel panel for your theories in astrophysics, quantum mechanics, theoretical physics, or any other science, so why do you keep arguing the fact the motherfucker is a genius of epic proportions and has more knowledge in the claw he controls his chair with than you even will?

Also for the record Steve (as I like to call him because we down like that) isnt my personal saviour nor do I see him as a godlike diety. He is just a scientist which I have a vast amount of respect for and someone that is able to explain extremely complex ideas in a way that any idiot can understand if they take the time to try.

 

[Birc0014]

Everything will be explained in about a year with the creation of the ALL POWERFUL AND ALL KNOWING OZ!

I mean quantum computer, we just need to find people who can create programs for it to run on, very tiny people, working on very tiny programs, vey tiny.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You also repeatedly refer to him as an idiot, and someone who doesnt know what he is talking about in his field.

I said, and clarified, that what he said was idiotic and that he often says silly things like that.
I never said "he doesn't know what he's talking about in his field". That's a flat out lie.
I never implied in any way that I am more intelligent than him.

This is a field that has been largely revolutionized by his theories

What are his theories?
How have they revolutionized theoretical physics?

so why do you keep arguing the fact the motherfucker is a genius of epic proportions and has more knowledge in the claw he controls his chair with than you even will?

Like I've already said numerous times, I mad no comparative statements, whatsoever.
For the record, though: technically I score in the genius level on IQ tests.
My highest IQ test result was 9 points lower than Hawking...
So, based on that, he's most likely smarter. I'm sure he is.
That doesn't make him infallible, though.

I'm not sure why you make any assumptions about how intelligent I am.
Like your silly little statements like Hawking has more intelligence in his hand.
(It is not a claw. He doesn't have a claw. He has a hand, like most humans.
I worked in the disability sector for over 10 years and I find that offensive.
You might as well call Asian people yellow.)

Steve... isnt my personal saviour nor do I see him as a godlike diety.

But you do treat him as infallible.
You're being very defensive about me saying that he says silly things sometimes.
What does this mean: that he's incapable of saying anything silly?
That he's beyond question? (Read: infallible.)

I can give you a whole series of quotes from Hawking that I think are idiotic/unfounded.
You act as if he is beyond question... that, because he's a celebrity physicist, he must be correct...
You also said he has a Nobel Prize in Physics, which he doesn't.

He is not as significant a theorist as you think he is.
Rather than just arguing, "Yes, he is," repeatedly, why don't you explain WHY you think so.
What are his most important theories, in your opinion, and how have they revolutionized science?

He is just a scientist which I have a vast amount of respect for and someone that is able to explain extremely complex ideas in a way that any idiot can understand if they take the time to try.

Now, we agree on something.
He certainly is very good at explaining complex theories to the layman.
He is, unquestionably, a significant figure in the popularization of modern science.
But, that doesn't make him as significant a contributor to theoretical physics as Einstein.

 

[Journyman16]

So sad and so true, there is no intelligent debate with 'true believers' there is also no recognition of the fact that they could be wrong as the entire system is predicated on 'faith' as opposed to fact. At the very least a scientific approach can be tested, proven, debated, improved upon, disproven, etc; whereas a dogma just 'is'.

A believer cannot be reasoned out of something s/he wasn't reasoned into.

And that applies to the Science types as well.

Science is by no means the sole arbiter of reality. It may not even be the best if people like Robert Lanza are correct in their approach. Religion (capital R) is flawed, probably fatally, but religious thought and feelings are a personal journey many people take, including those involved in Science. Personally I prefer to use 'Spirituality' for such things to get away from the standard definitions that bring so much angst to discussions.

Science is a good way to work and understand the Solid, but if there is anything OTHER than the Solid, it's pretty much up the proverbial without a paddle OR a rudder. Science hasn't actually done much about Mind at all - it is locked into a chemicals and cells paradigm and so everything is related to Brain, not Mind. Psychology and Psychiatry are similarly bound by a physical view of things, so we still conduct the barbarisms of ECT and lobotomy to 'fix' problems. Some of the drug 'therapies' are equally barbaric. (and yes, they are still being done, quite regularly in even our 'modern' countries)

Science works while it can limit the boundaries of a subject, but even so, it is in a failing mode now because it is no longer being run by sicentists but instead being dictated by politicians and corporates. The bottom line has corrupted what science is meant to be and it is now a tool to make more money rather than a way to discover reality. (and yes, I know that is a generality and there is still some basic research being done)

An example is the attempted killing off of Cold Fusion by MIT because it might threaten the millions they get for 'hot' fusion. Everybody now 'knows' CF is a fraud, but how many know MIT faked their results, altered data and were forced to publicly admit their malfeasance? There are many such examples.

So it is doubtful Religion will ever deliver us the solution to the universe and life and everything, but it is not a lot more likely that science will either, IMV. We have to meld them, find a ground where we can apply the methods of science (as it is meant to be) with the development of spiritual knowledge (of us, not some greybeard in the heavens) and then we might work out WTF it's all about.

 

[Birc0014]

I said, and clarified, that what he said was idiotic and that he often says silly things like that.
I never said "he doesn't know what he's talking about in his field". That's a flat out lie.
I never implied in any way that I am more intelligent than him.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads...ess-Moves-to-Another-Universe-Afterdeat/page2

I can't do this back and forth thing if your going to write a novel! I appreciate the fact you are an intelligent guy, I can clearly see that in much of what you post. However, you seem to have a massive blind spot in your reasoning, god. I dont want to address anything else you have said other than the fact I said Hawkings won a nobel prize which in fact is not true. He did not win a nobel prize. With that said, much of what Hawkings has contributed cant be proven based on the fact almost all of his work is theoretical. The theory is sound and has been checked but the results cant be seen therefore proven. Einstein didnt win for his theory of relativity either and although its largely been disproven it still revolutionized physics such as Hawkings did with his 'breakdown of predictability' theory, 'Hawkings radiation' theory, 'information paradox' problem, and proposition that quantum mechanics and astro physics would have to be combined to solve for the 'big bang'. I would call that pretty fucking revolutionary.

He may be a celebrity scientist but that doesnt make him any less relevant.

 

[Birc0014]

For the record I dont find anyone infallible including myself.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I said, and clarified, that what he said was idiotic and that he often says silly things like that.
I never said "he doesn't know what he's talking about in his field". That's a flat out lie.
I never implied in any way that I am more intelligent than him.

http://www.bluelight.org/vb/threads/...fterdeat/page2

I'm not sure why you posted this link...?
To confirm what I said?

...

You listed a couple of theories that Hawking came up with, none of which revolutionized science. At least, I don't see how they have (so far, anyway). Nor do I see how they will. The one that stands out as his greatest contribution is Hawking radiation. The "proposition that quantum mechanics and astro physics would have to be combined to solve for the 'big bang" is far from revolutionary... It cannot be credited to Hawking and, frankly, I don't know why you included that in your list.

In order to prove that he's had a huge impact on modern theoretical physics, you'd have to go beyond just listing out some theories. You have to explain the impact they've had. I can list theories from all sorts (thousands) of theoretical physicists...

I think Hawking would agree with me that nobody should assume that his theories are correct simply because he came up with them.
That's not science. That is (fundamental) religion.

Like you said, even Einstein's theories are being disproved.

...

Let's just move on from Hawking, shall we?

However, you seem to have a massive blind spot in your reasoning, god.

You're going to have to explain this a bit better...
What is it about my belief in God that you consider blind?

 

[Birc0014]

Aside from the fact most of your postings are in defense of le creator, I just think your arguments/thinking would be put to better use without all the religion behind them. What is it that is so compelling about the idea theat yaweh is real? Santa Claus, the Boogeyman, Easterbunny, tooth fairy, they are all just programming from childhood.

 

[ForEverAfter]

My entire extended family are atheists.

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - Albert Einstein

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations." - Albert Einstein

 

[Ninae]

I knew everyone would just ignore Einstein's quotes. We hear about Einstein but the fact that our most well-known scientist had a sincere belief in God is a bit hard to get around for many.

I also had some vague recollection he believed in God but I was suprised by how much he had to say about it. I just didn't think he had that much focus on the spiritual side of life. But it's the kind of spiritual reasoning I'm most used to (Peter Deunov, etc.) and makes a lot of sense.

Anyway, I wonder how people who believe that no rational person has religious feelings try to reason their way out of that one? I guess they would explain it as a "glitch" in human reality.

 

[Journyman16]

My entire extended family are atheists.

"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being." - Albert Einstein

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations." - Albert Einstein

You may need to keep in mind Einstein made up a theory that contradicted evidence they already had in hand but didn't realise. Maxwell gave them a substrate that Relativity doesn't fit and Michelson-Morley provided evidence they didn't want to believe. Now it turns out Maxwell gave us something more than we are allowed to know and there IS an Aether - which makes Relativity, both General and Special, an approximation.

 

[Ninae]

a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth

This seems to apply to most anti-religious feeling. Most of the time it's not any more complex like that. "I don't want to control my lower animal nature, I don't want to be expected to live up to Christ's high standards, I just feel annoyed by his holier-than-thou attitude", etc.

Of course most will make up a whole load of theories to justify that, but that's not really the driving-force behind it, and people really don't care that much about theories. What they do care about is being able to live out their natural impulses and having their needs and feelings met.

But what they don't seem to realise is that everyone has those feelings, it's only natural, but that doesn't mean to say nothing else can matter or that they can't be made subservient to something else.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You may need to keep in mind Einstein made up a theory that contradicted evidence they already had in hand but didn't realise. Maxwell gave them a substrate that Relativity doesn't fit and Michelson-Morley provided evidence they didn't want to believe. Now it turns out Maxwell gave us something more than we are allowed to know and there IS an Aether - which makes Relativity, both General and Special, an approximation.

Einstein isn't infallible.

I knew everyone would just ignore Einstein's quotes. We hear about Einstein but the fact that our most well-known scientist had a sincere belief in God is a bit hard to get around for many.

He didn't believe in God. He was an agnostic, with pantheistic tendencies.

 

[swilow]

Since when is there an aether?