Thats more then likley because it is built into us over generations and its how we are, we are a race who has a wild imagination and who likes to beleive. Science relys on proof to make a theroy credible, or atleast some logic, not so much beleifs. Thats a big difference.
Trev🙂
I still don't see why it has to be cast as an either/or. Scientists are just as likely to be religious as anyone else in their demographic. Science and religion are ways to answer two different sorts of questions (see my tag line).
Are you familiar with St. Augustine of Hippo?
Are you familiar with St. Augustine of Hippo?
Hitlers believes were based on some sort of teutonic wotan believes, the japanese emperors were base on shintoism afaik, mao and stalin believed of some enonomical cum religious version of marxism, but already misinterprating that in its basics. The god of the latter were the masses, to be more precise to be leaders of the masses.
But does this excuse the deeds of the protestant church/ catholic church etc. when it comes to persecution of "witches", the elimination of populations in the south americas in the name of religion, the blessings of the soldiers and their weapons - right to world war two even in nazi germany, the thrirty year war fought on religio/politico grounds, the killings of the inquisition, the massacres of the heretics, the progroms of jews in russia, the murders perpetrated by the participants in the wars of the cross, the killings by the ustasha of the serbs - never forgotten there, the atrocities committed by vlad the impaler, a staunch supporter of the church, etc. etc.
But you are right at one point that you seem to imply - there are still enough so called "scientists" out there that are able to defend any so called methods of euthanasia for the purpose of eliminating "unwanted phaenotypes of genotypical errors", and most of them truly admired the works of the nazis in that regard - and still do.
SY said:
I fully understand this, I was using that example to make a specific point about a specific group that will not even accept the possibility of an unseen superior entity, sorry for the poor wording.
Obviously I not a very good writer, I'm doing my best to keep up with a very intellectual crowd.
Prune:
Way to easy,
Yes, but the point is that you don't really know if I know God. You just feel I don't.
If there is a God and he did create us in his image and class, what makes you think there would be an impasse between him and his creation?
How cute. Moderator too lazy to edit my post, so he deleted the whole thing, argument and trash talking together. kingdaddy posts reply to no longer existing post. Good job, people.
It is not my policy to edit posts. If you act in an uncivil manner, they will be sent to Texas (as was this one) or deleted (in the event of REALLY offensive content).
Please note my warning in the Texasized portion.
ace3000_1 said:
Why do you think that is? Why do we even need imaginations and faith, what purpose does it serve? Do you think animals have this, if so how would it help the survival of the species?
These are questions that might lead you to believing in a God if you really pursue them, be careful the rabbit hole is deeper then you might think.
Now response to kingdaddy's reply.
You totally missed the point. It's not about what I feel you feel you know. It's that feeling of knowing is reducible to patterns of neural activity. I define knowing to mean to consist of the feeling of knowing, and that the semantics of this knowing corresponds to something that is PAC. The difference between what you said and what I said is that not only do you not admit this, but that what you describe as knowing is something not just vague, but undefinable and thus meaningless. What I said is, on the other hand, due to scientific understanding, PAC.
You totally missed the point. It's not about what I feel you feel you know. It's that feeling of knowing is reducible to patterns of neural activity. I define knowing to mean to consist of the feeling of knowing, and that the semantics of this knowing corresponds to something that is PAC. The difference between what you said and what I said is that not only do you not admit this, but that what you describe as knowing is something not just vague, but undefinable and thus meaningless. What I said is, on the other hand, due to scientific understanding, PAC.
kingdaddy,
You seem to place the utmost importance on the ten commandments, but clearly you must place as much importance in other ideas and doctrines. Your support of America's actions in Iraq in past threads cannot be justified by looking at the ten commandments alone.
I'd like to make it known, before you lump me with "the rest of the world that doesn't understand" that I'm an American citizen (by birth) and was born and raised in the bible belt and couldn't possibly be more of a WASP than I am (minus the P, of course) - all of my ancestry being English and German. My surname seems to confuse people - but it is German.
You seem to place the utmost importance on the ten commandments, but clearly you must place as much importance in other ideas and doctrines. Your support of America's actions in Iraq in past threads cannot be justified by looking at the ten commandments alone.
I'd like to make it known, before you lump me with "the rest of the world that doesn't understand" that I'm an American citizen (by birth) and was born and raised in the bible belt and couldn't possibly be more of a WASP than I am (minus the P, of course) - all of my ancestry being English and German. My surname seems to confuse people - but it is German.
kingdaddy said:
There's a lot of work being done in evolutionary psychology which sheds light on these issues. In a sense, all animals have this to one degree or another- the energy penalty for believing something is there when it isn't is pretty low. The consequence of disbelieving something when it IS there can be the death penalty, i.e., being eaten. So my cat will jump up and run when I drop a spoon, even though there's no threat; its ancestors who yawned through that didn't as a rule survive to adulthood.
The human brain loves finding patterns in things, even when they aren't there. That's why in sensory research (what I do these days), it is necessary to have controls and use blind methods to arrive at factual answers.
To gain, Survival is all about competion, the weaker looses, the stronger carries on, and thats a fine ballance, one in which man has screwed up for all.
I dont know about animals having faith but they do have morals, they atleast greet each other and show some form of respect. Thats not just within their own species but to others aswell. A lioness will only kill what its going to eat, not kill 10 buffalo like man for the sake of it.
Imagination in the animal kingdom must exist, i think you will find thats how they discoverd in the variety in what they can eat, (through tiral and error, and hard times).
I dont know about animals beleiving in a god, but cats/dogs for an example beleive in a master.
Trev🙂
OTOH, my cats kill for sport, and they'll torture little animals rather than kill them quickly.
Cats have no morals because they are not social animals. Even among social animals, humans are the only ones with complex enough social interactions to have evolutionary use for them. Though SY disapproves of him, Steven Pinker in How the Mind Works describes a mechanism of social evolution (in his example, with regards to the difficulty in faking emotions) that I claim can be also used to explain why capability for morals has evolutionary value to the individual.
All mammals, and probably birds, have the brain machinery and configuration necessary for some level of consciousness (and by consciousness I do not merely mean wakefulness). Find more details in Antonio Damasio's marvellous The Feeling of What Happens. In humans, the core consciousness is much extended by autobiographical memory and language, thus putting us ahead not only by intelligence, but in the nature of our consciousness, with respect to animals. However, at least some other mammals, including cats and dogs, have some level of autobiographical memory and their consciousness is comparable to that of a human who lack the faculty of language (though, of course, the intelligence of such a human still far exceeds that of any animal).
All mammals, and probably birds, have the brain machinery and configuration necessary for some level of consciousness (and by consciousness I do not merely mean wakefulness). Find more details in Antonio Damasio's marvellous The Feeling of What Happens. In humans, the core consciousness is much extended by autobiographical memory and language, thus putting us ahead not only by intelligence, but in the nature of our consciousness, with respect to animals. However, at least some other mammals, including cats and dogs, have some level of autobiographical memory and their consciousness is comparable to that of a human who lack the faculty of language (though, of course, the intelligence of such a human still far exceeds that of any animal).
SY, cats don't kill "for sport"; killing well needs practice to keep the skill sharpened. I've noticed that cats that didn't get training from their mother have trouble figuring out how to make the killing neck bite, though catching the prey at least seems to be mostly builg in genetics. As a result such cats tend to spend a good deal of time gnawing on a not-quite-dead critter and making a mess out of it, and occasionally even letting it get away. Also, don't forget that they have poor vision for near objects, and they have to release the animal from their jaws to get a better look and find the right place for the bite of death.
The coolest thing is when they are hunting birds. The instinctual knowledge that the bird will fly off when they pounce makes them aim to grasp the taking off bird from the air with their front paws upon landing, and then pulling it towards their mouth. I watched a slow motion video on one of the nature shows some time ago. Fascinating stuff.
The coolest thing is when they are hunting birds. The instinctual knowledge that the bird will fly off when they pounce makes them aim to grasp the taking off bird from the air with their front paws upon landing, and then pulling it towards their mouth. I watched a slow motion video on one of the nature shows some time ago. Fascinating stuff.
Prune said:
Are you trying to tell me that feelings and knowledge is nothing more then neurological activity?
Sorry but I disagree.
You seem to be answering all my posts without even considering that there might be some unseen unknown force that drives our instinct and desires, as if everything is completely biological. I don’t even thing the most staunch agnostic proof driven scientist would go that far. I guess we are just not on the same page; our beliefs are just too far apart to find a middle ground.
Try proving Love with biology, science, or anything else for that matter.
Well, the evidence suggests it. If you work with people who have suffered brain damage, you'll see very quickly that knowledge and feelings are indeed tied up in the physical/chemical structure of the brain.
For example, when I drink great wine, I get very happy! It's an effect of the interaction of ethanol with my synapses. Chemistry, yet the happiness and delight is quite real.
For example, when I drink great wine, I get very happy! It's an effect of the interaction of ethanol with my synapses. Chemistry, yet the happiness and delight is quite real.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.