God and Science Page No.2

From: Malcolm Oliver	5/05/99 15:31:10
Subject: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9707
MY ANSWER TO THE CONTINUING THREAD COMMENTS. Neils Bohr reputedly stated something to the effect that "All my answers to problems are hypotheses." This is a really great and rather obvious statement as I will illustrate below. In my posts I have come up with a large number of hypotheses hoping to expose them to a chain of critical debate. All I have got is comments like, sigh, turgid text, discussion on "the dynamic wor" and the "organic prot", and people accusing me of the unwarranted hijacking of "mere hominid" and "splendid being". Come on Guys! You really must be able to do better than this! If this is the level of genuine scientific criticism on this web page, then science as it is taught at present is obviously not doing a good job. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) Last things first!. (We do use Biblical ideas a lot, don't we? This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) Sue, all I did in my article was to emphasise that changing your name from "mere hominid" to "splendid being" does not necessarily infer that the person has changed. I did offer an alternative hypothesis - "The Christ" hypothesis, which is capable of changing the person. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support. Put it to the test! Carry out the experiment!) I believe that all the other comments are a result of the way that people for so long have been trying to come to terms with a supernatural, other-worldly, religion, many aspects of which are never-attainable-in-this-life. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) Again, this is a problem which has worried the church for a long time. Around the Third Century the Alexandrian Fathers came up with their answer. They suggested that for religion to appeal to all people it should be approached at three levels. This is in effect a scientific model. 1. At the first level we have a mythological religion depending on the sacraments, the effects of which could be considered to be quite magical. 2. A religion of strict moral discipline with a rationalistic theory of the universe. 3. A religion involving the Mystical Vision of God was the highest level. Can we generate hypotheses from this model? Does it represent a simplification of something that actually occurs in the real world? Let us predict that using this model we could suggest, that scientists, rather than seeing themselves outside of religion could easily fit into Level 2 and may also be involved in Level 3. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support, but please wait until you have read the rest of this article.) Personally, I don't like the idea of levels. I prefer to believe that we all have individual worth. We are all different. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) Many of the people that come to my door and want to talk religion to me are very much at the first level.(This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) One even told me that it was stated in the Bible that you could not have a mystical vision of God. Strict Roman Catholics and other Fundamentalists are at this level. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) Many of the people in the first level could also be included in the second level as most religions do require a practical moral discipline. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) Most religions would not support the concept of including a rationalistic theory of the universe in their teaching. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) Now let us see if we can apply similar divisions to Science? Let's create a model for Science based on three levels of attainment. 1. At the lowest levels we have science shows and science fairs where the demonstrations really are magical. I would also include the learning of science facts in school science and university at this level. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) 2. The second level is where people actually start to do science, rather than just learn science. Here people use the collection of science facts that they have learnt to create scientific models. From these models they create hypotheses which they can test. These hypotheses are then subject to a chain of critical debate from which interesting new ideas and hypotheses can be generated. 3. The highest level is achieved when you start to experience the highs associated with knowing the answers to problems “intuitively”. You know you know the answer to the problem. All you have to do is write it down. You experience the high of seeing the ideas in your mind become real in this world. Many scientists record experiencing this level. Scientists at Level 3 may not be even aware of including earlier levels in their thinking. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) From the preceding ideas we can suggest that there are certain things which are extremely useful in life.

From: Terry Frankcombe	5/05/99 16:03:34
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9715
This is a hypothesis you may refute or support. Malcolm, do you get off on repeating yourself unnecessarily? This is an open science forum. Every statement made by every person contributing can be refuted, supported, simply disbelieved or just ignored by any individual reading it. People are free to do so, because, as it says at the bottom, this is unmoderated.

From: Sue	5/05/99 16:21:24
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9717
Sorry Malcolm, I still think hijacking other people's terms out of their original context is bad taste to say the least. Also I agree with James that matters spiritual may or may not exist and that they cannot be scientifically supported or refuted.

From: James Richmond (Avatar)	5/05/99 16:56:35
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9723
Hmmm.... Here we go again... First some general comments: Hopefully, I've made it clear in my previous posts that I don't think that science and religion overlap. They are separate areas of inquiry. This is a science forum. This doesn't mean that we can't talk about God at all. The problem is that as soon as we start to do so, science stumbles at the first step. There's no point in asking scientific questions about what God is like when science can't even answer the question of whether He exists or not! And its no good quoting opinions of theologues or philosophers, since their opinions on this question are theological or philosophical, not scientific. As for the repeated statement about hypotheses which can be refuted or supported, you can take that as given. Any opinion expressed here is only the opinion of the individual poster, as the blurb says. Now for some specific comments: Sue, all I did in my article was to emphasise that changing your name from "mere hominid" to "splendid being" does not necessarily infer that the person has changed. I did offer an alternative hypothesis - "The Christ" hypothesis, which is capable of changing the person. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support. Put it to the test! Carry out the experiment!) I don't think anyone would dispute that a belief in Christ can profoundly change a person. But there is no way you can scientifically test the effect of Christ on a person. You can't say "Well, I'll try believing in Him for a while and see what happens." You have to be convinced - and you can't be convinced by scientific argument. [insert 3 stage model of religion here] Let us predict that using this model we could suggest, that scientists, rather than seeing themselves outside of religion could easily fit into Level 2 and may also be involved in Level 3. Who said that scientists see themselves as outside religion? Many scientists are very religious. However, I think most would agree that science itself is separate from religion. Personally, I don't like the idea of levels. I prefer to believe that we all have individual worth. We are all different. I'm not. [Sorry - please ignore reflex action Monty Python quote.] ... Most religions would not support the concept of including a rationalistic theory of the universe in their teaching. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) I refute this hypothesis. Now let us see if we can apply similar divisions to Science? Let's create a model for Science based on three levels of attainment. 1. At the lowest levels we have science shows and science fairs where the demonstrations really are magical. I would also include the learning of science facts in school science and university at this level. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) 2. The second level is where people actually start to do science, rather than just learn science. Here people use the collection of science facts that they have learnt to create scientific models. From these models they create hypotheses which they can test. These hypotheses are then subject to a chain of critical debate from which interesting new ideas and hypotheses can be generated. 3. The highest level is achieved when you start to experience the highs associated with knowing the answers to problems “intuitively”. You know you know the answer to the problem. All you have to do is write it down. You experience the high of seeing the ideas in your mind become real in this world. Many scientists record experiencing this level. What do we gain by dividing people into categories this way? What are you trying to get at here? I also perceive a fair amount of overlap between your categories. For example, consider the problem of catching a ball. All of us can do the required trajectory calculations intuitively. Some of us have also been taught the physical principles behind the flight path. JR

From: Chris (Avatar)	5/05/99 18:16:36
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9741
Religion is not science. Science teaches questioning and understanding (eg this forum). Science teaches peer review and re-evaluation (eg this forum). Science teaches experimentation - testing (Dr Karl's favourite things). Science is based on observation accompanied by reason. Religion teaches not to question (I am reminded of the story of one of christianity's favourite philosophers - thomas aquinas - who sits on the beach attempting to unravel the mystery of the trinity. It is explained to thomas that his search for understanding is as fruitful as trying to fill a hole in the sand with the entire ocean - using a thimble!) Religion teaches self review against a dictated religious model. Religion teaches acceptance and trust. Religion is based on faith. Your assorted books of wisdom - the talmud, the koran, the bible, etc - are "holy" works. Their contents are beyond review, and yet these writings are the basis of so called religious debate. What worth is there in debating the relative merit of unquestionable texts written by people whose expertise is only measured in the value of the text they write?? (circular, no??) Where is the review? The questioning? Religious science is rubbish. Religious scientists don't enter into scientific debate as scientists, they enter with vested interests to protect. The key word here is "objective" and it is mutually exclusive with "religion". There is no spirit of scientific inquiry, you don't want to know the truth, you're merely looking for pieces here and there which support your own entrenched world view. Religious scientists pour over the work of legitimate science, cannibalise that which they think useful and then regurgitate it - often without even understanding it in the first place. But then religion teaches the analysis of text, not real scientific inquiry, so what should we expect. Religion may well have its values, but they are not scientific. The aims are not even similar. Just my bit Chris

From: James Richmond (Avatar)	5/05/99 23:17:20
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9774
Chris, generally I agree with you, but not with your last statement. The aims of both science and religion are to find "the truth", whatever that may be. The approaches they take to doing this distinguish the two. Science tries to arrive at the truth by putting forward testable hypotheses. Religion deals with truth revealed by a higher authority. Necessarily this means that there can be less questioning of an established religion than of an established science. Science has no "higher authorities", although some people are often worth paying special attention to. JR

From: sean	6/05/99 1:16:26
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9779
But are there any "higher authorities???

From: Lucky	6/05/99 7:38:14
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9784
Gods only exists in the minds of those people that choose to believe in them. Personally I dont. I feel people have created gods to feel more secure in themselves - to explain things to which they have no answer themselves and to keep people towing the community line. This is why there are so many different gods for different religions. My 2 cents worth.

From: Chris (Avatar)	6/05/99 9:31:23
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9798
The aims of both science and religion are to find "the truth", whatever that may be. The approaches they take to doing this distinguish the two. Science tries to arrive at the truth by putting forward testable hypotheses. Religion deals with truth revealed by a higher authority. Can't agree with you, James. Religion is not interested in finding anything. It's not even really interested in higher deities and their ability to reveal "truth". It uses the deity mythos as a rubber stamp for its own policy making. Religions are supermarkets for peace of mind: you rock up, pay your dues, listen, have faith, and then you don't have to worry about the bigger picture - it's all taken care of for you. I would argue that if the chosen god of any religion decided to put in an appearance in human form today and started telling it how it is, that religion would be mighty upset! Religion definitely doesn't need answers, it needs questions, and it needs the promise of answers fulfilled after death. In a sense this is the ultimate insurance scam - you pay your premiums all your life and you get the pay off after death. Now why would you want to ruin that by giving people a pay off of truth before they die? They'd stop paying their premiums, wouldn't they?

From: Michael	6/05/99 11:27:09
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9835
If God was to turn up at the 11th hour how could science prove or diprove his existance? I'm sure there would be much effort to explain it away due to activities of light or some other physical phenonema. I don't know that the adgenda of God would be to manifest himself to the world only to be tested by the doubters of the world. As I understand it Jesus was given enough grief by people living in an age who did believe, he was King of the Jews, The Son of God and still he faced persecution of ridiculous proportion and was rejected. I think the whole aim of religion is the searching process, like science, the more you investigate the more deeply you understand and know of the particular subject. I agree that some religions have set their own adgenda by hijacking God and claiming him as their own. I think the essence of this is similar to organised science. I there are no organisations which promote religion or science then how can people gain knowledge about either, except if it is left to their own investigations. Another thing why does the world still use time scales which hinge around the birth of Jesus? we are coming up to his 2000th birthday. Does this not provide some sort of historical evidence to the presence of something significant? Why don't we just abandon this date and adopt another which say started at the begining of the Roman Empire. Cheers Michael.

From: Chris W (Plebeian)	6/05/99 11:45:39
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9873
We (Australia) continue to use a calendar instituted by a Christian religious body simply because it is there is a substantial effort to change. Research variously places the birth of Christ around Year 1 but not exactly so. That makes Year 2000 no more a celebration of Christ's year of birth than Christmas Day is a celebration of his actual birthday. Of course, the World does not use this calendar exclusively. The Jewish calendar is the obvious exception, and I believe the Islamic world has its own calendar - hence the month of Ramadan. Any arbitrary starting point is equally valid. Take a look here http://www.webhelp.com/calendar.htm">Calendars. To characterise the period in which Christ lived as believing he was the Son of God or the King of the Jews is probably misleading. The bulk of the population were Jewish, with Roman theology mixed in for good measure. Mass belief in Christ was still a few hundred years away. That is my 23 cents worth.

From: Chris (Avatar)	6/05/99 12:07:57
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9909
If God was to turn up at the 11th hour how could science prove or diprove his existance? I'm sure there would be much effort to explain it away due to activities of light or some other physical phenonema. I don't know that the adgenda of God would be to manifest himself to the world only to be tested by the doubters of the world. First - why the 11th hour? Why the manner of a cavalry charging over the hill in the nick of time? Would you not consider that a doctrine of 11th hour salvation is actually a mechanism for bondage? Next, I think you may have missed my point about the idea of a god showing up. I think you would find that the reception for such an event would be more hostile from established religion than from science. For established religion, such an event spells the end. Faith is no longer required when proof is at hand - hence no more monopoly on salvation for the churches. Where is the value in a thousand year old text when the subject is available for direct questioning? Of course science would question the validity of such an event. That is the nature of science - observations, theories, etc are subjected to critical examination, not merely blindly accepted. The fact that you make such a point demonstrates quite plainly yet another deep divergence between religion and science. As for god’s agenda, you’re not making sense. Why would god appear only to those who already believe in his/her existence? What is the point of that - unless of course faith is not as sustaining to reason as you suggest? Surely the idea would be to “convert” others, and vindicate the beliefs of the “chosen” - or are those ideas starting to sound very much more human-like than god-like? ;o/ I think the whole aim of religion is the searching process, like science, the more you investigate the more deeply you understand and know of the particular subject. I agree that some religions have set their own adgenda by hijacking God and claiming him as their own. I think the essence of this is similar to organised science. I there are no organisations which promote religion or science then how can people gain knowledge about either, except if it is left to their own investigations. It is possible at a surface skimming to see a similarity between the way a person is taught science and religion. But the similarity is superficial. Religion constrains your search and understanding to the regurgitating of what is already known / written. In science it is possible (actually encouraged) to add original content. Justifications are different, too. If I asked you to demonstrate the correctness of a religious doctrine, your ultimate resource can be no more than what someone somewhere has written or said. I can’t appreciate the “earthly manifestations” (eg how it touches your life, etc) of your religion until I have been indoctrinated, until I believe, so there isn’t a lot of convincing in that. By contrast, if you asked me why I subscribe to the concepts associated with einstein’s theory of general relativity then I can explain to you what it means, what predictions it makes, and how those predictions are verifiable by experiment. One is faith, the other is reason. Faith is fine, it has its uses, but it ain’t science! Another thing why does the world still use time scales which hinge around the birth of Jesus? we are coming up to his 2000th birthday. Does this not provide some sort of historical evidence to the presence of something significant? Why don't we just abandon this date and adopt another which say started at the begining of the Roman Empire. Surely you’re jesting? You might want to consider abandoning your anglo-centric western notion that “all the world” uses the gregorian calendar! As far as the west goes, the catholic church had arguably one of the greatest impacts on the development of the emerging western society through its stranglehold on medieval Europe. Of course the calendar will reflect this. But this is a temporal event, not a spiritual one. Chris

From: dave	6/05/99 15:23:22
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9981
just a point of interest that you may like to know quantum and classical physicists alike , using higher dimensions [mathematical not spiritual] are finding a similarity in thier equations that points towards apossible llink beteen god and science. i can't remember exactly but itsl something like this.... pysicists have been able to combine the basic laws of nature into about 3 or so main colectives[higher dimensions] in an attempt to find the thorey of everything or the one unifying force, which could possibly be god. i t is rather complicated and i can't explain it proper;y myself. but calculations predict[not a good scienced word i know] that this is posssible and that it could be a type of god like entity thype thing dave

From: Chris (Avatar)	6/05/99 15:39:16
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9991
just a point of interest that you may like to know... There are actually a few people who regularly visit this site who can explain what a Grand Unified Theory (GUT) is (in fact are), what a Theory of Everything (TOE) is, what each of them are trying to unify or explain, and what the benefits and/or shortcomings of them are. This includes the math, the dimensionality, the repercussions, etc. I haven't yet heard or seen one equation the answer to which is "god". I haven't seen a particle which might be the "god" particle. I haven't seen an interaction which must necessarily be the "hand of god". GUTs are an attempt to describe in one framework the elements of the strong nuclear interaction and the unified electroweak theory. There are a number of such theories which use multiple dimensionality as a tool to satisfy the mathematical requirements of unifying the strong interaction (often through QCD but not necessarily) and the electroweak interaction. TOEs attempt to integrate gravity into the same fold. The result could probably be a description where each of the four interactions behave in a similar fashion at extremely high energies - such as might have occurred in the first fraction of a second of the universe. If you believe your universe was created by your god, then you may well imagine this is a description of her handiwork in the act of creation. But that picture is coloured with religious glasses - it is not inherent in the theory. Hope this helps! Chris

From: Michael	6/05/99 16:10:46
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9998
As for god’s agenda, you’re not making sense. Why would god appear only to those who already believe in his/her existence? What is the point of that - unless of course faith is not as sustaining to reason as you suggest? Surely the idea would be to “convert” others, and vindicate the beliefs of the “chosen" Hey I never said the chosen, I just suggested 'turning up'.. to everyone.I understand that you have some difficulties accepting things on face value...I do as well...you have assumed that I represent the views of some religious organisation and that I have indeed accepted the view of an 'anglocentric' when it comes to a world concept. Well that's not the case. I am a 1.8m Raster on holiday,I am using a friend's computer and am astonished that there is so much hostility generated about this topic in Australia. Did I ever say that religion was the same as science? You say "faith is fine it has it's uses, but it ain't science." Very observant and science like of you to throw that in. Who is suggesting that they are the same? Many things share similarities whilst being different. Have we gone off the subject sufficiently yet? I think the original question was related to "has science divorced the church." and the answer seems to be an overwhelming YES.Did they ever have a relationship, may have been abetter question? Can't agree with you, James. Religion is not interested in finding anything. It's not even really interested in higher deities and their ability to reveal "truth". It uses the deity mythos as a rubber stamp for its own policy making. Religions are supermarkets for peace of mind: you rock up, pay your dues, listen, have faith, and then you don't have to worry about the bigger picture - it's all taken care of for you. Have you had some bad experiences at Sunday school or is this an attempt to summarise your understanding of religion? I would suggest that religions are not the supermarkets for peace of mind but rather a vehicle for exploration. Now I can't comment on your experience obviously but I could say that many people of faith DO worry about the bigger picture and that this is ignorant assumption on your behalf. The fact that some people find comfort in a belief system does not mean they then look no further then what is offered to them in terms of 'salvation.' Is it not the Wayside church in KIngs Cross who is attempting to deal with Sydney's smack problem, at a grass roots level. My understanding of attaining a religious position (faith) is more complex than saying yes. It is more about a way of life and a moral code which is an on-going test....of faith....very unscientific ...of course! Has this addressed anything? probably not, just a quick note to all the contributors to maintain a sense of humour..because laughter stops cancer...it is a scientific fact! First - why the 11th hour? Why the manner of a cavalry charging over the hill in the nick of time? Would you not consider that a doctrine of 11th hour salvation is actually a mechanism for bondage? The 11th hour was a figure of speech to indicate that there is a falling away from religion and it seems like a long time (not geologically) that God put in an appearance. Why is it a mechanism for bondage? If a wittness turns up late at a trial for one reason or another with some coroborating evidence which frees the person then isn't this liberation rather than bondage? Next, I think you may have missed my point about the idea of a god showing up. I think you would find that the reception for such an event would be more hostile from established religion than from science. For established religion, such an event spells the end. Faith is no longer required when proof is at hand - hence no more monopoly on salvation for the churches. Where is the value in a thousand year old text when the subject is available for direct questioning? You really think that scientists would fall about with delight and awe whilst religious people of all species began plotting for the ovethrow of this deity? I think not. How do you know that God will answer the questions? What if he appeared and only said"it's in the book" then disappeared, not staying long enough to design existance experiments. I guess this will never be sorted over the Internet! cheers Michael.

From: Cam (Avatar)	6/05/99 16:15:04
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 9999
According to Chaos theory, big things can have small beginnings. I think it’s called “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” or some such jargon. Anyway, I’ve taken this concept and developed my own hypothesis about religion. The gospel according to Cam: Back in the old days (about 2000 years ago) there was a bloke of unknown parentage called Jesus. He was a chippie (tradesman of the wood butchering variety), which has a relevance to the story as you will see. He was also a homespun philosopher and a bit of a political activist. So he had a go at the local authorities whenever the urge came to him. This was not a good idea. The authorities didn’t like it so they called him names like “son of a bitch”. They also made the mistake of attracting public attention (as politicians invariably do) by nailing him to a lump of wood. Practicing carpentry on the carpenter - you have to admire their sense of irony. The title “son of a bitch” was misinterpreted to “son of dog” which was then written down by a dyslexic scribe as “son of god”. People who subsequently read about the story took “son of god” at face value, and a religion was born. The whole Christian religion is probably the result of a typo.

From: Chris W (Plebeian)	6/05/99 16:22:43
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10003
Cetrailny a difefrent spin there CAm. Perhops u cood strt yaw own relijun!?

From: Terry Frankcombe	6/05/99 16:24:50
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10005
What if he appeared and only said"it's in the book" then disappeared, not staying long enough to design existance experiments. Then those of a scientific persuasion would still not believe. So some dude comes up and says 'Hi there, I'm God.' Do you believe them? I guess this will never be sorted over the Internet! Why not? Where do you propose this will be sorted out, if it is sort-out-able?

From: Chris (Avatar)	6/05/99 17:34:27
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10014
I guess this will never be sorted over the Internet! One benefit of this forum is that it archives all that has been said for reference. Did I ever say that religion was the same as science? yes: ”I think the whole aim of religion is the searching process, like science” ”I think the essence of this is similar to organised science” ”They suggested that for religion to appeal to all people it should be approached at three levels. This is in effect a scientific model” ”scientists, rather than seeing themselves outside of religion could easily fit into [a religion model]” Your whole first post in this thread was devoted to drawing a similarity between your three level models of religion and science. You (mis)quoted Bohr. You repeatedly used the word hypothesis in attempt to cast your argument as scientific. In response, the first line of my post stated my counter-position for contribution: “Religion is not science.” It is evident that you don’t have anything further to contribute on that topic (perhaps we have disabused you of the notion?) and so this will be my last word on the subject. Chris

From: Michael	6/05/99 20:29:09
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10042
Yo Chris no need to get uputy about this. The examples you gave of ME saying this are not true, that was the other bloke who went on about refute or support. I said the SAME which is not similar, as you have referenced me as saying...get it right. Michael

From: James Richmond (Avatar)	6/05/99 23:03:17
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10069
Just a couple of points. Our calendar revolves around the birth of Jesus because he was a very significant historical figure. There is independent (non-religious) evidence that Jesus existed (though not much). Whether or not he said all the things he is reported as saying in the bible, there's a lot of good moral stuff there. But the important thing is that Jesus had a HUGE impact on world history following his death. Dave - Yes, there are physicists who think they have found God in their equations (e.g. Frank Tipler). I am not convinced by their arguments. Neither are many other physicists. I don't think science will ever prove or disprove God's existence. JR

From: Sue	7/05/99 10:34:51
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10117
WHEN? When will a “Scientific” Creationist learn the difference Between science and pseudoscience? When the rain falls upwards and somersaults as it goes When the rivers flow merrily from the oceans into the land When the Sun decides to orbit the Earth for light entertainment When black holes spout forth gingerbread cookies When gravity takes a day off to visit its grandmother When oxygen becomes unnecessary for aerobic respiration When the lion lies down with the lamb When cows develop opposable thumbs And fish learn to ride bicyles That’s when. When all politicians stop kissing babies And the general public ceases to believe propaganda When the Pope decides to masturbate in public and to Admit he was clueless about population ecology When the preachers on street corners come out with statements That for a change are merely quasi-offensive When people with “Thank God for AIDS” T-shirts Miraculously get struck by simultaneous lightning And when all people learn to think for themselves That’s when. Or maybe When the moon runs red And angels fall from the metaphorical sky like shards of glass Declaring far and wide that religion always was the enemy of God And that he is weary of the nonsense and the pain propagated in his name And of the slow-witted, narrow-minded, pathetic, blinkered, petty and vain Hominids who like to declare themselves to be made in his image… ..maybe then? May this blows loads of fuses! Well, excuse me, but fuck it! I’m so tired of the predictable and excruciating garbage the visiting holy men regurgitate in glorious nauseating technicolour on this forum, and indeed elsewhere in our marvellous society, under the banner of supposedly intellectual discussion! It doesn’t matter what you say or what evidence you present, nothing will ever change one iota of their inflexible mindset, they will carry it to their graves with them. Don’t even bother. Greetings Sue

From: Alan	7/05/99 13:42:09
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10170
Strange how GOD Avatar is absent on this discussion. Maybe GOD is the one whom in put is the most valuable. Where are you?

From: Sue	7/05/99 14:56:18
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10194
Maybe the wisest way to deal with incorrigible bullshit is to ignore it.

From: Michael	7/05/99 23:59:40
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10357
Ashes to ashes,pure scientists. Sue you have an amazing gift for communicating your opinion..obviously based on cold HARD and FAT 'ol facts it is good to see a pesudoscientist speaking on behalf of your passionate race...Girl you gotta develop a sense of humour..are you catholic by any chance or do you talk like a repressed yup for fun? Mikey

From: Michael	8/05/99 0:19:42
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10360
Does sue drown native animals?

From: Michael	8/05/99 0:28:55
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10362
Sue you are wise! you have everyone scoped, not many angles can dent your armour. Shit girl are you related to Cheryl Kernot?

From: Sue	8/05/99 16:01:48
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10440
To Michael: :-) Finished now? I think for that display of razor-sharp intelligence, you clearly deserve honorary membership of MENSA.

From: Sue	8/05/99 16:03:34
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10442
To Malcolm: (For what it’s worth, but I think you need at least to be educated about the dangers of making assumptions about people.) Last things first!. (We do use Biblical ideas a lot, don't we? This is a hypothesis you may refute or support.) Is this an attempt to highlight your own susceptibility to social conditioning? We already got that point well before you came out with this. Or do you imagine that the common use itself of biblical or any other ideas in our society confers any objective validity on them? If so, maybe you should sit up next Christmas for a glimpse of Santa Claus. Or is it just that you are a herd animal and your insecurity decreases as the herd size increases? By the way, I would urge you to understand the meaning of the word hypothesis before attempting to use it. Reading your excruciating discussions has left me with the strong impression that your understanding of science approaches zero, that your grounding in philosophy is shaky at best, and that you have no reservations whatsoever about pillaging either of these disciplines in a misguided attempt to give credence to your narrow world view. Sue…(yet another misappropriation deleted)… I did offer an alternative hypothesis - "The Christ" hypothesis, which is capable of changing the person. (This is a hypothesis you may refute or support. Put it to the test! Carry out the experiment!) 1) It never ceases to amaze me how people subscribing to organised religion tend to make the blanket and arrogant assumption that people not belonging to their set are to be seen as empty bottles needing to be filled up. Does membership with your religious set confer on you the status of a mindreader? Do you consider yourself to be omniscient? If you come from a perspective of believing in a God, how can you have the gall to make assumptions about the association between that God and any other human being besides yourself? What could you possibly know about such associations? Or do you hear voices telling you about such things? If that is so, maybe you should seek psychiatric assistance. In any case, I would advise you to disvest yourself of the notion that your brand of social indoctrination confers on you a monopoly on spiritual matters, or a right to set yourself up as a sort of spiritual policeman sitting in judgement over others. You, Malcolm, are a human being…don’t forget that, and don’t falsely elevate yourself to deity level. 2) I’m not sure whether your God would appreciate being thought of in the context of an experiment rather than a relationship. I know that, on a personal level, I wouldn’t wish to be seen in such terms by anyone, but particularly by people I love. 3) I was wondering whether the God you believe in isn’t in your estimation capable of speaking for himself, without the interference of human beings. 4) I was also wondering whether your nauseating tendency to a) proselytise, to b) misappropriate science, to c) trivialise philosophy, and to d) prostitute spirituality, is at all indicative of the insecurity of your own beliefs. 5) And finally, I wonder if you have ever come across the concept that other people’s spirituality or otherwise, like their sexuality, is a personal matter and deserves to be treated as such. Oh, and if you are thinking that you now have an excuse to continue your religious emanations, please remember that I am not interested in them and that I am not about to join your herd, or anybody’s. I would just wish you to perhaps reconsider next time you are tempted to make arrogant assumptions about other people. Sue

From: sam	8/05/99 16:08:41
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10444
wow, use those claws... :)

From: Michael	8/05/99 19:00:52
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10516
Sue, thanks for the award. It would be fantastic to be as knowledgable as yourself. Maybe you should start your own brand of religion, you have certainally positioned yourself at an appropriate level. Don't take things personally.It is always sad to see peoples emotions get in the way of challenging discussions. You seem to have painted a very accomplished picture of yourself.I don't think anyone was trying to indoctrinate you, it was more a case of opinion or expression thereof. I thought the wisest way to deal with this BS was to ignore it....couldn't help yourself eh! Sorry about the intellectual content of my Eeeeeees last night but sometimes I am prone to drop the level of conversation....especially after a long night and I was pissed. If I was like you I guess I too could be SERIOUS all the time and never resort to such measures..such is life.Are you this up tight all the time or is that the nature of science, no room for a giggle? By the way what exactly does my new title mean.. I'm sure it is flattering and it would make more sense if I knew so I can be a MENSA with pride. You are well in order for the all time CBBS, unless you already hold this...in which case you could contend the UTAU which I think you deserve anyway. Keep smiling Michael

From: Terry Frankcombe	8/05/99 20:31:28
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10535
After all, the personal attack is always a good way to try to regain some points if you think you've lost the argument... Right, Michael?

From: Michael	9/05/99 10:27:14
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10578
I don't think there is any arguement to win or loose Terry in this case,things just evolved as they did and sue got pissed about something and offered the challenge..the rest is archives Michael

From: Cass	9/05/99 21:46:06
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10645
Ooh, ooh, I just can't resist this one!! Malcolm said: In my posts I have come up with a large number of hypotheses hoping to expose them to a chain of critical debate. All I have got is comments like, sigh… I believe that all the other comments are a result of the way that people for so long have been trying to come to terms with a supernatural, other-worldly, religion, many aspects of which are never-attainable-in-this-life. Wow, I rated a mention. But why does my expressed impatience with religious natterings in a science forum mean that I have difficulty coming to terms with the supernatural? As Sue said quite eloquently, why does this expressed impatience mean I am an "empty bottle needing to be filled up"? To the contrary, Mr Oliver, I am quite content in my (non-orthodox, non Christian) beliefs. I feel no need to defend them and, more importantly, I don't feel the need to introduce them into a forum in which they are entirely inappropriate! On the other hand, I have in the past lurked in religious forums and I have seen the same tired old arguments wheeled out again and again in an attempt to "save my soul" (a statement which is full of condescension). Yours are no different. So, the sigh. If this is the level of genuine scientific criticism on this web page, then science as it is taught at present is obviously not doing a good job. You know the problem with all these pseudo scientific religious arguments? They are based on a premise that cannot be proven in any way, shape or form to be true. And yet, the pseudo scientist clings to the premise and won't be convinced otherwise, which makes the entire discussion futile because eventually it falls back to the statement, "I believe that you are wrong!". And yet, here science is accused of the fault because the scientists know that there is no point in trying to argue. They have argued here and, on reading through the thread, I can't see a single comment from you, Malcolm. Where did you go? How come young Michael is left fielding the argument (and rather poorly, I might add)? And on that front… Michael said: Have you had some bad experiences at Sunday school…? Ah, the classic "you may have had a bad experience but we're not all like that" argument! A tired old favourite, but I've yet to see it achieve anything. You really think that scientists would fall about with delight and awe whilst religious people of all species began plotting for the ovethrow of this deity? I think not. So you honestly believe that, say, the Pope would be delighted if the Buddha turned up tomorrow? Now that I'd like to see! Look, Douglas Adams wrote it so it must be true (on the subject of that wonderful thing, the Babel fish): "Now it is such a bizarrely improbably coincidence that something so mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. "The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.' "'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It couldn't have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic." (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, 6:20) Religions are based on faith. Without faith they are nothing. If Buddha turned up tomorrow the Pope would be out of a job! Cass

From: legolas	9/05/99 22:03:53
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10646
Actually, if budda turned up tomorrow, those of a stronger, and perhaps more small minded, faith would simply explain it as something else.

From: sam	9/05/99 22:10:01
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10647
woohoo! sic 'em cass... :) Nice to hear someone who's willing to defend their point of view...

From: Darren	10/05/99 0:54:13
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10659
It always amuses me when people criticize religeous beliefs because they are based on faith. I choose to believe and thats up to me and your choice is yours,but consider: If there was a big bang, who made the big bang and who made the matter that made up the big bang? If we evolved from an "organic soup" who made the soup and who made the various amino acids ect before we even discuss the probability of these being in the right place right time right environment. Unfortunately people fail to realise that the leap of faith required to believe we evolved is not really any greater than that of creation. creation cant provide an answer to who made god any more than evolution can explain who made matter!

From: sam	10/05/99 8:16:26
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10672
if you're looking for someone to disprove the Design Argument, try reading some philosophy - Hume, Darwin etc.

From: Sue	10/05/99 15:28:00
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10772
It always amuses me when people criticize religeous beliefs because they are based on faith. Had you been following the argument closely, you would know that the contributers haven't a problem about religious beliefs being based on faith. The argument is chiefly about the invalidity of using science to support religious views.

From: Chris W (Plebeian)	10/05/99 15:49:47
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10774
It seems to me that using science to prove a religious viewpoint will have one of two effects: The viewpoint will be proved or substantially supported by scientific method and will therefore also become a scientific viewpoint. It is still a religious viewpoint, but no longer requires faith. The viewpoint will be left without substantial support from scientific method in which case its status as an article of religious faith is unchanged. Not too much falls into the first category. Proof of the existence of some of the figures of religious history for example Christ and Mohammed. The purported acts of some of these figures, walking on water etc., will fall into the latter category simply because they cannot be repeated. My feeling is that problems arise a part of religious belief supported by scientific method is held up as proof of the remainder of the religious belief.

From: Michael	10/05/99 16:56:15
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10776
Go away for a day and look what happens. Thanks for the assessment of my discussion old cass you have done a very good job of convincing me about the weak points of my dialogue. It doesn't really matter in the long run anyway. I might add that the hitchhikers Guide quote is a very convincing one...scientific and all, a classic retort. I know I have been struggling to work this out thanks for making it plainly obvious. You have finally provided me with the definitive view...I see clearly now. Wasan't I the one who brought this thing up in the first place? I never intended that it would be a display of my young ignorance,show me the light old cass. Kissy Kissy Michael.

From: Cass	10/05/99 20:37:10
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10805
Michael, age - and, more importantly, maturity - is a state of mind. And you've shown yours quite effectively with comments like "Does sue drown native animals?" You could be a 400 year old tree gnome and I wouldn't care. I label you "young". As for my quoting Douglas Adams, weren't you the one who told people to have a sense of humour? I can't be bothered with you anymore. Cass

From: Michael	10/05/99 21:53:08
Subject: re: God and Science Page No.2	post id: 10812
Cass I thought I was a little tipsy when I wrote that and I also think I mentioned this.Anyway sorry for offending you also! Douglas Adams is Hilarious,I missed the joke! I do see the funny side of this and yes I must be young in all the ways you tell me. Elhumdoolelah!

This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.