Ok, it has been a couple days but I've finally decided to say something and this is the forum(both literal internet forum and in the general meaning for discussing ideas) I choose to speak in.
A short time ago Stephen Hawking stated that "The Afterlife is a fairy story for those who are afraid of the dark"... This offended me greatly for several reasons and had me mulling it over since I read it.
I have always been strongly interested in science, being on of the first students in my school to learn about and accept evolution(and having been picked on for it), had spent a short time considering myself atheist, and looking up to Stephen Hawking. Events in my life however, have led me to believe in more that the face value that science allows.
The mythology that science teachers have built up was one of the first things that began to annoy me. As someone who also was very fascinated by history, I was disturbed at how in every science class I took throguh High School and College would talk about how the ignorant Catholic Church, this oppressive agent of religious dogma, excommunicated Galileo... which never happened! Infact Pope Urban VIII was a friend of Galileo and had allowed him to defend his view on heliocentrism as long as it was told in the form of a dialogue. What happened was that Galileo put the Pope's words into the mouth of a character called "Simplicio" and was sentenced house arrest. Not completely fair, but certainly not excommunication.
Also I found the statement "Religion is the cause of all wars" to be among the most ignorant in existence. The reason being that when I heard an individual make such a statement I would ask them to produce evidence... which none ever could. In all my seraching, I have not found a single war, even the Crusades, that I could say religion was the definitive cause. It would be more accurate to blame culture for wars since the English and French had a long history of warfare even before England went Protestant.
*Now I know it seems I went a bit off track, but there is a reasoning behind it. My point is that I felt slightly betrayed that a man that I had respected so made the same type of dogmatic blanket statement that his faith(Science if you will) has condemned. He does not know if an afterlife exists or if there is a God, yet while criticizing religion for making claims without solid evidence backing it, he turns about and does the same. I suppose he has lost atleast one follower(for lack of a better term).
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Afraid of the Dark?
Afraid of the Dark?Follow
To summarize,
You support science, but Stephen Hwaking's recent statement brought up errors made by former professors and teachers?
What... a disjointed idea.
Science in and of itself seeks to explain "how." It leaves "why" (outside of biological compulsions, ie sexual selection being a partial explanation of evolution) to philosophy and religion. Folks like Hawking make their money and notoriety by seeking to apply the "how" to the "why." It catches on because people like the "why" more than "how," but in the end it's not the place of science to do so.
Hawkings is a genius, but there are likely hundreds (if not thousands) of people in his field even smarter than he is. However, he is famous due to him offering explanations that people want, not that science provides. Do yourself a favor and don't mix up the two.
You support science, but Stephen Hwaking's recent statement brought up errors made by former professors and teachers?
What... a disjointed idea.
Science in and of itself seeks to explain "how." It leaves "why" (outside of biological compulsions, ie sexual selection being a partial explanation of evolution) to philosophy and religion. Folks like Hawking make their money and notoriety by seeking to apply the "how" to the "why." It catches on because people like the "why" more than "how," but in the end it's not the place of science to do so.
Hawkings is a genius, but there are likely hundreds (if not thousands) of people in his field even smarter than he is. However, he is famous due to him offering explanations that people want, not that science provides. Do yourself a favor and don't mix up the two.
Dierks wrote:
In all my seraching, I have not found a single war, even the Crusades, that I could say religion was the definitive cause.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
Dierks wrote:
In all my seraching, I have not found a single war, even the Crusades, that I could say religion was the definitive cause.
"Iraq was about oil" as a modern day example, versus, "Iraq is about fighting terrorism."
I can understand how people can discount the cause. The reason for fighting for the majority of the troops is not necessarily the reason of the leaders to begin the fight in the first place.
Edited, May 19th 2011 11:33pm by LockeColeMA
lolgaxe wrote:
Dierks wrote:
In all my seraching, I have not found a single war, even the Crusades, that I could say religion was the definitive cause.
Life is hard on the banks of denial river.
Well. The concept of heaven and hell is pretty much a means for religion to get people to follow it without ever having to show proof that it benefits them in any way. I think that Hawking is more or less correct about why it's important to their followers though, but wouldn't label it being "afraid of the dark". That suggests that the fear of death is irrational. We fear the dark because we can't see what's in it and assume something horrible is there (else, why be afraid). Hawking's statement only works if there's really nothing to fear in that dark. But, absent religious belief, there *is* something horrible in death. Interestingly enough, it's actually faith that (potentially) makes people not fear death.
Dunno. I don't know where you're quoting him from, so I can't comment further. It is a pretty wrong headed way of putting it, but then I've often stated in the past that while Hawking is a brilliant physicist, he's only a so-so philosopher.
Dunno. I don't know where you're quoting him from, so I can't comment further. It is a pretty wrong headed way of putting it, but then I've often stated in the past that while Hawking is a brilliant physicist, he's only a so-so philosopher.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
LockeColeMA wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Dierks wrote:
In all my seraching, I have not found a single war, even the Crusades, that I could say religion was the definitive cause.
"Iraq was about oil" as a modern day example, versus, "Iraq is about fighting terrorism."
I can understand how people can discount the cause. The reason for fighting for the majority of the troops is not necessarily the reason of the leaders to begin the fight in the first place.
This. There's very compelling arguments to be made that internal political wrangling, the need to thin out the nobles to allow for a larger feudal system and broader control, and simple overpopulation combined to make the most basic and common cause for war (land and resources) a major issue. It's more correct to say that religion was used to justify the war, but it wasn't *why* the Crusades were fought. That's like the grade school version.
Wars are almost universally fought over control of resources. Yes. Even Iraq (just not in the overly simplistic manner many attempt to claim).
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Dierks wrote:
My point is that I felt slightly betrayed that a man that I had respected so made the same type of dogmatic blanket statement that his faith(Science if you will) has condemned.
Yet how quickly you used vague individuals as representatives for the whole of a demographic you despise.
Edited, May 19th 2011 10:42pm by Allegory
I guess if you want to dilute the word to the point where it's so broad it's close to meaningless, science could be 'faith.'
Edited, May 19th 2011 11:36pm by Sweetums
Edited, May 19th 2011 11:36pm by Sweetums
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Dierks wrote:
In all my seraching, I have not found a single war, even the Crusades, that I could say religion was the definitive cause.
"Iraq was about oil" as a modern day example, versus, "Iraq is about fighting terrorism."
I can understand how people can discount the cause. The reason for fighting for the majority of the troops is not necessarily the reason of the leaders to begin the fight in the first place.
This. There's very compelling arguments to be made that internal political wrangling, the need to thin out the nobles to allow for a larger feudal system and broader control, and simple overpopulation combined to make the most basic and common cause for war (land and resources) a major issue. It's more correct to say that religion was used to justify the war, but it wasn't *why* the Crusades were fought. That's like the grade school version.
Wars are almost universally fought over control of resources. Yes. Even Iraq (just not in the overly simplistic manner many attempt to claim).
Scholar
39 posts
Dierks wrote:
Ok, it has been a couple days but I've finally decided to say something and this is the forum(both literal internet forum and in the general meaning for discussing ideas) I choose to speak in.
A short time ago Stephen Hawking stated that "The Afterlife is a fairy story for those who are afraid of the dark"... This offended me greatly for several reasons and had me mulling it over since I read it.
I have always been strongly interested in science, being on of the first students in my school to learn about and accept evolution(and having been picked on for it), had spent a short time considering myself atheist, and looking up to Stephen Hawking. Events in my life however, have led me to believe in more that the face value that science allows.
The mythology that science teachers have built up was one of the first things that began to annoy me. As someone who also was very fascinated by history, I was disturbed at how in every science class I took throguh High School and College would talk about how the ignorant Catholic Church, this oppressive agent of religious dogma, excommunicated Galileo... which never happened! Infact Pope Urban VIII was a friend of Galileo and had allowed him to defend his view on heliocentrism as long as it was told in the form of a dialogue. What happened was that Galileo put the Pope's words into the mouth of a character called "Simplicio" and was sentenced house arrest. Not completely fair, but certainly not excommunication.
Also I found the statement "Religion is the cause of all wars" to be among the most ignorant in existence. The reason being that when I heard an individual make such a statement I would ask them to produce evidence... which none ever could. In all my seraching, I have not found a single war, even the Crusades, that I could say religion was the definitive cause. It would be more accurate to blame culture for wars since the English and French had a long history of warfare even before England went Protestant.
*Now I know it seems I went a bit off track, but there is a reasoning behind it. My point is that I felt slightly betrayed that a man that I had respected so made the same type of dogmatic blanket statement that his faith(Science if you will) has condemned. He does not know if an afterlife exists or if there is a God, yet while criticizing religion for making claims without solid evidence backing it, he turns about and does the same. I suppose he has lost atleast one follower(for lack of a better term).
A short time ago Stephen Hawking stated that "The Afterlife is a fairy story for those who are afraid of the dark"... This offended me greatly for several reasons and had me mulling it over since I read it.
I have always been strongly interested in science, being on of the first students in my school to learn about and accept evolution(and having been picked on for it), had spent a short time considering myself atheist, and looking up to Stephen Hawking. Events in my life however, have led me to believe in more that the face value that science allows.
The mythology that science teachers have built up was one of the first things that began to annoy me. As someone who also was very fascinated by history, I was disturbed at how in every science class I took throguh High School and College would talk about how the ignorant Catholic Church, this oppressive agent of religious dogma, excommunicated Galileo... which never happened! Infact Pope Urban VIII was a friend of Galileo and had allowed him to defend his view on heliocentrism as long as it was told in the form of a dialogue. What happened was that Galileo put the Pope's words into the mouth of a character called "Simplicio" and was sentenced house arrest. Not completely fair, but certainly not excommunication.
Also I found the statement "Religion is the cause of all wars" to be among the most ignorant in existence. The reason being that when I heard an individual make such a statement I would ask them to produce evidence... which none ever could. In all my seraching, I have not found a single war, even the Crusades, that I could say religion was the definitive cause. It would be more accurate to blame culture for wars since the English and French had a long history of warfare even before England went Protestant.
*Now I know it seems I went a bit off track, but there is a reasoning behind it. My point is that I felt slightly betrayed that a man that I had respected so made the same type of dogmatic blanket statement that his faith(Science if you will) has condemned. He does not know if an afterlife exists or if there is a God, yet while criticizing religion for making claims without solid evidence backing it, he turns about and does the same. I suppose he has lost atleast one follower(for lack of a better term).
Yea, religion didn't persecute Galileo, he was just put under house arrest for defying the church, not excommunicated! Religion totally isn't to blame here, the real culprit is those damn scientists feeling slighted that one of the greatest minds of all times was stymied so a wealthy @#%^ could keep the masses filling his coffers in their pursuit to make it into a life less ****** than theirs.
Also, religion was the cause for the crusades. The troops were rallied to win the holy land, not the sh*tty-inhospitable-desert-lands.
Edited, May 20th 2011 12:20am by decayed
And yet there was a material basis for the justification to be used. The troops were only rallied under the name of religion (religion was the catalyst as well as the justification, mind you) because resources were at stake.
The Catholic church is essentially the oldest corporation in the world. Throughout history they've been complicit or responsible for every imaginable sort of evil. Not simultaneously, they apparently switch it up to keep it from getting dull.
You mention other people being indoctrinated, but how perverted must your mind be to defend the Papacy? You may as well swear you allegiance to Bayer Pharma. They pay their servants instead of rob them and it'll get you closer to god than affiliating (Worshiping as a deity, no less. Pagan Idolatry? Heresy? I'm not up on the terminology.) with some Hitler Jugend ****** who's known to have helped cover up child molestation scandals.
You mention other people being indoctrinated, but how perverted must your mind be to defend the Papacy? You may as well swear you allegiance to Bayer Pharma. They pay their servants instead of rob them and it'll get you closer to god than affiliating (Worshiping as a deity, no less. Pagan Idolatry? Heresy? I'm not up on the terminology.) with some Hitler Jugend ****** who's known to have helped cover up child molestation scandals.
Religion doesn't usually cause wars persay, but it's an easy tool to recruit large groups of people for those conflicts.
Just as Planned.
nonwto wrote:
The Catholic church is essentially the oldest corporation in the world. Throughout history they've been complicit or responsible for every imaginable sort of evil. Not simultaneously, they apparently switch it up to keep it from getting dull.
You mention other people being indoctrinated, but how perverted must your mind be to defend the Papacy? You may as well swear you allegiance to Bayer Pharma. They pay their servants instead of rob them and it'll get you closer to god than affiliating (Worshiping as a deity, no less. Pagan Idolatry? Heresy? I'm not up on the terminology.) with some Hitler Jugend ****** who's known to have helped cover up child molestation scandals.
You mention other people being indoctrinated, but how perverted must your mind be to defend the Papacy? You may as well swear you allegiance to Bayer Pharma. They pay their servants instead of rob them and it'll get you closer to god than affiliating (Worshiping as a deity, no less. Pagan Idolatry? Heresy? I'm not up on the terminology.) with some Hitler Jugend ****** who's known to have helped cover up child molestation scandals.
Well Bayer did it's part for the final solution. So pick your poison here.
Just as Planned.
Timelordwho wrote:
nonwto wrote:
The Catholic church is essentially the oldest corporation in the world. Throughout history they've been complicit or responsible for every imaginable sort of evil. Not simultaneously, they apparently switch it up to keep it from getting dull.
You mention other people being indoctrinated, but how perverted must your mind be to defend the Papacy? You may as well swear you allegiance to Bayer Pharma. They pay their servants instead of rob them and it'll get you closer to god than affiliating (Worshiping as a deity, no less. Pagan Idolatry? Heresy? I'm not up on the terminology.) with some Hitler Jugend ****** who's known to have helped cover up child molestation scandals.
You mention other people being indoctrinated, but how perverted must your mind be to defend the Papacy? You may as well swear you allegiance to Bayer Pharma. They pay their servants instead of rob them and it'll get you closer to god than affiliating (Worshiping as a deity, no less. Pagan Idolatry? Heresy? I'm not up on the terminology.) with some Hitler Jugend ****** who's known to have helped cover up child molestation scandals.
Well Bayer did it's part for the final solution. So pick your poison here.
I'm aware. What I'm saying is that the Papacy towers over any other organization in regard to cumulative malevolence. Even the *****, the oh so dreaded villains of our time, were a flash in the pan in comparison.
Edited, May 20th 2011 2:02am by nonwto
Dierks wrote:
looking up to Stephen Hawking
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
You have a crippling sense of humor bsphil.
Timelordwho wrote:
Religion doesn't usually cause wars persay, but it's an easy tool to recruit large groups of people for those conflicts.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
-REDACTED-
Scholar
1,150 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Science in and of itself seeks to explain "how." It leaves "why" (outside of biological compulsions, ie sexual selection being a partial explanation of evolution) to philosophy and religion. Folks like Hawking make their money and notoriety by seeking to apply the "how" to the "why." It catches on because people like the "why" more than "how," but in the end it's not the place of science to do so.
While I agree with this in principle, the problem with NOMA (which is essentially what you describe, in a simplified form), is that religion (Particularly the Big 3) always want to muck about in the "how". So it's understandable (though still not right) that scientists get frustrated and angry and decide to stomp around in "why". Still, you're right in that (in my opinion), scientists should be the bigger of the two and at least stick to their half of NOMA. Where the line gets blurred is when science has to run religion out of their sandbox (i.e. Creationism and I.D.). But poo-pooing the afterlife goes a bit beyond that, so... yea.
Anyhoo, my cousin posted a link to an article about this a few days ago on FB. So, I'll repeat my response to that:
"The comments section is quite interesting. I really wish interviewers wouldn't ask scientists their opinion on non-scientific fields. Much drama would be avoided on both sides of the aisle."
gbaji wrote:
Well. The concept of heaven and hell is pretty much a means for religion to get people to follow it without ever having to show proof that it benefits them in any way. I think that Hawking is more or less correct about why it's important to their followers though, but wouldn't label it being "afraid of the dark". That suggests that the fear of death is irrational. We fear the dark because we can't see what's in it and assume something horrible is there (else, why be afraid). Hawking's statement only works if there's really nothing to fear in that dark. But, absent religious belief, there *is* something horrible in death. Interestingly enough, it's actually faith that (potentially) makes people not fear death.
Dunno. I don't know where you're quoting him from, so I can't comment further. It is a pretty wrong headed way of putting it, but then I've often stated in the past that while Hawking is a brilliant physicist, he's only a so-so philosopher.
Dunno. I don't know where you're quoting him from, so I can't comment further. It is a pretty wrong headed way of putting it, but then I've often stated in the past that while Hawking is a brilliant physicist, he's only a so-so philosopher.
Funny that Gbaji thinks non believers would have more to fear from death ten those that believe in some type of afterlife. Actually knowing one will just die and have ones ashes return to the soil, were they will help new life cycle begin for plants and animals, isn't anything to fear. IF I want immortality, I just have to work hard on making sure I'm not forgotten by the world at large.
Since childhood, my plan is to be an unknown artist, who is later discover by collectors and with US copyright laws, my heirs will benefit from sales of my artwork.
As for what we may call a soul or the ability to think, well it's like an cpu that gets fried when over heated or shorted. Your dead and no amount of faith is going to get the data inside your mind to comeback in any dimension.
In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.
Allegory wrote:
You have a crippling sense of humor bsphil.
Edited, May 20th 2011 9:14am by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Religion doesn't usually cause wars persay, but it's an easy tool to recruit large groups of people for those conflicts.
No, it doesn't. Religion is twisted by the men representing it. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, none of these are inherently violent. None of them have been responsible for killing anyone. Those who would twist the words & beliefs of those religions to their own ideologies are responsible for the killing.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, none of these are inherently violent.
Edited, May 20th 2011 9:29am by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Religion is twisted by the men representing it.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, none of these are inherently violent.
MoebiusLord wrote:
Those who would twist the words & beliefs of those religions to their own ideologies are responsible for the killing.
You're not removing religion from the equation, though. Just proving how easy it is to manipulate in it's name. Still stand by my religion killing in droves remark.
Edited, May 20th 2011 10:46am by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
MoebiusLord wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Religion doesn't usually cause wars persay, but it's an easy tool to recruit large groups of people for those conflicts.
No, it doesn't. Religion is twisted by the men representing it. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, none of these are inherently violent. None of them have been responsible for killing anyone. Those who would twist the words & beliefs of those religions to their own ideologies are responsible for the killing.
Well, with gems like "A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death" (Leviticus 20:27), it doesn't take much to see where you get killing from the bible.
Yes the bible is man's interpretation of the christian god, but without some sort of book there is no religion (unless you want to argue that sh*t really happened 2k years ago and people believe in that instead). Telling people to kill certain other kinds of people (be it fortunetellers or gays) is violent.
The basic good principles within religions (faith, charity, basic human laws like don't rape/kill/steal etc.) are good, religion is not.
Semi-related.
Edited, May 20th 2011 9:07am by Tarub
Recent Visitors: 894
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (894)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Afraid of the Dark?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC