Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intelligent Design

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
April 18, 2012 7:51:51 PM

Does anyone actually believe in Intelligent Design?

More about : intelligent design

April 18, 2012 8:00:22 PM

Only one thats important does




































God
Related resources
April 18, 2012 9:08:48 PM

OK, got about half ways in, and had to comment
If those 15% believe, and its not for some lack of knowledge, finding facts of matter, or the stars or our human mnakeup wont bring us closer to God, nor should we look there as to why they either do or dont believe.

A botanist surely sees great beauty and design here on earth, as do biologists, and many are continually astounded by that beauty.
But, so are the folks that go camping.
My point is, the Christian God, or God has never said He would place knowledge above anything, at all, ever.
Even knowledge of God has drove away believers, as it wasnt what theyd come to understand what God was.
Now then, what is precious in Gods eyes?
Wisdom
Knowing not that its there, how much it weighs etc, but of what use is it, how does it fit into the larger picture of all things.
God has said, its thru by faith that mans comes to God, and to seek His wisdom.
No one has one measuring device, one single instrument, not 1 iota of knowledge as to measure, weigh etc faith.

I find it incredible, that tho todays science is removed far and away from God that there are still the faithful amongst those that do things, go places where most of us only dream.

Now, I will get back to Mr Tyson
April 18, 2012 9:21:53 PM

I would like someone to answer this
What has man truly created, and Im not talking about possibilities, such as a new element, that may or may not exist in some star at this very moment.

I think it would do some good to start from here before anyone makes a conclusion as to what man thinks, any given man, and therefore describe his intentions or beliefs.
As we should know, we have truly created nothing.
Sure, weve taken one thing added another, and created so to speak, a whole new thing, but they were already here to begin with, and elemetary, they most likely exist somewheres in a differing form anyways.
This point is inarguable, yet it too is overlooked, and cast asside, but the only way we can truly know something is by 2 methods, knowledge or, faith/wisdom.
April 19, 2012 12:35:27 AM

Intelligent Design is simply Creationism in a new suit.

JAYDEEJOHN said:

This point is inarguable, yet it too is overlooked, and cast asside, but the only way we can truly know something is by 2 methods, knowledge or, faith/wisdom.

I have to disagree. Faith just requires belief. Whether that belief is true or not is a separate issue.
April 19, 2012 1:14:21 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I would like someone to answer this
What has man truly created, and Im not talking about possibilities, such as a new element, that may or may not exist in some star at this very moment.

Man created religion. I haven't seen animal worshipping a higher being that's for sure.
April 19, 2012 1:29:46 AM

No, answer the question, has man truly created anything?
April 19, 2012 1:38:13 AM

Watch the link John posted, and the approach given as to teaching intelligent design, or, as others would have things as well as themselves called what they wish, creationism, this obvious little snippet, as we go thru all our learning, all our successes , by the greatest minds ever, this little snippet is omitted.
If you dont change the terms of what were talking about, creationism, then you have to start at the begining, which is itself creation, and this is not discussed here, and to me, is the very heart of the discussion.
If someone says, man created this, how do we know?
It could exist in differing forms, or from a previous civilization, in a star, even a differing reality, as we shouldnt hold ourselves to be limiting Gods abilities, as we think this too may be possible.
And if you do, with no possible way to prove man has created, on his own, something from nothing, something thats never existed, we truly dont know, and only faith in such things will get us to believing such things, and again, we are at step one, so it is inarguable
April 19, 2012 1:52:31 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
No, answer the question, has man truly created anything?


Synthetic Life

Lawrencium
Or really any element over plutonium ( I think) does not exist in nature. Only exists in labs.

Pioneer 1 + 2
Art
Disco
Science
Penicillin
Literature
Robot Prostitutes
Kama Sutra
Eradicated diseases
Created a rocket that hit a comet moving 10,000 miles per second with a little piece of metal packed with sensors.
Built pyramids
Metal Alloys
April 19, 2012 2:34:41 AM

So, you can prove that those elements, all those materials dont exist somewhere?
I think we will find, with instruments, better understanding as well, a few on that list will be discovered elsewhere, and then, as for the rest?
You see, Mr Tysons very argument was he didnt want a co worker leaving it up to God, so I say the same thing, putting the scientific community to the same criteria.
Water was once thought to be exclusive to earth, we can now say this isnt so.
My argument can echo his, all the way, except theres one difference, mine has a beginning, from nothing to something, and he cant exp[lain that
My problem with it is, we are both trying to find these things out, and I guess he doesnt allow for that existence, or recognize it as well.
Who built the steps off of Japan?
Who built the road in the Caribbean?
All these things on both lists were already here, just in differing forms.

No, man has created nothing
April 19, 2012 2:43:09 AM

If you are not looking at concepts, idea, knowledge etc created by man, but actual material creation, then it is impossible.

We only know of 1 universe and all the material we can manipulate is already there.

Even exotic new elements are created with subatomic particles already exist. By JD's convention, no man or other intelligent life ever create anything.

If man can create something, then is this a definite proof of non-creation?

I think this is the case. However, this will occur in time well into the unforeseeable future or may never happen as well so it can no be used as a proof.

All of the current creationism (intelligent design) vs science arguments are based on the life frame that matters to us. In the present state it is a stalemate.

The way I see why this happen is that the creationist operate differently from science.

Creationist will not accept science because science is just not there yet to provide absolute proof. But religion on the other hand have the almost limitless creativity of human to close the loophole to make it perfect (a higher being as a absolute authority), almost like "apply higher being if necessary" like a painkiller. The underlying question of where the high being is from is never answered and rely on faith. I have no problem with people having faith and believe in a religion, although I do not. But I am absolutely against religion disguise as science to try to gain believers (isn't disguise a form of lie and thou shell not lie?).

Science on the other hand do not put a higher being as a solution and rely building up the knowledge. Of course there will be knowledge gap and science also accept and idea if the alternative is rejected (it is true if the alternative is false does not mean the opposite is always true). They become the imperfection that the creationist who need absolute proof and perfection to attack science. But science is just the current best available knowledge derived from observation, experiments, and drawing up logical explanation. You do not have to believe in it. It is there, humanity discovered them and it is there regardless you believe in it or not, and the science knowledge does not have to be perfect as it is always disproved and improved toward something new.


Now both side will not rest because neither believe the other side currently provide convincing evidence.

What I think is needed is an understanding that religion and science have a very different mode of operation. There need to be a truce between both side so that there can be independent development of science and religion.
April 19, 2012 2:47:22 AM

Let me put it this way
For a long time, scientists have scoffed at God, saying such things as, since theres an innumerable amount of stars, and even more planets than stars, why then can we believe we are the only ones here?

I dont hold such beliefs, because like those scientists, I dont know either, period...BUT, if there are such massive numbers, and there are, why do we then assume, either some other existing intelligence havnt also made things, and with all that mass, that those elements dont exist in certain scenarios under certain conditions somewhere amongst those countless stars.

I have the freedom to understand and say this, and it doesnt conflict with my beliefs, because as Mr Tyson said, I dont let God limit me, because I know He wants me to learn
April 19, 2012 2:54:10 AM

While I agree, proof is desired on both sides, and this is pertinent, like I said above, I would then be a hypocrite if I held myself back, and again, as I said, it doesnt conflict with my faith, my beliefs, tho many have either accused me of such before fully understanding where Im coming from, as they make assumptions.
But proof doesnt come by waiting around.

Like I said, whats truly amazing, and Mr Tyson missed it altogether, as he made those assumptions, that Godly scientists dont somehow have the freedom to go beyond what is known, and somehow blames faith for this, and I say, if I, a child of God, wants to learn such things, why would God stop me?

I also believe, a faith that goes untested, is a dull faith
April 19, 2012 3:05:43 AM

Another little miss Tyson had was, this universe was created for mans use.
Now while that may be so, it doesnt mean its exclusive to us
I refer to CS Lewis, the author of the Lion, the witch and the wardrobe, his trilogy, written in the 1930s, as he outlandishly writes of life being extra terrestrial, but heres the catch, God has created eveything, and these extraterrestrials as well, and he has his own designs for them as well, so, I say, why not.
If one extraterrestrial civilization is without sin, its not as tho we could go there and corrupt them
April 19, 2012 2:31:42 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
While I agree, proof is desired on both sides, and this is pertinent, like I said above, I would then be a hypocrite if I held myself back, and again, as I said, it doesnt conflict with my faith, my beliefs, tho many have either accused me of such before fully understanding where Im coming from, as they make assumptions.
But proof doesnt come by waiting around.

Like I said, whats truly amazing, and Mr Tyson missed it altogether, as he made those assumptions, that Godly scientists dont somehow have the freedom to go beyond what is known, and somehow blames faith for this, and I say, if I, a child of God, wants to learn such things, why would God stop me?

I also believe, a faith that goes untested, is a dull faith


When you are at the limits of your intellectual capacity, you defer to a higher power. This is the single worst mistake any human being can make and I see it all the time. People don't understand or cant fathom something so they turn to religion. Some people need religion, I understand that, but it is counterproductive to true intellectual growth.
April 19, 2012 2:35:04 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
So, you can prove that those elements, all those materials dont exist somewhere?
I think we will find, with instruments, better understanding as well, a few on that list will be discovered elsewhere, and then, as for the rest?
You see, Mr Tysons very argument was he didnt want a co worker leaving it up to God, so I say the same thing, putting the scientific community to the same criteria.
Water was once thought to be exclusive to earth, we can now say this isnt so.
My argument can echo his, all the way, except theres one difference, mine has a beginning, from nothing to something, and he cant exp[lain that
My problem with it is, we are both trying to find these things out, and I guess he doesnt allow for that existence, or recognize it as well.
Who built the steps off of Japan?
Who built the road in the Caribbean?
All these things on both lists were already here, just in differing forms.

No, man has created nothing


Man has created nothing? This is the foundation of humanity, creating and using tools. Our cities are testaments to our engineering, what about the hoover damn, panama canal, and the international space station? This is very discouraging to hear you say this, it only confirms what Tyson is trying to say.
April 19, 2012 4:01:25 PM

I think what jaydee is saying is, we have the ability to manipulate what has already been created for us, but are not able to create something from nothing.

Am I reading that right jaydee?
April 19, 2012 4:32:09 PM

Thats right
And thats important in this overall view point.
If we disallow for God, by making assumptions we should know, and if we dont, we then fail by turning towards God, he didnt address the very heart of he matter, no pun intended.
If someone addresses this, such as for example, who created the cosmic egg, it all comes down to, for some reason, nothing became something.
Show me anywhere, by any example, found anywhere, where this fits into any of their findings.
It doesnt, and is thus avoided
April 19, 2012 4:57:45 PM

JDJ you are going about this the wrong way. No one knows what really happened, although science is working on it. How much more do we know about the universe than we did even 20 years ago?

How much does religion know about the universe than they did 20 years ago? I would like to point out the Newton was a hardcore religious fellow. He wanted to be famous for alchemy..... So its not like religion hasn't contributed to science. That's not what I'm saying.

Science doesn't have all of the answers but the origin of the universe doesn't have to be supernatural or unnatural. Quantum physics says something can come from nothing. With no external forces acting on it. Sub atomic particles can appear.... and then disappear. They can even be in more than one place at a time (And might actually be existing in an infinite number of places at a given time). At the quantum level there is no more cause and effect everything is chaos happening spontaneously. So given time and more research potentially quantum physics could help us explain why so much came seemingly from no where

This is one cool thing I think Buddhists and science have in common. Everything that makes up the universe was at one point sharing the same infinitely small space. The things that make all of us up at the atomic level were IN THE HEARTS OF STARS! Awesome. So in effect we are all bound in some way with all of the matter in the universe.

The Christian creation story is a bit more drab...... Something wanted us to be therefore we are? And he gives you brownie points of you try to psychically ask his son(who is also him?) for favors.
April 19, 2012 5:27:01 PM

Explaining something scientifically and actually doing it are two very different things.

It reminds me of this brief exchange in a Star Trek TNG episode between Q, Geordi, and Data.

Data: "Can you recommend a way to counter the effect?"

Q: "Simple. Change the gravitational constant of the universe."

LaForge: "What?"

Q: "Change the gravitational constant of the universe, thereby
altering the mass of the asteroid."

LaForge: "Redefine gravity. And how am I supposed to do
that?"

Q: "You just do it! Ow! Where's that doctor anyway?"

Data: "Geordi is trying to say that changing the gravitational
constant of the universe is beyond our capabilities."

Q: "Oh. Well, in that case, never mind."
April 19, 2012 5:46:39 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Explaining something scientifically and actually doing it are two very different things.

It reminds me of this brief exchange in a Star Trek TNG episode between Q, Geordi, and Data.

Data: "Can you recommend a way to counter the effect?"

Q: "Simple. Change the gravitational constant of the universe."

LaForge: "What?"

Q: "Change the gravitational constant of the universe, thereby
altering the mass of the asteroid."

LaForge: "Redefine gravity. And how am I supposed to do
that?"

Q: "You just do it! Ow! Where's that doctor anyway?"

Data: "Geordi is trying to say that changing the gravitational
constant of the universe is beyond our capabilities."

Q: "Oh. Well, in that case, never mind."



If you are talking about Quantum chaos and sub atomic particles blinking out of existence it is a well documented phenomena. Just look at quantum computing and quantum entanglement.
April 19, 2012 6:11:43 PM

No i'm saying understanding it through science and actually doing it are different things.

The intelligent designer can change the gravitational constant of the universe. We can understand what that means but do not have the ability to duplicate it........yet.
April 19, 2012 6:43:54 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No i'm saying understanding it through science and actually doing it are different things.

The intelligent designer can change the gravitational constant of the universe. We can understand what that means but do not have the ability to duplicate it........yet.


Carl Sagan says something to the effect of "God is the universes laws". Weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force, gravity, electromagnetism are very specific things very quantifiable things. But why? why are these forces so fundamental and so exact? I thought ID's or Creationists would have gone down the road of complexity, you know the example of the watch in the woods?

Im a firm believer of over a long enough timeline anything is possible. what if this is just an infinite cycle and 99 times out of a hundred the universe doesn't exist or the basic fundamentals are out of whack planets wont turn stars wont ignite nothing happens. If nothing happens no one is there to experience it. Its just energy and matter chilling out. Kind of like the "if a tree falls in the woods" question. If it werent perfect to support life and planets we wouldn't know anyway.

But also my biggest peeve with ID and creationism is it really takes away from what people have done. It gives credit to someone or something else. We build civilization not anyone else. We went to space by manipulating materials on Earth not god. Music, Art, Philosophy was all us.
April 19, 2012 6:45:28 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Thats right
And thats important in this overall view point.
If we disallow for God, by making assumptions we should know, and if we dont, we then fail by turning towards God, he didnt address the very heart of he matter, no pun intended.
If someone addresses this, such as for example, who created the cosmic egg, it all comes down to, for some reason, nothing became something.
Show me anywhere, by any example, found anywhere, where this fits into any of their findings.
It doesnt, and is thus avoided


Lol, JDJ and OMG you are both walking billboards for what Neil is saying. We can't explain how the cosmic egg was created or who created it. Therefore it proves that there is a God or some creator? No, it proves that we have not figured it out yet. Did you know that by rewinding the cosmic radiation in the Universe they have almost narrowed down the point where the big bang happened? The earth is round, it is not the center of the galaxy and soon we will know where the center of the universe is.
April 19, 2012 6:49:58 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I would like someone to answer this
What has man truly created, and Im not talking about possibilities, such as a new element, that may or may not exist in some star at this very moment.

I think it would do some good to start from here before anyone makes a conclusion as to what man thinks, any given man, and therefore describe his intentions or beliefs.
As we should know, we have truly created nothing.
Sure, weve taken one thing added another, and created so to speak, a whole new thing, but they were already here to begin with, and elemetary, they most likely exist somewheres in a differing form anyways.
This point is inarguable, yet it too is overlooked, and cast asside, but the only way we can truly know something is by 2 methods, knowledge or, faith/wisdom.


Please do not group faith with wisdom. A person can have faith and wisdom but they are not dependent on each other.
April 19, 2012 7:49:23 PM

We will never be at peace.

Someone said Religion was a man made idea. Hey, so is science.
You either think we came from a randomized explosion or a supernatural being who defined our space-time for all things to exists.

i do believe God created things. That is part of my human subconscious. I fell that I may have a key to something that science has not yet tapped into, but somehow...I have tapped into it through myself. like a portal to another dimension. Not to sound psycho or crazy, but I feel that we all have a part of the answer in us that is not tangible in the physical universe but with in a alternate dimension we personally can tap into.

I fell God has enabled us to know things without trial. More of an innate behavior that helps us understand our surrounding somewhat, or else we would die and destroy ourselves with the superior awesomeness of the space time we live in.
April 19, 2012 11:36:25 PM

No, I never said that, and again, assumptions are made.
I said, the crux of the matter is the beginning, the why.
If a Christian asks why, why couldnt he also be a Christian scientist?
And if so, why assume hes somehow limited?

Thats what Ive got against this mindset, its not open nor free in this matter, having that attitude.

Again, I in no way said faith and wisdom go hand in hand, reread what I said, there are 2, knowledge, or faith/wisdom.
Now saying this, I mean your faith can carry you to understanding, and we all know what wisdom is, and it also will bring you to understanding.
In saying faith, its something that drives us to higher things, including scientific knowledge, again, this is assumed to mean something its not.
The counter to all this is the ungodly scientist, whos maxed out, and then doesnt believe God takes care of the rest.
So, what makes any man, Godly or ungodly stop? And why assume God, or a mans faith makes him stop, when its quite the contrary?
No, he got it all wrong
April 19, 2012 11:39:46 PM

I would go as far as say, this is pure snobbery, and his mention of Islam could be construed in bad ways as well.
No, these very comments speak more on what he doesnt know, than what he does
April 20, 2012 1:04:35 PM

That ^^ is freaking cool and fascinating!

It's still not the same as creating something from nothing though.
April 20, 2012 1:16:50 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
That ^^ is freaking cool and fascinating!

It's still not the same as creating something from nothing though.


True. But what JDJ is asking is why cant we break the laws of physics?

And we don't even know if the big G can do that. There is nothing that points to this being unnatural.
April 20, 2012 2:57:08 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
I would go as far as say, this is pure snobbery, and his mention of Islam could be construed in bad ways as well.
No, these very comments speak more on what he doesnt know, than what he does


Snobbery? He said that Islamic countries were one of the main drivers of the growth of knowledge during the dark ages in Europe. The intellectual capital was in Baghdad, and that is "construed in bad ways"? Then the religion changed to be anti intellectual due to the writings of one man, and he said it was one of the greatest loses mankind has endured. Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean its' snobbery.

April 20, 2012 3:06:41 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
No, I never said that, and again, assumptions are made.
I said, the crux of the matter is the beginning, the why.
If a Christian asks why, why couldnt he also be a Christian scientist?
And if so, why assume hes somehow limited?

Thats what Ive got against this mindset, its not open nor free in this matter, having that attitude.

Again, I in no way said faith and wisdom go hand in hand, reread what I said, there are 2, knowledge, or faith/wisdom.
Now saying this, I mean your faith can carry you to understanding, and we all know what wisdom is, and it also will bring you to understanding.
In saying faith, its something that drives us to higher things, including scientific knowledge, again, this is assumed to mean something its not.
The counter to all this is the ungodly scientist, whos maxed out, and then doesnt believe God takes care of the rest.
So, what makes any man, Godly or ungodly stop? And why assume God, or a mans faith makes him stop, when its quite the contrary?
No, he got it all wrong


Did you miss his whole reasoning behind religion limiting the pursuit of knowledge? He used the research publications of brilliant people who when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, deferred to God or a supreme power. Only to have those obstacles obliterated by someone else who was not under the same restrictions of religion for that particular problem. There was no assumption here JDJ, it is a very logical conclusion. There is no reason that there cannot be a successful christian scientist, they just need to have the mindset that everything within this universe is within reach of our understanding and leave God out of it. Faith is a cloak for ignorance to make life easier and more meaningful, provide and example of it driving us to higher scientific knowledge.

By the way, this is in a response previous post of yours....How do you know that the Universe was created for man's use? What happens when there is another intelligent species out there in the cosmos? Will religion then adapt, yet again, to compensate for this new discovery?
April 20, 2012 3:17:30 PM

We are most likely living in a computer simulation

If we are talking number and probability there is a very good chance we are living in an incredibly complex computer simulation. Imagine what happens when we have a computer that is so fast it can simulate every particle in the universe. You know the first thing we would do is fire it up and simulate our own origins under our own conditions to see what happens.

gets kind of inceptiony though when you start to think about us living in a simulation, and eventually creating a computer simulating our simulation in a simulation. Whoa.

Its like a philosophy Turducken.
April 20, 2012 3:20:38 PM

@john

Im talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, centered around the Greek culture for the most part. They maintained the knowlede, culture, technology, knowledge, etc. of the Roman Empire while western Europe fell into the Dark Ages. Right up until the fall of Constantinople in the Ottoman wars.

It flourished centuries before Islam was even established as a religion until it finally fell to Islam. Where do you think the Islamic Golden Age came from? Basically Islamic conquerors pulled a borg and assimilated the culture, knowledge, and technology of the Byzantium Empire resulting in the "Golden Age".
April 20, 2012 3:22:56 PM

wanamingo said:
We are most likely living in a computer simulation

If we are talking number and probability there is a very good chance we are living in an incredibly complex computer simulation. Imagine what happens when we have a computer that is so fast it can simulate every particle in the universe. You know the first thing we would do is fire it up and simulate our own origins under our own conditions to see what happens.

gets kind of inceptiony though when you start to think about us living in a simulation, and eventually creating a computer simulating our simulation in a simulation. Whoa.

Its like a philosophy Turducken.



A matrix within a matrix within a matrix? whoa! Did I just divide by zero?
April 20, 2012 4:51:59 PM

johnsonma said:
Did you miss his whole reasoning behind religion limiting the pursuit of knowledge? He used the research publications of brilliant people who when faced with seemingly insurmountable obstacles, deferred to God or a supreme power. Only to have those obstacles obliterated by someone else who was not under the same restrictions of religion for that particular problem. There was no assumption here JDJ, it is a very logical conclusion. There is no reason that there cannot be a successful christian scientist, they just need to have the mindset that everything within this universe is within reach of our understanding and leave God out of it. Faith is a cloak for ignorance to make life easier and more meaningful, provide and example of it driving us to higher scientific knowledge.

By the way, this is in a response previous post of yours....How do you know that the Universe was created for man's use? What happens when there is another intelligent species out there in the cosmos? Will religion then adapt, yet again, to compensate for this new discovery?

This isnt using logic, this is using blame.
He doesnt speak of all the scientists that are ungodly, who fail? under his criticism.
What of them?
Faith has inspired many things, whch can be good or bad, but if you concentrate on just the bad, then yes, you can show its a non helper.

Using people of faith to describe faith as being limiting, yet not speaking on those of no faith is logic?
Somehow I think both you and the good Dr missed the boat
April 20, 2012 5:23:17 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This isnt using logic, this is using blame.
He doesnt speak of all the scientists that are ungodly, who fail? under his criticism.
What of them?
Faith has inspired many things, whch can be good or bad, but if you concentrate on just the bad, then yes, you can show its a non helper.

Using people of faith to describe faith as being limiting, yet not speaking on those of no faith is logic?
Somehow I think both you and the good Dr missed the boat


Im not sure where you are going with this anymore.

When an "Ungodly" scientist as you put it comes to a wrong conclusion he can change it. He can modify the answer, science is always changing, there is no god or orthodoxy to piss off. No so much with religion. Religion is static its not really evolving. A scientist that is a practitioner of religion is more inclined to say God did it. Like how we are talking about the origin of the universe, you are inclined to say its God, im not sold. I want the real answer. The guy also has like 3 doctorates.

Now some quotes from Carl Sagan. Mr. Tyson is coincidentally making a new version of the cosmos.

Quote:
The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.


Quote:
The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.


Quote:
They (i. e., the Pythagoreans) did not advocate the free confrontation of conflicting points of view. Instead, like all orthodox religions, they practised a rigidity that prevented them from correcting their errors


April 20, 2012 5:37:37 PM

wanamingo said:

Im a firm believer of over a long enough timeline anything is possible.

Ah, you are Aristotlean in outlook.

Me too.
April 20, 2012 5:38:11 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
@john

Im talking about the Eastern Roman Empire, centered around the Greek culture for the most part. They maintained the knowlede, culture, technology, knowledge, etc. of the Roman Empire while western Europe fell into the Dark Ages. Right up until the fall of Constantinople in the Ottoman wars.

It flourished centuries before Islam was even established as a religion until it finally fell to Islam. Where do you think the Islamic Golden Age came from? Basically Islamic conquerors pulled a borg and assimilated the culture, knowledge, and technology of the Byzantium Empire resulting in the "Golden Age".


How do you know that everything the Islamic golden age accomplished was stolen from the Eastern Roman Empire? Is it just the fact that you fear and hate Islam so accepting that they have contributed anything to the greater good is hogwash? I don't understand how you can think this when I have never even heard or read anything that indicated this. Like Dr. Tyson said, more than half the stars in the sky have Arabic names, did they steal the stars from Constantinople and rename them? Give me a break OMG you are wayyyyyyyyyy off on this one.
April 20, 2012 5:49:43 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
This isnt using logic, this is using blame.
He doesnt speak of all the scientists that are ungodly, who fail? under his criticism.
What of them?
Faith has inspired many things, whch can be good or bad, but if you concentrate on just the bad, then yes, you can show its a non helper.

Using people of faith to describe faith as being limiting, yet not speaking on those of no faith is logic?
Somehow I think both you and the good Dr missed the boat


You are completely missing the point JDJ, and taking this as a personal attack on your faith which it is not. I will try to reason with you the best I can. You have two scientists, one is a devout follower of religion and the other is not. They are trying to figure out why there are super massive black holes at the center of every galaxy, and they are becoming frustrated with their progress. Finally the religious scientist gives up and falls back on the possibility that it is beyond his comprehension so God must be behind it. The other scientist, with no such faith to fall back on continues to work on it and may or may not figure it out. Faith may inspire people to be better to each other, it may inspire a greater sense of community, it maybe inspire people to change their lives for the better but, it does not inspire the growth of scientific understanding.
April 20, 2012 5:51:34 PM

wanamingo said:
Im not sure where you are going with this anymore.

When an "Ungodly" scientist as you put it comes to a wrong conclusion he can change it. He can modify the answer, science is always changing, there is no god or orthodoxy to piss off. No so much with religion. Religion is static its not really evolving. A scientist that is a practitioner of religion is more inclined to say God did it. Like how we are talking about the origin of the universe, you are inclined to say its God, im not sold. I want the real answer. The guy also has like 3 doctorates.

Now some quotes from Carl Sagan. Mr. Tyson is coincidentally making a new version of the cosmos.

Quote:
The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.


Quote:
The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion and politics, but it is not the path to knowledge; it has no place in the endeavor of science.


Quote:
They (i. e., the Pythagoreans) did not advocate the free confrontation of conflicting points of view. Instead, like all orthodox religions, they practised a rigidity that prevented them from correcting their errors

Im staying within the context of the link.
Dr Tysons reasonings are, people give up and leave the rest to God, instead of going forwards, when they reach their pinnacle, the rest is left to God, which is fine in its current scenario, but since hindsight is 20-20, he uses that as a failure, as of course science has progressed.
He implies, chuckles and what have you, its their beliefs holding them back, keeping them from inspiration etc, and says nothing of the scientists that are ungodly.
Time and again, many here as well as the good Dr claims these restrictions of faith, thus the bad, hold back good science from Godly scientists, uses Godly scientists as an example of this, yet time and again, we are shown how these Godly scientists went against certain beliefs, at threat of death, excommunication etc what have you, and have raised the bar.
To me, it was a shot at God, His children, the Muslims overall, and again, says nothing of those scientists, who again, fail according to Dr Tysons hypothesis, by not advancing forever and ever, as I guess all the former greats were, by God and their faiths.
I can understand some hold back, some hold back as well, using logic only, but he doesnt speak to these people, only points his finger at one group, the faithful.
Again, this isnt logic, its hypocracy thru ignorance.
April 20, 2012 5:52:57 PM

johnsonma said:
How do you know that everything the Islamic golden age accomplished was stolen from the Eastern Roman Empire? Is it just the fact that you fear and hate Islam so accepting that they have contributed anything to the greater good is hogwash? I don't understand how you can think this when I have never even heard or read anything that indicated this. Like Dr. Tyson said, more than half the stars in the sky have Arabic names, did they steal the stars from Constantinople and rename them? Give me a break OMG you are wayyyyyyyyyy off on this one.



Because its the way of the world and how things have been done for thousands of years since ancient Sumeria.

Just FYI, Arab does not = Islam. Arab is a people, Islam is a religion.

Of course they didn't "steal" it, they assimilated and improved upon the existing knowledge. I was merely pointing out where they got the knowledge from. Dont' bite my head off over it. sheesh!
April 20, 2012 5:57:57 PM

How many held back from creating the bomb?
Whats next?
Isnt there some kind of moral decisions scientists use, ungodly, that hold them back?
Where is this message?
Using only conflicts of faith, which can be whittled down, there are many outside of this, yes using faith only is what Im saying as his failure to grasp the whole ideal.
Because you see, many have no such qualms as to God, BUT you do not step on their toes, if somehow someone decides logically some things shouldnt be attempted.
This is hypocracy, and yes, it happens, and more and more these days
April 20, 2012 6:06:58 PM

wanamingo said:
Oh look there is actually a whole Wikipedia page on Islamic contributions to science during the medieval era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Is...



Oh look, from the very page you linked to.

"During this time, Indian, Asyriac, Iranian and especially Greek knowledge was translated into Arabic."
April 20, 2012 6:10:40 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
How many held back from creating the bomb?
Whats next?
Isnt there some kind of moral decisions scientists use, ungodly, that hold them back?
Where is this message?
Using only conflicts of faith, which can be whittled down, there are many outside of this, yes using faith only is what Im saying as his failure to grasp the whole ideal.
Because you see, many have no such qualms as to God, BUT you do not step on their toes, if somehow someone decides logically some things shouldnt be attempted.
This is hypocracy, and yes, it happens, and more and more these days


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXh9RQCvxmg

Its long and I haven't watched all of it but I think about 20 or so minutes in they discuss the atomic bomb and other moral decisions made by scientists. When you have faith in a supernatural being with unrivaled power and scope, it makes learning about the unknown more difficult because there will always be the suspicion that this being is the cause of the effect. This is counterproductive, do you not see this?
!