Stimulating thought

[alan]

I dont profess to be a christian or follow any religon but here's someting for you'll to ponder over.
according to some practice's they say that the creator created everything The Whole universe, which is fair comment i suppose but Who created the creator, must have started somewhere..
is this food for thought?
alan http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[seti]

The idea that there has to be a begining is very human, as we are corporeal. It's logical to assume that a God with the power to direct the course of the universe would not be bound by the physical rules of a corporeal being. Something can not come from nothing, thus there was no "start". It can be difficult to break through our limited understanding of time and space to grasp the concept of enternity.


[This message has been edited by seti (edited 03-23-2000).]

[Apostle 83]

Alan, no matter if you are a creationist (which I am) or an evolutionist, you go back from where we are now, to what we came from (God or evolution) to what that came from.

The fact of the matter is, somewhere along the line, something came from something, or nothing. I just choose to believe that something came from something that is, in essence, everything. A riddle, no?

[chipbgt]

Another thing to remember is that God is outside the realm of time; God created time and therefore God controls it; He is not under its control. He is at every moment in the past and every moment in the future all together. The five main points of God are basically omnipotence, omniscience, holiness, justice, and mercy. Since God is a perfect entity there can be no moment that he was not around because it would negate his omniscience and he would therefore not be perfect, and therefore not God.

read it slowly a few times, it will make sense http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[yaroa]

So if there was nothing before Creation, what was God reason for being?

[chipbgt]

Well my view is that we sometimes forget that "we" (creation) are not the centers of the universe. God is. In the Christian religion God made creation in order to show his Power and Love through our lives. Its a very good question yaroa, something you just never really think about...the smart aleck answer is "whatever he wanted to" http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif But I will "brainstorm" some and see what I find.

[Target]

I think if you haven't already, at some point in time we all wrestle with these questions. The "scientist" in me believes in evalution, as its pretty hard to refute scientific fact. And so much of that conflicts with what various religions preach to us as God's word.
However, as much as I tossed it around, I remained conflicted. Part of me has always though that the concept of God was created by man to explain ALL of the things we have not been able to readily explain ourselves. It allowed us a measure of absolution, and provided a means to end the quandries that have happened in so many of our minds.

What has finally, and I mean finally, settled it for me is the thinking of another man. The thinking, and the term it coined, are called Pascal's Wager.

PASCALS WAGER:
Let us then examine this point, and say, "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing
here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up. What will you wager? According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.

Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it. "No, but I blame them for having
made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are
both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all."

Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. [from Pascal's Pensees Paragraph 233]

[seti]

To me it sound like he saying to choose because it's the safer bet. On a choice that important..."wagering that God is" seams rather foolish. Beliveing and wagering are two very different things.

As for Science vs. God, this is very simple to me. It seams likely that a God who created science would use it. I've thought about evolution a lot while confined in the mind set that it had to be one of the other. Scientific fact disputeing Religion, and logic disputeing evoloution. The equations provided in this mindset will never add up. Evolution happened, I accept this. However I could never have faith that a complicated, co-dependent liveing ecosystem could come by way of unguided, trial and error random genetic mutations all in the time that has passed...

Either veiw doesn't make scence on it's own. I would tend to think that a God would create a world governed by science by scientific means.

Am I rambling yet?? lol...theory is fun.

[psyklone]

i've always had a hard time understanding the whole 'evolution mindset'. although the school system i was taught in was not allowed to lean one way or the other on the subject of creation/evolution, every science teacher i had made it very clear that evolution just had to be the way that everything came about even though there are a lot of loose ends and 'missing links'. in learning from them during hours of science and biology, it was made perfectly clear how complex the human body, not to mention any other living organism, is. how do such infinitely complex organisms result from any big bang or chance happening? even with all of the technology of today, we are still very far from developing artificial intelligence or computers that have the basic functionality of humans, not to mention things like feeling or personality. even IF all of the necessary 'components' were present at the exact correct time to form the first 'being' to crawl from whatever organic soup there was according to evolution, what are the chances that everything would just fall into place? sorry, i can't dig it. you could buy all the components you need to build a new computer ... processor, ram, video card, nic, sound card, mouse, keyboard, case, hard drive, floppy, cdrom, and all of the cables, etc, etc .... dump all of these in a box and just start shaking it around. seriously, what are the odds that if you shake it long enough the components and the cables will eventually make their way to where they belong and present you with a functional system? not gonna happen.

and about the concept of time ... and everything having to have a beginning vs. some things, or 'beings' having been around for infinity. the concept of infinity is sometimes too much to grasp by the human mind for whatever reason. maybe we weren't meant to understand it, or maybe it's just because we have nothing to compare it to. i've always tried to associate infinity with an activity to kind of 'drive the point home'. picture infinity as this; you are at mt. kilamanjaro. you climb to the top, take a handful of the ice/dirt/rock that's there and put it in your pocket. you climb down the other side, walk (and boat) halfway around the world and throw that handful of mt. kilamanjaro on the ground, then you keep going until you're back at the mountain. you climb back up to the top and repeat this entire process until eventually you've moved the entire mountain. when you're finished, you continue to do the same thing until you've moved it back to where it was.

granted, EVENTUALLY you would be finished with this so it isn't exactly infinity .... but it sure puts it into perspective, yes?

[Emc2]

10,000 years on Earth is like 2 seconds in Heaven. That's in the Bible, in Romans somewhere. Evolution could have occured because 6 days of creation in Heaven's time is roughly the time believed for Earth to have "evolved".

But I'm not one to argue religion. One's faith should be with him and God and no one else. If things happen, they happen b/c it's His will.

[PCH]

Easter Bunnys coming!!!!!

[Paul V]

Psyclone -- firstly, humans didn't come just out of the blue. Evolution DOES make sense, and in fact it's pretty much accepted to be correct by everyone in scientific circles. Yes, it takes a lot of coincidence to make the first cell (after that evolution is easy) but remember the conditions 4 billion years ago were much better for primitive life -- hot (easy energy source) sulphorous (sulphor is used by primitive life for metabolism), no free oxygen (oxygen is poisonous for simple life actually, over time life adapted to use it. Even humans could die of O2 poisoning if the gas were pressurized.)

Yes, it takes a lot of tries to come up with it, but think about this -- you have 30 dice, I ask you to throw them all, once a minute, until you come up with all 6s. It's improbable. Very. But if you had a billion years, the chance that it would NOT happen becomes minute, so the chance of 30 6's becomes very probable.

Given that you have excellent conditions for life to occur (a warm bath of organic molecules in water) and time aplenty (the earth was solid for about 800 million years before any life began) the chance of life occuring becomes so high it's almost guaranteed.

And evolution is simply common sense. Granted that variation in traits is genetic, then it stands to reason that differential procreation (the fact that the strongest get food, mates, and stay alive) forces the gene pool to shift towards certain traits and away from others.

Even speciation is easily seen. As 2 populations of one species are separated, their gene pools exposed to different stimuli, they grow apart.

People always say (though nobody here did that I can see) that evolution is "just a theory". It is, technically, but EVERYTHING is just a theory in science. Nothing can ever be proven, only disproven. It is like saying that "the theory that the sun fuses hydrogen into helium is just a theory." In fact, the sun theory can even be argued against better. It could have been argued really well against before Max Planck, the sun is too cool for hydorgen ions to overcome the repulsive forces between them. Quantum tunneling and wave theory provides the answer here.

The other possibility, of course, is that time is finite but boundless. A circle's circumference is finite, but boundless in that there is no "beginning" or "end". It is entirely possible that the end and the beginning of the universe as we see it are actually the same instant of time.

One of the best proofs of evolution is actually how BADLY the human body works. For example, over half of the people alive will suffer from back problems later in life. This is because our spines, actually, are ill adapted to upright posture. Our spines force upright posture but are still too much like a quadruped spine. they are fundamentally flawed in that they are not at all optimized for the posture they force upon us. Surely a designed animal would have a spine that was made for the posture the spine forced the animal to take. The reason we see this is that this is a flaw that evolution will not correct as midlife back problems aren't maladaptive to individuals to the point that it limits procreation (in primates in the wild they would procreate long before the problems surface). The human body also has organs like the appendix that do nothing useful -- not a terrible thing, but in a body space is a premium, it would be much better adaptive to use it for other things. Our bodies also stop building bone after a certain age, which leads to osteoperosis which most of us will get someday. There is no need for stopping building bone, but again due to age of onset it's not selected against.

The human body works quite well -- this is guaranteed by evolution. Evloution tells us that we will see animals are well adapted to environment and traits that reduce the success of reproduction are selected against. We do indeed see this.

It also tells us we will likely see inefficiencies and imperfections in body design, as the design is made by making many variations and seeing what happens. And we do. In fact this "try all combinations" approach is used within our bodies too -- it's the basis of our immune system. We are NOT able to tailor antibodies for diseases we get as some believe. Instead, we have cells that are made with exceptional variations between cells, these cells are a billion random combinations of shape and structure of certain proteins. When a virus is to be killed, we can't make a defense, we can only try every possible combination of stuff, and if something works we make note and make more of that variant.

Also, it is quite easy to show evolution in simulation, and indeed I have shown myself evolution in bacteria (easy due to the rapid reproduction of bacteria). Computers can show how you can evolve many complex structures (like the eye) starting from only a single cell that is photosensitive (and you can show how to make this cell from other, earlier cells) over time.

The key is time, even unlikely events happen if they are given enough chances. If the lottery is done everyday there will come a time when the numbers are 1 2 3 4 5 6. It seems unlikely to us that it will happen by chance, but remember -- we only see nature's sucesses, we only see organisms that 4 billion years of evolution have worked on and whose ancestors for the past 4 billion years survived and reproduced. We cannot see all the incorrect possibilities, all the bad variants, all the times that life did NOT begin.

As to God, it's really not that worthwhile to think about, because quite frankly the matter is moot. If God exists he'll exist whether you believe so or not. If God does not no amount of belief will make him real. So personally I don't see why so many people see the need to argue for their idea on God. I have my own beliefs on the topic, but I have no need nor desire to share them. It does no good to argue about something that you can't change and you can never truly know the answer to. Believe what you want and let everyone else do the same.

[This message has been edited by Paul V (edited 03-25-2000).]

[jad1097]

Here goes some intresting reading for you. http://www.firmage.org/ http://www.isso.org/



[This message has been edited by jad1097 (edited 03-25-2000).]

[seti]

LOL, Of course we have back problems....That's just one of 100's of problems humans encounter by haveing technology that prolongs our life spans past what they would be if we were all running around naked after various woodland rodents. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

"Computers can show how you can evolve many complex structures (like the eye) starting from only a single cell that is photosensitive (and you can show how to make this cell from other, earlier cells) over time."

I'm glad you mentioned this, because I've spent a lot of time thinking about eye's in evolution. A single cell, to a complex organ...and it's not just the organ, you need a brain that is capable of interpreting the information, and muscels to move it. Then you got to go and mutate some eye lids to protect it, and throw in a few hair folicals to catch dust and such. So animals obviously didn't evolve one part at a time. Life is built sub-system upon sub-system, and so forth...all working together. So now it's more like you got 180 dice and you're trying to get 30 to come up as 1, 30 as 2, 30 as 3 and so on. And this is just on one animal with eyes. I know I'm being simplistic, but I'm not trying to disprove evolution, because I belive that "theory". It takes a lot of faith in the religion of science to belive that "evolution is easy" though.

But now I'm rambleing again!!! Well, it's stimulating thought. http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[jad1097]

Well since we are on the subject.


Is it possible to know how biological evolution works without knowing how the physical universe in which it is embedded works? If we believe, as the physicists tell us, that everything in the universe is inseparably interconnected at the most fundamental levels of reality, then I think we can agree that there must be a consistency in the realities of our biological and physical worlds.

In fact, our separation of these worlds has been no more than an artificial convenience of western science – a division of disciplines and labor for studying various aspects and levels of our observable universe and planet. Such divisions for the sake of convention should not blind us to the search for consistency throughout the entire system we call our universe.

Unfortunately, there has been a serious disconnect, or lack of communication, between biology and physics, such that mainstream biology still works with rather Newtonian models while physics has gone on through almost a century of relativity theory, quantum theory and explorations of superstrings, multiple dimensions beyond the usual four, zero-point energy, non-locality, consciousness and other adventures in understanding reality.

Micro and macro biologists argue that it is a question of levels – that physics deals with a quantum world the laws and nature of which are unique to its scale, while biology must look to its own unique scale. But when physicists tell us that non-locality, for example, is a basic property of the universe – that we live in a universe that knows itself because every point in it is ever in informational touch with every other, no matter how distant – can biology ignore this? Or must we then assume that every cell in our bodies, for example, is in informational touch with every other – that a change in DNA within one cell is known by all others – not through chemical or electromagnetic information exchange, but by virtue of the basic property of our entire universe? Do we now have a physical basis for the "wisdom of the body" so long ago named by the great physiologist John Cannon? Can we now explain why a human with multiple personality disorder can instantly change their physiologies from diabetic to non-diabetic, allergic to non-allergic in an instant? If an electron can choose to jump orbits, why can't a cell or an entire organism choose its actions as well?

What we are being forced into is a deep reassessment of the state of our knowledge about universal physical reality, or, more simply, "reality." Since the advent of quantum theory, some physicists have been exploring the concept that reality is the collapse of wave functions by consciousness; that without conscious observers there is no reality. Does this mean that there can be no universe without humans? Or does it imply that the universe itself is fundamentally conscious – a learning universe that originates in some simple awareness of itself through non-locality and then ever evolves more complex local consciousnesses within itself until it can look clearly at itself from within? This is what some physicists who center the process on ourselves call the anthropic principle.31

Western science is committed to the concept of a permanent knowable reality that is understandable through reason, just as western religions believe a similarly knowable reality to be accessible through revelation. Eastern philosophy, which is an integral spiritual science with a far longer history than western science, has seen reality very differently – as rooted in consciousness, illusory, fluctuating or cyclic, at once impermanent and eternal, but still comprehensible, with an internal order.

One of its tenets, as quoted by Swami Muktananda, is that "Universal Consciousness creates this universe in total freedom." Muktananda goes on to say:


Contemporary scientists are becoming aware that the basis of the universe is energy. They are discovering what the ancient sages of India have known for millennia: that it is consciousness which forms the ground, or canvas, on which the material universe is drawn. In fact, the entire world is the play of this energy. Within its own being, by its own free will, it manifests this universe of diversities and becomes all the forms and shapes we see around us. This energy pervades every particle of the universe, from the supreme principle to the tiniest insect, and performs infinite functions. … Just as this energy pervades the universe, it permeates the human body, filling it from head to toe….this conscious energy powers our bodies.

The simple fact most basic to all human experience – including that of all scientists for all of our lives – has been swept under the rug by science until now. That fact is that all human experience takes place in our consciousness and in a single eternal present moment. Neither science nor any other human endeavor has ever discovered a way of getting outside this richly patterned moment of consciousness in which we spin out our histories, our cosmic and biological evolution.

Eastern philosophy and the rigorous science of internal exploration through meditation – as arduous a training as any western Ph.D. program – have long explored the consciousness western science is just discovering at the heart of the universe in poking its probes into and through the zero point energy field.

The great human endeavors of East and West have been coming together in understanding during the past half decade. Science and spirituality were separated by historical events into competitive endeavors, just as species are separated into competitive players during their immature phases. But human endeavors can mature like species themselves.

As humanity matures over the next millennium, I believe science will define spirituality from its own perspective while religions incorporate scientific stories of evolution, and that ultimately they will see themselves clearly as aspects of the same whole, the same participatory universe in which all is interconnected. This, in turn, will restore our view of nature as sacred, rather than as the object of our conquest and destruction, and promote our maturation into a cooperative and benign species of beings knowing ourselves as spirit become Earth matter without losing consciousness of our eternal selves.




IF you would like to read the whole thing it is here. (http://www.isso.org/inbox/evolving.htm)

[This message has been edited by jad1097 (edited 03-26-2000).]

[Target]

God I love this forum http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[chipbgt]

Well Paul V, I would like to add that one day we will all know if God exists or not. Either with God in Heaven, without God in Hell, or just fertilizer.

I also wanted to just add that if I sometimes get over-zealous on some of these threads (mainly the religious ones or the dreaded cruelty to animals/vegetarian ones) and even prideful, feel free to knock me back into my place http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif but my view is there cannot not be one more important thing to think and discuss about then where we came from and where we are going. We all agree life is temporary, and whether or not you believe in God being real is moot when you realize God believes in you.

[Paul V]

The problem with mixing physics and biology is that the 2 best works of physics, Einsteinean reletivity and Planck's Quantum theory are seemingly incompatible. But both work well, one for fast moving larger objects, the other for tiny particles.

The real difficulty is the dual nature of all matter. Matter (and all other forms of energy too) all behave as both particle and wave. Sometimes you get the right answer if you assume the first (like if you study electricity, xray tubes, etc. you treat an electron as a particle) and sometimes you get the right answer if you assume the second (like if you study atomic orbitals, or electron diffraction you treat it as a wave).

Also, my dice example refers to the foprmation of life, not its subsequent evolution which is much more probable.

And as to evolution -- no, it's not incredibly easy, and as you said it requires many things happening in concert. But it actually logically follows directly from looking at differential reproduction, and things like it. And, also, it has time. Very very very much of it. 4 billion years is 200 million generations of humans. It is about 3 trillion generations for a bacteria. So what we see now is the result of differential reproductive success over millions, billions, or trillions of generations of life.

One thing that shows evolution is also comparative animal anatomy. One can see quite easily how a single celled life form could form a Poriferan. They are little more than a cluster of cells working for a common goal. A Cnidarian like a jellyfish is a little more complex, but not by too much. And also recall that these animals we see today are ALL the result of 4 billion years of evolution. It is incorrect to say we descended from chimpanzees. Rather we and chimpanzees descended from a common ancester.

And when one looks at even the 10 animal phyla, we see the similarities between all of them, showing us that we all have common ancestry.

[jad1097]

Paul have you ever considered writing a book? I think you would make a great writer. Maybe a web site with some misc. thoughts?

Technolgy that that prolongs our life? It seems to be the oppisite to me. If I remember right in the old testament people lived hundreds of years, not just seven or eight decades.

[alan]

seems like there is some deep thought going on and some not so deep
Darwinian theory gets my vote.
the reason i asked was that about 20 yrs ago 2 jahova's (sorry for the speeling) witnesses came to my grandpa's and i asked them the same question and he couldnt tell me
and i thought of it the other day and wondered wether the wealth of knowledge contained in the brains of the members could tell me?
alan

[smurfin]

You look but do not see....

Just kidding.

I have a poem for you.

A man said to the universe.."Sir, I exist".
"However", replied the universe.."That fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

Having been raised from the ages of 16 to 20 with a preacher for a father, I see the religious side of the matter. I can argue the scripture for or against whomever. I can also argue logic and philosophy and if provoked a discussion on physics and the nature of the universe might be forced. But the simplest denominator of the argument is this..People will believe what they need to believe to feel safe in an unsafe world. You cannot argue religion effectively to a scientist who believes rationally only and you cannot argue effectively science to a religious person. It is impossible to change the tides of belief and it is an utter waste of time. Which brings me to my personal belief.

"I have no fear of life nor death, keep your gods, If I have need of a guide, I need only look in the mirror."

P.S. I tolerate most religious visitors, but I always pass on Jehovahs witnesses.

[Paul V]

Lol, jad, I think I *did* write a book in some of those posts http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif I wonder if SysOpt has a reward for longest single post?

I would actually like to write a book, or a collection of short essays.

I would like to say, though, before people think I am advocating science over all else, that I don't think that science and religion need to be separated and thought of as opposites. It is certainly conceivable that there is a God, and that this God allows or uses evolution as His/Her/Its tool.

I have no issues with belief in God. I only have 2 major issues with religion:

1) All religions, or many anyway, seem to profess total knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, knowledge of how the afterlife works, etc. Isn't this just a *little* arrogant to assume we know all of this? Not to mention that it changes -- in the R. Catholic church, first the unbaptized babies went to hell, then to limbo, then limbo no longer existed so they got to go to heaven. One can only hope these changes were made retroactively so the babies in hell get to go to heaven too. Lucky that God changed His mind about the baby issue, at the same time as the people down here changed their minds, too, coincidentally.

I hate people who think they know everything. Like Socrates, I consider my one piece of sure knowledge to be the knowledge that I know next to nothing. I have no problems with people believing in certain metaphysical things that cannot be proven, or even people preaching their beliefs. But when the people act as if they KNOW, not just believe, a set of truths that are beyond human capacity to know, that bugs me to no end. It's one thing to preach beliefs as beliefs, it's another to preach beliefs as facts.

I myself believe in God. Do I know God exists? No. The knowledge is simply not knowable to me, without dying, and I've been avoiding that all my life. I do not profess to know what cannot be known, for that surely is the height of arrogance. I don't know, but I believe anyhow.

2) The "believe it because I told you so" model. Some seem to preach that things are right or wrong based solely on divine whim (even though Plato shot holes in that logic centuries ago in the Euthyphro), and if asked to explain WHY something is wrong, instead of offering a reason they offer a scripture passage.

That was probably the real reason I disliked Catholic teachings was because nobody can ever give a clear reason as to why they teach what they teach. The church (Roman Catholic, the one I'm most acquainted with) tells us to do things that aren't in the Bible (all the dietary Lent restrictions for example), tells us we don't have to follow all the things that ARE in the Bible (like dietary laws on pork, seafood, kosher meals, and the parts about killing the nonbelievers, burning their fields, killing their women, children, and animals and salting their fields). Yet they use that same Bible, that they don't even follow all of, or even READ all of in church, to back up any and all arguments. So apparently some parts are garbage and can be forgotten, while some are unquestionable divine truth.

All in all, I am not anti-God. I'm not an atheist though once I professed that belief, nor am I agnostic. I am a theist, but I just have a lot of problems with how religions are organized and run, and the way they teach what they teach. I'm not even anti-religion, though I think that many of the popular ones have critical flaws in them. Religion could be wonderful; if they recognized the limitations of their knowledge yet believed anyway, if they gave reasons for their rules, if they made a simple, coherant set of non-contradictory tenets and followed them all, and nothing else, religion could indeed be as good of a human institution as any.

That's my $0.02 on religion.

I would also like to compliment everyone here, as of this post I have not seen any flames or harsh posts. Everyone here has been talking about what can be a volitile issue with courtesy and respect. Thank you all.

[chipbgt]

Paul, again you hit on some interesting things. The thing is, all religions and cults and beliefs can all claim to be true, but there can only be one "truth" in creation. And I dont think there is anything wrong with thinking I/we/you/them may have the right idea. I respect people who stand up for there ideas, not those who kinda of just float through lifes like lumps of **** (billy madison reference). To quote someone higher than adam sandler http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

"So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Rev 3:16

Who wants to drink a room temperature drink? gross. Even God wants us to be firm in what we believe in....

While it is not my place to disparage anyones beliefs, I would not suggest going to Roman catholics for a completely "biblical" lifestyle. The Roman Catholics mainly follow a arminian view of the Bible. I happen to take a slightly reformed or calvanistic view of the Bible...but thats me. And part of my beliefs is that God made us all different and for different purposes, so I cant really look down on other people for what believe or what they do. Its not for me to say. But, the Roman Catholic church, as a whole, Does not like to give God all the credit for issues such as salvation, grace, yadda yadda...

But anyway....can we say off the current topic? http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[Paul V]

Firstly, it is entire possible that there IS more than one "truth". I forget the author, but the quote that comes to mind is "The opposite of a simple truth is clearly false. The opposite of a greater truth is also true."

I am also reminded of the story of the 3 blind men and the elephant. Three blind people were asked to examine an elephant. One grabs the trunk, and claims with conviction: "Aha! An elephant is a long, dangling thick cord with two wet holes in the end!" The second grabs a leg, and says "Aha! An elephant is a leathery thick tree-like trunk!" The third grabs the tail, and claims with certainty: "Aha! An elephant is a thin rope with a mop of hair at the end!" Their arguments on the elephant never cease.

The moral there is that all are correct in that they know something, but all have but one shard of the truth. And their refusal to listen to the others or to imagine that all of them may be correct leads them to know less about the elephant than they could know.

I always wondered how it could happen to be, that with all the millenia gone by, all the gods of sun and dragons and such that are worshipped and gone, from Ra to Tiamat to Queztacoatl, that we just HAPPEN to be the one group of people, over all time, that got things right? I think it's awfully arrogant again all in all to think of our religion as right and another as wrong. And maybe one of the religions IS correct, and all others wrong, but then, given the hundreds or thousands of religions that have been practiced, why should it be ours?

And I have no problems with belief, as I said. I have a problem with people saying that they KNOW what is, quite honestly, unknowable. You can believe whatever you like, and live by your beliefs, and I have much respect for those who do. I think, though, that true knowledge only begins when we realize that some truths cannot be known by us, and accept that in those areas we can never have more than belief. In knowing our limitations we can seek to be our best, in assuming we have no limitations we limit ourselves to knowing absolutely nothing.

I'm not saying that everyone should be an atheist, or an agnostic, or follow my beliefs. I think, though, that people should realize the limits of their human knowledge, and realize that some things they believe can never be known. People should also start to question their beliefs and see if they are good or bad ones to hold. It is impractical to follow the Bible completely because of the mess of contradictions it is fraught with.

Which is not to say that the Bible is worthless -- although most of the important themes should be self-evident to anyone who thought about them, there is a good deal of good advice within; it is not without wisdom. But neither do I think people should make it the be-all and end-all of their lives. There is also a lot of stuff nobody would or should follow, like the parts about killing nonbelievers, destroying their cities and salting their fields. I honestly HOPE nobody tries that. So I feel if you're going to discount certain parts of the Bible, then you can't really use the rest of it as an argument.

More $0.02 on religion

[Macatron]

Agreed...

[Mattyb]

Not to disrupt a rather intuitive and intrigueing string, I would like to add my $.02. I tend to agree with Paul in that creation and evolution help to explain life and the beggining of in seperate instances. I feel humans naturally seek knowledge to explain our existance. You have two different explanations of life to sooth the minds eye and blanket us from the cold world. If for instance I have a rather stressful day and find myself questioning why I am here and what am I doing, I could look to either a scientific or religious view to quiet the storm. They both serve an important task. If you believe God with all his power created the world in his likeness, you could look to him to sooth the soul. If your next door neighbor finds himself in a tight spot, he can look to evolution as an explanation for his existance. Both ultimately serve the same purpose. They calm our fears, releive our worries, and help us carry on in our day to day lives. If niether existed where would we be? How would we rationalize our existance? Truth is how you percieve the world or rather how the world percieves you. Reality is different or the same for every man. Put two seperate beings in the same space under same circumstances and you would have two seperate or two same out comes. We come into this world with a clean slate. I certainly didn't have any goal set for my life when the doctor slapped me on the behind. I am sure the rest of humanity din't either. We learn from those around us, and then apply what we learn to our lives. If my father had been a pastor growing up, I also would be spouting scriptures to rationalize my existance. If my father were not but rather a Physics professor at the local Community College, I probably would be using Science to explain my existance. My father was niether, yet I apply his teachings to my life in hopes of being a procuctive member of society. The main question we all ask ourselves can never be answered untill we leave this place. Why am I here, what is my purpose? To this question I have but one answer. I'll tell you when I am done. Untill then I will use what I learn from each and every experience in my life to hold the fear of answering that question at bay.

Mattyb

[Paul V]

I think you bring up a good point. both religion and science are used to justify one's existence. They are ways to add meaning to a life that often seems to have no higher meaning.

I personally prefer to look within myself instead of looking to either religion or science for this. I try to imbue my life with a meaning I create versus trying to find "THE" meaning external to myself.

All in all, any approach is good. I don't like people who are arrogant enough to think their way is the only way, I don't like people who try to force others to their views, and I don't like people who use their beliefs to justify hatred or violence or intolerance. But aside from that, no matter what you believe I will respect your beliefs. if you find meaning in being a good Christian, good for you. If you find meaning in contributing to society, good for you. If you find meaning in science, good for you. If you find it within yourself, good for you too.

Well, this post is much shorter than my others http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif Guess it's only a $0.01 http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif

[Mattyb]

Thats exactly my point. When you motivate yourself by inwardly coping with the grind, you use the knowledge you have learned and apply it in any way you see fit. It isn't necessarily an outward reach for hope. It's a deep inward sould wrenching drive for understanding. I also have a disdain (not hate) for those who push his own beliefs on others. I consider myself a pacifist, and tend to stray from confrontaion. When I am in a position where others seem to be preaching I normally back down and use the tools I have already. To look at it from their point of view, the pushers are trying to hand you a new axe to chop down the cherry tree. I am rather fond of cherries so I will simply place the axe in the garage for when I need to chop up the next long distance operator who tries to offer me the deal to beat all deals. None the less, you are using the tool they hand you to build your own belief and further strengthen your position. Then the question I now have for you is, would you be as strong in your position if they were not in theirs?

Mattyb

[alan]

got to agree with you Paul V everyone respecting the other persons beliefs, i think even though i dont believe in any religion it still doesnt stop me being ok with it, i think if there was a higher force unless he came down and slapped me on my spam (forehead) i probrably never will. i used to go to church when i was a kid and was confirmed and given a christian upbringing but it wasnt until that day mentioned in the 2nd post of mine that it changed me for life. my personal opinion is that long ago there was a story going round like a fable or bedtime story that got blown all out of proportion you never know 2000 yrs from now knightrider may well be up there as good against evil if you know what i mean
alan?????????
i think therfore i am, or am i http://www.sysopt.com/forum/wink.gif

[U-96]

Excellent points, but at the moment I am pondering a response - my batchelor's degree contained the history of the early church - all the good stuff really, miracles, barbarians, heresy, witchcraft, crusades...
Hmmm on second thoughts I think I'd bore everyone rigid...

In the interval, I offer these lighthearted links:
Code 404 is Divine (http://www.greaterthings.com/Word-Number/AreaCodes/index.html%20target=)
SimGod (http://jraxis.kracked.com/atheism/simulator/main.html)
The drawbacks of literal interpretation (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html)

My own perspective: is this UCITA as foretold in the Revelation of St John?

22:18
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

22:19
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


U-96


[This message has been edited by U-96 (edited 03-29-2000).]

[wyvrn]

Very good topic. I tend to agree with finding your own "truths". I have practiced Christian and Buddhist religions, and find flaws (for me) in both. I think each person unto himself is the truth and the answer, you just have to contemplate the question and find the correct answer for yourself. One man's answer is another's dilemma http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif . But the main pt here is to not tell anyone how to live, for we are all on the same journey to enlightenment. Also, one person may choose a different enlightenment than another. If your journey crosses another's path, contemplate together for awhile and use the other's knowledge to assist you in finding your own truth, whatever it may be.

Kind of vague, but really not. My 2 pennies.