Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 1:31 AM
23 online now:
DrJones*, PaulK, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat), xongsmith (4 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,117 Year: 12,153/19,786 Month: 1,934/2,641 Week: 443/708 Day: 2/135 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 186 (786438)
06-21-2016 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Hawkins
06-21-2016 4:15 PM


Science is just a subset of truths.

Evidence is for a small group humans to examine a truth, then for the rest to believe with faith.

That's why 99% humans don't have the evidence that black holes exist before they reckon this as a known truth.

I disagree. Humans have faith in science because it works. I mean, it put a freakin' man on the moon. And here we are (me and you) sitting here instantly communicating from opposite sides of the planet, using electricity. Because science.

And "the rest" don't always miss out on examining the truth. Explaining the acid-base reaction to children by making vinegar and baking soda volcanoes instills a great sense of it works at an early age. It really doesn't take much "faith" to believe that one.

Now, when you're talking about highly theoretical stuff; I guess I can see how you consider this complete acceptance as being more blind, and therefore more "faithy", but I don't think that blindness is a good measure of faithyness, and I don't think that most humans' reckonings are as completely accepting as your argument suggests. That is, they don't have the vicissitude of blind faith.

I'm figuring that the faith would have to be blind because you're making it a polar opposite of "examining the truth".

Science is just a subset of truths.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. That is, if you're making the point that people accept it under faith, then why are you starting with it being true?

I guess you mean that there are other truths that science is missing out on. And science would agree. And that would be that.

Oh, are you talking about some kind of "scientific truth"?

Like how it is "accepted" more than it is "believed"? Wouldn't that be conflating?

What are you getting at?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Hawkins, posted 06-21-2016 4:15 PM Hawkins has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 186 (788543)
08-01-2016 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Tangle
08-01-2016 9:57 AM


Re: Topic Remix
Faith writes:

what we are claiming is that faith LEADS to knowledge that can be scientific.


Examples?

Pork is an unclean meat and you shouldn't eat that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Tangle, posted 08-01-2016 9:57 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 2:42 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 71 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 11:54 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 186 (788605)
08-02-2016 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 11:54 AM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
Well Paul talked about "conscience" in Romans 14.

Which verse? I didn't find the word "conscience" in Romans 14.

I did see this though:

quote:
One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

.

But here are some texts that seem to know that there is no scientific difference between a human and an animal and its ability to "feel" stuff.

Well, a human is an animal. Where we begin to differ is in our level of sentience. But that's more hierarchical than categorical.

Regarding the ability to "feel" stuff, the category of animals contains a spectrum of feel-ability that is too broad to speak of as one thing. I mean, a planarian isn't in the same ballpark as a dolphin even though they are both animals.

Well I am please to tell Cat Sci and the 2008 Larry King guest that there is scripture that aligns with science in that it considers animals brains to be the same type of thing as humans.

No, a planarian "brain", if you can even call it that, is not in the same type of thing as my brain.

and he talked about how Christians feel they have dominion over animals and can treat them however they want because they supposedly don't have "a soul" - "whatever that means".

Animals can't sin. Jesus died for humans, not the other animals.

Quotes taken from this source.
https://www.quora.com/...-are-they-different-from-each-other

quote:

"Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat. Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh."
(Manu-samhita 5.48-49)
....
"Men gifted with intelligence and purified souls should always treat others as they themselves wish to be treated. It is seen that even those men who are endued with learning and who seek to acquire the greatest good in the shape of liberation, are not free of the fear of death. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.20)
....
"He who purchases flesh, kills living creatures through his money. He who eats flesh, kills living beings through his eating. He who binds or seizes and actually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. These are the three sorts of slaughter through each of these acts. He who does not himself eat flesh but approves of an act of slaughter, becomes stained with the sin of slaughter. (Mahabharata, Anu.115.38-39)
....
"Abstention from cruelty is the highest Religion. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest self-restraint. Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift. Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance. Abstention from cruelty is the highest sacrifice. Abstention from cruelty is the highest power. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the greatest happiness. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.38-39)

....
"Gifts made in all sacrifices [rituals], ablutions performed in all sacred water, and the merit which one acquires from making all kinds of gifts mentioned in the scriptures, all these do not equal in merit abstention from cruelty." (Mahabharata, Anu.116.40)


"unclean" is one thing.

Ritual "purity" is one thing.

Let me get this straight: Humans are no different from animals. Animals eat each other, including humans, but humans are not supposed to eat animals?

It sounds to me like you are saying we are the same but at the same time saying that we must be different.

quote:

"Hence a person of purified soul should be merciful to all living creatures. That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth forsooth, acquires a large space in the celestial region. (Mahabharata, Anu.116.32-35)

So if animals do have a soul, should we then hold the lion accountable when it murders and eats a gazelle?

The Hindu religion and its closely-related offshoots are over 20% of the world's population.
The Buddhism offshoot has forbidden meats, but allows pig consumption. But the concept of Karma makes many vegetarians automatically.

Yeah I don't get it. We are animals, and we have K9's designed for tearing flesh. We've evolved eating meat.

So what now? Now that's bad thing?

Don't trash all religions for the absurd directions they went in. They all have bans on food (unless severely twisted) and clearly there was an origin of concern for life (free of unscientific absurdities like saying "dogs/pigs don't have a soul like us humans").

My sarcastic remark was that there are some behaviors that stem from religion that do have a scientific standing.

Back in the day, eating pork could make you sick. It makes sense that there was a religious belief against it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 11:54 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 2:38 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 186 (788607)
08-02-2016 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
08-02-2016 11:17 AM


Re: Topic Remix
What is the evidence that shows that there is not an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist?

Every instance of intelligence that we are aware of stems from a brain. As far as we know, there were no brains before they evolved on Earth. Ergo, an intelligence cannot be responsible for the fact that we exist.

If God is responsible, then what we refer to as "intelligence" can't be what he's got.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 08-02-2016 11:17 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 10:26 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 186 (788614)
08-02-2016 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 2:38 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
I mentioned the issue of Romans 14:14 because I thought you were making fun of the clean/unclean concept.

The question I was answering was for examples of faith leading to knowledge that was scientific.

It turns out that you actually have your own theories about the concept, and you accept it based on your theories (of sickness issues and safety of meat). Historians say there is no evidence that food safety was the concern of ancient peoples especially the Hebrews with regard to pork and its parasites. It is often repeated by many that the concern is parasites and such. Again, the historians say there is no evidence that this was the concern.

Regardless, it is an example of what was asked for.

Even if safety wasn't the driving factor behind pork being unclean, it is still a concept that is supported by science.

Yes, vegetarians were simply described as "weak" in Romans. The consceince part was in 1 Corinthians 8:12

quote:

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


So that's not about being a vegetarian. Paul was responding to concerns of the people of the new church in Corinth, where they were wondering about eating the animals that the locals had sacrificed to their gods.

Paul was explaining that since the sacrifices to other gods mean nothing to the one true God, then it doesn't really matter if you eat that meat. But, if you are upsetting people by doing it, then you shouldn't eat that meat as a means to avoid upsetting people. It didn't really have anything to do with eating meat, in and of itself.

Remember that I thought you were making fun of the "clean" issue. The better word is "pure" anyway.
I posted Romans 14:14 just to clarify that the issue isn't even part of (the original and modern so-called)Christianity anyway.

Sure, God doesn't really care about all those crazy convoluted jewish laws.

The early Jewish Christians tied his death (c. 30 A.D.)to the end of eating animals, and the Temple destruction (70 A.D.) to the end of animal sacrifice.

How do you feel about vegetable sacrifice? Like when the plants from Palm Sunday are burnt to make the soot for Ash Wednesday?

quote:

[CatSci]
Let me get this straight: Humans are no different from animals. Animals eat each other, including humans, but humans are not supposed to eat animals?

It sounds to me like you are saying we are the same but at the same time saying that we must be different.


I was quoting what religions and their sacred texts say. I don't think they feel that a trained dog should eat the same food that a wild dog does. It's all about enlightenment I suppose.

quote:

So if animals do have a soul, should we then hold the lion accountable when it murders and eats a gazelle?

Lions can actually be quite nice. Tigers too. They actually can form friendships with animals they normally eat, and this happens in the wild. A wild Tiger formed a friendship with a young ram, but the friendship ended when it got tired of the ram playfully butting him endlessly. He threw the ram away (with his mouth), and human observers later decided to separate the 2. Wild lions can be friendly with humans too, even though they are hungry meat-eaters. But they can't digest carbohydrates (most can't anyway), so they seem to need to eat meat. About 14/17 house cats (85%) can digest carbohydrates, and can survive on a plant-based diet. But not all of them can.

quote:

Yeah I don't get it. We are animals, and we have K9's designed for tearing flesh. We've evolved eating meat.

So what now? Now that's bad thing?


Even the right-wing anti-vegetarian Dr. Michael Savage recently had to admit that vegetarians had more bioavailability of L-CARNITINE than meat-eaters. I remember when he claimed that vegetarians couldn't get enough.

I don't feel like you've answered my questions.

Meat eating was a latecomer and it isn't necessary

What do you mean a latecomer? Apes have been eating meat long before humans evolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 2:38 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 4:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 81 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 186 (788617)
08-02-2016 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Thugpreacha
08-02-2016 3:56 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Did it ever occur to you that this intelligence does not want us to find any evidence?

"Bwahahaha, let's see who believes in me now!

Oh, you don't? Off to the fire pits with you!"

Please don't make God be Loki.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Thugpreacha, posted 08-02-2016 3:56 PM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 80 of 186 (788621)
08-02-2016 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 4:18 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
Romans 14 was about total abstinence from food.

No, it isn't.

It's about not judging other people, keep it between you and God. It's about "live and let live", don't get in other people's way. If someone wants to eat meat, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too.

However, if your actions are causing distress to others then you should stop doing them and instead work towards peace.

Read on...

No. Bring the argument here in your own words.

...a reason for the Jews not eating pork that is not based on health issues.

That literally doesn't matter to the point I made.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 4:18 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 6:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 186 (788643)
08-02-2016 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 6:39 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
I'm collapsing your last two replies:

From Message 82

CatSci made a statement that might be false anyway.

Here is hit one on google when I type "apes meat eaters" into engine.

quote:
.

Maybe we better start by looking at Mammals?

Ah, you're more zoomed out and I'm more zoomed in, I see what you meant by latecomers now. I was thinking more on the level of "within the genus Homo". Honest mistake, thanks.

From Message 83

Paul came down on a vegetarian conclusion.

I'm honestly not sure what that means.

You are using his stated logic and teaching techniques as an excuse to disagree with his conclusion. You did the same thing with 1 Corinthians 8:10-13.

I don't know what it is that you think I'm doing, but you sound way off.

But we're not really on this thread's topic anymore, so I'd rather not go further here, we should branch off to a different one.

It matters because the "health issue" for not eating pork is a modern invention.

That's what doesn't matter. I don't care if you forbid it because a magic pig talked to you and told you not to; back then the belief that 'you should not be eating pork' was one that today we can support scientifically.

And you still have to deal with the fact that even the gentile European Christians (in the Roman Catholic orbit) disagree with you at times. There were still many Jewish Christians around who kept the knowledge of the strict 1st century vegetarian commands of Jesus, James, Paul, and the rest.

The 1st century Jewish Christians (and the following centuries) were unanimous on meat being prohibited.

It is clear when reading Paul as well. (though James and his followers were the most powerful reason for the unanimity on eating meat being strictly prohibited) (the reason for not eating meat was very very clear. The Temple destruction also meant the end of sacrifice in Jerusalem so NO MORE ANIMAL KILLING for sacrifice as well as the previous food ban)

Amazing (and I do mean amazing) that even a 4th-5th century Roman Catholic like Jerome sees it. But he was a genuine scholar.

That fact alone settles the issue.

I'm willing to discuss with you why that issue is not settled, but I really don't think this is the thread's topic here.

You really should start (or link me to) a thread about Vegetarianism and Religion, or something like that. I'll argue with you about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 6:39 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 98 of 186 (788751)
08-04-2016 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by GDR
08-04-2016 10:26 AM


Re: Topic Remix
So your basic assumption is that if you aren’t aware of something it can’t exist.

Not can't, but doesn't. Probably. It's a logical induction.

You can see the result of thought but you can’t see the thought itself even though it exists so you can’t possibly postulate that thought didn’t exist before brains.

Sure I can:

Every thought that we are aware of has come from a brain.
We are aware of exactly zero thoughts that have not come about from a brain.
Ergo, without brains there are no thoughts.

All you can say is that brains are able to produce thought and exhibit intelligence, but you can’t possibly know that thought can’t come from elsewhere as well.

Well sure, its an induction not a deduction. Regardless, it stands.

The claim is not that it is impossible, the claim is that it just isn't.

Flying pigs aren't impossible, they just don't exist.
Thoughts-without-brains aren't impossible, they just don't exist.

yet you conclude that it all happened by chance without any intelligent input.

Without intelligent input, yes. By chance, no.

Selective pressures from the environment remove chance.

Personally I can’t muster up that degree of faith.

I don't have any faith in it, it is simply a probable conclusion.

ABE:

In Message 100 you wrote:

...it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that life is the result of intelligence.

...

The evidence is not conclusive but I contend that it is highly suggestive.

I'm with you until you pinpoint it on being intelligence. That's something that things with brains have.

Whatever the bigger thing that life is the result of, it cannot be intelligence as we know it.

Edited by Cat Sci, : see ABE


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by GDR, posted 08-04-2016 10:26 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019