[Luis Dias]

 

[Scotty]

Your premise is flawed.  The biggest flaw is not defining that the "subjective revelation" term you love to sling about is, to the vast majority of people, not related at all to the processes by which the universe functions and the pursual of knowledge thereof.  Which is science.  I don't know what sect or denomination or cult pissed you off by claiming that they know how the universe works because God told them so, but that is not how the rest of the world works, and the sooner you stop thinking that, the sooner your arguments can start making sense.

Examples: The earth is not the center of the universe; Our solar system is not the center of the galaxy; Earth is not the center of the solar system; Life is not miraculous, but the design of chance and environmental pressures; Magical thinking substituted by mechanical thinking; The big bang as the direct result of M theory and not a personal will; The abandonement of the absolute morality theory in ethics and in practice; Neuroscientifical detailed findings about how the self is built upon the matter inside the skull.

I have no idea how you think any of this relates to a 'subjective revelation' you refer to as getting in the way of empirical thinking.  All of these concepts were enforced by the Catholic church, which was much more concerned with power and influence than it ever was with....whatever it is you think it was.

In other words: The above are not examplars of "religious" thinking.  You seem to be quite incapable of grasping this simple statement.  I recommend another hiatus from this thread until you are.

[SypheDMar]

To further reinforce Scotty's (maybe) statement that the Catholic Church wasn't against science, they actively encouraged scientific findings up until Galileo ticked them off. In fact, I think it might have been a bishop that encouraged Galileo to publish his findings.

[Luis Dias]

Scotty, by no means I am saying that people aren't able to compartimentalize their faith in the back room while they are thinking about science, and vice versa.

The point of that paragraph is that the knowledge that was status quo was amazingly self-centered, which points to a species that thinks they are the center of the universe, something that obviously is connected with power on earth (and thus I happen to agree with your take on the Church's power). It just so happens that it is much more than that. Egoes and the meaning of life of humans are at stake, if we dare propose that homo sapiens is *not* the center of the universe, as their own Subjectivity (i.e. consciousness) would have them believe since they are born.

Religion panders to that egocentricity. It wallows in guilt, it teaches you that you are a wretched sinful bastard, only to tell you that the universe is designed with you in mind (Hitchens). So its both egocentric and masochistic, in its lowest terms possible. This sinnergy is not healthy to a scientific mind. It may be helpful to a bunch of crazy mammals that call themselves "human", but we should remind ourselves that this beast has barely left its caveman-like thinking process.

IOW, we should not correlate what is apparently good for the human mind to what is actually good to the scientific empirical thinking process.

I recommend another hiatus from this thread until you are.

This is not the first time I've been the target of this kind of rudeness. Quite unreligious, if you ask me.

To further reinforce Scotty's (maybe) statement that the Catholic Church wasn't against science, they actively encouraged scientific findings up until Galileo ticked them off. In fact, I think it might have been a bishop that encouraged Galileo to publish his findings.

.... which is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. Galileo was encouraged by the pope himself of doing his own amazing work, for they were very close friends, and the pope saved his arrogant ass quite a few times before the famous trial that got him arrested. The relationship between religion and science is very rich in its flavours, but it is only when it becomes evident that science can indeed shatter the self-centered vision that religion preached to man for so long, and it just doesn't "self-regulate" against doing so (the heresy!), that the real fireworks begin. Galileo's trial is majorly symbolic, for the actual events show more a story of a clash of self-righteous egos than a clash between "science" and "religion".

[Scotty]

This sinnergy is not healthy to a scientific mind. It may be helpful to a bunch of crazy mammals that call themselves "human", but we should remind ourselves that this beast has barely left its caveman-like thinking process.

IOW, we should not correlate what is apparently good for the human mind to what is actually good to the scientific empirical thinking process.

I c wat u did thar.  And to this I make the contention that, while relgion is not good for those thinking processes, it is also not bad from those thinking processes because it is completely independent.  It's like saying that using a baseball is not good for a football game.  You would in fact be correct.  However, it's not going to be in a football game in the first place because there two sports are completely independent.  Leave the football for football and the baseball for baseball.  All throughout this thread you've been saying that a baseball is bad because you can't use it to play football.  Which leads me to:

I recommend another hiatus from this thread until you are.

This is not the first time I've been the target of this kind of rudeness. Quite unreligious, if you ask me.

It's not targetted rudeness, it's being blunt.  You have displayed that you do not understand or refuse to understand that this complete dedication to the idea that religion is a horrible thing (and if that's not what you were saying earlier in this thread, you may want to venture to be more clear with your arguments) as exemplified by the policies and practices of the Catholic church, from which most of your examples of harmful religious actions stem, is neither sensical nor ultimately relevent to the conversation at hand.  To that effect, you seem to have mellowed in your position, but you're still not grasping that there is no fundamental reason that science and religion must conflict besides your own confusing ramblings on the subject.

To further reinforce Scotty's (maybe) statement that the Catholic Church wasn't against science, they actively encouraged scientific findings up until Galileo ticked them off. In fact, I think it might have been a bishop that encouraged Galileo to publish his findings.

.... which is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. Galileo was encouraged by the pope himself of doing his own amazing work, for they were very close friends, and the pope saved his arrogant ass quite a few times before the famous trial that got him arrested. The relationship between religion and science is very rich in its flavours, but it is only when it becomes evident that science can indeed shatter the self-centered vision that religion preached to man for so long, and it just doesn't "self-regulate" against doing so (the heresy!), that the real fireworks begin. Galileo's trial is majorly symbolic, for the actual events show more a story of a clash of self-righteous egos than a clash between "science" and "religion".

Here you adopt a more reasonable argument.  If only you had been saying this for 15 pages now!

[Luis Dias]

I did not say until now in this thread that religion is a horrible thing, Scotty. But if you want me to say it, then I will: religion is a horrible thing.

If the thinking process called "religious" is not healthy for the scientific one, then I'm not saying that they won't clash.

I see it everyday. Battuta accused me (sillily) of preaching science as religion, but I actually see science being treated as religion by its very practitioners, turning whole fields of empirical enquiry into moral battlefields with all the subtle signs of religiosity embebbed. This is the product of too much metaphysical indoctrination into the belief of the realm of the Real, that there is an "Absolute Truth" "out there", apart from the human mind, an "objective knowledge" that is attainable by the human mind. This belief stems directly from the metaphysical Absolute of christendom, and does give rise to many current shenanigans between politics, science and "reality biases".

You are quite right by proclaiming religion as a step father of science, but that also means that science has also inherited stuff that is still in pains of stripping out. Religion is *still*, after so many years of Enlightenment, polluting the scientific process.

Here you adopt a more reasonable argument.  If only you had been saying this for 15 pages now!

I usually make the mistake of assuming that people know History. When I state that there is a clash between science and religion, I admit I *should* expect people to assume that I'm making simplistic "Galileo vs Church" stories.

I also admit that I am perhaps not able to convey my point in a way that will convince you. It's a very subtle, but I think precise and concrete incompatibility.

If we ever create the perfect scientist machine, and if we want to short circuit it, nothing better than providing it an inch of religion.

[Hero_Swe]

[Scotty]

My hope in humanity is lost.  For someone to be making such progress, and then turn around and demolish the construct of logic they just built in a fantastic display of disregard for anything less than anti-religious fundamentalism, is as sorrowful as it is astounding.

Good day, enjoy your thread.

[Luis Dias]

There are two distinct discussions. One is the discussion if whether scientific discourse is anathema to the religious one, I believe it is.

A completely different one is the discussion if whether Religion is a good thing or not. I don't believe it is, but I'm quite more open on that point, the reasons for this second discussion are somewhat different from the first one, and they involve the humanities, psychology, politics, human values, etc., and not exactly philosophy of metaphysics.

[Mobius]

Are you guys unemployed or something? You must have a lot of free time to waste discussing topics like this. Is anyone going to change other people's mind? No. What are we supposed to expect here, except flames and consequent lock? Nothing.

[General Battuta]

Are you guys unemployed or something? You must have a lot of free time to waste discussing topics like this. Is anyone going to change other people's mind? No. What are we supposed to expect here, except flames and consequent lock? Nothing.

Actually this discussion has been pretty good (though I haven't paid attention to it for a couple days) and because I spend a lot of time at work waiting for my statistics to run - with nothing better to do than post on HLP - I get paid a ****ton of money to argue on threads like these.

[The E]

Are you guys unemployed or something? You must have a lot of free time to waste discussing topics like this. Is anyone going to change other people's mind? No. What are we supposed to expect here, except flames and consequent lock? Nothing.

For someone who complained that GD didn't have enough substantive discussions, you shouldn't start berating people when they start discussing issues with substance. Just saying.

[Mobius]

If people want to waste time with these threads because they have nothing better to do, so be it. Who cares... enjoy this topic!

[General Battuta]

If people want to waste time with these threads because they have nothing better to do, so be it. Who cares... enjoy this topic!

History of Mobius and Gendisc

step 1: complain that GenDisc is taking up too much attention on HLP

step 2: complain that GenDisc doesn't have enough substantive debates

step 3: complain that GenDisc is taking up too much attention on HLP

[Luis Dias]

Are you guys unemployed or something?

No. Is there any other personal information that may interest you?

[Hero_Swe]

[redsniper]

pics of cute girls

Beauty we can appreciate, eh?

[Nuclear1]

That's iamzack. 

[redsniper]

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrp

[Thaeris]

I was wondering why Zack was in this thread...

...I assume it has something to do with stagnating debates on religion.