HOW TO GET TO HEAVEN WHEN YOU DIE

[russell jones]

my thing is this:

 

Science does require the same faith as religions do.

 

I know I have mentioned this before, but take the example of an electron. Bohr atomic model says that it is a little unobservable sphere rotating around a nucleus of an atom. Contemporary physics says it is a probability cloud which has no quantifyable variables until we seek to pin it down. Basically, it doesn't exist until we look for it.

 

At a theoretical level we give full truth to a theory until it is proven false by anamolous data. All theories are eventually shown wrong and we develope new theories, that is the way of science. So to believe in any one theory in a realist sense is to believe the laws and theories are actually true when they will necessarily be left by the way side at some point in the future.

 

I am not taking away from the pragmatic value of science, just saying its ability to say what the world actually is is just as fallacious as religion. This is why I had to stop doing physics. I realized I couldn't answer some of the metaphysical questions I had with science without the same faith any religion would require of me.

 

 

It is much easier for me to believe in the pragmatic value of science and the explicative nature of it towards the abstract entity which is mathematics, but I can not at this point see it as telling me the way the world actually is.

 

I don't agree, and frankly I am disappointed with your example of an electron. The electron still has quantifiable effects, whereas religious belief has none.

 

I also don't think science's intention is to find truth but approximations of physical reality. Looking for those type of answers in science should leave anyone cold.

 

And as far as the way the world actually is, I am going to postulate a very small and simple answer and say that the world is what you make it. However, I think everyone should be given all views so they can make of it what they will. I think postulating about the existence of an objective and fully defined reality outside of the boundary of our own individual consciousness is an exercise in futility. Although I wish something existed outside of my own head, I don't know if it can ever be proven to me, so for now I will rely on the most provable of "reality" theories, and that is science.

[the.crooked]

Oh, I hope I didn't make it seem as though I don't believe in science. I just don't believe science as an objective truth. And the reason I use the electron as an example is because it is an unobservable entity. We can witness "its effects" but we can never see it.

 

As far as not believing in an outside world, I say read some stuff past the modern period in philosophy. Read some Kant and just a lot of new stuff. It fits well with cognitive theory. Basically I can not believe in cartesian dualism. There is no disconnect between the mental and the physical. One in the same.

 

Ill come back to this but I gotta let someone borrow the computer for a moment or two.

[lord_casek]

http://www.webfives.com/itemviewer.aspx?nid=d181a98b-e2fc-44af-8da5-3a4b0d0810cd&so=1

[the.crooked]

wrong thread casek.

[Dawood]

So your response leads me to believe that you do not take the Quran literally, and you do not believe that it is OK to execute someone for adultery or homosexual behavior.

 

Additionally, I do not believe that more people in the world are fundamentalists than not. I was not talking about religious belief that most people have, but the fundamentalism that you and Mar seem to exhibit. I do not think religion is truly dangerous unless it is fundamentalist.

 

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I don't take the quran literally when I said I do take the quran literally. And I do beleive adulterers and homosexuals should be executed under the proper conditions.

First off, in a non muslim country, adulterers and homosexuals by law cannot be executed, so in that situation, they are excused because of the law, but if a person is in a muslim country where the law clearly states that adultery and homosexuality are against the law and can be punished by death, then yes I agree with it as long as the courts in that country feel that all the conditions are met and there are many conditions that need to be met for an adulterer or homosexual to be executed under the islamic law.

[MAR]

Additionally, I do not believe that more people in the world are fundamentalists than not. I was not talking about religious belief that most people have, but the fundamentalism that you and Mar seem to exhibit. I do not think religion is truly dangerous unless it is fundamentalist.

 

So let me understand you; you dont believe that religion is dangerous unless people observe it carefully?

[russell jones]

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I don't take the quran literally when I said I do take the quran literally. And I do beleive adulterers and homosexuals should be executed under the proper conditions.

First off, in a non muslim country, adulterers and homosexuals by law cannot be executed, so in that situation, they are excused because of the law, but if a person is in a muslim country where the law clearly states that adultery and homosexuality are against the law and can be punished by death, then yes I agree with it as long as the courts in that country feel that all the conditions are met and there are many conditions that need to be met for an adulterer or homosexual to be executed under the islamic law.

 

Many times I read about young teenage women being stoned for adultery, and I think that is patently cruel and unjust. And people can't choose whether to be gay or not, so killing them is unjust as well.

[russell jones]

So let me understand you; you dont believe that religion is dangerous unless people observe it carefully?

 

 

If by carefully, you mean that they take every word of their scripture as a literal prescription for all behavior and action, then yes, that is exactly what I mean.

 

Do you avoid contact with women during their periods? Do you follow the Deuteronomic rules if you don't? Do you stone adulterer's?

 

I posted this before, but if you care to defend it piece by piece please do. It is a letter to Dr. Laura, detailing laws from deuteronomic texts and turning them around on her.

 

"Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

 

Dear Dr. Laura:

 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

 

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

 

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

 

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

 

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

 

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

 

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

 

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

 

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

 

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging. "

[MAR]

I addressed that letter in a different thread and explained everything.

[the.crooked]

see thats why im sayin this thread should have just been part of the nature of the creator of the heavens... thread.

 

 

i have so much shit written in these threads that i should just piece together as papers for school...hmmmmm....

[russell jones]

I addressed that letter in a different thread and explained everything.

 

I am interested to know how you addressed it. I cannot find your response, do you know where it is?

[the.crooked]

im pretty sure its in the other religion thread.

[russell jones]

I searched "schlessinger" and could not find anything except what I posted.

[boogie hands]

my thing is this:

 

Science does require the same faith as religions do.

 

 

that is absolutely, 100%, incorrect. i think anyone who appreciates science will acknowledge that it is flawed. the world we live in is far too complex to understand the first time around. this has been shown time and time again. now, with that said, the "faith" that many of us put in science is based on facts and proven (or at least very probable) laws of the universe. upon the release of darwins "origin of species" there was only a fraction of the evidence we have today to support his theory but those free thinkers who saw its validity did so because there was enough evidence to make evolution more probable than not. this is not, and most likely, never will be the case for religion. religion and god, at a minimum, require unquestioning faith, if not requiring the believer to consciously push fact and reason aside in order to keep their faith alive and thriving. i would challenge anyone to find any probability (based on our current understanding of the world) that exists within their religious belief. this is the glaring reality that has, and always will, separate religion and science.

 

to be perfectly blunt...faith, by your definition, is antiquated.

[the.crooked]

Now I usually dig your comments boogie, but this is the one area where I most certainly know what I am talkin bout.

 

 

Now, to respond:

 

At face value, yes I can imagine what I am saying seems farthest from the truth as to what science is, how it interacts with our perceptions of the world and the types of beliefs it requires. However, I am talking at very specific levels. I am looking at an argument within philosophy of science as to whether or not we an reduce the world to the physical laws of science. To me the answer is that we can't. I am saying faith in the reduction of infinite potentials to nescessarily wrong casual laws is nothing more than faith in a different direction.

 

Here is a simple argument as to why not.

 

Numbers are infinite, no?

 

Because we can always add another place on a decimal, we can always reduce the scale of our observations. In so much as that is the case, we will always find anamolous data which superceeds the predictive power of contemporary scientific theory. Which, in turn forces a new theory to be formed. ad infinitum.

 

This is argument was created in the sixties by an analytic philosopher named Quine. Essentially it is an application of set theory to epistemology. We have a function built into the structure of science which is predicated on the defeat of any theories predictive powers. e.g. we look for data which sits outside of such powers. When that happens we progress into a new stage of scientific thought. Kuhn dealt with this in his history of scientific progression.

 

The issue is that the terms do not translate within each theory. As I was pointing out earlier, electron holds two wholly different connotations to people dependant to what level of science they study. At a given point in time the Bohr Atomic Model was the standard. Now we have statistical physics driven by thermodynamics and particle physics. This changed what the word electron meant.

 

But, if science is predicated on a belief that we will someday reduce the world to our explication of its physical laws, then we need hit some theory that is right. But as I showed earlier, we can always go to the next level and find something wrong with our theories.

 

Science, is only right in a contemporary sense. What you and I believe to be the reality of the world in terms of scientific theory will be vastly different in 200 years. People might as well say we believe in phlogiston.

 

 

And while yes, there is a huge divide in confirmation and validation between science and religion, they both still require faith.

[the.crooked]

I searched "schlessinger" and could not find anything except what I posted.

 

hmmm... i remember seein what mar is talkin bout.

[russell jones]

Now I usually dig your comments boogie, but this is the one area where I most certainly know what I am talkin bout.

 

 

Now, to respond:

 

At face value, yes I can imagine what I am saying seems farthest from the truth as to what science is, how it interacts with our perceptions of the world and the types of beliefs it requires. However, I am talking at very specific levels. I am looking at an argument within philosophy of science as to whether or not we an reduce the world to the physical laws of science. To me the answer is that we can't. I am saying faith in the reduction of infinite potentials to nescessarily wrong casual laws is nothing more than faith in a different direction.

 

Here is a simple argument as to why not.

 

Numbers are infinite, no?

 

Because we can always add another place on a decimal, we can always reduce the scale of our observations. In so much as that is the case, we will always find anamolous data which superceeds the predictive power of contemporary scientific theory. Which, in turn forces a new theory to be formed. ad infinitum.

 

This is argument was created in the sixties by an analytic philosopher named Quine. Essentially it is an application of set theory to epistemology. We have a function built into the structure of science which is predicated on the defeat of any theories predictive powers. e.g. we look for data which sits outside of such powers. When that happens we progress into a new stage of scientific thought. Kuhn dealt with this in his history of scientific progression.

 

The issue is that the terms do not translate within each theory. As I was pointing out earlier, electron holds two wholly different connotations to people dependant to what level of science they study. At a given point in time the Bohr Atomic Model was the standard. Now we have statistical physics driven by thermodynamics and particle physics. This changed what the word electron meant.

 

But, if science is predicated on a belief that we will someday reduce the world to our explication of its physical laws, then we need hit some theory that is right. But as I showed earlier, we can always go to the next level and find something wrong with our theories.

 

Science, is only right in a contemporary sense. What you and I believe to be the reality of the world in terms of scientific theory will be vastly different in 200 years. People might as well say we believe in phlogiston.

 

 

And while yes, there is a huge divide in confirmation and validation between science and religion, they both still require faith.

 

 

I don't think I agree with you here crook.

 

Science is necessarily an approximation, I have already stated that, but to believe that the approximation of scientists in contemporary times represents and accurate view at a particular level of understanding does not require faith, just math. I think you are confusing science's inherent inability to ever definitively settle a question with a necessarily temporary truth.

 

For instance, Newtonian laws of motion, developed about 400 years ago have been modified and adapted throughout the centuries as more complex technology allows more precise observations. Obviously quantum mechanics has required a complete abandonment of Newtonian motion in regards to extremely small scales. But this constant modification of the rules has not made them any less true at the time they were made. They describe a reality that reflects was what available in mathematics and technology at the time. Using math and instruments contemporary to Newton would allow someone to describe motion with great precision. It did not require faith for someone to believe in his laws, since he could mathematically prove to anyone at that time that his rules were true.

 

I think another analogy would be aging. We are constantly changing and upgrading so to speak. A children's book or a song we experienced as a child resonates in a completely different way than it did to us then. We here new layers in the song, or we find more significant connections with the children's book, but that does not make our experience as children any more or less valid or "true" than our experience as adults. What is real is gone as soon as we realize it.

 

I think that modern science, e.g. chaos theory, the uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics all acknowledges the impossibility of eternal truth.

 

To your electron example, I do not think the complexity of how the electron is understood across disciplines negates the physical truth of the electron within each framework. This is just a temporary state of affairs, that may be more fully resolved in the future. And the understanding of the electron will progress, but it will not necessarily fully erase the truth of how it was understood previously.

 

I agree with your first paragraph. Believing that one can understand the world simply by observing it's physical properties does take faith. But I do not believe that the approximate and ever changing nature of scientific theory takes faith in itself, certainly not in the way that believing in scripture or a supreme being takes faith.

[the.crooked]

Well, you are taking one side in the argument between realism and anti-realism. We agree on it actually.

 

But there are many who argue for the realist perspective in that science is truth. Not aproximate truth. This is why I have a certain disdain for people like Dawkins. I feel he pushes that side of the argument and relies on such faulty reasoning too heavily.

[the.crooked]

and as far as "aging" is concerned, i absolutely agree, we are only going further down the rabbit hole.

 

 

to me what we are doing is exploring the limitations of our own brain and its structure. eg rationality and logic, which since math has been reduced to such, there is no real seperation between higher mathematics, logic, set theory, and physics.

 

but needless to say this is a discussion for the philosophy thread, not here in the heaven pt 2 thread.

[russell jones]

better resurrect that thread with our next post then...

 

I am still interested in MAR's response to the Dr. Laura letter, I wish I could find it. Do you know where it is MAR?

[russell jones]

I guess I could say I have faith in one thing... there is no absolute and timeless truth. Although there is far more evidence in the world for this concept than the existence of an all powerful and omniscient creator deity.

[the.crooked]

Yeah I go with the inevitability of change. It is the foundation of everything.

 

 

Good job buddhism and taoism pickin up on that a long time ago.

[Dawood]

It's amusing to sit in here and watch you guys rattle off your theories and dismissal of God as if the whole world is in agreement with you and the 90% or so (give or take a few) of the the world that beleives in God is easily pushed aside because what you are saying is the hip idea of the century. And while your ideas will continue to be born and die. Islam will continue as it has since the beginning of time.

 

Also, where did you get the idea that religion and science don't mix? Just because Christianity says that the world was created 5000 or so years ago doesn't mean that all religions teachings are not in line with what MUCH of what science says today. Of course, Islam is not going to line up with every fly by night theory that apears and dissapears like the clouds, but for sure, you won't find ONE undisputed scientifical FACT that islam opposes.

And that's a challenge,Try me.

[vanfullofretards]

When you say fact do you mean laws? Or if you mean theories... the sun being in the center of our solar system is still a theory.

 

 

 

 

**If i understood that vid i saw once correctly...

[russell jones]

It's amusing to sit in here and watch you guys rattle off your theories and dismissal of God as if the whole world is in agreement with you and the 90% or so (give or take a few) of the the world that beleives in God is easily pushed aside because what you are saying is the hip idea of the century. And while your ideas will continue to be born and die. Islam will continue as it has since the beginning of time.

 

Also, where did you get the idea that religion and science don't mix? Just because Christianity says that the world was created 5000 or so years ago doesn't mean that all religions teachings are not in line with what MUCH of what science says today. Of course, Islam is not going to line up with every fly by night theory that apears and dissapears like the clouds, but for sure, you won't find ONE undisputed scientifical FACT that islam opposes.

And that's a challenge,Try me.

 

 

I would disagree about your 90% figure. See here:

 

http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/atheism.html

 

Additionally, many people are functional atheists or agnostics since they do not concern themselves with the issue at all. Most people in in Japan, China and many European countries do not practice any religion.

 

I would postulate that atheism, agnosticism and polytheism predates monotheism and outnumbered it in adherents until approximately 1000 years or so ago, perhaps later.

 

Many of the theories and ideas we are talking about predate Mohammad, and hence Islam, by 1000's of years. The historical Buddha lived before Christ, Daoism is at least from 600 BCE, but likely earlier, and Hinduism seems to have routes circa 2000 BCE or earlier. By the way, spare me the argument that Adam and Abraham were Muslims, since your evidence comes from the Quran, not any text written before 650 CE.

 

I think you made it clear earlier that Muslims do not believe in the scientific fact of macro evolution. Perhaps I am wrong, though, so forgive me.

[the.crooked]

It's amusing to sit in here and watch you guys rattle off your theories and dismissal of God as if the whole world is in agreement with you and the 90% or so (give or take a few) of the the world that beleives in God is easily pushed aside because what you are saying is the hip idea of the century. And while your ideas will continue to be born and die. Islam will continue as it has since the beginning of time.

 

Also, where did you get the idea that religion and science don't mix? Just because Christianity says that the world was created 5000 or so years ago doesn't mean that all religions teachings are not in line with what MUCH of what science says today. Of course, Islam is not going to line up with every fly by night theory that apears and dissapears like the clouds, but for sure, you won't find ONE undisputed scientifical FACT that islam opposes.

And that's a challenge,Try me.

 

Man I don't even give a fuck. My shit ain't on some I am about to preach to anyone else type shit.

 

 

This is all personal truth. If I die and I am wrong, well I'll pay the price won't I?

 

Pascal ain't got shit on me.

[boogie hands]

I agree with your first paragraph. Believing that one can understand the world simply by observing it's physical properties does take faith. But I do not believe that the approximate and ever changing nature of scientific theory takes faith in itself, certainly not in the way that believing in scripture or a supreme being takes faith.

 

crooked, i hate to do this but im feeling lazy and a little hungover so im just going to quote russells response to your rebutal.

[boogie hands]

It's amusing to sit in here and watch you guys rattle off your theories and dismissal of God as if the whole world is in agreement with you and the 90% or so (give or take a few) of the the world that beleives in God is easily pushed aside because what you are saying is the hip idea of the century. And while your ideas will continue to be born and die. Islam will continue as it has since the beginning of time.

 

Also, where did you get the idea that religion and science don't mix? Just because Christianity says that the world was created 5000 or so years ago doesn't mean that all religions teachings are not in line with what MUCH of what science says today. Of course, Islam is not going to line up with every fly by night theory that apears and dissapears like the clouds, but for sure, you won't find ONE undisputed scientifical FACT that islam opposes.

And that's a challenge,Try me.

 

speaking for myself, i am in no way approaching this as if the world is in agreement with me. i know i am a minority, someone who the majority of america looks down upon with feelings ranging from pity and disdain to outright fear and hatred. that said, it doesnt mean my arguments arent valid. you talk as if myself and other are throwing around some flash in the pan idea about the world but if put your religion aside for a moment and actually take a look around you will see these ideas have been gaining real momentum over the past few centuries and are only getting stronger. i know you want to think it will fall out of fashion to be an atheist but im afraid it wont.

 

as for the one scientific fact that islam opposes? how about an all knowing god that takes an active role in the workings of our lives? if thats not a giant "fuck you" to everything science has worked to understand i really cant tell you what is.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

i think if you ask nicely, that'll do the trick.

 

or perhaps i'll slip old saint pete a 20, and he'll let me in the back.

[the.crooked]

crooked, i hate to do this but im feeling lazy and a little hungover so im just going to quote russells response to your rebutal.

 

no worries.