[Profpat]

[quote=Fredrick;38786]It has been a truly long time ago since anyone called me religious, Lloyd, so thank you for that (it's amusing).

Hi Fredrick;

Actually I think the word religious could also be applied to some of our atheistic, purely scientific friends.


Main Entry: 1re·li·gious Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio Date: 13th century 1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

Best to you,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Sigh... this thread will run a much longer time than I anticipated. When will the ultra religious understand that behind every event there is a solid understandable reasoning

Originally Posted by Fredrick

It has been a truly long time ago since anyone called me religious, Lloyd, so thank you for that (it's amusing).

Nice posting, Dipayankar.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Actually I think the word religious could also be applied to some of our atheistic, purely scientific friends.


Main Entry: 1re·li·gious Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio Date: 13th century 1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

Hi ProfPat,

It looks like we are caught in some kind of funny three-thread-whirl. The point being I've called Lloyd religious in his scientific standing, probably a few times too often. He does not like that and has now pushed it back to me, and that is kind of a first (and that is what is amusing). But thank you for your support on that perspective and for revealing the origin of the word; I fully agree.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Fredrick and ProfPat, there's a considerable difference between faith forced beliefs of religions, and science/math's facts. Faith/belief/religions are fundamentally based in imagination; and science is based in the fundamental facts of the logic, matter and motions, of real testable evidentiary substances. So, in the final analysis, science is never imagination based, although imagination plays a significant role in science's theories, science's facts of reality and logic, are the historical facts, accumulated over centuries. Whereas, faith forced imaginary beliefs, are nothing more than the lies and self-seductions of one's own ego... Of course, the faithists will scream to the rooftops, over such findings, but the fact remains that all faiths are forced, or self-seduced, onto humanity, from the earliest of childhood's experiences...

The whole trick is in understanding the differences between faith/belief and logic... Faith/belief is just linguistic trickery... Logic is linguistic fact... Logic requires no faith or belief___It's visually and linguistically, empirically, obviously, scientifically/mathematically true; whereas, faith/belief is usually the trickery linguistics of a conjured lie, through the ego's self-seductions...

Just as an outlandish example: The world has three choices___1.Let Islamic radicals get and use nuclear bombs, to blow us off the face of the earth, and do nothing to prevent it...? 2.Blow the Islamic radicals off the face of the earth, with nukes, first...? 3.Outlaw all the religions, world-wide, and enforce such laws, globally, to enforce ethically-lawed peace, for the greater good, of the entire planet...? What's your choice...? Because, this is where we're all most likely headed, sad to say...

But the faithists want to keep their ignorant lies on a mic, while keeping scientific knowledge/wisdom, and well proven ethics, in a coma...

I think it's time for legal constitutional change, to eliminate religion's evil social contract sways, over the sound scientific reasoning social contract, and go to better scientifically, ethical, legal systems for all... Don't you___really...?

Regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Hi ProfPat,

It looks like we are caught in some kind of funny three-thread-whirl. The point being I've called Lloyd religious in his scientific standing, probably a few times too often. He does not like that and has now pushed it back to me, and that is kind of a first (and that is what is amusing). But thank you for your support on that perspective and for revealing the origin of the word; I fully agree.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\ Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French religius, from Latin religiosus, from religio Date: 13th century 1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

Lloyd, you are moving around the whole point. I do not necessarily disagree with your words, but you are talking from the inside of science. You are not talking from a neutral perspective. Hence, the dictionary version is applicable to you with a faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality.

[dipayankar]

If a child is born in the forest and does not come in contact with humanity, then would he have any inclination about religion? I dont think so. So that means that Relion is not a natural thought process...

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Fredrick and ProfPat, there's a considerable difference between faith forced beliefs of religions, and science/math's facts. Faith/belief/religions are fundamentally based in imagination; and science is based in the fundamental facts of the logic, matter and motions, of real testable evidentiary substances. So, in the final analysis, science is never imagination based, although imagination plays a significant role in science's theories, science's facts of reality and logic, are the historical facts, accumulated over centuries. Whereas, faith forced imaginary beliefs, are nothing more than the lies and self-seductions of one's own ego... Of course, the faithists will scream to the rooftops, over such findings, but the fact remains that all faiths are forced, or self-seduced, onto humanity, from the earliest of childhood's experiences...

The whole trick is in understanding the differences between faith/belief and logic... Faith/belief is just linguistic trickery... Logic is linguistic fact... Logic requires no faith or belief___It's visually and linguistically, empirically, obviously, scientifically/mathematically true; whereas, faith/belief is usually the trickery linguistics of a conjured lie, through the ego's self-seductions...

Just as an outlandish example: The world has three choices___1.Let Islamic radicals get and use nuclear bombs, to blow us off the face of the earth, and do nothing to prevent it...? 2.Blow the Islamic radicals off the face of the earth, with nukes, first...? 3.Outlaw all the religions, world-wide, and enforce such laws, globally, to enforce ethically-lawed peace, for the greater good, of the entire planet...? What's your choice...? Because, this is where we're all most likely headed, sad to say...

But the faithists want to keep their ignorant lies on a mic, while keeping scientific knowledge/wisdom, and well proven ethics, in a coma...

I think it's time for legal constitutional change, to eliminate religion's evil social contract sways, over the sound scientific reasoning social contract, and go to better scientifically, ethical, legal systems for all... Don't you___really...?

Regards,
Lloyd

[MJA]

Originally Posted by dipayankar

If a child is born in the forest and does not come in contact with humanity, then would he have any inclination about religion? I dont think so. So that means that Relion is not a natural thought process...

Science and Religion Question

Out of humanities infancy or beginnings, born in nature and out of experience, came the thoughts and ideas, faiths and theories of religion and science. It is as it was, the simple process of answering the unanswerable, or knowing the unknown. Much of the solutions we have found have been created only by our imaginations. Although untrue in many cases, science and religion has helped to calm our fears of the unknown darkness. Today we find ourselves in terrible trouble, much of it stemming from our earlier untrue thoughts, from theories and faiths. Man builds castles of theories and faiths on foundations of the same. Should we start over and rebuild on truth? Can we do that? Is science and religion good for mankind or more importantly, good for this planet Earth? Religion has been a great service to humanity. It has the power to unite, calm fears, and even helps feed the hungry; these are but a few examples. On the other hand, religion has been the source of great and monstrous human suffering, division, inhumanity, war, death and destruction. The same can be said unfortunately for science. While science has done wonders to extend human life, it has created the tools to destroy everything, not only mankind but the entire planet. Ironically, science has invented the tools of religious wars, science and religion unified.

Can anyone correctly judge that either science or religion is better than the other? Is either of them truly good or right for humanity? Perhaps if I simplify the question metaphorically it might help. Simply asked: if a mass murderer spends his weekends helping to feed the poor, is he still good or right? And what should we have to do with him?
What should we have to do with science and religion?
That is the question.

=
MJA

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Originally Posted by Fredrick

Lloyd, you are moving around the whole point. I do not necessarily disagree with your words, but you are talking from the inside of science. You are not talking from a neutral perspective. Hence, the dictionary version is applicable to you with a faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality.

You err again Fredrick, as "faithful devotion", you are ignoring in your assessment. Scientists do not recognize such religious linguistics, to have any validity to science, therefore; your application of the definition is incorrect... Evidently you see yourself as a meta-human being, and I see myself as a scientific human being___No meta___what-so-ever...

The "faith" of lay religious simplicity, crucifies complex scientific understanding... This has been know by philosophers, for centuries. Kierkegaard stated it as; "Faith's crucifixation of understanding." I concur...

Lloyd

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Scientists do not recognize religious linguistics, to have any validity to science, therefore; your application of the definition is incorrect... Evidently you see yourself as a meta-human being, and I see myself as a scientific human being___No meta___what-so-ever...

It is my honor to correct you here, Lloyd, because it is not science that I call a religion, it is you I call that way for following science religiously. You may call me names, meta-names included; it does not phase me. Science = science, philosophy = philosophy, religion = religion, and non-existentialism, well... it just isn't. They all have their own place, but none of them can gain the top position unless that exact same top position fits the others in their own right just as much. If you got the gist of my delivery, you know what I am talking about.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie

You see, Fredrick, I am also quite familiar with math. I just don't think it much use, especially when it can't even figure four sphere inter-actions, and the universe, even in a cubic CM, operates at the trillions of spheres level. Math is far too limited. Words seem to be unlimited, sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the worse...

The grand dame of science is math. Mathematics has often been the scout of scientific disciplines, delivering answers before the scientific questions were even asked. You make me wonder, Lloyd, if you are truly committed to science that is well-grounded or if you are more committed to science as a religion.

Thank you for a good delivery, MJA. Though your question appears to be rhetorical only, you describe what my thoughts on this are too, and quite well. Theories in science have a somewhat similar nature as religions (depending on how the religion is phrased), and it is quite normal for a scientist to think the final answer need never be found. All that is needed is the theory — and the scientist sleeps well at night, as long as plenty of evidence supports the theory.

Dipayankar, I don't know how to answer you. Religion may be a natural thought process, or as you say maybe it is not. For me, after all the facts are in, I find it only logical that there remains a space for religion, too. I don't think scientists can ever capture all that there is or refute all that is claimed there is not, but in my view scientists may all come to a position of full understanding.

[dipayankar]

Religion started because in earlier days, humanity was divided into pockets of isolated civilizations (this is prior to even the Roman or Greek civilizations). They thought they were alone in the world and that frightened them. The leaders of that particular civilization then took advantage of the fear and propagated the thought that God created the world and they were the descendants of God. This is how Religion slowly took birth..

Originally Posted by MJA

Science and Religion Question

Out of humanities infancy or beginnings, born in nature and out of experience, came the thoughts and ideas, faiths and theories of religion and science. It is as it was, the simple process of answering the unanswerable, or knowing the unknown. Much of the solutions we have found have been created only by our imaginations. Although untrue in many cases, science and religion has helped to calm our fears of the unknown darkness. Today we find ourselves in terrible trouble, much of it stemming from our earlier untrue thoughts, from theories and faiths. Man builds castles of theories and faiths on foundations of the same. Should we start over and rebuild on truth? Can we do that? Is science and religion good for mankind or more importantly, good for this planet Earth? Religion has been a great service to humanity. It has the power to unite, calm fears, and even helps feed the hungry; these are but a few examples. On the other hand, religion has been the source of great and monstrous human suffering, division, inhumanity, war, death and destruction. The same can be said unfortunately for science. While science has done wonders to extend human life, it has created the tools to destroy everything, not only mankind but the entire planet. Ironically, science has invented the tools of religious wars, science and religion unified.

Can anyone correctly judge that either science or religion is better than the other? Is either of them truly good or right for humanity? Perhaps if I simplify the question metaphorically it might help. Simply asked: if a mass murderer spends his weekends helping to feed the poor, is he still good or right? And what should we have to do with him?
What should we have to do with science and religion?
That is the question.

=
MJA