Yes the seasons change without any labels from us but i was using the idea that you can call it autum or gods death, the effect is not changed.
Ahh.. I was wondering where you were getting at, and what. Semantics is the thing I think you're trying to bring out here. However, I'm not sure what semantics has to do with the idea of teaching any faith-based ideas in the college lecture/classroom as part of a science class (maybe
other than to say creationism/intelligent design ideas exist).
The jesus thing was simply meant to show how arbitrary our choices to catagorize and label phenomenon are.
Some are arbitrary, and they are necessarily so. In order to communicate in the manner we do, we MUST use words.
What are words?
Symbols.
What are symbols?
Arbitrary representations of an idea, concept, information, places or thing(s).
The problem lies in the vast and often myriad understandings, and misunderstandings, of the given symbol(s) being used. Context can be important. However, again, I fail to understand why this is important here. Faith and science are two different beasts.
but you do understand that time numbers and all your precious theroems are concepts of the mind not the real world right.
AHA!!! Zen and the Art (of Motorcycle Maintenance), yeah? Is that where you're headed? Do I get a prize?
Yes these concept are what we use to describe the world and very useful ones at that, but they are still only our creations and to me thats the same as creating a god to explain it all.
Yep.
That shit does not belong here!
And i gotta say you seem so set in your ways that nothing will change you mind or even make you consider any alternative. If thats not blind faith then i dont know what is.
I know you're addressing Alpha, but I'd like to speak to this as well. On some levels, on many levels even, you may be right. But, increasingly, science is beginning to explain the biology of religion. Certainly, gentlemen and philosophers Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung could also argue that there is something "inherent" in religion FOR man, something almost instinctive, something that may have been what was required for us to build the societies we have. Science is beginning to bear that out, search for V.S. Ramachandran and his "religious center" of the brain (he didn't coin that term, the press did, it's a bit of a misnomer).
By the way i am not sure if you care but i am deeply entrenched in the sciences right now. working on my bachelors in Bio and i have yet to find any thing that i cant question to a point that i get no more answers and simply need to accept it to move on. Does this shake my faith in biology as an accurate way to interpret the world? No of course not, in fact if anything it strenghtens it.
Very good and very cool. However, as I was alluding to previously, do we even
want to allow science to have a go at religion? Personally, and especially if I were religious, I would say no. Religion and its efficacy, its 'reason for being', lies largely in the
faith that is required. Choose any religion in the world, and I believe this applies. Science is the polar opposite. Few, if any, religions make any allowances for variety of opinion, choice, or philosophy. Many require proper bloodlines, others require rejection of the possibility of anything else (other gods/goddesses, more than one god) for true adherence, and may even go so far as to require that its followers accept only one particular dogma borne of the very same religion. This is not science. Scientists, as you know, use the same language, the same mathematics, the same measurements. So as to eliminate, as best as possible, the chance for misinterpretation or misunderstanding, so as to most clearly and objectively record the truth as we humans can experience it.
Religion is a language of absolutes where none exist; Science is a language of qualifications where absolutes may exist.
check your philosophy at the lab door and no problem. i find wonder ... in science!
Me, too!
Freaky deaky, man.
i am not a well-educated man - i graduated high school and that is it.
I am very interested in mythology, religion, and many other things. But we aren't talking about that - we are talking about science.
Well.. we are also talking about religion, essentially, and its allowable interaction or interplay with science. And, I'm with you, I don't see them as compatible. The only role religion should play is with regard to moral issues, human cloning, causing suffering, and the like. Science, otherwise, is completely amoral because observations don't require anything other than the capacity to be made.
