God, religion, Science and a Post-Modern View of Science

[JimBowie1958]

I get the impression that Bowie is a jerk with a year in community college and full of himself with political analogies he just has to share with us.

Really? Then you would be wrong. Perhaps you are a jerk for making such an unsupported guess.

I was simply sharing some observations for discussion, but I should have known the poo-flingers would jump in and fuck everything up. I hadnt taken you for such till now.

What a shame.

There is no conflict between religion and science.

I agree, but that is not the common notion going around today.

Space exploration is a noble cause but it is a luxury we can't afford while the Country is trying to get back on it's economic feet.

And we *can* afford to let the Chicoms have no competition?

Whatever.

 

[hortysir]

Unable to understand any of it themselves, and not encouraged to even try by a growing number of scientists, more and more common is this view that science is just another form of faith system, but instead of priests or shamen, we have men in white coats who call themselves scientists and who are presumed to be oracles of Truth purely on a circular set of assumptions.

I don't know if you wrote that or you are quoting somebody, but seriously, you have no idea. Or else you do not surround yourself with scientists, or those of that bent...

There is no faith that you will die in space without oxygen. It is a proven scientific FACT.

Humans cannot live under water without breathing apparatus - FACT.

You cannot fly a plane without thrust and lift - scientific fact

I could spend the rest of the year giving examples....

An who has denied any of these?

 

[hortysir]

And, Jim....

You're responding to Rtard and TruthDoesn'tMatter

For the sake of your sanity, stop it

 

[JimBowie1958]

And, Jim....

You're responding to Rtard and TruthDoesn'tMatter

For the sake of your sanity, stop it

I guess you have a point there.... it is too short a trip for me these days, lol.

 

[percysunshine]

Real scientists do not use the phrase 'post-modern'. There might be a mathematical extrapolation and an adequately bounded estimate, but it is never a proxy for fact.

'Post Modern' is wishing for something that will never happen.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Real scientists do not use the phrase 'post-modern'.

Yeah, cause thats a philosophical subject, not science.

Postmodernism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There might be a mathematical extrapolation and an adequately bounded estimate, but it is never a proxy for fact.

Agreed, though an estimate can be a fact all of its own, too, lol.

'Post Modern' is wishing for something that will never happen.

I guess it depends on what you define 'modern' as.

Modern Western Europe had many key concepts that were considered universal at one time and were the ontological foundation of our culture and civilization.

Most of these have become passe or disproven or simply ignored.

We are no longer the Progressive/Christian mix of values that we once were from the time of Sir Thomas More andhis book 'Utopia' to the more secular attempts to manifest these ideas in American Christian communes.

Seems more apparent each day that we have passed our golden age and only have increased loss and degeneracy left to us as a civilization as we have no foundation to our world view any more.

 

[percysunshine]

Modern means present.

Not the Christmas type.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Modern means present.

Not the Christmas type.

Yeah, that is the common meaning of the word, but not what I am refering to.

By saying 'post-modern' one is generally refering to a period of thought that follows that of modernism, which is a philosophy.

Modernism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modernism was a revolt against the conservative values of realism.[2][3][4] Arguably the most paradigmatic motive of modernism is the rejection of tradition and its reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision and parody in new forms.[5][6][7] Modernism rejected the lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking and also rejected the existence of a compassionate, all-powerful Creator God[8][9] in favor of the abstract, unconventional, largely uncertain ethic brought on by modernity, initiated around the turn of century by rapidly changing technology and further catalyzed by the horrific consequences of World War I on the cultural psyche of artists.

Using the definition you are using, 'post-modern' would simply be synonymous with the word 'future'. I promise you that was not what I was trying to refer to.

 

[Old Rocks]

Unable to understand any of it themselves, and not encouraged to even try by a growing number of scientists, more and more common is this view that science is just another form of faith system, but instead of priests or shamen, we have men in white coats who call themselves scientists and who are presumed to be oracles of Truth purely on a circular set of assumptions.

I don't know if you wrote that or you are quoting somebody, but seriously, you have no idea. Or else you do not surround yourself with scientists, or those of that bent...

There is no faith that you will die in space without oxygen. It is a proven scientific FACT.

Humans cannot live under water without breathing apparatus - FACT.

You cannot fly a plane without thrust and lift - scientific fact

I could the rest of the year giving examples....

Those are so basic that most people understand it anyway, with or without scientists helping them.

I am refering to things not quite so easy, like Quantum Mechanics. I have met plenty of college graduates who dont understand the most basic thing about it, or all these surveys that come out supposedly proving or disproving some factoid that they were hired to prove by a sponsor of some sort. Why even bother going into String Theory or Imaginary Time, etc.

People dont understand these things and dont even bother and it is almost impossible for the average person to get a neutral perspective from a scientist since the media picks these guys for the controversy, not for the science, and so produce more heat than light.

Increasingly the general public is unable to understand new science and they get no help from the scientific establishment.

That is pure bullshit, Jim. Just google any subject in science, and you can find scientists trying to explain it on any level from grade school to post graduate.

I have a lot of freinds with degrees in various sciences, from BS to Phd., and almost all of them will take time to try to explain the concepts of their discipline in the most basis of levels to anyone that asks. And if you are a bit knowledgeable, and ask good questions, they will talk you leg off on their interest.

This idea of blaming scientists for the ignorance of various portions of the population is disengenios, and a form of lying. The problem is misinformation spread by those whose business interests are furthered by continued ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

Modern means present.

Not the Christmas type.

Yeah, that is the common meaning of the word, but not what I am refering to.

By saying 'post-modern' one is generally refering to a period of thought that follows that of modernism, which is a philosophy.

Modernism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modernism was a revolt against the conservative values of realism.[2][3][4] Arguably the most paradigmatic motive of modernism is the rejection of tradition and its reprise, incorporation, rewriting, recapitulation, revision and parody in new forms.[5][6][7] Modernism rejected the lingering certainty of Enlightenment thinking and also rejected the existence of a compassionate, all-powerful Creator God[8][9] in favor of the abstract, unconventional, largely uncertain ethic brought on by modernity, initiated around the turn of century by rapidly changing technology and further catalyzed by the horrific consequences of World War I on the cultural psyche of artists.

Using the definition you are using, 'post-modern' would simply be synonymous with the word 'future'. I promise you that was not what I was trying to refer to.

Well, since the enshrined God of present day 'Conservatives' is Mammon, and they reject the reality of science whenever it states that the pursuit of their God will damage us, then the 'Modernism' that you speak of is primarily preached and practiced by 'Conservatives'.

 

[geauxtohell]

Since the GOP has catered to groups that are openly disdainful (if not completely hostile) towards science ("intelligent design" and climate change deniers), the comment should be directed at the appropriate people.

There doesn't have to be a conflict between science and religion. However, they are not the same thing. The second that religion holds itself up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, some of us might be persuaded that they are interchangeable.

 

[geauxtohell]

Increasingly the general public is unable to understand new science and they get no help from the scientific establishment.

Why is one groups willful ignorance the fault of the educated? A layperson could spend their entire life browsing scientific resources and teaching themselves.

The materials are there. What is lacking is the will.

That is not the fault of the scientific establishment.

 

[California Girl]

I'm a Christian. I'm right wing. And I have great respect for science.

I do sometimes wish that those who proclaim to respect science and yet willingly support the abuse of scientific research for bullshit partisan point scoring would have as much respect for it as I do.

Science is often not absolute. It is theory. Theories are sometimes proved to be wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The GOP is presently rejecting science and embracing the position that willfull ignorance is a good thing. Santorum is but a symptom of this disease.

Do you mean that the GOP is rejecting all science or just a few things you consider essential to science?

I talk to a lot of GOP folks and none of them have told me that they reject science, so I am not sure what you are talking about specifically.

If they throw out evolution as a "theory" and global warming as a "myth", the pub or dem is an idiot person.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know if you wrote that or you are quoting somebody, but seriously, you have no idea. Or else you do not surround yourself with scientists, or those of that bent...

There is no faith that you will die in space without oxygen. It is a proven scientific FACT.

Humans cannot live under water without breathing apparatus - FACT.

You cannot fly a plane without thrust and lift - scientific fact

I could the rest of the year giving examples....

Those are so basic that most people understand it anyway, with or without scientists helping them.

I am refering to things not quite so easy, like Quantum Mechanics. I have met plenty of college graduates who dont understand the most basic thing about it, or all these surveys that come out supposedly proving or disproving some factoid that they were hired to prove by a sponsor of some sort. Why even bother going into String Theory or Imaginary Time, etc.

People dont understand these things and dont even bother and it is almost impossible for the average person to get a neutral perspective from a scientist since the media picks these guys for the controversy, not for the science, and so produce more heat than light.

Increasingly the general public is unable to understand new science and they get no help from the scientific establishment.

That is pure bullshit, Jim. Just google any subject in science, and you can find scientists trying to explain it on any level from grade school to post graduate.

I have a lot of freinds with degrees in various sciences, from BS to Phd., and almost all of them will take time to try to explain the concepts of their discipline in the most basis of levels to anyone that asks. And if you are a bit knowledgeable, and ask good questions, they will talk you leg off on their interest.

Key phrase underlined above that basically means 'if you agree with everything they say and dont make counter-points'. There was a time when a hot-dog amateur who challenged a scientist on his field of specialization, the scientist would take that as a playful test and go to detailed answers. Not any more.

Now, you have to swallow what they say whole with no chewing at all, or you are stupid and a waste of their time. This thread alone demonstrates that in spades.

This idea of blaming scientists for the ignorance of various portions of the population is disengenios, and a form of lying. The problem is misinformation spread by those whose business interests are furthered by continued ignorance.

I am not blaming science or scientists so much as I am blaming a loss of scientific training for the general public who does not understand the prevailing science nearly so much as they did 80 years ago for the science of their time.

This is causing a 'black box' view of science and the gradual equating it as merely equivalent to any other system of 'truthiness' from astrology to religion to philosophy to Ouija boards.

But I am definately NOT laying most of this blame on scientists whoare merely a product of the prevailing society.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Increasingly the general public is unable to understand new science and they get no help from the scientific establishment.

Why is one groups willful ignorance the fault of the educated? A layperson could spend their entire life browsing scientific resources and teaching themselves.

The materials are there. What is lacking is the will.

That is not the fault of the scientific establishment.

Lack of helping does not equate to fault, go2.

If one can get past the elitism, condescension and god-complex, most science gurus are pretty human.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The GOP is presently rejecting science and embracing the position that willfull ignorance is a good thing. Santorum is but a symptom of this disease.

Do you mean that the GOP is rejecting all science or just a few things you consider essential to science?

I talk to a lot of GOP folks and none of them have told me that they reject science, so I am not sure what you are talking about specifically.

If they throw out evolution as a "theory" and global warming as a "myth", the pub or dem is an idiot person.

Evolution IS a theory, but nonetheless our best estimate of what happened anyway, depending on what kind of evolution one is speaking of. Some evolutionists try to slip biogenesis into the basic theory of evolution and that is not part of it.

Anthropogenic Global warming is a myth, but not global warming itself. The only question is whether it is predominately caused by human activity or if the latter is only a small effect of unknown relative impact. I think the latter stack up to the best and most accurate view.

And you have no room to call anyone an idiot.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm a Christian. I'm right wing. And I have great respect for science.

I do sometimes wish that those who proclaim to respect science and yet willingly support the abuse of scientific research for bullshit partisan point scoring would have as much respect for it as I do.

Science is often not absolute. It is theory. Theories are sometimes proved to be wrong.

Science properly understood is NOT absolute. It is in constant change and approaching the absolute accuracy of modeling the universe with human concepts but we will never quite get there 100%.

Science itself evolves and when it stops evolving it will die and turn into just another rigid set of competing values, no better or worse than shamanism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Since the GOP has catered to groups that are openly disdainful (if not completely hostile) towards science ("intelligent design" and climate change deniers), the comment should be directed at the appropriate people.

Intelligent design properly understood is a theological/philosophical theory that can not ever be proven by science, almost by definition. While one can argue what is the most plausible explanation, one cannot validly assert that any organization found in nature is by intelligent design rather than an evoloved complexity, as I understand it.

and the thing most conservative 'deniers' deny about AGW is that human activity is the principle driving factor. Obviously the Earth warmed from the la 1700's to 1998. But now even the Met agress the last twelve years or more has seen a cooling of temperatures.

There doesn't have to be a conflict between science and religion. However, they are not the same thing. The second that religion holds itself up to the scrutiny of the scientific method, some of us might be persuaded that they are interchangeable.

While some 'religion' can be confirmed or denied by science, such as archeological digs often do, the most conflicting claims by typical religions is a claim to a miraculous event of some sort. If science could prove said event, then by definition it cannot be miraculous.

 

[geauxtohell]

Increasingly the general public is unable to understand new science and they get no help from the scientific establishment.

Why is one groups willful ignorance the fault of the educated? A layperson could spend their entire life browsing scientific resources and teaching themselves.

The materials are there. What is lacking is the will.

That is not the fault of the scientific establishment.

Lack of helping does not equate to fault, go2.

If one can get past the elitism, condescension and god-complex, most science gurus are pretty human.

Most scientists are tired of tossing their pearls before swine who have no interest in the pursuit of knowledge and instead want to pursue their own agendas.

I don't like Dawkins, but the reason he doesn't give an audience to creationists is because they have (time and again) proven to be dishonest in their intent. Look at what happened to him during "Expelled" if you doubt it.

As I said, all the information is there for the truly curious. It's not the job of the professionals to lead a horse to a trough.