What Religious belief are you?

Anything unrelated to the LHC
User avatar
mrgumby
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by mrgumby » Fri May 28, 2010 8:57 am

Bornerdogge wrote:(think about creationists in schools in the USA)
Yup.....

Thats the sort of people I meant....

Thein
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:02 am

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by Thein » Sun May 30, 2010 12:59 pm

Faith is merely, and according to a dictionary, trust in a person or thing.
You and I do not know is we even exist; anything, after all, can be proven.
You have to trust that your scientific evidence and calculations are true, and you have to trust that they can be built upon, by other scientists, after you die.
Religion came before Science, and stemming from religion came science.
People wanted to know the answers to the universe, with evidence. You must have faith that the evidence even supports your hypothesis and builds on your theory.

There is much faith in everything; trusting in a person or thing is very very common. Even for scientists.
"We had a Galactic Clash"

User avatar
Bornerdogge
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by Bornerdogge » Sun May 30, 2010 5:04 pm

Trust and faith remain different...

I can trust a person I know very well... If someone says to me "there's a big voice in the sky telling you to kill yourself", I'll need faith to do it..

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by DCWhitworth » Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:09 am

Thein wrote:You and I do not know is we even exist;
Actually I'm sure we do. If you are saying that Ivan is a product of my imagination I'm going to get offended !
Thein wrote:anything, after all, can be proven.
Pardon ?? I look forward to your proof of 1 + 1 =27 or blue is red.

Thein wrote: You have to trust that your scientific evidence and calculations are true, and you have to trust that they can be built upon, by other scientists, after you die.
No, you prove they are true. Yes you have to trust that other scientists have checked it properly but when you have a large enough community this is pretty much a given.
Thein wrote:Religion came before Science, and stemming from religion came science.
Again not sure I agree. I believe Science is the underlying set of laws that govern the universe. So science has always been there. In the same way religion suggests that their God has always been there.
Thein wrote:People wanted to know the answers to the universe, with evidence. You must have faith that the evidence even supports your hypothesis and builds on your theory.
Again I disagree. Why do you need faith in evidence ?
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

User avatar
Bornerdogge
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by Bornerdogge » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:01 pm

I generally agree with you on all of what you have said, except the "science has always been there."... Science is not the universe, science is a human construct, a set of methods to help us understanding the universe!

I think what Thein said was not to be understood in the superficial manner. He merely asked the question of "what is reality", "what is evidence"... If we stood in front of a suspension bridge, and I asked you "Are you sure there's a bridge? It could be a giant picture..", you'd probably go and touch the bridge. But again, the "touching" is merely a set of electrical impulses traveling through our nerves. So there's always some kind of faith in evidence...

But if you want to live a mentally healthy life, you'd better take the assumption that reality is what we can see and touch (and measure, in an extended way...).

Of course, given the principles of quantum mechanics, or the possible insights of superstring theory and brane cosmology, the "reality" we're used to disappears, but there's still some kind of fundamental we can rely on...

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by DCWhitworth » Tue Jun 01, 2010 3:49 pm

Bornerdogge wrote:I generally agree with you on all of what you have said, except the "science has always been there."... Science is not the universe, science is a human construct, a set of methods to help us understanding the universe!
Well we're arguing about basic definitions here. To me 'science' is the workings of the universe, whether we study it, understand it, ignore it or whatever it's always there.


I guess to most people science is the study of the workings of the universe, to me it *is* the workings of the universe (unless there is another word for this !).
Bornerdogge wrote: I think what Thein said was not to be understood in the superficial manner. He merely asked the question of "what is reality", "what is evidence"... If we stood in front of a suspension bridge, and I asked you "Are you sure there's a bridge? It could be a giant picture..", you'd probably go and touch the bridge. But again, the "touching" is merely a set of electrical impulses traveling through our nerves. So there's always some kind of faith in evidence...
Well this is getting rather esoteric. Ultimately evidence is what you observe and if I see evidence that convinces me the bridge is there then why should it not be ?

If you ask 'How do I know anything is real ?' my answer is 'Because the evidence says it is and there is no evidence for an alternatively theory'

I disagree that there has to be faith in evidence, i.e. that there has to be some unverifiable doubt in everything.
Bornerdogge wrote: But if you want to live a mentally healthy life, you'd better take the assumption that reality is what we can see and touch (and measure, in an extended way...).
There are many people who make a living out of things that you can't see or touch and will insist they are definitely real and that they are mentally healthy. I believe they are wrong about their first point but probably right about the second, indeed for many people belief in the insubstantial in whatever format is better for their mental health than the alternative.
Bornerdogge wrote: Of course, given the principles of quantum mechanics, or the possible insights of superstring theory and brane cosmology, the "reality" we're used to disappears, but there's still some kind of fundamental we can rely on...
Which is what I call science.
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

User avatar
Bornerdogge
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by Bornerdogge » Tue Jun 01, 2010 4:20 pm

DCWhitworth wrote:
Bornerdogge wrote:I generally agree with you on all of what you have said, except the "science has always been there."... Science is not the universe, science is a human construct, a set of methods to help us understanding the universe!
Well we're arguing about basic definitions here. To me 'science' is the workings of the universe, whether we study it, understand it, ignore it or whatever it's always there.

I guess to most people science is the study of the workings of the universe, to me it *is* the workings of the universe (unless there is another word for this !).
Then I don't agree with your definition of science :p What you say implies that we humans posses the ONLY and ULTIMATE way to understand the mysteries of the universe... A little anthropocentric and arrogant isn't it?
DCWhitworth wrote:
Bornerdogge wrote: I think what Thein said was not to be understood in the superficial manner. He merely asked the question of "what is reality", "what is evidence"... If we stood in front of a suspension bridge, and I asked you "Are you sure there's a bridge? It could be a giant picture..", you'd probably go and touch the bridge. But again, the "touching" is merely a set of electrical impulses traveling through our nerves. So there's always some kind of faith in evidence...
Well this is getting rather esoteric. Ultimately evidence is what you observe and if I see evidence that convinces me the bridge is there then why should it not be ?

If you ask 'How do I know anything is real ?' my answer is 'Because the evidence says it is and there is no evidence for an alternatively theory'

I disagree that there has to be faith in evidence, i.e. that there has to be some unverifiable doubt in everything.
Of course it's esoteric (well, perhaps not that much, see "brain in the jar"...)! But I wanted to show you that we are human beings, and we possess only means to get to the evidence, not the evidence itself. What we understand as the evidence for something could also be some misinterpretation of a not fully understood phenomenon (for example: Young's double-slit experiment was supposed to show definitely that light IS a wave and nothing else... Then came Einstein).
DCWhitworth wrote:
Bornerdogge wrote: But if you want to live a mentally healthy life, you'd better take the assumption that reality is what we can see and touch (and measure, in an extended way...).
There are many people who make a living out of things that you can't see or touch and will insist they are definitely real and that they are mentally healthy. I believe they are wrong about their first point but probably right about the second, indeed for many people belief in the insubstantial in whatever format is better for their mental health than the alternative.
Well I was talking about rational people here... A scientist should question his findings, because they have no reason to be THE perfect answer, but I won't start questioning things like "is the bread I'm eating really bread?"...

You seem to have quite absolute views of science and human beings... Be careful! Thruth is never absolute because of the very nature of human beings... What is generally taken for true now could very well be dismissed in the future...

User avatar
tswsl1989
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 2:22 pm
Location: Swansea, Wales, UK
Contact:

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by tswsl1989 » Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:38 pm

Bornerdogge wrote:
DCWhitworth wrote:
Well we're arguing about basic definitions here. To me 'science' is the workings of the universe, whether we study it, understand it, ignore it or whatever it's always there.

I guess to most people science is the study of the workings of the universe, to me it *is* the workings of the universe (unless there is another word for this !).
Then I don't agree with your definition of science :p What you say implies that we humans posses the ONLY and ULTIMATE way to understand the mysteries of the universe... A little anthropocentric and arrogant isn't it?
[/quote]
I'd agree with DCWhitworth - Science is the workings of the universe, and we study those workings. At no point has what DCWhitworth's said implied we possess the only or ultimate way of understanding the universe. Merely that the workings of the universe are what we study. The majority of that, on a universal scale, is Physics.
Bornerdogge wrote: You seem to have quite absolute views of science and human beings... Be careful! Thruth is never absolute because of the very nature of human beings... What is generally taken for true now could very well be dismissed in the future...
Go and tell that to a mathematician. Theories may be proved and disproved, but there are some things which are fundamentally true. It's how those truths are built upon and combined that is the subject of theory.

User avatar
Bornerdogge
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by Bornerdogge » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:59 pm

tswsl1989 wrote:
Bornerdogge wrote:
DCWhitworth wrote:
Well we're arguing about basic definitions here. To me 'science' is the workings of the universe, whether we study it, understand it, ignore it or whatever it's always there.

I guess to most people science is the study of the workings of the universe, to me it *is* the workings of the universe (unless there is another word for this !).
Then I don't agree with your definition of science :p What you say implies that we humans posses the ONLY and ULTIMATE way to understand the mysteries of the universe... A little anthropocentric and arrogant isn't it?
I'd agree with DCWhitworth - Science is the workings of the universe, and we study those workings. At no point has what DCWhitworth's said implied we possess the only or ultimate way of understanding the universe. Merely that the workings of the universe are what we study. The majority of that, on a universal scale, is Physics.
I'm sorry but the word is clearly misused there... Cf. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science
The workings of the universe is... the universe; its laws! Science is what we use to understand the universe... There might be other ways, better or worse; science is the best one so far IMO. It's very dangerous to put science on such a high level, because it might lead to a very - too - strong confidence in our results... It'd become unacceptable to criticize them. And that is unscientific.
tswsl1989 wrote:
Bornerdogge wrote: You seem to have quite absolute views of science and human beings... Be careful! Thruth is never absolute because of the very nature of human beings... What is generally taken for true now could very well be dismissed in the future...
Go and tell that to a mathematician. Theories may be proved and disproved, but there are some things which are fundamentally true. It's how those truths are built upon and combined that is the subject of theory.
Math isn' science... Science implies experimentation, balance between theory and observation. Math deals with theoretical constructs. You can argue about the fact if wether or not hypothetical beings in other universes or simply other beings in this universe would have similar mathematics. This touches the subject of why the universe behaves mathematically; I will not dive into this!!

You're talking about things that are "fundamentally true"... In mathematics it's called an axiom, and in physics we call that a postulate. One of the fundamental postulates of Newtonian mechanics is the F=ma - law.... It was held for true for nearly 300 years! And look at it now...

Axioms can be "defined" almost arbitrarly, as long as they don't contradict themselves. But how to define them?
For centuries the axiom stating "given a line and a point distinct from the line, there passes exactly one line through the point parallel to the other line" (Euclid's axiom) was held for true... Now try to apply this on a sphere -_- Everything that had been built on this axiom had to be revised... And it came out that this "axiom" could be proven given a more fundamental set of axioms (the axioms of affine spaces). But this opened the range for completely different environments, such as Riemannian geometry, where all these things appearing so natural for us, human beings living in an affine space ^^, simply disappear.

I could go on and on but the point I'm trying to make is, don't be too confident in "evidences"!!!! The problem is the gap between scientists, who should be able to criticize their "evidences" (with moderation), and people like creationists or flat-earthers, who seem to have some problems accepting even simple evidence...

User avatar
mrgumby
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by mrgumby » Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:08 am

Maybe I misunderstand, but to me, "Science" means "the scientific method".

This means setting up an experiment with a "control" and a "variable".

For instance....
Here is a glass of water.
Here is another glass of water.
Both glasses of water are treated exactly the same, EXCEPT I add iodine to 1 glass of water.
There is a colour change in 1 glass of water.
The glass of water without iodine has no colour change.
Therefore, the iodine induced a colour change.

This system, believe it or not, is what started the scientific revolution.
If you can test a theory according to this principle, it is scientific.
If you cannot, it is not scientific.

Can anyone tell me how to prove religion using this method?

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by DCWhitworth » Thu Jun 03, 2010 2:04 pm

mrgumby wrote: Can anyone tell me how to prove religion using this method?
Here is a glass of water.
Here is another glass of water.
Both glasses of water are treated exactly the same, EXCEPT I ask a priest to wave his hands/utter some words/say a prayer as he deems appropriate.
This glass of water is now holy water.
The other glass of water is not.
The invocation caused the water to change.
Therefore, religion exists.


:lolno:
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

User avatar
Bornerdogge
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2010 10:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by Bornerdogge » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:38 pm

DCWhitworth wrote:
mrgumby wrote: Can anyone tell me how to prove religion using this method?
Here is a glass of water.
Here is another glass of water.
Both glasses of water are treated exactly the same, EXCEPT I ask a priest to wave his hands/utter some words/say a prayer as he deems appropriate.
This glass of water is now holy water.
The other glass of water is not.
The invocation caused the water to change.
Therefore, religion exists.


:lolno:
What the frack? I don't see your point there, but how can you compare "holy" with "changed color"? It has absolutely nothing to do... Please, tell me how to measure the holyness of the glass.

(Maybe it's a joke, it wasn't clear :| )

User avatar
DCWhitworth
LHCPortal Guru
Posts: 585
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:13 am
Location: Norwich, UK

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by DCWhitworth » Thu Jun 03, 2010 5:48 pm

Bornerdogge wrote:
DCWhitworth wrote:
mrgumby wrote: Can anyone tell me how to prove religion using this method?
Here is a glass of water.
Here is another glass of water.
Both glasses of water are treated exactly the same, EXCEPT I ask a priest to wave his hands/utter some words/say a prayer as he deems appropriate.
This glass of water is now holy water.
The other glass of water is not.
The invocation caused the water to change.
Therefore, religion exists.


:lolno:
What the frack? I don't see your point there, but how can you compare "holy" with "changed color"? It has absolutely nothing to do... Please, tell me how to measure the holyness of the glass.
Ask a priest of course !
Bornerdogge wrote: (Maybe it's a joke, it wasn't clear :| )
Yes, it's a joke ;)
DC

The LHC - One ring to rule them all !

User avatar
mrgumby
Posts: 266
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:53 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by mrgumby » Fri Jun 04, 2010 7:56 am

I like it!!!!!

User avatar
Kaleid
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:58 am
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: What Religious belief are you?

Post by Kaleid » Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:27 pm

I'm a Christian. Roman Catholic but I'm not a good example of the believer. I have some distance to the faith.
"That's all there is | Nothing more than you can touch now | That's all there is!"
Depeche Mode - "World In My Eyes"

Post Reply