Support NeoGAF

[Son of Sam]

You're certainly welcome to do that, but you can't call it science.

Of course you can. Science has provided us enlightenment. We know how the universe came to be, we know how the solar system came to be, we know how the earth cooled and then warmed up to allow chemistry to give way to bio-chemical processes that lead to a self-replicating organism.

As i ponder these things i find meaning in my life by making my own purpose for living. I don't need some bullshit malarkey telling me my purpose is for the divine.

 

[Lonely1]

It answers where we came from and why we are here. Two pretty big questions with quite simple answers.

No, it hasn't answered those questions and never will, you have to inevitable do non scientific judgements if want to interpret scientific theories to answer those questions. It can approximate a solution for the how, though.

 

[beast786]

No, it does not.

Science is there so people can find out new things about the world and beyond through tireless research and testing.

This has nothing to do with someone's emotional, spiritual, or any other kind of fulfillment.

Once science claims it has all the answers for everyone to be happy, it's just another religion. Luckily, it hasn't done that.

As a science major and in field of medicine I disagree 100%

 

[Lonely1]

As a science major and in field of medicine I disagree 100%

And I disagree with you

 

[Pikelet]

I don't think it is. You need faith to do science. You may not like religious faith, but belief in one's own efforts beyond what is currently possible is what drives human beings.

Faith is belief in absence of evidence, and directly contradicts the scientific method which is evidence-based.

Faith is not required to have "belief in one's own efforts beyond what is currently possible."

 

[beast786]

Faith is inherently a matter of choice, yes.

And that was my point. A choice of ignoring evidence.

 

[Speevy]

As a science major and in field of medicine I disagree 100%

That's great, but the idea that science creates fulfillment is not based on evidence.

Science is.

You guys are usually better at this.

Science is good. Part of why science is good is that it admits it doesn't have all the answers. It doesn't account for every thought or feeling a person might have, nor should it.

 

[beast786]

And I disagree with you

You can't disagree with my experience 😜

 

[Chibot]

Science can't prove or disprove god. This has been argue extensively for centuries.

Science also cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy or the idea that a sentient boot created the universe. It doesn't have to or need to. The burden of proof is solely on those making the incredible claim, which in this case is the existence of this "god" thing.

 

[Lonely1]

And that was my point. A choice of ignoring evidence.

I don't see in science the evidence that contradicts my beliefs, (which i haven't even stated, btw).

Science also cannot disprove the existence of leprechauns or the Tooth Fairy or the idea that a sentient boot created the universe. It doesn't have to or need to. The burden of proof is solely on those making the incredible claim, which in this case is the existence of this "god" thing.

Is not even it's goal. If you want to answer theological questions, you are doing philosophy, which is meritorious too, I'm not saying it's not. If anything, the people claiming that science is the only valid source of knowledge are the ones doing that.

 

[Speevy]

Faith is belief in absence of evidence, and directly contradicts the scientific method which is evidence-based.

Faith is not required to have "belief in one's own efforts beyond what is currently possible."

I have no evidence that I will get a job. I'm underqualified, but the boss seems to like a story I told him. I got the job. I shouldn't have even bothered to interview but I got the job.

You realize we're arguing about a word, and not religion, right? Words are flexible.

 

[beast786]

That's great, but the idea that science creates fulfillment is not based on evidence.

Unless you are claiming my experience is not reality?

You are correct, it's primary goal is not to fulfill psychological needs. But that doesn't mean it can't or does not

 

[Son of Sam]

That's great, but the idea that science creates fulfillment is not based on evidence.

What a redundant argument. Fulfillment can be had in a multitude of ways. You don't need science for fulfillment and you don't need religion either.

This has nothing to do with someone's emotional, spiritual, or any other kind of fulfillment.

.

This is so wrong you have no idea. Neuroscience is tackling all these questions actually. There are regions of the brain directly associated with "spirituality" and the sense of "self". Consciousness is the hardest topic right now for neuroscience but don't for a second think it will never be able to unlock these mysteries because the progress is already staggering.

 

[Yagharek]

No, it hasn't answered those questions and never will, you have to inevitable do non scientific judgements if want to interpret scientific theories to answer those questions. It can approximate a solution for the how, though.

Where did we come from? A product of four billion years of evolution, survival, on a planet formed from a coalescing dust disc around a star born from the condensed ejecta of an earlier supernova. Which itself was probably a second generation star, maybe even a first generation star. Formed out of condensation of hydrogen and helium sometime after the big bang.

Why are we here? To keep that process going if we get the opportunity.

 

[Lonely1]

Where did we come from? A product of four billion years of evolution, survival, on a planet formed from a coalescing dust disc around a star born from the condensed ejecta of an earlier supernova. Which itself was probably a second generation star, maybe even a first generation star. Formed out of condensation of hydrogen and helium sometime after the big bang.

Why are we here? To keep that process going if we get the opportunity.

And where did all that came from and why? And why would we "be here to keep the process going"? The process is a being? Has a it's own purpose? Why would it had a self interest in keep itself going? Hell, you could argue that, given the evidence, we are here to kill the process...

 

[Son of Sam]

Why are we here? To keep that process going if we get the opportunity.

True. But in the end the meaning of life is what you make it.....

And where did all that came from and why? And why would we "be here to keep the process going"? The process is a being? Has a it's own purpose?

We could all be part of a gigantic process, just a small enzyme in some multiverse organisms stomach to allow it to take a monster dump. Would we know? No. Does it matter if we did? No.

Other way to think of it is kinda like the Matrix paradigm: If we're just part of a simulated world in another realities computer does it really make a difference to us? No, it actually makes no difference at all because the one thing that is for certain is that we are conscious and our experiences are real, to us. So, our own purpose is what matters.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Encouraging to see the RCC has caught up to early 20th century science.

When they catch up to 1927 they will get their socks blown off by quantum mechanics and Copenhagen.

"After reviewing the evidence, it appears God does play dice. As a result, we have decided to convert Casino of Pius into a literal casino and encourage gambling."

 

[Lonely1]

We could all be part of a gigantic process, just a small enzyme in some multiverse organisms stomach to allow it to take a monster dump. Would we know? No. Does it matter if we did? No.

Other way to think of it is kinda like the Matrix paradigm: If we're just part of a simulated world in another realities computer does it really make a difference to us? No, it actually makes no difference at all because the one thing that is for certain is that we are conscious and our experiences are real, to us. So, our own purpose is what matters.

A well explored physiological proposition. But many would argue that the question of purpose is important, for which you argue a specific solution but you can't settle (can't be).

 

[Son of Sam]

A well explored physiological proposition. But many would argue that the question of purpose is important, for which you argue a specific solution but you can't settle (can't be).

I really don't bother with the philosophical junk. It's a bunk field. It hasn't offered shit in a long time. And has not gotten us any closer to understanding reality.

Philosophy without science is absolutely worthless now. Let it go.

 

[beast786]

A well explored physiological proposition. But many would argue that the question of purpose is important, for which you argue a specific solution but you can't settle (can't be).

To answer the question what is the purpose. You are making an assumption that there is a purpose.

 

[Pikelet]

I have no evidence that I will get a job. I'm underqualified, but the boss seems to like a story I told him. I got the job. I shouldn't have even bothered to interview but I got the job.
You realize we're arguing about a word, and not religion, right? Words are flexible.

You said "You need faith to do science."

I reckon that's baloney, for the reasons I stated.

Words are flexible to a point, but precision is required when having philosophical arguments. In absence of prior agreed upon definitions, I'm going to go with the commonly understood meaning of the word 'faith': belief without evidence.

I'm with Son of Sam on this one: Faith is a bullshit concept.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

I knew it long ago. Didn't need mah Pope to tell me that.

The problem is dumb people take the bible literally, but the context of time in the Genesis isn't not the standard day that we use. It could be trillions of years in one of those "days". It's more of a scale figure than a literal context.

And the Bible doesn't exclude lifeforms outside of Earth, so there's definitely a possibility of aliens.

Also, I'm a huge Stargate fan.

 

[markot]

Faith is inherently a matter of choice, yes.



What does it answers?

That we are here because our parents had sex.... all the way back to the first cell of life.

That life is what we make of it, as there is no 'test' to get into a better club at death.

That doing good generally makes you feel better psychologically, that it makes other people feel better too, and its generally a positive for all.

A cat doesnt ask why its a cat. It just cats. We would all be happier if we were able to accept the same for ourselves. But instead we create a vast web of meaning, an infinte creator, an eternal paradise. Does that make people happier? Does it give their lives more meaning? maybe. But theres no reason the other shouldnt do just as well.

 

[Yagharek]

And where did all that came from and why? And why would we "be here to keep the process going"? The process is a being? Has a it's own purpose? Why would it had a self interest in keep itself going? Hell, you could argue that, given the evidence, we are here to kill the process...

As biological entities, our purpose, if you can call it that, is defined by our DNA. There is no need to ascribe anything more to it than that.

Of course as social mammals our drive also includes social and cultural and ideological factors as well, as those are elements which have contributed to the proliferation of our species.

I think we should also care about the ongoing success of other species, but that's a different issue.

 

[beast786]

I knew it long ago. Didn't need mah Pope to tell me that.

The problem is dumb people take the bible literally, but the context of time in the Genesis isn't not the standard day that we use. It could be trillions of years in one of those "days". It's more of a scale figure than a literal context.

And the Bible doesn't exclude lifeforms outside of Earth, so there's definitely a possibility of aliens.

Also, I'm a huge Stargate fan.

i agree . Same way people who take it literally and believe there is God

 

[yogloo]

Best pope ever. Amazing.

 

[Lonely1]

I really don't bother with the philosophical junk. It's a bunk field. It hasn't offered shit in a long time. And has not gotten us any closer to understanding reality.

Philosophy without science is absolutely worthless now. Let it go.

Given the inherent limits of science, it would be disastrous for human growth and enrichment to forego philosophy. Hell, many mathematical fields with interesting questions can be categorized as philosophy....

To answer the question what is the purpose. You are making an assumption that there is a purpose.

And you are making the assumption that there isn't. That's why it isn't a scientific questions. Science theory is only if can make predictions that can be verified and reproduced, and purpose can't be tested, since the assumptions aren't even settled (and can't be).

 

[EmptySpace]

why would any logical human listen to the pope for things like evolution and big bang?


would you listen to a doctor's wisdom/knowledge on how to build a 50-storey building?

 

[Pikelet]

I knew it long ago. Didn't need mah Pope to tell me that.

The problem is dumb people take the bible literally, but the context of time in the Genesis isn't not the standard day that we use. It could be trillions of years in one of those "days". It's more of a scale figure than a literal context.

You realise there are huge glaring problems with picking and choosing what is literal and what is figurative, right?

 

[Lonely1]

As biological entities, our purpose, if you can call it that, is defined by our DNA. There is no need to ascribe anything more to it than that.

Of course as social mammals our drive also includes social and cultural and ideological factors as well, as those are elements which have contributed to the proliferation of our species.

I think we should also care about the ongoing success of other species, but that's a different issue.

Why would DNA define our purpose? It has a purpose on it's own?

Btw, even if we limit ourselves to scientific questions, is wrong to ascribe evolution, specially human evolution, to DNA alone (or even mostly DNA). Society (and the environment is has now molded) has evolved with us and is part of our evolution and can't be transmitted via the DNA (as far as we know).

 

[mario_O]

So what about Adam and Eve and the Original sin? Omg that never happened?

 

[JohnChang]

This pope is a really good PR guy, getting people back into the fold...

 

[Shining Sunshine]

You realise there are huge glaring problems with picking and choosing what is literal and what is figurative, right?

Unless anyone knows someone who lived at the time of Genesis, it's all figurative.

The Bible is a moral compass for Catholics, not entirely historical fact.

 

[Yagharek]

Why would DNA define our purpose? It has a purpose on it's own?

Btw, even if we limit ourselves to scientific questions, is wrong to ascribe evolution, specially human evolution, to DNA alone (or even mostly DNA). Society (and the environment is has now molded) has evolved with us and is part of our evolution and can't be transmitted via the DNA (as far as we know).

I didn't exclude society from the point, in fact I pretty clearly acknowledged its importance.

 

[beast786]

And you are making the assumption that there isn't. That's why it isn't a scientific questions. Science theory is only if can make predictions that can be verified and reproduced, and purpose can't be tested, since the assumptions aren't even settled (and can't be).

What is the purpose of you having a tail bone ?

 

[Lonely1]

What is the purpose of you having a tail bone ?

I don't know.

I didn't exclude society from the point, in fact I pretty clearly acknowledged its importance.

Then is not defined by our DNA.

 

[EmptySpace]

Unless anyone knows someone who lived at the time of Genesis, it's all figurative.

The Bible is a moral compass for Catholics, not entirely historical fact.

tell that to the millions of constituents who get told every sunday about these "moral compasses" that sound more like "stories from a long time ago" aka history.

this is another thing about these religious organizations. they go to tv debates and tell people "oh it's all interpretation" but every sunday you go to some church and some priest make it sound as if genesis truly happened.

that's where the hypocrisy lies, and that's where these organizations manage to seize control of their constituents.

it's as if the regular citizen who sees a cheetos shaped as crucified jesus and thinks it's a miracle would actually watch these hour-long debates about evolution and big bang. they don't, and a lot of them make up religion. there are way more people who believe in the bible/quran in the literal sense than there are in the figurative sense. way, way more.

 

[m3k]

New pop kicking ass... I'm not catholic but I approve of the reaffirmation

Lol not a magic wand...

 

[beast786]

I don't know.

There is no purpose of your tail bone ( via scientific method). Just because it exist doesn't mean it has a purpose

Of course science can answer question regarding purpose.

Universe is waste of crap with no purpose. There is absolute no evidence of everything playing a central meaningful role toward a central goal.

Vast Majority of universe is nothing

 

[EmptySpace]

Why would DNA define our purpose? It has a purpose on it's own?

Btw, even if we limit ourselves to scientific questions, is wrong to ascribe evolution, specially human evolution, to DNA alone (or even mostly DNA). Society (and the environment is has now molded) has evolved with us and is part of our evolution and can't be transmitted via the DNA (as far as we know).

what is this...i don't even...

what if there is no purpose. you speak as if everything has to have purpose. based on what, exactly? do mountains have purpose? or do they just happen to form when tectonic plates smash into each other?

also, what is your point with evolution and dna? i don't get it. how the hell is society connected to evolution. society has evolved, what?

we (animals, living things) adapt to the environment. we evolve to fit into the environment we live in. that is why you don't see lions with gills. the environment changing affects us in a biological way. and no, it isn't as simple as "transmitted via dna". first of all that doesn't even make any sense. the owl can see at night/in the dark not because the night transmitted darkness via dna to the owl. their eyes adapted to the darkness. and no, that did not happen overnight.

 

[bonesmccoy]

I must say, as a Catholic living in North America, it's been really damn nice to have F1. Not that I had anything against B16 or JP2, but they were the sweethearts of politically conservative Catholics, and the triumphalism you'd encounter was really brutal.

they go to tv debates and tell people "oh it's all interpretation" but every sunday you go to some church and some priest make it sound as if genesis truly happened.

I've been to probably 1000+ Masses across North America and Europe, and I have never once heard a priest talk about Genesis as if it was journalistic reportage.

there are way more people who believe in the bible/quran in the literal sense than there are in the figurative sense. way, way more.

I can't speak for how it is within Islam, but this is definitely not the case for Christianity. Anglicanism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are all opposed to Biblical literalism, and that accounts for like 65% of the 2+ billion Christians in the world. For what you've said to be true, a large majority of these adherents would have to be holding to a more 'conservative' version of the faith than what their respective churches ask them to, which is something that's never ever happened in the history of Christianity.

 

[Pikelet]

Unless anyone knows someone who lived at the time of Genesis, it's all figurative.

Huh? How does knowing someone who lived in the time of Genesis have any effect on how the bible is interpreted. I don't follow what you are saying at all.

The Bible is a moral compass for Catholics, not entirely historical fact.

The bible's worth as a moral compass, a source of absolute truth etc. is highly questionable.

Interpretations of the bible are constantly changing, whereas the strength of a compass is in it's reliability.

If the bible was a literal compass it would be the least consistent and thus most worthless compass in the history of the world. One day it would point north, and a century later it would point south west. One day slavery and killing homosexuals is okay, the next it's all "do unto others". There are contradictions and inconsistencies, which basically means you get to choose whatever interpretation you like. At that point why even bother with the darn book in the first place.

 

[EmptySpace]

I must say, as a Catholic living in North America, it's been really damn nice to have F1. Not that I had anything against B16 or JP2, but they were the sweethearts of politically conservative Catholics, and the triumphalism you'd encounter was really brutal.



I've been to probably 1000+ Masses across North America and Europe, and I have never once heard a priest talk about Genesis as if it was journalistic reportage.



I can't speak for how it is within Islam, but this is definitely not the case for Christianity. Anglicanism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism are all opposed to Biblical literalism, and that accounts for like 65% of the 2+ billion Christians in the world. For what you've said to be true, a large majority of these adherents would have to be holding to a more 'conservative' version of the faith than what their respective churches ask them to, which is something that's never ever happened in the history of Christianity.

oh please, the amount of catholic people thinking genesis is real is staggering.

have you heard any priests saying genesis wasn't real, everything was figurative? no, and never. oh they talk about it, but guess what they'd be non-committal about its validity...yeah. or guess what they never bothered to tell their constituents who spread these lies to shut up. do they?

"never happened in the history of christianity"
aaaaaahahahaha.


sorry to break your bubble, but majority of catholics believe genesis happened. earth was created in 6 days, etc. all the other nonsense. and their churches do not do anything about it.

authoritative figures talking about earth being created in 6 days over and over for centuries. but no these are just "interpretations".

then how come these "interpretations" are so easily and overwhelmingly misinterpreted. so much so that there is always *always* someone who believe in it to be literal, and most catholics still do?

or are you telling me i can go in to any church right now in north america and ask people about genesis and majority will all go, "well it's not actually true.."? please, let's not kid ourselves here.

 

[mario_O]

The big bang and evolution are incompatible with religion. Just look at the history of the Earth. If a meteorite didn't hit the Earth and killed the dinosaurs we would not be here. That is a fact. We are only here because we were lucky. To think that humans have their own human-like god, that looks after us, is ridiculous.

 

[Lonely1]

what is this...i don't even...

what if there is no purpose. you speak as if everything has to have purpose. based on what, exactly? do mountains have purpose? or do they just happen to form when tectonic plates smash into each other?

also, what is your point with evolution and dna? i don't get it. how the hell is society connected to evolution. society has evolved, what?

we (animals, living things) adapt to the environment. we evolve to fit into the environment we live in. that is why you don't see lions with gills. the environment changing affects us in a biological way. and no, it isn't as simple as "transmitted via dna". first of all that doesn't even make any sense. the owl can see at night/in the dark not because the night transmitted darkness via dna to the owl. their eyes adapted to the darkness. and no, that did not happen overnight.

You don't see how our societies for part of "our adaptation"? Is new science so i don't blame you to not knowing it, however the "what is this...i don't even..." isn't warranted, specially if you don't know where my statements come from. Here's a nice (scientific) article talking about it.

http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n7/full/nrg3028.html

There is no purpose of your tail bone ( via scientific method). Just because it exist doesn't mean it has a purpose

Of course science can answer question regarding purpose.

Universe is waste of crap with no purpose. There is absolute no evidence of everything playing a central meaningful role toward a central goal.

Vast Majority of universe is nothing

You are going in circles now. I already told you we don't agree with the premises...

 

[EmptySpace]

You don't see how our societies for part of "our adaptation"?

yes but it has nothing to do with genetic variation and mutation.

society = civilization and culture.

if you mean environment as in natural environment aka platinum on roads because of gas-powered vehicles, then yes i could see that as something.


society as in gay people being able to marry, violence being a daily event, etc. then no i don't.

 

[Lonely1]

yes but it has nothing to do with genetic variation and mutation.

society = civilization and culture.

if you mean environment as in natural environment aka platinum on roads because of gas-powered vehicles, then yes i could see that as something.


society as in gay people being able to marry, violence being a daily event, etc. then no i don't.

I edited my posted and even gave a nice source. See above, sorry for the late edit.

 

[Yagharek]

I don't know.



Then is not defined by our DNA.

It is. Our DNA tells us to reproduce. Our societal constructs tell us how to pass on knowledge we consider important.

You are conflating dozens of points and misunderstanding most of them.

 

[seanoff]

oh please, the amount of catholic people thinking genesis is real is staggering.

have you heard any priests saying genesis wasn't real, everything was figurative? no, and never. oh they talk about it, but guess what they'd be non-committal about its validity...yeah. or guess what they never bothered to tell their constituents who spread these lies to shut up. do they?

"never happened in the history of christianity"
aaaaaahahahaha.


sorry to break your bubble, but majority of catholics believe genesis happened. earth was created in 6 days, etc. all the other nonsense. and their churches do not do anything about it.

authoritative figures talking about earth being created in 6 days over and over for centuries. but no these are just "interpretations".

then how come these "interpretations" are so easily and overwhelmingly misinterpreted. so much so that there is always *always* someone who believe in it to be literal, and most catholics still do?

or are you telling me i can go in to any church right now in north america and ask people about genesis and majority will all go, "well it's not actually true.."? please, let's not kid ourselves here.

mate i've heard and seen countless priests, nuns, brothers, more than a few bishops, archbishops, cardinals and at least 4 popes say the genesis / all of the old testament are allegorical stories and literal interpretation of them is not just flawed but categorically theologically incorrect. (went to catholic schools all my life, one was attached to a Cathedral thus the bishops etc, my high school had an alum that was an archbishop so there are the more senior members, the school was pretty well off) my yr 11 - 12 physics and them teacher was a religious brother with PhDs in physics and Chem. yeah he was convinced genesis was word for word, not)

the old testament are stories of what it was like.

the new testament is how life should be lived. i.e. love on another, treat others as you like to be treated, all of the stuff in the beatitudes etc.

and if you walk into st pats in new york or any other catholic church in NA and ask any of the clergy there they will tell you the same thing. they get taught this in the seminaries, and certainly if they go further into Doctorates in Theology.

 

[Lonely1]

It is. Our DNA tells us to reproduce. Our societal constructs tell us how to pass on knowledge we consider important.

You are conflating dozens of points and misunderstanding most of them.

Perhaps is you who is misunderstanding? (DNA might dictate some initial behavior, but that doesn't mean we are bounded by it, including "our reproduction imperative". See emergent behavior). Our society affects greatly how we behave, down to how we reproduce. This is, we can't make such a clean cut division as "DNA govern this, our society that and interactions with the environments those". So yes, I'm conflating because we can't separate them. Well, is still an open problem but data points that we can't other than to explain the simplest of systems.