Truly a deep question of philosophical significance. (No jokes, please)

MMAPlayground.com » Off Topic » Off Topic » Truly a deep question of philosophical significance. (No jokes, please)
Next Page »
Jackelope
6/1/08 4:28:53PM
I am definitely one to blame for the other thread getting loose on a tangent, but let's try to get it back on track with a serious discussion this time-

One of the things I always pondered when I was a student of philosophy (several years ago) was whether or not the idea of something manifests it's existence- therefore nullifying any argument that it "does not exist".

A profound example of this is obviously the idea of the Christian God. One can scientifically breakdown all of the "facts" but never prove the existence (or non-existence) of God. Does this mean he doesn't exist? Explore the possibility that God does not exist, but that the idea of God is a very real thing with very significant impact on the world around us. Does that not, in itself, prove the existence of God and legitimize his being?

Imagine one day scientists provided concrete evidence disproving the existence of God. Millions of His followers would descend upon those scientists with claims of shenanigans and claiming God absolutely can not be proven wrong because our fickle minds cannot grasp the divinity of this being that is God. The idea of God would live on (as it has in the face of evolution) and whether scientifically proven to exist or not, the religious zeitgeist (mind of the time) about God would adapt and overcome the scientific obstacles that have disproven what was formally known about their God with clever words and by attributing even more mystical properties to an already mythical figure. In essence, he would live on. Even though it has been proven he does not exist in this hypothetical situation we ponder.

So, can ideas manifest reality?

(As a disclaimer- I don't argue for or against the idea of God. This is merely a hypothetical instance we speak of. Replace "God" with "Dragons" if it suits you. Please view this topic of discussion with a completely objective mindset.)
Kpro
6/1/08 4:33:52PM
I haven't read the other topic at all, I'll admit.

But in short, my thoughts on the subject, are that everyone has their own reality. Using a God as an example; I personally am an atheist so no god exists in my reality. But if someone believes in their God and has faith that he/she/it exists, and it changes they way they live their lives, then in their reality, God does exist.

Not a very direct way to answer it but that is the way I feel on the subject.

So to answer your question; Yes, ideas can manifest individual realities. With the obvious emphasis on individual.
Pookie
6/1/08 5:16:43PM

Posted by Jackelope

I am definitely one to blame for the other thread getting loose on a tangent, but let's try to get it back on track with a serious discussion this time-

One of the things I always pondered when I was a student of philosophy (several years ago) was whether or not the idea of something manifests it's existence- therefore nullifying any argument that it "does not exist".

A profound example of this is obviously the idea of the Christian God. One can scientifically breakdown all of the "facts" but never prove the existence (or non-existence) of God. Does this mean he doesn't exist? Explore the possibility that God does not exist, but that the idea of God is a very real thing with very significant impact on the world around us. Does that not, in itself, prove the existence of God and legitimize his being?




It really depends on what you mean by exist.
I do agree with this to an extent, but with the way that god is portrayed in many monothiestic religious texts, simply believing in it does not make that "god" exist.

The concept of god and god itself are seperate entitities. IMO The Concept does exist in the minds of all who even just ponder it. But when the god in question is given set parameters as to what it is (ex. destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, dissapproves of homosexuals...etc) simply believing in it does not make it exist.

Now the effect of the concept of god had definitely effected the world drastically, but again that is the concept and not the actual god in question. Because they are seperate entities i have to answer "No." to your last question.


Vietnamese_Guy
6/1/08 5:38:43PM
i ate some bread the other day and today my poop looks suspiciously like the body of christ, if thats not proof that god exist then i don't know what is
Jackelope
6/1/08 5:43:29PM

Posted by Vietnamese_Guy

i ate some bread the other day and today my poop looks suspiciously like the body of christ, if thats not proof that god exist then i don't know what is



No jokes, please. As the title states. This thread is NOT meant to be a mockery of people's beliefs.
ncordless
6/1/08 8:30:19PM
Interesting question.

To begin... To not be able to disprove something does not provide proof. Nor does not being able to prove something mean it's not true.

As someone else said, in a way it depends what you mean by exist. We can safely say that the Idea of God exists. And yet does a belief of anything constitute it's reality?

At the turn of the 20th century, there was a widely held notion that the world would come to an end. Many people believed it and waited on rooftops, hills, and open spaces so that they could view first hand the events.... with all that belief, nothing happened. The Idea of the end of days coming and it's actually existing were two different things.

Existential philosophy teaches that the world is what we make of it, and that we must take responsiblity for all our actions (or non-actions). The key difference between what that and what you are describing is that you are asking if ideas can manifest reality, not actions. I would put forth that an idea by itself without action cannot manifest reality.

That said, I also believe that there are ideas which no action can make possible. If everyone believed in something... say the earth is the center of the universe... no matter what action anyone took the truth would be otherwise.

So then we get to "Truth" Is there an absolute Truth... or is it all in the eye of the beholder?

... tell me what you think before I put in my 2 cents.
AchillesHeel
6/2/08 10:51:40AM

So, can ideas manifest reality?

Being a secular-minded person, I can't really address your God example, but the first thing that leaped to my mind when thinking about this question was race (in the U.S. & Western Europe, at least). It's popular on Web forums for Left-ish intellectuals like myself to declare that "race isn't real [because] it's just a social construct." In a sense, race is "just" an idea, and therefore doesn't truly exist.

However, my reply to that is always "Who says social constructs aren't 'real'?" So far, this has brought most such conversations about race to a screeching halt.
mrsmiley
6/2/08 2:02:36PM
In philosophy they call this the ontological arguement.Basicly that the belief of something makes it real.It's a difficult arguement to argue for or against,but I believe it goes deeper than most people realize or think about.Some people believe in Bigfoot and the Lockness monster,but that doesn't make them real.However,you could claim Bigfoot and the Lockness Monster are older creatures that did at one time exsist. (Lockness monster a pleiasaurus,and their are many prehistoric apes that could have accurately been what people say is bigfoot.)

I think it depends on your idea of god.I don't believe in god as a human like figure who judges us from right & wrong.I believe we are all God,living in total conscienceness at one time.Living the experince of life.I can't prove this is true,but why should I have too?The oracle of Delphi claimed Plato was the wisest man on earth,because Plato knew he really knew nothing for sure!!!!!
Which of us can claim we are certain of anything?????

Characters like Wolverine and the Incredible Hulk aren't physicaly real,but their is a part of them that clicks with us as humans,and their stories live on.Making them almost "more real" and in some respects more important than any of us.In the end,none of us as humans will live forever.We will pass,and so in time will our earth.But maybe their is other life out their that shares the same philosophys' and beliefs we do.That would make our beliefs no longer human,but universal,thus perserving our ideals forever.

Is God real?????
It depends on what your definition of God is.If God is above the laws of science,then he can't be measured by science,and is impossible to prove real or fake.
To me,God is the birth and continuation of that which is conscienceness.IMO,we will never be able to prove whether God exisit or not as a physical or spiritual entity.
kaskd
6/2/08 4:30:13PM
I haven't taken any philosophy classes so i can't use all the right terms and stuff, but for this thread to continue we need to define what we are trying to say exists. An actual being (God, dragon, big foot), or an idea (good, evil, Truth).

If we are talking of an entity, then no matter of my thinking or belief about it effects it's existence. No matter how hard I think Jackelope doesn't exist, or the vice versa, no matter how much i believe Dracula (substite whoever you want here) exists will effect reality.

However, what Jackelope seems to be saying is we have in effect, constructed our own god. Not one of actual being, but one we use to make ourselves comforted. "So, can ideas manifest reality?" A question I think along the lines of:
Because we say there is good, is there really good?
Is there such a thing as evil?
Is there a complete moral truth?

So, I think this thread is going towards the direction not about an actual entity, but our ideas about reality.

I do not currently wish to give my opinion on this topic, because being a Christian I will not be objective. (but you guys can all probably guess what i believe on both topics of discussion)
Rush
6/2/08 5:13:57PM

Posted by Jackelope

So, can ideas manifest reality?



I don't think the ideas themselves manifest reality. i.e. just because you think of something or believe something (I think) doesn't make it so). However, as Jackalope said, if those thoughts must be applied to produce an action that has some impact on history, then I think that the idea itself could manifest the exisitence of something. eg. wars have been waged in the name of various gods and God.

However, an interesting paradox comes to mind. Would anyone argue that religion is real. i.e. it is an actual thing, that can be tough, learned, seen heard, etc. Now, wouldn't it be a kicker if something real was based on something that wasn't real? Is that even possible? So would that make God (or gods) real in the sense that you cannot make something from nothing?

Now, there is another aspect that I don't think has been discussed and that is the concept of believing what is real. For example, we look at the sky and say it is blue. Now, we all know the sky is blue because we were taught that. At some point in time humans defined what blue is. What if someone believed that the same sky was a different colour, yellow. Does that make it so? Some people will say, well you can look at the sky and see that it is blue... is it really blue? The original defintiion of the "blue sky" was defined by humans. So how is that any different than humans defining what God is?

I hate to be cliche, but if a tree falls and nothing is around to hear it, does it make a sound? There will always be no answer to this question. Just like there will never be an answer to the existence of a God (at least in our individual life times)

Now the business with atheists. To reject something means that something must exist, doesn't it? How can you reject something then say it doesn't exist. Yet another paradox.


Posted by mrsmiley

Is God real?????
It depends on what your definition of God is.If God is above the laws of science,then he can't be measured by science,and is impossible to prove real or fake.



IMO, I think it is more important to define what real is, and then determining if God is real or not should be easy. But defining real is another paradox. If you define real as something that can be sensed or measured, then God isn't real, but then define "sensed". Many people claim to see or hear God. Now going back to the beginning. Is an idea real? Can it be sensed by anyone other than the one that has it? So is an idea only real when it is used for something that can be sensed or measured?
breakdown5
6/2/08 9:28:05PM




Now the effect of the concept of god had definitely effected the world drastically, but again that is the concept and not the actual god in question. Because they are seperate entities i have to answer "No." to your last question.





You are on the money here Pookie
Jackelope
6/2/08 10:39:32PM

Posted by kaskd

I haven't taken any philosophy classes so i can't use all the right terms and stuff, but for this thread to continue we need to define what we are trying to say exists. An actual being (God, dragon, big foot), or an idea (good, evil, Truth).

If we are talking of an entity, then no matter of my thinking or belief about it effects it's existence. No matter how hard I think Jackelope doesn't exist, or the vice versa, no matter how much i believe Dracula (substite whoever you want here) exists will effect reality.

However, what Jackelope seems to be saying is we have in effect, constructed our own god. Not one of actual being, but one we use to make ourselves comforted. "So, can ideas manifest reality?" A question I think along the lines of:
Because we say there is good, is there really good?
Is there such a thing as evil?
Is there a complete moral truth?

So, I think this thread is going towards the direction not about an actual entity, but our ideas about reality.

I do not currently wish to give my opinion on this topic, because being a Christian I will not be objective. (but you guys can all probably guess what i believe on both topics of discussion)



Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe it was either Plato or Socrates who asked "What is piety?" Which is essentially one of the most classic philosophy arguments you speak of when you say "Is there such a thing as evil?"

As for the rest of the posters- all arguments about reality aside, try to view the existence we all live as one reality. I don't argue with your beliefs and I side with many of them, but for the sake of argument humor me.

Example- even though we each may live our own "reality" terrorists believing fanatically in Allah has affected this country as a whole. (WTC, mass public fear of terrorist acts) Even though you may not be guilty of fearing terrorist acts those around you may be and it affects your life in manners like the Patriot Act.

Again, I only bring up these examples to point the situation out. I don't wish this to turn into a God vs. absence of God debate or a political one, either. What I'm getting at is seeing how someone else's belief, while not exactly your own, can manifest a reality. Does that validate the existence of his belief? How can you tell someone that their God doesn't exist when clearly it affects your life?

Jackelope
6/2/08 10:51:26PM

Posted by Rush



eg. wars have been waged in the name of various gods and God.



My question to you in reply to this would be- Did those wars manifest gods? Or did gods manifest those wars?

Take an insanely indigenous rain forest tribe for example. Assume they believe in a god named Ggzlue who is made of fire and eats the souls of donkeys. The idea itself seems ridiculous to most of us, and immediately the general public would say "Ggzlue does not exist." They have no effect on our reality in their measely donkey sacrificing village. They're generally ignored and thought of as a completely primitive and utterly meaningless part of this world.

Now, take that same tribe and multiply them by 1,000,000 and give them technology. Say their numbers are 30,000,000. The Ggzlue worshiping tribe goes to war on America (and our Canadian neighbors ) and is quite successful in doing so. Now their God and their meaning in this world is much more prominent. All of the sudden is there some legitimacy to their God? Did their actions, now affecting everyone else's life, make their God exist? Obviously their God who gave the order to go to war and feast upon our donkey's souls has affected our lives now. (assume everyone owns a donkey ) How could we possibly after that display not loan some credibility to the existence of their God?
Rush
6/2/08 11:03:09PM

Posted by Jackelope

Again, I only bring up these examples to point the situation out. I don't wish this to turn into a God vs. absence of God debate or a political one, either. What I'm getting at is seeing how someone else's belief, while not exactly your own, can manifest a reality. Does that validate the existence of his belief? How can you tell someone that their God doesn't exist when clearly it affects your life?





But that is what you were suggesting in your original post. You were talking about the idea of God and asked if an idea can manifest (i.e. prove) reality. I (and I think most people) took that as can the idea of God be proof of God's existence.


Posted by Jackelope

My question to you in reply to this would be- Did those wars manifest gods? Or did gods manifest those wars?



Well that is a chicken or the egg conundrum. However, I will argue that it doesn't matter because either of those cases require a God or gods to "exist"


Posted by Jackelope

All of the sudden is there some legitimacy to their God? Did their actions, now affecting everyone else's life, make their God exist?




Well, this is what I was trying to say about the atheist thing. Can you really be aware of something that doesn't exist and vice versa?
kaskd
6/3/08 4:52:31AM

Posted by Jackelope

Example- even though we each may live our own "reality" terrorists believing fanatically in Allah has affected this country as a whole. (WTC, mass public fear of terrorist acts) Even though you may not be guilty of fearing terrorist acts those around you may be and it affects your life in manners like the Patriot Act.

Again, I only bring up these examples to point the situation out. I don't wish this to turn into a God vs. absence of God debate or a political one, either. What I'm getting at is seeing how someone else's belief, while not exactly your own, can manifest a reality. Does that validate the existence of his belief? How can you tell someone that their God doesn't exist when clearly it affects your life?




Assuming the definition of reality given then i must say no, their God doesn't exist. Now their belief in a God has definitely affected our lives, however that doesn't cause existance. The only way I can think to argue this simply is the intellectual world once believed the earth was flat. It even affected all of our lives at the time. Sailors would not sail to certain areas, we had huge masses of land uncharted etc. So while our actions were dictated by our beliefs our beliefs were not true. Still our beliefs definitely have consequences.

unless we go about the way of _____ is an idea, rather than an entity. Then we open up in a different direction.
KnockDownDragOut
6/3/08 4:34:16PM

Posted by Jackelope

I am definitely one to blame for the other thread getting loose on a tangent, but let's try to get it back on track with a serious discussion this time-

One of the things I always pondered when I was a student of philosophy (several years ago) was whether or not the idea of something manifests it's existence- therefore nullifying any argument that it "does not exist".

A profound example of this is obviously the idea of the Christian God. One can scientifically breakdown all of the "facts" but never prove the existence (or non-existence) of God. Does this mean he doesn't exist? Explore the possibility that God does not exist, but that the idea of God is a very real thing with very significant impact on the world around us. Does that not, in itself, prove the existence of God and legitimize his being?

Imagine one day scientists provided concrete evidence disproving the existence of God. Millions of His followers would descend upon those scientists with claims of shenanigans and claiming God absolutely can not be proven wrong because our fickle minds cannot grasp the divinity of this being that is God. The idea of God would live on (as it has in the face of evolution) and whether scientifically proven to exist or not, the religious zeitgeist (mind of the time) about God would adapt and overcome the scientific obstacles that have disproven what was formally known about their God with clever words and by attributing even more mystical properties to an already mythical figure. In essence, he would live on. Even though it has been proven he does not exist in this hypothetical situation we ponder.

So, can ideas manifest reality?

(As a disclaimer- I don't argue for or against the idea of God. This is merely a hypothetical instance we speak of. Replace "God" with "Dragons" if it suits you. Please view this topic of discussion with a completely objective mindset.)



For me, one of the underlying issues to what you present is personal reality vs. a group mentality. Either way, the scientific community has proved certain things in the past that have eventually been disproved by future generations of scientists, thus changing reality and truth (at least in a scientific sense).

The ideas you present take me to the teachings of Martin Luther and the concept of faith. Having faith in a higher power circumvents those who don't agree with you, or present evidence against it.

More directly to your point, if one endorses science's answers on some things, but rejects it on others, they cross over into making value judgements that they may or may not be educated enough to make. If science were to truly prove that a God did not exist, and people then changed the way that God does exist to overcome the findings of science as you suggest, I would say that they are grasping at straws to protect something that they have held so dear.

Does that make them wrong to do so, to reject science and continue to believe? Not at all. Does it make it reality? It completely depends on your point of view and the authority that you yourself give to the laws/findings of science. By carrying out your beliefs in your reality (or ignorance) however, you can certainly affect others reality by practicing what you hold true ... but that doesn't make your beliefs reality, it would instead make others suffer the consequences, both good and bad, of your perceptions.
Jackelope
6/3/08 7:53:50PM

Posted by Rush




1.) But that is what you were suggesting in your original post. You were talking about the idea of God and asked if an idea can manifest (i.e. prove) reality. I (and I think most people) took that as can the idea of God be proof of God's existence.


2.) Well that is a chicken or the egg conundrum. However, I will argue that it doesn't matter because either of those cases require a God or gods to "exist"



3.) Well, this is what I was trying to say about the atheist thing. Can you really be aware of something that doesn't exist and vice versa?



1.- I only said what I said (that you responded to in this latest post) as a kind of disclaimer to keep the religious hordes from descending upon this thread and turning it into a theological debate.

2.- True, it is definitely a chicken or the egg conundrum and I tried to think of something to differentiate it from that fate, but alas... I'm not smart enough.

3.- I guess we're relegated to the "being aware of an idea" compared to "being aware of something" debate. Perhaps we should simplify the question and break it down quite a bit further. My philosophical intelligence seems to have been tempered by real life experiences and a diminishing imagination over the years. I used to be able to go much further down this philosophical road.

Anyhow, I don't think I can take this down the road it needs to go for fear of people's sensitivity toward religion, etc. I don't wish to offend people, but the question I was eventually getting at is- At what point does belief of an idea turn into the idea being a reality? There are many examples of this the world over. Between Big Foot, The Loch Ness Monster, El Chupacabra, God, Karma, etc. etc. Why, despite physical evidence for any of them, are some accepted on a large level and others are only accepted by few? At what point did ideas become reality, or is it just that the ideas have become so widespread that they have spawned reality?
Pookie
6/3/08 8:10:04PM

Posted by Jackelope
...or is it just that the ideas have become so widespread that they have spawned reality?



This is what i believe. Whether it is god's will to make monthiestic religions so widespread is up to debate, but at its core i agree with this concept.
Rush
6/3/08 9:47:24PM

Posted by Jackelope

Anyhow, I don't think I can take this down the road it needs to go for fear of people's sensitivity toward religion, etc.



Well, I don't think it has come close to that line, yet. I thought it was a good discussion.
Jackelope
6/3/08 11:00:51PM

Posted by Rush


Posted by Jackelope

Anyhow, I don't think I can take this down the road it needs to go for fear of people's sensitivity toward religion, etc.



Well, I don't think it has come close to that line, yet. I thought it was a good discussion.



Well for what it's worth my opinion on the matter seems to be that ideas can manifest reality. I think it's quite obvious in the world around us. Whether that's a fault or something positive about humans I'm not quite sure. Since it leads to roads of discovery I guess it's good, but one can't help but look at the negative effects of ideas manifesting reality. Salem witch trials, for example. The belief of witches became so widespread that innocent women were burned at the stake for it.
ncordless
6/4/08 8:57:22PM

Posted by Jackelope


Posted by Rush


Posted by Jackelope

Anyhow, I don't think I can take this down the road it needs to go for fear of people's sensitivity toward religion, etc.



Well, I don't think it has come close to that line, yet. I thought it was a good discussion.



Well for what it's worth my opinion on the matter seems to be that ideas can manifest reality. I think it's quite obvious in the world around us. Whether that's a fault or something positive about humans I'm not quite sure. Since it leads to roads of discovery I guess it's good, but one can't help but look at the negative effects of ideas manifesting reality. Salem witch trials, for example. The belief of witches became so widespread that innocent women were burned at the stake for it.



With your example of the witch trial... yes consequences happened because of a misplaced belief. But for the idea to manifest the reality, the women burned would have actually had to have been witches.
Jackelope
6/4/08 9:15:48PM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by Jackelope


Posted by Rush


Posted by Jackelope

Anyhow, I don't think I can take this down the road it needs to go for fear of people's sensitivity toward religion, etc.



Well, I don't think it has come close to that line, yet. I thought it was a good discussion.



Well for what it's worth my opinion on the matter seems to be that ideas can manifest reality. I think it's quite obvious in the world around us. Whether that's a fault or something positive about humans I'm not quite sure. Since it leads to roads of discovery I guess it's good, but one can't help but look at the negative effects of ideas manifesting reality. Salem witch trials, for example. The belief of witches became so widespread that innocent women were burned at the stake for it.



With your example of the witch trial... yes consequences happened because of a misplaced belief. But for the idea to manifest the reality, the women burned would have actually had to have been witches.



Not exactly true. You see, the people's beliefs in witches manifested a "reality" to the world around them of those women being witches. Henceforth, the people killed them. So while they may not have actually been witches, the belief was widespread enough to make them so. Otherwise they'd have been found innocent and never been burned
89vision
6/4/08 9:39:55PM
There is so much proof against all religions and there hypocrisies its ridiculous really that people in this day and age still believe in such fairy tales (to be blunt) we are still indeed still in the dark ages if people seriously believe in things that were written thousands of years ago by people didnt even know that the earth was round or that we revolved around the sun and we are not the center of one universe but a collection of galaxies in a endless array of universes or that microorganisms make you sick and ill not some false scourge from a mythical creature, really anyone with rational and unbias thought can come up with the conclusion that evolution is the way of things and nothing in this particular universe lasts forever, eventually the black hole era will come, then that era dies into the black era

I am a science buff and study cosmology and astronomy and have for many years the most exciting and most proof we have against religions are the missing link found in 2004, a fishlike mammal creature that proves without a shred of doubt that we evolved from animals who evolved from oceanic creatures who evolved from microorganisms who evolved from radioactive matter, dust and energy in space

You can believe whatever gets you to sleep at night but at the end of the day we come one step closer to finding out the total truth of our existence and it would be a shame if religions ruined it, for example religious fundamentalists in the middle east wage biological warfare killing most people on earth, pretty much ending millions of years of human evolution, religions hurt more than they help to be brutally honest, theyve caused war in every era of recorded human history

The bible and other religous texts have so many contridictions, flaws, and has been changed and manipulated so much that its a shock that people 2000 years later still believe in them, especially 1st world countries who should know better, also all "religious experiences" are linked to schizophrenia or other mental disorders

I'll give most or all religions another 40 years then theyll be all but gone, just because of technological advancements and the gained wisdoms we will have, you also have to take into account people didnt have access to info even 500+ years ago, even 50 years ago, they just blindly followed religions without knowing much about science or evolution or they were prosecuted, tortured and killed because they didnt believe the religion of region or choice

good riddance to mythology
Rush
6/5/08 12:00:25AM

Posted by 89vision

I'll give most or all religions another 40 years then theyll be all but gone, just because of technological advancements and the gained wisdoms we will have, you also have to take into account people didnt have access to info even 500+ years ago, even 50 years ago, they just blindly followed religions without knowing much about science or evolution or they were prosecuted, tortured and killed because they didnt believe the religion of region or choice




Well, I guess I spoke too soon.

I could comment a lot on your posts, but I'll focus on this part. So you think religion will be gone in 40 years? I highly doubt it. I'll bet my money on a large proportion of world's population being wiped out by war or famine before religions are extinct. Putting all the "science" aside for a moment because most of what people claim as evidence against religous teachings is based on the same principles of faith as religion itself. That is, many people follow scientific theories and reports, blindly, without knowing anything about it. I have an extended debate about this in another thread from long ago.

Why do we invoke Darwin?

Going back to why I think religions will be around for quite some time, because faith offers many people something that science does not. A sense of solace and hope in times of great distress. People pray for help, health and hope. I'm sure even a number of self-proclaimed atheists have prayed at some point. Yet, I have never heard of anyone "praying" for science to save them.

My prediction is that the world will eventually come to the point where science no longer has the answer to our problems and people will turn to their faith. BTW, I am a scientist.

I will say I never understood why people feel threatened by one of either science or religion/faith. Maybe I am more arrogant than sensitive, I don't know.
89vision
6/5/08 1:11:07PM

Posted by Rush


Posted by 89vision

I'll give most or all religions another 40 years then theyll be all but gone, just because of technological advancements and the gained wisdoms we will have, you also have to take into account people didnt have access to info even 500+ years ago, even 50 years ago, they just blindly followed religions without knowing much about science or evolution or they were prosecuted, tortured and killed because they didnt believe the religion of region or choice




Well, I guess I spoke too soon.

I could comment a lot on your posts, but I'll focus on this part. So you think religion will be gone in 40 years? I highly doubt it. I'll bet my money on a large proportion of world's population being wiped out by war or famine before religions are extinct. Putting all the "science" aside for a moment because most of what people claim as evidence against religous teachings is based on the same principles of faith as religion itself. That is, many people follow scientific theories and reports, blindly, without knowing anything about it. I have an extended debate about this in another thread from long ago.

Why do we invoke Darwin?

Going back to why I think religions will be around for quite some time, because faith offers many people something that science does not. A sense of solace and hope in times of great distress. People pray for help, health and hope. I'm sure even a number of self-proclaimed atheists have prayed at some point. Yet, I have never heard of anyone "praying" for science to save them.

My prediction is that the world will eventually come to the point where science no longer has the answer to our problems and people will turn to their faith. BTW, I am a scientist.

I will say I never understood why people feel threatened by one of either science or religion/faith. Maybe I am more arrogant than sensitive, I don't know.



that same war and famine that would kill everyone would be largely faulted on religions, famine would happen if we destroyed the atmosphere or the population got out of control (which it is) and people wont get abortions because of there b/s beliefs, and the wars would happen because of religious differences, just like any war, look at the crusades the christians thought there were doing [insert god(s) of choice] work by going around eurasia torturing, killing and even eating people and thats what "their god wanted"

you should read into futurism, its highly doubtful that most religions will still be around (if we are even around) 40-60 years from now technology will rule the world, and as we go further into the future more people begin to realize that religons are b/s, but to be more realistic 100-120 years and they will all be gone via universal understanding and overall advancements, like i said the tales of the past get people to sleep at night but at what cost, like the crusades if you look at history it has shown that they destroy far more than they help, even in recent history, and you should feel threatened by peoples religions, theres people out there that want you dead because your not a believer in there deity or you believe some other god or you believe in nothing, whichever

in a study taken in 1940, 99% of people believed in some form of religions as there guide 1% not believing in nothing, the same study done in 1960, 97% of the world believed in a religion while 3% didnt, same study taken in 1980, 93% of the world believes in a religions while 7% dont, same study taken in 2000, 86% of people still believe in a religion while 14% dont

thats a drastic fall in faith, maybe they wont all be gone that soon but i didnt say all of them would be gone, i said most of them would be gone, that is if people havnt destroyed themselves through mindless religious wars like they have in the entire human history PS: i want science to save people from ignorance (dosnt count as praying i guess)

i wish you would have read or answered more than one paragraph, but by the sound of it you dont agree and or religious, so whatever ya know
Rush
6/5/08 1:28:34PM

Posted by 89vision

that same war and famine that would kill everyone would be largely faulted on religions, famine would happen if we destroyed the atmosphere or the population got out of control (which it is) and people wont get abortions because of there b/s beliefs, and the wars would happen because of religious differences, just like any war, look at the crusades the christians thought there were doing [insert god(s) of choice] work by going around eurasia torturing, killing and even eating people and thats what "their god wanted"

...

in a study taken in 1940, 99% of people believed in some form of religions as there guide 1% not believing in nothing, the same study done in 1960, 97% of the world believed in a religion while 3% didnt, same study taken in 1980, 93% of the world believes in a religions while 7% dont, same study taken in 2000, 86% of people still believe in a religion while 14% dont




If you ask many people today, they would probably say that wars are being fought for political and economic reasons. Science has also given us more efficient ways to kill each other. I would also like to mention that the majority of the people that say they do not believe in faith/religion are probably from countries where they have a roof over their head and three square meals a day. I do agree that poor countries are lacking in education overall, but I also want to point out that people's priorities in life change depending on their situation. I agree that many historical wars are waged in the name of religious beliefs, but to compare that to science, a concept that has played a more minor role than religion over much of the course of history, is not fair comparison. Religious doctrine has also evolved over the centuries and like science, will continue to evolve.

As to your second point, this is exactly what I was talking about people just believing what they read. Statistics are the worst thing to quote unless you are prepared to go into the mathematical details of those studies. I'm not saying this to outright rebuke your statement, but I am aware of how statistics can be manipulated or misquoted.

What are the sample sizes and statistical significance of those numbers? What are the demographics of the people used in the study? What are the definitions of religious and not religious in the study? etc. All these can have a profound effect on the numbers observed in a statistical report. Another aspect of the study (which you quoted) is this is represented as "the world" which I highly doubt it is.

Unless you can reference the actual published study, I will have to take those numbers with a big grain of salt.


As to why I didn't respond to the rest of your post; most of what I would have said is more or less summarized in the thread I quoted.

Both science and faith/religion serve different purposes in life and I don't understand why people can't seem to get that.
89vision
6/5/08 1:37:33PM
guess i was wasting my breath in here, i'll just leave the religion topic as to not get into heated arguments
40ouncetofreedom
6/5/08 3:42:41PM
Darwin Married his cousin...Gross
ncordless
6/5/08 5:52:53PM

Posted by Jackelope


Posted by ncordless


Posted by Jackelope


Posted by Rush


Posted by Jackelope

Anyhow, I don't think I can take this down the road it needs to go for fear of people's sensitivity toward religion, etc.



Well, I don't think it has come close to that line, yet. I thought it was a good discussion.



Well for what it's worth my opinion on the matter seems to be that ideas can manifest reality. I think it's quite obvious in the world around us. Whether that's a fault or something positive about humans I'm not quite sure. Since it leads to roads of discovery I guess it's good, but one can't help but look at the negative effects of ideas manifesting reality. Salem witch trials, for example. The belief of witches became so widespread that innocent women were burned at the stake for it.



With your example of the witch trial... yes consequences happened because of a misplaced belief. But for the idea to manifest the reality, the women burned would have actually had to have been witches.



Not exactly true. You see, the people's beliefs in witches manifested a "reality" to the world around them of those women being witches. Henceforth, the people killed them. So while they may not have actually been witches, the belief was widespread enough to make them so. Otherwise they'd have been found innocent and never been burned



So if an innocent man is found guilty.... that means that he really was guilty?
Jackelope
6/5/08 7:15:50PM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by Jackelope


Posted by ncordless


Posted by Jackelope


Posted by Rush


Posted by Jackelope

Anyhow, I don't think I can take this down the road it needs to go for fear of people's sensitivity toward religion, etc.



Well, I don't think it has come close to that line, yet. I thought it was a good discussion.



Well for what it's worth my opinion on the matter seems to be that ideas can manifest reality. I think it's quite obvious in the world around us. Whether that's a fault or something positive about humans I'm not quite sure. Since it leads to roads of discovery I guess it's good, but one can't help but look at the negative effects of ideas manifesting reality. Salem witch trials, for example. The belief of witches became so widespread that innocent women were burned at the stake for it.



With your example of the witch trial... yes consequences happened because of a misplaced belief. But for the idea to manifest the reality, the women burned would have actually had to have been witches.



Not exactly true. You see, the people's beliefs in witches manifested a "reality" to the world around them of those women being witches. Henceforth, the people killed them. So while they may not have actually been witches, the belief was widespread enough to make them so. Otherwise they'd have been found innocent and never been burned



So if an innocent man is found guilty.... that means that he really was guilty?



I see the way you're trying to argue this and it's not congruent to the conversation being had. Remember, we're trying to discern whether or not ideas can become reality. You're viewing the situation as a modern enlightened observer of past events, not as a person in that time frame.

The discussion we're having is about current ideas making a modern reality. During the Salem witch trials the idea of witches was so widespread that in that time frame witches were a reality. Innocent women died because an idea became so widespread that it was believed to be reality. They were put to a trial of their peers, and so "real" was the belief of witches existing that the trial of their peers determined they were witches. Take the conversation in the proper context and you'll see what I mean.


As for how that applies to today- we're attempting to get there. At least I thought we were.
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics