Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

what

3 (9.4%)

yes

4 (12.5%)

no

6 (18.8%)

maybe

2 (6.3%)

how much sleep have you had?

11 (34.4%)

Actually, she has an _Iris oratoria_ mask.

3 (9.4%)

other

0 (0%)

Sven, drink more spathe ham.

3 (9.4%)

Total Members Voted: 32

[Tova]

'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.

Gyrre, I think I can comprehend your frustration at apparently being misunderstood, but perhaps it's worth thinking about how those misapprehensions came about?

Just as a reminder, it was you yourself that introduced this very topic within the context of religious faith (bolding is mine):

Just want to reiterate my point about people who treat science like a religion. A lot of them do the 'I'm better than you because I believe in science' schtick. That's not what science is for or about.

Science helps us better understand the world around us and --when applied well-- helps improves our lives to some degree in some facet. It is a tool for understanding, not a scale for judging others.

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, postulates, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

It's unclear what you were comparing with when you said "the difference", but it's easy to interpret this as comparing science to religion.

Also, I personally found your point confusing because you attacked people "who treat science like religion" in your first paragraph above, then proceeded to do so yourself in the third. As far as I can tell, at least. That's a little perplexing. The only way I can parse this that makes sense is that you are posting all this in an attempt to defend religion -- which is fine, but it's not entirely clear.

I agree with Mori - the whole "science is just like religion" thing is tiresome.

I guess you're having trouble expressing the essence of the video that you link? In my experience, when I am having that kind of trouble, it's because I haven't internalised what it's saying as well as I thought I had.

[Is it cold in here?]

People's ideas about science are contaminated by poor education that presents science as a body of dogma rather than a means to advance against the unknown, going to far as to completely suppress obvious questions when there isn't a ready-made answer.

It drove me up the wall as a child to read about lightning storms and get complete silence about how that charge separation even happened. (I believe nobody knows and it is contemptible for a science lesson not to acknowledge it.)

An honorable exception is the visitors center at the Green Bank observatory. The exhibits consistently say what the open questions are.

[dawolf]

How would "putting a design on a body part" be cultural appropriation? Clinton has a robot hand: he can design it however he wants.

[Farideh]

Good comment, but you might want to put it in the correct WCDT https://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,34821.0.html

[Gyrre]

'Faith' as in 'I accept this as it's presented', not as in 'religious faith'.

Gyrre, I think I can comprehend your frustration at apparently being misunderstood, but perhaps it's worth thinking about how those misapprehensions came about?

Just as a reminder, it was you yourself that introduced this very topic within the context of religious faith (bolding is mine):

Just want to reiterate my point about people who treat science like a religion. A lot of them do the 'I'm better than you because I believe in science' schtick. That's not what science is for or about.

Science helps us better understand the world around us and --when applied well-- helps improves our lives to some degree in some facet. It is a tool for understanding, not a scale for judging others.

All sciences have their foundation in faith [imperical evidence, postulates, and 1+1=2]. The difference is that science uses faith as a starting point .

It's unclear what you were comparing with when you said "the difference", but it's easy to interpret this as comparing science to religion.

Also, I personally found your point confusing because you attacked people "who treat science like religion" in your first paragraph above, then proceeded to do so yourself in the third. As far as I can tell, at least. That's a little perplexing. The only way I can parse this that makes sense is that you are posting all this in an attempt to defend religion -- which is fine, but it's not entirely clear.

I agree with Mori - the whole "science is just like religion" thing is tiresome.

I guess you're having trouble expressing the essence of the video that you link? In my experience, when I am having that kind of trouble, it's because I haven't internalised what it's saying as well as I thought I had.

Sorry for the miscommunication. That is indeed why I posted the video with the request to watch it. I knew I wasn't in the right headspace to explain myself.
Science and religion are apples and oranges. But, as Is it cold in here? puts it, there's a bunch of dipshits[1] who get how each works pretty muddled thanks in part to our craptastic American education system (I won't speak for the UK).

People's ideas about science are contaminated by poor education that presents science as a body of dogma rather than a means to advance against the unknown, going to far as to completely suppress obvious questions when there isn't a ready-made answer.

It drove me up the wall as a child to read about lightning storms and get complete silence about how that charge separation even happened. (I believe nobody knows and it is contemptible for a science lesson not to acknowledge it.)

An honorable exception is the visitors center at the Green Bank observatory. The exhibits consistently say what the open questions are.

I'm honestly so just ready for a vacation at work. Thankfully we're FINALLY properly staffed on my shift and it's not just me and one (if we're lucky 2) techs and the night shift supervisor doing everything that a dayshift with 9 people on it whinging about being "shorthanded" and doing fuckall when it comes to their share of the same duties I have on my shift. I'm honestly on the verge of quitting.


[1]That's the nicest way I can put that. I've been dealing with seemingly more and more of them over the course of the last year and it makes me wish I could deck them through their computers.

[Morituri]

For what it's worth, I've always seen Science and Religion as being about different things, and the so-called 'conflict' between them mostly a symptom of people who want to consider them to be about the same thing and subsequently misapply one or both.  Science is about the world and causality, and Religion is about values and volition.

Or, Science can help us figure out how to achieve what we value, and Religion can help us determine what it is that we value.

Neither practice considers those things to be their primary purpose - scientists are conducting pure inquiry about how the universe works, and religion is about philosophy, or devotion, or teaching, or stories to demonstrate exemplars of, a set of values and beliefs, in an effort to align us with greater purpose.  But those two things - how to achieve what we value and determining what it is that we value - are questions that firmly belong to one and not the other.

Pure logic is the most powerful tool of science, but will never give anyone any reason to do or refuse to do anything.  Logic may tell you that you will starve to death if you don't eat, or that if you put a bullet through someone's heart they will die, but there is no logic that says life has intrinsic value.  You have to accept the idea that life has value - an idea taught in almost all religious practice - before logical reasoning from that point will tell you that you should not do those things.

[Is it cold in here?]

There might be a fascinating DISCUSS thread if this continues.

I'll just mention an overlap between science and religion. Nobel laureate Abdus Salam said his work in theoretical physics was motivated by his Muslim piety. He took very seriously a Quran verse commanding believers to reflect on the wonders of God's creation.

[Wingy]

Logic may tell you that you will starve to death if you don't eat, or that if you put a bullet through someone's heart they will die, but there is no logic that says life has intrinsic value.  You have to accept the idea that life has value - an idea taught in almost all religious practice - before logical reasoning from that point will tell you that you should not do those things.

I think logic would suggest that final, unrecallable actions, taken against others, that you wouldn't want taken against yourself, are logically undesirable.  But that leads us right into ethics and the genesis of both logic and ethics.

[Ravenswing]

I love getting lost in yarn stores. So much to see and touch!

Heh, just happening to live in Northampton, and my wife being an avid knitter, I've been in the yarn store they're talking about: it's about five minutes walk from my apartment.  WEBS is about the size of a FOOTBALL FIELD.

[Ravenswing]

I think she must’ve been at the WEBS yarn store in Northampton, or the in-universe equivalent. I’ve never been there, but I hear it’s huge.

It really, really is.

[Gyrre]

For what it's worth, I've always seen Science and Religion as being about different things, and the so-called 'conflict' between them mostly a symptom of people who want to consider them to be about the same thing and subsequently misapply one or both.  Science is about the world and causality, and Religion is about values and volition.

Or, Science can help us figure out how to achieve what we value, and Religion can help us determine what it is that we value.

Neither practice considers those things to be their primary purpose - scientists are conducting pure inquiry about how the universe works, and religion is about philosophy, or devotion, or teaching, or stories to demonstrate exemplars of, a set of values and beliefs, in an effort to align us with greater purpose.  But those two things - how to achieve what we value and determining what it is that we value - are questions that firmly belong to one and not the other.

Pure logic is the most powerful tool of science, but will never give anyone any reason to do or refuse to do anything.  Logic may tell you that you will starve to death if you don't eat, or that if you put a bullet through someone's heart they will die, but there is no logic that says life has intrinsic value.  You have to accept the idea that life has value - an idea taught in almost all religious practice - before logical reasoning from that point will tell you that you should not do those things.

That's how it should be.

Sadly, the greedy and the power-hungry have a long history of tainting both.

EDIT: typo fixing and slight rephrasing