If Darwin was correct

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Urban ranger,

OK, you know communism. How about Christianity, Islam, Buddaism, Taoism, Confucious, Voodoo?

Until you don't fully understand voodoo, it is the truth of life. How about that?

You can critizise those religions, without knowing them,
if your have knowledge of fundamental scientific theories and
people adhering to those religions try to interfere with these scientific theories,
i.e. if they try to say
"Those scientific theories (like the Theory of Evolution) are false, because the *name of holy skript or religious leader* says so"

and woithout giving scientific valid reasons, why their books must be correct and the scientific theory false.

[Xin Yu]

Boris,

I second your idea of 'mathematics is not science'. However when a student graduates from the math department, he/she gets a bachelor in science (BS) degree. That is totally unacceptable! We should let them change it to Bachelor of Mathematics. Do you agree?

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

people adhering to those religions try to interfere with these scientific theories,

OK. But that could be caused by misunderstanding of the religions (God's words were often misinterpreted by human, you know.) So you still have to understand the religion to make sure they interpreted it right. Then you can criticize the religion.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


OK. But that could be caused by misunderstanding of the religions (God's words were often misinterpreted by human, you know.) So you still have to understand the religion to make sure they interpreted it right. Then you can criticize the religion.

Of course,
you can only criticize those people who understand their religions this way.

In the case of christian Creationists vs. Evolution you can only criticize the Biblethumpers (who are btw. a minority) who believe that every word of their Bible Translation is literal true (and try to stop the Theory of Evolution from being taught at school),
whereas there is no reason to critizise all other christians
(who think that the Bible needs interpretation and don´t try to condemn the Theory of Evolution ).

[trev]

I second your idea of 'mathematics is not science'. However when a student graduates from the math department, he/she gets a bachelor in science (BS) degree. That is totally unacceptable! We should let them change it to Bachelor of Mathematics. Do you agree?

You are getting into dangerous territory with ideas like this because most modern science is only a mathematical interpretation of experimental data, eg quantum science, quarks etc. If mathematics becomes non science, will all theories based on it become non science too.

[Whaleboy]

You are getting into dangerous territory with ideas like this because most modern science is only a mathematical interpretation of experimental data, eg quantum science, quarks etc. If mathematics becomes non science, will all theories based on it become non science too.

Science is applied mathematics, theoretical mathematics is not applied mathematics, but yours is a hollow distinction.

Until you don't fully understand voodoo, it is the truth of life. How about that?

Ignorance fallacy, one would suppose a subjective sense of Schrodingers cat would apply, but again since this is just a subjective thing for UR (or any given subject) it makes no sense to bring it into the discussion.

Perhaps when God looks at you he sees himself.
One day you may be able to look at God and see our own reflection.

I think you're retreating somewhere tha only those who have faith can follow, you need to establish these notions to proceed and thus far you haven't.

Are you aware of anything other than your own subjective consciousness?
If not - therein exists a singularity in the universe.

You do know how singularities work right? Cogito ergo sum -> solisism only works when using solely deductive reasoning, you can induce the existence of others, hence the debate between rationalism and empiricism, but that one might choose empiricism does not render cogito ergo sum false.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by trev

You are getting into dangerous territory with ideas like this because most modern science is only a mathematical interpretation of experimental data, eg quantum science, quarks etc. If mathematics becomes non science, will all theories based on it become non science too.

Humm... that looks like a valid concern. However economics also uses mathematical interpretation of data (not experimental but real-world ones, like stock prices). So economics and other social sciences are also science? Boris your argument is shaken

[Whaleboy]

that looks like a valid concern.

Nein.

[Xin Yu]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Science is applied mathematics

Statistics should be science ... Boris, I was right, the method for the Nobel prize winning paper was statistics, so it was scientific.

[Whaleboy]

Statistics should be science

And since when was statistics not applied mathematics?

[Xin Yu]

Whaleboy, I was with you. I agreed that statistics (a branch of applied mathematics) was science, and use this to respond to Boris' argument against my previous posts.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Xin Yu


OK. But that could be caused by misunderstanding of the religions (God's words were often misinterpreted by human, you know.) So you still have to understand the religion to make sure they interpreted it right. Then you can criticize the religion.

How do you know that gods words are misinterpreted ? You can't be sure that any of the existing scriptures in the worlds different religions really are the expression of a gods words. You only know that some people may have written some books and claims that they are the words of god. Since there are so many different versions, how do you know wich one is the true one ? Is it that one with most followers ? the one with the biggest organisation ? or are it really that one told by a medicine man in an obscure corner of the Amazon jungle ?

Religious people has often told me that if you pray and give yourself in, then the truth will come to you and you will know who god is, but that goes for all kind of religions, so there are no help in that to decide wich religion is representing the true god. For example that sect in japan who let poison gases out in the subways, they had given themselves in, prayed a lot and were certain that it was god that told them to do it - of course through the interpretations of the gods chosen this case : Shoko Asahara). How do I really know that "the chosen one" really speech on behalf of the true god when prayers etc. tell me he is the right one bot others think that they have same experience with other who are speaking the word of god ?

You may claim that Asahara was a false prophet, but how do I know for certain ? Just like the early christians he may just be misinterpreted by the current regime and are really a true prophet. Some may claim that there are a big difference in credability, but why ? How do we know what kind of people the authors of the new testament are ? Actually we don't know. 2000 years of strict control with evidence about them is more than enough to get rid of any kind of compromising proofs.

In my opinion, religion was in the early history of humankind a tool to explain what happened when the nearby tree was split in two by a lightning; later it became a common point for a group or society, just as specific tags are for todays urban gangs. This goes on for a long period until we get to more modern ages. No, not the last ten years - the last 2000 years. In the early period of this, people (ceartainly not all !!!) has concluded through different observations that the old explanatory background for religion isn't valid for treesplitting, but still are for the reason of bare existence. Further, there could be people dissatisfied with the current situation, and what would be more natural for them than to invent a religious story that expressed their belief in how society should be organized. They would certainly been full aware of the powers if they claimed that it was the words of a god, so it's absolutely reasonable that they build a scheme to promote their social beliefs upon this.

The bottom line is that despite many claims, nobody really knows what is the real words of god; noone knows which god is the real; and noone knows if god really exist.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
OK, you know communism. How about Christianity, Islam, Buddaism, Taoism, Confucious, Voodoo?

How about yes, no, some, yes, yes, no?

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Until you don't fully understand voodoo, it is the truth of life. How about that?

How about no?

As I pointed out before, you either accept all unsupported assertions as true until proven otherwise, or reject them until you see evidence.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by trev
You are getting into dangerous territory with ideas like this because most modern science is only a mathematical interpretation of experimental data, eg quantum science, quarks etc. If mathematics becomes non science, will all theories based on it become non science too.

No. The main reason why mathematics is not a science is it cannot be falsified. Another reason why it's not a science because it doesn't study anything in this universe, not anymore. It's about abstract qualities.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Xin Yu
Statistics should be science ... Boris, I was right, the method for the Nobel prize winning paper was statistics, so it was scientific.

Statistics is just a tool. Ever heard of the phrase "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics?"