Good article about the human mind, science, religion blah, blah | Vital Forums

Good article about the human mind, science, religion blah, blah

G

Guest

Guest
#1
Just came across it and thought is deserves a share.(if anyone is interested)...

Here's the final words in the article(but its worth reading all)

The practical side is that all modern public administration rests upon the superstition of a naturalist science fully explaining human action, which in turn can be manipulated by government experts to provide for society’s welfare. Until we develop a more sophisticated idea than this simplistic materialism in trying to explain our complex human social, economic and political life we can expect the same “flabbergasted” results. Greenspan has learned too late but perhaps there is still time for the rest of us.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/11/04/can-we-finally-retire-scientific-superstition/
 
#3
Well, where to start?

First, the article claims that nobody predicted the 2008 Market crash. That just isn't correct. Many warned it was coming, yet they were ignored.

Next, Meyer's book "Darwins Doubt" is used as evidence, yet we have already comprehensively dismissed this as incorrect in other threads. This brings into question the Authors knowledge on the subject.

Next, the term "Junk DNA" is used, which is a massive error. This term is never used in Modern Science by Scientists, and is very much frowned upon. Again, does the Author know enough of what he talks about?

I haven't the time to look at the rest, but no doubt it all comes from a supposition that God exists, as the Author is biased before he starts in this direction. Science doesn't rely on Materialism, just look at Quantum Mechanics, so the whole basis of the article is at fault anyway.
 

BBJ

Vital Champions League
#6
The Fear - 5/11/2013 09:41

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 5/11/2013 09:27

comes from a supposition that God exists,
never in doubt surely? Don't tell me there are non believers out there?
I hate to break it to your gentle guileless self - but, yes, there are unbelievers out there. The good news is that they'll eventually get their come-uppance. :10:
 
#7
I don't get the God vs science debate. If you understand what science is saying and you understand how to read scripture then there is no conflict. Individual aspects can throw up questions but surely that is just healthy and encourages scepticism in both arenas.

I do get that some struggle to either see the need for or recognise the hand of God in the world and I respect this 100%. Sadly the same can not always be said for those on the other side of the proverbial fence. There is an old expression that says that there will never be peace on earth until the last politician is strangled with the guts of the last priest, this might be about right but it begs the question, is the priest or the politician at fault or are they just a convenient target without whom others would have nothing to complain about?
 
#8
Villan Of The North - 5/11/2013 12:31

I don't get the God vs science debate. If you understand what science is saying and you understand how to read scripture then there is no conflict. Individual aspects can throw up questions but surely that is just healthy and encourages scepticism in both arenas.

I do get that some struggle to either see the need for or recognise the hand of God in the world and I respect this 100%. Sadly the same can not always be said for those on the other side of the proverbial fence. There is an old expression that says that there will never be peace on earth until the last politician is strangled with the guts of the last priest, this might be about right but it begs the question, is the priest or the politician at fault or are they just a convenient target without whom others would have nothing to complain about?
I'd be far more relaxed about the Science vs Religion debate if their wasn't such a large number of fanatics trying to replace Science with their Scripture.

I agree, both should be able to live together, and many Scientists do this without any problem. However, any attempt to do away with the teaching of sound scientific principals, and replace them with Myth and Legend has to be fought at every turn.
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#10
Villan Of The North - 5/11/2013 12:31

I don't get the God vs science debate. If you understand what science is saying and you understand how to read scripture then there is no conflict. Individual aspects can throw up questions but surely that is just healthy and encourages scepticism in both arenas.

I do get that some struggle to either see the need for or recognise the hand of God in the world and I respect this 100%. Sadly the same can not always be said for those on the other side of the proverbial fence. There is an old expression that says that there will never be peace on earth until the last politician is strangled with the guts of the last priest, this might be about right but it begs the question, is the priest or the politician at fault or are they just a convenient target without whom others would have nothing to complain about?
:1: :1: :1: :1:
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#11
Villan Of The North - 5/11/2013 12:31

I don't get the God vs science debate. If you understand what science is saying and you understand how to read scripture then there is no conflict. Individual aspects can throw up questions but surely that is just healthy and encourages scepticism in both arenas.

I do get that some struggle to either see the need for or recognise the hand of God in the world and I respect this 100%. Sadly the same can not always be said for those on the other side of the proverbial fence. There is an old expression that says that there will never be peace on earth until the last politician is strangled with the guts of the last priest, this might be about right but it begs the question, is the priest or the politician at fault or are they just a convenient target without whom others would have nothing to complain about?
:1: :1: :1: :1:
 
G

Guest

Guest
#12
JamTomorrow - 5/11/2013 16:18


Fairy tales are for children.
Well said...

Like the closing message on the article linked above;

"Until we develop a more sophisticated idea than this simplistic materialism in trying to explain our complex human social, economic and political life we can expect the same “flabbergasted” results."

But for some reason we have to keep on feeding our kids with crap science. Its bad enough the one side saying "they shouldnt teach religion"...But to cop it off by teaching crap science - is this the answer?

I suppose humanity has to be brainwashed in some way or another, so it seems!
 
#15
Wurzel - 5/11/2013 18:21

Here we go again...........
Yep. Fun, isn't it???

People do know that Science does not build facts? It builds models, ideas concepts and theories, not facts. The idea of a “fact” leads to confusion and misunderstanding. We can only understand and predict how the World around us operates by performing simulations in our mind.

All of our ideas, models and concepts – the building blocks of these simulations – are nothing but tools. These tools have utility in that they generate insight. Our scientifically generated models give us simple rules that can also predict what else is out there, and how the world around us works

Would anyone care to theorise where we would be without this process? Certainly not typing away here on a Keyboard for all you good people to read. :18:
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#16
HeathfieldRoad1874 - 5/11/2013 18:50

Wurzel - 5/11/2013 18:21

Here we go again...........
Yep. Fun, isn't it???

People do know that Science does not build facts? It builds models, ideas concepts and theories, not facts. The idea of a “fact” leads to confusion and misunderstanding. We can only understand and predict how the World around us operates by performing simulations in our mind.

All of our ideas, models and concepts – the building blocks of these simulations – are nothing but tools. These tools have utility in that they generate insight. Our scientifically generated models give us simple rules that can also predict what else is out there, and how the world around us works

Would anyone care to theorise where we would be without this process? Certainly not typing away here on a Keyboard for all you good people to read. :18:

:1: :1: :1: :1: :1: for you to Heath :14:

You can't have 1 without the other IMHO, either way round
 
#17
kefkat - 5/11/2013 18:57

HeathfieldRoad1874 - 5/11/2013 18:50

Wurzel - 5/11/2013 18:21

Here we go again...........
Yep. Fun, isn't it???

People do know that Science does not build facts? It builds models, ideas concepts and theories, not facts. The idea of a “fact” leads to confusion and misunderstanding. We can only understand and predict how the World around us operates by performing simulations in our mind.

All of our ideas, models and concepts – the building blocks of these simulations – are nothing but tools. These tools have utility in that they generate insight. Our scientifically generated models give us simple rules that can also predict what else is out there, and how the world around us works

Would anyone care to theorise where we would be without this process? Certainly not typing away here on a Keyboard for all you good people to read. :18:

:1: :1: :1: :1: :1: for you to Heath :14:

You can't have 1 without the other IMHO, either way round
VOTN got two lots of :1: :1: :1: :1: :1: :1: :1: . I only got one. I'm off to sulk now!!!!!!!
 
G

Guest

Guest
#18
Our scientifically generated models give us simple rules that can also predict what else is out there, and how the world around us works
---------
Unless its stuck in a flawed system ruled by government funding...Like the medical authorities or food nutritionists. Link below, to open the thought process of such.

"Nowhere is this fact more evident than the field’s inability to answer one simple question: What should we eat?"

The responsibility for this unfortunate state of affairs rests squarely on the leaders of nutrition research. Rather than training graduate students in the scientific method, and allowing their research to serve the needs of society, the field’s leaders choose to train their mentees to serve only their own professional needs—namely, to obtain grant funding and publish their research. I have experienced these practices myself as I transitioned from student to graduate research assistant to research fellow, and colleagues continue to emphasize that this is how it must be, lest they fail to get funding and ‘feed’ their graduate students and families. But by not training mentees in the basics of science and skepticism, the nutrition field has fostered the use of measures that are so profoundly dissonant with scientific principles that they will never yield a definitive conclusion. As such, we now have multiple generations of nutrition researchers who dominate federal nutrition research and the peer review of that work, but lack the critical thinking skills necessary to critique or conduct sound scientific research.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37918/title/Opinion--A-Wolf-in-Sheep-s-Clothing/
 
G

Guest

Guest
#19
I watched some great documentries including the great Steven Hawkins who all agree there is a master/god call it what you will but they claim the Universe is holographic and there is a programmer that wrote all the rules and conditioning for the universe and all in it, but that the universe plays out itself without interference from the programmer/god

Here is the documentry on it great watch tbh

[youtube=NsbZT9bJ1s4]
 
#20
Green Tea - 5/11/2013 20:39

Rather than training graduate students in the scientific method, and allowing their research to serve the needs of society, the field’s leaders choose to train their mentees to serve only their own professional needs—namely, to obtain grant funding and publish their research. .

/
I highlight this particular part of your post, which demonstrates how this is not Science. Hence, probably not relevant in relation to the original theme of this thread.