Thanks for that vocabulary lesson, Freethinker. I have noted that many times in the past in my own posts. Knowledge includes an awareness of what is true and what is false. In fact, many misunderstand that science and scientists are two very different things. Science is what it is: reality, the evidence of what is, the truth and falsity of the cosmos around us. Scientists, on the other hand, are the people that study a/o practice science. And while science is the reality that awaits discovery (and very often re-discovery), scientists are the people that typically make those discoveries. The evidence: artifacts, processes, phenomena rarely speak for themselves; they must be interpreted, and we generally trust the scientists (like me, a molecular geneticist and linguist) to make those interpretations...objectively. Maybe you see the problem. Here's a syllogism that I composed many (maybe 18) years ago:
A) all people are imperfect and subjective (with the exception of one, which is another story for another day)
B) all scientists are people (unless you are aware of any fish or monkey, et al scientists)
C) therefore, all scientists are imperfect and subjective
Another interesting point concerning science that most are unaware of, and that many scientists are either unaware of or seem to have forgotten, is that scientists are generally in the business of proving things false more than we are in the business of proving things true. Truth exists, and there are absolute truths (another time) but the scientific method says that, among other things, good scientific hypotheses, theories, facts are also accompanied by reproducibility, predictability (not absolutely required but generally available), and finally...falsifiability. There is always another experiment for which we lack the resources (financial, energy, etc), and it may be the next experiment that falsifies the hypothesis, theory, or fact/law/constant/principle
I do not thank science for my existence; I thank God for my existence. Science is unthinking, it is what it is. Scientists are not yet capable of creating life either with or without precursors that have a level of complexity and usefulness still beyond our comprehension (I hope you won't be invoking Miller/Urey or even any of the more recent attempts...laughable by analogy).
What I do thank science for is a greater understanding of the world/cosmos around us...to some degree, and some of the comforts (a/c, computers, cars, vaccines, tools, etc) and at times interesting quality of life (but this is once again very subjective)
I recently saw a group of about 7 or 8 kids (orphans) to whom I had just given money, goods (bicycles, ping pong tables, basketballs, soccer balls, badminton, tennis, and assorted other sporting gear and games), and for whom we established a fund for a library, and they had gone outside and were having big big fun with a pile of dirt...their day was filled with joy simply because they could manipulate a pile of dirt and stones, and they did it together, and could have cared less about how we had just "improved" their quality of life :-)
They will benefit from those "quality of life improvements" but we often impose our subjective view of what "quality of life" is on some pretty high quality of life situations.
I have high regard for science...and even for some scientists. I have devoted a significant part of my life to science (the pursuit of knowledge, and trying to bring "improvements" to the lives of others)...good science is good, sometimes GREAT stuff...but junk science is no better than mythology, and sometimes worse...we should know better
If you wonder what I’m talking about just examine the literature with regard to fraud in science…or even just google it…the fraud is perpetuated virtually everyday in virtually every lab on the planet…this is not an uncommon thing…consider the terribly broken peer-review process…consider who holds the grant purse strings and to whom they will not grant money…because their world views differ
There are no conflicts between good understanding of science and good understanding of the bible, which is not a science book but when it speaks on matters of science it is accurate, in much the same way that it is the most accurate book regarding the history of its various subjects
A lack of "good" or "proper" education is surely to blame in part for the persistence of mythology (like the Darwinian paradigm)
If you refer to my own education, I can only say that I spent 16yrs studying at university (various subjects) and 10yrs teaching at university...my education has both breadth and depth...and I remain a student, having the skills to study on my own...I learn, continue to do research in the lab, and spend considerable time at study, daily
Sometimes, mythology persists because of education; our present educational system promotes the myth of the Darwinian paradigm, which doesn't even qualify as a good hypothesis much less a theory or anything approaching fact
You equate mythology and religion to your detriment and poor understanding of reality. A closer student would equate mythology with false religion a/o phony philosophy
But let's be very clear, we can never separate science/faith/philosophy, one does not function well without the other (naturally you are going to challenge this and we are going to get into this in more protracted fashion, so I will wait to make the connection inviolable
"Modern Science" began in the 16th century and virtually every field of modern science was founded by men that believed in God and wanted to understand his creation better so that they could better understand him and his nature/ways
If the evidence warranted understanding that I am merely a splotch of matter, I would gladly return to my former life and lifestyle (I loved it, doing pretty much whatever, whenever, wherever, however, and for however long I liked...not having to care about others because they were not necessarily critical to my survival, in fact, most were mere impediments, stepping stones upon whose crushed skulls I was glad to ascend to my own lofty domain)...but the evidence is opposed to ideas like Darwin's and our original posters proposal/suggestion(albeit given in the form of a question) that religion should be treated as a psychological disorder
It is actually those that place their faith blindly in such philosophies as Darwin's (and so many other phony philosophies and false religions) that have deluded themselves with knowledge so-called
It is actually folks like you, Freethinker, whose thinking has been taken captive, who struggle with ego, and who live in fear of acknowledging God
Only a knowledge of the truth will set you free, my friend
In much the same way that those "vaccines, tools, medicines, etc, etc" didn't come into existence by accident, neither did we...living beings that are far more complex than any tool, including computers...those things required an intelligent designer...and so do we
In spite of the vaccuous claims that Darwinism is the foundation upon which all biology is based and that it cannot be understood without Darwin, we do biology all day, every day without so much as a second thought of Darwin. Darwinism is nothing but a superficial laminae that many have tried to force onto biology, and even then it doesn't fit
Sorry, Freethinker, the laws of biology (including genetics), information, and so many other fields stand opposed to Darwin...and ultimately to our original posters proposition that religion should be considered a psychological disorder
You are confused, false religion and phony philosophy should not only be considered, but are psychological disorders...fortunately, they can be cured for the most part
But proper religion gives proper meaning to life. And let's not be further confused about the nonsense that there are many different ways to God...there is only one...he is the way, the truth, and the life, and NO ONE comes to the Father except through him
It is in part because I do understand how many things work and understand much about probabilities, logic, information and the like that I recognize God
It is not only reasonable to believe in God (based on the available myriad forms of evidence, not a blind faith but rather an evidenced faith), but it is UNreasonable not to believe in God based on that very same evidence
You don't own the evidence, by the way, the evidence is what it is; we all bring our world views to the table (call it the glasses through which we view the evidence) and come away with differing interpretations of the evidence, but that doesn't mean that you can also be right...one (or both) of us is surely wrong, and I'm quite sure it's you. It is not possible for both of us to be right.
Sorry, Freethinker, you may give up on this, thinking I'm too far gone...or you may choose to pursue it
China
eduguy's Recent Comments See all 4
Thanks for that vocabulary lesson, Freethinker. I have noted that many times in the past in my own posts. Knowledge includes an awareness of what is true and what is false. In fact, many misunderstand that science and scientists are two very different things. Science is what it is: reality, the evidence of what is, the truth and falsity of the cosmos around us. Scientists, on the other hand, are the people that study a/o practice science. And while science is the reality that awaits discovery (and very often re-discovery), scientists are the people that typically make those discoveries. The evidence: artifacts, processes, phenomena rarely speak for themselves; they must be interpreted, and we generally trust the scientists (like me, a molecular geneticist and linguist) to make those interpretations...objectively. Maybe you see the problem. Here's a syllogism that I composed many (maybe 18) years ago:
A) all people are imperfect and subjective (with the exception of one, which is another story for another day)
B) all scientists are people (unless you are aware of any fish or monkey, et al scientists)
C) therefore, all scientists are imperfect and subjective
Another interesting point concerning science that most are unaware of, and that many scientists are either unaware of or seem to have forgotten, is that scientists are generally in the business of proving things false more than we are in the business of proving things true. Truth exists, and there are absolute truths (another time) but the scientific method says that, among other things, good scientific hypotheses, theories, facts are also accompanied by reproducibility, predictability (not absolutely required but generally available), and finally...falsifiability. There is always another experiment for which we lack the resources (financial, energy, etc), and it may be the next experiment that falsifies the hypothesis, theory, or fact/law/constant/principle
I do not thank science for my existence; I thank God for my existence. Science is unthinking, it is what it is. Scientists are not yet capable of creating life either with or without precursors that have a level of complexity and usefulness still beyond our comprehension (I hope you won't be invoking Miller/Urey or even any of the more recent attempts...laughable by analogy).
What I do thank science for is a greater understanding of the world/cosmos around us...to some degree, and some of the comforts (a/c, computers, cars, vaccines, tools, etc) and at times interesting quality of life (but this is once again very subjective)
I recently saw a group of about 7 or 8 kids (orphans) to whom I had just given money, goods (bicycles, ping pong tables, basketballs, soccer balls, badminton, tennis, and assorted other sporting gear and games), and for whom we established a fund for a library, and they had gone outside and were having big big fun with a pile of dirt...their day was filled with joy simply because they could manipulate a pile of dirt and stones, and they did it together, and could have cared less about how we had just "improved" their quality of life :-)
They will benefit from those "quality of life improvements" but we often impose our subjective view of what "quality of life" is on some pretty high quality of life situations.
I have high regard for science...and even for some scientists. I have devoted a significant part of my life to science (the pursuit of knowledge, and trying to bring "improvements" to the lives of others)...good science is good, sometimes GREAT stuff...but junk science is no better than mythology, and sometimes worse...we should know better
If you wonder what I’m talking about just examine the literature with regard to fraud in science…or even just google it…the fraud is perpetuated virtually everyday in virtually every lab on the planet…this is not an uncommon thing…consider the terribly broken peer-review process…consider who holds the grant purse strings and to whom they will not grant money…because their world views differ
There are no conflicts between good understanding of science and good understanding of the bible, which is not a science book but when it speaks on matters of science it is accurate, in much the same way that it is the most accurate book regarding the history of its various subjects
A lack of "good" or "proper" education is surely to blame in part for the persistence of mythology (like the Darwinian paradigm)
If you refer to my own education, I can only say that I spent 16yrs studying at university (various subjects) and 10yrs teaching at university...my education has both breadth and depth...and I remain a student, having the skills to study on my own...I learn, continue to do research in the lab, and spend considerable time at study, daily
Sometimes, mythology persists because of education; our present educational system promotes the myth of the Darwinian paradigm, which doesn't even qualify as a good hypothesis much less a theory or anything approaching fact
You equate mythology and religion to your detriment and poor understanding of reality. A closer student would equate mythology with false religion a/o phony philosophy
But let's be very clear, we can never separate science/faith/philosophy, one does not function well without the other (naturally you are going to challenge this and we are going to get into this in more protracted fashion, so I will wait to make the connection inviolable
"Modern Science" began in the 16th century and virtually every field of modern science was founded by men that believed in God and wanted to understand his creation better so that they could better understand him and his nature/ways
If the evidence warranted understanding that I am merely a splotch of matter, I would gladly return to my former life and lifestyle (I loved it, doing pretty much whatever, whenever, wherever, however, and for however long I liked...not having to care about others because they were not necessarily critical to my survival, in fact, most were mere impediments, stepping stones upon whose crushed skulls I was glad to ascend to my own lofty domain)...but the evidence is opposed to ideas like Darwin's and our original posters proposal/suggestion(albeit given in the form of a question) that religion should be treated as a psychological disorder
It is actually those that place their faith blindly in such philosophies as Darwin's (and so many other phony philosophies and false religions) that have deluded themselves with knowledge so-called
It is actually folks like you, Freethinker, whose thinking has been taken captive, who struggle with ego, and who live in fear of acknowledging God
Only a knowledge of the truth will set you free, my friend
In much the same way that those "vaccines, tools, medicines, etc, etc" didn't come into existence by accident, neither did we...living beings that are far more complex than any tool, including computers...those things required an intelligent designer...and so do we
In spite of the vaccuous claims that Darwinism is the foundation upon which all biology is based and that it cannot be understood without Darwin, we do biology all day, every day without so much as a second thought of Darwin. Darwinism is nothing but a superficial laminae that many have tried to force onto biology, and even then it doesn't fit
Sorry, Freethinker, the laws of biology (including genetics), information, and so many other fields stand opposed to Darwin...and ultimately to our original posters proposition that religion should be considered a psychological disorder
You are confused, false religion and phony philosophy should not only be considered, but are psychological disorders...fortunately, they can be cured for the most part
But proper religion gives proper meaning to life. And let's not be further confused about the nonsense that there are many different ways to God...there is only one...he is the way, the truth, and the life, and NO ONE comes to the Father except through him
It is in part because I do understand how many things work and understand much about probabilities, logic, information and the like that I recognize God
It is not only reasonable to believe in God (based on the available myriad forms of evidence, not a blind faith but rather an evidenced faith), but it is UNreasonable not to believe in God based on that very same evidence
You don't own the evidence, by the way, the evidence is what it is; we all bring our world views to the table (call it the glasses through which we view the evidence) and come away with differing interpretations of the evidence, but that doesn't mean that you can also be right...one (or both) of us is surely wrong, and I'm quite sure it's you. It is not possible for both of us to be right.
Sorry, Freethinker, you may give up on this, thinking I'm too far gone...or you may choose to pursue it
In any event...
Cheers, Freethinker...carry on, lad
your question is a kneejerk reaction, bonehead
nice folks, great resorts (positive)