talkmagic.co.uk

Blasphemy day is over now, we should all go back to being nice about Jesus and the baby Mohammed or whatever and get on with our lives. NO more blasphemy, it makes Jahweh cry.

themagicwand wrote:.... And that's before you get into all the scientists who actually have a faith of some description or other.
...

Actually 90% of all Nobel prize winners in scientific areas are confirmed athiests. Rationality and faith do not go hand in hand.
As someone trained and steeped in science I can confirm that I do not have a pulling pants - but I do have a pants that pulls. Must be because I put on a few pounds.

TonyB wrote:Gary Dickson says that faith and science should not be in opposition, then goes on to say that faith is not blind, but based on personal experience. He then goes on to describe his personal experience - which is completely different from everyone elses personal experience. That is the problem - that is why science will always be in opposition to faith.

Science is based in no ones personal experience. It is based on theory, backed up or modified by experimentation.

I have no problem with people having their own personal faiths - as long as they keep them to themselves. I have a big problem with public displays of religion - from blowing up planes right down to grace before meals.

I don't impose my athiesm on others, and I do not accept others imposing their theism on me. Yet I see the Irish government bringing in nonsense blasphemy legislation, and our national broadcaster broadcasting a a call to prayer twice a day every day. Enough is enough.

Hi Tony. You raise some interesting points, I thought I should take the time to address them.

First of all the question of faith. I didn't say faith was not blind but made a distinction between a blind faith and that based on one's personal experience. Reading back through my post perhaps I didn't make that clear enough. My example was meant to illustrate faith based on experience contrasted with a blind faith where, for example, the bible says God exists and we must love him. The two are quite different. The former is based on my own experience of the world, the latter on the pronouncements of an authority figure. Even though my experience is subjective it does not make it invalid, just subjective. If you want proof, take up meditation and see for yourself. Incidentally, whether you do or not is of no concern to me - I'm not interested in converting anyone!

Rationality and faith are not mutually exclusive. There are scientists who believe in God, just as there are Christians who believe in the theory of evolution. In fact there is a branch of science, theoretical physics, which seems to rely on the faith of the scientists involved, especially where string theory is concerned.

Science is very, very good at describing the physical world. If I want to know how electricity works, or how to mend a broken limb, or some such thing, I will turn to science. However it is a bit c*** (not the best) at telling us how to live, or at pointing to the truths about what it is to be a human being. That is the realm of religion, all religions (even though I'm a Buddhist and have a distaste for theistic religions I still believe they point to the truth, just not in a language I'm comfortable with).

I don't see why you have a problem with public displays of religion. It seems to sit at odds with your exemplary stance on the ludicrous blasphemy laws. After all, if you should have the right to blaspheme, should I not have the right to publicly chant mantras, or expound Buddhist teachings? Freedom of speech applies to everyone, we don't have to like it just tolerate it.

greedoniz wrote:Jesus was a magician and although his ITV crucifixion special was highly over-rated it is his water to wine thing that became a classic staple of magic

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9AGk2g ... re=related

themagicwand wrote:People who believe in the paranormal or religion can obviously also have an appreciation for science. And those amongst us who believe (there's that word) they are rational are also superstitious to a greater or lesser degree.

"Occultism is conceived of as the study of the inner nature of things, as opposed to the outer characteristics that are studied by science. ... By defining a thing solely in terms of its external relationships or effects we only find its external or explicit nature. Occultism, on the other hand, is concerned with the nature of the 'thing-in-itself'."

This is a quote from Wikipedia, but it's the best description I've ever seen of the difference between occult philosophy, or indeed any kind of spiritual belief, and the scientific method. It also explains how the two can sit comfortably within the same mind. They aren't contradictory, just different ways of looking at the universe. It used to be a common thing to say that Nature, meaning the universe and all its natural laws, is the physical manifestation of God.

"All are but parts of one stupendous whole, whose body Nature is, and God the soul." -- Alexander Pope

has anyone considered that both a god and evolution could work together?

If you could entertain the thought that there was/is a god who caused the big bang to happen, and instantly created the universe(s)...

and we, are but the seeds and nuts cast onto the garden that is earth...and we grew and evolved...and, that god does not follow any of the religions...in fact, you could entertain the thought that god doesnt care about any of us, or the universe he created...

he's just a cosmic gardener...

i dont believe this, but I'm happy to think about such things...

IAIN wrote:has anyone considered that both a god and evolution could work together?

<strokes chin> A conspiracy, eh? Hmmm... That would explain a lot.

IAIN wrote:has anyone considered that both a god and evolution could work together?

If you could entertain the thought that there was/is a god who caused the big bang to happen, and instantly created the universe(s)...

and we, are but the seeds and nuts cast onto the garden that is earth...and we grew and evolved...and, that god does not follow any of the religions...in fact, you could entertain the thought that god doesnt care about any of us, or the universe he created...

he's just a cosmic gardener...

i dont believe this, but I'm happy to think about such things...

In the current issue of the Fortean Times, there's an article about an odd sect called the Muggletonians. One of their tenets was that God exists, but has no interest whatsoever in man, or at least in individuals. Prayer, martyrdom, etc. is all pointless because God isn't paying any attention.

(They did have a rider to the effect that God did have a word with the founder of the sect, proving he was completely right in everything.)

i'd like to think that if there is a god, he/she/it doesnt give a monkeys about us...

IAIN wrote:i'd like to think that if there is a god, he/she/it doesnt give a monkeys about us...

Yes, well, now you're just being rational.

Surely in a universe of infinite possibility, God simply must exist. The laws of chance dictate it.

There'll also be a planet somewhere populated by apes that walk upright and talk like men. No! No! NOOOO! Oh wait. That's actually the future of Earth. The fools!!!

themagicwand wrote:Surely in a universe of infinite possibility, God simply must exist. The laws of chance dictate it.

Sort of. Though there's no such thing as a law of chance or probability, the many worlds interpretations of quantum entanglement all potentially invoke an infinite number of universes, each with a slight variation. God should exist in at least one of them.

Tomo wrote:Sort of. Though there's no such thing as a law of chance or probability, the many worlds interpretations of quantum entanglement all potentially invoke an infinite number of universes, each with a slight variation. God should exist in at least one of them.

There we are then. Everyone's happy. Let there be an end to the bickering. The Lord Tomo, inspired by the Great Voodini, have cut through all of the arguments like a hot knife through butter, and peace shall reign for a hundred (thousand? Trillion?) years. Amen.

Now, about your business citizens.

Indeed. Be about your business. Nothing to see here. Return to your lives and await either independent thought or divine inspiration, whichever you prefer. Please, just go away and wait for that.

Hi Gary. Thanks for replying to my post. Here are a few observations.

I do not make any distinction between faith based on the proclaimations of an authority figure and that based on personal experience. Each one of us has our own distinct personal experiendes, unique to us. So logically each one of us could have our own religion, unique to us. That is obviously nonsensical.

For instance, I have been meditating daily for thirty years. I have regularly experienced profound states of mind. Yet unlike you I draw no spiritual conclusions from those experiences. I just enjoy them for a quirk of the mind.

You say that many scientists have faith. This is not true. A minority (a very tiny minority in the case of the physical sciences) believe in a god. The rest don't. You say that theoritical physicists (funnily enough the discipline I trained in) have faith. True, but faith in their theories and their quest for a mathematical model of the universe, not faith in the religious sense.

I am not opposed to public displays of religion. Everyone is free to act as they wish. I am opposed to those displays impinging on my life. For instance I pay my television licence. I am an athiest yet some of my licence fee goes to the twice daily call to prayer in Ireland. Why? If there must be a publicly funded call to prayer, then the call should be made for every faith - catholic, muslim, jew or whatever. But I believe that the call should not be made on a publicly funded television station, funded by my money.

If I go to a conference I know that the dinner will begin with someone saying grace. I am not of their faith so I don't join in the grace. I sit through it. Always afterwards I have people staring at me and quizzing me on why I ignore their prayers. Yet surely I have the right to sit down to a dinner without anyone imposing their superstitions on me. I don't say grace, any more than I avoid walking under ladders. Such pishogeries have no place in the modern world.

Yet in America people of faith have managed to get evolution knocked off the school curriculum. Unbelievable.

In short I have no problem with other people having faith. I do have a problem with them claiming their faith is anything more than a personal belief. I believe that faith, like your sex life, is a private matter, and I don't need to hear about it. I certainly don't need it shoved in my face before my dinner.

There - that ends my rant. I wish you the best. Namaste, Tony.

Hmm. Had a bit of rant there and decided better of it...

I will leave it at pointing out the irony in complaining about "people imposing their religion on my life" on a thread specifically designed to offend and revel in the poo-pooing of other people's beliefs... Yes, it's a personal belief and I don't expect anyone to give it undue respect, but I do think it's fair to expect the same degree of civility afforded to any other "personal belief".

If I set up a "such-and-such's wife is a fat slag, ha ha ha ha!" thread, I doubt you'd think that was fair game however true it may be...