The_Global_Warmer Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 So am I. Why would they be so different then ? why do you choose a satellite? Looks pretty warm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Why would they be so different then ? why do you choose a satellite? Looks pretty warm. I chose satellites because we have been able to track the day to day anomalies. September clearly had warmer anomalies than October. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Doesn't look so clear there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vortmax Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Without getting into some pointless debate with subjective facts and exaggerated examples (e.g. flat earth), the crux of my post was this: "any other option is considered rubbish and stupid." This reeks of elitism. So does this: scientists of all sorts define reality; period; no one else does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I didn't say it was. You don't have to believe in a strict interpretation of one theological text to accept the possibility of a creator. But again, theories like the Big Bang as essentially based on the idea that everything came to be without any sort of creation. So when theories like that are taught in schools, personal beliefs that go beyond pure science are introduced. I wouldn't go so far as to say atheism is taught, but that does seem to be the preferred belief system in place for many theories on origin. Schools teach science because they are centers of education. Science tears the Book of Genesis to shreds. This makes many religious people unhappy; so unhappy they prefer to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to science because avoiding conflict is easier than facing it. "Pass on the delusions and conflicts to the next generation, perhaps they'll make sense of things." But they never do....do they? Take two buckets. In one, place the world's secular nations; put the world's religious nations in the other. Compare. No contest. Is this difficult to analyze? No. A century from now we'll still have religion but I'm sure there will be noticeably less of it. Religion, once valuable in evolutionary terms is now a detriment; it holds back societies. Religion is winding down as evidence-based thinking replaces it; the process is slow because the nature of human evolution is slow. The transition will be full of turmoil but it will proceed; such is the nature of civilization. And so it goes. Comprehending our world, our species, reality itself...is not all that difficult when one ignores all the noise and stops demanding absolutes. Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Schools teach science because they are centers of education. Science tears the Book of Genesis to shreds. This makes many religious people unhappy; so unhappy they prefer to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to science because avoiding conflict is easier than facing it. "Pass on the delusions and conflicts to the next generation, perhaps they'll make sense of things." But they never do....do they? Take two buckets. In one, place the world's secular nations; put the world's religious nations in the other. Compare. No contest. Is this difficult to analyze? No. A century from now we'll still have religion but I'm sure there will be noticeably less of it. Religion, once valuable in evolutionary terms is now a detriment; it holds back societies. Religion is winding down as evidence-based thinking replaces it; the process is slow because the nature of human evolution is slow. The transition will be full of turmoil but it will proceed; such is the nature of civilization. And so it goes. Comprehending our world, our species, reality itself...is not all that difficult when one ignores all the noise and stops demanding absolutes. Cheers! Your response has very little, if any, to do with my points about origin and scientific theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Without getting into some pointless debate with subjective facts and exaggerated examples (e.g. flat earth), the crux of my post was this: "any other option is considered rubbish and stupid." This reeks of elitism. So does this: They are rubbish and stupid (your words not mine) if they are not well supported by evidence. If deferring to the knowledge of specialists in an area of scientific inquiry is elitism and a bad thing then call me guilty. People don't grant an idea credence, evidence does. When an idea is vetted through the scientific method, the result is the opposite of elitism. No one gets to proclaim a hold and vision on reality individually without passing the test of their peers and and their "option" maintaining coherence with well established science. Junk ideas are just that because they fail to meet certain standards or stand up to scrutiny. Now I suppose you could claim science in general to be unworthy of respect and it's practitioners elitists poised at the pinnacle of the ivory tower, but I think most rational people would disagree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I didn't say it was. You don't have to believe in a strict interpretation of one theological text to accept the possibility of a creator. But again, theories like the Big Bang as essentially based on the idea that everything came to be without any sort of creation. So when theories like that are taught in schools, personal beliefs that go beyond pure science are introduced. I wouldn't go so far as to say atheism is taught, but that does seem to be the preferred belief system in place for many theories on origin. Big Bang cosmology does not speak to the existence of or lack of a creator. The theory posits a beginning to time itself. It only deals with what happened from the moment of creation onward. Beyond that point of creation is an impossible to test or measure dimension(s). It resides beyond the test of science. Anyone is free to speculate a creator on this "other side", but it is not a logical necessity to do so. A tremendous amount of evidence describes the Big Bang theory. It sits on very solid evidential ground and is logically consistent. That said, it could still be a bunch of hooey but it describes what it deals with very well and should be taught in science class as the most likely scenario we have based on science for our ultimate origin. Funny thing is, the Big Bang is still banging...we are the Big Bang and everything that has ever happened or is happening or ever will happen in the Universe and on Earth is part of the ongoing evolution of the Universe and the evolution of man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Your response has very little, if any, to do with my points about origin and scientific theory. To those who simply must have answers to the most difficult questions I can only say "you make your own suffering." Take the Big Bang for example. Perhaps it was a "white hole" with a collapsed universe on the other side; maybe, maybe not. Do I suffer because I don't have the absolute truth? Thankfully not. (Aren't there enough practical matters to be concerned about?) What I don't know would fill volumes, but I don't need create some "god" to fill in the gaps. The average person in an advanced nation today is light years ahead of the average person 2,000, 1,000 or even 500 years ago. For all practical purposes we well understand the nature of the world (and universe) around us. Thank you scientists! Thank you Age of Enlightenment! Picking at every tree in the forest wastes the time of those who see and appreciate the forest for what it is. There are flaws in written history, flaws in science, flaws in our flesh; and so on. Why dwell on the flaws when one can enjoy the grandeur of what is? Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 To those who simply must have answers to the most difficult questions I can only say "you make your own suffering." Take the Big Bang for example. Perhaps it was a "white hole" with a collapsed universe on the other side; maybe, maybe not. Do I suffer because I don't have the absolute truth? Thankfully not. (Aren't there enough practical matters to be concerned about?) What I don't know would fill volumes, but I don't need create some "god" to fill in the gaps. The average person in an advanced nation today is light years ahead of the average person 2,000, 1,000 or even 500 years ago. For all practical purposes we well understand the nature of the world (and universe) around us. Thank you scientists! Thank you Age of Enlightenment! Picking at every tree in the forest wastes the time of those who see and appreciate the forest for what it is. There are flaws in written history, flaws in science, flaws in our flesh; and so on. Why dwell on the flaws when one can enjoy the grandeur of what is? Peace. Science and religion were once joined at the hip. They split, but still have a common purpose...to discover "all knowledge". The only real difference is a personification of "all knowledge"..(ie..God) vs. Sciences' method of discovery of "all knowledge." If knowledge is infinite, then theology, by default, wins. If knowledge is finite, and man attains that level, then man (or whatever creature reaches that ultimate benchmark discovery) will have become "one" with all knowledge....again, which some call God. Really alot more commonality at the most basic premise, between the two, than at first glance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mencken_Fan Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Science and religion were once joined at the hip. They split, but still have a common purpose...to discover "all knowledge". The only real difference is a personification of "all knowledge"..(ie..God) vs. Sciences' method of discovery of "all knowledge." If knowledge is infinite, then theology, by default, wins. If knowledge is finite, and man attains that level, then man (or whatever creature reaches that ultimate benchmark discovery) will have become "one" with all knowledge....again, which some call God. Really alot more commonality at the most basic premise, between the two, than at first glance. Huh? When was science and religion joined at the hip? "Science" came into being only in the 1500s (following the invention of printing in the late 1400s.) Before then it was known as "philosophy" which is not the same as "theology." Egyptian, Greek, and Roman philosophers developed considerable "science and technology" but much was lost with the collapse of Rome. What few scientific discoveries (and re-discoveries) were made during the long Dark and Middle Ages (~500 to 1500 C.E.) did indeed come from monks and the clergy - but it should be noted, they were the only people who knew how to read. The "purpose" of the Church was never to "discover all knowledge"; it was to force a specific "psychology" on the ignorant population for the purpose of maintaining power. If the Church picked up some science and technology along the way, well, that was fine too; but everyone should know the Church was effectively a totalitarian dictatorship that levied taxes on the populace for many, many centuries. Life then was utterly horrible. As for "infinite knowledge", "being one with knowledge or God" etc., well, that sounds more like Buddhism or some other Eastern religion; all outside my ballpark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Huh? When was science and religion joined at the hip? "Science" came into being only in the 1500s (following the invention of printing in the late 1400s.) Before then it was known as "philosophy" which is not the same as "theology." Egyptian, Greek, and Roman philosophers developed considerable "science and technology" but much was lost with the collapse of Rome. What few scientific discoveries (and re-discoveries) were made during the long Dark and Middle Ages (~500 to 1500 C.E.) did indeed come from monks and the clergy - but it should be noted, they were the only people who knew how to read. The "purpose" of the Church was never to "discover all knowledge"; it was to force a specific "psychology" on the ignorant population for the purpose of maintaining power. If the Church picked up some science and technology along the way, well, that was fine too; but everyone should know the Church was effectively a totalitarian dictatorship that levied taxes on the populace for many, many centuries. Life then was utterly horrible. As for "infinite knowledge", "being one with knowledge or God" etc., well, that sounds more like Buddhism or some other Eastern religion; all outside my ballpark. My point was, that science broke off from religion/mythology at some point....and ever since the spit, the commonality that remained was and is still anchored in the central theme for both....scientists seek "all knowledge"....most religions have a central "figure" that is "all knowing"....religion seeks to become "closer" to the "all knowing"...science (ultimately) seeks to be closer to "all knowledge". That in no way addresses the nuiances of each "story" of religion, and frankly is falling out of vogue as we continue our natural evolution of self consciousness aided by scientific discovery. Are we coming closer to God?? (ie...are we gaining ground on "all knowledge"?) Isn't "God" just a personified definition of what the main goal of scientists seek? To me, the end game cannot be an answer with no more questions....but that is coming from a human with a brain that can only arbitrarily assign a level of intelligence to our/my current state of knowledge...so my belief that knowledge is infinite, is limited by the lack of knowledge I/we have, that I know to be out there... Again, we in society focus too much on our differences, and not enough on our commonalities, at least as it relates to our percieved place within society, world, universe, and beynod....which typically is a self-centered view. That applies to issues outside the science/religion split.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Huh? When was science and religion joined at the hip? "Science" came into being only in the 1500s (following the invention of printing in the late 1400s.) Before then it was known as "philosophy" which is not the same as "theology." Egyptian, Greek, and Roman philosophers developed considerable "science and technology" but much was lost with the collapse of Rome. What few scientific discoveries (and re-discoveries) were made during the long Dark and Middle Ages (~500 to 1500 C.E.) did indeed come from monks and the clergy - but it should be noted, they were the only people who knew how to read. The "purpose" of the Church was never to "discover all knowledge"; it was to force a specific "psychology" on the ignorant population for the purpose of maintaining power. If the Church picked up some science and technology along the way, well, that was fine too; but everyone should know the Church was effectively a totalitarian dictatorship that levied taxes on the populace for many, many centuries. Life then was utterly horrible. As for "infinite knowledge", "being one with knowledge or God" etc., well, that sounds more like Buddhism or some other Eastern religion; all outside my ballpark. Philosophy, which today is closely associated with religious studies, was the only "science" that existed before the renaissance. Any scientists back then were known as natural philosophers and ran close with the religious ideas of the time. It was only when Galileo and others began questioning the church's view with empirical data that the two split.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 To those who simply must have answers to the most difficult questions I can only say "you make your own suffering." Take the Big Bang for example. Perhaps it was a "white hole" with a collapsed universe on the other side; maybe, maybe not. Do I suffer because I don't have the absolute truth? Thankfully not. (Aren't there enough practical matters to be concerned about?) By claiming religion and personal beliefs are completely separate from science, you are only avoiding difficult questions. The purpose of science is to find answers, not avoid the questions. That being said, I agree with you that sometimes we, and science, have to accept that we don't know the answer...or at least not definitively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 Huh? When was science and religion joined at the hip? "Science" came into being only in the 1500s (following the invention of printing in the late 1400s.) Before then it was known as "philosophy" which is not the same as "theology." Egyptian, Greek, and Roman philosophers developed considerable "science and technology" but much was lost with the collapse of Rome. What few scientific discoveries (and re-discoveries) were made during the long Dark and Middle Ages (~500 to 1500 C.E.) did indeed come from monks and the clergy - but it should be noted, they were the only people who knew how to read. The "purpose" of the Church was never to "discover all knowledge"; it was to force a specific "psychology" on the ignorant population for the purpose of maintaining power. If the Church picked up some science and technology along the way, well, that was fine too; but everyone should know the Church was effectively a totalitarian dictatorship that levied taxes on the populace for many, many centuries. Life then was utterly horrible. As for "infinite knowledge", "being one with knowledge or God" etc., well, that sounds more like Buddhism or some other Eastern religion; all outside my ballpark. This post illustrates perfectly how one's personal beliefs/opinions influence their interpretation of the world. Science is our interpretation of the world/universe as we can best understand it. But because our understanding is limited and influenced by our personal interpration, to say that science defines reality is seriously limiting reality. LEK's point, which you seemed to misunderstand, was that both science and religion seek to define truth. Neither would exist if we didn't believe there is some sort of truth, absolute or otherwise, out there to discover. It's too easy to just dismiss religion as a "forced psychology" existing only to exert power. Why has religion, in some form or another, been around forever in nearly every culture? The same reason that science has. Because people inherently seek answers to questions, and look to a higher truth or power to help them understand their reality. For some, science has become the ultimate authority on "truth" and religion is considered unecessary. For others, science cannot be considered the ultimate authority because that would basically be saying humans are the ultimate authority/source of truth, as science reflects human understanding. If you believe in a higher power, science is not enough. If you don't, it is. Either way, contrary to the opinion you have expressed, embracing science does not necessitate rejecting all religion. Or vice versa. It could certainly be argued that science can be limited by religion, but also that it can be limited by rejecting the possibility of a higher power or creator. In either case, personal beliefs inform the interpretation of the world around us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 This post illustrates perfectly how one's personal beliefs/opinions influence their interpretation of the world. Science is our interpretation of the world/universe as we can best understand it. But because our understanding is limited and influenced by our personal interpration, to say that science defines reality is seriously limiting reality. LEK's point, which you seemed to misunderstand, was that both science and religion seek to define truth. Neither would exist if we didn't believe there is some sort of truth, absolute or otherwise, out there to discover. It's too easy to just dismiss religion as a "forced psychology" existing only to exert power. Why has religion, in some form or another, been around forever in nearly every culture? The same reason that science has. Because people inherently seek answers to questions, and look to a higher truth or power to help them understand their reality. For some, science has become the ultimate authority on "truth" and religion is considered unecessary. For others, science cannot be considered the ultimate authority because that would basically be saying humans are the ultimate authority/source of truth, as science reflects human understanding. If you believe in a higher power, science is not enough. If you don't, it is. Either way, contrary to the opinion you have expressed, embracing science does not necessitate rejecting all religion. Or vice versa. It could certainly be argued that science can be limited by religion, but also that it can be limited by rejecting the possibility of a higher power or creator. In either case, personal beliefs inform the interpretation of the world around us. So, is just my belief that science is an expression of rational thought while religion dwells in the realm of the irrational? Is it just my belief that rational though is preferable to irrational thinking when attempting to understand the physical Universe? It is people holding on to religious beliefs in defiance of modern science that I have a problem with. Religion belongs only in the realm of the truly unknowable from any rational standpoint as far as I'm concerned. As such religion is entirely speculative in concept and does not belong delving into questions explained by modern science. It is the very conflicts where religion butts heads with science that turned me away from my indoctrinated religion as a young person. The realm of the supernatural does not resonate within me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 So, is just my belief that science is an expression of rational thought while religion dwells in the realm of the irrational? Is it just my belief that rational though is preferable to irrational thinking when attempting to understand the physical Universe? It is people holding on to religious beliefs in defiance of modern science that I have a problem with. Religion belongs only in the realm of the truly unknowable from any rational standpoint as far as I'm concerned. As such religion is entirely speculative in concept and does not belong delving into questions explained by modern science. It is the very conflicts where religion butts heads with science that turned me away from my indoctrinated religion as a young person. The realm of the supernatural does not resonate within me. This in of itself is an over generalization of religious peoples. Many religious people are just as scientific as the next person. The group you're talking about is those who still do not believe in evolution, or the formation of the earth by natural processes. That, however, is a group that does not encompass the mainstream religious person. Ask around and you'll see this quite clearly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 This in of itself is an over generalization of religious peoples. Many religious people are just as scientific as the next person. The group you're talking about is those who still do not believe in evolution, or the formation of the earth by natural processes. That, however, is a group that does not encompass the mainstream religious person. Ask around and you'll see this quite clearly I understand that, but the religion I was taught insisted that there existed a holy trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It taught of Angels. It taught of Christ raising from the dead. It insisted I could "talk to God" and that I was a siner. How can anyone believe that stuff hook line and sinker and still be scientific? I understand that people are free to rationalize their own spirituality and invent their own vision of God. I think you underestimate the number of people in the U.S. who take their religion very seriously and reject much of science where it conflicts with their religion. They represent a powerful minority in this country. It is also rather easy to see which side of the political divide primarily embrasses them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I understand that, but the religion I was taught insisted that there existed a holy trinity. The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. It taught of Angels. It taught of Christ raising from the dead. It insisted I could "talk to God" and that I was a siner. How can anyone believe that stuff hook line and sinker and still be scientific? I understand that people are free to rationalize their own spirituality and invent their own vision of God. I think you underestimate the number of people in the U.S. who take their religion very seriously and reject much of science where it conflicts with their religion. They represent a powerful minority in this country. It is also rather easy to see which side of the political divide primarily embrasses them. Here is where you're missing the point. Its not a zero sum game, you can have a little of both. Religion by nature is irrational, thats just what it is. Science is based on empirical evidence and reason, but even though the two are at odds, that doesnt mean you cant invest your beliefs in both. In fact, my further examination of cosmology has only furthered my faith in general. I believe in a holy trinity, and heaven and hell, but I also believe in evolution and the natural creation of the earth. The two can intermingle, the problem today is that people see it as one or the other, when in fact the two can complement eachother very nicely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Here is where you're missing the point. Its not a zero sum game, you can have a little of both. Religion by nature is irrational, thats just what it is. Science is based on empirical evidence and reason, but even though the two are at odds, that doesnt mean you cant invest your beliefs in both. In fact, my further examination of cosmology has only furthered my faith in general. I believe in a holy trinity, and heaven and hell, but I also believe in evolution and the natural creation of the earth. The two can intermingle, the problem today is that people see it as one or the other, when in fact the two can complement eachother very nicely Just to nit-pick a tad, this statement does not help you when suggesting you believe in a Holy Trinity, heaven and hell. In fact, Religion is anything but Irrational. It was necessary and extremely Rational before people had the accurate tools, instruments, observations, etc. to branch off and create the various sciences you now see before you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha5 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Just to nit-pick a tad, this statement does not help you when suggesting you believe in a Holy Trinity, heaven and hell. In fact, Religion is anything but Irrational. It was necessary and extremely Rational before people had the accurate tools, instruments, observations, etc. to branch off and create the various sciences you now see before you. I'm not talking about ancient times.......but it doesnt matter, religion has always been and always be contradictory to logic and reason. It is by nature irrational, you either have faith, or you dont. Simple as that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 I'm not talking about ancient times.......but it doesnt matter, religion has always been and always be contradictory to logic and reason. It is by nature irrational, you either have faith, or you dont. Simple as that I don't think that if something requires faith, that automatically makes it illogical. Unless you know everything about everything, you are forced to have faith every day about things that are uncertain. This is why I have said that religion and science are both natural outgrowths of humanity. We don't know everything about everything, but we want answers, we want the truth. Both science and religion seek to answer the unknown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 I'm not talking about ancient times.......but it doesnt matter, religion has always been and always be contradictory to logic and reason. It is by nature irrational, you either have faith, or you dont. Simple as that Kierkegaard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestMichigan Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/03/us-carbon-footprint-shrank-7-percent-in-past-4-years-report-says/ Take it with a grain of salt, but it appears the US is starting to contribute less to the overall amount of emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.