"Jordan Bernt Peterson (born June 12, 1962) is a Canadian clinical psychologist, cultural critic, and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. His main areas of study are in abnormal, social, and personality psychology,[1]with a particular interest in the psychology of religious and ideological belief,[2] " (excerpt from Wikipedia)
Jordan Peterson - Why Men Are Bailing Out
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LH16ympCb7Q
Jordan Peterson: Handling Your Darkest Feelings about Existence Itself
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nLRkG7PccPI
Jordan Peterson: The reason modern people can’t see God is that they won’t look low enough
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n2py4aBpmko
Jordan Peterson - Do you believe in God?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VPIh1xQiuI8
Topic: Health and Religion - page 53. (Read 210983 times)
For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe.
Hasty generalization fallacy: this author has failed to consider the full body of evidence, and falsely suggests that the experience of being near-death has no consistency across cultures and is therefore merely a "story". Also, Dr. Ian Stevenson studied reincarnation cases of children across many cultures and concluded that "culture and belief" alone is inadequate, i.e. low explanatory power. Is this author prepared to address the full body of evidence with an open mind? Or is he committed to his "story" explanation regardless of the evidence? Children’s Experiences.
The NDEs of children, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. This refutes the possibility that the content of NDEs is produced by preexisting beliefs or cultural conditioning.
Worldwide Consistency.
NDEs appear remarkably consistent around the world, and across many different religions and cultures. NDEs from non-Western countries are incredibly similar to those occurring in people in Western countries.
Carl Becker examined four ways in which NDEs may be considered objective:
1. Paranormal knowledge that is later verified
2. The similarity of deathbed events in different cultures
3. Differences between religious expectations and visionary experiences
4. Third-party observations of visionary figures, indicating that they were not merely subjective hallucinations.
https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a07
Chopra presents answers to such questions as: who you meet in the afterlife and how your experience there reflect your present beliefs, expectations, and level of awareness. In the here and now you can shape what happens after you die. Chopra opens up immense new areas of insights where ultimately there is no division between life and death - there is only one continuous creative project.
Oh yea Dr Ian Stevenson LUL. Do you have any source that is not a complete fraud?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson
http://skepdic.com/stevenson.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/pjdg3/ian_stevensons_reincarnation_research/
Give me a break. With Chopra do you mean Deepak Chopra?? https://www.quora.com/I-have-heard-that-physicists-call-Deepak-Chopra%E2%80%99s-claims-%E2%80%9Cwoo-woo%E2%80%9D-What-do-physicists-think-of-Deepak-Chopra-Does-Deepak-really-understand-quantum-physics
He is a total nut job, there is an interview of him debating richard dawkins, you should watch that and have a good laugh.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe.
Hasty generalization fallacy: this author has failed to consider the full body of evidence, and falsely suggests that the experience of being near-death has no consistency across cultures and is therefore merely a "story". Also, Dr. Ian Stevenson studied reincarnation cases of children across many cultures and concluded that "culture and belief" alone is inadequate, i.e. low explanatory power. Is this author prepared to address the full body of evidence with an open mind? Or is he committed to his "story" explanation regardless of the evidence? Children’s Experiences.
The NDEs of children, including very young children who are too young to have developed concepts of death, religion, or NDEs, are essentially identical to those of older children and adults. This refutes the possibility that the content of NDEs is produced by preexisting beliefs or cultural conditioning.
Worldwide Consistency.
NDEs appear remarkably consistent around the world, and across many different religions and cultures. NDEs from non-Western countries are incredibly similar to those occurring in people in Western countries.
Carl Becker examined four ways in which NDEs may be considered objective:
1. Paranormal knowledge that is later verified
2. The similarity of deathbed events in different cultures
3. Differences between religious expectations and visionary experiences
4. Third-party observations of visionary figures, indicating that they were not merely subjective hallucinations.
https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html#a07
Chopra presents answers to such questions as: who you meet in the afterlife and how your experience there reflect your present beliefs, expectations, and level of awareness. In the here and now you can shape what happens after you die. Chopra opens up immense new areas of insights where ultimately there is no division between life and death - there is only one continuous creative project.
''If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.'' Same applies to your god LOL. You are an atheist on all the other religions.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm
Next time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius.
With one major difference. There's tons of proof all over the place that God exists. But there isn't any proof for unicorns.
EDIT Regarding your link above, there is nothing outside of beliefs. Beliefs always exist. To suggest that they don't is simply another belief. The only thing that exists, is what your religion is... what your beliefs are.
Where is all that proof?? In the other thread where I destroyed it and you can't even argue against my points? LOL. There is a ton or proof that unicorns exist, there are a lot of books and even videos of them, how can you deny their existence?
Except by accident now and again, everything you say comes from one or both of two major standpoints:
1. It comes from your religion, or;
2. It comes from political science speaking... which means that who cares what the truth is? All that counts is who can say it the most, thereby cluttering up the conversation until others fall away out of boredom.
That explains you almost entirely.
You are an atheist on all the other religions.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm
Next time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius.
Your arguments are growing increasingly erratic.
I am not an atheist of other religions. I believe Jews, Christians, and Muslim all worship the same God and most educated practitioners of those faiths would agree with that assertion.
There are differences of opinion on the proper way to worship God and and there are some who falsely invoke God's name to do evil. Error is to be expected in any human attempt to understand the infinite. This is why it is important to build our religious beliefs up from first principles rather then relying solely on organized authority to tell us what to believe.
I don't believe in paganism, the worship of nature, or snake gods but that would make me a heretic from the perspective of those religions not an atheist.
Regarding refusing medical care. I have never advocated anything of the sort. God helps those who help themselves. If you are ill the best strategy is to usually to pray for guidance and healing then start educating yourself on your illness its treatment and your options regarding doctors and seek out the highest quality care possible.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
I had never heard of Göbekli Tepe so I read the Wikipedia article on it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Fascinating history there.
Yes you are, you don't believe in zeus or thor for example, you are an atheist of those religions. Don't be a hypocrite.
I will just quote again something:
Science is invalidating miracles one by one. We no longer think demon possession accounts for epilepsy, nor do we believe nature is such that God sends hurricanes on people for their sins, nor do (educated people) go to faith healers instead of doctors for healing, nor do people pray for the sun to stand still, or for axe heads to float, or for people to be raised up from the dead. We know better. Christians no longer cast lots to decide important issues, and certainly would object if our politicians did this, especially if they lost the issue. Educated Christians no longer see dreams as if God was communicating to them, since science has shown that dreams are the result of the rational parts of our brain being asleep. Christians no longer believe that curses and blessings actually change the nature of people and events, and they no longer believe they are irreversible. Science sets the limits for what Christians will pray for. This is no different than science setting the limits for where aliens purportedly come from. That’s right. As soon as science showed us that any present life on planet Mars was impossible, people stopped claiming that aliens came from there! Science has shown so many beliefs to be false that it's fair to say theologians have always been wrong. Why should it be any different in the future?
Fourth, why is it that the God Christians believe in will not allow a scientific test that will show he exists, or that Jesus arose, or that prayer works, or that miracles can occur, or that there is a heaven, or that there is a hell? Why not? I can conceive of such tests. For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe. If God would do miracles today like he did in the past it would be considered strong evidence that the past miracles really could've occurred. If God would "allow" tests about prayer to succeed, that would be considered strong evidence that prayer works.
That's a strong point there, it seems to me that your god is trying to hide from us and trying to make it as hard as possible to prove his existence, for what? So he can send us to hell?
Christians have always been forced to reinterpret the Bible in light of science. Give me one case where it has been the reverse.
And back to all the scientific fuck ups the bible has:
creationism vs. evolution...all of the following have been shown as wrong.
Evolution : Genesis
1) Sun before earth : Earth before sun
2) Dry land before sea : Sea before dry land
3) Atmosphere before sea : Sea before atmosphere
4) Sun before light on earth : Light on earth before sun
5) Stars before earth : Earth before stars
6) Earth at same time as planets : Earth before other planets
7) Sea creatures before land plants : Land plants before sea creatures
Earthworms before starfish : Starfish before earthworms9) Land animals before trees : Trees before land animals
10) Death before man : Man before death
11) Thorns and thistles before man : Man before thorns and thistles
12) TB pathogens & cancer before man (dinosaurs had TB and cancer) : Man before TB pathogens and cancer
13) Reptiles before birds : Birds before reptiles
14) Land mammals before whales : Whales before land animals
15) Simple plants before fruit trees : Fruit trees before other plants*
16) Insects before mammals : Mammals (cattle) before “creeping things”*
17) Land mammals before bats : Bats before land animals
18) Dinosaurs before birds : Birds before dinosaurs
19) Insects before flowering plants : Flowering plants before insects
20) Sun before plants : Plants before sun
21) Dinosaurs before dolphins : Dolphins before dinosaurs
22) Land reptiles before pterosaurs : Pterosaurs before land reptiles
23) Land insects before flying insects : Flying insects before land insects
''If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.'' Same applies to your god LOL. You are an atheist on all the other religions.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm
Next time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius.
With one major difference. There's tons of proof all over the place that God exists. But there isn't any proof for unicorns.
EDIT Regarding your link above, there is nothing outside of beliefs. Beliefs always exist. To suggest that they don't is simply another belief. The only thing that exists, is what your religion is... what your beliefs are.
Where is all that proof?? In the other thread where I destroyed it and you can't even argue against my points? LOL. There is a ton or proof that unicorns exist, there are a lot of books and even videos of them, how can you deny their existence?
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
I had never heard of Göbekli Tepe so I read the Wikipedia article on it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Fascinating history there.
The only thing wrong with the research about Göbekli Tepe is, how old it is. If you simply Google something like "controversial science on the age of the Earth," you will see that there are many scientists that don't go along with the consensus regarding the Earth's age. And, they have listed good reasons. These reasons often apply to far more recent things like the age of Göbekli Tepe, as well.
Then, if you go and check out the papers by scientists who were the ones who set up the age, you will find that they doubted the ages that they agreed on with other scientists. Their agreement was simply something to give science a foundation to keep things in order. Their hope was that sometime science would find and prove the truth.
Well, science has never proven the truth. All the dating systems that are in use are at least a little bit controversial. And their conclusions are often extremely controversial. The fact of the matter is that we don't know how old the Earth is, or how old Göbekli Tepe really is. There are those, myself included, who think Göbekli Tepe is much younger than what has been standardly concluded.
The benefit for the "renegade" scientist, of dating Göbekli Tepe at 11,000 years, shows that science doesn't really know what it is talking about. Either the age is off, or the idea of what hunter-gatherers were like is off. Science is mixed up.
Then, when you add the idea of entropy, and the fact that there was much more oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere in the distant past, more than likely the people of prehistory were way more mentally capable that we are.
''If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.'' Same applies to your god LOL. You are an atheist on all the other religions.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm
Next time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius.
With one major difference. There's tons of proof all over the place that God exists. But there isn't any proof for unicorns.
EDIT Regarding your link above, there is nothing outside of beliefs. Beliefs always exist. To suggest that they don't is simply another belief. The only thing that exists, is what your religion is... what your beliefs are.
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.
Insane views lack coherence.
You are right about Astargath... "insane views lack coherence."
Consider his statement where he quotes you:
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
So, what about science. As you examine science of the past, in the short time that it has been around, look at all the BS explanations it has come up with in the past that it has had to retract and correct. There are hundreds, maybe thousands.
At least the major religions have been stable for thousands of years before the little stint of a few hundred years of BS science even came into being. Again, why is it BS science? Because outside of a few solid Newtonian laws and the like, science has changed dramatically in just 200 or 300 years.
Is the past any indication of the future? Yes! How do we know? We know because right now there are new science theories that are putting old science theories completely to rest... even though the believers of those old, false theories won't let them die easily.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
Now, if Göbekli Tepe were the only old site like this, we might consider that some genius from the hunter-gatherer population put it together. But what is happening is, we are finding more and more archaeological sites all around the world that show that mankind was way more advanced in the past than we give him credit for, and in some ways, maybe more advanced than we are. Much of archaeological science is pure BS, just like Astargath suggests religion and philosophy might be.
If science ever becomes honest, they will finally admit that the foundations of religion and philosophy have way better answers than modern science could presently even dream of.
Please badecker, you need to stop talking about science, you already made a fool of yourself enough times, don't you think? Or should I link the post where you fucked up? No one cares about your opinion tbh.
LOL! Your standard answer when you have no response to statements that are right, but are against what your religion says.
Health and religion go hand in hand. But sickness and wrong religion go hand in hand as well.
Wake up and smell the coffee. I'm going to have a cup of it right now. You should do the same.
You are an atheist on all the other religions.
https://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm
Next time don't go to an hospital when you are sick, just pray ok? Comeback here and tell us how that went, genius.
Your arguments are growing increasingly erratic.
I am not an atheist of other religions. I believe Jews, Christians, and Muslim all worship the same God and most educated practitioners of those faiths would agree with that assertion.
There are differences of opinion on the proper way to worship God and and there are some who falsely invoke God's name to do evil. Error is to be expected in any human attempt to understand the infinite. This is why it is important to build our religious beliefs up from first principles rather then relying solely on organized authority to tell us what to believe.
I don't believe in paganism, the worship of nature, or snake gods but that would make me a heretic from the perspective of those religions not an atheist.
Regarding refusing medical care. I have never advocated anything of the sort. God helps those who help themselves. If you are ill the best strategy is to usually to pray for guidance and healing then start educating yourself on your illness its treatment and your options regarding doctors and seek out the highest quality care possible.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
I had never heard of Göbekli Tepe so I read the Wikipedia article on it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
Fascinating history there.
Now I know the reason why some people with high IQs become atheist. Scientist who were really intelligent do not believe the existence of our Almighty God, Einstein is exception. They became rebellious sometimes, high egos with super high confidence that they do not believe that their someone who is behind all the things we have on Earth. And because of thinking their superiority, they do almost what they want. They abused their health compared to people who believes to the existence of God. These people values their lives as they know that our body is the temple of Christ. Thus, people who believes God values their life. They are mostly the contented person and they are mostly the happy beings.
Inquisition. Oh and by the way, einstein didn't believe in your god. He said he believed in some sort of god but not a religious personal god like the christian god or allah.
Now I know the reason why some people with high IQs become atheist. Scientist who were really intelligent do not believe the existence of our Almighty God, Einstein is exception. They became rebellious sometimes, high egos with super high confidence that they do not believe that their someone who is behind all the things we have on Earth. And because of thinking their superiority, they do almost what they want. They abused their health compared to people who believes to the existence of God. These people values their lives as they know that our body is the temple of Christ. Thus, people who believes God values their life. They are mostly the contented person and they are mostly the happy beings.
super high confidence that they do not believe that their someone who is behind all the things we have on Earth. WRONG..What if an ALIEN race made the earth and all the things on it?..Just like planting and new tree..
Brought a big rock and planted it just the right distance from the sun and spun it at the right speed and
here we are today..
I call that science not gods
..I hope one day we humans can do that spin a rock and see what happens ..Snow ball effect?..
They abused their health compared to people who believes to the existence of God.WRONG..
Eat vegetables fruit plenty of it and cut out red meat like only eat it once a month ..
Some fish some chicken not fried and drink water and you should live quite a long life..
Red meat really bad for you ..Gives you cancer if you eat it all the time ..
But some people can do what they likes like this woman below..
Woman aged 112 says her secret to long life is smoking 30 cigarettes ...
www.mirror.co.uk › News › Weird News › Smoking
26 Jan 2016 - Secret: This woman claims smoking every day has heled her live longer ... Family: One of Batuli's sons is still alive and is now 85-years-old .
All nothing to do with god..
Gardening can keep you fit and well..plus eat the right foods and you should live long..
All nothing to do with GODS..
I know the goblins spread magic dust and everything will be alright
.. Now I know the reason why some people with high IQs become atheist. Scientist who were really intelligent do not believe the existence of our Almighty God, Einstein is exception. They became rebellious sometimes, high egos with super high confidence that they do not believe that their someone who is behind all the things we have on Earth. And because of thinking their superiority, they do almost what they want. They abused their health compared to people who believes to the existence of God. These people values their lives as they know that our body is the temple of Christ. Thus, people who believes God values their life. They are mostly the contented person and they are mostly the happy beings.
Inquisition. Oh and by the way, einstein didn't believe in your god. He said he believed in some sort of god but not a religious personal god like the christian god or allah.
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.
Insane views lack coherence.
You are right about Astargath... "insane views lack coherence."
Consider his statement where he quotes you:
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
So, what about science. As you examine science of the past, in the short time that it has been around, look at all the BS explanations it has come up with in the past that it has had to retract and correct. There are hundreds, maybe thousands.
At least the major religions have been stable for thousands of years before the little stint of a few hundred years of BS science even came into being. Again, why is it BS science? Because outside of a few solid Newtonian laws and the like, science has changed dramatically in just 200 or 300 years.
Is the past any indication of the future? Yes! How do we know? We know because right now there are new science theories that are putting old science theories completely to rest... even though the believers of those old, false theories won't let them die easily.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
Now, if Göbekli Tepe were the only old site like this, we might consider that some genius from the hunter-gatherer population put it together. But what is happening is, we are finding more and more archaeological sites all around the world that show that mankind was way more advanced in the past than we give him credit for, and in some ways, maybe more advanced than we are. Much of archaeological science is pure BS, just like Astargath suggests religion and philosophy might be.
If science ever becomes honest, they will finally admit that the foundations of religion and philosophy have way better answers than modern science could presently even dream of.
Please badecker, you need to stop talking about science, you already made a fool of yourself enough times, don't you think? Or should I link the post where you fucked up? No one cares about your opinion tbh.
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.
Insane views lack coherence.
You are right about Astargath... "insane views lack coherence."
Consider his statement where he quotes you:
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
So, what about science. As you examine science of the past, in the short time that it has been around, look at all the BS explanations it has come up with in the past that it has had to retract and correct. There are hundreds, maybe thousands.
At least the major religions have been stable for thousands of years before the little stint of a few hundred years of BS science even came into being. Again, why is it BS science? Because outside of a few solid Newtonian laws and the like, science has changed dramatically in just 200 or 300 years.
Is the past any indication of the future? Yes! How do we know? We know because right now there are new science theories that are putting old science theories completely to rest... even though the believers of those old, false theories won't let them die easily.
One simple example is the field of archaeology. The so-call standard hunter-gathers of 10,000 years ago were not simply that. Göbekli Tepe, which is dated back as far as more than 11,000 years, shows that archaeological science doesn't really have a clue about what the hunter-gatherers of 10,000 years ago were like. There are peoples of the present age that live like the so-called hunter-gatherers of prehistory.
Now, if Göbekli Tepe were the only old site like this, we might consider that some genius from the hunter-gatherer population put it together. But what is happening is, we are finding more and more archaeological sites all around the world that show that mankind was way more advanced in the past than we give him credit for, and in some ways, maybe more advanced than we are. Much of archaeological science is pure BS, just like Astargath suggests religion and philosophy might be.
If science ever becomes honest, they will finally admit that the foundations of religion and philosophy have way better answers than modern science could presently even dream of.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.es/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html
'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo.
Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many?
Astargath I was going to compliment you on the quality of your response when I saw the quotation marks. As a rule of thumb it is always best to cite the source and give credit when quoting people.
In any case it appears the author is not the one you linked above but John W. Loftus a former Christian turned atheist writer who has published several books about his opposition to Christianity.
Loftus Writings:
http://www.debunking-christianity.com/2006/12/does-science-invalidate-religious.html?m=1
In any event I take the position that Mr. Loftus is mistaken regarding the bolded comment above.
I highlighted the reasons why in the Scientific Discoveries by Religion Thread
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.19431179
I do not want to clutter this thread up with things I have posted elsewhere but I would draw your attention to my first and third post in that thread where I draw from the writings of John C. Wright and Bruce Charlton who challenge Mr. Loftus position. Charlton and Wright are also both writers and former atheist turned Christians so they make for good opponents to hold up against Loftus.
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
If you believe your neighbor is hiding a unicorn in his house you are probably insane or suffering the effects of severe chemical psychosis.
Insane views lack coherence.
The meaning of insanity in persons and nations - the primary need for restoration of sanity
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-meaning-of-insanity-in-persons-and.html?m=1
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
To be sane is to be in touch with reality, to be in touch with reality means (minimally) having a coherent perspective.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
*
There is no basis for deciding the importance of events, neither their absolute nor relative importance - on a scale between overwhelming of everything/ nothing else matters or utterly trivial/ ignored, the same event might be regarded as either - and there would be no coherent argument about which.
Between events, between possible subjects of attention - there is no basis for allocating attention, or resources, or concern.
There can be no long term purpose, no coherent planning - because there is no relative scale of values; no value as higher than another; all are 'ends' and none are means-to-ends; life is merely one thing, then another, then another.
Each specific perspective is partial, hence false; it leaves-out most things (to make it simple) and it is biased (no specific perspective is a microcosm of reality - rather it is a tiny chunk of reality of unknown relationship to the whole - that could only be known if the whole were known: if there was an underlying coherent perspective).
*
Modern societies are differentiated into perspectives - these are the specialist social institutions - politics, law, military, religion (in the past), the mass media and so on. Each makes its own selection from reality and works by its own rules... There is no underlying master perspective - no meta-narrative.
In other words, in modernity there are many selves and no ultimate real self. Each perspective can be conceptualised as a separate self, processing the world differently.
This happens in modern people, as well as modern institutions. We have many selves. Some we have learned in order to perform certain functions - one self does our work, and within that are several separate selves with various skills, When such a self is engaged, the world is seen and understood from that self.
But whenever another self is engaged - then another and different self becomes the locus of our subjective-self - when watching The News, on Social Media, engaged in sports, with family, engaged with one or another of the many bureaucracies that constitute our world (each with somewhat different rules).
*
Our subjective self moves between these many selves - some natural, some self-training, some inculcated by socialisation, others by propaganda.
Most are taught that there is no real self - just a sequence of specific selves - to be adopted temporarily then cast aside as another is picked-up. This is the ordinary, unremarkable, universal experience of being-adapted-to modernity. And it is insane.
We are insane, because we move between distinct false selves; and the society is insane because it does the same.
Insofar as there is convergence of social systems to one socio-political system (of secular Leftism) or there is convergence of our personal systems to the one system of political correctness; these are merely establish insanity more solidly; since the ideology on which there is convergence is negative and oppositional. It is an ideology without purpose or aim - except destruction of The Good.
Convergence on evil is not convergence on sanity; it is the active embrace of insanity: a species of value inversion.
*
So we are, each of us, insane; and we live in an insane society - the the depth of our insanity is measured in terms of tour will assent to and embrace of this insanity. It is not merely that we have not (yet) found coherence and sanity - but that we believe there is no coherence to be found; and indeed we have a morality which would reject such coherence if it did exist.
In a world of actively embraced and aggressively promoted insanity; the one priority above all others must be restoration of sanity: first in ourselves, then in others.
To have more than one perspective - to be thinking one way, then another, then another; and to lack a basis for ever combining, sequencing, stratifying these perspectives - is to be insane.
It is to lack any basis for deciding-between persepctives - merely to be trapped by whatever perpective is currently in-place.
*
There is no basis for deciding the importance of events, neither their absolute nor relative importance - on a scale between overwhelming of everything/ nothing else matters or utterly trivial/ ignored, the same event might be regarded as either - and there would be no coherent argument about which.
Between events, between possible subjects of attention - there is no basis for allocating attention, or resources, or concern.
There can be no long term purpose, no coherent planning - because there is no relative scale of values; no value as higher than another; all are 'ends' and none are means-to-ends; life is merely one thing, then another, then another.
Each specific perspective is partial, hence false; it leaves-out most things (to make it simple) and it is biased (no specific perspective is a microcosm of reality - rather it is a tiny chunk of reality of unknown relationship to the whole - that could only be known if the whole were known: if there was an underlying coherent perspective).
*
Modern societies are differentiated into perspectives - these are the specialist social institutions - politics, law, military, religion (in the past), the mass media and so on. Each makes its own selection from reality and works by its own rules... There is no underlying master perspective - no meta-narrative.
In other words, in modernity there are many selves and no ultimate real self. Each perspective can be conceptualised as a separate self, processing the world differently.
This happens in modern people, as well as modern institutions. We have many selves. Some we have learned in order to perform certain functions - one self does our work, and within that are several separate selves with various skills, When such a self is engaged, the world is seen and understood from that self.
But whenever another self is engaged - then another and different self becomes the locus of our subjective-self - when watching The News, on Social Media, engaged in sports, with family, engaged with one or another of the many bureaucracies that constitute our world (each with somewhat different rules).
*
Our subjective self moves between these many selves - some natural, some self-training, some inculcated by socialisation, others by propaganda.
Most are taught that there is no real self - just a sequence of specific selves - to be adopted temporarily then cast aside as another is picked-up. This is the ordinary, unremarkable, universal experience of being-adapted-to modernity. And it is insane.
We are insane, because we move between distinct false selves; and the society is insane because it does the same.
Insofar as there is convergence of social systems to one socio-political system (of secular Leftism) or there is convergence of our personal systems to the one system of political correctness; these are merely establish insanity more solidly; since the ideology on which there is convergence is negative and oppositional. It is an ideology without purpose or aim - except destruction of The Good.
Convergence on evil is not convergence on sanity; it is the active embrace of insanity: a species of value inversion.
*
So we are, each of us, insane; and we live in an insane society - the the depth of our insanity is measured in terms of tour will assent to and embrace of this insanity. It is not merely that we have not (yet) found coherence and sanity - but that we believe there is no coherence to be found; and indeed we have a morality which would reject such coherence if it did exist.
In a world of actively embraced and aggressively promoted insanity; the one priority above all others must be restoration of sanity: first in ourselves, then in others.
Unfortunately we are not here thanks to philosophy, we didn't fly to the moon thanks to philosophy. ''Science is great but it has its own limitations'' That philosophy doesn't solve whatsoever lmao, science and the scientific method is the best we can do, everything else is garbage and assumptions (which are useless). If you base your belief in a supernatural god just in assumptions then you are naive, what can I say.
''Then science broke-off from philosophy by eliminating divine revelation as an allowable explanation. '' Yeah made up bullshit explanations, that's right. What are you trying to tell me with your link, that science is far better than theology or philosophy because it doesn't have made up explanations?
And thus we come full circle to exactly where we were four months ago.
Ok? It doesn't matter whether you want to call it a religion or not, science still works and you haven't shown a single example of the bible being applied to something that actually works.
...One way the Bible "works" is by creating the conditions that allow science to "work".
Christianity and Science: Friends or Foes?
https://www.exploregod.com/christianity-and-science-friends-or-foes
Quote from: John C. Murphy
There are certain philosophical presuppositions that must be assumed in order for science to be considered an effective, worthy endeavor:
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.
✧ The external world is real and knowable.
✧ Nature itself is not divine. It is an object worthy of study, not worship.
✧ The universe is orderly. There is uniformity in nature that allows us to observe past phenomena and to understand and predict future occurrences.
✧ Our minds and senses are capable of accurately observing and understanding the world.
✧ Language and mathematics can accurately describe the external world that we observe.
So where did these metaphysical assumptions come from?
Science, Romance and the Scientific Romance of Christendom
http://www.scifiwright.com/2012/04/science-romance-and-the-scientific-romance-of-christendom/
Quote from: John C. Wright
The most famous philosopher of the Hellenic culture, Socrates, was condemned to death for his investigations, while Aristotle fled into exile. The Hellenes were a people soaked in magic and mysticism, to which the clean intellectualism of Christianity was a shocking and refreshing change. Julian the Apostate, eager to reintroduce the Old Religion, in order to foretell the outcome of his war in Persia, had a slave girl disemboweled and her entrails examined by haruspices, official readers of entrails.
The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.
The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.
To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:
The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.
Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.
The reason why we think of the Greek as logical and philosophical culture is that the monks of the Dark Ages carefully preserved the ancient writings concerning grammar, rhetoric, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy.
The monks did not preserve the mystery religions, the mysticism, no more than did the Romans after the conversion of the Empire preserve the barbaric customs and traditions of their pagan fathers, such as slavery, gladiatorial combat, exposing unwanted infants, the right of the father to kill disobedient sons, temple prostitution, temple sodomy prostitution, and no fault divorce.
...
Science arose in Christendom because it could arise nowhere else.
To summarize briefly, the Latins believed that:
- The universe was rationally ordered because a single rational God had willed it into being
- This order was knowable by autonomous human reason by ‘measuring, numbering, and weighing’ (and reason could be trusted in this regard)
- Matter could act directly on matter in “the common course of nature;” and because God was true to his promises, these actions were dependable and repeatable; and
- The discovery of such relations was a worthwhile pursuit for adults.
They also embedded this pursuit in their culture through broad-based cultural institutions:
- Creating independent, self-governing corporations in the social space between Church and State.
- Accepting with enthusiasm the work of pagan philosophers and Muslim commentators and reconciling them with their religious beliefs.
- Teaching logic, reason, and natural philosophy systematically across the whole of Europe in self-governing universities, in consequence of which: Nearly every medieval theologian was first trained in natural philosophy, which created enthusiasm for rather than resistance to the study of nature.
- Encouraged freedom of inquiry and a culture of “poking into things” by means of the Questions genre and the disputatio.
The reason it could arise nowhere else is that, while scientific breakthroughs are made by particular geniuses, and which refinements of technique are possible in any civilization, scientific progress itself is a orderly group effort, and must be sustained by the consensus of the general society. You cannot have a generally literate society, as Europe had in the Late Middle Ages, without a university system that enjoyed academic freedom.
Science or natural philosophy cannot be maintained by the consensus of society unless that same consensus accept the metaphysical and theological axioms on which natural science is based.
So what happens to science in a world that starts to reject the basic foundation that allowed for science in the first place. Like so many other things it starts to die. This slow death is well documented by Charlton.
Not even trying: the corruption of real science
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/
Quote from: Bruce Charlton
Real Science noun Science that operates on the basis of a belief in the reality of truth: that truth is real.
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
The argument of this book in a single paragraph
Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality. Among the consequences are that modern publications in the research literature must be assumed to be worthless or misleading and should always be ignored. In practice, this means that nearly all ‘science’ needs to be demolished (or allowed to collapse) and real science carefully rebuilt outside the professional research structure, from the ground up, by real scientists who regard truth-seeking as an imperative and truthfulness as an iron law.
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com.es/2006/11/science-and-medieval-christianity.html
'' Christianity has hindered almost every scientific advancement we've ever had, which we can see right now in stem cell research. While Christians can tout Galileo's faith, what about those who condemned him? And what about Rene Descartes who had written a book called "The World" but decided not to publish it after he heard of Galileo's fate? Instead, Descartes wrote his "Meditations" with the express purpose of making it possible to discuss the questions of science apart from the same kind of Christian censorship. He argued that there were two worlds, the world of material objects subject to the laws of math, and the world of the spirit subject to the scrutiny of the church. And into this climate he later published his former book agreeing with Galileo.
Just prove your point here. How many original scientific advances can you name that haven't been opposed by the church? How many?
Third, when I speak about science undercutting the believability in miracles and prayer, Christians will usually claim that science isn't so great. It cannot understand everything. Why do they have to do this? It may not be able to explain everything, but it has explained so much that a 15 century church person would probably lose his faith by merely being brought into our era. So many of his beliefs would be overturned at once.
Science is invalidating miracles one by one. We no longer think demon possession accounts for epilepsy, nor do we believe nature is such that God sends hurricanes on people for their sins, nor do (educated people) go to faith healers instead of doctors for healing, nor do people pray for the sun to stand still, or for axe heads to float, or for people to be raised up from the dead. We know better. Christians no longer cast lots to decide important issues, and certainly would object if our politicians did this, especially if they lost the issue. Educated Christians no longer see dreams as if God was communicating to them, since science has shown that dreams are the result of the rational parts of our brain being asleep. Christians no longer believe that curses and blessings actually change the nature of people and events, and they no longer believe they are irreversible. Science sets the limits for what Christians will pray for. This is no different than science setting the limits for where aliens purportedly come from. That’s right. As soon as science showed us that any present life on planet Mars was impossible, people stopped claiming that aliens came from there! Science has shown so many beliefs to be false that it's fair to say theologians have always been wrong. Why should it be any different in the future?
Fourth, why is it that the God Christians believe in will not allow a scientific test that will show he exists, or that Jesus arose, or that prayer works, or that miracles can occur, or that there is a heaven, or that there is a hell? Why not? I can conceive of such tests. For instance, if everyone who ever died and was brought back to life in a hospital told the exact same story about what they saw, it would be considered strong evidence about the nature of the afterlife, heaven and hell, and they could tell the same story about meeting Jesus or the devil too. But instead they tell stories based upon what they already believe. If God would do miracles today like he did in the past it would be considered strong evidence that the past miracles really could've occurred. If God would "allow" tests about prayer to succeed, that would be considered strong evidence that prayer works.
Take prayer as just one example. The American Heart Journal (April 2006) reported on a scientific study of patients who had heart by-pass surgery who were separated into three groups. Group 1 received prayers and didn’t know it. Group 2 received no prayers and didn’t know it (the control group). Group 3 received prayers and did know it. Groups 1 and 3 were prayed for by different congregations throughout America. The results were very clear. There was no difference between the patients who were prayed for and those who were not prayed for. Moreover, the patients who knew they were being prayed for suffered significantly more complications than those who did not know they were being prayed for.
It's very interesting that Christians must downplay science. They always have. They always will. Sad, really.''
No thank you. With your argument you can say any belief is logical. You can have assumptions about other gods as well and say they are logical, you can have assumptions to ''prove'' flying unicorns, if all the assumptions are true then flying unicorns exist therefore it's logical to believe in flying unicorns, well guess what, it's not, that's not how it works. If you want to believe in your god, go ahead but don't try to tell people that your belief is logical because it's not, you only believe in that specific god because you were taught that way, you haven't studied all religions and all gods to see which one is the real one, now you are trying to find excuses and explanations on why your belief is real.
Actually, because my faith in God isn't perfect in this life, I DO have a touch of atheism. In similar ways you have much faith in God, even though you try to deny it. It is inherent in both of us.
Turn, now, while you have the chance, to strengthen the little faith in God that you DO have... so that you can be saved in the resurrection
Turn, now, while you have the chance, to strengthen the little faith in God that you DO have... so that you can be saved in the resurrection
Jump to: