Topic: Health and Religion - page 62. (Read 210987 times)

The so called Scientist are always changing their minds through their research, one time they said that the consumption of meat is not good, another time they said that not consuming meat is bad for one's health, they constantly change their opinion with every experiment or research that they make.

Islam and the holy book is the way through which we can improve our lives. Many of foreigner doctors are practicing the ways through which the holy book provide us guidance for good health. For example if we look at the prayer when a human being put his/her head on the ground the blood flow reach at the upper part of the body which is neck and brain in the head.

Science is great. I have nothing against science. However, you should know that without higher meaning and purpose science itself becomes corrupt over time and and ultimately dies.

Here are some excerpts from a book on this topic that drives this point home.

Not even trying: the corruption of real science
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/2013/07/not-even-trying-corruption-of-real.html?m=1

I will stick to science. So far it seems like there is indeed no purpose but who knows, religious people are desperate in trying to find meaning, heaven would still be pointless and will still have no purpose. When you are in heaven, what's your purpose? My assumption is not purely based on faith, it is based on evidence and I agree that science still has a lot more to do.

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...


A few decades ago one could assume that published work was honest and competent (except in specific cases); now one must assume that published work is dishonest and incompetent (except in specific cases).
A few decades ago one could assume that high status (“successful”) scientists were honest and competent (except in specific cases); now one must assume that famous and powerful scientists are dishonest and incompetent (except in specific cases).
*
Overall it seems that things have gone backwards, and not just slightly.
Yet research activity (personnel, funding, publishing, communicating) have all increased exponentially – doubling in volume every 15 or so years (doubling every decade in medical research. And China has exploded with research activity in the past 10 years).
So there has been massive expansion of inputs with first stagnation then decline of outputs. Something has gone terribly wrong: not just slightly wrong, but terribly wrong.
...
How did we get from useful and real science to useless research bureaucracies generating hype and spin for the public relations industry?
Anyone who has been a scientist for more than 20 years will realize that there has been a progressive, significant and indeed qualitative decline in the honesty of communications between scientists, between scientists and their employing institutions, and between scientists and their institutions and the outside world.
In a nutshell – science has gone from being basically honest to basically dishonest (and in the process gone from being real science to professional research).
...
Scientists are usually too cautious and timid to risk telling outright lies about important things, or to invent and emphasize fake data; but instead they push the envelope of exaggeration, selectivity and distortion as far as possible. And tolerance for this kind of untruthfulness has greatly increased over recent years.
So it is now routine, normal, indeed required behaviour for scientists deliberately to exaggerate, to ‘hype’ the significance of their status and performance, and ‘spin’ the importance of their research.
...

Furthermore, it is entirely normal and unremarkable for ordinary ‘scientists’ to spend their entire professional life doing work they know in their hearts to be trivial or bogus – preferring that which promotes their career over that which has the best chance of advancing science.
...
Indeed, senior scientists in the best places are clever, hard-working and intelligent enough rapidly to become expert at hyping mundane research to create a misleading impression of revolutionary importance. Far from resisting, or fighting, the degradation of science; the senior researchers at the ‘best’ places have led (indeed driven) their subordinates into a morass of corruption..
It is a kind of Gresham’s Law at work; when dishonest research is treated as if it were real science; then bad research drives out the good.

The fact that we are here having this conversation right now leads by logical necessity to a first cause that led to this moment.

What one believes about the nature of that first cause is an assumption or an act of faith. If you assume its all random chance without higher purpose then you have chosen your assumption and thus your religion. It is a belief system that shapes one's view of the universe and your place in it. It also rest ultimately on a "truth" that is not proven but chosen. Not all religions believe in God.

I have nothing against people who embrace this worldview. I would only point to multiple studies highlighting the harmful effects of this choice and ask you voluntary embrace a potentially toxic worldview when their are superior alternatives?

 

''God ultimately is beyond science.'' Yeah yeah I heard that many times, so is the other thousands of gods. What is the logic that leads to the conclusion that god is real? That same logic could lead to all kind of different gods not to mention to the other hundreds of possibilities (We live in a computer simulation, aliens from another dimension created this universe, this universe creates and destroys itself in a loop, some other force/process created the universe, etc etc)

There is no evidence for any god just like there is no evidence aliens did, quit the bullshit.

God ultimately is beyond science. Knowledge of the infinite lies at a deeper more fundamental level.

All knowledge traces back ultimately to apriori truth.

If you deny the infinite you  must choose different typically nihilistic apriori. These assumptions in turn warp and fundamentally alter ones relationship with the universe.

The only dishonesty I have seen is a refusal to follow logic to its rational conclusion. Many people who deny God seem to exhibit this dishonesty of self settling into a childlike refusal to think following delivery of some smug barb about fairytales or spaghetti monsters.

It is my opinion that rejection of God is ultimately not compatible with sustained existence in homo sapiens on a multigenerational timeline.

Proverbs 14:27
The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, turning a person from the snares of death.

Metaphysics is the most important thing in the modern world. But for most modern people metaphysics is gibberish - even worse, metaphysics is boring and irrelevant gibberish...

The usual attitude in English society, as in The West generally, is that the ultimate explanation for everything is a matter of science - of physics, chemistry and biology. It is obvious to everybody that everything began with some kind of big bang as described by physics; with the formation of the stars, solar system, and earth; then chemistry kicked-in until biology emerged; and biology led to plants, animals, intelligence, consciousness then eventually Man - who then developed with the emergence of society, into each of us here and now...

On that basis, there isn't any purpose or meaning to life; and our strivings and relationships are consequences of undirected chance plus past evolutionary pressures. There isn't anything to be said about why we are here, or what we 'ought' to do. Things just are as they are; and no conclusions can be drawn about anything.

Hence the pervasive nihilism of modernity, and the consequent undercurrent of despair. Our dissatisfaction with the pointless futility of everything can be explained, but never gratified.

But, we need to be clear that the above scenario is not a discovery but an assumption. The physics, chemistry, biology explanation did not come from science; instead modern science came from that explanation. Modern science operates within the metaphysical assumption that only modern science is real - nothing else exists.

Science cannot discover any meaning or purpose - neither can science disprove the reality of meaning and purpose; because meaning and purpose are excluded from science by its founding assumptions.

For example, there is no point in trying to claim that random chance plus Natural Selection is insufficient to explain the full range of observed phenomena; because these are the only permissible explanations within modern biology. Anything not currently understood on the basis of randomness and selection is merely something for which the evidence is not yet available.  

Upon such foundations are constructed the entire structure of the modern world - in other words, the modern world in all its vast complexity has no foundations. None At All.

It is this Big Secret which is denied and defended by the vast apparatus of distractions and lies which form modern society and culture. The Big Secret is that there is nothing and no reason and no point to anything...

The most important first step in the modern world is to reveal modern metaphysical assumptions as being assumptions.

That might be easy, if it was acknowledged that there are metaphysical assumptions, but 150 years of philosophical discussion has concluded that the distinguishing feature of modern 'scientific' thought is that it has no metaphysical assumptions - but that it is empirical and purely evidence-based. Having metaphysics is regarded as obsolete religious obfuscation - modern Man is too hard-nosed to be 'fooled' by metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

So modern opinion denies the validity of metaphysical discussion: modern opinion denies that it has any fundamental assumptions at all - it is merely practical, merely trying to 'make life better', just 'getting on with the job' instead of wasting time and confusing or manipulating people with airy-fairy nonsense about 'metaphysics'.

This is why the modern predicament has proved so difficult to solve. The problem is buried at the foundation, but the conventional wisdom is that there are no foundations.

If metaphysical assumptions were acknowledged as real and inevitable, then we would have a good chance of changing them. But since they are regarded as imaginary - then we seem to be stuck with modern metaphysics.

And modern metaphysics is killing us - but, more importantly, damning us.

...Is a metaphysical one - not a matter of 'evidence'. And that insight (metaphysics not evidence) is the first step.

The situation is that Life is a mixed-picture: the decision is whether Life is validated by its best moments or times; or destroyed by its worst.

As I said, evidence does not help - the question is not quantitative. This is a matter of primary assumption.

And the question is not answerable in isolation - Life can only be validated if Life has 'meaning'; and the nature of validation depends on the nature of that meaning.

On the other hand, if you have already accepted that life has no meaning - is merely determined, or random - then you have already made your Big Decision. (Whether implicitly or explicitly) your basic assumptions ensure that for you Life is defined by its worst aspects - indeed the single, most extreme worst-of-Life is the truth-of-Life (both for individuals, and en masse).

Nothing can be done for you - because any possible Good will be negated by One Bad Thing - even when that Bad is merely the evanescence of Good.

On the other hand; if you understand, and live-by, the conviction that the best of Life is the truth of life (despite that this cannot be continuous) - then you have indomitable strength, assurance, and hope.

What's interesting is how dishonest you are. Your starting point is assuming god exists and you try to prove his existence desperately although no real science man agrees with anything you say.

Oh, this is so interesting. In this thread you can refer to the info, and find the answer to your question. But in the Scientific proof that God exists? you can quote my post, and then ask a question that is answered right in my post that you just quoted, totally playing the game like the answer isn't there.

You are such a game player!

 

The evidence is right there, he himself said that his near death experience was the same as hallucinating on drugs because that's what a near death experience is, hallucinations. Where is your evidence that what he claims he saw is real?

"We should not be seeing steady increases in curable infections," says Dr. Jeffrey Klausner, a UCLA professor of medicine and public health. "These are readily detected by routine tests and they are easily cured by antibiotics."

The California Department of Public Health says more than 250,000 cases of STDs were reported in 2016, a 40 percent increase compared with five years ago. Young people, African-Americans and gay and bisexual men had the highest infection rates.

Los Angeles County experienced sharper increases in gonorrhea and congenital syphilis cases than the state as a whole, according to the county Public Health Department.

State health officials say they're particularly concerned about a 43 percent increase in cases of congenital syphilis compared with 2015. The state recorded 207 cases of congenital syphilis last year, the highest number of cases since 1996.

"Countries like Cuba and Thailand have eliminated mother-child transmission [of syphilis], so to see an increase in the United States is frightening," Klausner says.

Congenital syphilis can lead to stillbirth or permanent, lifelong disabilities. It occurs when a mother with syphilis passes the infection to her baby during pregnancy.

All women should be tested for syphilis during their first prenatal visit, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The state report says cases of congenital syphilis are frequently associated with a lack of access to prenatal care, poverty and substance abuse.

In response to the increase in congenital syphilis cases, the L.A. County Department of Public Health will be dispatching public health nurses to provide case management to any women diagnosed with syphilis, according to Mario Perez, director of the department's Division of HIV and STD Programs.

The state also reported a 19 percent increase in gonorrhea cases compared with 2015.

The bacteria that causes gonorrhea has developed resistance to nearly all of the antibiotics used to treat it; the CDC says it's down to one last effective class of antibiotics for gonorrhea.

Klausner is concerned that more cases of the infection will lead to more antibiotic resistance.

"One of our approaches to combatting untreatable gonorrhea is to control gonorrhea, and we're obviously not effectively controlling gonorrhea," he says.

Rates of gonorrhea among men increased 22 percent in 2016 compared with 2015, according to the state report. Men who have sex with men accounted for 63 percent of the state's male cases.

Chlamydia remains the most common reportable disease in California; it's at its highest level since mandated reporting began in 1990.

The highest rates of chlamydia are among young women. The infection can cause serious, permanent damage to a woman's reproductive system, making it difficult or impossible for her to get pregnant later on, according to the CDC.

Perez, with L.A. County, say there are several factors contributing to the steady increase in STDs. He says there's evidence that condom use is decreasing; one reason is because more young women are using long-acting reversible contraception, like IUDs.

"They are protecting themselves against pregnancy, but not protecting themselves against STDs," Perez says. "Condoms continue to play an important role in disease transmission."

And many people aren't being appropriately tested and treated for STDs, even when they visit the doctor, he adds.

"Most of these STDs are asymptomatic and unless we're routinely screening the groups that are most at-risk, a lot of disease is going to go undiagnosed and untreated," Perez says.

Perez says there's dwindling funding for STD prevention programs.

In a statement, the L.A. County public health department says it will be "aligning resources and programming to address the disproportionate impact of STDs in communities of color, and among young people, transgender persons and men who have sex with men."

Where is your evidence?! I already posted mine and it shows that NDE is different from dreams, and it is hard to explain NDE as a mere byproduct of human evolution. Your claim that it is all so simple is baseless.
. http://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html

Your assumption that atheism and socialism are somehow downsides of high IQ is deeply flawed.

There is no Odin, there is no Zeus, there is no Yahweh. Ask yourself why 2 of those statements don't bother you, but the third one does.