[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]all im saying is that sticking to some 2000yr old notion of what is 'right' isnt going be solve all the STD problems out there, or any other problems for that matter[/B][/QUOTE]
The ideas may be 2000 years old, but that doesn't mean they disappeared 2000 years ago.
I didn't agree with the Pope's views on abortion or birth control. But I respected his opinion greately for one reason: he held an opinion that was not popular, and yet he stood by it with a rock-solid resolve. His views never waivered. Not once. They have have been old-fashioned beliefes, but they were HIS beliefs, and he stuck with them.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]
there is nothing out there that cannot be solved by science. [/B][/QUOTE]
How about human stupidity? ;)
And see, Divorce is also against Catholic practices, if you follow it exactly, you marry once and thats it, only way to remarry is if your spouse dies.
Only grounds for divorce I believe is adultary, and in which case you still don't re-marry.
and Sam, I would apologise for my outbreak, but frankly, I feel it was warrented after viewing the first few replies to this thread.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ShadowDancer [/i]
[B]there is nothing out there that cannot be solved by science. i really dont see why theres a need to involve anything else [/B][/QUOTE]
Warmth? Emotion?
Science is cold as ice. Faith is hot as flame. Put them together, you get a comfortable room temperature.
Or, you could take the tack that if you put them together, you get a tepid, unsatisfying mix, like a poorly prepared meal. In that case, you can take all of one, or all of the other, but not both.
Hm. That's a good metaphor: people who "eat" knowledge as opposed to those that "breathe" it. I'll have to remember that one.
Anyway, he was a good leader. I liked a lot of what he did, and understood why he did things I disagreed with, with few exceptions. I miss him, but I'm looking forward to seeing who the next Pope shall be.
Speaking of which, who else would be amused if the next Pope took the name George Ringo I? ;)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]Wow...
Just wow. I came in here expecting a moment of silence and dozens of :( emoticons. Even Dale Eandheardt got that much and he did nothing to try to better mankind as a whole.
Instead, I come in here and see nothing but a bunch of snibbeling little brats glad to see the death of a world leader that did his best to better the world and try to stabalize the tension between religions.
Way to go team, your officially a bunch of jerks.
-End Rant
*Gives the proper moment of silence*
:( [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm sure the pope is positively turning in his grave (or will be, when they get around to putting him into one, at least) because some people write about their disapproval of him on an internet forum :rolleyes:
A moment of silence? On an internet forum? Are you kidding?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]How about human stupidity? ;)
And see, Divorce is also against Catholic practices, if you follow it exactly, you marry once and thats it, only way to remarry is if your spouse dies.
Only grounds for divorce I believe is adultary, and in which case you still don't re-marry.
and Sam, I would apologise for my outbreak, but frankly, I feel it was warrented after viewing the first few replies to this thread. [/B][/QUOTE]
Like I said before, croxis never indicated that this should be a "moment of silence" thread; therefore, it's open to any (civilized) comment, including criticism.
While I understand your intentions, your post could have been written with a little more tact. If you're going to ask people to be respectful, you need to be able to do the same.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_exile [/i]
[B]I absolutely disagree with this belief in the polarity of science and faith. [/B][/QUOTE]
Indeed, me too. Science cold? Bah!
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
A#: People are entitled to express their opinions, and you are not entitled to flame them for it. Posting ":(:(:(" on a web forum is meaningless compared with a private moment of silence. Not to mention that you classed everyone as a "bunch of snibbeling little brats" when only a few people posted that they were not fond of the Pope. As I said, they are entitled to their opinion. And now, something I mentioned in IRC:
there's a parabal in the gospel that says that saying your prayers in private where noone can see you for a short time each day is worth far more in the eyes of God than he who spends all day on the street corner showing everyone how he is fasting and praying constantly
there is a preacher in bristol, he is there everyday and apparently all day
Worf: not preachers. ordinary people saying prayers
ah ok
the bible was written at a time when jews were the dominant people in that area, remember
and jewish worship is similar in style to muslim, whereas christian worship is more about saying your prayers while kneeling next to the bed each night
so the parabal was saying that those who spend all day in the streets saying their prayers just so people can see that they say them a lot are not being honest about their intentions to God
makes sense
whereas those who just say them in private briefly each day are because they don't care about what others think about them
yeah, i think it does
and so i think a thread where everyone posts lots of sad smilies isn't worth anything compared with those same people having a moment of silence in private and not feeling the need to show everyone else they are
after all, it's not like the pope is going to be able to read that thread any more than he can see people having a private moment of silence, and the private one would mean more to him
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by samuelk [/i]
[B]The ideas may be 2000 years old, but that doesn't mean they disappeared 2000 years ago.
I didn't agree with the Pope's views on abortion or birth control. But I respected his opinion greately for one reason: he held an opinion that was not popular, and yet he stood by it with a rock-solid resolve. His views never waivered. Not once. They have have been old-fashioned beliefes, but they were HIS beliefs, and he stuck with them. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm a Jew, so i REALLY dissagreed with him, but i respected the man, and what he tried to do with his papacy, No leader, wether its religious or political is going to please every single person with every thing he does.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
A jew, huh? So, was I actually right in thinking that the jewish style of worship involves a lot of going to synagogue and bowing? 'Cause I don't actually know any jews around here, so that's just my impression of it. :)
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]A#: People are entitled to express their opinions, and you are not entitled to flame them for it. [/B][/QUOTE]
It pissed me off, the comments were such as I would expect to see when the news Osama Bin Laden dies. A man dies and then someone pops in to saw how much they hated him etc?
I agree I'm at fault for making too broad a statement, I replied right after seeing Jambo's and Eclecticonaut's replies. Pisses me off when people do stuff like that. (As I'm sure you're all well aware. ;) )
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]A jew, huh? So, was I actually right in thinking that the jewish style of worship involves a lot of going to synagogue and bowing? 'Cause I don't actually know any jews around here, so that's just my impression of it. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not a very good jew, I love pork, but yes, it does involve a lot of going to temple, and bowing, and a lot of prayer,
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]It pissed me off, the comments were such as I would expect to see when the news Osama Bin Laden dies. A man dies and then someone pops in to saw how much they hated him etc? [/B][/QUOTE]
Hostility towards organized religion, like anti-Americanism, has become a bit of a band-wagon for the dissolusioned these days. Whilst I have my own personal reservations about the Roman Church, I do accept that it, and the Papacy under John Paul II, has done some good in the world.
I respected John Paul II a lot, agreeing in those reasons with others here. But I disagreed with his position on birth control (I agree only in that I do not think that abortion should be used for birth control, there are many birth prevention methods). I actually believe it's very disingenuous to ask for absolute celibacy before or after marriage in view of the sexual nature of man, the "natural" pregnancy prevention methods accepted by the Catholic Church are too prone to failure. And having sex only inside the marriage is not enough to stop STDs either, many of those are S+(other ways)TDs.
The Pope's attempt to meddle in the Constitution of the European Union went under my radar (I have recently moved between jobs and cities), I barely remember it happened. I would agree that Church and State should be separate and that it was improper.
I also agree that John Paul II was not progressist enough on the issue of women and the clergy. Even as I doubt that anyone could have instituted female priesthood without causing a schism in the Church I could agree that he was sometimes very conservative on the issue.
I do not think that the Pope is above criticism, but some of the initial one in this thread was unwarranted.
For disclosure sake: I'm a Catholic, I'm also a Scientist. I'm not fanatical about the Church (unless you count the Australian rock group), and do not follow each and every precept of my religion to the letter.
Some clarifications about Catholic doctrine: Divorce is impossible, but [i]Annulment[/i] is a possibility. The difference may be semantics, a difference of degree between saying "the marriage that once existed is dissolved" and saying "marriage is so sacred it can't be dissolved, so we pronounce that you actually never were married." There are several reasons to grant annulment, adultery, one of the spouses marrying without intending to have children, and a few more. The Catholic Church however is very reluctant to grant annulments and the process can take many years.
This hasn't stopped many Catholics from becoming legally divorced (under the State, not the Church), some when not given annulment (if they even asked for it) will remarry under a different Christian faith.
As for the relation between Science and Faith: I do not believe it's a polarized thing either.
Science is not cold (not because you know why the sky is blue and the sunsets red would you stop feeling awe and wonder at them) and Faith is not always warm (terrorists in the name of their religion).
I don't think they have to conflict, but I also think they have to be separate in some aspects, Science studies the natural world, Faith is more concerned with the supernatural.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_exile [/i]
[B]We've got Psychology to deal with that one. :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Then were truly fucked, because as anybody in a university knows, the psych students are all there to figure out their own horribly fucked up lives.
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
To swing this further off topic:
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]
As for the relation between Science and Faith: I do not believe it's a polarized thing either.
Science is not cold (not because you know why the sky is blue and the sunsets red would you stop feeling awe and wonder at them) and Faith is not always warm (terrorists in the name of their religion).
I don't think they have to conflict, but I also think they have to be separate in some aspects, Science studies the natural world, Faith is more concerned with the supernatural. [/B][/QUOTE]
My biggest complaint about religious views of science is twofold:
1. When religion disagrees with science religious dismisses science as "wrong" with no other reason then it disagrees. Take the nice long creationism argument we had going.
2. Religion discurages (and even has in the past banned) science research into things considered "supernatural" yet science's whole purpose is to find answers to the unknown. These two are no further seperate methods of thought - believe in or have it explained, and that the two sides often hold to the opinion that it has to be their way.
Happens to be with this latter one I believe that "explaining" is far better then "believing" becuase explaining backs up the statement with evidence. Whereas believing says "trust me." Who in the world can you trust? You might say you trust your parents, but have they ever said something you later found out to be not true (Santa? Easter bunny? Etc.) - so why, if you can't trust the people closest to you not to indoctrinate you into believing something that is false can you trust the church? It seems to me that the entire idea of "belief" is based around the false premise that other humans can be believed.
--RC
Random ChaosActually Carefully-selected Order in disguise
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Tyvar [/i]
[B]Then were truly fucked, because as anybody in a university knows, the psych students are all there to figure out their own horribly fucked up lives. [/B][/QUOTE]
I liked Curz's comment in IRC best :D
[quote]Originally posted by ShadowDancer
there is nothing out there that cannot be solved by science. [/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by A2597
How about human stupidity?[/quote]
To this Curz replied: Human stupidity is easily solved by science. After all, gunpowder was discovered through scientific method.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]As for the relation between Science and Faith: I do not believe it's a polarized thing either.
Science is not cold (not because you know why the sky is blue and the sunsets red would you stop feeling awe and wonder at them)[/quote][/b]
And what does science have to do with awe and wonder? I honestly can't say I understand this. You're saying science isn't cold because it doesn't remove the emotional reaction. That doesn't make sense. That's like me saying ice water isn't cold because I'll still be hot if I drink some on a blistering summer day. The science of it isn't what makes sunsets beautiful. Rare is the person who considers sunsets boring and drab before they find out the change in color is caused by the differing amounts of air the light of the sun travels through to get to your eye at different times of the day.
The science of something is [i]there[/i], for anyone or anything to discover. To see the beauty of it is a uniquely human thing. It's our reaction to it, not any sort of intrinsic property. Science can't describe how beautiful something is. I can't put a picture of Helen of Troy and a picture of a sunset at Yosemite into a computer and have it tell me the numerical value of the beauty of each item.
Science can describe beautiful things, be they sunsets or atoms, but they can't describe beauty.
[quote][b]...and Faith is not always warm (terrorists in the name of their religion).[/b][/quote]
I'll just avoid the issue of the religiosity of terrorism for the moment and say that I would consider that rather "hot." Very emotional, and not cold at all.
[quote][b]I don't think they have to conflict, but I also think they have to be separate in some aspects, Science studies the natural world, Faith is more concerned with the supernatural. [/B][/QUOTE]
Conflict, no. Balance, yes.
I'm really hoping this is the only the result of a poorly constructed metaphor, else I've gone mad, because I'm sure I've seen similar ideas before that weren't denied so vigorously.
The way I see it, science explains the explainable. Why do rocks fall? Why is the sky blue? Why do seat belts go all tight when I slam on the breaks in my car? How does my mind command my body? That sort of thing. Look hard enough, you'll find your answer. A hard, mathematical answer, that's as correct for you here as it is for anyone else anywhere else. I can drop the same rock on a hundred different planets and it'll fall in the same way, all things considered. It won't fall up, or suddenly break apart and rebuild itself into the form of a pentagram, or start singing showtunes. It'll just fall.
Faith, on the other hand, explains the unexplainable. Why am I here? What happens to me after I die? What existed before existence? Why do I see that sunset as being so gosh-darned pretty? That sort of thing. Everyone finds a different answer. A lot of people just don't think about it and take things as a given. That's good too. But people don't come to the same answers, and the specifics are rarely universally applicable.
I tend to bundle faith in with all the other human intangibles, like love, hate, awe, and so on. I see them as different sides of the same coin.
To use your example, I can show the same sunset to a hundred different people and they'll always see something different. Someone will look at the horizon swallowing the sun, another at the light reflect off the clouds, another at a tree, and another will think it's boring and start playing his Game Boy.
In a nutshell, science is what can be explained rationally, and faith is what can't be. Science is when you logically reach a conclusion, with solid evidence every step of the way. Faith is when you go beyond logic, to intuition and feeling to reach a conclusion that, while not directly indicated by the evidence, [i]feels[/i] right. How can they not be opposite? Or, at the very least, different.
[quote]Originally posted by Random Chaos
[b]Whereas believing says "trust me." Who in the world can you trust? You might say you trust your parents, but have they ever said something you later found out to be not true (Santa? Easter bunny? Etc.) - so why, if you can't trust the people closest to you not to indoctrinate you into believing something that is false can you trust the church? It seems to me that the entire idea of "belief" is based around the false premise that other humans can be believed.[/quote][/b]
Now, depending on how philosophical you want to get, the entire idea of "science" is based around the false premise that your senses and your reason can be believed (not to mention peer-reviewed journals). Anyone who's heard someone who wasn't there, or felt a phantom pain, or made a logical-yet-wrong deduction will tell you exactly how false that is. You need a certain amount of "belief" in yourself, unless you want to be reduced to a paranoid, doubt-filled shell, jumping at shadows. And a certain amount of "belief" in others, as well, unless you happened to independently discover everything ever found by previous generations on your own and didn't rely on anyone telling you anything.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by David of Mac [/i]
[B][/b]Why am I here? What happens to me after I die? What existed before existence? Why do I see that sunset as being so gosh-darned pretty?[/B][/QUOTE]As far as I'm concerned, science answers those questions far more thoroughly than faith.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by CurZ [/i]
[B]A moment of silence? On an internet forum? Are you kidding? [/B][/QUOTE]
[URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=123489#post123489]It's[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=122459#post122459]been[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=117188#post117188]done[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7165]on[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6747]this[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6533]forum[/URL] before, especially for [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7083]B5[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6490]actors[/URL] .
There are plenty of other threads to express religious and personal shortcomings, both real and perceived; perhaps we could seek the better angels of our nature in this one?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]The Pope's attempt to meddle in the Constitution of the European Union went under my radar (I have recently moved between jobs and cities), I barely remember it happened. I would agree that Church and State should be separate and that it was improper.
[/B][/QUOTE]
The Vatican is a nation, as well as the seat of authority for the Roman Catholic Church. So, in this case, it was highly [i]proper[/i].
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by bobo [/i]
[B]The Vatican is a nation, as well as the seat of authority for the Roman Catholic Church. So, in this case, it was highly [i]proper[/i]. [/B][/QUOTE]
Dispite its close relations to EU, Vatican is [b]not[/b] an official member state of the European Union. So let's turn this rock upside down again, shall we? :D
Technically, from a sociological standpoint, science failed in its task to explain life, the universe, and everything during the so-called "modern era". (The 19th and 20th Centuries.)
The failure of science explains in part why so many people are turning to hardline religious sects, and fundementalist beliefs such as creationism in order to guide and explain their lives.
To your point Mordern, I think part of the reason people are turning further toward religion, is that in explaining everything, science didn't make anyone's life happier, (a generality, but for the sake of discussion...). It may have made our lives easier, or more productive, but it provides little comfort or happines to our souls.
Exactly right, Freejack. My explanation was broad and deterministic, and thusly leaves room for other such personal motivations to take up religion, such as which you describe.
Comments
[B]all im saying is that sticking to some 2000yr old notion of what is 'right' isnt going be solve all the STD problems out there, or any other problems for that matter[/B][/QUOTE]
The ideas may be 2000 years old, but that doesn't mean they disappeared 2000 years ago.
I didn't agree with the Pope's views on abortion or birth control. But I respected his opinion greately for one reason: he held an opinion that was not popular, and yet he stood by it with a rock-solid resolve. His views never waivered. Not once. They have have been old-fashioned beliefes, but they were HIS beliefs, and he stuck with them.
[B]
there is nothing out there that cannot be solved by science. [/B][/QUOTE]
How about human stupidity? ;)
And see, Divorce is also against Catholic practices, if you follow it exactly, you marry once and thats it, only way to remarry is if your spouse dies.
Only grounds for divorce I believe is adultary, and in which case you still don't re-marry.
and Sam, I would apologise for my outbreak, but frankly, I feel it was warrented after viewing the first few replies to this thread.
[B]How about human stupidity? ;)[/B][/QUOTE]We've got Psychology to deal with that one. :p
[B]there is nothing out there that cannot be solved by science. i really dont see why theres a need to involve anything else [/B][/QUOTE]
Warmth? Emotion?
Science is cold as ice. Faith is hot as flame. Put them together, you get a comfortable room temperature.
Or, you could take the tack that if you put them together, you get a tepid, unsatisfying mix, like a poorly prepared meal. In that case, you can take all of one, or all of the other, but not both.
Hm. That's a good metaphor: people who "eat" knowledge as opposed to those that "breathe" it. I'll have to remember that one.
Anyway, he was a good leader. I liked a lot of what he did, and understood why he did things I disagreed with, with few exceptions. I miss him, but I'm looking forward to seeing who the next Pope shall be.
Speaking of which, who else would be amused if the next Pope took the name George Ringo I? ;)
[B]Wow...
Just wow. I came in here expecting a moment of silence and dozens of :( emoticons. Even Dale Eandheardt got that much and he did nothing to try to better mankind as a whole.
Instead, I come in here and see nothing but a bunch of snibbeling little brats glad to see the death of a world leader that did his best to better the world and try to stabalize the tension between religions.
Way to go team, your officially a bunch of jerks.
-End Rant
*Gives the proper moment of silence*
:( [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm sure the pope is positively turning in his grave (or will be, when they get around to putting him into one, at least) because some people write about their disapproval of him on an internet forum :rolleyes:
A moment of silence? On an internet forum? Are you kidding?
[B]How about human stupidity? ;)
And see, Divorce is also against Catholic practices, if you follow it exactly, you marry once and thats it, only way to remarry is if your spouse dies.
Only grounds for divorce I believe is adultary, and in which case you still don't re-marry.
and Sam, I would apologise for my outbreak, but frankly, I feel it was warrented after viewing the first few replies to this thread. [/B][/QUOTE]
Like I said before, croxis never indicated that this should be a "moment of silence" thread; therefore, it's open to any (civilized) comment, including criticism.
While I understand your intentions, your post could have been written with a little more tact. If you're going to ask people to be respectful, you need to be able to do the same.
[B]I absolutely disagree with this belief in the polarity of science and faith. [/B][/QUOTE]
Indeed, me too. Science cold? Bah!
there's a parabal in the gospel that says that saying your prayers in private where noone can see you for a short time each day is worth far more in the eyes of God than he who spends all day on the street corner showing everyone how he is fasting and praying constantly
there is a preacher in bristol, he is there everyday and apparently all day
Worf: not preachers. ordinary people saying prayers
ah ok
the bible was written at a time when jews were the dominant people in that area, remember
and jewish worship is similar in style to muslim, whereas christian worship is more about saying your prayers while kneeling next to the bed each night
so the parabal was saying that those who spend all day in the streets saying their prayers just so people can see that they say them a lot are not being honest about their intentions to God
makes sense
whereas those who just say them in private briefly each day are because they don't care about what others think about them
yeah, i think it does
and so i think a thread where everyone posts lots of sad smilies isn't worth anything compared with those same people having a moment of silence in private and not feeling the need to show everyone else they are
after all, it's not like the pope is going to be able to read that thread any more than he can see people having a private moment of silence, and the private one would mean more to him
[B]The ideas may be 2000 years old, but that doesn't mean they disappeared 2000 years ago.
I didn't agree with the Pope's views on abortion or birth control. But I respected his opinion greately for one reason: he held an opinion that was not popular, and yet he stood by it with a rock-solid resolve. His views never waivered. Not once. They have have been old-fashioned beliefes, but they were HIS beliefs, and he stuck with them. [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm a Jew, so i REALLY dissagreed with him, but i respected the man, and what he tried to do with his papacy, No leader, wether its religious or political is going to please every single person with every thing he does.
[B]A#: People are entitled to express their opinions, and you are not entitled to flame them for it. [/B][/QUOTE]
It pissed me off, the comments were such as I would expect to see when the news Osama Bin Laden dies. A man dies and then someone pops in to saw how much they hated him etc?
I agree I'm at fault for making too broad a statement, I replied right after seeing Jambo's and Eclecticonaut's replies. Pisses me off when people do stuff like that. (As I'm sure you're all well aware. ;) )
[B]A jew, huh? So, was I actually right in thinking that the jewish style of worship involves a lot of going to synagogue and bowing? 'Cause I don't actually know any jews around here, so that's just my impression of it. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
I'm not a very good jew, I love pork, but yes, it does involve a lot of going to temple, and bowing, and a lot of prayer,
[B]It pissed me off, the comments were such as I would expect to see when the news Osama Bin Laden dies. A man dies and then someone pops in to saw how much they hated him etc? [/B][/QUOTE]
Hostility towards organized religion, like anti-Americanism, has become a bit of a band-wagon for the dissolusioned these days. Whilst I have my own personal reservations about the Roman Church, I do accept that it, and the Papacy under John Paul II, has done some good in the world.
Regards,
Morden
I respected John Paul II a lot, agreeing in those reasons with others here. But I disagreed with his position on birth control (I agree only in that I do not think that abortion should be used for birth control, there are many birth prevention methods). I actually believe it's very disingenuous to ask for absolute celibacy before or after marriage in view of the sexual nature of man, the "natural" pregnancy prevention methods accepted by the Catholic Church are too prone to failure. And having sex only inside the marriage is not enough to stop STDs either, many of those are S+(other ways)TDs.
The Pope's attempt to meddle in the Constitution of the European Union went under my radar (I have recently moved between jobs and cities), I barely remember it happened. I would agree that Church and State should be separate and that it was improper.
I also agree that John Paul II was not progressist enough on the issue of women and the clergy. Even as I doubt that anyone could have instituted female priesthood without causing a schism in the Church I could agree that he was sometimes very conservative on the issue.
I do not think that the Pope is above criticism, but some of the initial one in this thread was unwarranted.
For disclosure sake: I'm a Catholic, I'm also a Scientist. I'm not fanatical about the Church (unless you count the Australian rock group), and do not follow each and every precept of my religion to the letter.
Some clarifications about Catholic doctrine: Divorce is impossible, but [i]Annulment[/i] is a possibility. The difference may be semantics, a difference of degree between saying "the marriage that once existed is dissolved" and saying "marriage is so sacred it can't be dissolved, so we pronounce that you actually never were married." There are several reasons to grant annulment, adultery, one of the spouses marrying without intending to have children, and a few more. The Catholic Church however is very reluctant to grant annulments and the process can take many years.
This hasn't stopped many Catholics from becoming legally divorced (under the State, not the Church), some when not given annulment (if they even asked for it) will remarry under a different Christian faith.
As for the relation between Science and Faith: I do not believe it's a polarized thing either.
Science is not cold (not because you know why the sky is blue and the sunsets red would you stop feeling awe and wonder at them) and Faith is not always warm (terrorists in the name of their religion).
I don't think they have to conflict, but I also think they have to be separate in some aspects, Science studies the natural world, Faith is more concerned with the supernatural.
[B]We've got Psychology to deal with that one. :p [/B][/QUOTE]
Then were truly fucked, because as anybody in a university knows, the psych students are all there to figure out their own horribly fucked up lives.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Capt.Montoya [/i]
[B]
As for the relation between Science and Faith: I do not believe it's a polarized thing either.
Science is not cold (not because you know why the sky is blue and the sunsets red would you stop feeling awe and wonder at them) and Faith is not always warm (terrorists in the name of their religion).
I don't think they have to conflict, but I also think they have to be separate in some aspects, Science studies the natural world, Faith is more concerned with the supernatural. [/B][/QUOTE]
My biggest complaint about religious views of science is twofold:
1. When religion disagrees with science religious dismisses science as "wrong" with no other reason then it disagrees. Take the nice long creationism argument we had going.
2. Religion discurages (and even has in the past banned) science research into things considered "supernatural" yet science's whole purpose is to find answers to the unknown. These two are no further seperate methods of thought - believe in or have it explained, and that the two sides often hold to the opinion that it has to be their way.
Happens to be with this latter one I believe that "explaining" is far better then "believing" becuase explaining backs up the statement with evidence. Whereas believing says "trust me." Who in the world can you trust? You might say you trust your parents, but have they ever said something you later found out to be not true (Santa? Easter bunny? Etc.) - so why, if you can't trust the people closest to you not to indoctrinate you into believing something that is false can you trust the church? It seems to me that the entire idea of "belief" is based around the false premise that other humans can be believed.
--RC
[B]Then were truly fucked, because as anybody in a university knows, the psych students are all there to figure out their own horribly fucked up lives. [/B][/QUOTE]
I liked Curz's comment in IRC best :D
[quote]Originally posted by ShadowDancer
there is nothing out there that cannot be solved by science. [/quote]
[quote]Originally posted by A2597
How about human stupidity?[/quote]
To this Curz replied: Human stupidity is easily solved by science. After all, gunpowder was discovered through scientific method.
first Irish Saint fortolled it.
[url]http://apokalypso.com/Ch1_Fall-of-Papacy.htm[/url]
Peter the Pope is it.
[B]I liked Curz's comment in IRC best :D
To this Curz replied: Human stupidity is easily solved by science. After all, gunpowder was discovered through scientific method. [/B][/QUOTE]
Good point...
[B]As for the relation between Science and Faith: I do not believe it's a polarized thing either.
Science is not cold (not because you know why the sky is blue and the sunsets red would you stop feeling awe and wonder at them)[/quote][/b]
And what does science have to do with awe and wonder? I honestly can't say I understand this. You're saying science isn't cold because it doesn't remove the emotional reaction. That doesn't make sense. That's like me saying ice water isn't cold because I'll still be hot if I drink some on a blistering summer day. The science of it isn't what makes sunsets beautiful. Rare is the person who considers sunsets boring and drab before they find out the change in color is caused by the differing amounts of air the light of the sun travels through to get to your eye at different times of the day.
The science of something is [i]there[/i], for anyone or anything to discover. To see the beauty of it is a uniquely human thing. It's our reaction to it, not any sort of intrinsic property. Science can't describe how beautiful something is. I can't put a picture of Helen of Troy and a picture of a sunset at Yosemite into a computer and have it tell me the numerical value of the beauty of each item.
Science can describe beautiful things, be they sunsets or atoms, but they can't describe beauty.
[quote][b]...and Faith is not always warm (terrorists in the name of their religion).[/b][/quote]
I'll just avoid the issue of the religiosity of terrorism for the moment and say that I would consider that rather "hot." Very emotional, and not cold at all.
[quote][b]I don't think they have to conflict, but I also think they have to be separate in some aspects, Science studies the natural world, Faith is more concerned with the supernatural. [/B][/QUOTE]
Conflict, no. Balance, yes.
I'm really hoping this is the only the result of a poorly constructed metaphor, else I've gone mad, because I'm sure I've seen similar ideas before that weren't denied so vigorously.
The way I see it, science explains the explainable. Why do rocks fall? Why is the sky blue? Why do seat belts go all tight when I slam on the breaks in my car? How does my mind command my body? That sort of thing. Look hard enough, you'll find your answer. A hard, mathematical answer, that's as correct for you here as it is for anyone else anywhere else. I can drop the same rock on a hundred different planets and it'll fall in the same way, all things considered. It won't fall up, or suddenly break apart and rebuild itself into the form of a pentagram, or start singing showtunes. It'll just fall.
Faith, on the other hand, explains the unexplainable. Why am I here? What happens to me after I die? What existed before existence? Why do I see that sunset as being so gosh-darned pretty? That sort of thing. Everyone finds a different answer. A lot of people just don't think about it and take things as a given. That's good too. But people don't come to the same answers, and the specifics are rarely universally applicable.
I tend to bundle faith in with all the other human intangibles, like love, hate, awe, and so on. I see them as different sides of the same coin.
To use your example, I can show the same sunset to a hundred different people and they'll always see something different. Someone will look at the horizon swallowing the sun, another at the light reflect off the clouds, another at a tree, and another will think it's boring and start playing his Game Boy.
In a nutshell, science is what can be explained rationally, and faith is what can't be. Science is when you logically reach a conclusion, with solid evidence every step of the way. Faith is when you go beyond logic, to intuition and feeling to reach a conclusion that, while not directly indicated by the evidence, [i]feels[/i] right. How can they not be opposite? Or, at the very least, different.
[quote]Originally posted by Random Chaos
[b]Whereas believing says "trust me." Who in the world can you trust? You might say you trust your parents, but have they ever said something you later found out to be not true (Santa? Easter bunny? Etc.) - so why, if you can't trust the people closest to you not to indoctrinate you into believing something that is false can you trust the church? It seems to me that the entire idea of "belief" is based around the false premise that other humans can be believed.[/quote][/b]
"Trust Ivanova, trust yourself. Anyone else; shoot 'em."
Now, depending on how philosophical you want to get, the entire idea of "science" is based around the false premise that your senses and your reason can be believed (not to mention peer-reviewed journals). Anyone who's heard someone who wasn't there, or felt a phantom pain, or made a logical-yet-wrong deduction will tell you exactly how false that is. You need a certain amount of "belief" in yourself, unless you want to be reduced to a paranoid, doubt-filled shell, jumping at shadows. And a certain amount of "belief" in others, as well, unless you happened to independently discover everything ever found by previous generations on your own and didn't rely on anyone telling you anything.
[B][/b]Why am I here? What happens to me after I die? What existed before existence? Why do I see that sunset as being so gosh-darned pretty?[/B][/QUOTE]As far as I'm concerned, science answers those questions far more thoroughly than faith.
[B]A moment of silence? On an internet forum? Are you kidding? [/B][/QUOTE]
[URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=123489#post123489]It's[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=122459#post122459]been[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?postid=117188#post117188]done[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7165]on[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6747]this[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6533]forum[/URL] before, especially for [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7083]B5[/URL] [URL=http://forums.firstones.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6490]actors[/URL] .
There are plenty of other threads to express religious and personal shortcomings, both real and perceived; perhaps we could seek the better angels of our nature in this one?
[B]The Pope's attempt to meddle in the Constitution of the European Union went under my radar (I have recently moved between jobs and cities), I barely remember it happened. I would agree that Church and State should be separate and that it was improper.
[/B][/QUOTE]
The Vatican is a nation, as well as the seat of authority for the Roman Catholic Church. So, in this case, it was highly [i]proper[/i].
[B]The Vatican is a nation, as well as the seat of authority for the Roman Catholic Church. So, in this case, it was highly [i]proper[/i]. [/B][/QUOTE]
Dispite its close relations to EU, Vatican is [b]not[/b] an official member state of the European Union. So let's turn this rock upside down again, shall we? :D
[B]As far as I'm concerned, science answers those questions far more thoroughly than faith. [/B][/QUOTE]
That's because faith doesn't seek to answer questions. Faith is about belief without proof.
The failure of science explains in part why so many people are turning to hardline religious sects, and fundementalist beliefs such as creationism in order to guide and explain their lives.
Regards,
Morden
Jake
Regards,
Morden