Dennis Clark <dlc at io.frii.com> wrote in message news:<3e11e730$0$181$75868355 at news.frii.net>...
> In comp.robotics.misc geakazoid <azedia at dolfina.org> wrote:
>> Your definitions are useful to the discussion, however...
>> Those stating that belief is the same for science as for religion miss a
> key point.
>> SOMEONE proved a scientific theory.
No, you Believe that SOMEONE proved a theory. In FACT, noone can prove
anything outside one's Belief.
To them it is not belief, to those for
> whom the science is explained, and they also do the experiments,
Yes, and those experiments are Subjective, proving Nothing to those
who are not Observing.
it too is
> not simple belief. It is knowledge.
Knowledge is not Evidenced by Proof and may itself not be Proven.
Anyone can gain that knowledge with
> enough work and effort, no faith or groundless belief is required.
>> The pope himself believes in god without a single piece of objective proof.
Actually that is not true. What you are stating is out of ignorance of
what the Pope. You are positing the assumption that
A. You know what the Pope Thinks
B. Since you know what the Pope Thinks
C. You know what the Pope Believes
That is false logic and there is no evidence of proof in it.
What you do not realize is that there is Evidence in Religion and it
>> IOW, science == science whether you believe it or not.
I know for a Fact that Science Evolved out of Religion.
You may assume that Logic came from Science but it came from Religion.
The separation between Logic and Belief came merely at a Time when
Sorcerors were losing their Heads for working with the Invisible
Forces - Alchemy, Magnetism, Star Gazing... etc...
Even Guass who invented the Sum of Squares and used it to predict the
sighting of a Planet knew that he was a Heretict and would not publish
his own Formulas.
Prior to the Renaissance Period, Freely thinking about the Forces of
Nature was no longer Dictated by the Church. However, the Church had
always contained the Logic of the Ancient Civilizations and was afraid
to release it else it would lose Political Power. The discovery of the
Ancient Language systems of previous civilization demonstrates that
the knowledge was always evolving. Atomic Theory began in 500 B.C.
Now, the Scientists are the Ones who Hold the Knowledge as if it were
Their Secret; they have created an Elitist Band of Priests who Act
like they Are Mightier via their Words, use of Language, when in fact
All Language is Logical. Language itself is Logic and there would no
Sensible Communication if it was not. So, Logic is inherant to the
Nature of Communication. Just as the Bees communicate their patterns
of flight to the flower, so do we communicate.
If Scientists are so Egotistical to Believe that Science somehow
proves anything and that prior to Science as a Academic Discipline
everyone else was living in a Day Dream, then it is those Scientists
who are living in a Day Dream, or Self-delusion that Science is
somehow separate from Human Thinking and Experiencing of the World.
The idea that one can prove that Religion is not tested by experience
is a false assumption. How can you know that there is no Truth or
Reality in the Religous Experience if you have not Tested it? A Real
Scientist would set a Laboratory Experiment that would test Precepts
of Religion. The Ideal of Science is to isolate the phenomena from the
nuemenon. However, there is no phenomena without nuemena. That is the
meaning of the Tao. Yang is the Phenomena and Yin is the Nuemnena.
According the Ancient Taoists, phenomena continually changes its
properties. Thus Yang is constantly becoming Yin and Yin becomes Yang.
The rules of the Yin/Yang are that there is no Stable Yin or Yang but
an ever transformation process of movement. This actually is not all
that different than the Scientific properties of Quatum Physics. And,
hum... the Modern Quantum Physicists borrow their ideas from the
knowledge that is more than 4,000 years old.
Rene Descartes, one of the Fathers of Sciences, was a Jesuit Jew. And,
he worked on combing Hebrew Religious Ideals with Ancient Greek
Philosophies (the roots of Christianity). It is in his Belief that
Science would Prove the Existence of God.
Descartes, was explaining the the Role of the Scientist was to
discover the operative forces of God's Creation. Thus, Science was
originated to become closer or to commune with the Creator not to
Replace the Creator. The Catholic Church lator sanctified Science when
it realized that it could no longer suppress it.
The mythical story of Lucifer is that of an Angel of God, who fell
from being withing the Domain of the Creator to desiring to be the
Einstein left many writings about his fear of discovering the
Wormholes in the Cosmos. He realized that once Science had explored
the Forces that underlie the Universe, we might in our Knowledge
Who would have the wisdom of wielding the Power of the Atoms?
If you could easily push a button on your Computer Keyboard in order
to Blow Me up in your haste to give the Evidence that there is Atomic
Energy, would you do it? Does your desire to Prove that you are Right
and that I am Wrong override my Faith?
I doubt it. Even if you were sitting at a Nuclear Facility, I have
Faith that No One around you would allow you to Push that Button that
would Kill everyone around me.
I could be dead wrong. But until I am proven wrong, I have Faith that
I am protected by a Cosmic Universe where Beings actually care at
least about such things and there is some moral code of logic that
tells us that Killing a person for an Opinion is somehow not quite
nice. Why? I cannot prove that people care about anything or anyone.
But they do. There are things we cannot prove and that is where Logic
>> Religious beliefs are easier imparted and held through ignorance, not
Actually, Faith come via proof. Faith is the most difficult mind set
to come to because it requires acceptance and release of the anxiety
of knowing that one cannot know-it-all.
>> The nonsense of trying to call science "just another religion" is bunko
When one does not know what one is talking about, the last resort it
A. Another person does not want to Believe what I Believe is True
B. That person cannot possible know the truth of My Reality
C. Therefore anyone who does not concede to My Logic is Bunko
> written by those who would rather believe in something than know something, IMO, DLC