Just felt like I had to respond to Rachel's post on Chaos:
1.0 If god is not somehow in control of every microscopic detail in the cosmos; what are the consequences?
If God is not in control then the control would be left humankind. I think this would be difficult for humankind to take control. (1) The impact would be catastrophic I think there would be no moral code and possibly very difficult for us and cultures to co-exist.
I think if there is a supernatural existence it is ideal that he intervenes as the characteristics of humanity (Greed, Selfishness etc) would no doubt take over. (2) Having God or the thought of God possibly might give religious people something to aspire to.
If there was no supernatural existence the cosmos would be in constant chaos, there would be no order or place and quite possibly we would not exist or exist for very little time.
I disagree.
(1) Seems to me that humans are doing an okay job by themselves. Sure, a lot of people are religious, but there's also a lot of people who aren't. And if you make the assumption that only the religious people are really letting God into their lives, i.e. letting God 'take control', well.. unless we agree that the world is in a catastrophic or chaotic state today, I would still suggest that humans have the ability to take the reins and organise communities and nations, to some extent. Some are doing a better job at this than others, I'm sure.
(2) The negative characteristics of humanity, such as greed and selfishness, are apparent more than ever in today's society - I would say that they have taken over many people's lives already. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if a historian came up to me and told me that the level of corruption and greed in society has always been fairly high throughout the ages. It's the small group of compassionate, empathising, philanthropic people throughout the world that make life a little less bleak - they help the light shine through, and they make each day a bit brighter for those who are in need. Basically what I'm trying to say is that even with the existence of God, I can't imagine there'd be less 'evil' in the world. After all, wasn't Satan a fallen angel?
In any case, I don't think it's possible for God to be in control of everything, unless He actually is everything.
Friday, August 31, 2007
week 5 discussion post #5
On the topic of Creation
Discussion posts below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
In response to Danielle's comments of:
"Also, a question for people more religious than myself...how does religion explain Neanderthals and other "primitive" humans? Were Adam and Eve created with the intelligence etc that we have today? I had never really thought about this before and realised that I couldn't come up with an answer with my little religious knowledge."
That's a great point she's raised there - unfortunately I can't really help, being fairly un-religious myself, but now I'm asking the same question! And all of a sudden, where the lecture material & readings were making me believe in religion (again), it's all come crashing down because the existence of Neanderthals follows the evolutionist theory, and knocks out the concept of God in some respects (in my mind, at least).
On a tangent, and to get to my original purpose of posting, I thought I'd share this article with everybody, I'm a little surprised that nobody's already mentioned it:
Cosmic Blank Spot Puzzles Astronomers
Basically, astronomers appear to have found a gaping hole in the universe - not a black hole, just a hole. I find this a bit bizarre, of course the investigation is likely to be in its early stages, but I think it could be a relevant piece worthy of discussion in this week's readings, and possibly the next (i.e. Chaos).
To me, apart from the fact that this new revelation is messing with my mind, this article implies that the world has created itself, so to speak.. because if an omnipotent entity had created the universe, how could they leave holes in their work? Otherwise God missed a few spots when he was colouring by numbers. ;)
Discussion posts below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
In response to Danielle's comments of:
"Also, a question for people more religious than myself...how does religion explain Neanderthals and other "primitive" humans? Were Adam and Eve created with the intelligence etc that we have today? I had never really thought about this before and realised that I couldn't come up with an answer with my little religious knowledge."
That's a great point she's raised there - unfortunately I can't really help, being fairly un-religious myself, but now I'm asking the same question! And all of a sudden, where the lecture material & readings were making me believe in religion (again), it's all come crashing down because the existence of Neanderthals follows the evolutionist theory, and knocks out the concept of God in some respects (in my mind, at least).
On a tangent, and to get to my original purpose of posting, I thought I'd share this article with everybody, I'm a little surprised that nobody's already mentioned it:
Cosmic Blank Spot Puzzles Astronomers
Basically, astronomers appear to have found a gaping hole in the universe - not a black hole, just a hole. I find this a bit bizarre, of course the investigation is likely to be in its early stages, but I think it could be a relevant piece worthy of discussion in this week's readings, and possibly the next (i.e. Chaos).
To me, apart from the fact that this new revelation is messing with my mind, this article implies that the world has created itself, so to speak.. because if an omnipotent entity had created the universe, how could they leave holes in their work? Otherwise God missed a few spots when he was colouring by numbers. ;)
coincidence - or a messenger of God?
I read about this a while ago,
But there's this cat who was adopted by a nursing home when he was but a wee kitten, and he has a knack for predicting when people are about to pass away from this world. According to the article, once Oscar (the cat) chooses to sit by a old person's bedside, they only have a few hours left to live. And he sits with them until they close their eyes for the final time.. and then he moves on.
I'm astounded by this. I can only marvel at this feline's ability.
And as the title of this post suggests, to me it poses the question of whether this cat's talents are a sheer coincidence, inexplicable by any means, or perhaps explicable by vigorous scientific research and theorising;
OR,
whether this cat is some kind of modern angel, sent by God. An unconventional messenger, that's for sure - but the cat is considered to be one of God's creations, is it not? So there's really no reason why God couldn't have chosen an animal to bring peace and solace to people in their final hours.
In any case, this is truly bizarre, and it does raise some interesting ponderments on the existence of God (or lack thereof).
A response to the article "Nursing home cat predicts death"
But there's this cat who was adopted by a nursing home when he was but a wee kitten, and he has a knack for predicting when people are about to pass away from this world. According to the article, once Oscar (the cat) chooses to sit by a old person's bedside, they only have a few hours left to live. And he sits with them until they close their eyes for the final time.. and then he moves on.
I'm astounded by this. I can only marvel at this feline's ability.
And as the title of this post suggests, to me it poses the question of whether this cat's talents are a sheer coincidence, inexplicable by any means, or perhaps explicable by vigorous scientific research and theorising;
OR,
whether this cat is some kind of modern angel, sent by God. An unconventional messenger, that's for sure - but the cat is considered to be one of God's creations, is it not? So there's really no reason why God couldn't have chosen an animal to bring peace and solace to people in their final hours.
In any case, this is truly bizarre, and it does raise some interesting ponderments on the existence of God (or lack thereof).
A response to the article "Nursing home cat predicts death"
imagine toi (the real thing)
Julien Cottereau.
One voice, one stage, one body.
Believe. Trust. See.
---
It was a great show. From the start you were transported into a magical land, of giants, chewing gum, bouncy balls, catwalks, crazy dogs, scary chambers, damsels-in-distress and rich men with wobbly guts.
Julien Cottereau has an amazing talent for mime. He brings his world to life so effectively, with the addition of a unique array of vocal effects, which make you do a double-take and ask "Is that really him? Are you sure it's not a recording, or people backstage making those sounds?"
But really, there is no way it could be anybody but him. His moves are fast, dynamic, unpredictable - and you can't help but be mesmerised by his storytelling.
If you haven't understood this post by now, you have to realise that Julien does not use ANY physical props.
The broom? Imaginary.
The ball? Imaginary.
The dogs? Imaginary.
And that's the amazing thing about it. He's so expressive, and so genuine, you find yourself seeing that broom he's sweeping, and the skipping rope that he makes from a piece of old chewing gum, and the bouncy ball that he plays with.
The audience interaction is great as well. Throughout the show he was getting people involved, helping them believe in his magic, playing hackey sack with a young boy from the audience, handing over a camera to a young girl so that she could take photos of him, asking a father to help him play out a scene of swords and trapped princesses..
It was great.
Truly something special.
Julien Cottereau, if you ever read this, I want to say thank you. For bringing magic into people's lives, for just that brief moment, making them smile, and opening the window in their hearts so the sun can shine in and warm their souls.
You are blessed.
One voice, one stage, one body.
Believe. Trust. See.
---
It was a great show. From the start you were transported into a magical land, of giants, chewing gum, bouncy balls, catwalks, crazy dogs, scary chambers, damsels-in-distress and rich men with wobbly guts.
Julien Cottereau has an amazing talent for mime. He brings his world to life so effectively, with the addition of a unique array of vocal effects, which make you do a double-take and ask "Is that really him? Are you sure it's not a recording, or people backstage making those sounds?"
But really, there is no way it could be anybody but him. His moves are fast, dynamic, unpredictable - and you can't help but be mesmerised by his storytelling.
If you haven't understood this post by now, you have to realise that Julien does not use ANY physical props.
The broom? Imaginary.
The ball? Imaginary.
The dogs? Imaginary.
And that's the amazing thing about it. He's so expressive, and so genuine, you find yourself seeing that broom he's sweeping, and the skipping rope that he makes from a piece of old chewing gum, and the bouncy ball that he plays with.
The audience interaction is great as well. Throughout the show he was getting people involved, helping them believe in his magic, playing hackey sack with a young boy from the audience, handing over a camera to a young girl so that she could take photos of him, asking a father to help him play out a scene of swords and trapped princesses..
It was great.
Truly something special.
Julien Cottereau, if you ever read this, I want to say thank you. For bringing magic into people's lives, for just that brief moment, making them smile, and opening the window in their hearts so the sun can shine in and warm their souls.
You are blessed.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
the true you; the essence of our being
Earlier this month, this random thought came along and knocked on the door of my mind.
So I wrote it down in this blog, saved it as a draft, and promised myself to come back to it later.
Instead, I ended up discussing the thought with a friend of mine, who is currently living in Scotland- and it was a great conversation we had!
Disclaimer: We click in a strange way, so I don't blame you if you don't understand what we're talking about :)
A: People are constantly affected and changed by their experiences and their environments, so is there such a thing as the 'true' you? How can there be an essence to you if people are constantly everchanging...?
B: I suppose the ego is you, your perception of yourself - because if you look at it, 'you' as anything more than a collection of atoms is purely an intellectual construct really... so arguably doesn't even exist!
When you think about it, you being you is no more real than an imaginary friend.
A: Hmm makes sense I suppose.
B: It does, but it's stupid.
A: But we refer to it so often, like "That's so you", or "That's so him"
B: Well, that's where I think intelligence and perception come into it - I mean I have an idea of who 'you' are - Joan in my perception may be quite different to who you think 'you' are, so for each of us, the idea of a true 'you' is different.
A: We seem to have traits that become typical and predictable. Does that make the true you? Or perhaps the true you also shifts and changes - but then that skews the concept of the true.. Hmmmmmmm
B: Ah yes, another question - what is truth?
A: Indeed. I wouldn't know where to begin with that one
B: The trouble with perception though, is that I perceive who you are according to how I've interacted with you and observed you (as you have with me). So I measure who you are (subconsciously probably) against an idea of Joan I've got in my mind, so when you change, I say things like "That's not like you", whereas YOUR idea of you is ALWAYS changing cos you're living the change. So chances are you won't know what I'm talking about.
A: Whereas somebody else might know me for something else.
B: Exactly.
A: But I think I do know, sometimes, and I check myself; I think, hang on, I wouldn't usually do this - but then there's the question again:
If I havent been in this kind of a situation before, how can I say that I wouldn't "usually" do this?
B: Well, when you're as amazing as you are Joan, you have to ability to perceive yourself as others do. Not all of us can do that. You can anticipate what you might do.
A: Ridiculous! What do you mean?
B: I guess I mean that you're the kind of person who is generally aware of what others think of them. Not in a verbal way, but just aware.
A: You know, I kind of wonder whether people put themselves in others shoes as often I feel like I do sometimes. Like, I see somebody walk past, and then I see out of their eyes.. I imagine holding that book, with that bag, looking at me, or whoever else is walking by..
I probably don't do it as often as I'm implying, but I do it nonetheless.
B: Haha no they don't.. I reckon almost nobody does. Not many people have that kind of awareness. Consideration I guess you call it.
A: Who knows, maybe they do, you just havent talked about it with them ;)
B: Hehe ok that's true. But you can always take a guess. I just get the impression that if people did think like that then more people would be more considerate to each other.
A: Hmm, maybe.
B: Ever find yourself wishing you told someone "Well, how would YOU feel if you were so and so"... I reckon I want to say it at least twice a day, to some schmuck who couldnt care less about the person next to them.
A: But to that question, I might say "Well toughen up", or somebody else might feel that way, because they've been through worse. Of course, its all relative..
B: True, it is, but that's my point...
A: ...and your experiences make you a certain toughness
B: If someone were to reply 'toughen up' well, they're not really considering the other person at all, are they? So that's why I reckon not many people think like that.
A: Or, they're considering the situation of that person, but applying it to their own standard.
B: How so?
A: So, a kind of deluded consideration. Say for example, conversation between three people. Friends, but one's the mediator in the conversation, another's upset, another's being toughnuts. And the mediator's trying to make Mr Toughnuts understand by explaining the sorry situation Mr Upset is in. So the mediator's empathising, he's really putting himself into Mr Upset's shoes. But Mr Toughnuts, having been told the story, is kinda thinking "Well if *I* were in that situation, I'd do this and this etc", so rather than being in the other person's shoes, he's put himself in the scene...? Does that make sense?
B: Yes but Mr Toughnuts isn't really being considerate is he? He's thinking "If I were in that situation", not "Mr Upset is in the situation"
A: Yeah, deluded consideration...? Considering the wrong aspect of the situation..? Hmm maybe my logic is illogic, hehe!
B: Well, what is logic anyway? ;)
A: *slaps head & laughs* Hehe
B: Change topic please...
So I wrote it down in this blog, saved it as a draft, and promised myself to come back to it later.
Instead, I ended up discussing the thought with a friend of mine, who is currently living in Scotland- and it was a great conversation we had!
Disclaimer: We click in a strange way, so I don't blame you if you don't understand what we're talking about :)
A: People are constantly affected and changed by their experiences and their environments, so is there such a thing as the 'true' you? How can there be an essence to you if people are constantly everchanging...?
B: I suppose the ego is you, your perception of yourself - because if you look at it, 'you' as anything more than a collection of atoms is purely an intellectual construct really... so arguably doesn't even exist!
When you think about it, you being you is no more real than an imaginary friend.
A: Hmm makes sense I suppose.
B: It does, but it's stupid.
A: But we refer to it so often, like "That's so you", or "That's so him"
B: Well, that's where I think intelligence and perception come into it - I mean I have an idea of who 'you' are - Joan in my perception may be quite different to who you think 'you' are, so for each of us, the idea of a true 'you' is different.
A: We seem to have traits that become typical and predictable. Does that make the true you? Or perhaps the true you also shifts and changes - but then that skews the concept of the true.. Hmmmmmmm
B: Ah yes, another question - what is truth?
A: Indeed. I wouldn't know where to begin with that one
B: The trouble with perception though, is that I perceive who you are according to how I've interacted with you and observed you (as you have with me). So I measure who you are (subconsciously probably) against an idea of Joan I've got in my mind, so when you change, I say things like "That's not like you", whereas YOUR idea of you is ALWAYS changing cos you're living the change. So chances are you won't know what I'm talking about.
A: Whereas somebody else might know me for something else.
B: Exactly.
A: But I think I do know, sometimes, and I check myself; I think, hang on, I wouldn't usually do this - but then there's the question again:
If I havent been in this kind of a situation before, how can I say that I wouldn't "usually" do this?
B: Well, when you're as amazing as you are Joan, you have to ability to perceive yourself as others do. Not all of us can do that. You can anticipate what you might do.
A: Ridiculous! What do you mean?
B: I guess I mean that you're the kind of person who is generally aware of what others think of them. Not in a verbal way, but just aware.
A: You know, I kind of wonder whether people put themselves in others shoes as often I feel like I do sometimes. Like, I see somebody walk past, and then I see out of their eyes.. I imagine holding that book, with that bag, looking at me, or whoever else is walking by..
I probably don't do it as often as I'm implying, but I do it nonetheless.
B: Haha no they don't.. I reckon almost nobody does. Not many people have that kind of awareness. Consideration I guess you call it.
A: Who knows, maybe they do, you just havent talked about it with them ;)
B: Hehe ok that's true. But you can always take a guess. I just get the impression that if people did think like that then more people would be more considerate to each other.
A: Hmm, maybe.
B: Ever find yourself wishing you told someone "Well, how would YOU feel if you were so and so"... I reckon I want to say it at least twice a day, to some schmuck who couldnt care less about the person next to them.
A: But to that question, I might say "Well toughen up", or somebody else might feel that way, because they've been through worse. Of course, its all relative..
B: True, it is, but that's my point...
A: ...and your experiences make you a certain toughness
B: If someone were to reply 'toughen up' well, they're not really considering the other person at all, are they? So that's why I reckon not many people think like that.
A: Or, they're considering the situation of that person, but applying it to their own standard.
B: How so?
A: So, a kind of deluded consideration. Say for example, conversation between three people. Friends, but one's the mediator in the conversation, another's upset, another's being toughnuts. And the mediator's trying to make Mr Toughnuts understand by explaining the sorry situation Mr Upset is in. So the mediator's empathising, he's really putting himself into Mr Upset's shoes. But Mr Toughnuts, having been told the story, is kinda thinking "Well if *I* were in that situation, I'd do this and this etc", so rather than being in the other person's shoes, he's put himself in the scene...? Does that make sense?
B: Yes but Mr Toughnuts isn't really being considerate is he? He's thinking "If I were in that situation", not "Mr Upset is in the situation"
A: Yeah, deluded consideration...? Considering the wrong aspect of the situation..? Hmm maybe my logic is illogic, hehe!
B: Well, what is logic anyway? ;)
A: *slaps head & laughs* Hehe
B: Change topic please...
free or not free? that is the question
Today,
Mum found $20 lying in the grass next to our parked car.
Nothing had been prepared for dinner yet, so we said "Haha! Let's get KFC then!" And we used that $20 to buy ourselves dinner.
So.
My question is-
Was the dinner really a free dinner?
I mean, you can take it one of two ways. We found the money, so now it's ours, and we chose to spend it when really, we could have saved it to be better off by $20. Or alternatively, we've just spent somebody else's money, so the only difference between the moments of pre-discovery and post-discovery of the $20 note was the dinner that we acquired. There was no financial gain nor loss when we ordered that Dinner for Two.
Hmmm.. such a strange ponderment.
Mum found $20 lying in the grass next to our parked car.
Nothing had been prepared for dinner yet, so we said "Haha! Let's get KFC then!" And we used that $20 to buy ourselves dinner.
So.
My question is-
Was the dinner really a free dinner?
I mean, you can take it one of two ways. We found the money, so now it's ours, and we chose to spend it when really, we could have saved it to be better off by $20. Or alternatively, we've just spent somebody else's money, so the only difference between the moments of pre-discovery and post-discovery of the $20 note was the dinner that we acquired. There was no financial gain nor loss when we ordered that Dinner for Two.
Hmmm.. such a strange ponderment.
week 5 discussion posts #1-4
On the topic of Creation
Discussion post below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
Snez makes an interesting comment:
"Obviously we all believe the world was created, so the process of creation is self evident, regardless was it an act of God, or scientific process. Thus we all agree on one - there was a creation! "
Having read the week's course material (purple booklet), I want to raise an counter-point, that some people have beliefs of a cyclical cosmology - which means there is no beginning or end, just as a circle has no beginning and end. What I'm trying to say is, maybe there was no creation at all, and we didn't just suddenly come into existence.. what's around us has always been around, someway somehow.. Even as I suggest this, I'm finding the idea immensely difficult to comprehend!
I like the thought of cyclical cosmology, mostly because it soothes my fear of mortality and that all things must come to an end one day, but at the same time its almost as bizarre a concept as trying to understand how everything was created (i.e. Big Bang theory)!
-----------
In response to Ariella's post, where she mentions that religious beliefs could be damaged by proof of the non-existence of time prior to the Big-Bang - I'm not entirely sure of what she's trying to explain; however, I agree with her idea that religious beliefs could be enhanced by such a proof. When I read the excerpt of Davies' writings, his concept of God being *outside* of time was really fascinating, and strangely enough made perfect sense to me! Surely if He is omnipotent, then wouldn't it be quite possible for Him to have created Time itself :)
I think the question that always stumps me though, is where did God come from? Perhaps it's beyond human comprehension (or at least my own) to understand how and why God exists; the creation of the universe is one question, but the creation of the Creator is a far greater curiosity. (Or is it blasphemous to question this? Any advice from the religious people?)
----------
From Stuart's post:
"I don't think time as mentioned in scripture [i.e. that time started at the moment of the big bang] can be taken literally. ...it's not like we've had these 365 day years since the beginning of the universe."
I think it's possible that time did begin with the creation of the universe/the Big Bang, because Time and its measurement is a human concept. We use clocks and stopwatches et al to measure time, so that we can bring about some sense of order to our lives; after all, the Sun and the Moon (and the stars :) ) would still be around even if we didn't have clocks to gauge the time.
And I agree, we haven't had 365-day years since forever. On an interesting but mostly unrelated tangent to this topic, there is, in fact, a country that is actually about 7 years behind the rest of us; scroll down to "Ethiopan Calendar Year" at the following link: http://rs6.loc.gov/frd/cs/ethiopia/et_glos.html
But back to Stuart:
"the order in which God created things could simply be the order in which they were revealed to him after the dust after the Big Bang settled so to speak."
To me, this comment seems to imply that God is not the Creator of *everything*, because things were 'revealed' to Him. Doesn't that mean that there were things He didn't know about, in which case there must be a greater omnipotent being, who then created God to create the universe.. Ok this is quite the trippy!
And on the point of "if the universe is as old as science suggests, there is no way it could have progressed as much as it has through random events" - maybe the world did progress through random events, but our minds have developed in such a way that our logic (as we know it) cannot accept the possibility of such an occurrence..
Just throwing around crazy ideas folks :)
----------
In response to Ariella, who replied to my comment on cyclical cosmology and how she felt she could believe in it if she were to set aside her religious beliefs:
Yeah this is all a huge mindspin hey- trying to comprehend what exists beyond our visual perceptions.. because there's so many ideas people can come up with, and as much as science claims to prove this, that and the other, you could take science to be a commonly accepted fact as well - what I mean is that there could be as much truth to science as there is to religion, which could be zero truth for either, who knows for sure. But then there's the question of "what is truth?", which I don't even want to start thinking about.. that's just way too much!
-----------
Discussion post below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
Snez makes an interesting comment:
"Obviously we all believe the world was created, so the process of creation is self evident, regardless was it an act of God, or scientific process. Thus we all agree on one - there was a creation! "
Having read the week's course material (purple booklet), I want to raise an counter-point, that some people have beliefs of a cyclical cosmology - which means there is no beginning or end, just as a circle has no beginning and end. What I'm trying to say is, maybe there was no creation at all, and we didn't just suddenly come into existence.. what's around us has always been around, someway somehow.. Even as I suggest this, I'm finding the idea immensely difficult to comprehend!
I like the thought of cyclical cosmology, mostly because it soothes my fear of mortality and that all things must come to an end one day, but at the same time its almost as bizarre a concept as trying to understand how everything was created (i.e. Big Bang theory)!
-----------
In response to Ariella's post, where she mentions that religious beliefs could be damaged by proof of the non-existence of time prior to the Big-Bang - I'm not entirely sure of what she's trying to explain; however, I agree with her idea that religious beliefs could be enhanced by such a proof. When I read the excerpt of Davies' writings, his concept of God being *outside* of time was really fascinating, and strangely enough made perfect sense to me! Surely if He is omnipotent, then wouldn't it be quite possible for Him to have created Time itself :)
I think the question that always stumps me though, is where did God come from? Perhaps it's beyond human comprehension (or at least my own) to understand how and why God exists; the creation of the universe is one question, but the creation of the Creator is a far greater curiosity. (Or is it blasphemous to question this? Any advice from the religious people?)
----------
From Stuart's post:
"I don't think time as mentioned in scripture [i.e. that time started at the moment of the big bang] can be taken literally. ...it's not like we've had these 365 day years since the beginning of the universe."
I think it's possible that time did begin with the creation of the universe/the Big Bang, because Time and its measurement is a human concept. We use clocks and stopwatches et al to measure time, so that we can bring about some sense of order to our lives; after all, the Sun and the Moon (and the stars :) ) would still be around even if we didn't have clocks to gauge the time.
And I agree, we haven't had 365-day years since forever. On an interesting but mostly unrelated tangent to this topic, there is, in fact, a country that is actually about 7 years behind the rest of us; scroll down to "Ethiopan Calendar Year" at the following link: http://rs6.loc.gov/frd/cs/ethiopia/et_glos.html
But back to Stuart:
"the order in which God created things could simply be the order in which they were revealed to him after the dust after the Big Bang settled so to speak."
To me, this comment seems to imply that God is not the Creator of *everything*, because things were 'revealed' to Him. Doesn't that mean that there were things He didn't know about, in which case there must be a greater omnipotent being, who then created God to create the universe.. Ok this is quite the trippy!
And on the point of "if the universe is as old as science suggests, there is no way it could have progressed as much as it has through random events" - maybe the world did progress through random events, but our minds have developed in such a way that our logic (as we know it) cannot accept the possibility of such an occurrence..
Just throwing around crazy ideas folks :)
----------
In response to Ariella, who replied to my comment on cyclical cosmology and how she felt she could believe in it if she were to set aside her religious beliefs:
Yeah this is all a huge mindspin hey- trying to comprehend what exists beyond our visual perceptions.. because there's so many ideas people can come up with, and as much as science claims to prove this, that and the other, you could take science to be a commonly accepted fact as well - what I mean is that there could be as much truth to science as there is to religion, which could be zero truth for either, who knows for sure. But then there's the question of "what is truth?", which I don't even want to start thinking about.. that's just way too much!
-----------
Saturday, August 25, 2007
ideas on Creation
As I was reading the beginning of the week's material on the train (i.e. the excerpt from Davies' writings), I had a few ideas pop into my head:
God is a fantastical being; for all we know, He could be imaginary. After all, He doesn't really appear before us - I'm sure somebody could easily argue that He doesn't exist at all. Where's the solid proof?
(But then again, perhaps He does appear before us, just not in a form that I'd be expecting.)
In any case, what I'm trying to say is, that it's curious how God could well be a fantasy, and yet He is probably one of the most discussed and debated topics/characters in society.
Funny how we can spend so much time on a presence that is exactly that - merely a presence, an intangible being.
And perhaps the problem is that we have humanised the concept of God. God is "He, Him, His" - God is assumed (on my part at least) to have human attributes and emotions, a physical constitution akin to that of a human. Maybe that's the limit of my conceptuality of God.
Maybe that's why it's difficult to accept that He exists or has existed prior to Time or the Universe.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense that God is a concept outsde of Time, strangely enough!
I was having a brief discussion with Mum about this, and she mentioned an idea that Dad had, and I've elaborated on it a bit in the following paragraph.
If God is so almighty and powerful (and if He really does exist), there's no reason for him to have made such a tiny thing like Earth, with all its inhabitable features, and nothing else. There must be something else out there, a world like ours, one that's inhabited by living beings, perhaps totally different in constitution to ourselves, but communities of beings nonetheless. Perhaps the story is that there are a number of "Earths" out there - but God created these existences in such a way that we would never collide with another of the Earths - communities living in an isolated peace from stranger nations. Like island nations, but on a universal, planetary level.
So there's another thought to ponder. However, to continue onto other areas-
Reading through the week's materials, I now have an understanding of the different "isms" - deism, theism, pantheism, and panentheism (I didn't know that last one existed). I would have to say that the concept I like best is contained within pantheism - the belief that God is not a separate entity, but an intrinsic part of the all aspects of nature we see around us - the leaves, the clouds, the rivers, the cliffs, the fish, the birds, the canines and felines.. and so on and so forth. This then removes the idea that I don't seem to be comfortable with - the conceptualisation of God as being contained within a physical form such as a human's.
I went through a phase during high school where I was very much in love with nature. I still am, I suppose, but I spend so much time in the city, and commuting to and fro in a train surrounded by lots of people, I don't really get much opportunity to observe natural surroundings. The trees and their individual fronds, the morning frost in winter, and the balmy breeze in the summer; the intricacies and the simplicities of nature that I walked by on my way to school each morning, and on my way home each afternoon.
Nature makes me smile. It's the Romantic in me.
God is a fantastical being; for all we know, He could be imaginary. After all, He doesn't really appear before us - I'm sure somebody could easily argue that He doesn't exist at all. Where's the solid proof?
(But then again, perhaps He does appear before us, just not in a form that I'd be expecting.)
In any case, what I'm trying to say is, that it's curious how God could well be a fantasy, and yet He is probably one of the most discussed and debated topics/characters in society.
Funny how we can spend so much time on a presence that is exactly that - merely a presence, an intangible being.
And perhaps the problem is that we have humanised the concept of God. God is "He, Him, His" - God is assumed (on my part at least) to have human attributes and emotions, a physical constitution akin to that of a human. Maybe that's the limit of my conceptuality of God.
Maybe that's why it's difficult to accept that He exists or has existed prior to Time or the Universe.
Makes a hell of a lot more sense that God is a concept outsde of Time, strangely enough!
I was having a brief discussion with Mum about this, and she mentioned an idea that Dad had, and I've elaborated on it a bit in the following paragraph.
If God is so almighty and powerful (and if He really does exist), there's no reason for him to have made such a tiny thing like Earth, with all its inhabitable features, and nothing else. There must be something else out there, a world like ours, one that's inhabited by living beings, perhaps totally different in constitution to ourselves, but communities of beings nonetheless. Perhaps the story is that there are a number of "Earths" out there - but God created these existences in such a way that we would never collide with another of the Earths - communities living in an isolated peace from stranger nations. Like island nations, but on a universal, planetary level.
So there's another thought to ponder. However, to continue onto other areas-
Reading through the week's materials, I now have an understanding of the different "isms" - deism, theism, pantheism, and panentheism (I didn't know that last one existed). I would have to say that the concept I like best is contained within pantheism - the belief that God is not a separate entity, but an intrinsic part of the all aspects of nature we see around us - the leaves, the clouds, the rivers, the cliffs, the fish, the birds, the canines and felines.. and so on and so forth. This then removes the idea that I don't seem to be comfortable with - the conceptualisation of God as being contained within a physical form such as a human's.
I went through a phase during high school where I was very much in love with nature. I still am, I suppose, but I spend so much time in the city, and commuting to and fro in a train surrounded by lots of people, I don't really get much opportunity to observe natural surroundings. The trees and their individual fronds, the morning frost in winter, and the balmy breeze in the summer; the intricacies and the simplicities of nature that I walked by on my way to school each morning, and on my way home each afternoon.
Nature makes me smile. It's the Romantic in me.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
a beautiful song by a beautiful singer
The following words are the lyrics to Priscilla Ahn's Dream. It's a wonderful song, simple yet strong, and I can't help but fall into my own reverie when I hear the music- makes me want to close my eyes and take a break from the world.
---
I was a little girl
alone in my little world
who dreamed of a little home for me.
I played pretend between the trees,
and fed my houseguests bark and leaves,
and laughed in my pretty bed of green.
I had a dream
That I could fly
from the highest swing-
I had a dream.
Long walks in the dark
through woods grown behind the park,
I asked God who I'm supposed to be.
The stars smiled down on me,
God answered in silent reverie.
I said a prayer and fell asleep.
I had a dream
That I could fly
from the highest tree-
I had a dream.
Now I'm old and feeling grey.
I don't know what's left to say
about this life I'm willing to leave.
I lived it full and I lived it well,
there's many tales I've lived to tell,
I'm ready now,
I'm ready now,
I'm ready now..
To fly
from the highest wing.
I had a dream..
---
I was a little girl
alone in my little world
who dreamed of a little home for me.
I played pretend between the trees,
and fed my houseguests bark and leaves,
and laughed in my pretty bed of green.
I had a dream
That I could fly
from the highest swing-
I had a dream.
Long walks in the dark
through woods grown behind the park,
I asked God who I'm supposed to be.
The stars smiled down on me,
God answered in silent reverie.
I said a prayer and fell asleep.
I had a dream
That I could fly
from the highest tree-
I had a dream.
Now I'm old and feeling grey.
I don't know what's left to say
about this life I'm willing to leave.
I lived it full and I lived it well,
there's many tales I've lived to tell,
I'm ready now,
I'm ready now,
I'm ready now..
To fly
from the highest wing.
I had a dream..
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
imagine toi
heady wonder,
I wake from a strange bliss..
dreams of smiles and colours and laughter
I dreamt of a young man with a shy smile
his eyes spoke to me
'come and see, come and see'
he was tall
I was entranced
his dark curly hair made me smile
I wake from a strange bliss..
dreams of smiles and colours and laughter
I dreamt of a young man with a shy smile
his eyes spoke to me
'come and see, come and see'
he was tall
I was entranced
his dark curly hair made me smile
initial thoughts on week 4 lecture material
Quiet day in the office means I can write about this week's lecture a little earlier in the week, hurrah!
While at uni yesterday afternoon, I picked up a stack of pamphlets, plus a cd and booklet about Islam - looking forward to reading the information, as I know nothing about the religion. Of course, having read Priyanka's comment in the week 2 discussion, on how there are so many different types or ways in which people take faith in a single religion (in her example, Hindu), I can only assume that the pamphlets will also educate me on a certain method of faith in Islam religion.
Anyways, on to the week 4 lecture material.
"Some of these accounts might be referred to as "legends", such as those from the Australian aborigines, but legends were often rooted in some real historical occurrence"
This reminds of a thought I entertained for a while. Take for example, creatures of fantasy, such as unicorns, and faeries/fairies, and goblins, imps, etc. They feature in many a folklorist's tale, and many people believed in their power to help or hurt. Surely there must be some element of truth or reality to these creatures? Or is it truly possible for a human to visualise something from nothing?
Likewise, surely there is some element of truth to the existence of a greater being, whether it is known by the name of Yahweh, or Allah, or God - and who knows, maybe it's not a He but a She. Or maybe this greater being is without gender. Actually yeah, that makes more sense, because you would assume that they don't have to reproduce, and pop out little GBs ("greater beings") every now and again.
Although I know I'm a little hesitant to believe fully in a God, I guess I kind of wander along through life with an assumption that He might be around.. however when I'm in a more skeptical frame of mind, part of me still asks the question "Surely we as a human population didn't make something out of nothing?"
While at uni yesterday afternoon, I picked up a stack of pamphlets, plus a cd and booklet about Islam - looking forward to reading the information, as I know nothing about the religion. Of course, having read Priyanka's comment in the week 2 discussion, on how there are so many different types or ways in which people take faith in a single religion (in her example, Hindu), I can only assume that the pamphlets will also educate me on a certain method of faith in Islam religion.
Anyways, on to the week 4 lecture material.
"Some of these accounts might be referred to as "legends", such as those from the Australian aborigines, but legends were often rooted in some real historical occurrence"
This reminds of a thought I entertained for a while. Take for example, creatures of fantasy, such as unicorns, and faeries/fairies, and goblins, imps, etc. They feature in many a folklorist's tale, and many people believed in their power to help or hurt. Surely there must be some element of truth or reality to these creatures? Or is it truly possible for a human to visualise something from nothing?
Likewise, surely there is some element of truth to the existence of a greater being, whether it is known by the name of Yahweh, or Allah, or God - and who knows, maybe it's not a He but a She. Or maybe this greater being is without gender. Actually yeah, that makes more sense, because you would assume that they don't have to reproduce, and pop out little GBs ("greater beings") every now and again.
Although I know I'm a little hesitant to believe fully in a God, I guess I kind of wander along through life with an assumption that He might be around.. however when I'm in a more skeptical frame of mind, part of me still asks the question "Surely we as a human population didn't make something out of nothing?"
Monday, August 13, 2007
week 3 discussion post #2
On the topic of the History of the relationship between Science and Religion
In response to Tony/James' latest posts, I personally find it quite difficult to choose either one or the other, i.e. trying to accept that the new, 'contemporary' religions are the more appropriate belief systems for our time, or trying to maintain the long-established beliefs of the more 'traditional' religions.
And like James, I'm also of the opinion that it's difficult to be conclusive on a topic like this - perhaps today's religious person needs to be able to strike the right balance between old and new, possibly by appreciating the 'old-school' values for they are (or were) worth, while also taking the majority of their faith in new principles that have been created or reformed to suit today's modern society.
In response to Tony/James' latest posts, I personally find it quite difficult to choose either one or the other, i.e. trying to accept that the new, 'contemporary' religions are the more appropriate belief systems for our time, or trying to maintain the long-established beliefs of the more 'traditional' religions.
And like James, I'm also of the opinion that it's difficult to be conclusive on a topic like this - perhaps today's religious person needs to be able to strike the right balance between old and new, possibly by appreciating the 'old-school' values for they are (or were) worth, while also taking the majority of their faith in new principles that have been created or reformed to suit today's modern society.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
further thoughts on week 3 material
On the topic of the History of the relationship between Science and Religion
The material on the Greeks' teleological tendencies was quite interesting! How they believed that "all matter was composed of four elements... fire, air, water, earth", and how they would explain worldly elements using reason rather than logic,
e.g. "Why does the acorn grow? Answer: To become an oak tree."
Although I suppose it could be said that their reasoning was their logic. I was also amused by the idea that
"[In terms of how an arrow flew through the air,] They believed that somehow the air got around to the back of the arrow and pushed it along."
And I find this comment fascinating:
"All the Universe beyond the orbit of the Moon belonged to the heavenly realm
and consisted of incorruptible bodies. Logically such bodies could only move in
the perfect form, a circle."
Because that's a fairly accruate description of the planets, isn't it? I'm not sure about the incorruptible part, but they basically orbit in circles (if not, ellipses at the very least), right? How did these people come up with such ideas? It's not as though they had the Hubble telescope either! Amazing.
And although the excerpt from Russell's "Cross-currents" mentions that modern science eventuated after the Scientific Revolution, the "Scholastic thought based on reason (Greek philosophy)", which was one of "two main sources of authority" (the other being "Revelation from God as described in the Bible"), sounds much like the basis of science, in that science also forms ideas based on reason, the main difference being that science then performs experiments to test out these theories, whereas the Greeks took the theories at face value at that time, i.e. pre-Revolution.
And reflecting on part of the excerpt from Schaeffer:
"...an increasing distortion of the teaching of the Bible and the early church. Humanist elements had entered. For example the authority of the church took precedence over the teaching of the Bible..."
I can understand how religion has been tainted by humanist elements - but perhaps this is an inevitable occurrence, considering we are, after all, humans? In which case, doesn't that leave religion as a helpless being, to be tainted by the imperfection of humans.. and so the true word of God may remain forever hidden amongst the corruption..? That's probably a bit too dramatic, but I guess what I'm trying to say, is that there will always be a problem with religion in one way or another. Too many different perspectives on the same belief, too many people wanting exploit those who truly believe.
And towards the end of the lecture:
"Samuel Wilberforce was the Bishop of Oxford (commonly known as “Soapy Sam”). His father was William Wilberforce, famous for initiating the abolition of slavery. Soapy Sam declared that "the principle of natural selection is absolutely incompatible with the word of God". At the same time the American church was saying, "If this hypothesis (evolution) be true, then is the Bible an unbearable
fiction"."
Now that's an interesting comment. Because Darwin's work has shown us that evolution does occur, particularly on islands that have little or no interaction with the world beyond their immediate shores. And yet, if you assume that God has created everything we know in this universe.. doesn't that mean he created in animals, the ability to adapt to their surrounding environment? And therefore the ability to evolve, to compete in the survival of the fittest? So there's no need to stick to one extreme or the other. It's quite possible that God created the need for natural selection, so that the world could develop into a world of its own design, if that makes sense.
The lecture continues on to say:
"The Biblical verse quoted was 1 Corinthians 15:39 "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish". Of course this is not a Biblical refutation of the theory of evolution. It is rather part of an argument concerning the nature of the resurrection."
A prime example of the way in which people take quotes and use them out of their original context, to suit their own needs. The media does it too, and from this you can create your own version of a story and improve your side of the argument. I don't like the way people twist your words and implicate a different message to your original statement.
The final statement that caught my eye was:
"Yet many scientists of the day were devout churchmen – people like Stokes, Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and Maxwell."
After the argument that I posed above, where I said that it's possible for God to have created the world as well as the concept of natural selection, I guess its not so incredible that scientists were also devout churchmen. Having also read the "Cross-currents" excerpt, I guess it makes more sense now, because Russell mentions that the Bible invites us to "contemplate the data of [our] history".
The material on the Greeks' teleological tendencies was quite interesting! How they believed that "all matter was composed of four elements... fire, air, water, earth", and how they would explain worldly elements using reason rather than logic,
e.g. "Why does the acorn grow? Answer: To become an oak tree."
Although I suppose it could be said that their reasoning was their logic. I was also amused by the idea that
"[In terms of how an arrow flew through the air,] They believed that somehow the air got around to the back of the arrow and pushed it along."
And I find this comment fascinating:
"All the Universe beyond the orbit of the Moon belonged to the heavenly realm
and consisted of incorruptible bodies. Logically such bodies could only move in
the perfect form, a circle."
Because that's a fairly accruate description of the planets, isn't it? I'm not sure about the incorruptible part, but they basically orbit in circles (if not, ellipses at the very least), right? How did these people come up with such ideas? It's not as though they had the Hubble telescope either! Amazing.
And although the excerpt from Russell's "Cross-currents" mentions that modern science eventuated after the Scientific Revolution, the "Scholastic thought based on reason (Greek philosophy)", which was one of "two main sources of authority" (the other being "Revelation from God as described in the Bible"), sounds much like the basis of science, in that science also forms ideas based on reason, the main difference being that science then performs experiments to test out these theories, whereas the Greeks took the theories at face value at that time, i.e. pre-Revolution.
And reflecting on part of the excerpt from Schaeffer:
"...an increasing distortion of the teaching of the Bible and the early church. Humanist elements had entered. For example the authority of the church took precedence over the teaching of the Bible..."
I can understand how religion has been tainted by humanist elements - but perhaps this is an inevitable occurrence, considering we are, after all, humans? In which case, doesn't that leave religion as a helpless being, to be tainted by the imperfection of humans.. and so the true word of God may remain forever hidden amongst the corruption..? That's probably a bit too dramatic, but I guess what I'm trying to say, is that there will always be a problem with religion in one way or another. Too many different perspectives on the same belief, too many people wanting exploit those who truly believe.
And towards the end of the lecture:
"Samuel Wilberforce was the Bishop of Oxford (commonly known as “Soapy Sam”). His father was William Wilberforce, famous for initiating the abolition of slavery. Soapy Sam declared that "the principle of natural selection is absolutely incompatible with the word of God". At the same time the American church was saying, "If this hypothesis (evolution) be true, then is the Bible an unbearable
fiction"."
Now that's an interesting comment. Because Darwin's work has shown us that evolution does occur, particularly on islands that have little or no interaction with the world beyond their immediate shores. And yet, if you assume that God has created everything we know in this universe.. doesn't that mean he created in animals, the ability to adapt to their surrounding environment? And therefore the ability to evolve, to compete in the survival of the fittest? So there's no need to stick to one extreme or the other. It's quite possible that God created the need for natural selection, so that the world could develop into a world of its own design, if that makes sense.
The lecture continues on to say:
"The Biblical verse quoted was 1 Corinthians 15:39 "All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish". Of course this is not a Biblical refutation of the theory of evolution. It is rather part of an argument concerning the nature of the resurrection."
A prime example of the way in which people take quotes and use them out of their original context, to suit their own needs. The media does it too, and from this you can create your own version of a story and improve your side of the argument. I don't like the way people twist your words and implicate a different message to your original statement.
The final statement that caught my eye was:
"Yet many scientists of the day were devout churchmen – people like Stokes, Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and Maxwell."
After the argument that I posed above, where I said that it's possible for God to have created the world as well as the concept of natural selection, I guess its not so incredible that scientists were also devout churchmen. Having also read the "Cross-currents" excerpt, I guess it makes more sense now, because Russell mentions that the Bible invites us to "contemplate the data of [our] history".
week 3 discussion post #1
On the topic of the History of the relationship between Science and Religion
Discussion post below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
I'm with Stuart when he says that this is a tough topic to grasp.
To expand on his thoughts about the concept of religion being the 'science' of the day during the time of pre-Reformation, and how people began to question their beliefs and perceptions, I was surprised to note that "The biblical text consistently exhorts man to do just that [i.e. question everything].. The Israelites are invited to contemplate the data of their history, as indeed is the Christian church..." (quoted from the "Cross-currents" excerpt).
It almost seems a little ironic, for God to be asking His subjects to question everything around them, because by doing so, it seems that He is asking them to contemplate whether God himself exists. And on the continued assumption that God exists, then it is because of Him that humans have this insatiably inquisitive nature. Hmm.. this is some kind of paradox/Catch 22, isn't it..?
And on the topic of more contemporary areas of science, such as stem-cell research and cloning, a further argument could be, "Why did God allow us/our brains to develop in such a way that we would reach this level of scientific curiosity/capability, if we weren't allowed to do so?" It seems that the Church calls out against humans attempting to perform such "acts of God", but if we really are His creation and He didn't want us to imitate Him (although there is the saying that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery").. well, why give us the ability to do so? I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's either no God, or the Church is wrongly against the development of science. Perhaps the concept of ethics in this situation also boils down to a person's religious beliefs? ..Just throwing some ideas around :)
I'm not sure whether the refinement and development of science has helped the Church, as Stuart suggests; but that's not to say that I don't science has stifled religion. (I'm not really sure about this week's topic at all, to be honest!)
I also agree with Genevieve's comment that "people will often construe situations/information in order to fit with their ideas/beliefs or to protect them". In many an argument, whether its religious, political, relationship-related etc, people have this great habit of pulling quotes from random sources - i.e. there is this constant misappropriation, interpreting statements out of their original context, when somebody really wants to prove their point and win an argument (in a not-so-fair way).
With Nerissa's question on "What is it that is causing so many people to turn once again to these kinds of belief systems?", I think that the advent of a church such as Hillsong has made religion a part of pop culture in a sense. Hillsong makes it 'cool' to be a Christian; they sing and dance along to songs praising the Lord's name, not in a Gospel or choral style, but with songs that sound very similar to today's pop-rock/alternative bands. And if your friends join, therems no reason for you to miss out on the fun either.
But that's not to say that everybody our age decides to adhere to a religious belief for the cool factor. I have numerous friends my age, or a few years younger, who have a great faith in their God - I respect that. And who knows, maybe the Hillsong-ers are just showing their deep faith in a different way to what I'm used to, in which case I'd be apologising for writing them off as 'fashionable' believers.
I like Tristan's opinion on the incident of Draper & White's books causing damage to the Church's reputation, and how "one error can very easily be replaced with another error". It's so true. We as humans can be pretty arrogant (and stubborn), and have a firm belief in an idea, thinking that its right answer, and then somebody else will come along with their correct answer and dispute the former, and so on and so forth.
As for my personal on the questions for the week, well..
Nobody around me really talks about Galileo a great deal - I recall hearing about it during school sometime, but I don't remember when. I'm not sure whether the conflict between science and religion is as great as it was hundreds of years ago - nowadays, science and religion are percieved as two entirely different areas of study, I don't think people go out of their way to compare and contrast the two (unless they're involved in the study of the conflict/comparison like we are :) )
Again, I'm not sure on non-churchgoers' opinions on the Church's present-day attitude to science. I don't think I've really thought about this a great deal myself.. as I mentioned above, I get the feeling that people don't really compare the two, and if they do its usually due to some controversial media article cropping up on the news..
Just reading Michelle's post, she's got a good point there, about how the Church doesn't really play a big role in Australian society. I think that's an inevitable consequence of our multiculturalist country, there's so many different beliefs, the diversity is great. That's not to say that a country such as Italy or Spain is boring because they have a single predominant religion - that's great too. But what Michelle has said has made me realise that very difference - the lack of influence of the Church in our local society. Can't imagine what it would be like, living in a religiously-focused community.. though suppose I wouldn't be living in one if I was non-religious, haha!
And as for the confusing final question..
On the assumption that God created the universe and created Nature along with it, and therefore has the ability to press as many buttons as he wants in the head office at Nature HQ.. well if humans want to establish that certain aspects of Nature follow some kind of (perhaps mathematical) routine, they can't help but rely on experiments and repetition of tests, to try and make a fact out of a hypothesis. Although it could also be said that because God is holding the reins, if He chooses to make Nature ridiculously unpredictable (..global warming at its unfortunate best?), no amount of experimenting could definitely prove anything, really..
Discussion post below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
I'm with Stuart when he says that this is a tough topic to grasp.
To expand on his thoughts about the concept of religion being the 'science' of the day during the time of pre-Reformation, and how people began to question their beliefs and perceptions, I was surprised to note that "The biblical text consistently exhorts man to do just that [i.e. question everything].. The Israelites are invited to contemplate the data of their history, as indeed is the Christian church..." (quoted from the "Cross-currents" excerpt).
It almost seems a little ironic, for God to be asking His subjects to question everything around them, because by doing so, it seems that He is asking them to contemplate whether God himself exists. And on the continued assumption that God exists, then it is because of Him that humans have this insatiably inquisitive nature. Hmm.. this is some kind of paradox/Catch 22, isn't it..?
And on the topic of more contemporary areas of science, such as stem-cell research and cloning, a further argument could be, "Why did God allow us/our brains to develop in such a way that we would reach this level of scientific curiosity/capability, if we weren't allowed to do so?" It seems that the Church calls out against humans attempting to perform such "acts of God", but if we really are His creation and He didn't want us to imitate Him (although there is the saying that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery").. well, why give us the ability to do so? I guess what I'm trying to say is, there's either no God, or the Church is wrongly against the development of science. Perhaps the concept of ethics in this situation also boils down to a person's religious beliefs? ..Just throwing some ideas around :)
I'm not sure whether the refinement and development of science has helped the Church, as Stuart suggests; but that's not to say that I don't science has stifled religion. (I'm not really sure about this week's topic at all, to be honest!)
I also agree with Genevieve's comment that "people will often construe situations/information in order to fit with their ideas/beliefs or to protect them". In many an argument, whether its religious, political, relationship-related etc, people have this great habit of pulling quotes from random sources - i.e. there is this constant misappropriation, interpreting statements out of their original context, when somebody really wants to prove their point and win an argument (in a not-so-fair way).
With Nerissa's question on "What is it that is causing so many people to turn once again to these kinds of belief systems?", I think that the advent of a church such as Hillsong has made religion a part of pop culture in a sense. Hillsong makes it 'cool' to be a Christian; they sing and dance along to songs praising the Lord's name, not in a Gospel or choral style, but with songs that sound very similar to today's pop-rock/alternative bands. And if your friends join, therems no reason for you to miss out on the fun either.
But that's not to say that everybody our age decides to adhere to a religious belief for the cool factor. I have numerous friends my age, or a few years younger, who have a great faith in their God - I respect that. And who knows, maybe the Hillsong-ers are just showing their deep faith in a different way to what I'm used to, in which case I'd be apologising for writing them off as 'fashionable' believers.
I like Tristan's opinion on the incident of Draper & White's books causing damage to the Church's reputation, and how "one error can very easily be replaced with another error". It's so true. We as humans can be pretty arrogant (and stubborn), and have a firm belief in an idea, thinking that its right answer, and then somebody else will come along with their correct answer and dispute the former, and so on and so forth.
As for my personal on the questions for the week, well..
Nobody around me really talks about Galileo a great deal - I recall hearing about it during school sometime, but I don't remember when. I'm not sure whether the conflict between science and religion is as great as it was hundreds of years ago - nowadays, science and religion are percieved as two entirely different areas of study, I don't think people go out of their way to compare and contrast the two (unless they're involved in the study of the conflict/comparison like we are :) )
Again, I'm not sure on non-churchgoers' opinions on the Church's present-day attitude to science. I don't think I've really thought about this a great deal myself.. as I mentioned above, I get the feeling that people don't really compare the two, and if they do its usually due to some controversial media article cropping up on the news..
Just reading Michelle's post, she's got a good point there, about how the Church doesn't really play a big role in Australian society. I think that's an inevitable consequence of our multiculturalist country, there's so many different beliefs, the diversity is great. That's not to say that a country such as Italy or Spain is boring because they have a single predominant religion - that's great too. But what Michelle has said has made me realise that very difference - the lack of influence of the Church in our local society. Can't imagine what it would be like, living in a religiously-focused community.. though suppose I wouldn't be living in one if I was non-religious, haha!
And as for the confusing final question..
On the assumption that God created the universe and created Nature along with it, and therefore has the ability to press as many buttons as he wants in the head office at Nature HQ.. well if humans want to establish that certain aspects of Nature follow some kind of (perhaps mathematical) routine, they can't help but rely on experiments and repetition of tests, to try and make a fact out of a hypothesis. Although it could also be said that because God is holding the reins, if He chooses to make Nature ridiculously unpredictable (..global warming at its unfortunate best?), no amount of experimenting could definitely prove anything, really..
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
and yet...
There are so many choices you don't make. You get thrust into situations, thrown out of your warm, comfortable little circle, slapped in the face by reality, dropped into difficult patches..
You don't choose to be born into a poor or a rich household. You don't choose your parents, nor do they choose you (well they choose to have a kid in most cases, but not specifically YOU). You don't choose to crash into a car that's speeding and driving down the wrong lane.
Fate? Destiny? Chance?
Bad luck?
You don't choose to be born into a poor or a rich household. You don't choose your parents, nor do they choose you (well they choose to have a kid in most cases, but not specifically YOU). You don't choose to crash into a car that's speeding and driving down the wrong lane.
Fate? Destiny? Chance?
Bad luck?
a late night mood
So many life choices.
I've made so many life choices. It's easy to say that you were forced to do this or that, because of the circumstances you were in, but really that's just your excuse, the 'reason' you provide for the choice you decided to make.
I've chosen to work full-time and study part-time. I've chosen to not run away from home in a flurry of wild anger and hate and a longing for escape. I've chosen to take music as a hobby and not a lifelong passion that will send my name all across the world.
I keep telling myself, yeah I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that,
but really,
I've already lived a quarter of my life, possibly more, possibly a little less.
That's really scary.
I've made so many life choices. It's easy to say that you were forced to do this or that, because of the circumstances you were in, but really that's just your excuse, the 'reason' you provide for the choice you decided to make.
I've chosen to work full-time and study part-time. I've chosen to not run away from home in a flurry of wild anger and hate and a longing for escape. I've chosen to take music as a hobby and not a lifelong passion that will send my name all across the world.
I keep telling myself, yeah I'm going to do this, I'm going to do that,
but really,
I've already lived a quarter of my life, possibly more, possibly a little less.
That's really scary.
Sunday, August 5, 2007
ideas on other ideas / pre-wikipedia
This week, having been caught up in the throes of busy season at work, I've just been catching up on the 20+ new posts I hadn't seen until tonight. To make things easier for myself I decided to read from the beginning again, and re-reading Ariella's post - specifically this part-
"I do not believe that religious faith should be reformed by people changing or editing the central texts or ideas,"
has made me think of another (rather similar, actually) question.
What if holy texts were rewritten today, to reflect current trends and living conditions etc? (Duh Joan, there'd be a huge uproar..)
This idea is an extension of the concept that religion is very subjective and every individual, family, community, etc will have a different interpretation of whichever holy text their religion prescribes (so to speak ;) ). After all, it was a human being (or many human beings) who wrote the Bible all those years ago - that means it would have been their interpretation of the experiences they had come across (can I also say here, maybe they had poetic license too, and added a bit of metaphorical flair to their writings).. so that makes me think, "If they wrote about God/Buddha/etc based on their own holy/supernatural events, why can't we do that too, rather than trying to re-interpret old texts to apply them to our daily lives?"
That would possibly also clear up on 'controversial' topics such as homosexuality and abortion (either of which, were not as prevalent in society then as they are today, surely) - and even, as Alexander mentioned, the concept in the Bible that says people with eye defects should be cast out (if we were still adhering to that idea today.. well, I'd hate to be an optometrist! ..Or a half blind person for that matter).
Although, this concept then circles back to Alex's comment that "people tend to use a religion to further their own agenda", much in the way that many of us will read a horoscope in the paper and try to apply it to our lives, as mentioned by Rachel. (Horoscopes in the paper - good point for digression.)
And now I've just realised (as I'm still in the process of reading down the discussion board) that James has also mentioned the very idea I am posing with my new question, as he says,
"We recognise throughout many religions, the religious texts to be the word of god. But there is no way to prove that God spoke to the people or prophets... we must rely on faith. ... It is not to say that religion is a complete construct by an individual or group, but rather an experience, (divinely inspired or otherwise) observed and recorded by man; one idea to which many people may believe and accept as true – a theory if you will."
The more I think about it, the crazier it gets. Everything we know is based on faith. We believe something to be real or unreal, true or untrue. And yet, this concept of 'proof'.. we can never really prove anything.. it's just bizarre..
Moving on.
To quote Jeff, who reminds me that the Church was akin to a political body long ago, and not merely a religious body-
"To take the bible for an example... if I am not mistaken the canon after Jesus was compiled by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine? Certain views or religious texts which may have been "experienced, observed or recorded by man" were cast aside in favor of a view which people of the time could accept. The motivations behind it wasn't purely religious; there were also political reasons for this action. The four gospels used in the New Testament were also 'chosen'(by humans) if I'm not misinformed."
He also adds:
"This type of "compromising" doesn't occur when you are doing science."
I have to agree with him here. Science does appear to have more material or logical proof that seems to be free from subjectivity - most of time. Admittedly a scientist can write a paper regarding a theory he or she has come up with, only to have another scientist disprove his theory by way of experiments and/or other evidence. And Ariella also mentions that deeply religious persons also have a rational/logical method in which they prove to the disbelievers, their beliefs and their reasons for believing.
I suppose that science can only prove so much - a theory is created, and then experiments are performed over and over to ensure that the theory works (or does not work), and then we base our belief on that. There's always exceptions - which is understandable, since nothing in this world is perfect or infinitely constant, there's just too many variables.
There are times when a long-held belief is proven to be wrong - take for instance the idea that we lose brain cells when we sustain a blow to the head, and that these brain cells cannot be re-created; what we have is what we have, there isn't any more. But I was reading a Time magazine not long ago, which had a special feature on the brain and all things neurological, and I discovered that the aforementioned belief had now expired - scientists were now saying that brain cells do grow back, et cetera et cetera. (Another interesting point was that if a certain part of a person's brain loses its functionality, brain cells have the ability to rewire themselves into a different formation, or something along those lines. In any case, it was fascinating.)
On a tangent- reading Michelle's post about "Galileo's famous feather-stone experiment", and how "In Galileo's time this could obviously not be tested properly and it wasnt until the Apollo 15 space mission where astronauts dropped a feather and stone on the surface of the moon" makes me think how amazing the 'old-school' scientists are/were. I mean, how did they come up with such incredible ideas?! Even the concept of the world being round - I'm fairly certain that they didn't have the technology for space-travel, so how on earth did they believe in their own theories like that?
And further down in her post, she notes "it is interesting to note that I have read and heard accounts previously that state that there is more historical records stating that Jesus was alive than Caesar".
Surely Caesar wasn't a fictional identity?*
And Jeff's post-
"Also, as mentioned in the lecture, to take gravity for example we still don't know why it happens or what it actually is. In that way I think it possesses some characteristics of the supernatural in fiction. The difference would come from the fact that we could confirm the existence of gravity…but then, there is the case of Troy."
I vaguely remember reading about Troy being a legendary city possibly years ago, but upon reading the above (and Jeff's subsequent post after my confused question of "The case of Troy?"), I'm still surprised that Troy is actually fictional*! (Well, unless Heinrich Schliemann really did find the location of Troy, also mentioned in the post.)
*I do believe its time for some Wikipedia searching.
Admittedly I don't feel that Wikipedia is the most accurate source of knowledge - but it's a quick fix, and just because it's an online source of information (compared to the thick volumes of Britannica et al, which would take much longer to update and publish), doesn't mean it's 100% dodgy right?
I think by writing that last paragraph, I've just about told myself that Wiki is just as reliable as Encarta or Britannica (etc) - it all comes down to the power of faith (in the author) :)
"I do not believe that religious faith should be reformed by people changing or editing the central texts or ideas,"
has made me think of another (rather similar, actually) question.
What if holy texts were rewritten today, to reflect current trends and living conditions etc? (Duh Joan, there'd be a huge uproar..)
This idea is an extension of the concept that religion is very subjective and every individual, family, community, etc will have a different interpretation of whichever holy text their religion prescribes (so to speak ;) ). After all, it was a human being (or many human beings) who wrote the Bible all those years ago - that means it would have been their interpretation of the experiences they had come across (can I also say here, maybe they had poetic license too, and added a bit of metaphorical flair to their writings).. so that makes me think, "If they wrote about God/Buddha/etc based on their own holy/supernatural events, why can't we do that too, rather than trying to re-interpret old texts to apply them to our daily lives?"
That would possibly also clear up on 'controversial' topics such as homosexuality and abortion (either of which, were not as prevalent in society then as they are today, surely) - and even, as Alexander mentioned, the concept in the Bible that says people with eye defects should be cast out (if we were still adhering to that idea today.. well, I'd hate to be an optometrist! ..Or a half blind person for that matter).
Although, this concept then circles back to Alex's comment that "people tend to use a religion to further their own agenda", much in the way that many of us will read a horoscope in the paper and try to apply it to our lives, as mentioned by Rachel. (Horoscopes in the paper - good point for digression.)
And now I've just realised (as I'm still in the process of reading down the discussion board) that James has also mentioned the very idea I am posing with my new question, as he says,
"We recognise throughout many religions, the religious texts to be the word of god. But there is no way to prove that God spoke to the people or prophets... we must rely on faith. ... It is not to say that religion is a complete construct by an individual or group, but rather an experience, (divinely inspired or otherwise) observed and recorded by man; one idea to which many people may believe and accept as true – a theory if you will."
The more I think about it, the crazier it gets. Everything we know is based on faith. We believe something to be real or unreal, true or untrue. And yet, this concept of 'proof'.. we can never really prove anything.. it's just bizarre..
Moving on.
To quote Jeff, who reminds me that the Church was akin to a political body long ago, and not merely a religious body-
"To take the bible for an example... if I am not mistaken the canon after Jesus was compiled by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine? Certain views or religious texts which may have been "experienced, observed or recorded by man" were cast aside in favor of a view which people of the time could accept. The motivations behind it wasn't purely religious; there were also political reasons for this action. The four gospels used in the New Testament were also 'chosen'(by humans) if I'm not misinformed."
He also adds:
"This type of "compromising" doesn't occur when you are doing science."
I have to agree with him here. Science does appear to have more material or logical proof that seems to be free from subjectivity - most of time. Admittedly a scientist can write a paper regarding a theory he or she has come up with, only to have another scientist disprove his theory by way of experiments and/or other evidence. And Ariella also mentions that deeply religious persons also have a rational/logical method in which they prove to the disbelievers, their beliefs and their reasons for believing.
I suppose that science can only prove so much - a theory is created, and then experiments are performed over and over to ensure that the theory works (or does not work), and then we base our belief on that. There's always exceptions - which is understandable, since nothing in this world is perfect or infinitely constant, there's just too many variables.
There are times when a long-held belief is proven to be wrong - take for instance the idea that we lose brain cells when we sustain a blow to the head, and that these brain cells cannot be re-created; what we have is what we have, there isn't any more. But I was reading a Time magazine not long ago, which had a special feature on the brain and all things neurological, and I discovered that the aforementioned belief had now expired - scientists were now saying that brain cells do grow back, et cetera et cetera. (Another interesting point was that if a certain part of a person's brain loses its functionality, brain cells have the ability to rewire themselves into a different formation, or something along those lines. In any case, it was fascinating.)
On a tangent- reading Michelle's post about "Galileo's famous feather-stone experiment", and how "In Galileo's time this could obviously not be tested properly and it wasnt until the Apollo 15 space mission where astronauts dropped a feather and stone on the surface of the moon" makes me think how amazing the 'old-school' scientists are/were. I mean, how did they come up with such incredible ideas?! Even the concept of the world being round - I'm fairly certain that they didn't have the technology for space-travel, so how on earth did they believe in their own theories like that?
And further down in her post, she notes "it is interesting to note that I have read and heard accounts previously that state that there is more historical records stating that Jesus was alive than Caesar".
Surely Caesar wasn't a fictional identity?*
And Jeff's post-
"Also, as mentioned in the lecture, to take gravity for example we still don't know why it happens or what it actually is. In that way I think it possesses some characteristics of the supernatural in fiction. The difference would come from the fact that we could confirm the existence of gravity…but then, there is the case of Troy."
I vaguely remember reading about Troy being a legendary city possibly years ago, but upon reading the above (and Jeff's subsequent post after my confused question of "The case of Troy?"), I'm still surprised that Troy is actually fictional*! (Well, unless Heinrich Schliemann really did find the location of Troy, also mentioned in the post.)
*I do believe its time for some Wikipedia searching.
Admittedly I don't feel that Wikipedia is the most accurate source of knowledge - but it's a quick fix, and just because it's an online source of information (compared to the thick volumes of Britannica et al, which would take much longer to update and publish), doesn't mean it's 100% dodgy right?
I think by writing that last paragraph, I've just about told myself that Wiki is just as reliable as Encarta or Britannica (etc) - it all comes down to the power of faith (in the author) :)
Thursday, August 2, 2007
a small reflection
Reading the discussion board, Claire has said-
"When reading through the lecture you were, in a sense given the answer to a question before being given the question itself. By this I mean, in defining a gestalt you realise which of the pictures you can see.
...[An] example of what im trying to illustrate comes from the 'Magic Eye' series of books. Focusing in and out trying to find a hidden picture? I always found that as soon as i looked up the answers in the back I could see a picture where I thought there was none.
And so, even as a religious person I find myself asking is there a picture there or did I get the answers from a 'book' and then see the picture..."
For me, this poses a small but interesting thought.. to me this seems to suggest that science and religion are virtually the same in concept, in that both science and religion provide two different explanations for something we previously didn't understand or had limited knowledge of. So if a different group of people had written the holy texts of the religions today, then we would have a completely different set of beliefs. Imagine if the Pastafarians (of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) had written today's equivalent of the Holy Bible. Instead of Jesus being the Saviour, we might be worshipping aliens or something totally different.
Crazy!
But then Claire also goes on to say,
"For science to progress (as in the Cell Theory example) there is no 'back of book' answer by which to check your progress in the same way that Christianity for example makes use of the Bible. Religion embodies constantly checking your answers while science seeks answers?"
I'm not so sure about that final sentence. To me it seems like it would be the other way around, that science continually redefines the answers which we hold as truths or facts, whereas religion is all about trying to understand the questions created by the curiosity of the concept of life itself.
This course is rather interesting - it makes me think that science and religion are so alike, and yet their content is so different, in some ways. In any case, the discussion boards are confusing but an interesting read. Makes me want to do so much more reading (in books etc) about religion!
"When reading through the lecture you were, in a sense given the answer to a question before being given the question itself. By this I mean, in defining a gestalt you realise which of the pictures you can see.
...[An] example of what im trying to illustrate comes from the 'Magic Eye' series of books. Focusing in and out trying to find a hidden picture? I always found that as soon as i looked up the answers in the back I could see a picture where I thought there was none.
And so, even as a religious person I find myself asking is there a picture there or did I get the answers from a 'book' and then see the picture..."
For me, this poses a small but interesting thought.. to me this seems to suggest that science and religion are virtually the same in concept, in that both science and religion provide two different explanations for something we previously didn't understand or had limited knowledge of. So if a different group of people had written the holy texts of the religions today, then we would have a completely different set of beliefs. Imagine if the Pastafarians (of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster) had written today's equivalent of the Holy Bible. Instead of Jesus being the Saviour, we might be worshipping aliens or something totally different.
Crazy!
But then Claire also goes on to say,
"For science to progress (as in the Cell Theory example) there is no 'back of book' answer by which to check your progress in the same way that Christianity for example makes use of the Bible. Religion embodies constantly checking your answers while science seeks answers?"
I'm not so sure about that final sentence. To me it seems like it would be the other way around, that science continually redefines the answers which we hold as truths or facts, whereas religion is all about trying to understand the questions created by the curiosity of the concept of life itself.
This course is rather interesting - it makes me think that science and religion are so alike, and yet their content is so different, in some ways. In any case, the discussion boards are confusing but an interesting read. Makes me want to do so much more reading (in books etc) about religion!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)