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?"
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
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)