You should not be so narrowminded, if you are an historian or an scientist

[mapuc]

Yesterday I saw an episode of Ancient Impossible.
This episode made me remember an another episode of Ancient Aliens.

Lets start with this Ancient aliens.

In this episode they were investigating the building of this ancient building and as usual they come to the conclusion…Yes you guessed it-Aliens.

Back to yesterdays episode of this Program Ancient Impossible.

As the speaker said.
To find out how they manage to move this massive huge stone, we need to ask an engineer from that time period and we have found one. Here at Oxford library some of the oldest scripture from that period can be found.

They had put huge wooden wheel on each side of this massive stone.

So no aliens here. Just genuin smart engineering from that time period.

This show that as an historian or as an scientist you should not be narrowminded.

Markus

[fireftr18]

Reminds me of an observation I made a few years ago. In Bible study class, after going over the creation story in depth, I started thinking back to my science classes in school, and the recent science based TV shows. When looking at science and The Bible with an open mind, you can see that they compliment each other instead of contradicting each other.

[Sailor Steve]

When looking at science and The Bible with an open mind, you can see that they compliment each other instead of contradicting each other.
How so?

[em2nought]

I think historians might be an endangered species. Unless they don't mind completely rewriting history if "anyone" finds it offensive. :03:

[FullMetalADCAP]

How so?

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/g8zY1KjQrQo/maxresdefault.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

My question was directed at the comment that the Bible and science compliment each other. Did Stephen Hawking say anything that supports that?

[FullMetalADCAP]

My question was directed at the comment that the Bible and science compliment each other. Did Stephen Hawking say anything that supports that?

Sweet baby Jesus give me the strength! :nope:
https://assets.pando.com/uploads/2012/06/picard-facepalm-2.jpg

[Eichhörnchen]

To my mind the only way that science and religion relate to one another is that they are both ways in which humans have tried to make sense of the world

Religion has enjoyed a symbiotic existense with the State in many countries through history, with each using the other to influence and control the population. I can't think that the same can be said of science and the State, except for the Nazis' use of 'science' as a means of oppression and control; was there any other time when science and scientists were given a political status?

[Catfish]

"You should not be so narrowminded, if you are an historian or an scientist"
I guess this is mostly connected to non-scientists anyway :03:

[Skybird]

Sweet baby Jesus give me the strength! :nope:

Is that all?

[Aktungbby]

Sweet baby Jesus give me the strength! :nope:


My question was directed at the comment that the Bible and science compliment each other. Did Stephen Hawking say anything that supports that?

To my mind the only way that science and religion relate to one another is that they are both ways in which humans have tried to make sense of the world

Religion has enjoyed a symbiotic existense with the State in many countries through history, with each using the other to influence and control the population. I can't think that the same can be said of science and the State, except for the Nazis' use of 'science' as a means of oppression and control; was there any other time when science and scientists were given a political status? THE MANHATTEN PROJECT https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bf/Einstein-Roosevelt-letter.png/1280px-Einstein-Roosevelt-letter.png

"You should not be so narrowminded, if you are an historian or an scientist"
I guess this is mostly connected to non-scientists anyway :03:

Is that all? AS NON-SCIENTIFIC HISTORIAN IN MY OWN RIGHT....IT'S ALL RELATIVE IMHO:https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/einstein-picture-full-uncropped.jpghttp://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/redcard.gif (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/infraction.php?do=view&p=2364056) :O:

[Rockstar]

One definition of God would be that Its non physical, It acts upon the physical, It created something from nothing and It predates the universe. The same definition can apply to the latest theory of the Quantum Fluctuation what some in science say was the source of the universe.

https://i1223.photobucket.com/albums/dd502/nurekowser01/1-death%20of%20universe/7-30-wmap3.jpg


Both state the universe had a beginning.

Both state there was a process that followed.

One place they appear to diverge is Genesis states man was created whereas some in science say we evolved from a fish.

IMO there is absolutely no further detail in Genesis. As far as the 'six days' is concerned I know certain religions are unfortunately very dogmatic regarding that. What I know is what you think of that is dependent upon your ability to read the Hebrew text or which of the many translations you read.

I dont know about walking hand in hand IMO there only appears to be general similarities between it and our current thinking. I've said it before I'll say it again you cant extract any detail from Genesis. Oh and I used Genesis because its the one I'm most familiar with.

If it helps you sleep better at night believing it was God or a Quantum Fluctuation which started it all go for it.

[FullMetalADCAP]

My post of Stephen Hawking (science) and the backdrop of hell (religion) was a JOKE of how science and religion compliment each other! My response to SS with the facepalm is how he didn'tget the joke and instead followed up my original post of Hawking in Hell with yet another serious question. Dont need PM warnings from Neal telling me I'm targeting SS. That's just yet ANOTHER false assumption! LIGHTEN UP!!!

[Skybird]

Reminds me of an observation I made a few years ago. In Bible study class, after going over the creation story in depth, I started thinking back to my science classes in school, and the recent science based TV shows. When looking at science and The Bible with an open mind, you can see that they compliment each other instead of contradicting each other.

Thats where you started, FullMetal ADCAP.


When looking at science and The Bible with an open mind, you can see that they compliment each other instead of contradicting each other.
And thats what got Steve's and mine and some others'S alienated attention. Its a nonsense statement. And an affront to rational thinking and scientific methodology.

Humour as nothing to do with it. If it has, its so well hidden that nobody here seems to perceive it, with you being the exception maybe. ;)


You could as well claim that astrology compliments physics and astronomy, if only you have an open mind. It doesn't. It corrupts it.

[Catfish]

Do you believe in a hell outside of our real world?

[Aktungbby]

Do you believe in a hell outside of our real world? YOU'VE STILL GOT IT BACKWARDS;:haha: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2584994&postcount=8210 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2584994&postcount=8210)

[mapuc]

Science was not on my mind when I wrote this.

It was more a lesson in not being narrowminded but openminded when studying history or science/history science.

I like this program Ancient Aliens I see it as a as a non-scientific program
As I like this program Ancient impossible, which is more correct.

About this holy scripture our bible.

This can be read with religious glasses
It can also be read with Historical glasses
and Science glasses

and it is open to free interpretations
(In my world and my thread it is)

Markus

[Sailor Steve]

My response to SS with the facepalm is how he didn'tget the joke and instead followed up my original post of Hawking in Hell with yet another serious question.
You're right, I didn't get the joke. I didn't even notice the flames. My apologies.

[FullMetalADCAP]

Thats where you started, FullMetal ADCAP.

And thats what got Steve's and mine and some others'S alienated attention. Its a nonsense statement. And an affront to rational thinking and scientific methodology.

Humour as nothing to do with it. If it has, its so well hidden that nobody here seems to perceive it, with you being the exception maybe. ;)


You could as well claim that astrology compliments physics and astronomy, if only you have an open mind. It doesn't. It corrupts it.

Someone made a claim that science and religion compliment each other. I took that as "coexist" together since that's synonymous.

SS asked "How so?"

Then I posted a JOKE of the two complimenting/coexisting together with Twisted humor of Hawking burning in Hell. I was SURE that people would see the twisted humor in that and simply... laugh. Maybe even just smile. Making anything more of it is asinine! Trolling SS?! Don't flatter yourself!

So then SS posted a serious question to me asking if Hawking had said the two could compliment/coexist and that let me know he didn't get the twisted humor joke of what I posted. He probably took it as an attack on himself - ALWAYS looking for the worst in people and assuming they mean him harm when all they were meaning to do was make people laugh and smile in here.

So i posted the facepalm post asking Jesus to give me strength because it's frustrating when someone can't understand or spot blatant humor because they are just so serious all the time and looking for trouble where none exists, ALWAYS assuming the worst in people's intentions when none was meant.

Too many sensitive folks here who've got their old boys club going on that see everyone else new as trouble and an invader of THEIR space.

You know what, I'm done. I'm out. Got better things to do than hang out with a bunch of old sticks in the mud who just want to assume things and look for the worst in people. Not sure why that's the climate on here but it is what it is so I'll just leave y'all alone to yourselves.

Please deactivate my account Neal. I don't want to be a member on here any longer. Thanks.

[Buddahaid]

You need to understand that what you see as an obvious joke isn't always obvious to someone outside your thought process. I didn't know if it was a joke or you felt scientists were going to hell. Make it obvious and there isn't a problem.:shucks:

[Catfish]

YOU'VE STILL GOT IT BACKWARDS;:haha: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2584994&postcount=8210 (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=2584994&postcount=8210)

Hey i agree we already live in a kind of hell. I just gave up the idea that some people would ever enter a hell as described by some in the 'afterlife', being finally held responsible for what they did "here" (while here is relative of course, dimensions, time and space and all that what). :O:

Back to topic. @Mapuc: Yes, all are narrow-minded when it comes to their personal state of mind and reception of the world, and scientists are no exception. But when i think of Erich Daeniken (i think he was the first (pseudo) scientist to claim that aliens werer here and formed us) at least his observations have all been debunked. Evidence and reason can kill the best phantasies..
(until Trump, at least. :O:. Which of course describes *my* personal narrow-mindedness, if you so want)

[Onkel Neal]

Do you believe in a hell outside of our real world?

Sometimes I wonder if hell isn't moderating a forum...:k_confused:

[Mr Quatro]

Sometimes I wonder if hell isn't moderating a forum...:k_confused:

What in the hell is that suppose to mean :haha: Just kiding :yep:

My question was directed at the comment that the Bible and science compliment each other. Did Stephen Hawking say anything that supports that?

Am I too late to weigh in ... ?

How could Stephen Hawking have anything to say about who God is if he doesn't even believe in God or I should say while he was alive ... ?

I bet he has a lot to say by now, but we can not hear him on the other side :o

[Platapus]

With a sufficient amount of

1. Slaves
2. Motivation
3. Time

Wondrous things can be constructed.

[Skybird]

Fulmetal ADCAP, I must apologize to you. I failed, but differently than anyone here can imagine. I somehow completely missed that the post by firefighter - was not by you , i memorized his post and yours as postings from one and the same person - you. I took you two for one and the same person. So you were taking the return that was intended for him.


Completely my own fault, all blame on me. I'm sorry.

[Platapus]

One of the advantages of science is the ability to admit "we don't know".

Not knowing motivates research to find out

So many things are discovered simply by smart people admitting that they don't know and being bothered by it. :up:

[fireftr18]

Reminds me of an observation I made a few years ago. In Bible study class, after going over the creation story in depth, I started thinking back to my science classes in school, and the recent science based TV shows. When looking at science and The Bible with an open mind, you can see that they compliment each other instead of contradicting each other.

My little comment created a fire storm. I certainly didn't intend for that to happen and apologize.
Sailor Steve asked the question, "How so?"
The Bible side tells the story of creation from a faith based, largely moral lesson view point. The details of the process used isn't important. The importance is that God caused the events.
The science side tells the same story detailing the process of how the universe, and eventually Earth and mankind evolved. Who caused the process and the reason why isn't important.
It's kind of like saying God made plants green because he knew that would be the most pleasing color for plants, and science says plants are green because the chemicals that make up chlorophyll cause it to have a green color, and enough chlorophyll are in plants to cause them to be green.
I hope my brief explanation helps you understand my position.
Thanks for asking the question.

[Skybird]

I still think that comparison makes no sense.

[fireftr18]

I still think that comparison makes no sense.
I apologize. I guess my little explanation really doesn't explain my point. I don't know how to explain better. The creation story and scientific explanation parallel each other, not perfect, but mostly so. I guess studying Genesis in depth with the proper guidance will help understand.

[Sailor Steve]

I studied Genesis in depth for years, and I see no parallel at all. I might be missing something, but I have no clue what it is.

[August]

I apologize. I guess my little explanation really doesn't explain my point. I don't know how to explain better. The creation story and scientific explanation parallel each other, not perfect, but mostly so. I guess studying Genesis in depth with the proper guidance will help understand.


Well they are both attempts to explain things that we don't understand.

[Skybird]

I apologize. I guess my little explanation really doesn't explain my point. I don't know how to explain better. The creation story and scientific explanation parallel each other, not perfect, but mostly so. I guess studying Genesis in depth with the proper guidance will help understand.
I do not claim to have studied Genesis "for years", but I certainly know it, and quite some more parts of the Bible. Thats general education, I would say. And I see no such "parallels".

I can appreciate the prose or beauty in a piece of fiction. Like I also appreciate the Hindi metaphor of god Brahma breathing in and out the universe. Or the singing of the Ainur bringing the world into being in the Silmarillion. The latter is the most poetic creation myth I ever have read. But lets leave prose and scietific methodology two different things, even if the Ainur'S music might be tempting for some to compare it to hysics fact that all world is wave and is oscillation and thus: "music".

Texts like the Bible only make sense, a bit at least, if understanding that they a.) reflect the knowledge horizon of the authors of the time they lived in, and b.) that the Bible speaks in images, in metaphors. Its no realstic, no scientific, no empirical report. Its an artisistic approach on something. Taking it literally, which would be needed to compare it to a scientific theory, makes no sense, and leads only to intellectual self-limitation.

Not even mentioning the many, many, many things and details where science has proven religious texts being wrong. Simply wrong.

The world as it is, always is perfect, in every single moment of its ecistence.Becasue it represents and all life's evoltuion ever ymoments represents the status of how far things could have formed up in the time they had available to do so until here, and becasue this universe is formed by existential cionditions and variables that must be met so that it does not all fly apart. There might be othe runiverse with other such exostential factors and other variables, but this is th eone we live in, and that things in it meet this universe's demands is no miracle at all, but a necessity, else these things and the universe itself would not exist. Within these limits, its a big experimentation playground for evolution. What works, is. What works not, gets sorted out or at least massively altered.

I always compare it a bit to the theory model of the free market and its invisible hands. Free barter and trade brings together an infinite numbers of individual preferrences, wishes, capabilties and intentions. it is impossible to regulate it, to overwatch it, to plan it. Still, leave it to itself, and every buyers finds an offerer, every prudducer finds a customer, although there never will be or cna be a blueprint for trying to sort and plan and forsee all that. It just works if left to itself.

Evolution is comparable. You cannot forsee how it goes in the future, and you cannot plot a map of how what interacts with what else and this map now in all details for all species and forms existing and all their exact interaction. It cannot be planned. But still: it works if left to itself.

The only magic here is that of dynamic self-sustaining systems, like a rotating top stabilising itself if only you do not try to help it, like the numerical relation between numbers of predators and prey fluctuate within a stabil range, like you ride and keep the balance on a bycicle without thinking about it, when you do, you will fail.

Its all a dream dancing with itself. Nothing is forever, nothing stays the same, all changes constantly. Panta rhei.

[fireftr18]

Texts like the Bible only make sense, a bit at least, if understanding that they a.) reflect the knowledge horizon of the authors of the time they lived in, and b.) that the Bible speaks in images, in metaphors. Its no realstic, no scientific, no empirical report. Its an artisistic approach on something. Taking it literally, which would be needed to compare it to a scientific theory, makes no sense, and leads only to intellectual self-limitation.


Thank you Skybird, your statement helped me understand where I made my mistake with my explanation. There are people who believe the story in the Bible is strictly the way it was. Literally, God created the world in 6 days. There are people who believe strictly science, that the events simply happened with no input. Some of these people want to compare both with each other. You're right, they can't be compared because they are two completely, incompatible explanations if taken literally. I feel that the two accounts compliment each other in that God caused and directed the events. The key is to not take Genesis literally, don't take the science explanation as total random events, and by all means keep an open mind about both.

[Sailor Steve]

I feel that the two accounts compliment each other in that God caused and directed the events.
That's where the trip ends for me. God caused and directed the events? Which God? The problem with any ancient accounts is that there is no way to test them. There may be a God, and any of the ancient texts may be correct, but there is no way to prove or disprove any of them. The thing people misunderstand about science is that while it is all theory, the theory is always the best combination of observations of the facts. That, and scientists are almost always willing to admit when they are wrong. They are wrong when experimentation shows they are wrong, and the answer is to do more experimenting to find out what was wrong and to discover what is right. With religion there is no room allowed for being wrong, and questioning, testing and experimenting is strictly not allowed. And, as stated earlier, even if it was allowed there are no tests you can do to prove or disprove God. If He is there, as far as science is concerned he might as well not be.

[Mr Quatro]

There are people who believe the story in the Bible is strictly the way it was. Literally, God created the world in 6 days. There are people who believe strictly science, that the events simply happened with no input. Some of these people want to compare both with each other. You're right, they can't be compared because they are two completely, incompatible explanations if taken literally. I feel that the two accounts compliment each other in that God caused and directed the events. The key is to not take Genesis literally, don't take the science explanation as total random events, and by all means keep an open mind about both.

Don't forget St Peter stated that "one thousand years is like one day with the Lord" So it could of taken a bit longer to create the world according to what man thinks, but the command to take care of His creation cannot be mistaken ... plus God has put His Spirit into man and man is His proudest creation.

[Rockstar]

The thing people misunderstand about science is that while it is all theory, the theory is always the best combination of observations of the facts... If He is there, as far as science is concerned he might as well not be.




Any relationship to Auguste Comte? :D

[Sailor Steve]

Any relationship to Auguste Comte? :D
I'm not even sure I'm related to myself.

Joking aside, I did a little reading on Compte's Religion of Humanity, and I'm not a fan so far. That said, I'm far from a real understanding of it, so my opinion doesn't really count.

[Ashikaga]

A scientist!

Be more spelling agressive!

[Rockstar]

The thing people misunderstand about science is that while it is all theory, the theory is always the best combination of observations of the facts. That, and scientists are almost always willing to admit when they are wrong. They are wrong when experimentation shows they are wrong, and the answer is to do more experimenting to find out what was wrong and to discover what is right.

That's the positivist point of view of Auguste Compte. If a problem dealing with the external world does not admit of being referred immediately to some kind of sensory experience and does not allow of being placed under observation, then it has no meaning and must be ruled out. Therefore within the scope of the positivist system of always requiring observation there is no place for metaphysics.

[Platapus]

To quote from one my favourite movies

"I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything."

[Rockstar]

To quote from one my favourite movies

"I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything."


But in reality there have been numerous Nobel laurates who did believe in something. ��

[Buddahaid]

Science hypothesizes then searches for proofs to create theories. Religion hypothesizes and then says believe.

[Mussalo]

With a sufficient amount of
1. Slaves
2. Motivation
3. Time
Wondrous things can be constructed.
Some sources [citation needed] suggests that findings in graves near Egyptian pyramid building sites imply the builders might not have been slaves but rather paid workers with shifts and sort-of-a-holidays.
Don't know if your post was directed to this particular subject, but decided to give you another perspective anyway.

[Platapus]

Some sources [citation needed] suggests that findings in graves near Egyptian pyramid building sites imply the builders might not have been slaves but rather paid workers with shifts and sort-of-a-holidays.
Don't know if your post was directed to this particular subject, but decided to give you another perspective anyway.


I have read that also. It could have been a combination of the two.

[Aktungbby]

Any relationship to Auguste Comte? :D

I'm not even sure I'm related to myself.

Joking aside, I did a little reading on Compte's Religion of Humanity, and I'm not a fan so far. That said, I'm far from a real understanding of it, so my opinion doesn't really count.
NON COMTES MENTIS THEN:O:

[Rockstar]

NON COMTES MENTIS not cheese minded? :hmmm::)