Documentation

[Eddy Daze]

For mainstream science and mainstream religion , I suppose it is down to who and what you put your faith in eg Darwin and his written word and the theory that has developed, or Gods words through people on Earth, and to me it seems a fine line between which to decide if you were trying to find the truth.

Take the languages of today for instance do you accept that they have evolved from another earlier language or the "babel story", that once there was one world culture but was then split via language (the Vedas also claim there was one world culture), looking at it from the vedic point it would be as if the written transkrit has deteriated over time and we are left with the modern languages, from the biblical view it would appear that the spoken languages are seperate but have adapted/changed.over time The same could be said for biological evolution theory compared to what is said in Vedas, that there are many seperate species.

So basically science=very intricate and educated guess versus eyewitness acounts from scripture.

if you were truly neutral how would you choose, or would you somehow combine the two?

 

[challupa]

For mainstream science and mainstream religion , I suppose it is down to who and what you put your faith in eg Darwin and his written word and the theory that has developed, or Gods words through people on Earth, and to me it seems a fine line between which to decide if you were trying to find the truth.

Take the languages of today for instance do you accept that they have evolved from another earlier language or the "babel story", that once there was one world culture but was then split via language (the Vedas also claim there was one world culture), looking at it from the vedic point it would be as if the written transkrit has deteriated over time and we are left with the modern languages, from the biblical view it would appear that the spoken languages are seperate but have adapted/changed.over time The same could be said for biological evolution theory compared to what is said in Vedas, that there are many seperate species.

So basically science=very intricate and educated guess versus eyewitness acounts from scripture.

if you were truly neutral how would you choose, or would you somehow combine the two?

Personally I believe Darwin had it right. I cannot believe that the ark ever held all the species we see on the earth today.

As far as language, I can't see why any God would think it made sense to take his creation from a place of "ease of communication" to a place where we don't understand what another group is saying. We all know first hand what difficulties there are in not understanding another person and how communication problems lead to a lack of understanding and problems. So for a god to divide his creation and create a situation where he divided it does not make sense because he had to know that would cause all kinds of problems. So once again I would look to science and evolution to answer the question of why we all have different languages.

 

[painted wolf]

My ancestors developed language on their own thanks. Both spoken and written.

Besides if God confused the languages to keep us from building a really building, then he didn't do a very good job did he?
No only are we building towers to make any mud-brick babel look insignificant, but we have pierced the heavens and walked the moon.

So either God isn't very good at his job or language like everything else developed naturally.
I personally like to think Creator knows what's going on.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

So basically science=very intricate and educated guess....

I think you've mistaken science for accounting. Are you a CPA, by any chance?

...versus eyewitness acounts from scripture.

I think you've mistaken scripture for sworn testimony.

 

[Isbjorn]

For mainstream science and mainstream religion , I suppose it is down to who and what you put your faith in eg Darwin and his written word and the theory that has developed, or Gods words through people on Earth, and to me it seems a fine line between which to decide if you were trying to find the truth.

Mainstream science is not primarily a collection of written words. It is the knowledge that has been accumulated by people who constantly ask themselves "How can we test this? How can we distinguish one hypothesis from another? What experiments should we perform, or what information should we try to obtain, in order to learn more?".

Take the languages of today for instance do you accept that they have evolved from another earlier language or the "babel story", that once there was one world culture but was then split via language (the Vedas also claim there was one world culture), looking at it from the vedic point it would be as if the written transkrit has deteriated over time and we are left with the modern languages, from the biblical view it would appear that the spoken languages are seperate but have adapted/changed.over time The same could be said for biological evolution theory compared to what is said in Vedas, that there are many seperate species.

If modern linguistics and the story of the Tower of Babel equally well account for the existence of multiple languages, the next step is compare how they account for more detailed facts, e.g. the patterns of similarities and dissimilarities between modern languages.

if you were truly neutral how would you choose, or would you somehow combine the two?

If we are truly neutral our attitude is one of genuine curiosity and we ask ourselves: "How can we test this? How can we distinguish one hypothesis from another? What experiments should we perform, or what information should we try to obtain, in order to learn more?"

 

[fantome profane]

For mainstream science and mainstream religion , I suppose it is down to who and what you put your faith in eg Darwin and his written word and the theory that has developed, or Gods words through people on Earth,

No, science does not and must not ever come down to faith. Scientific ideas should be accepted or rejected based on the strength or weakness of the evidence, not based on faith, not based on personal authority, and not based on the written word.

Take the languages of today for instance do you accept that they have evolved from another earlier language or the "babel story",

I would compare the different ideas and determine which one is most consistent with the evidence that is available to me. But this is not how I determine which to choose, the religious or the scientific idea. By definition the idea that best suits the evidence is the scientific idea

But I do not claim to be neutral.

 

[Eddy Daze]

Personally I believe Darwin had it right. I cannot believe that the ark ever held all the species we see on the earth today.

As far as language, I can't see why any God would think it made sense to take his creation from a place of "ease of communication" to a place where we don't understand what another group is saying. We all know first hand what difficulties there are in not understanding another person and how communication problems lead to a lack of understanding and problems. So for a god to divide his creation and create a situation where he divided it does not make sense because he had to know that would cause all kinds of problems. So once again I would look to science and evolution to answer the question of why we all have different languages.

When my daughters were young i found the best way to deal with them when misbehaving together was to split them up and put them in seperate rooms, letting them mix again when I saw fit.

(someone mentioned "CPA" what is this? I am going to get a link about applying science to religious philosophy, I will have to post it later though on edit, as I do not know how to go away from the board and save my post, it dissapears)

The Science of Self Realization (Pdf) Download - Science of Self Realization, Srila Prabhupada

I have tried this, following the four regulations and chanting , my results show it works, I have proved it to myself and that is the thing that matters, not publishing something in the hope that others believe me.

 

[challupa]

When my daughters were young i found the best way to deal with them when misbehaving together was to split them up and put them in seperate rooms, letting them mix again when I saw fit.

(someone mentioned "CPA" what is this? I am going to get a link about applying science to religious philosophy, I will have to post it later though on edit, as I do not know how to go away from the board and save my post, it dissapears)

The Science of Self Realization (Pdf) Download - Science of Self Realization, Srila Prabhupada

I have tried this, following the four regulations and chanting , my results show it works, I have proved it to myself and that is the thing that matters, not publishing something in the hope that others believe me.

So what did you self realize?

 

[Eddy Daze]

So what did you self realize?

I realised that it is sometimes best to try to learn or prove something to yourself rather than taking somebodies word for it, I now trust the words of the person who wrote the book

 

[gnomon]

So basically science=very intricate and educated guess versus eyewitness acounts from scripture.

That's not science.

 

[challupa]

I realised that it is sometimes best to try to learn or prove something to yourself rather than taking somebodies word for it, I now trust the words of the person who wrote the book

Those are great things to know. Not taking someone else's word for things is a life of questioning and finding your own answers.

 

[gnomon]

Isn't trusting the words of the person who wrote the book the same as taking somebody's word for it?

 

[Eddy Daze]

gnomon...yes, it is , to trust someones word first you have to test their words and instructions, this can lead to timesaving of having to find out everything out yourself, which I think impossible in one lifetime

 

[gnomon]

gnomon...yes, it is , to trust someones word first you have to test their words and instructions, this can lead to timesaving of having to find out everything out yourself, which I think impossible in one lifetime

You're right. Reading a book recently on the overview of the Bible regarding everything from a simplistic view of the documentary hypothesis and the methods used to translate scripture through the centuries, etc.

The thought of studying the oldest surviving documents, studying Greek and other languages to understand those documents and so on is just too much for a layman like me to care about.

We have to find those works which can be deemed reliable, objective as it used to be said, and that can be rather difficult. Knowing that will always give me a sense that I will never truly know but can only reach a slow approximation to that truth. Of course, science itself is fundamentally a methodology in which such absoluteness can never be achieved and is tied in with the fact that science is theoretical methodology based on falsifiability.

That's why I give greater credence to science, or rather, reason and empiricism, and is inherently the opposite of faith.

 

[challupa]

You're right. Reading a book recently on the overview of the Bible regarding everything from a simplistic view of the documentary hypothesis and the methods used to translate scripture through the centuries, etc.

The thought of studying the oldest surviving documents, studying Greek and other languages to understand those documents and so on is just too much for a layman like me to care about.

We have to find those works which can be deemed reliable, objective as it used to be said, and that can be rather difficult. Knowing that will always give me a sense that I will never truly know but can only reach a slow approximation to that truth. Of course, science itself is fundamentally a methodology in which such absoluteness can never be achieved and is tied in with the fact that science is theoretical methodology based on falsifiability.

That's why I give greater credence to science, or rather, reason and empiricism, and is inherently the opposite of faith.

This has been my experience in life. I will never know the absolute truth about anything in this life, of that I am sure. But part of the fun of this life is the not knowing and the exploring and testing, slowly finding what works and doesn't work for us. It's not a sure thing like faith, but I prefer it.

 

[Eddy Daze]

You're right. Reading a book recently on the overview of the Bible regarding everything from a simplistic view of the documentary hypothesis and the methods used to translate scripture through the centuries, etc.

The thought of studying the oldest surviving documents, studying Greek and other languages to understand those documents and so on is just too much for a layman like me to care about.

We have to find those works which can be deemed reliable, objective as it used to be said, and that can be rather difficult. Knowing that will always give me a sense that I will never truly know but can only reach a slow approximation to that truth. Of course, science itself is fundamentally a methodology in which such absoluteness can never be achieved and is tied in with the fact that science is theoretical methodology based on falsifiability.

That's why I give greater credence to science, or rather, reason and empiricism, and is inherently the opposite of faith.

1. <LI class=g>Bad Science » Blame the drug companies… and yourself…
   
   Something like “publication bias” will arise where results of preliminary trials ... Ben Goldacre said,. April 14, 2007 at 5:40 pm. trials database almost ...
   www.badscience.net/?p=397 - 80k - Cached - Similar pages
2. Ben Goldacre
   
   Ben Goldacre follows a trail of fudged statistics, bogus surveys and .... and you account for publication bias, you find, in all homeopathy trials overall, ...
   www.dimaggio.org/Heroes/ben_goldacre.htm - 28k - Cached - Similar pages

1 2 3 4 5 6

​

 

[Eddy Daze]

Interference for profit is ruining some aspects of science, also why this obsession with synthesising all the time I treat medicine like food and like to live as natural as possible dont wanna be eating synthetc apples or cheese., or drinking substitute tea

 

[painted wolf]

So you like medicine with impurities and iffy dosage?
Do you take aspirin?

wa:do

 

[Eddy Daze]

So you like medicine with impurities and iffy dosage?
Do you take aspirin?

wa:do

no dont take it, dont forget the herbalists of today and the past have studied the required quantities...and also if I bought aspirin it would recommend taking say , two for headaches without taking into consideration my body weight I could be a pygmy or a overweight westerner. If I had the choice the natural version I would use

 

[painted wolf]

Yes but an herbalist can't measure the amount of the needed chemical in a plant. Or what other chemicals are there as well.
Each plant has a different concentration of the chemicals.
Every time you use an herb you are getting something different than the one before.

In some plants this can be deadly.

Not to mention any soil contamination that the plants pick up. I'll tell you it makes being a part time gatherer a pain... I see roadsides full of food that I can't eat because of risk of pollution.
So for now I stick to going out into the wood and gathering berries (and avoiding bears doing the same thing!). :drool:

I rarely use medicines, but I am much happier to know I'm using purified chemicals than impure ones when I do.

wa:do