Audie
Veteran Member
Fearless.
Good, for lo, as the good book says:
" Fear not, lest thou be fearful"
Or ypu can come here where nobody is afraid of dragons.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Genesis - Big Bang mash-up
- Thread starter sun rise
- Start date
Good, for lo, as the good book says:
" Fear not, lest thou be fearful"
Or ypu can come here where nobody is afraid of dragons.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Nope. Simply not true. But I do go with the Bible rather than the conjectures and changing vicissitudes of science.
so---have a nice day.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Whether one believes it or not, it is conjecture.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Kuhn is a philosopher and I do not take the words of philosophers seriously. They live in their own world, create arguments for arguments sake.
If P=1 then P+1=
What is wrong with a revolutionary discovery in science along with normal progress. Spurts and bursts.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Your courage is commendable.
Tinkerpeach
Active Member
It’s not courage it’s a broken brain.
My amygdala doesn’t work so my brain doesn’t register fear to my nervous system.
Scientists and theists agree that there was a beginning though different words are used. One asserts that God did it. Atheists assert it just happened.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Yes, Feynman - and Hawking for that matter - were often scathing about philosophers. Perhaps because they both recognised that you cannot derive an ontology from theoretical physics without doing philosophy.
Kuhn, however was a physicist, who is best remembered now as a philosopher of science due to his significant contributions in that field. His BSc and MSc were both in physics.
He argued that scientific revolutions led eventually to wholesale paradigm shifts. The holistic rejection of one paradigm and it’s replacement by another, implies scientific progress is not cumulative between paradigms. Further, it is meaningless to compare competing paradigms, since even the meaning of theoretical terms are defined by the paradigm in which they are used.
Kuhn had the insight which led him to write The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, when doing research for a course he was asked to teach, at Harvard, on Aristotle. In the mid 20th Century Aristotle’s ideas about physics were no longer taken seriously in the scientific world, despite his historic contribution to physics as natural philosophy.
Kuhn was able to perceive that Aristotle was operating in a different paradigm than contemporary physicists, therefore many of his observations appeared nonsensical when in fact they were simply incomprehensible to the modern mindset. Aristotle’s physics is currently undergoing something of a Renaissance*
Perhaps Kuhn’s most radical observation was that revolutionary science was non-dogmatic, dissenting voices were heard, and old assumptions challenged; but that during periods of ‘normal science’ the prevailing paradigm is accepted without challenge, and observation is neither neutral nor value free.
He once observed that “science students are distressingly willing to receive the word from professors and texts.”
*Aristotle's Physics: A Physicist's Look | Journal of the American Philosophical Association | Cambridge Core
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Good, if it works well in other situations.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yes, it happens just like the appearance and disappearance of virtual particles. We do not know the reasons yet,
But nothing points to existence of an entity, which people term as God.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, there is a line in RigVeda (my guess, around 1,000 BCE) which always impresses me:
You might have found me quoting it, very 'quantumistic'.
"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.
Rig Veda, tr. by Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1896], full text etext at sacred-texts.com
sacred-texts.com
Kuhn had a Ph.D. in Physics too.
Audie
Veteran Member
Nah. Theists assert "god" just happened.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Not really. Generally they assert that God “was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.” Well most Christians recite that every week anyway.
Last edited:
Audie
Veteran Member
I know but it's just more words to say the same
thing.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Whilst I appreciate that, as a native Chinese speaker who is also fluent in English, you have a better grasp of languages than I, I nevertheless respectfully suggest that to ignore nuance is to handicap comprehension.
Audie
Veteran Member
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Three maidens are praying to Buddha, and the first one says "Buddha, Buddha, find me a man with a dragon on his chest."
The second maiden prays "Buddha, Buddha, find me a man with two dragons on his chest".
The third maiden prays "Buddha, Buddha, find me a man with one dragon on the ground."
The second maiden prays "Buddha, Buddha, find me a man with two dragons on his chest".
The third maiden prays "Buddha, Buddha, find me a man with one dragon on the ground."
gnostic
The Lost One
You are sort of implying that science is the same as atheism.
Not all scientists are atheists…and not all atheists are scientists.
Scientists are qualified & trained professionals who work it in specific sciences in specific scientific fields. And it is their jobs or careers.
Atheism isn’t science, it is a personal philosophy for each individual. Atheism is philosophical position on the matter of the existence of any deity - people who are atheists either lack of any deity’s existence or they don’t believe in any deity, that’s all there is to atheism - nothing more, nothing less.
Atheists don’t require to be qualified to be “atheist”, and being an atheist isn’t a career or job choice. Being atheists don’t require to study any science, because being atheists are not equivalent to being evolutionary biologists, nor being astrophysicists require knowledge in the Big Bang theory.
Scientists with personal background in atheism, aren’t the only who accept the Big Bang theory, so do scientists who are Christians, Jews, Bahai, Hindus, and other theists. And it is the same with the theory of Evolution…Evolution is clearly not limited to “atheists only”.
Prior to becoming an agnostic in 1870s to his departure, Darwin was still a Christian when he published On Origin in 1859. His friend and fellow naturalist, Thomas Henry Huxley was the who coined Agnosticism in 1869.
Likewise, while Alexander Friedmann and Howard Percy Robertson may have been non-theists, Georges Lemaître was a Roman Catholic priest as well as astrophysicist. They have each, independently formulated the Expanding Universe hypothesis.
But I think you know that already.
You should reword your last paragraph to “Scientists assert it just happened.” Leave atheists out of the science business.
Last edited:
Since scientists can be theists or atheists, I worded my post accordingly and you read something into it I did not intend.
gnostic
The Lost One
too often people equate science with atheism.
perhaps I did read too much into it.
science isn’t religion. But nor is science atheism.
science are theism & atheism -neutral, because it doesn’t deal with the existence or nonexistent of any deity, because the very concept of deity is unfalsifiable.
Natural Sciences only explore nature, not the unfalsifiable supernatural.
atheism is only about the existence of god…atheism doesn’t impart knowledge of cosmology or of biology.
Last edited: