Bible Bashers On Douglas Prom

[LoneWolf]

Fascinating Simon, but I feel its an arts' students take on the history of science.

It totally ignores the development of scientific theories and mathematics in pantheistic cultures like India and China.

 

Seems to fit quite neatly with the history of the Enlightenment though ?

[Depending on which history you might choose to read]

 

No Monotheism had been the dominate metaphor for about 1600 years prior to the Enlightenment.

 

Maybe I have misread him, but Im sure thats what Simon said

 

"The notion of 'one God' was a unification of metaphors which ultimately brings us to the wider unification of philosophical and then scientific ideas. Leading, for example, to the notion of science in terms of ever more tightly unified theories. This is a pattern of thinking which is clearly derived from historical religious philosophy.

 

Without the 'one God' version of religious metaphors there would be no modern science - since modern science it is rooted in a development of ideas which owes it's lineage to the establishment of the notion of a single God metaphor - at a point before science and theology would have been considered apart."

[simon]

I feel its an arts' students take on the history of science.

Well I very much respect your point of view and can see that you might see my perspective as somewhat esoteric.

 

I'm both MSc and BA (reasonably proper establishments). So in terms of my student academic education I would believe that my take on matters has been influenced by a reasonably mixed education.

 

/ EDIT: by which I mean balanced between different perspectives. I'm certainly not claiming knowledge from my ability to attend a college rather than going to work. /

 

I certainly believe in the kind of scrutiny which defines modern science.

 

I'm grateful for having been brought up to believe that the arts and the sciences are essentially part of the the same whole.

[Chinahand]

Lonewolf ... as Simon puts it we are getting into the esoteric ... my point was that if monotheism was a prerequisit of science [and the enlightenment] then the time span between the the creation of the dominant paradigm and the emergence of science would seem to point to the fact that alot of other factors were required as well.

 

Another complicating fact is that science as a unified theory is I think even later ... Gallileo, Descarte, Newton etc definitely saw science as a methodology, not there wasn't any all embrassing theory of everything ... I seem to remember this has been touched on before and there is an overlap between materialism, rationalism and science. The englightenment was a realization that materialism and rationalism could give coherent explanations of the world. But those coherent explanations weren't unified. I'd put that to a later date ... the Victorians ... who thought classical physics was pretty much it ... that intellectual effort definitely started to replace religion with Science with Darwin, Neitzcshe and Marx all pulled into the debate. But that effort collapsed when quantum physics and relativity emerged in the early 20th century.

 

Its only been ressurrected now with the string theorists etc with their dreams of a theory of everything.

 

What those ideas will do to postmodernism is anyones guess! But nerdy scientist will keep making discoveries and inventing things etc even as people debate what it all means.

[simon]

Lonewolf ... as Simon puts it we are getting into the esoteric ... my point was that if monotheism was a prerequisit of science [and the enlightenment] then the time span between the the creation of the dominant paradigm and the emergence of science would seem to point to the fact that alot of other factors were required as well.

 

That doesn't get us past the point of understanding that the establishment of 'the one god' was a major point in the development of science in terms of the way in which that sort of philosophical thinking later influenced the unification of scientific ideas.

 

Its only been ressurrected now with the string theorists etc with their dreams of a theory of everything.

 

As you've said it, that could almost seem like an almost like a rather glib point. But I've probably misunderstood you.

 

The ever tighter unification of scientific theories has been a feature of the history of science since it has been called science. The unification of scientific theories isn't merely some recent fashion. It's actually, pretty much, the basis of the history and development of modern chemistry and physics, for example.

[Sidney]

Lonewolf ... as Simon puts it we are getting into the esoteric ... my point was that if monotheism was a prerequisit of science [and the enlightenment] then the time span between the the creation of the dominant paradigm and the emergence of science would seem to point to the fact that alot of other factors were required as well.

 

Another complicating fact is that science as a unified theory is I think even later ... Gallileo, Descarte, Newton etc definitely saw science as a methodology, not there wasn't any all embrassing theory of everything ... I seem to remember this has been touched on before and there is an overlap between materialism, rationalism and science. The englightenment was a realization that materialism and rationalism could give coherent explanations of the world. But those coherent explanations weren't unified. I'd put that to a later date ... the Victorians ... who thought classical physics was pretty much it ... that intellectual effort definitely started to replace religion with Science with Darwin, Neitzcshe and Marx all pulled into the debate. But that effort collapsed when quantum physics and relativity emerged in the early 20th century.

 

Its only been ressurrected now with the string theorists etc with their dreams of a theory of everything.

 

What those ideas will do to postmodernism is anyones guess! But nerdy scientist will keep making discoveries and inventing things etc even as people debate what it all means.

 

Yeah, what he said.

[smooks]

Seriously, what is wrong with you people??

 

I didn't really expect you all to know much about my church, but I'm utterly shocked by your attitude towards it in making up your stories and allegations.

 

The funny thing is, this topic started off in mistruths and misconceptions... and hasn't stopped yet. The title BIBLE BASHERS is ridiculus. Please define what a "Bible Basher" is.... Mormon missionaries don't even come close. All your allegations about their character and work efforts are complete and utter rubbish. Yet, instead of just admitting that fact, you dig deeper and deeper into your hole of lies.

 

Please be honest and decent enough to stop now.

 

 

DjDan

 

It's up to you if you want to place your faith in a myth. I'm a Tarroo-Ushtey and Phynnodderee man myself, plus the Dalby Spook. I'd defend your right to believe in nonsense to the end. However I do get somewhat miffed when your ilk try to portray their belief in superstition as fact.

 

You've got to be a septic..........?

[Albert Tatlock]

ALBERT TATLOCK HAS THE MAGIC TWIGS...

 

...Follow, follow Albert. His name shall be spoken in hushed tongues by the Sons of Dog henceforward and ever unto Erin.

Great! I have one follower already. I've just knocked up my ten commandments (subject to revision), which you better obey or risk eternal damnation tied to a fat bird.

I'm dissapointed - I've only got one follower so far in my new 'Church of the Magic Twigs'. So after consideration I've decided to let women become priests, to accept gays and lesbians, and that Pets now have souls. I'm also considering changing my name to Brian. Oh and I promise eternal forgiveness (except traffic wardens), no speed limits, and a bunch of 25 gorgeous women (or hunky men for females) to meet you in 'Twig heaven' when you pop your clogs!

 

Any other takers yet? No riff raff please.

 

Edited to add: Last night I performed my first miracle, turning 6 pints of lager into water (not very drinkable water - but water all the same).

[slinkydevil]

and a bunch of 25 gorgeous women to meet you in 'Twig heaven' when you pop your clogs!

 

Okay what's the catch? Because at the moment it's a toss up between 'Church of the Magic Twigs' and 'Hezbollah', but their Terms & Conditions looked a little dangerous.

[Amadeus]

I'm dissapointed - I've only got one follower so far in my new 'Church of the Magic Twigs'. So after consideration I've decided to let women become priests, to accept gays and lesbians, and that Pets now have souls. I'm also considering changing my name to Brian. Oh and I promise eternal forgiveness (except traffic wardens), no speed limits, and a bunch of 25 gorgeous women (or hunky men for females) to meet you in 'Twig heaven' when you pop your clogs!

 

Any other takers yet? No riff raff please.

 

Edited to add: Last night I performed my first miracle, turning 6 pints of lager into water (not very drinkable water - but water all the same).

Count me in - the 25 gorgeous women and no speed limits did it - and I'm getting eternal forgiveness, so that's like fully comp then...

 

What's the name for the cheque?

[Albert Tatlock]

What's the name for the cheque?

Please make it payable to C. Ash

[Chinahand]

My point was that if monotheism was a prerequisit of science [and the enlightenment] then the time span between the the creation of the dominant paradigm and the emergence of science would seem to point to the fact that alot of other factors were required as well.

 

That doesn't get us past the point of understanding that the establishment of 'the one god' was a major point in the development of science in terms of the way in which that sort of philosophical thinking later influenced the unification of scientific ideas.

 

I realize I'm probably talking to myself but I love this sort of thing.

 

Monotheism became dominant thousands of years prior to science developed in the West. Scientific development occurred successfully in pantheistic societies: the Indus valley, Tang and Song China. The problem is that our view of these cultures is now distorted by their current failures, but up until the 17/18th century these cultures were more scientifically and technically advanced than the west. This was true in both the purer realms like mathematics, astronomy, map making, chemistry/alchemy, and in the practical like steel making, mechanisms, clockmaking, weaving, printing, papermaking etc etc.

 

I think we are discussing unity and the unity that science now provides which allows people to claim aitheism due to a rational, scientific examination of the world. [simon, that was your point wasn't it??]

 

Simon [i think] is linking these two unifications together - pantheism moving to monotheism and science unifying our understanding of nature.

 

It is a beautiful idea, its eloquent etc. But I question why it is necessary to link these two ideas together.

 

How about a counter example - It is only due to the collapse of monotheistic ideas and the development of postmodernism that science has been able to successfully examine multiple universe/dimensional theories which allow quantum and string theories to overturn Newtonian and Einstienian ideas of space.

 

Here the development of the two ideas - one cultural and one scientific are much closer together in time. The cultural theorists explicitly used the scientific ideas of uncertainty and measurement to develop their theories etc. Phd's by the thousand have been written on the subject ... but is the linking of the two phemonomen correct? No body knows.

 

Simons idea - development in science requires unity.

Postmodernists idea - development in science requires multiplicity.

 

Both are fascinating ideas, both probably have elements that are true in a certain historical and cultural setting, but there are counter examples gallore.

 

This is more art than science - its about the development of ideas.

 

I love debating this sort of thing, but I would be very careful in saying any of these ideas are true. I'm pretty certain Simon will agree with me on that. We can both give counter examples in ever decreasing circles, but when Simon says

 

the establishment of 'the one god' was a major point in the development of science

 

I simply go just a second

 

the establishment of the idea that science could provide a unified explanation of the world was a major point in the development of science

 

Is there a link between the two - maybe - but then again the two unifications were a thousand years apart and alot happened in between - so maybe not - we could go on all day - so I will shut up now.

[Albert Tatlock]

How about a counter example - It is only due to the collapse of monotheistic ideas and the development of postmodernism that science has been able to successfully examine multiple universe/dimensional theories which allow quantum and string theories to overturn Newtonian and Einstienian ideas of space.

Disagree. You can prove there are 11 dimensions mathematically.

 

When you think about it, maths is the thing that really changes everything in science, and has been instrumental in overturning church and philosphical views on numerous occasions (Keppler, Galileo etc.)

 

Maths is the true religeon. The difference between maths and worshipping a squirrel on a cloud is that maths will eventually yield all of the answers. Whether we understand them is another question.

 

Monotheistic and postmodernism etc. are just words that non-mathematical types use to describe those periods when we left the maths and then went back to it.

[Chinahand]

How about a counter example - It is only due to the collapse of monotheistic ideas and the development of postmodernism that science has been able to successfully examine multiple universe/dimensional theories which allow quantum and string theories to overturn Newtonian and Einstienian ideas of space.

Disagree. You can prove there are 11 dimensions mathematically.

 

When you think about it, maths is the thing that really changes everything in science, and has been instrumental in overturning church and philosphical views on numerous occasions (Keppler, Galileo etc.)

 

Maths is the true religeon. The difference between maths and worshipping a squirrel on a cloud is that maths will eventually yield all of the answers. Whether we understand them is another question.

 

Monotheistic and postmodernism etc. are just words that non-mathematical types use to describe those periods when we left the maths and then went back to it.

 

Erm, no! Sorry.

 

Of course these ideas have existed previously and can be mathematiclly proved, but the cultural and social conditions didn't exist to allow them to develop. We are discussing the impact social ideas - monotheism etc - have on the development of scientific ideas. Just cos you can prove something mathematically doesn't mean that the ideas will be usefully developed and applied to the world as we know it.

 

Then we get on to maths as a religion proving everything. Albert, please google Godel incompleteness theory. Mathematics will tell you whatever you want depending upon the axioms you use to start off with. Euclid: parallel lines only meet at infinity, Reimann: Parallel lines meet at some other point. You can prove the universe has 11, 12 13 or 300 dimensions - or more accurately create a self consistent geometry with these numbers of dimentsions. Doing so tells us nothing about wether the universe actually has 11, 12, 13 or 301 dimensions. Please also google Not even wrong string theory.

 

Maths is no more away to truth than belief - if you hold a true belief then its true - if you apply the correct axioms your mathmatics will describe reality. But if you hold a false belief, or apply the wrong axioms you won't get to truth no matter how hard you try, or how logical, or correctly proved your mathematics is.

 

Edited to add Not even wrong string theory!

[Albert Tatlock]

I was paraphrasing and trying to avoid a two pager!

Erm, no! Sorry.

 

Of course these ideas have existed previously and can be mathematiclly proved, but the cultural and social conditions didn't exist to allow them to develop. We are discussing the impact social ideas - monotheism etc - have on the development of scientific ideas. Just cos you can prove something mathematically doesn't mean that the ideas will be usefully developed and applied to the world as we know it.

How much further advanced the human race would be without religeon, with the human focus for discovery, is an interesting question. Probably about 5000 years further ahead I would suggest. However, ideas have always forced themselves out as most progress has always been down to 'unreasonable men' (thinking outside of the box - even a religeous box). The people who have held up progress by stopping free-thinking have always tended to be the religeous heads of the day (and more recently accountants - dictating how people spend their time).

 

There is also a distinct lack of 'patrons' to sponsor free thinkers these days, and a general lack of interest in science - hence the rise in religeon and 'celebrity culture' (people can't be arsed to think for themselves). As has happended in the past, if more people did more useful mathematics I guarantee we would have a lot of usefully developed theories applied to the world.

Then we get on to maths as a religion proving everything. Albert, please google Godel incompleteness theory. Mathematics will tell you whatever you want depending upon the axioms you use to start off with. Euclid: parallel lines only meet at infinity, Reimann: Parallel lines meet at some other point.

Semantics...when you get in a plane or cross a bridge most scientists and mathematicians don't think: "I believe I can fly!", or "I believe that the bridge will hold up", though many non-scientists might. If you have an understanding of mathematics and the realisation that everything you do (even typing on here) is based on mathematics you learn to trust mathematics as it gives you repeatable answers, that you would trust your life to. There would be no further progress if we have to double check theories each and every time we used them. I have never seen proof of Godel's incompletness theory so I don't believe it!

Maths is no more away to truth than belief - if you hold a true belief then its true - if you apply the correct axioms your mathmatics will describe reality. But if you hold a false belief, or apply the wrong axioms you won't get to truth no matter how hard you try, or how logical, or correctly proved your mathematics is.

Maths is both precise and truthful in my world. Einstein took a 'quantum leap' in the sense that he thought of the answer and then worked backwards to prove it. He didn't get it right the first, second or third time. If we keep with mathematics and try to think this way, then over a period of time we will find repeatable answers, and develop the intellect to understand them. We can all pick useless examples, and many non-famous mathematicians have wasted their lives doing so.

[Lonan3]

Lonan, I appreciate your excitement at finding yourself some anti-mormon literature... (such stuff is very hard to find i know) but that hardly goes to prove anything. It's not the first time i've heard the claims, and it won't be the last. I've studied much anti-mormon literature out of amusement and actively debated on anti-mormon websites but I'm bored with it all now. I'm hardly going to spend my time responding to your posting because 1. when I explain everything to you, you won't really care.. therefore it'll be a waste of my time and 2. you won't want to believe it anyway.

 

One thing i'll reveal to you: When an anti-mormon writes an article, what you get is part-truths mixed with lies and exaggerations. That's why with all the time they spend trying to find something credible to destroy the church.... they still fail.

 

Actually, it wasn't difficult at all.... and as well as being anti-mormon, the guy who runs the site is also a former-mormon - something you conveniently choose to ignore.

 

 

DjDan Yesterday, 09:42 PM Post #145

 

funny enough... mormons are rejected there. They don't consider us "christians" because we don't believe in the "trinity".

 

Actually they reject Mormons for a number of reasons:

 

e.g. the Mormon Church teaches that there are many Gods (Book of Abraham 4:3ff), and that we can become gods and goddesses in the celestial kingdom (Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-20; Gospel Principles, p. 245; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 130).

 

the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!" from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321).

 

the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers (Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

 

Personally, I think that if you take the initial letters CLS (Church of Latter day Saints) and add them to the name of the star around which the planet that God lives on, according to Mormon belief i. e KOLOB (I kid you not!), I think you will find an anagram of what they're really all about!