OT: Frank and Dave's Philosophical Kebab Emporium

You didn't need to read or count it G

"Look in the mirror, & don't be tempted to equate transient domination with either intrinsic superiority or prospects for extended survival"

Is that better G?

I like this thread but I think I'll steer clear until the subject matter goes on to something less sensitive. I've managed to be accused of being both pro and anti religion so must be exactly where I thought I was on the scale.

 

Oh dear hit a nerve have we? So it's fine for any Tom, Dick or Harry who has little or no understanding of the essence of faith to condemn it but oh my, attack the pre-eminence of science and it's suddenly an unacceptable insult.

You really do protest too much when it comes to the relationship between faith and science. Both cover a wide spectrum of elements. Now I am more at home in researching in the Social Sciences. I can assure you that in the areas of Psychology, Psychiatry and Sociology there are multitudes of theories but very little fact. From the few conversations that I have had with astrophysicists it would appear that they too have the same problem. I would therefore argue that both science and faith have the same problem - a deeply embedded belief in the truth of their stance without the ability to prove it.

Now, in my final paragraph, the essence of what I was trying to say was based upon 2 points. Firstly a very personal declaration that faith continues to work when the sum of human knowledge (science) exhausts itself. Secondly that because faith is not limited by some scientific code then it cannot be accused of containing or demonstrating what CCC refers to as Type 1 errors. If you like I am saying that he is using the wrong methodology.

 

1. no
2. not really, you are the one insulting science unless you can explain what you mean by "Faith has never limited itself in the way the science does - for me faith takes over where knowledge fails."
3. maybe, but if a scientist has an opinion he is faced with prove it, someone with faith is challenged, its their faith, one has to deal with facts, the other doesn't.

 

What's your issue with talking to dolphins?

 

Not quite sure what NO represents but I'm glad that you are not upset.

2. I did not insult science. As for my contention about faith taking over, I have already explained that this is a personal position. If that offends the scientific community then that is how it must be. Science can only be proven to the limit of human knowledge - after that it becomes mere speculation. Now I have the confidence of my faith to believe that God will be with me and sustaining me in both my and mankind's understanding. Hence faith goes far beyond knowledge.

3. Think about this for a second, if a person has faith then the scientist (for want of a better description) has to accept that FACT. However just because Richard Dawkins, Brian Cox, and Stephen Hawking postulate that God does not exist none of them can bring forward FACT to prove their positions. Equally I cannot bring forward FACT that God does exist - all I can do is express my faith that it is so. Now I believe that is all that I have done.

 

The mere fact that we are not dolphins and are therefore truly unable to understand the meanings behind the 'words'. I might understand that that when I hear the 'word' "eeek" it provokes a series of responses from other dolphins but I cannot know the depth of cognition of the term in dolphin society.

 

Why would god have given dolphins vocal chords if not to make them speak in dolphinese.

 

Except that through observation and brain scans we could come up with a good idea of what type of communication is going on. We have already done research into the language ability of several different animals with a lot of success.

It wouldn't surprise me in the tiniest bit if ultimately we develop methods for talking to animals of different species.

Obviously due to the differing levels of intelligence and understanding that's not likely to be a chat about going for a coffee, but communication through language with different species is most definitely not some sort of ridiculous science fiction.

 

Stephen hawking from my understanding has not denied the existence of god.

 

Actually, sod that.

To the evolutionists on here, do you look positively or negatively on the future of our species?

Will our ability to adapt as a species keep up with the significant changes we are making to our environment? From the long evolutionary point of view I suppose it doesn't matter: we will either adapt or die out, other species will either adapt to us and our changes to their environment or die out. Others may even survive us. Species have come and gone before us for various reasons...we replaced them after all.

Or should we take a humanist line that due to our so far unique cabalities we should strive to adopt a caretaker role; at the very least as an attempt at self preservation?

 

And dolphin brains with which to use their language in an environment that is alien to us using concepts that we can only relate to if we 'humanise' them.

 

A brain scan will never show you what another animl is thinking or just why the process that we may observe evokes a particular response. Now, as far as I am concerned communication is a 2way process that is intended to promote understanding. That is very different to evoking pavlovian behaviours using replica sound.

 

Having pinned my colours to the mast as not being either an evolutionist or a humanist then I think I'll leave this one to you frank

 

I'll have you know I can swim underwater, but I've never saw a dolphin walk into a pub.

 

What do you mean by humanise? I assume you mean attributing human emotions and feelings to animals? I'd imagine to a certain degree things are shared whilst others totally different but by approaching the issue with that in mind I don't see why we shouldn't be able to gain a level of understanding.

I think you underestimate the ability of humans. With enough research I don't see why we shouldn't be able to gain a deep understanding of the communication used by certain animals.

 

Communication is one thing giving some form of message to another thing that then understands that message. Though I get the point you are making.

Also brain scans can reveal all sorts and back-up observation based research. Some of the advancements in understanding the brain are amazing and as we understand more we will be able to decipher more of the information that we are able to read from the brain through scans.

 

Then I'll re-phrase the 'charge'. Stephen Hawking publicly declared in 2013 that the Big Bang Didn't Need God. Now if God is an omnipotent entity then Hawking's statement cannot be true. Ergo.....

 

Probably because they're too tight to buy a pint!

 

Within his books he alludes to the possibility of a god, whether he actually thinks there is a god I couldn't tell you

 

LOL, wasn't meaning to be exclusive, just thought they were pointless questions to direct your way Dave.

Interested to see if when theism is removed, whether that makes people optimistic or pessimistic about the direction they see humans going.

Just another helpless divergence of DNA that will eventually die out or eventually change out of all recognition.

Or have we reached a level that allows us to take things into our own hands?