Jump to content
The Community Blog (An Invitation)

metadigital

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    13711

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by metadigital

    BAAAAN

    in Computer and Console

    Posted

    SENSORESHIP! SENSORESHIP!

     

    They're probably all a bunch of old foggies who still complain about rock and roll music and yell at children to get off their lawns.

    gordon_color.jpg

    You are such an idiot.

    Don't judge me!

    Ender ... is that you?

    Sir Salman Rushdie

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    I'll end this chapter with a particular case study, which tellingly illuminates society's exaggerated respect for religion, over and above ordinary human respect. The case flared up in February 2006 -- a ludicrous episode, which veered wildly between the extremes of comedy and tragedy. The previous September, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Over the next three months, indignation was carefully and systematically nurtured throughout the Islamic world by a small group of Muslims living in Denmark, led by two imams who had been granted sanctuary there.* In late 2005 these malevolent exiles travelled from Denmark to Egypt bearing a dossier, copied and circulated from there to the whole Islamic world, including, importantly, Indonesia. The dossier contained falsehoods about alleged maltreatment of Muslims in Denmark, and the tendentious lie that Jyllands-Posten was a government-run newspaper. It also contained the twelve cartoons which, crucially, the imams had supplemented with three additional images whose origin was mysterious but which certainly had no connection with Denmark. Unlike the original twelve, these three add-on were genuinely offensive -- or would have been if they had, as the zealous propagandists alleged, depicted Muhammad. A particularly damaging one of these three was not a cartoon at all but a faxed photograph of a bearded man wearing a fake pig's snout held on with elastic. It has subsequently turned out that this was an Associated Press photograph of a Frenchman entered for a pig-squealing contest at a country fair in France.** The photograph had no connection at all with Muhammad, no connection with Islam, and no connection with Denmark. But the Muslim activists, on their mischief-stirring hike to Cairo, implied all three connections ... with predictable results.

     

    ...

     

    A bounty of $1 million was placed on the head of 'the Danish cartoonist' by a Pakistani imam -- who was apparently unaware that there were twelve different Danish cartoonists, and almost certainly unaware that the three most offensive pictures had never appeared in Denmark at all ... In nigeria, Muslim protesters against the Danish cartoons burned down several Christian churches, and used machetes to attack and kill (black Nigerian) Christians in the streets. ... Demonstrators were photographed in Britain bearing banners saying 'Slay those who insult Islam', 'Butcher those who mock Islam', 'Europe you will pay: Demolition is on its way' and 'Behead those who insult Islam'. ...

     

    In the aftermath of all this, the journalist Andrew Mueller interviewed Britain's leading 'moderate' Muslim, Sir Iqbal Sacranie.*** Moderate he may be by today's Islamic standards, but in Andrew Mueller's account he still stands by the remark he made when Salmon Rushdie was condemned to death for writing a novel: 'Death is perhaps too easy for him' -- a remark that sets him in ignominious contrast to his courageous predecessor as Britain's most influential Muslim, the late Dr Zaki Badawi, who offered Salmon Rushdie sanctuary in his own home.

    * http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4686536.stm

    ** Independent, 5 Feb. 2006

    *** Andrew Mueller, 'An argument with Sir Iqbal', Independent on Sunday, 2 April 2006, Sunday Review section, 12-16.

    Should Science Speak to Faith?

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    I believe someone tried stating this earlier, but what about how morality and ethical codes can help a species along their evolutionary walk by not killing themselves and caring for each other? So regarding physical devices which have evolved, why can not devices invented by the mind not be evolutionary?

     

    On the other hand, when a species helps itself like ours, it is helping the weaker parts, which then mingle with the stronger ones, and physical evolution would seem to come to a slower pace than if only the strongest were surviving. Of course, these are humans and we care about them, but from an evolutionary perspective, ethical codes seem to be good and bad. I speak as though a believer in evolution, though I am not.

    You don't believe in evolution? I suppose gravity is just a coincidence, too? You would like Hume ... :)

    Should Science Speak to Faith?

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    By amoral, I mean entirely lacking in morals. Scientists are human beings, and are keenly interested in morals. Every single one of them. They might refer to morals as "ethics" or some such, but all people are concerned with morals. It's, as my friend Gorth might say, part of our moral gene.

     

    ...And don't think I mean it as an insult when I say that science is amoral. I don't. Science isn't a living thing. Depending on how you look at it, it's either the set of universal laws that govern existence or the language man uses to express what laws and theories he understands.

     

    The question meta posed was, "should science speak to faith." My opinion, from empirical morality onward, is that it not only should not, but that it cannot. However, I'm taking a few things for granted. One, I take for granted that we can accept the nature of our universe as we experience it. Where there are laws that govern our existence, we should accept them and proceed through the discussion. Where there are disputes regarding universal laws, we should rely on science as the basis of the discussion. Faith, however, is concerned with our spiritual side. We rely on something outside of science to tell us what is "right" or "wrong." I don't suggest that folks must have religion, or even any spiritual faith, to have a moral compass, but science cannot provide the basis. I've always thought TEETH was a bit strident in his denunciation of Christianity, but I've always been willing to accept his belief in secular humanism. That doesn't mean I'm not Catholic. It just means that I can accept different world views for the sake of the discussion.

     

    The upshot is, amoral simply means without morals. It is not immoral.

    I'll leave aside your scientist-bating for the moment. (Why can't science give guidance for morals? That is the very basis for humanism, after all. Are you denying humanism exists?)

     

    I'm more concerned with why you think science can't AND SHOULDN'T speak to faith.

     

    The reason I enquire is that we must be careful to not give too much respect to religion, past its due, lest we end up giving the Narcisistic Personality Disordered carte blanche to delude those "willingly gullible" cult members.

    Should Science Speak to Faith?

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    The fundamental issue at stake is that (some) religious folk think that their faith is above the created world, beyond criticism and certainly cannot be subjected to scientific rigour.

    the same can be said for some that think their lack of faith (in a higher power, or religion) is above all as well.

    Absolutely.

     

    As J.B.S. Haldane said when asked what evidence might contradict evolution, 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'

    :)

     

    Wow, some pretty good stuff, if I may say so. I disagree with Meta in saying we've got off track. We seem to be quite tightly focussed, but on different facets of the same question. Nor should we be alarmed by failing to form a unified view. Einstein himself had contradictory views on the matter, believing on the one hand in a mystical inspiration caused by religion, and on the other in a rigid empirical scientific methodology.

     

    "But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein, 1941)

     

    To respond to Cant and WITHTEETH, I have quite strong feelings. The selfish gene can tell me that my strategic imperative towards genetic survival is best served by a 'moral' outlook as a rule of thumb. Honesty, collaboration, courage etc. However, while it will tell me this is true for 95-99% of cases, it will remain mute on those most important occasions, when we can be absolutely certain that our actions will never be discovered, and we will never pay a price for our advancement or self-gratification. At such times, the only impediments can be regarded as on the one hand consistency, and on the other hand as this fragment of irrational belief, that we always stand before some higher witness.

     

    At the same time as I would not have a life of science without religion, I would equally fight against a life of religion without science. Incorporating, utilising, and wondering at scientific advance is more than just possible. It is a feature of many profoundly holy men and women. The only one I have any experience of personally is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. But I've also read some of the works of Krishnamurti, and he often references science.

    Does it seem that Einstein contradicts himself? That his words can be cherry-picked for quotes to support both sides of an argument? No. By 'religion' Einstein meant something entirely different from what is conventionally meant. As I continue to clarify the distinction between supernatural religion on the one hand and Einsteinian religion on the other, bear in mind that calling only supernatural gods delusional.

     

    Here are some more quotes from Einstein, to give a flavour of Einsteinian religion.

     

    I am deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion.

     

    I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.

     

    The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.

    Should Science Speak to Faith?

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    WITHTEETH, genuine question: you say that you should worry about another's feelings? Why is that? I don't see that that is based on scientific reasoning.

    Why be moral? Why be healthy? It feels good. There is this natural tendancy in many human beings depending on how they were raised (and genetically i suppose too) of the pleasure to please, and the capacity for empathy.

     

    Empirically, i see another suffering in despair, i feel empathy, I've been there. So I help them out because it will help me feel good then too! Is that selfish? Well, i just made 2 people happy, myself and another. And later on, that person will reward me back (in theory haha!)

     

    This is the best reasoning i can come up with. Anyone want to chime in?

    Albert Camus, in The Myth of Sisyphus, has a lot to speak of about this. Basically there is no compelling reason to be good, evil or indifferent. A person can do and be whatever they feel, whether it fulfills them or not. There is no reckoning, bar the immediate world of our own face in the mirror.

     

    This debate has gotten a little of track, methinks. The fundamental issue at stake is that (some) religious folk think that their faith is above the created world, beyond criticism and certainly cannot be subjected to scientific rigour. And not only are they offended that others might think that their faith is not universally correct and accepted, they think it is perfectly acceptable to kill anyone who dares to challenge their god-given wisdom.

     

    I would hope that we all would agree that, for our society to survive, all members must be tolerant of others and not wish to extinguish their rights to believe whatever they want.

     

    This doesn't mean that belief is immune from criticism.

     

    In November 2004, an angry young Muslim, Mohammed Bouyeri, shot and killed the provocative Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh. The killer had objected to a film that van Gogh had made with the Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali

    Sneezing

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    I went to school with a guy who farted, sneezed, and burped at the same time. There was this totally awed silence in class which we later established was everyone waiting to see if he prolapsed.

    I thought the wives' tale was that the person's insides would rush out of the body, as the surface tension / vacuum seal of the alimentary canal was disrupted.

    fallout 3

    in Computer and Console

    Posted

    I have to agree with Sand in some ways. If you're going to make a sequel, make it like the previous games.

     

    If you're going to take only the setting, then it's more of a spinoff.

    Who is the authority that polices what aspects of a game MUST be kept for it to be a sequel?

     

    Where does innovation become interference? I ask again: Who is the judge?

    What's so bad about the dark side anyway?

    in Star Wars: General Discussion

    Posted

    It all really has to do with your point of view and how you look at the world. If you think its acceptable to kill one person to save another, then its your choice. I think every individual person really defines their own dark side. The dark side as what the average population sees is just what is acceptable and what is not. That idea will change over time.

    You'd be a Moral relativist, then.

     

    I.e. you don't hold that there are any absolute ethical truths. Like eating babies is wrong under all circumstances, for example.

    Should Science Speak to Faith?

    in Way Off-Topic

    Posted

    Actually, Eratosthenes worked out that the Earth was a planet orbiting the sun like the others, in the third century BC.

     

    Was his findings accepted by the bulk of humanity? Yes or no.

     

    One individual is irrelevant. I am talking about human civilization as a whole. No doubt we can find a single individual here and there throughout history that was ahead of their time but as a civilization? What matters most is not the knowledge of one man, but the progression of technology and understanding of the universe by our species as a whole.

    WTF is "human civilization as a whole"?

×
×
  • Create New...