1 of 3
1
Science/Dawkins vs Religion   - new video—-
Posted: 03 September 2007 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03

art-of-truth-pic.jpg


Hi folks.

Here’s a short thought-provoking video I put together recently.

See what you think.

Note: No disrespect to any faith etc is intended here.

Cheers.

Rob

Art of Truth - video
YouTube link….......

youtube.com/watch?v=McenyBl7o50

(copy and paste url into your browser)

——

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 10:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02

Very interesting.  I do like the how you did the Dawkins in the video.  It shows the very human aspect of what we do to each other.  The one thing I figured out when I was young, can’t remember what age it was, was the metaphoric meaning of it all as I watched Christians.  To this day, my opinion concerning that has not changed.  So, what if he’s wrong, they judge Dawkins and verbally “crucify” him for his ideas.  It makes the Gnostic interpretation of it all make a whole lot of sense- to me at least.  In all honesty, given that, I don’t think he’s all that wrong.  I also see such reactions to what he says very infantile and a refusal to consider any other ideas as they stay stunted in their emotional, mental, and psychological growth.  There is so much fear in exploring the question that they cling to primitive ideas.  However, this is not necessarily true of all Christians though.  Some, like the ones I’ve listed on another thread, do revise their definition to a more natural concept using words like love and compassion, but if they were to think it through even further, they might find these are just emotions of human beings, but I do agree with them on one point:  What we do need is a little more love in the world.  That I cannot argue with.  I think it’s better than nailing each other with hurtful words and behaviours or worse yet, scaring young children into believing in an invisible friend.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03

’ What we do need is a little more love in the world’
—————-

Nicely said Mriana…. and some good points too.

Thanks for watching.

R.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

hmm, some nice animation and well-produced.  I don’t see how the quote at the end links into things though.  And you could have had the “what if I’m wrong” bit spoken by those buddhist guys after you showed their elaborate temples - the inference being that they’ve wasted an awful lot of the lives if they are wrong.  A lot of christians might object to the monkey with the “crown of thorns” image.  To be honest, I’m not altogether sure what you were trying to say with this, but enjoyable enough as an abstract piece.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 01:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03
narwhol - 03 September 2007 01:14 PM

hmm, some nice animation and well-produced.

Cheers for watching, Narwhol

I don’t see how the quote at the end links into things though.

Well, Dawkins is a scientist who doesent believe in God or a creator, whereas Einstein was probably the greatest scientist, and he not only believed in God as creator, but he also expanded his belief/insight by saying that God is subtle i.e. that God is impossible to detect outwardly with the senses or the intellect. Einstein also famously said that God wasn’t malicious. My point in the video was that it could be argued that vivisection - as performed by scientists on the monkey (with the brace around its head during experimentation),  is indeed malicious or cruel, especially if all living beings are in fact derived from the One source, as quantum physics now implies through Unified field theory.

And you could have had the “what if I’m wrong” bit spoken by those buddhist guys after you showed their elaborate temples - the inference being that they’ve wasted an awful lot of the lives if they are wrong.

Fair comment there. But the Buddhist guy isnt shouting to the world that there is no creator, and he isnt on a big PR drive to sell his books and lecture tours, as Dawkins is. 
And would the Buddhists really be ‘wasting lives’? After all, their doctrine is to quietly live in peace with ones ‘Self’, and to be non-harmful to others and animals. I dont think thats such a bad thing to do with ones life.

A lot of christians might object to the monkey with the “crown of thorns” image.

Nice point. But I think maybe you created the crown of thorns in your own imagination. As I said earlier, the ‘crown’ is actually a scientific instrument (of torture?) used to clamp the monkeys head in the lab experiments.

Thanks again for watching. I appreciate your interest.

Rob

[ Edited: 03 September 2007 02:41 PM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 02:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  672
Joined  2007-06-17

Oh, I know it isn’t a crown of thorns- I’m a scientist myself (albeit a physicist).  To be honest, Buddhists do go around saying there is no god and trying to promote their books.  Einstein was possibly the greatest scientist that ever lived, but his opinions on scientific issues were fairly laughable sometimes and his ideas of there being a God were just plain daft.  His actual science was great though.  It was just his opinions that were usually shown to be absolute rubbish - often it took him longer to realise than it took everyone else.  As to the Buddhist life style having nothing wrong with it - fair enough, I’ll agree.  Dawkins’s lifestyle is harmless too.  And if he has some good clever philosophy that he has reasoned very well, he damned well should advertise it (otherwise he’d be the servant who buried his talents). 

On the Vivisection thing, it is cruel - I’ll agree - but I wouldn’t say malicious and I doubt you would either if you thought about it.  What scientist says: “That monkey is really peeing me off, I want to cause it intense pain”? Whereas how many scientists have said “I need to prove that my technique/drug doesn’t kill people before I administer it to them”?  Also, many great advances have come about with the aid of vivisection techniques, and many catastrophes have occured through not using it.  However, most (if not all) scientists are against it, as am I if any reasonable alternative is available.  Often nowadays there are techniques that can be used in place of vivisection and these are used.  Sadly however, in some cases they can’t and scientists are still trying to come up with techniques to replace it.

As a proper physicist, I can tell you that unified field theory does not state that.  I hear all kind of nonsense stated all over the place where people try to mistify quantum physics in this way and it is new age nonsense.

Firstly, unified field theory may, as yet be bunk.  Secondly, it is concerned with expressing the four fundamental forces in terms of one field.  To interpret this as to say that human beings come from one source - well you could say that that one source is the big bang or the (probably - as yet only one of two competing theories) absolute nothing that preceeded it.  And to say that we’re all connected is nonsense - the probability of that is just not quite zero, but is negligible.  so the likes of diarmuid o murchu take this on board and take this least probable scenario and say that it’s definitely the case, ignoring the most probable scenarios on the way.

 Signature 

http://web.mac.com/normsherman/iWeb/Site/Podcast/833F918B-485B-42F4-B18C-4AB1436D9B87.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 04:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02
Rob2007 - 03 September 2007 12:57 PM

’ What we do need is a little more love in the world’
—————-

Nicely said Mriana…. and some good points too.

Thanks for watching.

R.

Thanks Rob and you are welcome.

Narwhol, try to think of it in human terms and what we do each other and to animals.  There is no god who does these things, but rather humans do it to each other and animals too.  We are continuing to practice human and animal sacrifice, mostly in the name of religion, but sometimes we do it for science.  I’m not saying that it’s bad when we do it for science, but I am saying it’s cruel to the animal.  :(  But in science it has a purpose that is not necessarily meaningless, but I see no purpose when humans do it in the name of religion.  Just to what are we sacrificing people in the name of religion?  There is no sense to it, not even when people are offended by the idea that there is no god.  They don’t do it in the name of religion, but in the name of superstition.

[ Edited: 03 September 2007 04:26 PM by Mriana ]
 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 05:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03
narwhol - 03 September 2007 02:41 PM

Oh, I know it isn’t a crown of thorns- I’m a scientist myself (albeit a physicist).  To be honest, Buddhists do go around saying there is no god and trying to promote their books.

 
Maybe. But I was into Buddhism in my twenties - during my martial art years - and there was never any talk of saying there was ‘no God’. It was more a case of belief in God not being necessary.

Einstein was possibly the greatest scientist that ever lived, but his opinions on scientific issues were fairly laughable sometimes and his ideas of there being a God were just plain daft.

‘Daft’ is a rather oblique term. Einstein was clearly well respected for his beliefs in a higher intelligence/creator/God, and this respect, plus his thoughts and quotes, live on today. In addition, many well respected scientists talk in terms of a higher intelligence/creator/God.

As to the Buddhist life style having nothing wrong with it - fair enough, I’ll agree.  Dawkins’s lifestyle is harmless too.  And if he has some good clever philosophy that he has reasoned very well, he damned well should advertise it (otherwise he’d be the servant who buried his talents).

Sure. But whenever I hear Dawkin’s lectures and the rowdy behaviour of his followers, I cant help thinking that I was like them once when I was about sixteen. I enjoyed a bit of anarchy then - giving the finger to the very idea of a big father God in the sky smile  Dawkins is simply ‘giving the finger’ on a larger scale with millions of people following suit.  But whether or not its ‘harmless’  depends on whether you believe that the goal of life is to become one with that higher intelligence/creator/God, or to at least move closer into line with it or him, as many ancient religions around the world believe and adhere to.  If this is the case, then advocating spiritual anarchy, as only Dawkins can,  is probaly not so ‘harmless’.

On the Vivisection thing, it is cruel - I’ll agree - but I wouldn’t say malicious and I doubt you would either if you thought about it.


Oh I have thought about it, honest wink

What scientist says: “That monkey is really peeing me off, I want to cause it intense pain”? Whereas how many scientists have said “I need to prove that my technique/drug doesn’t kill people before I administer it to them”?


True, but how many more company scientists - often propelled by corporate pressures - have said “I need to ensure once again that my face cream/hair dye doesn’t give our valued customers a skin rash, so lets pop this bleach into your eyes little rabbit and see what happens, even though these tests have been done many times before and we dont really need to do them”.  Innocent annimals are being tortured and killed each day for the sake of making people more beautiful.
Now that, I would say, is malicious. 

As a proper physicist,...

Oh, a ‘proper’ physicist!  Are there many ‘in-proper physicists?  LOL.
Sorry, do go on.  wink

...I can tell you that unified field theory does not state that.  I hear all kind of nonsense stated all over the place where people try to mistify quantum physics in this way and it is new age nonsense.

I think maybe you are in danger of falling into the Dawkins trap here. First you state that you are a ‘proper’ scientsist/physcist, and then you attempt to label me as the ‘new age’ chappie who has been silly enough to ‘mistify’ quantum physics.  In actual fact, what I said is backed up by many leading quantum physicists -  from Bohr to Hagelin, namely that there is one proven underlying field which links all matter, and that trees, humans, frogs, stars etc emerge from that field.  Its a very simple concept (think oceon and wave), which I have studied and attended lectures on. 

And to say that we’re all connected is nonsense - the probability of that is just not quite zero, but is negligible.

I doubt that any true quantum physicist would say any statement about the unified field was ‘nonsense’.  What is known for sure, is that the discovery of Non-Locality, the wave/particle duality, means that everything in the universe is joined or connected together.  Or as many ancient religions have said, ‘Life is one’.

Cheers again for your input.

Rob

[ Edited: 03 September 2007 05:59 PM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 05:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I doubt that any true quantum physcist would say any statement about the unified field was ‘nonsense’.

I’m not going to get into this discussion, but I’d like to point out that the above statement contains the critical thinking fallacy of “poisoning the well.”  If someone points out a quantum physicist who DID say a statement about the unified field was nonsense, you could say, “Ah, but he’s not a TRUE quantum physicist.”

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 05:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03
Occam - 03 September 2007 05:38 PM

I doubt that any true quantum physicist would say any statement about the unified field was ‘nonsense’.

I’m not going to get into this discussion, but I’d like to point out that the above statement contains the critical thinking fallacy of “poisoning the well.”  If someone points out a quantum physicist who DID say a statement about the unified field was nonsense, you could say, “Ah, but he’s not a TRUE quantum physicist.”

Occam

Thanks Occam.

I doubt that any “leading” quantum physicist (at the cutting edge of research) would say any statement about the unified field was ‘nonsense’.

Ammended smile

[ Edited: 03 September 2007 05:49 PM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Good try, but it’s still the same.  This time you could say, “But he’s not LEADING” or “But he’s not really at the cutting edge of research”. LOL

Might want to try changing “any” to “almost any”.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 05:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03
Occam - 03 September 2007 05:49 PM

Good try, but it’s still the same.  This time you could say, “But he’s not LEADING” or “But he’s not really at the cutting edge of research”. LOL

Might want to try changing “any” to “almost any”.

Occam

I thought you didnt want to get into this discussion!!!  smile 

Seriously though. What I meant was, in his or her own personel view.


[ Edited: 03 September 2007 05:58 PM by Rob2007 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:00 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I’m NOT getting into the discussion, just nitpicking. LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  18
Joined  2007-09-03
Occam - 03 September 2007 06:00 PM

I’m NOT getting into the discussion, just nitpicking. LOL

Occam

Oh, go on!  Say something nice about Dawkins so I can spend more time typing - when I should be in bed.

smile

Goodnight all.

Rob
UK sleep time 11:04 pm

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7614
Joined  2007-03-02

Occam is talking semantics.  In this case, he’s nickpicking because the wording signifies all inclusiveness and not all quantum scientists, even those worth their salt necessarily agree with each other.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 September 2007 06:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Damn, you ARE going to drag me into the discussion.  I agree with a lot of Dawkin’s conclusions, but I think he’s a jerk, a very bright jerk, but still a jerk.  OK, maybe change “jerk” to “demagogue”.  Now I’m done.

Occam

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1