Hard News: Belief Media
414 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 4 5 6 7 8 … 17 Newer→ Last
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
It doesn’t mean I believe there to be an actual god called Tangaroa who directs the waves.
I believe in Aquaman.
-
Graeme Edgeler, in reply to
There are few things more bound to our sense of national identity than Anzac Day, and yet it is really not a Christian occasion.
The last ANZAC Dawn Ceremony I attended had opening and closing prayers, a benediction, someone else I can't remember the name of, the Lord's Prayer and was officiated over by whoever was leading the Wellington Combined Churches, as well as having three hymns (four if you count the National Hymn).
-
3410, in reply to
you’ve hit the point: there is no (forward-looking) goal.
So, how can one deduce the level of efficiency?
Kind of like... If I tell you that I ran a race in 23 minutes, you can not say whether that was an extremely poor performance or a rather good performance unless you know how long the race was, right?
I guess my other point is that you can only call a biological system inefficient if you can show that it *could* have been some other way, and how can you do that?
-
Martin Lindberg, in reply to
The last ANZAC Dawn Ceremony I attended had opening and closing prayers, a benediction…
Yes, there are many Christian elements, but the primary purpose of the ceremony is not Christian. As opposed to, say, Easter or Christmas.
-
Whereas when I was a child I was counted as a Presbyterian, even though I wasn’t religious, and I suspect that’s very common.
The important point is that you were not BORN a presbyterian. It is how we become tainted is the fuse we should have a tendency to blow.
Edit: My grandad was at Galipoli. He didn't think much of what god did there when he came back.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
The important point is that you were not BORN a presbyterian.
No, but I was christened, which means the Presbyterians have called dibs, right?
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I believe in Aquaman.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
I guess my other point is that you can only call a biological system inefficient if you can show that it *could* have been some other way, and how can you do that?
Like Chekov, running full tit through The Enterprise screaming “I can do that, I can do that”
Really we can. Sometimes. It is possible to take a biological pathway and delete a gene and see if it makes a difference, we can do it easily with bacteria and yeast, with some difficulty for some animals and plants. It is a standard tool in the kit of a molecular biologist.
A disappointingly common outcome is nothing happens. You completely remove a gene that is demonstrably producing a protein that carries out what should be an essential process and nothing happens, apart from swearing up and down the corridors of academia. Usually nothing happens because there is another gene or completely separate pathway that appears to be exist as a “spare”. Sometimes it’s more complicated, heh. How is that efficient? Sure it makes sense to have a spare tyre but a spare passenger seat? Or spare towbar?
So not only can you show that it could exist some other way you can actually see the other way – or three other ways plus ten more that are sort of the same but different.
Yes you can always argue that the alternatives exist for specific conditions, and sometimes they really do, but as I said before such arguments tend spiral down in ever decreasing circles. The reasonable conclusion is is biology is not efficient and Occam was wrong.
-
Lucy Stewart, in reply to
Yes you can always argue that the alternatives exist for specific conditions, and sometimes they really do, but as I said before such arguments tend spiral down in ever decreasing circles.
That's the real problem with, quote, intelligent design, unquote. It's pretty fucking unintelligent, when you get down to the details.
-
Timely from Sciblogs: Science and the folly of faith. Review
“the conflict between science and religion should not be regarded as a conflict between reason and unreason” – as some people present it. “The distinction between theology and science is in the objects on which to apply reason. Nothing can be learned from reason alone. A logical argument contains no information not already embedded in its premises.Reason and logic must be supplement by additional hypotheses about the nature of reality and the sources of our knowledge about that reality. In the case of science. that source is solely observation. In the case of theology, that source is primarily faith, with some observation thrown in as long as it does not conflict with faith. Theology is faith-plus-reason, with some observation allowed. Science is observation-plus-reason, with no faith allowed.”
Added:
“Science is not going to change its commitment to the truth. We can only hope religion will change its commitment to nonsense.”
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Scientists don’t (or shouldn’t) “have faith” in a hypothesis, far from it, we instead try our damdest to punch holes in the hypothesis.
My reference was to "Faith" in the method rather than any hypothesis
-
BenWilson, in reply to
In my field it is absolutely unquestionably clear that Occam was a moron who knew nothing about the real world
I'd question that. Seems to me from the things you've said that you're arguing against overly zealous applications of Occam's razor, rather than the principle itself. In fact, you seem to be applying the principle, shaving off the need to postulate efficiency into biology.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
efficiency into biology.
Simple:
Input - desired output = loss -
Russell: And you can be as teeth-achingly literalist as you like, but what a person thinks of when they gaze out to sea is their own business.
Ditto. I see the beauty in the colours, the sounds, the movement be it calm or violent. I think about all those little fish, big fish, mammals. The chemical mixture, the plankton, the bio-luminescence, how there can be kilometres below me as I sail the surface. An unmapped void between wave and ocean floor. I think wow, this is all happening with quarks - charmed and otherwise - screaming about their nuclear space and interacting on a fantastic scale. (Which we only thought of in the last 50years and are no doubt about to confirm. A somewhat shorter time whence fire, water, dirt, air and a decreed immovable celestial sphere was all that made up our world.) That is enough in itself to admire without any earthly reason to bring some invented deity into the discussion.
Three score and ten years is too short to decide if heaven or hell is the place for eternity. Thinking of that is a crutch. Just accept that you are just a temporary collection of atoms gathered in one place in the form of you. Relax. Enjoy it. You are dead a long time.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Simple:
Input - desired output = lossWhat's the desired output of biology?
-
BenWilson, in reply to
That is enough in itself to admire without any earthly reason to bring some invented deity into the discussion.
Or you could go even simpler and not think at all, and just look. Simpler. But not better or worse, in the cosmic scheme of things. Might matter to you, though.
Edit: I was looking out at the sea only about an hour ago, but not much concerned about quarks. I was wondering if there were fish out there I could catch. While I looked, a reasonable sized fish (I'm guessing a mullet) jumped in front of me. Nature spoke! But what was the question??? Tooooooo deeeeeep. Mmmmmmm fisssssh.
-
Sacha, in reply to
There's no need to take any of these old beliefs as being literally true, but it is worth remembering that there is a lot of wisdom encoded in what seems to modern, rational, scientific eyes as irrational superstition
+1
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
What’s the desired output of biology?
For horticulture, more output
Bio synthesis, more output
For the organism itself, more DNA but it doesn't know that.
;-) -
Sacha, in reply to
I'm fascinated by the implications for understandings of disability. We should talk.
-
Sacha, in reply to
What's the desired output of biology?
continuation
-
Sacha, in reply to
not think at all, and just look
branches of spiritual practice are dedicated to that goal.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Just accept that you are just a temporary collection of atoms gathered in one place in the form of you. Relax. Enjoy it.
that's one form of understanding, yes.
-
Islander, in reply to
Just accept that you are just a temporary collection of atoms gathered in one place in the form of you. Relax. Enjoy it. You are dead a long time.
I am, and I do, I do-
-
Will de Cleene, in reply to
I would really, really like to see the religious affiliation question moved to the 15+ side of the census. I put my kids down as having 'no religion' because they didn't have a religion. I didn't call them atheists. Whereas when I was a child I was counted as a Presbyterian, even though I wasn't religious, and I suspect that's very common.
Good point. The 2006 Census noted that "Over 4 in 10 (43.0 percent) children (aged 0 to 14 years) were recorded as having no religion, compared with over 1 in 10 (11.8 percent) people aged 65 years and over. " Apples and oranges really.
I think Jedi was counted as a non-response.
Indeed. They counted Theism, Zoroastrian, Satanism and Other New Age Religions, but not Jedi. They appeared under Response Outside Scope.
-
Islander, in reply to
Another +1 for Chris's observation-
Post your response…
This topic is closed.