|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I read something by RTeacher that made me think, re: Christianity and its offensive exclusivity. I can understand Unitarians and Hare Krishnas being offended by this. BUT...
How does an atheist get offended by the notion that Christianity is the only way? Their doctrine is equally exclusive. Christians talk about freeing people from the darkness of unbelief, and Atheists want to liberate people from their mental slavery.
Take Richard Dawkins for instance:
"Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.""
If you said this specifically about Jews, you'd be prosecuted for "hate speech" in Canada. Jeez. This guy has compared Moses with both Hitler and Hussein. He's preaching an exclusive doctrine, but everybody pats him on the back for being such a reasonable guy. Not all faith can be lumped in with unicorns and leprechauns, and not all faith leads to hatred and bloodshed. Reason is his god, and he's entitled to preach if he wants to, but with this war he's waging, he's just another sect in the battle for truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Awright, you want proof of the existence of God and the soul? So, here's the conclusion of a thesis by Marco Biagini, Ph.D in Solid State Physics:
Conclusions
Modern science cannot explain (neither conceptually) the existence of consciousness; it allows to explain neither the existence of the most banal sensation. This result acquires a very deep meaning if we analyse the state of our present scientific knowledges. First of all, all natural sciences are subordinate to the laws of physics, which represent the principles from which they derive and of which they are only approximative versions. Today in fact we know the laws which determine all molecular, electromagnetic, chemical, biological and neurological processes: they are the laws of Quantum Electrodynamics, the scientific laws which have received the most wide, general, systematic, numerous and precise experimental confirmations in all history. The laws of quantum electrodynamics are confirmed by such a huge number of experimental results that it would be absurd to question their validity in the explanation of molecular systems, and in particular, of biological systems.
On the other hand, the rigidity of the mathematical structure of quantum electrodynamics, makes absolutely unreasonable the hypothesis of a possible change of such laws, since this would have dramatic consequences on all the correct solutions we have presently obtained. This means that quantum electrodynamics can be considered the ultimate theory for the explanation of molecular processes, and, consequently, for the explanation of biological processes.
The laws of quantum electrodynamics can be considered the first principles which determine all molecular and biological processes. The point is that such principles give (at least conceptually) a mechanicistic explanation of all molecular and biological processes, but they do not explain (neither conceptually ) the existence of consciousness. The laws of physics deny the basic hypothesis of materialism, according to which consciousness would be generated by biological or cerebral processes. Consciousness transcends the laws of physics, and therefore, the cause of the existence of consciousness cannot be identified with the brain; consciousness is necessarily originated by a non-physical/non-biological (that is, a supernatural) component: the psyche or soul. There are then two distinct realities; the physical reality, that is the universe, which has an intrinsic mathematical structure (the laws of physics) determining every physical, chemical and biological process; the psychical reality, which transcends such laws, and consequently, transcends the physical reality.
At this point we must consider the question: where does our psyche come from? The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time, our psyche certainly begins to exist in us. The laws of physics prove that the psyche cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our psyche is transcendent to the physical reality. We can then identify with God the necessary Cause of the existence of the psyche, being such Cause transcendent. This represents a scientific confirmation of the christian doctrine according to which each man has a soul, created directly by God. I think that it is correct to say that today the existence of the soul and the existence of a transcendent God are scientifically proved.
A note about the theory of evolution
I would like to add a brief consideration about the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is based on the recovery of fossils, and it can be applied only to biological organisms. We do not have sufficient elements to establish whether the human biological organism is the result of an evolution process; neither we have sufficient elements to exclude this possibility. However, the point is that consciousness is transcendent to the physical/biological reality and requires the existence in man of a transcendent component (the psyche or soul).
Since no fossils of psyche exist, the theory of evolution can say nothing about the origin of consciousness and human psychical life. So, even if our organism derived from a previous animal organism, we could have no conscious psychical life if God had not created in each of us a soul. Without a soul, we would be only biological robots, able to act and react, but without any consciousness and incapable of feeling any sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc.
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/mindandbrain.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
I read something by RTeacher that made me think, re: Christianity and its offensive exclusivity. I can understand Unitarians and Hare Krishnas being offended by this. BUT...
How does an atheist get offended by the notion that Christianity is the only way? Their doctrine is equally exclusive. Christians talk about freeing people from the darkness of unbelief, and Atheists want to liberate people from their mental slavery.
Take Richard Dawkins for instance:
"Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.""
If you said this specifically about Jews, you'd be prosecuted for "hate speech" in Canada. Jeez. This guy has compared Moses with both Hitler and Hussein. He's preaching an exclusive doctrine, but everybody pats him on the back for being such a reasonable guy. Not all faith can be lumped in with unicorns and leprechauns, and not all faith leads to hatred and bloodshed. Reason is his god, and he's entitled to preach if he wants to, but with this war he's waging, he's just another sect in the battle for truth. |
I believe Athiesm to be a belief just like Christianity (hence I agree with you). That's why they fight just as hard, but they are really new to the world as a group and they have to fight harder to make a place for themselves (which they deserve just as much as you). Though some Athiests aren't really athiest. Many are actually agnostics, but don't realize it. Many don't even know what an agnostic is because there is so little information and education about it. Agnostics get angry when either one try to push their beliefs on them. I must admit, Athiests usually leave agnostics alone while I can't say the same for the Christians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
Awright, you want proof of the existence of God and the soul? So, here's the conclusion of a thesis by Marco Biagini, Ph.D in Solid State Physics:
Conclusions
Modern science cannot explain (neither conceptually) the existence of consciousness; it allows to explain neither the existence of the most banal sensation. This result acquires a very deep meaning if we analyse the state of our present scientific knowledges. First of all, all natural sciences are subordinate to the laws of physics, which represent the principles from which they derive and of which they are only approximative versions. Today in fact we know the laws which determine all molecular, electromagnetic, chemical, biological and neurological processes: they are the laws of Quantum Electrodynamics, the scientific laws which have received the most wide, general, systematic, numerous and precise experimental confirmations in all history. The laws of quantum electrodynamics are confirmed by such a huge number of experimental results that it would be absurd to question their validity in the explanation of molecular systems, and in particular, of biological systems.
On the other hand, the rigidity of the mathematical structure of quantum electrodynamics, makes absolutely unreasonable the hypothesis of a possible change of such laws, since this would have dramatic consequences on all the correct solutions we have presently obtained. This means that quantum electrodynamics can be considered the ultimate theory for the explanation of molecular processes, and, consequently, for the explanation of biological processes.
The laws of quantum electrodynamics can be considered the first principles which determine all molecular and biological processes. The point is that such principles give (at least conceptually) a mechanicistic explanation of all molecular and biological processes, but they do not explain (neither conceptually ) the existence of consciousness. The laws of physics deny the basic hypothesis of materialism, according to which consciousness would be generated by biological or cerebral processes. Consciousness transcends the laws of physics, and therefore, the cause of the existence of consciousness cannot be identified with the brain; consciousness is necessarily originated by a non-physical/non-biological (that is, a supernatural) component: the psyche or soul. There are then two distinct realities; the physical reality, that is the universe, which has an intrinsic mathematical structure (the laws of physics) determining every physical, chemical and biological process; the psychical reality, which transcends such laws, and consequently, transcends the physical reality.
At this point we must consider the question: where does our psyche come from? The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time, our psyche certainly begins to exist in us. The laws of physics prove that the psyche cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our psyche is transcendent to the physical reality. We can then identify with God the necessary Cause of the existence of the psyche, being such Cause transcendent. This represents a scientific confirmation of the christian doctrine according to which each man has a soul, created directly by God. I think that it is correct to say that today the existence of the soul and the existence of a transcendent God are scientifically proved.
A note about the theory of evolution
I would like to add a brief consideration about the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is based on the recovery of fossils, and it can be applied only to biological organisms. We do not have sufficient elements to establish whether the human biological organism is the result of an evolution process; neither we have sufficient elements to exclude this possibility. However, the point is that consciousness is transcendent to the physical/biological reality and requires the existence in man of a transcendent component (the psyche or soul).
Since no fossils of psyche exist, the theory of evolution can say nothing about the origin of consciousness and human psychical life. So, even if our organism derived from a previous animal organism, we could have no conscious psychical life if God had not created in each of us a soul. Without a soul, we would be only biological robots, able to act and react, but without any consciousness and incapable of feeling any sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc.
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/mindandbrain.html |
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. You can't have everything now. We use to think that the earth was made up of four elements (wind, water, earth, fire). I am sure religious people asked the exact same question at that time. We now know it is made up of much smaller particles. I am sure we will find more later on... Religious people keep saying how science hasn't proved stuff yet. Like a child, I want it now, now nownownownow! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JongnoGuru wrote: |
| krats1976 wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| The vast majority here don't believe, but you don't see us posting threads like "Hey, it's really great not to believe in God!" |
That's quite the assumption. While there are obviously a number of non-Christians and some atheists that post on this board, I would suspect there are also a lot of Christians--myself included--who don't bother to post on religious topics in here, thanks to vitriolic reactions from other posters in the past.
So, "a lot," "many," perhaps even "a majority" would be appropriate (though the latter is unverifiable), but "vast majority" is a bit much, don't you think? |
I agree. |
Quibble over semantics then, I would be happy to go to a poll and bet than non christians are around 75%...
And you find that only certain types of christian oriented posts get vitriol. You don't see Kermo drawing a lot of vitriol because of the way she comports herself. I think you know well the types that do draw fire, and why too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
And you find that only certain types of christian oriented posts get vitriol. You don't see Kermo drawing a lot of vitriol because of the way she comports herself. I think you know well the types that do draw fire, and why too. |
Like someone else said, Kermo has Mr T on her side. I ain't gonna go against her. But seriously, I like Kermo. Her posts are well mannered yet bring up good points (even if I usually disagree). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
I read something by RTeacher that made me think, re: Christianity and its offensive exclusivity. I can understand Unitarians and Hare Krishnas being offended by this. BUT...
How does an atheist get offended by the notion that Christianity is the only way? Their doctrine is equally exclusive. Christians talk about freeing people from the darkness of unbelief, and Atheists want to liberate people from their mental slavery.
Take Richard Dawkins for instance:
"Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one.""
If you said this specifically about Jews, you'd be prosecuted for "hate speech" in Canada. Jeez. This guy has compared Moses with both Hitler and Hussein. He's preaching an exclusive doctrine, but everybody pats him on the back for being such a reasonable guy. Not all faith can be lumped in with unicorns and leprechauns, and not all faith leads to hatred and bloodshed. Reason is his god, and he's entitled to preach if he wants to, but with this war he's waging, he's just another sect in the battle for truth. |
This Dawkins fella doesn't speak for me. The average atheist does not want to "liberate you from your mental slavery". Atheism is very non prosletysing. All we want is for you relgious nuts be get out of our governments, courts, schools, faces, and bedrooms. We don't give a toss if you want to talk to a friendly bearded man in the sky, just don't try to tell us we're not decended from apes. We think you're wrong, and we'll tell you if it comes up. But really we have no problem with you thinking what ever you want. We're not trying to "expand" like a lot of christian sects. And there is really no comparison between the two groups. Atheism is not a religion. A religion requires a God, a supernatural omniscient being. And don't say "Your god is reason", because that is not a satisfactory analogy. Reason is not an omniscient supernatural being, we don't pray to reason, we don't worship reason, we "use" reason as an intellectual tool. Reason does not provide us with a fixed moral code either. Reason is not even a unified entitiy. You can find two people who both profess to use reason, who come to different moral ( or other ) conclusions. Reason also does not require that mainstay of religion, faith. We don't need faith, we have proof. We don't "believe" in anything, if there's proof, we know it, if there's no proof, the jury's still out. No blind faith stuff in this gang.
How many threads have there been with names like "Hey, not believing in god is cool?"
Not many eh? Cause we're not interested in converting you. But you're interested in converting us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
Atheistic philosophies can be traced far back in time. Some scholars think they originated with ancient Greeks, others think they derive from Chinese origins. I personally think that atheistic philosophies originated in ancient India.
When Krishna appeared about 5000 years ago, "Karma-mimangsa" was a popular atheistic philosophy. One form of analytical Sankhya philosophy propounded by Kapila (not to be confused with another Kapila who was an empowered incarnation of Vishnu) was clearly atheistic. Buddhism and Jainism were also originally atheistic, adding some theistic elements later on... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you seriously and carefully examine Biagini's thesis it does not merely assert that modern science has not been able to thusfar explain - or even reasonably conceptualize - the phenomenon of consciousness, but it convincingly (by indirect reasoning) precludes the possiblity that they ever can explain it without reference to a nonphysical element (the soul) and a transcendent creator of souls (God).
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
If you seriously and carefully examine Biagini's thesis it does not merely assert that modern science has not been able to thusfar explain - or even reasonably conceptualize - the phenomenon of consciousness, but it convincingly (by indirect reasoning) precludes the possiblity that they ever can explain it without reference to a nonphysical element (the soul) and a transcendent creator of souls (God).
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/englishnf.html |
Scientists 1000 years ago said it was impossible for man to fly, and if he was supposed to, God would have given him wings. Not to mention this in "one" scientist. How do you know the soul is a non-physical element? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
And you find that only certain types of christian oriented posts get vitriol. You don't see Kermo drawing a lot of vitriol because of the way she comports herself. I think you know well the types that do draw fire, and why too. |
Like someone else said, Kermo has Mr T on her side. I ain't gonna go against her. But seriously, I like Kermo. Her posts are well mannered yet bring up good points (even if I usually disagree). |
Mwooah! Mwooah! Two smooches for yous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RTeacher wrote: |
Life or consciousness is the symptom of the soul. There is no other explanation of consciousness available. No one has been able to show life, consciousness can be generated from matter. And there are many inconsistencies which cannot be explained within the present framework, without considering the existence of the soul. Although there are very clear indications that valid scientific data could be collected on areas such as out-of-body experiences and past-life-recall because the current scientific theories don't accommodate the possibility these things could exist there has been very little real scientific study in these areas.
|
I read this with an open mind, really. But I just don't agree. It goes back to my original post on this subject. Just because science hasn't proven something yet doesn't mean it won't. Religion has filled in the gaps for millenia, but is always pushed out by science. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| . Religion has filled in the gaps for millenia, but is always pushed out by science. |
The two aren't mutually exclusive, and science (like religion) is far from infallible. For every great theory we currently have going, we have quite a few bogus scientific theories (parthenogenesis anyone? leeches?) that have had to be replaced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Merlyn
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Awright, you want proof of the existence of God and the soul? So, here's the conclusion of a thesis by Marco Biagini, Ph.D in Solid State Physics:
Conclusions
Modern science cannot explain (neither conceptually) the existence of consciousness; it allows to explain neither the existence of the most banal sensation. This result acquires a very deep meaning if we analyse the state of our present scientific knowledges. First of all, all natural sciences are subordinate to the laws of physics, which represent the principles from which they derive and of which they are only approximative versions. Today in fact we know the laws which determine all molecular, electromagnetic, chemical, biological and neurological processes: they are the laws of Quantum Electrodynamics, the scientific laws which have received the most wide, general, systematic, numerous and precise experimental confirmations in all history. The laws of quantum electrodynamics are confirmed by such a huge number of experimental results that it would be absurd to question their validity in the explanation of molecular systems, and in particular, of biological systems.
On the other hand, the rigidity of the mathematical structure of quantum electrodynamics, makes absolutely unreasonable the hypothesis of a possible change of such laws, since this would have dramatic consequences on all the correct solutions we have presently obtained. This means that quantum electrodynamics can be considered the ultimate theory for the explanation of molecular processes, and, consequently, for the explanation of biological processes.
The laws of quantum electrodynamics can be considered the first principles which determine all molecular and biological processes. The point is that such principles give (at least conceptually) a mechanicistic explanation of all molecular and biological processes, but they do not explain (neither conceptually ) the existence of consciousness. The laws of physics deny the basic hypothesis of materialism, according to which consciousness would be generated by biological or cerebral processes. Consciousness transcends the laws of physics, and therefore, the cause of the existence of consciousness cannot be identified with the brain; consciousness is necessarily originated by a non-physical/non-biological (that is, a supernatural) component: the psyche or soul. There are then two distinct realities; the physical reality, that is the universe, which has an intrinsic mathematical structure (the laws of physics) determining every physical, chemical and biological process; the psychical reality, which transcends such laws, and consequently, transcends the physical reality.
At this point we must consider the question: where does our psyche come from? The phenomenon of consciousness proves that, at a certain time, our psyche certainly begins to exist in us. The laws of physics prove that the psyche cannot be the product of physical, chemical or biological processes. Therefore, the origin of our psyche is transcendent to the physical reality. We can then identify with God the necessary Cause of the existence of the psyche, being such Cause transcendent. This represents a scientific confirmation of the christian doctrine according to which each man has a soul, created directly by God. I think that it is correct to say that today the existence of the soul and the existence of a transcendent God are scientifically proved.
A note about the theory of evolution
I would like to add a brief consideration about the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is based on the recovery of fossils, and it can be applied only to biological organisms. We do not have sufficient elements to establish whether the human biological organism is the result of an evolution process; neither we have sufficient elements to exclude this possibility. However, the point is that consciousness is transcendent to the physical/biological reality and requires the existence in man of a transcendent component (the psyche or soul).
Since no fossils of psyche exist, the theory of evolution can say nothing about the origin of consciousness and human psychical life. So, even if our organism derived from a previous animal organism, we could have no conscious psychical life if God had not created in each of us a soul. Without a soul, we would be only biological robots, able to act and react, but without any consciousness and incapable of feeling any sensations, emotions, thoughts, etc.
http://members.xoom.virgilio.it/fedeescienza/mindandbrain.html
|
I'm not an expert in solid state physics like Marco Biagini, Ph.D. Is he an expert though? Well he has a Ph.D. With that said, I've met men who have Ph.Ds and have conflicting views with others in the same field with the same degree and even then, degrees seem far too easily given away these days. In any case, maybe I'm missing something here but we know there are all kinds of connections between consciousness and the brain. We know that when our brains are injured this will affect the way we perceive reality and think. We also know that when we remove parts of the brain we can be left in a vegatative state with little resemblance of what you and I would call consciousness. We know that we can take away memories when parts of the brain are removed. If the soul was really distinct from consciousness would it not be able to function independently and in a similar way regardless of the condition of the brain. This seems like common sense to me, but I am not an expert though.
I always thought this was why scientists and parapsychologists have sought to show that consciousness actually extended beyond the brain so they could demonstrate that it went beyond the brains limitations. Today, no study has done so effectively. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
