What did science and religion discover last year?

I’m currently running analysis of FY2012 data… big work load. Here is a year in review that is more enjoyable!

Why Evolution Is True


“The question of truth is as central to [religion’s] concern as it is in science. Religious belief can guide one in life or strengthen one at the approach of death, but unless it is actually true it can do neither of these things and so would amount to no more than an illusionary exercise in comforting fantasy.”  —John Polkinghorne

“On the contrary, religion is about the deepest of all realities. . . religion, to anyone who takes it seriously, is about what is Most Real.”—John Haught

“Both [science and theology] continue in the quest for truth.  Both continue to make claims and argue for them. A kind of alliance of stubborn truth-seeking is formed here.” —Anna Case-Winters

“A religious tradition is indeed a way of life and not a set of abstract ideas. But a way of life presupposes beliefs about the nature of reality and cannot be…

View original post 556 more words

    • theantisocialmanifesto
    • April 6th, 2013

    very nice. And very true.

    • Thanks for commenting. Makes you wonder why it takes so much effort to argue against something that has not changed in over 2000 years…. sigh

        • theantisocialmanifesto
        • April 7th, 2013

        You know, every time you debate with a Believer and attempt to present evidence that flies in the face of scripture, they’ll turn around and use that very same “questionable” scripture to argue in its defense. It’s like a closed loop. And this is why I think the concept of education as a means to remove religion is ineffective. It’s not like they don’t understand the science. It’s not likes there is no evidence out there. In fact, there are mountains of evidence out there. The problem is that even in the face of all of this, they “refuse” to believe. They refuse the education and they pass on this rejection to their children and grandchildren. And progress merely trickles with no guarantee of ever filling the cup. This is why I believe a more radical approach is necessary. Just a dream, I guess.

        • This is a repeated comment. I think it works for both.

          The theory of mind that I’ve been working on seems to demand that we fill in the blanks in the simulation and allows us to believe that we know the answer once we’ve filled them in, no matter what we’ve filled it in with. Once we’ve used god or something else, we have to work hard to replace that with something else because it’s woven into the rules of our simulation. I.E. if god doesn’t answer prayers we have to have an answer for all the times when it seems god did answer prayer. That requires statistical math and understanding that shit happens. Sometimes you’re the pigeon and sometimes you’re the statue but that does not sit well with people that want order in the world.

          The basic function of our simulation is to figure out what makes things happen. When it’s cloudy it often rains and so forth. This is handy when figuring out how and what to eat.

          Magic/god is an acceptable answer for our simulation… right up until it is not. The point at which it is not seems to take many inconsistencies and that requires that we are actively attempting to reconcile the simulation rules with what we find in the external world. Sitting in class won’t cause this to happen. It can help but won’t cause it to happen.

          I think the real problem is figuring out what will cause that chain reaction to start.

            • theantisocialmanifesto
            • April 7th, 2013

            I like it. Good points. It wouldn’t surprise me if this chain reaction starts as a child. As a little kid, you lose your favorite dog because it died. You cry and cry and Mom soothes you with, “It’s okay, he’s in Heaven now with Jesus.” And this gives the child hope that he’ll see him again one day. So the dog is not actually dead, but just waiting in Heaven instead. And there, the void is filled with hope. Albeit, misguided hope.

            • it’s not just hope but a rule for your internal simulation… if it is possible that one person is not dead but in heaven, then all people can be… once you have this rule in your simulation it is hard to break or change

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: