'Hiding Behind Jesus'

QuickSilver said:
I think it's that pesky Matthew 25 31-46 that gives Republicans the most trouble.. They simply do NOT like that Chapter... It makes it hard to screw over poor people.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25:31-46&version=NIV


[SUP]44 [/SUP]“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
[SUP]45 [/SUP]“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
Click to expand...

There are unfortunately far too many that profess to be Christians, but really just don't like what Jesus stood for. The GOP is drastically overrepresented by these types...
 

Dame Warrigal said:
We are our brains, it is true, but we are also more. As the brain begins to deteriorate, deep inside we are still there, and still more than the sum of our decaying neurons.

As a young person I was very impressed with brains. Later I discovered that there is something else called "heart" that can be found in the brain damaged and can be absent from the intellectually gifted. "Heart" does not lie in the pump that moves our blood around. Where it comes from and where it abides is a mystery but it is what makes humans human. Perhaps it is just a metaphor, but a metaphor for what exactly?
Click to expand...

Very eloquently put. Certainly a more attractive view than that we are just a collection of neurons reacting to electrical and chemical sensations. I envy you your view point. I have found nothing to indicate that we are anything more than physical bodies reacting to various stimuli. In spite of that, I still manage to enjoy sunsets and little kids.
 
I have a scientific background and I do not dispute modern advances in brain science. However, science is not purely objective and in every age scientists have interpreted the data according to their prevailing prejudices i.e. their world or cosmological viewpoint, masculinist or feminist philosophies and their religious biases, including non theist biases. We tend not to see what we don't believe exists. Remember when educated men argued that women were not truly human or, at best, lesser beings to men?

It is in the interpretation of data and the extrapolations that the ground becomes less solid.

It is a pity that the sciences and humanities have become so far apart because I believe that science needs the humanities and vice versa if we are to really understand our own species.
 

QuickSilver said:
Not to mention there is no way in the world that private charities can meet all the need out there.
Click to expand...

And yet in our county we've been reducing the amount of government handouts, and charities have been picking up the slack without a problem. Local charities have a better infrastructure in place than any government agency, they have lower overhead, and they don't have all of the government red tape and government incompetence. At the same time we've reduced the tax burden on working people, who in turn find themselves with more to give to local charities.

Before you claim that "there is no way in the world" that charities can meet all the needs, you should actually do some research and find out if it's being done.
 
DoItMyself said:
And yet in our county we've been reducing the amount of government handouts, and charities have been picking up the slack without a problem. Local charities have a better infrastructure in place than any government agency, they have lower overhead, and they don't have all of the government red tape and government incompetence. At the same time we've reduced the tax burden on working people, who in turn find themselves with more to give to local charities.

Before you claim that "there is no way in the world" that charities can meet all the needs, you should actually do some research and find out if it's being done.
Click to expand...

Maybe true in a small county in your state but how do you think it would work where most of America lives? Charities would go belly up quickly in Los Angeles for instance. We are only as strong as a nation as our weakest link.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
I have a scientific background and I do not dispute modern advances in brain science. However, science is not purely objective and in every age scientists have interpreted the data according to their prevailing prejudices i.e. their world or cosmological viewpoint, masculinist or feminist philosophies and their religious biases, including non theist biases. We tend not to see what we don't believe exists. Remember when educated men argued that women were not truly human or, at best, lesser beings to men?

It is in the interpretation of data and the extrapolations that the ground becomes less solid.

It is a pity that the sciences and humanities have become so far apart because I believe that science needs the humanities and vice versa if we are to really understand our own species.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I can't agree with that. "Science" is all about the objective. Granted, scientists may put their interpretation on data, and others may interpret it differently, but there is data. If it were not for science, we would be too busy digging in the dirt to discuss what it is to be human. All of the advances in medicine and the modern conveniences we enjoy, including these devices we are typing on, have been brought to us by science. The truth is that all of us are human, regardless of our interpretation of what that means. I, personally, do not feel the need for some mysterious force to exist within me.
Women are still treated as less than human in several parts of the world. The support for that does not come from science.
 
Last edited:
Underock1 said:
I'm afraid I can't agree with that. "Science" is all about the objective. Granted, scientists may put their interpretation on data, and others may interpret it differently, but there is data. If it were not for science, we would be too busy digging in the dirt to discuss what it is to be human. All of the advances in medicine and the modern conveniences we enjoy, including these devices we are typing on, have been brought to us by science. The truth is that all of us are human, regardless of our interpretation of what that means. I, personally, do not feel the need for some mysterious force to exist within me.
Women are still treated as less than human in several parts of the world. The support for that does not come from science.
Click to expand...

Science used to be about the objective facts but since the acceptance of quantum theory, it is more about probabilities than certainties. The data we collect is to some degree changed by the method of observation of the data Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Also, which data is collected and which is ignored is where subjectivity enters the equation. Until very recently drug trials were conducted on male subjects only because the researchers didn't want to take into consideration the problems of the female hormonal cycle. Nevertheless, the drugs were assumed to be effective and safe for women if they were so for the men.

Brain science has not yet established how we become self aware although its development in children can be observed and tracked. Baroness Susan Greenfield is working on this http://www.susangreenfield.com/science/consciousness/ She is looking for an answer to the question "How do we generate consciousness and an awareness of our own identity?"

She may succeed in demonstrating the validity of her ideas about ‘neuronal assemblies' but at the moment when she talks about these ideas she is speculating, but many people aren't aware that she may or may not be correct. Listen to her talk here to see what I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_ZTNmkIiBc

(I haven't listened to her talk without interruption so I'm not commenting on the content just yet. I probably won't be able to even after listening very carefully because this is foreign territory for me. I do like that she puts her faith in falsifiable hypotheses))
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Science used to be about the objective facts but since the acceptance of quantum theory, it is more about probabilities than certainties. The data we collect is to some degree changed by the method of observation of the data Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle). Also, which data is collected and which is ignored is where subjectivity enters the equation. Until very recently drug trials were conducted on male subjects only because the researchers didn't want to take into consideration the problems of the female hormonal cycle. Nevertheless, the drugs were assumed to be effective and safe for women if they were so for the men.

Brain science has not yet established how we become self aware although its development in children can be observed and tracked. Baroness Susan Greenfield is working on this http://www.susangreenfield.com/science/consciousness/ She is looking for an answer to the question "How do we generate consciousness and an awareness of our own identity?"

She may succeed in demonstrating the validity of her ideas about ‘neuronal assemblies' but at the moment when she talks about these ideas she is speculating, but many people aren't aware that she may or may not be correct. Listen to her talk here to see what I mean https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_ZTNmkIiBc

(I haven't listened to her talk without interruption so I'm not commenting on the content just yet. I probably won't be able to even after listening very carefully because this is foreign territory for me. I do like that she puts her faith in falsifiable hypotheses))
Click to expand...

When discussing quantum theory, and how consciousness is created, we are at the extreme edges of our knowledge. There are certainly disagreements. Some questions may be unanswerable. Because some things are not known, does not negate the things that are. I know when I press down on the ? key, that you are going to see ?. I can replicate that forever.
Not wanting to get into an interminable debate that will have no resolution, I will restrict myself to stating my own, admittedly limited perception of things. I see no indication of any force operating within us, other than the electrical and chemical ones we have evidence for. As an incurable romantic, I wish that were not so. All of those love songs, poems, and literature about giving your "heart" are not about handing someone a lump of muscle and fat. Because I accept what appears to me to be reality, does not mean that I do not "feel" things. I enjoy the beauty of this world as much as anyone else. I stand in awe at the images from the Hubble telescope.
 
People don't see what they aren't looking for. That is the point I am making.

Baroness Greenfield is looking for something that she believes that she can find using scientific methods. She's not looking for anything that she does not believe in. She may find that which she believes but, barring serendipity, she is unlikely to discover anything that she doesn't already believe is there.
 
Underock1 said:
When discussing quantum theory, and how consciousness is created, we are at the extreme edges of our knowledge. There are certainly disagreements. Some questions may be unanswerable. Because some things are not known, does not negate the things that are. I know when I press down on the ? key, that you are going to see ?. I can replicate that forever.
Not wanting to get into an interminable debate that will have no resolution, I will restrict myself to stating my own, admittedly limited perception of things. I see no indication of any force operating within us, other than the electrical and chemical ones we have evidence for. As an incurable romantic, I wish that were not so. All of those love songs, poems, and literature about giving your "heart" are not about handing someone a lump of muscle and fat. Because I accept what appears to me to be reality, does not mean that I do not "feel" things. I enjoy the beauty of this world as much as anyone else. I stand in awe at the images from the Hubble telescope.
Click to expand...

Very well stated. And I might add that what people are referring to when they talk of spiritual experiences is a result of chemicals acting in the brain. People who ingest small quantities of LSD talk endlessly of the "spiritual" trip they have been on when clearly it was the presence of lysergic acid diethylamide molecules in their brain that was the cause of their experience.
 
Problem, Quicksilver?
Please don't shut us down.
We're enjoying the mental stimulation even though we have not been imbibing psychotropic drugs.
At least, I haven't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top