Quote:

---

Originally posted by zeke023:
Not too many protestant religions have monks, or celebate priests at all. Truth be told, I've never heard of a non-apostolic religion that has monks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Knibblet:
I believe that Book is the representative of some sort of faith built around the construction trades. He said in "Heart of Gold" that he'd been following the teachings of a carpenter.

Perhaps there are religions built around stoneworks, bricklaying, plastering, plumbing, electrical work and maybe even painting.

I think I'll go say 10 "Hail Kilz" and go to bed early. I've got a wax and buff on the morrow.


** For all the uptight folk out there, I'm kidding. Take another prozac.**

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zelda:
...that points to religous growth & fragmentation that must have accompanied the settlers out across many planets.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Browncoat1:
Leave it to Knibs to make us laugh about religion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thoreau:
Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thoreau:
Someday someone has to finally stand up and say "hey, Einstein was wrong about a few things"...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BadgersHat:
2) The general PERCEPTION of science and scientists is, find an answer that you like, and stick to it until death. Whether this is true or not, it's the perception, and I tend to agree partially. It seems that many people of science tend to hate looking for new answers that would possibly thwart their own theories and accomplishments. My opinion, not necessarily correct (much like my spelling)

---

Quote:

---

I checked out all this Physics stuff with my wife (who happens to have her Ph.d. in Theoretical Physics and is working on things similar to the EPR paradox) and she says I'm not talking out of my (posterior?)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by thoreau:
Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law. I'm not making a reference to scientology) so I can easily see the mixture eventually developing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto their faith in their theories, even though there are glaring inconsistencies?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Static:
Book is a Seventh-Day Whedonist. . .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by embers:
I still believe that Book only joined 'the Abby' a few years ago...after having been an important man in the Govt/Military/Corporate power structure...

---

Quote:

---

For everyone else, I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. ]

---

Quote:

---

Have you read 'the fabric of the cosmos' by Brian Greene yet?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
My opinion is that scientists -- those who engage in observation and discovery of God's handiwork -- do have a religious belief, a faith that underlies their profession.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
... 1) describing something real, 2) that this reality is manipulable, and 3) that the universe itself is ultimately mechanistic...

---

Quote:

---

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist(emphasis mine), that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
First, I will state that it is not now, nor has it ever been, my intention to upset anyone with metaphysical discussion.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
I am not a mathematician; I am not a physicist. ... but I am not just blowing hot air without any basis.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
If we can agree on nothing else, surely we can agree that if we convince one person to delve more deeply into this issue, then our 'argument' has had a beneficial effect?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
I am not anti-scientific.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
As I stated before, I believe God created the universe, and that His creation is perfect...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
From http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html :

Quote:

---

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist(emphasis mine), that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
I, personally, am gratified that the predictions of the early 1900's -- that we would soon have answered all the important questions of the physical world -- were stood so utterly on their ear by the successive revolutions of Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
Yes, we can hold a remote in our hand, we can get t-boned on our motorcycle and shatter our leg and wrist. These feel distinctly real. But at the quantum level, not one single atom can be said to definitively exist, except as a mist of probability. There is no spoon...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
How mutable is our reality when physicists routinely refer to "quantum strangeness" or "weirdness" in the normal conduct of their business?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
How divided are scientific schools of thought when the greatest minds of modern times can engage in heated debates over how the universe actually works, what the universe actually does, or whether the universe had to create conscious observers, because without them the universe wouldn't exist?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
...and these schools of thought can oppose each other with as much vehemence as any Catholic v. Protestant or Christian v. Muslim ideological disagreement (although typically without the physical violence prevalent in today's world).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
My final recommendation: Don't take my word for it. Don't take SigmaNunki's word for it. Read a book on it. I've listed several critically acclaimed references -- generally considered to be virtuous and seminal works by the scientific community -- choose one and read it. If you find a particular topic in that book interesting, go to the references in the back of that book and note whom the author cited. Read that book. In short, don't take one book, or one opinion, as Biblical. After you've gotten some differing opinions under your belt, make up your own mind as to what it all means, and what the implications are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
No one should stand on some sense of intellectual superiority and attempt to usurp your right to make your own well-considered conclusions, simply by implying that you're not qualified to think things through for yourself. That's thuggery. Would Einstein have written and published popular discussions of the implications of his theories if he'd held that low opinion of the common man's intelligence?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
But argument without evidence isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
Thank you for your candid reply. I trust that it meets with your grudging approval that I continue to live in my house, even though I am not a trained architect. Although I know it may distress you, I did read some good popular books on automobiles and -- although I couldn't build one myself -- feel I made an informed decision when I purchased my current car. According to your argument, I am either/both too stupid or not classically trained enough to reside and drive based strictly upon the recommendations of my architect and a good mechanic.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
The logical conclusion of your argument is that either everyone must become university-trained physicists, or else they must not worry their pretty heads with deep subjects they could not possibly hope to understand. Most of us, in the 'real' world, have jobs and lives; but we still crave some understanding of the world around us.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
As far as your references are concerned, I stopped after the first. I trust others will take up your challenge, to the extent they have any interest in this conversation in the first place (which I sincerely doubt). Personally, I prefer Einstein's description of his own theory, in his own words -- which you denigrated as 'pop' -- to the in-depth mathematical dissertation in that reference.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
As to your assertion that you have disproved that science is a belief system (you specified 'religion', I said 'belief system')... I am not satisfied that you have. In fact, your tenor would appear to indicate a deep emotional attachment to your belief that science is not a belief system.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by zoid:
If I catch you in mine, I'll have you cavity searched. Really. I may not have a degree in abnormal psychology, but you don't have to make too many references to mental instability in an airport these days to get a 'finger wave'... Don't worry though, the marshals are gentle enough, as long as you don't provoke 'em by insulting their intelligence.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.

---

Going to disagree with you here. Math is all we have right now to describe things. If something better comes along then they'll use that. Currently TOE would be described by math, but, what about the future? Scientists will use what is the best way to describe what they need to describe. Nothing less. Plus our math, IMHO, is too immature to describe such a thing. Too much more needs to be done. I don't think that we are even close to the point where we should be discussing the possibility of TOE.

Wasn't it Steven Hawkins that said about 10 years ago that in 20 years we'll have TOE. But, now he says 50 years. Hmmm, which is it Steven. (These numbers have been approximated from my memory. Actual magnitude may vary.)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.

---

Conjecture, no-one knows if we can or can't. Lets let time tell.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.

---

Umm, bit of a difference there. The village people are waving there sticks in the air. We are making rocket fuel and watching it burn. Someone can wave there stick in the air and most of the time it does nothing, but, rocket fuel will always burn.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.

---

True, for some people.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

---