Respect

QED · Post by **QED** » Sun Jan 30, 2005 10:02 am

I'm not satisfied to think that god created all these distant galaxies full of stars (this is a view of a tiny bit of space - about one-tenth the width of the moon!) when all along he was mainy interested in us.

Whatever the reason behind all this, I think it deserves more respect than is provided by all the practising religions of this world. The only group of people I see making any sort of attempt are the scientists and mathematicians who busy themselves revealing such wonders.

It sickens me to observe all the silly costumes and rituals that seem so importantl to every religion - with all the arbitrary lecturing on morality and so on, when all the time the cosmos is out there becokning for us to open our minds to the reality of its splendor.

If god really did set this all up just for us, then he'd be rightly dissapointed in our muddled and messy attempts to show our respect to him.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Mon Jan 31, 2005 12:58 am

Hi QED, and welcome to the forums.

Please state a question for debate as per the rules.
3. When you start a new topic in a debate subforum, it must state a clearly defined question(s) for debate.

QED · Post by **QED** » Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:14 pm

Well, to clarify my question for debate - is it not so that the pursuit of god through hard science is more fitting than an adherence to the ancient testimony of men claiming to have recieved the word of god?

By this I refer to my personal take on god as the driving force behind our universe. This 'chap' must map directly onto anyone elses god unless they think their 'chap' didn't have a hand in the actual construction (which would be a new one on me).

For me true reverence can only be demonstrated by the progressive pusuit of knowledge using our ever expanding range of analytical methods, as opposed to the regurgitation of ancient testimonies that are impossible to verify.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 1:07 am

QED wrote:Well, to clarify my question for debate - is it not so that the pursuit of god through hard science is more fitting than an adherence to the ancient testimony of men claiming to have recieved the word of god?

Why would a reverence for God through scientific means be any different than a reverence based on testimony -- however old it might be?

Why would scientific inquiry yield a different result?

QED · Post by **QED** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 7:49 am

ST88 wrote:Why would a reverence for God through scientific means be any different than a reverence based on testimony -- however old it might be?

The validty of testimony arising from untestable assertions is questionable. Because of this I feel it is not fit to do proper justice to the true magnificence of the universe.

Why would scientific inquiry yield a different result?

Becuase it only deals with assertions that are testable. Validation is thus attainable, and the universe is treated with the respect it deserves.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:05 pm

QED wrote:The validty of testimony arising from untestable assertions is questionable. Because of this I feel it is not fit to do proper justice to the true magnificence of the universe.

While this is true, it does not follow that the magnificence of the universe is any less than that of the purported God that put it there. Just because you are not satisfied with that explanation does not make it true or untrue. What makes astrophysics, for example, any more of an instrument for mankind's satisfaction than following the precepts of a religion? Are astrophysicists happier than ministers?

QED wrote:
Why would scientific inquiry yield a different result?
Becuase it only deals with assertions that are testable. Validation is thus attainable, and the universe is treated with the respect it deserves.

How does the testability of an assertion affect the amount of respect for an inanimate system of objects?

Additionally, what is the purpose of this respect?

QED · Post by **QED** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:03 am

I have made my point about the unreliability of untestable assertions. I for one, would not be satisfied to cast a vote as a juror in a case where a conviction based on such untestable evidence might result in the death penalty for example. This is the sort of satisfaction I refer to.

Likewise, when it comes to the universe I am not satisfied with leaving its explanations to the untestable declarations of hearsay evidence.

Additionally, what is the purpose of this respect?

Along with all other life in the universe, humanity is on an epic voyage. What makes this journey so epic is the fact that life cheats chaos in its manipulation of order from the chaos. Along the way there will be difficulties and challenges. If we do not show sufficient respect by preferring as our guide the assertions of a system whos integrity results from no more than a special class of untestable postualtion - over the flexible and practical observations of the best collective thinking we can produce, then we act on chaos's behalf.