|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Must a scientist be an atheist?
#23386346 - 06/27/16 01:47 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Obviously we all know that some scientists are religious and some are not, but my question pertains to carrying the scientific mindset into all aspects of one's lives. As emotional beings it is not possible to be 100% logical all the time, but why would one not strive for that?
EVEN THE MOST RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST does not take his beliefs into the laboratory with him. What do I mean by that? Most modern religions teach that God can and does occasionally interfere with causation. Things such as fate, meant-to-be-ness and answered prayer require some external manipulation of people and events. Yet, in a lab, the fundamentalist researcher never says that I got such and such results because God willed it; or if he did, his paper would never get published and he would become a laughing stock - even among religious scientists.
Water at a specific pressure ALWAYS boils at the same temperature. Deviations from such denotes a flaw in the methodology or measuring equipment and is not indicative of supernatural forces.
My take is that religious scientists, even great ones, are not applying critical inquiry into their beliefs.
--------------------
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
|
Post deleted by CosmicJokeReason for deletion: as per user request
Edited by Signeg (06/27/16 04:39 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386367 - 06/27/16 02:04 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Most accepted science is based on ignorance of those two things
WTF? We are starting off with a real winner here, folks.
Please explain to the audience how the workings of a cell phone are based on the ignorance of spiritual and religious things?
Quote:
It depends how you perceive and define logic.
Not at all. The rules of logic are well-defined and understood by serious students. This is the basis of how we are communicating right now.
They are hardly arbitrary like preferring chocolate over vanilla.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386371 - 06/27/16 02:06 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The end of science is not to prove a theory
Not sure where you got that quote, but the author is in dire need of an education. Theories are never proven. They stand until disproven. That is an enormous difference.
--------------------
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
If you're not an atheist, you will be bullied out of the profession by other atheists. So yeah, you pretty much have to be one otherwise you won't enjoy the lifestyle.
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23386380 - 06/27/16 02:11 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If you're not an atheist, you will be bullied out of the profession by other atheists.
Way to completely miss the topic. Of course, if you want to take that turn-off, a mere statement from you is insufficient. I am certain that beyond a random anecdote or two, you have no evidence of such a large-scale, organized witch hunt.
--------------------
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:22 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23386387 - 06/27/16 02:15 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Ah yes, the atheist lifestyle; wherein one gets cool toys and hot babes merely for not-believing in defunct myths.
--------------------
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386389 - 06/27/16 02:16 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:23 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386392 - 06/27/16 02:18 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
we are aloud to learn about.
We are 'not silently' to learn about? Huh?
--------------------
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386394 - 06/27/16 02:18 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:23 PM)
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23386396 - 06/27/16 02:18 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:23 PM)
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:23 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg] 1
#23386399 - 06/27/16 02:20 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Signeg said: Like Reich for example. They were real scientists studying nature and learning the real way... This is not modern science...
Reich was working with energy, like others tesla for example. The scientific community is as corrupt as religion itself.
Not sure what your point is. Word salad is not debate.
--------------------
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386402 - 06/27/16 02:21 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:24 PM)
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:24 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386414 - 06/27/16 02:29 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
There is no debate on your end; just words strung together with minimal thought, no cohesion and zero backing evidence.
You would love the M&P forum. It is much more suited to your style.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg] 1
#23386419 - 06/27/16 02:32 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nor do i care.
This is a standard response. I have seen it literally hundreds of times over the years.
You care enough to write, but not to enough to put in any real thought to clarify your position.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg] 1
#23386426 - 06/27/16 02:36 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't expect you would understand anything i say
That is a most unusual assumption, especially from one who cannot differentiate an adverb from a verb.
However, you have yet to make a valid point and have not presented a single clear proposition for anyone to understand.
--------------------
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:24 PM)
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
The point is that science is no more an arbiter of truth than anything else.
You won't understand this because like Icelander and Ped you're a member of the cult of scientism.
You won't even acknowledge that this is a cult because you're under the illusion that you are somehow more "objective" than other people.
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23386436 - 06/27/16 02:42 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I wasn't debating.
That was beyond obvious; yet this is a debate-oriented forum. So why participate by not participating?
Not sure why you are linking irrelevant videos. Can you not speak your own mind?
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23386448 - 06/27/16 02:51 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The point is that science is no more an arbiter of truth than anything else.
That is a flat statement and not a point. 6 years here and you still don't get it. To make a point you would have to demonstrate these other methods of understanding nature.
Name one luxury or hi-tech toy that is not the fruit of science and how it came to be.
Tell us another method that is a path to understanding nature.
Quote:
You won't understand this...
Great non-debate tactic. A personalism does not make your case in any way.
Quote:
You won't even acknowledge that...
There is a real reason that these sorts of useless statements are not allowed.
--------------------
Edited by OrgoneConclusion (06/27/16 03:04 AM)
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Name one luxury or hi-tech toy that is not the fruit of science and how it came to be.
I have the luxury of not having to fear death, knowing that the material world is not that which it appears to be, and thus, there is no reason to think that the death of my physical body will mean the death of me.
That knowledge is a luxury that no scientist I have ever met possesses.
As for hi-tech toys, who gives a fuck? Are you 15?
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23386467 - 06/27/16 03:08 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I asked you to name an alternate method that claimed existed and you failed. No surprise there.
Quote:
As for hi-tech toys, who gives a fuck? Are you 15?
Then how are you communicating to us in the absence of such infantile gadgets?
--------------------
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
|
Post deleted by CosmicJokeReason for deletion: as per user request
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Obviously we all know that some scientists are religious and some are not, but my question pertains to carrying the scientific mindset into all aspects of one's lives. As emotional beings it is not possible to be 100% logical all the time, but why would one not strive for that?
EVEN THE MOST RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST does not take his beliefs into the laboratory with him. What do I mean by that? Most modern religions teach that God can and does occasionally interfere with causation. Things such as fate, meant-to-be-ness and answered prayer require some external manipulation of people and events. Yet, in a lab, the fundamentalist researcher never says that I got such and such results because God willed it; or if he did, his paper would never get published and he would become a laughing stock - even among religious scientists.
Water at a specific pressure ALWAYS boils at the same temperature. Deviations from such denotes a flaw in the methodology or measuring equipment and is not indicative of supernatural forces.
My take is that religious scientists, even great ones, are not applying critical inquiry into their beliefs.
A scientist must also choose to focus their investigations on some field of understanding in order to advance it. In the process, they may adopt a utilitarian acceptance of concepts from some other fields until experimental data sheds doubt on them.
I too favour a 'no stone unturned' approach, but there are so many stones, and so little time, and sometimes I must stand on one to reach another. Religious belief can be a motivational stepping stone in this sense.
Modern scientific understanding may allow (?) some space for the seemingly miraculous to tunnel in at a fundamental level where established theory fades to mystery.
If there is some data with which to pry into one's beliefs and undermine them, then a religious scientists may find themselves in conflict and dedicate attention there. But to dig into this as an outsider, one would need to understand the shape of their beliefs and the data which conflicts with it.
|
MajickMuffin
Edible Cult


Registered: 05/28/14
Posts: 4,345
Loc: North
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
|
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: DisoRDeR]
#23388074 - 06/27/16 03:29 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Hi Disorder, nice to see one actually digging into the topic. My faith in humanity is (partially) restored.
--------------------
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
For some religious scientists ignorance is bliss for attaining happiness in their personal lives.
This is the man you want for this thread.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
|
I dunno, I see a lot in common with science & mysticism, mystics just study their own state of consciousness and take it as far down the rabbit hole as they can...... So I see it as science and mysticism versus religion personally.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: CosmicJoke]
#23388164 - 06/27/16 04:07 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
--------------------
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: CosmicJoke]
#23388166 - 06/27/16 04:07 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
scientists don't know what they don't know so agnostic is the right description. atheist suggests a strong position that wastes time, since it attracts argument which is not aligned to any particular branch of science except for godology.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
badchad
Mad Scientist

Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,372
|
|
Naw, scientists don't have to be atheist. The vast majority of scientists don't study anything remotely related to religion or the occult.
-------------------- ...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did. Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27. ...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely. Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: badchad]
#23388284 - 06/27/16 04:43 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Scientists study science and the scientific method so..
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
bass head
Oh... Nice.



Registered: 04/16/14
Posts: 775
Loc: North American Union
Last seen: 7 years, 5 months
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23388305 - 06/27/16 04:47 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
absolutely not. but their science should not be determined by their belief in God, it should be able to standalone apart from that.
-------------------- Steal your bass right off your head.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: bass head]
#23388315 - 06/27/16 04:51 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
They don't have to be an atheist but logically they should.
Science and religion contradict severely, especially with the over 4000 religions practiced in modern times.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
Well, it's quite difficult to give credible answers to intangible states of being to answer questions such as "What is love?" in a way that the person asking it would experience that state of being. Language is far easier to use to say "watch out for that car coming at you". I'd say most people wouldn't know what love was if it hit them over the head with a hammer, you really have to dig deeply inwards to find such answers.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
|
religion is to do with tradition, ritual, community and human organisation. i would argue what is significant about the big religions (christianity/islam) is not their 'beliefs' but how they disseminate power through their communities and across the globe
science on the other hand is purely a method of inquiry. sure it has heirachies and power structures but they are not essential to what science is
thus religion and science are categorically different. on the human level in how we relate to one another and organise ourselves, science informs us no more than it tells us which clothes are cool and which arent. science does not tell us how to live or how to behave, we tell eachother that in a way which for the most part is wholly unscientific (and that goes for secular culture as well).. or to put it another way science helps us to do whatever we want to do but it does not tell us what we should be doing.. that falls to culture and ideology
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23388654 - 06/27/16 06:29 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
real immature posting guy
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: quinn]
#23388722 - 06/27/16 06:54 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I would argue what is significant about the big religions (christianity/islam) is not their 'beliefs' but how they disseminate power through their communities and across the globe
The big religions disseminated their power through theocracies and genocidal violence. Today they're more into theocracies like Saudia Arabia and America's not far behind with their close political relationships and republican attempts at a Creationist indoctrination of the science class.
Quote:
science on the other hand is purely a method of inquiry. sure it has heirachies and power structures but they are not essential to what science is
Power structures and cladograms are essential to the foundations of science. E.g. 
Science doesn't tell you which shirts are cool, it tells you what the shirt's made of and the method in which it was produced.
What we should be doing is being moral people.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Well in science we are looking at natural processes. I will be the first to admit that what we see appears chaotic and meaningless. In physics we have apparently random processes governing the behavior of our measuring instruments; in chemistry it's just a virtual infinity of different combinations of mindless, random particles; in biology, perhaps the most offensive of all, we have these creatures which appear to serve no purpose other than to survive and reproduce, and we are looking at a wide set of permutations of this genetic dance. All in all, it does not appear to be the work of a deity, nor does it require one to make sense. So in this way we may think that science and atheism go hand in hand.
However, that said, I think there is plausibility in the notion that the Earthly plane may not be all there is to the cosmos. I view Earth and its processes as primitive, beautiful in some cases and not in others, and clearly not the pinnacle of the possible. I've experienced states that suggest to me that there is a fuck of a lot more going on than most humans realize, and that perhaps there could be a notion of God as just some most powerful being, who is not necessarily omnipotent or omniscient. To me this is possible. At the same time, I very much enjoy studying science, and will continue to do so.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23388915 - 06/27/16 07:56 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: The big religions disseminated their power through theocracies and genocidal violence.
no argument here (and same goes for much secular power e.g. Nazism was a secular ideology)
Quote:
Power structures and cladograms are essential to the foundations of science.
you misunderstand what is meant by 'power structures' see here
"A power structure is an overall system of influence relationships between any individual and every other individual within any selected group of people."
Quote:
Science doesn't tell you which shirts are cool, it tells you what the shirt's made of and the method in which it was produced.
sure no argument here
Quote:
What we should be doing is being moral people.
yes and how do we know what is moral? even if we believe there is a spagetti monster how do we know what it thinks is moral?
(hint: it's not through science)
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23388916 - 06/27/16 07:57 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
viktor said: If you're not an atheist, you will be bullied out of the profession by other atheists. So yeah, you pretty much have to be one otherwise you won't enjoy the lifestyle.
This is a typical baseless claim that the faithful make. Its unfounded and ridiculous. What exactly are you claiming? How does this happen? I have known many believer scientists. They are not bullied. In grad school I had a baptist, mormon, a muslim, atheist and agnostic lab mates. None of them were bullied. They graduated with their masters and PhDs and now work in industry and academia. In undergrad our department head was a Mormon that wore a cross pin on his coat every day. You don't get to be the head of a T1 Physics dept by being bullied out of the profession. Even the champion of intelligent design and inventor of the concept of irreducible complexity, Behe himself, holds a position of professor of biochemistry.
Your claim is absolutely wrong.
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? *DELETED* [Re: quinn]
#23388944 - 06/27/16 08:10 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by CosmicJokeReason for deletion: as per user request
Edited by Signeg (06/27/16 08:19 PM)
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23388964 - 06/27/16 08:19 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
sorry but why would you edit or delete them and leave nothing but face palms and insults?
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: quinn]
#23388967 - 06/27/16 08:21 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
quinn said:
Quote:
sudly said: The big religions disseminated their power through theocracies and genocidal violence.
no argument here (and same goes for much secular power e.g. Nazism was a secular ideology)
Quote:
Power structures and cladograms are essential to the foundations of science.
you misunderstand what is meant by 'power structures' see here
"A power structure is an overall system of influence relationships between any individual and every other individual within any selected group of people."
Quote:
Science doesn't tell you which shirts are cool, it tells you what the shirt's made of and the method in which it was produced.
sure no argument here
Quote:
What we should be doing is being moral people.
yes and how do we know what is moral? even if we believe there is a spagetti monster how do we know what it thinks is moral?
(hint: it's not through science)
Some people in religions are good but that doesn't mean the ideology or religion itself is good. I'm arguing that beliefs are significant to religions because they're what influence the actions they take.
I used a cladogram as a biological example of a hierarchy.

Quote:
science on the other hand is purely a method of inquiry. sure it has heirachies and power structures but they are not essential to what science is
Hierarchy's are essential to science.
Quote:
science informs us no more than it tells us which clothes are cool and which arent.
Science informs us on much more than what you've described, the tendencies of nature are one example of what science has taught us and it's called theoretical(science kind) knowledge.
Quote:
yes and how do we know what is moral? even if we believe there is a spagetti monster how do we know what it thinks is moral? (hint: it's not through science)
We know what's moral through common sense.
Stabbing = bad Not stabbing = good
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? *DELETED* [Re: quinn]
#23388968 - 06/27/16 08:21 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by CosmicJokeReason for deletion: as per user request
Edited by Signeg (06/27/16 08:23 PM)
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23388973 - 06/27/16 08:23 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Signeg said: Why not?
I edited my posts... So i wasnt sharing any ideas with any of you psychopaths.
oh yes, sorry i stand corrected you were being very mature.
im sorry you seem to have had a bad experience but you dont need to take criticism of your ideas so personally
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? *DELETED* [Re: Signeg]
#23388974 - 06/27/16 08:24 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by CosmicJokeReason for deletion: as per user request
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23388975 - 06/27/16 08:25 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:20 PM)
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23388976 - 06/27/16 08:26 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
as per user request
Edited by CosmicJoke (06/27/16 09:21 PM)
|
Signeg


Registered: 06/09/12
Posts: 1,545
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? *DELETED* [Re: quinn]
#23388989 - 06/27/16 08:28 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Post deleted by CosmicJokeReason for deletion: as per user request
Edited by Signeg (06/27/16 08:29 PM)
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg] 1
#23389003 - 06/27/16 08:31 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
can you go 'not share your ideas' someplace else and quit wasting space in the thread? and stop telling us we are discussing pointless shit while you post a bunch of pointless shit.. come back when you are sober or an adult or whatever
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23389005 - 06/27/16 08:32 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Say goodbye to Signeg for bumping a post 5 consecutive times with off topic melting. Stay on topic guys, reasonably good discussion to be had here.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Signeg]
#23389014 - 06/27/16 08:33 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
demiu5
humans, lol


Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23389023 - 06/27/16 08:35 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: They don't have to be an atheist but logically they should.
Science and religion contradict severely, especially with the over 4000 religions practiced in modern times.
as far as i've ever interpreted, science does not contradict religion. religion(s), from time to time, attempt to contradict science. i can't find a source, but we were taught (at a fundmentalist christian institution) that the aim of science is not to attempt to prove or disprove the validity of religious claims. this (rough) statement was included in principles of science in our textbooks, publishers varying.
-------------------- channel your inner Larry David
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: demiu5]
#23389093 - 06/27/16 08:52 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
^^^ I agree. Science's aim is NOT to disprove religion. That isn't its aim. It is aimed at uncovering identifiable truths. If it disproves some of religions claims, it isnt a goal; it's a consequence. Conversely, if it proves something of religions claims, then again, it is just a consequence. The benefits of meditation in the Buddhist context come to mind here.
--------------------
full blown human
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23389102 - 06/27/16 08:55 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Some people in religions are good but that doesn't mean the ideology or religion itself is good. I'm arguing that beliefs are significant to religions because they're what influence the actions they take.
sure, but the significant actions and beliefs are the ones that materially effect the world and other people IMO. as i mentioned Nazis were secular. believing in god or not is not what makes a person or institution good or bad.
Quote:
I used a cladogram as a biological example of a hierarchy.
Hierarchy's are essential to science.
did you look at the link i posted? that is not what i was talking about.
anyone can practice the scientific method in their life by themselves. you dont need to be in contact with the scientific community to do real science. science in essence is a method
Quote:
Science informs us on much more than what you've described, the tendencies of nature are one example of what science has taught us and it's called theoretical(science kind) knowledge.
oh i am not saying science doesnt provide knowledge or inform our decisions but that our cultures tell us what decisions to make and what to value etc
Quote:
We know what's moral through common sense.
Stabbing = bad Not stabbing = good
yeah, 'common'='shared' sense, our socialisation informs our morality
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
|
Science isn't aiming to disprove religion it just does it as knowledge progresses. E.g. The Earth revolves around the Sun.
Science hasn't proven magic real yet and I doubt it ever will.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: demiu5]
#23389120 - 06/27/16 09:00 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The only god that science doesn't explicitly contradict is the god of the gaps. That is, a god carefully constructed to live in the gaps of our knowledge that nobody really worships anyway.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23389147 - 06/27/16 09:07 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sure, but the significant actions and beliefs are the ones that materially effect the world and other people IMO. as i mentioned Nazis were secular. believing in god or not is not what makes a person or institution good or bad.
Beliefs help us form actions but the beliefs themselves do not materially effect the world.
Quote:
quinn said: Nazis were secular
Do you mean the Nazi's who killed people for being Jewish?
Quote:
anyone can practice the scientific method in their life by themselves. you dont need to be in contact with the scientific community to do real science. science in essence is a method
Science follows the scientific method, I don't think we disagree
Quote:
yeah, 'common'='shared' sense, our socialisation informs our morality
Or common = basic thought/feeling E.g. Do you want to be stabbed?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
demiu5
humans, lol


Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23389148 - 06/27/16 09:08 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Science isn't aiming to disprove religion it just does it as knowledge progresses. E.g. The Earth revolves around the Sun.
Science hasn't proven magic real yet and I doubt it ever will.
when/where has science disproven any religion, since you say "it just does...?"
and for your example given, scientists are the ones who proclaimed the earth was the center of all the universe, and that everything revolved around it. how species-centric does it get, eh?
-------------------- channel your inner Larry David
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: DieCommie]
#23389156 - 06/27/16 09:10 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said: The only god that science doesn't explicitly contradict is the god of the gaps. That is, a god carefully constructed to live in the gaps of our knowledge that nobody really worships anyway.
Isn't that where any viable God lives, anyway? In the in-between, in the spaces that aren't full of busy-ness or casual-effect? The places where we feel an infinite space. That's what I feel, anyway.
--------------------
full blown human
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: demiu5]
#23389158 - 06/27/16 09:10 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Thor is one example, he doesn't make lightning.
The Earth was formed over 4 billion years ago over a long period of time as gases collapsed to form the planet. < (This alone removes the basis of a lot of religions)
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
Penelope_Tree
Shamanic Panic



Registered: 07/31/09
Posts: 8,535
Loc: magic sugarcastle
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly] 1
#23389200 - 06/27/16 09:24 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Thor is one example, he doesn't make lightning.
The Earth was formed over 4 billion years ago over a long period of time as gases collapsed to form the planet. < (This alone removes the basis of a lot of religions)
I think another layer is added when you take literalism vs metaphorism. So maybe there's a scientific explanation for lightning, but the storyof Thor and what it describes from an emotional, cultural, and subjective perspective may be more (or atleast equally as) important as what the explanation provides.
--------------------
full blown human
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: demiu5] 3
#23389201 - 06/27/16 09:25 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
demiu5 said: scientists are the ones who proclaimed the earth was the center of all the universe, and that everything revolved around it.
I've never heard of any scientist that claimed anything of the sort. But even if you want to water down scientist to include ancient natural philosophers and mystics this still isn't a mark against science. Nobody should ever think that scientific conclusions are always true and unbiased... That is not the power of science. The power of science is that all scientific conclusions are assailable and subject to being updated or overturned completely in light of new evidence.
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23389298 - 06/27/16 10:05 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
sudly said: Beliefs help us form actions but the beliefs themselves do not materially effect the world.
sure agreed
Quote:
Quote:
quinn said: Nazis were secular
Do you mean the Nazi's who killed people for being Jewish?
yes, obviously. (??)
Quote:
Science follows the scientific method, I don't think we disagree 
yes i was just reiterating that science is a method, not a form of social organisation (like religion)
Quote:
Quote:
yeah, 'common'='shared' sense, our socialisation informs our morality
Or common = basic thought/feeling E.g. Do you want to be stabbed?
i would argue that on a social level a basic thought or feeling is informed by the standards we set for one another. i think a lot of our feelings depend upon the social contexts we are in
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: quinn]
#23389448 - 06/27/16 10:58 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I agree that our behaviours are influenced by our up bringing but humans get to a point in maturity when they can make decisions for themselves.
The difficult part of this is that a lot of people make the wrong choices. I.E. I don't need to follow the law.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23389576 - 06/27/16 11:37 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
hmm following the law isnt always the right choice either! how do we know what's wrong or right? how can we ensure we dont make the 'wrong choices' whatever that means? (idk myself, all seems pretty grey to me.. )
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: quinn] 1
#23389585 - 06/27/16 11:41 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Empathy is a good start.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly]
#23389595 - 06/27/16 11:45 PM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: quinn]
#23389746 - 06/28/16 01:16 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
Pythagoras?
|
viktor
psychotechnician



Registered: 11/03/10
Posts: 4,293
Loc: New Zealand
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Hippocampus]
#23389816 - 06/28/16 01:50 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
In OC's mind, if he hasn't personally read Pythagoras then Pythagoras does not exist.
-------------------- "They consider me insane but I know that I am a hero living under the eyes of the gods."
|
quinn
some kinda love


Registered: 01/02/10
Posts: 6,799
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: viktor]
#23389852 - 06/28/16 02:25 AM (7 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
what about Newton?
-------------------- dripping with fantasy
|
Brian Jones
Club 27



Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 12,342
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 17 hours, 24 minutes
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: quinn] 1
#23390049 - 06/28/16 05:47 AM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I don't think a scientist has to be an atheist, but they have to be wiling to hold competing and fundamentally different ideas in his'her consciousness, really keep them in different spheres of his/her mind. I think Einstein did this, but that was in the 30's and I don't think there are too many top scientists capable of that today between childhood ingrained ideologies and the previously mentioned point about strong norms in the scientific professions.
You may or not be collaborating in your dept, besides your grad assistants, but once you send that paper into a top rated journal, you are totally looking for social approval from the top people in your field.
-------------------- "The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body" John Lennon I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either. The worst thing about corruption is that it works so well,
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Brian Jones]
#23390758 - 06/28/16 10:47 AM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I don't think a scientist has to be an atheist, but they have to be wiling to hold competing and fundamentally different ideas in his'her consciousness, really keep them in different spheres of his/her mind.
Exactly.
--------------------
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: Hippocampus]
#23392109 - 06/28/16 08:08 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Hippocampus said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
Pythagoras?
Liebniz, Kepler?
Tesla? Alternate the current much?
Faraday, that slacker!
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: falcon]
#23392150 - 06/28/16 08:21 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
falcon said:
Quote:
Hippocampus said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
Pythagoras?
Liebniz, Kepler?
Tesla? Alternate the current much?
Faraday, that slacker!
Isaac Newton? He had a fervent and devout religiosity, plus he was an alchemist.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 7 hours
|
|
Oppenheimer?
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,812
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: falcon]
#23392224 - 06/28/16 08:48 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quasimodo?
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: sudly] 1
#23392308 - 06/28/16 09:14 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Frappuccino?
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
andiamo!
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
I remember The Adiamo...
--------------------
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
|
Alam not andiam
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
DisoRDeR
motional



Registered: 08/29/02
Posts: 1,158
Loc: nonsensistan
|
|
I stumbled upon this video today--a talk by Neil deGrasse Tyson about intelligent design.
tl;dw Isaac Newton, in approaching the calculation of orbits in our solar system, invoked intelligent design when faced with the complexity of the problem. LaPlace later came along and expanded on Newton's calculus to further flesh out the subtle gravitational effects of the planets on each other. Tyson's supposition is that, given Newton's brilliance, he should have been able to figure this out for himself, but, "even if you're as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of god, and then your discovery stops."
|
Peyote Road
Stranger

Registered: 09/02/15
Posts: 3,527
Loc: Great Lakes State
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
falcon said:
Quote:
Hippocampus said:
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Perhaps, but I don't see mystics adding any non-personal knowledge to the body of mankind.
Pythagoras?
Liebniz, Kepler?
Tesla? Alternate the current much?
Faraday, that slacker!
Isaac Newton? He had a fervent and devout religiosity, plus he was an alchemist.
pLaTO, SOCRATes. if you look into history almost all the great ancient thinkers philosophers, scientists, etc had a mystical bent. it wasnt until the so called enlightenment in europe that science became associated with materialism and only materialistic science was considered worthy of respect. atheism is a Christian heresy, it developed out of a reaction to a certain religious mindset.
-------------------- The path of the herbalist is to open ourselves to nature in an innocent and pure way. SHe in turn will open her bounty and reward us with many valuable secrets. May the earth bless you. - Michael Tierra
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said: Obviously we all know that some scientists are religious and some are not, but my question pertains to carrying the scientific mindset into all aspects of one's lives. As emotional beings it is not possible to be 100% logical all the time, but why would one not strive for that?
EVEN THE MOST RELIGIOUS SCIENTIST does not take his beliefs into the laboratory with him. What do I mean by that? Most modern religions teach that God can and does occasionally interfere with causation. Things such as fate, meant-to-be-ness and answered prayer require some external manipulation of people and events. Yet, in a lab, the fundamentalist researcher never says that I got such and such results because God willed it; or if he did, his paper would never get published and he would become a laughing stock - even among religious scientists.
Water at a specific pressure ALWAYS boils at the same temperature. Deviations from such denotes a flaw in the methodology or measuring equipment and is not indicative of supernatural forces.
My take is that religious scientists, even great ones, are not applying critical inquiry into their beliefs.
What is science and what is a scientist? What is a runner? the 'zen' answer is: Someone who is running!
Anyone who applies the scientific method, with controls, double blind studies, peer review, results that are repeatable, etc. the list of steps is readily available, is doing science ... at that time. It has nothing to do with beliefs about anything, per se, anymore than skiing does. That our culture glorifies 'Science' with a capitol 'S' has nothing to do with the simple procedural requirements that define it.
A mechanic who trouble shoots a mechanical problem a car has, is doing science, using a somewhat broader definition; as is 'Sherlock Holmes'; as both are evidence based, logical procedures.
Seems like much of the 'discussion' is simply folks arguing with their own beliefs about beliefs, like birds that fight their own reflections in a glass window.
The idea that scientific method should permeate all aspects of any human's life in order for them to have integrity is simply silly. As the OP himself knows, just look at all his posting about his "existential crisis". But he did manage to provoke lots of 'discussion'.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23403938 - 07/02/16 12:06 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23406112 - 07/03/16 05:37 AM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
who said what?:
Anyone who applies the scientific method, with controls, double blind studies, peer review, results that are repeatable, etc. the list of steps is readily available, is doing science ... at that time. It has nothing to do with beliefs about anything, per se, anymore than skiing does. That our culture glorifies 'Science' with a capitol 'S' has nothing to do with the simple procedural requirements that define it.
A mechanic who trouble shoots a mechanical problem a car has, is doing science, using a somewhat broader definition; as is 'Sherlock Holmes'; as both are evidence based, logical procedures. ...
the first example is one of Managing scientific process, scientist is not required the second example is of a mechanic outright, scientist not required.
is every person with a brush and paint an artist?
being involved with science so that you push the boundary of human knowledge takes more than just method.
It takes vision and imagination, occasionally having direct insight (idea first) or finding the idea by examining the data. The method is what is used to verify the idea (when the idea leads) and to help resolve patterns in data (when the data leads).
I agree that for administrators who enforce scientific method on their team, and for mechanics and technicians, it is not important to live and breathe the quest - there is room for religion for these people; but for scientists who find the patterns of new knowledge or who give birth to new ideas, it is not consistent to be religious in another way. A scientist may practice a creed, be good Christian, Muslim, or Jain etc. but they are not mentally or emotionally involved with religious cosmologies while doing their creative work.
These thoughts: "God, my head hurts." or "God give me strength." and even "Oh, God!" may punctuate and pepper the scientist's consciousness while dealing with people every day and still not make them religious.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
A scientist may practice a creed, be good Christian, Muslim, or Jain etc. but they are not mentally or emotionally involved with religious cosmologies while doing their creative work.
Good point. Humans disassociate and compartmentalize. As humans we may have both conscious & unconscious biases, some may interfere with some investigations, some not.
Another factor, not exactly a bias, is ego. Many scientists take up a position and then feel they must defend it all costs. Especially if they have published papers on the subject, or feel they are an authority. Many ideas that turned out to be right were first rejected by the scientific community, like for example: plate tectonics. I think some more recent controversies were around 'are birds dinosaurs?' and 'were dinosaurs warm blooded?'
And some discoveries like penicillin are partly accidental.
Seems the history of science and paradigm shifts provides much food for thought.
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
is every person with a brush and paint an artist?
that's an interesting question.
frequently it is answered simplisticaly in a capitalist society, by the answer: "Can you sell it?"
Also we call so called 'art' by 'primitive' or native peoples 'art', when it was never meant to be put in museums, galleries, or hung over a couch, let alone sold.
I was attempting to distinguish process/activity/verb from noun/identity/object as when we nominalize or reify we often tend to idealize. We see this, I think, today in the case of science and technology in the case of people who think science and technology will solve all 'our' problems. And we end up with phrases like 'the progress of science'. In the event some fool 'presses the button' some day, should there be any survivors, that phrase might well be considered taboo. The current and future results of pollution, fracking, GMOs, cloning, etc. etc. ... remain beyond our present comprehension, but seem significant enough to already question the phrase 'the glorious upward progress of science'.
Some will of course question whether one can separate the results of application of science and technology from the theoretical. I suspect there are examples supporting both view points.
Edited by laughingdog (07/04/16 12:16 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410300 - 07/04/16 12:54 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
hold on a minute. often the art in primitive societies is magnificent, infused with vitality expression and epiphany.
also GMO so far has not been unhealthy jut terrible politics and oppression of farmers who are sued by monsanto. GMO experimentation warrants controlled environment testing on a scale not yet observed, so there again is a political frakas.
And now you can get medical stem cell treatments that are completely unverified because clinics can buy the equipment. The religion in these sciences is money. money. money.
anyway you want to do science - start keeping a log, get good at it and keep it up. documentation is primo!
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
I too enjoy the ‘art’ of native peoples. The point was it served a different function is those societies, they didn’t call it ‘art’. The potlatch indians even used to burn their stuff till the whites made it illegal to burn it.
I agree that like ego, money can be a corrupting factor. A nice exception was Jonas Salk.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=Jonas+Salk&view=detailv2&&id=5695894BD89D01093119B789671BC1DAAB2EF4C2&selectedIndex=0&ccid=7vLmkyME&simid=608018931811093966&thid=OIP.Meef2e69323042f9cdfa6e082d9a00517o2&ajaxhist=0
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410584 - 07/04/16 02:29 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
the art on cave walls is often deeply profound the purpose in creating it differs how from the purpose of putting paint on canvas for someone like Jackson Pollock?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: the art on cave walls is often deeply profound the purpose in creating it differs how from the purpose of putting paint on canvas for someone like Jackson Pollock?
certainly
the cave art is a mystery, I have never seen it in person, as you say, they say: to actually see it, is emotionally moving.
this book has some insight: "The Oldest Enigma of Humanity: The Key to the Mystery of the Paleolithic Cave Paintings" by Bertrand David (Author), Jean-Jacques Lefrère (Author)
also
http://pleistocenecoalition.com/newsletter/may-june2010.pdf
also
"What Is Paleolithic Art?: Cave Paintings and the Dawn of Human Creativity" by Jean Clottes, ISBN-10: 022626663X ISBN-13: 978-0226266633
As regards Pollock, he was full of wonderful contradictions:
partly he was into 'pure process' or the joy of creating taking precedence over product. I wonder if he destroyed any. He did have some sense of visual discrimination. Francis Bacon did destroy those works that didn't meet his standards.
but Pollock was also alcoholic, so not exactly pure spontaneous joy
and documentaries also show Pollock unable to integrate the sudden fame that was thrust upon him, and struggling with evaluating his own 'importance'. Unable to separate himself from his image. One might think an artist of all people 'should' be able to do this. But fame is a dangerous snake. Warhol on the other hand made playing with image his playground.
Rene Magritte is considered a surrealist, but did not consider himself one.
Art seems a regular 'Emperor's clothes' sort of affair on the one hand, and part of our natural cognitive development if you look at kid's drawings, up to the age of about 6.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410739 - 07/04/16 03:19 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
laughingdog said: ... but Pollock was also alcoholic, so not exactly pure spontaneous joy ...
this is also "moral" prejudice
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said:
Quote:
laughingdog said: ... but Pollock was also alcoholic, so not exactly pure spontaneous joy ...
this is also "moral" prejudice
I didn't say he was "BAD"
I stated addiction to substance for emotional effect, does not equal spontaneously arising happiness.
Aviva Gold ( http://www.paintingfromthesource.com/ ) teaches a method of re-accessing our innate creativity, without drugs. No need to put Pollack on a pedestal, or fight a 'straw-man' & put me on a dunce chair.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410987 - 07/04/16 04:37 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
you denigrated a genius by calling up alcoholism. I find that a bit off platform for a shroomerite.
in any case the whole issue about art is a tangent, but exploring it reveals prejudice, and the same prejudice affects the judgement of scientists. My main point is that the business of science is populated by sloggers, or haulers, and people who break through finding new patterns or what is beyond the edge of the known universe. The sloggers and haulers manage the business and can be of any religion - the ones who break through actually expanding science are also of any religion but they are absorbed in theoretical science more than any other kinds of theory.
the same could be said of Jackson Pollock, who was immersed in his own unique abstraction, and who pushed in a direction that was heretofore unknown.
I think that is more godlike than any religion, but it is not any religion or god.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23410998 - 07/04/16 04:40 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Where things really seem to get blurred is body painting scarification neck rings stretched lips and ear lobes etc.
and the 'civilized' versions tattooing piercing purple hair etc
to say nothing of so called cosmetic surgery and of course make up costumes etc.
there was an artist who covered naked ladies in paint and had them writhe across the canvas and sold his shit was in the film Mondo Cane I believe, back in the day. A modern day version of such huckterism, with high stakes is Jeff Koons.
weird species, homo sapiens
meanwhile some do science perhaps with inspiration and objectivity
peculiar, most peculiar nice word peculiar
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23411064 - 07/04/16 05:02 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
look, I'm good friends with people who roll in paint so please.
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: look, I'm good friends with people who roll in paint so please.
ok ... and then what do they do? ...
please continue kind sir
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,539
|
Re: Must a scientist be an atheist? [Re: laughingdog]
#23411117 - 07/04/16 05:18 PM (7 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
they sell the canvases and buy real estate and then travel, what do you think they do?
--------------------
_ 🧠 _
|
laughingdog
Stranger

Registered: 03/14/04
Posts: 4,828
|
|
how would I know?
they're you're friends.
you travel in rarefied circles
|
|