The Science of Miracles
- Thread starter Dak
- Start date
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
My internet connection is far too slow to watch videos, but my perspective on miracles is that they are merely statistical anomalies in your favor. Essentially, a miracle is just what happens when a phenomenon occurs on the farthest end of the "lucky" bell curve. On the other, "unlucky" side we have tragedies.
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
sadistik necrofiend
Furby goes nanners
Wow man, I am really going to have to check this video out. I have been following the work of Greg Braden for quite a bit. Ironically, I am reading his Fractal Time book at the moment and I plan to attend his lectures here in my town in about 2 weeks.
I really need to finish up this book, I just haven't had the time to do any reading lately whatsoever. I actually just remembered some really fascinating information he talked about on Coast to Coast AM. I'll have to return with that, cause I remember it knocking just about out of my boots.
I think that he has some really great work going on and I also like that he is one of the more open minded people doing such brilliant research/science out there these days.
I really need to finish up this book, I just haven't had the time to do any reading lately whatsoever. I actually just remembered some really fascinating information he talked about on Coast to Coast AM. I'll have to return with that, cause I remember it knocking just about out of my boots.
I think that he has some really great work going on and I also like that he is one of the more open minded people doing such brilliant research/science out there these days.
I don't agree with everything he says, but I see a lot that could be applicable to my personal beliefs. I already believed in the idea of connecting "fabric" of the universe, so a lot of what he says makes sense.
derek
Grey Eminence
seems like pretty basic science and philosophy with pseudoscientific babble / misinterpretation overlayed to make it sound impressive.
'we are connected through this field of energy' = stuff affects stuff. *surprise*.
Disclaimer: I got through 5 minutes.
'we are connected through this field of energy' = stuff affects stuff. *surprise*.
Disclaimer: I got through 5 minutes.
derek
Grey Eminence
derek
Grey Eminence
Because of course, your interpretations are correct! How could I have been so short sighted???!?!
/sarcasm
If you have no interest in anything outside crunched numbers, then why bother posting in this thread?
/sarcasm
If you have no interest in anything outside crunched numbers, then why bother posting in this thread?
In viewing anyone who does not find value in that which you find valuable as closed minded, you exercise closed mindedness yourself... I hold that it is very possible to have an interest in the 'spiritual' as well as a skeptical eye for the pseudo babble. One key indicator I've noticed is that most who mention 'quantum' that aren't scientists, belong to the babblers 
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
+1
wasn't online yesterday but coincidentally i had this very same discussion as part of a larger multi-faceted philosophical face-to-face chat about Christianity, my argument was basically that "religion is the wheelchair for the crippled mind" http://www.webcrawler.com/webcrawle...q=true/zoom=off/_iceUrlFlag=7?_IceUrl=trueand
"you wouldn't have to make a rule against doing something if no one had the inclination to break that rule to begin with" meaning prohibitive instructions in leviticus/the ten comandments/the sermon on the mount etc etc, were just constructs created to create society/civilization and prevent anarchy
my friend's argument was trying to say that foxhole religion is the result of "God" attempting to convince you to worship him, without taking away free will, so that things like hurricanes destroying atheist houses, atheist people getting incarcerated, atheists getting drafted into the military, are things that "God" makes happen in order to convince people to worship him, withoout taking away free will
and she spent a lot of time talking about the "original sin" and refered to Satan as an "angel" but she never even tried to explain why Satan doesn't follow God like the other angels
"Bad things" happen to everyone at some point. Pretty weak arguement, but I don't see how that appplies here anyway.
As far as why Satan doesn't follow God, does that matter here?
I would agree that organized religion could be classified as a crutch the way all organizations are a form of a crutch.
Again, all the above points would apply more in the theoligical thread than here.
As I said, I don't agree with everything he says. But some of it makes sense in comparison to what I already hold as truth.
The main problem with science, especially today, is that most scientists refuse to look outside certain parameters because "that's not the way it's done". There is way too much about things evident on earth that is unexplainable, but instead of trying to understand those things, we blow holes in the moon looking for water.
As far as why Satan doesn't follow God, does that matter here?
I would agree that organized religion could be classified as a crutch the way all organizations are a form of a crutch.
Again, all the above points would apply more in the theoligical thread than here.
In viewing anyone who does not find value in that which you find valuable as closed minded, you exercise closed mindedness yourself... I hold that it is very possible to have an interest in the 'spiritual' as well as a skeptical eye for the pseudo babble. One key indicator I've noticed is that most who mention 'quantum' that aren't scientists, belong to the babblers
As I said, I don't agree with everything he says. But some of it makes sense in comparison to what I already hold as truth.
The main problem with science, especially today, is that most scientists refuse to look outside certain parameters because "that's not the way it's done". There is way too much about things evident on earth that is unexplainable, but instead of trying to understand those things, we blow holes in the moon looking for water.
derek
Grey Eminence
In viewing anyone who does not find value in that which you find valuable as closed minded, you exercise closed mindedness yourself... I hold that it is very possible to have an interest in the 'spiritual' as well as a skeptical eye for the pseudo babble. One key indicator I've noticed is that most who mention 'quantum' that aren't scientists, belong to the babblers
Here here.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
i am aparently not very good at articulating my thoughts, my point was that i agree with black metal white guy's post
Science is advanced enough to explain why people believe in those things, and in fact we have perfectly good explanations for why people falsely believe in miracles, psychic phenomena, and ghosts.
In fact science is open-minded about those things where the "true believers" (who insist that they exist despite the complete lack of evidence) are utterly closed-minded about them.
Science does not explain the occurrence of miracles or psychic phenomena for the simple reason that there are no miracles or psychic phenomena to explain. What there IS to explain is why people believe in those things, and we understand that quite well.
Your "adapt to cultural trends" line is just silly - science is about understanding reality, not about accepting things just because some culture holds them to be true. Blind acceptance is not being "adaptable" - it's being dogmatic.
In fact science is open-minded about those things where the "true believers" (who insist that they exist despite the complete lack of evidence) are utterly closed-minded about them.
Science does not explain the occurrence of miracles or psychic phenomena for the simple reason that there are no miracles or psychic phenomena to explain. What there IS to explain is why people believe in those things, and we understand that quite well.
Your "adapt to cultural trends" line is just silly - science is about understanding reality, not about accepting things just because some culture holds them to be true. Blind acceptance is not being "adaptable" - it's being dogmatic.
monoxide_child
New Metal Member
- Jul 30, 2008
- 6,210
- 4
- 0
BlackMetalWhiteGuy
Manly Man!
I actually attended an evolutionary psychology conference this August and the keynote speaker addressed this issue as part of his lecture about the effects of intelligence on humans' social and biological development. Essentially, humans and other species have an internal bias that favors belief in intentionality of phenomena, and it can be explained by a simple diagram of cost / benefit ratio. If a person is hit with a coconut and assumes that it was intentional, either he is right and saves his own life by being overly cautious, or he is wrong and just paranoid. On the contrary, if he dismisses it as simple gravitational action, he can have made an intelligent deduction, or he could die as a result of ignoring an enemy threat. The same cost / benefit ratio can be applied to a sound in the bushes, a rain storm, an earthquake, voices in your head, etc.
Obviously, since the cost of indifference (possible death) is far greater than the cost of caution (paranoia), evolution favors those who assume that all phenomena are intentional and that everything happens for a reason. Consequently, greater mental capacity is required to distinguish between the two and as a result, natural selection will cause those with diminished cognition to default to presumptions of intention, since they are inadequately prepared to try to make the distinction for themselves.
In modern society, this parallels with the correlation between low IQ and high religiosity.
Russell's Teapot - pretty straight-forward explanation of why the burdon of proof lies on the believer, not on the scientist.
Conversational Intolerance - explanation of why the plea for respect for religious ideologies is an unacceptable double standard when compared to the demand for empiracal evidence to support any other form of "knowledge," specifically with regard to scientific data.
Obviously, since the cost of indifference (possible death) is far greater than the cost of caution (paranoia), evolution favors those who assume that all phenomena are intentional and that everything happens for a reason. Consequently, greater mental capacity is required to distinguish between the two and as a result, natural selection will cause those with diminished cognition to default to presumptions of intention, since they are inadequately prepared to try to make the distinction for themselves.
In modern society, this parallels with the correlation between low IQ and high religiosity.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with these topics, but these should be an interesting read at least for some other people in this thread.
Russell's Teapot - pretty straight-forward explanation of why the burdon of proof lies on the believer, not on the scientist.
Conversational Intolerance - explanation of why the plea for respect for religious ideologies is an unacceptable double standard when compared to the demand for empiracal evidence to support any other form of "knowledge," specifically with regard to scientific data.
Similar threads
