Well, I did point out that some get spiritual with it on a level that isn't reasonable... Anyhow, most people don't take Star Wars seriously... Some though actually think they have the force. What does that mean? That it should be taken more seriously and be pulled from the Science Fiction shelf to be placed on the Educational one? No.
Funny, I dated a Catholic who at that time was in Philadelphia, and is now in San Antonio (but was from Katy). She seemed happy, yes, but she wasn't. I wouldn't say it was because of her faith, but instead consider it a quality of human beings in general. I seem happy when I'm usually not and I'm not religious, I'm social.
Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. People often call it a religion, and some aspects of Buddhism deal a lot with the idea of "spirits", and beings that live forever as stars, etc. But Buddhism, especially Zen Buddhism deals with pragmatic ideas, like these, specifically.
Even though those beliefs are held by some Buddhists, they don't force it upon other people like religion does, it's just a theory to them. Not TRUTH, like spirits and demons and God is to the typical American Christian. You can't be saved by following parts of the Bible that don't have anything to do with God or Jesus. If you don't accept them as real and your father, etc. you won't even be considered.
One of the main ideas in Buddhism is that there are many paths to the summit, meaning that there are different ways to reach enlightenment. This is why "making an effort to improve" is so important. So long as you working your way to the summit, you're doing good.
I think you're right though, Religion is unhealthy and if you need structure in your life turn to Buddhism for your help.
Ah, alright.
Quickly, because I'm almost late for work:
- Me (you) is the external I. (Your physical body, shape mass and volume, etc.)
- I is your consciousness if you are self aware.
- Self is an image of me that is created by I. (How you see yourself and what you act through)
I think your question is more concerned with the "I". I believe that it's a combination of all of those things, but the atoms in your body aren't particularly important, like legos they can be swapped out with like legos and it'll make no difference... Your physical body, including your brain and memories are important in form, because they create an I and from there a sense of self.
To get a gist of what I'm trying to say you'll have to read Descartes "Meditations on First Philosophy" (or maybe "Discourse on Method", I don't really remember), where he says "I Think therefor I am". Also, a lot of psychology concerning self image and self-awareness. I've gotta run now, sorry for the shabby response.
Alright...
1. If you assume that the universe will at some point expand to a point were no matter will have an effect on any other matter or energy in the universe and everything will stop moving (because matter and energy moving through space is still an event), then you're saying that the universe will essentially die. That it will be inactive without end.
My answer to that, very quickly, is that you cannot have an end to infinity. Infinity is one point whereas a "very long time" is a linear string that exists within the point of infinity. Everything that is happening now in space and time, must happen forever or we couldn't be here now. If you think that the universe will die or collapse on itself, that's fine though, it doesn't conflict with my idea though because like I've said, infinity doesn't end, it is infinite, and if we're here now we'll be here forever, just as infinity is forever. If the universe ceases to change at some point and it must reach the linear equivalent that we understand it to be now again, then there is a higher nature that will reset the universe to it's linear beginning through some means. Anyhow
2. If you look at the existence as a calculation, with numbers being matter and mathematics being the laws of physics, time being the change of one number to the next, it doesn't seem as radical an idea, that all of what is now could easily duplicated in infinity. Existence works like a machine, laws governed by a higher level of existence, and that one too, has a higher existence, and so on. The only thing that hinders a simple grasp of this concept is our consciousness and how we expect a final existence by which everything is governed but itself, which would be immediately erroneous (and is the reason why we cannot think this).
It really is something that I should be working on more, but I don't see any great importance in thinking that the universe is nothing and something all at once governed by something and nothing all at once and how time will continue indefinitely and we'll all live our shitty lives over and over... It's not meaningful to anyone, even scientists who are looking for answers... they would just give up and say "Science is bull, and we'll never learn anything because human consciousness cannot understand infinity, and that's what we're dealing with on every level of existence except with our consciousness (which too, we deal with but not seemingly)"
It really is too great a subject to simply argue on CreateDebate after drinking too much.
:^/
I figured this out a while ago, when I was around 17 or 18, so it may be rusty...
If there was a creator, then possibly. I can't test that so that's the end of that train of thought.
If there was no creator though, I assume that what exists does so infinitely, with no beginning and with no end. I assume this because It's the quickest way to the same conclusion. If you assume that nothing came from something, that is just another plain of existence that could be dealt with in the same manner... so I'll just assume that everything that is, has been and will be forever existent and forever changing.
Bah, it's such a big theory... if energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed, then we get:
A) Matter is infinite
B) Energy is infinite
C) Time is infinite (For the sake of understanding)
D) We are aware of this
If matter and the exchange of energy continues infinitely long, the combination that lead us to this point must have without a doubt, happened infinitely many times in the past (we have lived these exact same lives infinite times, and infinite lives that were different from our own, even if it's extremely different, or seemingly no different whatsoever. We have lived an infinite amount of lives, forever, and once we die we'll be reborn again in the same life until we die the same death over and over, into infinity.
We are, in a sense, always alive, and there is always an "Afterlife", though it's not really an afterlife, it's just a life. Nothing can happen after anything in infinity because it's sort of, not on a linear time line that we're used to thinking it. It's all at once and only seems to happen linearly to human life.
Let me know if you don't understand something, I'll elaborate.
Late-term abortion is something that should be avoided at all costs, and I've been hearing a lot about it lately, mainly from people who were told that they should have one by doctors because their children may have down's syndrome (everyone that was told this didn't have further testing done because of the risk of killing the child (50% chance), and all were born and found to be healthy).
It's something that should be taken care of before the child develops, but if it comes down to deciding later, it should still be up to the parents who created the child... It's sad, yes, but it's not our responsibility to decide who has to have children and who doesn't. Not everyone is happily married and ready, mentally, physically, or finically, to have children when they become pregnant, and we don't have the resources and in most respects, the right, to decide for people.
I believe that this is the true conservative stance on this issue. Limited government, more freedom and leave the moral decision to be made by the moral beings who are responsible for the child, not the government.
2. Atoms weren't proven to exist until this last century, but people believed that they did and have for over 2000, maybe even around 3000 years. Socrates spoke about philosophers that were long dead that believed that the universe was made of irreducibly small particles (of water) and Buddhists thought the same thing even before him. Santa and the Easter bunny do exist, even if it's just as a thought. Existence as a thought is still existence. If you disagree, fight with yourself about that because the idea of a self is a trick of the mind. In actuality your self doesn't exist just as santa doesn't exist.
3. It's more than sociological, it's psychological. I know, I see tons of people who claim to have lived horrible, drug ridden, lives before being "saved"... I know better than to argue with these people, because even though they're religious they seem to be more stable than they used to be, or at least happier with their lives. It's a deeply personal issue that does help a lot of people, and this I think is it's most important utility, something that should be considered in sciences. I know a lot of people who have went through rehab 1 or more times who are still on meth and heroin or something as harmless as weed, but I know more people who have found religion and changed for good, for just a little faith.
I don't know about you, but I think that should be worth sciences time, at least to find out why faith helps more than rehab. I tend to think, very quickly, that religion plays on parts of humanity that aren't as reasonable as maybe, we'd like them to be, but if it works it works. Faith does do good (not saying it doesn't do bad, or even that it doesn't do more bad than good), and that's something that I think science should be interested in.
First off, I would like to make it clear to you, that I am not religious, I do not believe in a personal god, I do not believe the universe was designed by anyone for any reason, I do not believe that people are only moral because of religious beliefs... I am not religious in any sense of the term. So, you're already wrong about my core beliefs starting with faith and then transcending from there, because I have no faith in religious doctrine.
Secondly, the idea of there being a god has never been disproved and likely will never be, using the scientific method, but that doesn't mean that it should be dismissed by the scientific community. If it hasn't been proven, or disproved, it should remain a topic until it can be. It may turn out, eventually, that though god doesn't seem to exist, it does in the minds of millions, maybe billions of people, and it more helpful to them than any scientific finding could be... Religious belief may be an important part of society (and then to social science) that is nearly irreplaceable.
Lastly, I think it's important to see how everything works independently and together. I am not the force binding religion and science together, they are both aspects of human life and by that fact are already bound. Which is not to say that they can't ever be separated, but for now whether you like it or not, each deals with the other and must be accepted until something right can be done about it. You can't just say that because they are different, they shouldn't conceder each other.
The only problem with your argument (that I want to pick on) is that you assume that religion doesn't already answer every question man needs to know the answer to. Science may very well be off course, or lead humanity off course (in accordance with scripture).
The only reason you disagree is because you disagree with religion? According to scripture, empirical things were created by God, so studying only empirical things is just studying God's creations, and does have an ultimate goal, does it not? If Science is out to explain the unexplained, and religion is supposedly there to spread the word of God, the being that is Himself the explanation... What do you think would happen if Science successfully explained everything (impossible, I know)???
Anyhow, I agree with you, but I don't agree with your argument, per say. Almost every social science (including political science and psychology) deals with religion, so if you dismiss religion because it's not verifiable, you still have to deal with it as a scientist.
I don't think Einstein meant if you're a scientist you should be religious, and if you're religious you should be a scientist too... He just meant that they are inherently intertwined and one without the other it's true to it's nature... to explain.
Science without X is lame science. Science seeks to answer questions through rigorous testing, trial and error if you will. This means, if you purposely deny any idea or leave anything out of the test you're not doing it right. Science without art is too, lame science.
Anyhow, Albert wasn't talking about christianity when he said this, or any typical religion of the time, he was speaking on more general terms. He was a scientific pantheist, which is to say, that he didn't believe in a personal god. "The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
You say that religion answers the why's, but Einstein also believed that there is no purpose in nature. Purpose (Intent) == Reason == Why. Pantheism revolves around existence and nature, so if a pantheist says that there is no purpose in nature, that means that God (equivalent to nature in pantheism) has no purpose in anything. God just is, as scientists typically believe the universe just is without a purpose or intention.
So what you get from this quote is actually incorrect. I'm not picking on your views, just differentiating between what he probably meant and what you're getting from it.
This is just funny:
"Why do you write to me 'God should punish the English'? I have no close connection to either one or the other. I see only with deep regret that God punishes so many of His children for their numerous stupidities, for which only He Himself can be held responsible; in my opinion, only His nonexistence could excuse Him."
-Letter to Edgar Meyer colleague January 2, 1915 Contributed by Robert Schulmann; also see CPAE Vol. 8 (forthcoming).
Einstein was a real badass.
