Are these beliefs … umm … religious ?

[suminonA]

jotabe, to what point are you replying exactly, with your previous post?

A.

[jotabe]

To Steve, about real world, experimental evidence of the imaginary numbers. He knows there is some (any system that oscillates finds a great help in using the complex plane), but it's really not as clear, as evident, as the macroscopic effects of quantum mechanics.

[Dr. Mobius]

Why are we discussing science in the religion board?

[suminonA]

Maybe because it seems to be helpful.

A.

[Boothby]

I brought up a mathematical term (sqrt(-1)) to help discuss meta-physics and meta-reality. And I started discussing how that term, even though it had no immediate "find it in a kitchen drawer" sort of reality, could still be used to solve real-world problems. Of course, those real-world problems are in the realm of science and engineering.

Hence the progression.


And while I'm here, I'd like to address this question:

BTW, what is the relation between Religion in general, and the numbers as defined in mathematics?

None whatsoever.

When you take a numeric system, you are provided with a set of testable theorems. You can take (for instance), a series of equations: given a set of inputs, and a series of equations, you are guaranteed one outcome (or, in the case of fuzzy math, at least a very restricted set).


But when you take a religious system of beliefs, you are also presented with a set of theorems. But, alas, they utterly defy testability.

MATH:
f(n) = 2*n -1
for n=1...5, f(n) = 1, 3, 5, 7, 9

and so on.

RELIGION:
f(n) = "God listens to and responds to our prayers"
for n = "Johnny/Jamie/Suzie has fallen in a well, please save him (her)," f(n) = Johnny dies, Jamie is rescued, Suzy suffers from the gangrenous loss of her left arm and permanent damage to her reproductive system.

No predictable outcome!

[eriador]

So... what conclusions can one draw from that?

Are you going to go the Dawkins route and say that that shows religion to be fundamentally flawed, or are you going to say that religion is above all that?

If one personally chooses the latter, then how does one reconcile one's religious "theorems" (that's what they are, for better or worse) and the fact that there is no predictable outcome? Can one really say that even though religion seems to look like the math Boothby posted it isn't?

[Boothby]

Religion claims to have a consistent set of rules (or else why tell people to pray, or tithe, or even believe?), but the outcomes are inherently unpredictable, even random.

I'm not going to go the Dawkins route, since he (as far as I can tell) is just an overly-ardent proselytiser for the "other" side (well...MY side!). He can be a bit much, and in doing so, loses his chance to sway "opponents." But neither am I going to give religion a "pass." It makes claims, The claims appear to be unsupportable by the evidence.

Like I should talk. I had a lot of people praying for me because of my back surgery in November, and my prostate surgery this past January. And, thank God, I'm doing pretty darn good!

[eriador]

I won't argue that Dawkins never oversteps the bounds of reasonableness, but I think he's on the right track. A beacon, so to speak.

[BeansBrother]

Very interesting topic. I would consider this a form of religion, however, in it that it believes in a high-being, whether that being conscious, able to be talked to, etc, or not. I personally do not believe in any such thing, a higher being in any way.

BB

[suminonA]

BB, if I read you correctly, you are 100% non-religious. But, are you "spiritual" ? As you can see in this topic, there is a more or less subtle distinction (I'm still not sure where is the line between them).
Also, you said in some other topic that you are a "cultural Jew", so I'm curious how did you reach your atheist conclusions?

A.

[BeansBrother]

Also, you said in some other topic that you are a "cultural Jew", so I'm curious how did you reach your atheist conclusions?

By cultural Jew, I meant I celebrate the holidays, eat the food, but do not pray, etc. My atheist conclusions probably just come from my age, because I have seen that many people my age stopped believing in God. Whether I will stay this way, I will never know, but I am open to any changes in belief that I feel.

[suminonA]

I'm a bit surprised that you don't have a clear reason (at least for yourself) to have reached those conclusions. At this point, it seems to me that you are as irrationally an atheist as some others are irrationally theists...

For the record, the reason : "because people around do it" is not rational, for me.

A.

[BeansBrother]

For the record, the reason : "because people around do it" is not rational, for me.

For the record, I meant that questioning ones existence of their own religion's deity/deitys is natural as a teenager.[/quote]

[suminonA]

Thanks for the clarification.

A.

[Azarel]

I think from the angle of my own point of view/understanding most of what was said in the original post can explained as manifestations of compassion, especially in regard to babies laughing and mothers crying.

Humans are individuals and yet we do - from the universal/global experiences of generations of humans - share common reactions to a huge variety of events and situations.

We are horrified by murder, especially ones that seem senseless.
We rejoice when conjoined twins are successfully separated and live.
We grieve for other people's loss of loved ones even though we didn't know them (the Japanese call this 'Giri' grief through a sense of duty or loyalty, or sort of second hand grief again, a reaction of compassion)

This is because - in my belief - that although we are individiuals with our own will, we are connected through our experiences and dependencies on each other. The exceptions to this are when we feel selfish or we have grown up isolating ourselves and consider ourselves to have little in common with anyone; but even that can be broken down in the right circumstances.

Now as it happens, I believe this is because things like compassion and dependence (the need to love and be loved) are God-given as part of the Human soul, and as such I do few this spiritually, not religiously or purely humanisticly. I believe we share the same origin, regardless of what we look like now or where we live. Science for me is simply the human process of understanding nature. That is to say, nature was here first and science after mankind decided to understand that nature for itself. Now while many argue as to the origin of or the state of things before nature, I for one am rooted in my belief that is God.

...of course, I am also hoping I haven't over spiritualised my response.

[suminonA]

Welcome, Azarel

Don't worry, in this thread there is no limit for spiritualization.
Actually, I think the whole board is like this, so I hope you'll feel comfortable discussing your ideas here.

A.

[Azarel]

Welcome, Azarel

Don't worry, in this thread there is no limit for spiritualization.
Actually, I think the whole board is like this, so I hope you'll feel comfortable discussing your ideas here.

A.

Thanks for the welcome

I'm literally just finishing 'Children of the Mind' this week and then I just have first meetings to read and then it's the wait for shadows in flight I suppose...