Science & Religion

[LMNO]

"Niche"



Sorry, it was bugging me.

[Thurnez Isa]

corrected

DO I HAVE TO REMIND YOU I GOT AN "A" IN ENLGISH

[Kai]

Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

[Adios]

Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

I think the word religion is far too often confused with spirituality and in this day religion is more about choosing sides. Religion in the true sense of religion is fine.

[Kai]

Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

I think the word religion is far too often confused with spirituality and in this day religion is more about choosing sides. Religion in the true sense of religion is fine.

Religion as the social-cultural aspect of spirituality is what I was getting at. A community of shared belief and/or ritual. When I use spirituality I'm referring more to the personal aspect.

[Adios]

Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

I think the word religion is far too often confused with spirituality and in this day religion is more about choosing sides. Religion in the true sense of religion is fine.

Religion as the social-cultural aspect of spirituality is what I was getting at. A community of shared belief and/or ritual. When I use spirituality I'm referring more to the personal aspect.

That to me is the true sense of religion.

[Kai]

Honey, I do just fine with joining science and religionspirituality, just letting you know.

There is nothing at all saying they have to be mutually exclusive.

why did you cross out religion? I have no problem joining religion and science, much less spirituality.

I think the word religion is far too often confused with spirituality and in this day religion is more about choosing sides. Religion in the true sense of religion is fine.

Religion as the social-cultural aspect of spirituality is what I was getting at. A community of shared belief and/or ritual. When I use spirituality I'm referring more to the personal aspect.

That to me is the true sense of religion.

I've been reading quite a bit about religion and culture recently, and I'm finding its important to not focus on what people say, but rather what they do. Theology focuses on beliefs and which one is right, while anthropology focuses more on ritual and what people do. I think the later is the more important one, since peoples actions are what effect us rather than beliefs. You get closer to the reality that way.

[Adios]

Actions always speak louder than words.

[Kai]

keep in mind Einstein was working before punctured equilibrium became the more widely accepted mechanism for evolutionary change... he was probably still working under the assumption of gradualism

Gradualism or not, the idea of one biological "answer" being uniquely superior to all others was discarded 150 years ago. This is why we have such a grand diversity of life, cause many "answers" work equally well.

Stepping into an area where I'm an idiot... not at all uncommon for me

"Evolution has shown that at any given moment out of all conceivable constructions a single one has always proved itself absolutely superior to the rest."

It seems to me that we have to determine Einstein's context here. Is he saying that a single one (Lifeform) has always proven superior, or is he saying that a single one (configuration for a given species) has always proven superior for a given moment in space-time.

One configuration of species X is most fit for Y time at Z location. The current configuration of humans seems the most fit set of options for now, but we probably wouldn't be the most fit in Europe 30,000 years ago. Perhaps Cro-Magnon was the most fit configuration for that time, in that place... at least when compared to us.

I dunno if that's true or false, but that's how I read Einstein's comment there...

Except...due to the delay time between adaptation and environmental changes, species are constantly playing the catch-up game. Its better to say that something is adapted to the past condition rather than "most fit" to the present, closer to the truth anyway. Would you agree that humans are adapted to our current urban environment? I certainly wouldn't. Several hundred years isn't near enough time to catch up to dealing with the current conditions. Psychologically we aren't there, we're still pretty much set up for a state that requires a constant need for a fight or flight reaction, thus leaving us all stressed and in mortal fear over nonmortal issues.

But I digress. I'd argue that conclusion is false, that one single configuration is not the "superior" because A) I've got no idea what you mean by configuration and how you are limiting the range of variation in your definition, B) species are not reflections of  eidos that can be easily put into these little boxes and analyzed (boy is my research saying that to me) and C) variation within a species is required for the continuation of a species or it will perish; the world is not static, globally or locally.

What I'm getting at is that words like "superior" or "inferior" in reference to biological evolution are far too simplistic and morally loaded words that are often used and confuse the point, that there is no superior or inferior, that its just whatever can reproduce and survive to the next generation. At the same time, the environment is changing. Whats a good answer now might not be the good answer later, and there might be several good answers, several routes to continuity. Throw in random drift along side selection and it gets really messy. These several routes is how cladogenesis, the separation and distinction of lineages, comes about.

Heh, god does not play dice...god IS dice, among other things.

Sorry for the thread jack, Honey.

[Arafelis]

Except...due to the delay time between adaptation and environmental changes, species are constantly playing the catch-up game. Its better to say that something is adapted to the past condition rather than "most fit" to the present, closer to the truth anyway. Would you agree that humans are adapted to our current urban environment? I certainly wouldn't.

I think Einstein may have meant, rather, that of all the configurations of human which have been demonstrated thus far, we are the ones best suited to live in a city.  In the future, some other configuration will be demonstrated which will be superior to that.

B) species are not reflections of  eidos that can be easily put into these little boxes and analyzed (boy is my research saying that to me)

Teleological implications are exactly why a "pure" scientist struggles with Einstein's comment (and others like it) and exactly why it's appropriate for a spiritual discussion of science.  Okay, I think we can probably agree that Einstein's comment wasn't useful as a paradigm for studying evolutionary changes -- what else can we get from it?

[Thurnez Isa]

shut the fuck up

grown ups are talking now

[Kai]

Teleological implications are exactly why a "pure" scientist struggles with Einstein's comment (and others like it) and exactly why it's appropriate for a spiritual discussion of science.  Okay, I think we can probably agree that Einstein's comment wasn't useful as a paradigm for studying evolutionary changes -- what else can we get from it?

Thanks for calling me a pure scientist, its not a slur in my mind, though you intended it to be that way. Thanks for revealing my small minded nature, so closed and stupid against your amazing mind of spectacular philosophical reasoning. I'm far too pure for your high arguments of teleology. Good luck with that.

[Arafelis]

Thanks for calling me a pure scientist, its not a slur in my mind, though you intended it to be that way.

Why would you think being called a "pure" scientist would be a slur?

I'm far too pure for your high arguments of teleology.

You made an argument against teleology, or at least part of one.  I may have misinterpreted what you meant to say, but I'm not saying arguments from teleology are "good," and my interpretation of your counter-argument was "bad."  In fact, from a scientific standpoint, quite the opposite.

[Adios]

Thanks for calling me a pure scientist, its not a slur in my mind, though you intended it to be that way.

Why would you think being called a "pure" scientist would be a slur?

I'm far too pure for your high arguments of teleology.

You made an argument against teleology, or at least part of one.  I may have misinterpreted what you meant to say, but I'm not saying arguments from teleology are "good," and my interpretation of your counter-argument was "bad."  In fact, from a scientific standpoint, quite the opposite.

Why are you here?

[fomenter]

Thanks for calling me a pure scientist, its not a slur in my mind, though you intended it to be that way.

Why would you think being called a "pure" scientist would be a slur?

I'm far too pure for your high arguments of teleology.

You made an argument against teleology, or at least part of one.  I may have misinterpreted what you meant to say, but I'm not saying arguments from teleology are "good," and my interpretation of your counter-argument was "bad."  In fact, from a scientific standpoint, quite the opposite.

Why are you here?