Speaking in 'tongues'

[Hope]

Schizophrenic is the wrong word.

Why?  What makes 'doublethink' more suitable?

That one's worth remembering, isn't it?

I agree, which is why I stated it.

[Hope]

You seem to be, to put it mildly, singularly misinformed in these matters. What leads you to believe that there isn't a common consensus on these things in the scientific community?

Discussions with scientists from a variety of fields - geologists, medical scientists and related fields, physicists, chemists - several of whom I see and talk to on a regular basis at church.

[Shaker]

I can only assume you must mix with an unrepresentative not to say downright bizarre subsection of scientists, then.

A suspicion further bolstered by the fact that you talk to them at church.

[Shaker]

Why?

Schizophrenic, like theory in science, has a very precise and specific meaning within psychiatry; like theory it has escaped into the wild and become bastardised by non-specialists who use it in a way completely at odds with its actual definition. Like people who insist on using phrases such as begging the question in their proper sense and not the mangled version so prevalent in everyday speech maybe it's too late by now to try to drag people back to the proper meanings of words and phrases, but I'd sooner stick with correct usage.

What makes 'doublethink' more suitable?

It's a vastly more accurate way of describing the ability of some people to hold at least two incompatible and mutually contradictory ideas or worldviews in their heads simultaneously without the intellectual and emotional discomfort of its step-brother, cognitive dissonance.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to add to Shaker's point here about the use of schizophrenic, it's 'in the wild' use is also to my mind quite offensive to those who are genuinely in the proper sense schizophrenic.

[Shaker]

I don't think it's deliberate offence, but I can see that to use the word to mean 'split-minded; contradictory; in two minds' of such an horrific condition which causes such untold misery and agony to sufferers and loved ones alike is unhelpful at best.

[Hope]

What makes 'doublethink' more suitable?

It's a vastly more accurate way of describing the ability of some people to hold at least two incompatible and mutually contradictory ideas or worldviews in their heads simultaneously without the intellectual and emotional discomfort of its step-brother, cognitive dissonance.

Assuming, of course, that these two disparate views are actually incompatible and mutually contradictory.  There are, of course, many who don't believe that they are, including some scientists.

That is why I disputred the term 'doublethink'.

[Anchorman]

The existence of the HS for a start!

Why is his existence nonsensical?

Because it doesn't make any sense at all, especially as people who claim to be 'spirit filled' often behave like complete idiots, in my experience!

-

But your experience seems somewhat blinkered and limited.

[Hope]

Because it doesn't make any sense at all, especially as people who claim to be 'spirit filled' often behave like complete idiots, in my experience!

But none of that is pertinent to the question "Why is the existence of the HS nonsensical?'.

I could equally suggest that, because you behave so idiotically in some of your critique of religion, and are a-theistic, than all a-theistic people are nonsensical.

[Nearly Sane]

Existence is time and physically based concept.

According to what?  Scientific naturalism?     Isn't that rather a circular argument?

No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.

[Hope]

No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.

In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions.  In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.

[Nearly Sane]

No, according to how we use the term - exitence presupposes this, it's shaped by it. If you want to posit a concept of existence that does not have a time part of it feel free to do so.

In case you hadn't noticed, one has been posited on a number of occasions.  In order to have created the universe and all that is within it - including time - God must have been just what you have asked for.

So I can posit a four sided triangle and that will make sense? If it doesn't then the same issue applies to existence without a concept of time.

[Nearly Sane]

And if God 'must have been' - you are also using time based concepts - and again making as much sense as four sided triangle

[ippy]

Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.

I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.

Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.

It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.

There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.

You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum, I feel certain they're not your own views, they are the views that you've let yourself be dictated to by your bronze age manual; what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow.

Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.

The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, (if you do decide to have a look at the figures you'll be seeing them for yourself, not via myself and when you do see how much religious belief falls off in relation to the levels of education, have a good think, why are you so hook line and sinker where you are).   

ippy
 

[Shaker]

Assuming, of course, that these two disparate views are actually incompatible and mutually contradictory.

They are. You don't have to, in fact shouldn't assume it; you just have to understand them to know why this is so.

There are, of course, many who don't believe that they are, including some scientists.

That is why I disputred the term 'doublethink'.

Doubtless you could find somebody who would dispute anything at all, but it doesn't mean that their view has any credibility or needs to be given credence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.

I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.

Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.

It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.
 

No it isn't it's thick and ignorant.

Not only does it make people who claim it look thick and stupid, but those who don't challenge it as well.

[ippy]

Just to add to Shaker's point here about the use of schizophrenic, it's 'in the wild' use is also to my mind quite offensive to those who are genuinely in the proper sense schizophrenic.

This kind of misuse of words is quite common, like using the word brainwashing when indoctrination is plainly meant.(Actual brainwashing is no longer used, because it doesn't work, torture is a necessary part of the brainwashing process and it's against the law).

I just knew you'd all be unusually interested in this little snipit.

ippy   

[Hope]

It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.

And I have often challenged the belief, ippy, without any sensible response from the nlikes of yourself.

There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.

Again, the 'dichotomy' is between two ideas that don't very often deal with the same aspects of life.  I know that some like to try to get them to do so, but that is a minority.

You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum,

I'd agree that I have made some pretty tough comments about homosexuality, into which people like you have read some 'terrible things about, gay people'.  That's your prerogative.  As for "what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow"; they'd be the same sinvce the majority of my views have nothing to do with your so-called 'bronze-age manual'.  'So-called' because the New Testament records events dating from some 1200 years after the Bronze Age came to an end in the Near East, and 600-odd after it came to an end in Europe.

Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.

The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, ...

ippy, in whiuch sense are the people 'more educated'?  Does it refer to the number of people who have qualifications in scientific disciplines, or does it refer to people who have a better understanding and practise of human relationships?  Clearly, with the number of people determined to drive a wedge between religion and science on the scientific side, the former will inevitably indicate that the number of religious people is falling.  If you use the latter explanation, you may well not get the same correlation.

[Hope]

Assuming, of course, that these two disparate views are actually incompatible and mutually contradictory.

They are. You don't have to, in fact shouldn't assume it; you just have to understand them to know why this is so.

In that case, why do many well-educated peple believe that they aren't, some even writing books about why they aren't?  Or are you saying that you know better than someone like Denis Alexander - a neuroscientist who believes passionately in both the biblical doctrine of creation and the coherence of evolutionary theory.

Doubtless you could find somebody who would dispute anything at all, but it doesn't mean that their view has any credibility or needs to be given credence.

Which is probably why I don't believe that your 'view has any credibility or needs to be given credence'.  As we've seen before, comments that both of us have made about each other's positions can equally be applied to their authors.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.

I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.

Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.

It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.

There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.

You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum, I feel certain they're not your own views, they are the views that you've let yourself be dictated to by your bronze age manual; what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow.

Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.

The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, (if you do decide to have a look at the figures you'll be seeing them for yourself, not via myself and when you do see how much religious belief falls off in relation to the levels of education, have a good think, why are you so hook line and sinker where you are).   

ippy
 

How many of these atheist scientists believe you have to be an atheist to be a scientist?

Firstly there is that group of scientist/autist so brilliantly observed in the Big Bang theory.

Secondly there is a class of scientist who has slipped into thinking that what they do and how they do it is the way the world is and how life should be done...Brilliant scientists but probably shit at everything else.

But then there are scientists who recognise there atheism for what it is......an opinion.

The days of Yuri Gagarin going into space and reinforcing the state message that because he didn't see God in space, there wasn't a God are over but obviously there are a few proletariat still willing to drink in what certain scientists feed them.

For those I would recommend Bibledex on Youtube produced by the University of Nottingham.

[Shaker]

In that case, why do many well-educated peple believe that they aren't, some even writing books about why they aren't?

For the same reason that people who aren't well-educated entertain religious beliefs; because these beliefs bypass the rational, critical faculties and go straight to the emotions, providing the sort of grand narratives - about the meaning and purpose of human life (never, you'll notice, about the lives of dung beetles and termites); about an assumed objective and absolute grounding for moral values; about the ultimate destiny of the human individual - that science doesn't provide because there's absolutely no warrant for such beliefs whatever.

The locus classicus for this kind of venture is Francis Collins's The Language of God. It's clear that Collins is in his field a very, very, very smart man indeed. You don't get to be the leader of the Human Genome Project by being a dummy - or, for that matter, just an ordinary, run of the mill scientist. But I found it impossible to read that book without coming to the conclusion that however brilliant he may be as a geneticist, there's just something about religious beliefs and the 'rationale' that people give for holding them that as soon as it comes to these beliefs, otherwise highly intelligent people turn off their brains and accept as true the most witless twaddle for appallingly sloppy reasons. The 'reasoning' that Collins gives for holding the Christian beliefs that he does is lamentable. It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense.

Or are you saying that you know better than someone like Denis Alexander - a neuroscientist who believes passionately in both the biblical doctrine of creation and the coherence of evolutionary theory.

From what I know of Alexander's, for want of a better word, thinking on the issue, yes. And it's not difficult, either, for the same reasons as with Collins.

[Leonard James]

But I found it impossible to read that book without coming to the conclusion that however brilliant he may be as a geneticist, there's just something about religious beliefs and the 'rationale' that people give for holding them that as soon as it comes to these beliefs, otherwise highly intelligent people turn off their brains and accept as true the most witless twaddle for appallingly sloppy reasons. The 'reasoning' that Collins gives for holding the Christian beliefs that he does is lamentable. It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense.

I haven't read the book, but my claim about religious beliefs has always been just what you say.

It matters not one jot how intelligent a person is, if his/her need to find an answer for everything is there, they will find a god.

They simply will not accept that we don't know.

[ippy]

It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.

And I have often challenged the belief, ippy, without any sensible response from the nlikes of yourself.

There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.

Again, the 'dichotomy' is between two ideas that don't very often deal with the same aspects of life.  I know that some like to try to get them to do so, but that is a minority.

You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum,

I'd agree that I have made some pretty tough comments about homosexuality, into which people like you have read some 'terrible things about, gay people'.  That's your prerogative.  As for "what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow"; they'd be the same sinvce the majority of my views have nothing to do with your so-called 'bronze-age manual'.  'So-called' because the New Testament records events dating from some 1200 years after the Bronze Age came to an end in the Near East, and 600-odd after it came to an end in Europe.

Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.

The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, ...

ippy, in whiuch sense are the people 'more educated'?  Does it refer to the number of people who have qualifications in scientific disciplines, or does it refer to people who have a better understanding and practise of human relationships?  Clearly, with the number of people determined to drive a wedge between religion and science on the scientific side, the former will inevitably indicate that the number of religious people is falling.  If you use the latter explanation, you may well not get the same correlation.

Like I said it's not a belief that a christian or holder of any other belief has to be split, on the one hand there are religious beliefs as opposed to clear analytical thought without the handicap of superstitious clutter.

 Reasoned logic is just that; what other way is there to reason other than using reason and logic?

Your manual started off in the bronze age and obviously things didn't move on much between whenever it is you would like to date additions to that book where more magic, myth and more pursuance of superstition was added, since it's no longer relevant, other than it is a part of our common history; why is there any need for that lot where science is concerned? 

Just put in Win/Gallup Atheism poll, it soon comes up then you can look at the figures for yourself without anything from my direction, please feel free to make up your own mind about the figures they are presenting.

Psychology used to be a B A degree or something like that it now comes as a BSC a science degree that being so where is there any need for religion in any of the science based reasonings if we did need religion there surly there must be a place for Tarot and other things like Astrology too.

The way I see it is that there is no wedge as you call it between science and religion, science can do all of the reasoning they can manage to do without a need for superstitions of any kind, call them what you like religions superstitions, unexplained magic tricks etc, in fact science is more likely to prove or disprove these things more than anything else is likely to.

ippy

[ippy]

Where we disagree with Ippy is not what science establishes but his peculiar belief that that means God is somehow disproved by the findings of science.

I think that the problem is that folk like ippy believe that there is a dichotomy between science and faith that is unbridgeable, meaning of course that all those scientists who have a faith are schizophrenic.

Of course, they are entitled to hold such a belief, but as they are so keen to point on this board, belief in something doesn't guarantee that it is correct.

It's not a belief that there is a need to be schizophrenic if you're a scientist and at the same time be a religious believer, it's just a sensible/reasonable conclusion that of course can be challenged any time.

There is no dichotomy, science is based on logic/reason, any kind of religion you might like to name isn't.

You've said some terrible things about, gay people on this forum, I feel certain they're not your own views, they are the views that you've let yourself be dictated to by your bronze age manual; what are your own views if you had the strength of character to disregard that so obviously man made bronze age manual you so sheepishly follow.

Have a look at that Win/Gallup Atheism poll figures on how many scientists are believers the figures tell all.

The more educated people are bears a direct relation to the falling away of primitive beliefs like your religious belief, (if you do decide to have a look at the figures you'll be seeing them for yourself, not via myself and when you do see how much religious belief falls off in relation to the levels of education, have a good think, why are you so hook line and sinker where you are).   

ippy
 

How many of these atheist scientists believe you have to be an atheist to be a scientist?

Firstly there is that group of scientist/autist so brilliantly observed in the Big Bang theory.

Secondly there is a class of scientist who has slipped into thinking that what they do and how they do it is the way the world is and how life should be done...Brilliant scientists but probably shit at everything else.

But then there are scientists who recognise there atheism for what it is......an opinion.

The days of Yuri Gagarin going into space and reinforcing the state message that because he didn't see God in space, there wasn't a God are over but obviously there are a few proletariat still willing to drink in what certain scientists feed them.

For those I would recommend Bibledex on Youtube produced by the University of Nottingham.

All I can tell you Big W is that If you go for, "Win/Gallup Atheism poll", on google, you can look at the figures for yourself, I found the poll came up with ease on google, with as above, in no time.

ippy     

[Hope]

For the same reason that people who aren't well-educated entertain religious beliefs; because these beliefs bypass the rational, critical faculties and go straight to the emotions, providing the sort of grand narratives - about the meaning and purpose of human life (never, you'll notice, about the lives of dung beetles and termites); about an assumed objective and absolute grounding for moral values; about the ultimate destiny of the human individual - that science doesn't provide because there's absolutely no warrant for such beliefs whatever.

So, you are saying that said educated people aren't able to use their educational skills to discriminate between that hich is real and that which is not?  Is there any reason why this same argument cannot be applied to those educated people who claim that they can discriminate between that hich is real and that which is not? 

But I found it impossible to read that book without coming to the conclusion that however brilliant he may be as a geneticist, there's just something about religious beliefs and the 'rationale' that people give for holding them that as soon as it comes to these beliefs, otherwise highly intelligent people turn off their brains and accept as true the most witless twaddle for appallingly sloppy reasons.

OK, you're entitled to those opinions.

The 'reasoning' that Collins gives for holding the Christian beliefs that he does is lamentable. It's a truly sad, pathetic and rather risible spectacle to see what is obviously a stellar intellect prostituted in such a way over such abject nonsense.

But other than your own opinion as expressed here, do you actually have any solid evidence that the 'reasoning' isn't valid?

From what I know of Alexander's, for want of a better word, thinking on the issue, yes. And it's not difficult, either, for the same reasons as with Collins.

So, again, you have your own opinion, but no solid evidence.