So, I seem to have had an epiphany last night. 9 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 4 years ago

It's a wonder I remember it at all, because it was literally (with the proper use of the word) minutes before I fell asleep. Anyway, people seem to be creating conflict where there should be none. Religious people fight scientists and some scientists fight religious people. I realized, doesn't science explain the effects of something while religion tries to explain the cause? Such as, how organisms evolve vs why organisms evolve? So, this whole conflict is pointless and people waste their lives fighting one another over things that don't really overlap. And then I fell asleep. Good morning, everyone!




Biiviz

Eggs!

50 XP

29th February 2004

0 Uploads

3,168 Posts

0 Threads

#2 4 years ago

Morning? I'm already on my second GT, m8

wOc7K0t.jpg




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,336 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#3 4 years ago

Previously (some) religion explained the cause of man by divine mandate, then evolution was discovered. Now (some) religion explains the cause of evolution by divine mandate.

It's a pattern. The effect of one thing is the cause of some other thing, preventing neat run around solutions like the one you suggest.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#4 4 years ago

But it is much more efficient, why can't everyone just accept that evolution does happen and just leave the cause of it happening open to everyone's interpretation? It happens regardless of why, so there's no need to fight "how vs why" but "why vs why" instead. If you need to fight at all.




Schofield VIP Member

om :A

319,554 XP

24th October 2007

1 Uploads

30,539 Posts

0 Threads

#5 4 years ago
Uchuujin;5742984But it is much more efficient, why can't everyone just accept that evolution does happen and just leave the cause of it happening open to everyone's interpretation?

Almost everyone does accept evolution and do leave its cause open to their own interpretation. There are very, very few people who still do not accept evolution. Even some of the most far-right people out there accept evolution.

In the end, it doesn't matter. People who debate against the religious side might actually be more stupid, because it's not a debate you can win. Time would be better spent in actually doing something productive then having a shouting match for publicity - or whatever the fuck that thing was that Bill Nye and Ken Ham did - because it sure as hell wasn't a debate.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,336 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#6 4 years ago

Uchuujin;5742984But it is much more efficient, why can't everyone just accept that evolution does happen and just leave the cause of it happening open to everyone's interpretation? It happens regardless of why, so there's no need to fight "how vs why" but "why vs why" instead. If you need to fight at all.

What happens when people look into what caused evolution though? There are some ideas out there about that, which are far from silly, and some evidence of them. If we're just going to let people assert whatever they like for evolution, why choose that as the point at which people can assert whatever they like?

You can ask the same question of anything, and it would be just as sound a move:

"Why doesn't that bridge fall down? It doesn't regardless of the why, so there's no need to fight."

For most people that will be true, and won't make any difference to how they function in life. In that much it's more efficient. you can live in a world where all is magic, or at least where you acknowledge you just don't have much to go on - and most of us do with respect to most issues.

But to the engineers who make bridges it's going to matter, to the managers and funders who fund the engineers it's going to matter. And the real kicker is you don't know who's going to become any of those things ahead of time. So, you can't just teach those people that the truth should have a certain authority. It has to be a theme in society, a part of the culture that everyone gets at least a glimpse of, (and, IMO, not enough get enough of one.)

That results in some arguments that might in the short term be more efficient to avoid. But I think it's closer to collateral damage than anything else....




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#7 4 years ago

Well, I don't mean arguments, I mean outright fights. Involving physical and/or psychological damage. Such as two people in a family fighting about it and it breaking the family apart.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,336 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,145 Posts

5 Threads

#8 4 years ago

Well, that's got more to do with arseholes than religion v science I think. Some people just can't disagree in a civil manner ¬_¬




Andron Taps Forum Mod

Faktrl is Best Pony

261,496 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,740 Posts

1,754 Threads

#9 4 years ago

The thing with epiphanies: they're generally localized to a few people at a time :p


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#10 4 years ago

And they almost always happen either in the bathroom or a little before you fall asleep. So you usually forget about them by morning. I almost forgot about this one.