The Achievements

[Tarski]

I have a book that I bought in a library sale for nostalgias sake since it reminded my of the books I used to find collecting dust in old barns and other weird places growing up.

I loved science books when I was a little boy.

This book is still rock solid in construction and binding. The cover is so solid and serious, the pages smell like musty knowledge. It is from 1942 and it is a physics text book of about 500 pages (Introduction to Physics by H. Howe").

I decided to read it and one of the things that stood out was this;

99% of what is in that book is still considered to be true in its regime and is still taught in college! (and most of it was known clear back in the 1700s)

Now since it is physics, it uses equations and terse sentences. It amazes me how much knowledge is packed into that book. No fluff. The work of many ingenious people of the past.

And yet it is only about as long as the New Testament (which seems to me to be repetitious).

So thatâ??s a lot of hard won knowledge in that little book.

But wait!

Itâ??s only an undergraduate book on basic college physics for physics majors! It only scratches the surface of a vast body of knowledge.

If we were to add the knowledge found in the textbooks used in all the classes for a physics graduat student we would still have only scratched the surface and yet it would take well over 10,000 or 15,000 pages.

But wait! Itâ??s only one subject. It could have been a chemistry book or a math book or a book on human anatomy.

So letâ??s call this kind of knowledge that is still considered to be true in its regime and is still taught in college core scientific knowledge.

How much is there of this core scientific knowledge if we donâ??t waste words?

Well, I can't even imagine. Just the needed math and physics books alone would take up a whole floor of a college library. Iâ??m talking about the stuff that will still be considered true in itâ??s regime 50 years from now (like Newtonian physics) and perhaps forever.

Now this isnâ??t the knowledge of one organization or one sect of scientists. It is the science taught in all major universities and is accepted in the strong but theoretically tentative way that makes up our best science.

Now letâ??s compare revelatory, specifically religious, knowledge that has been brought to us by religious visionaries and priests etc. and is agreed upon by all religions to the same extent as science.

What books contain this knowledge? How much is there?

I see on the one hand, for science, a giant building. But it isnâ??t really a spacious building because it is filled with books like this gem I am holding.

On the other hand, I see a small pile of books such as the New Testament and the Koran. Of course, there are tons of books that elaborate and argue interminably about the content of this little pile of ambiguous religious books but that seem to contain no new revelatory core knowledge (Indeed, we are often told that all we need is in this one book!). These are repetitious and muddled books that disagree with each other even more than the books in the politics section of your bookstore.

Yes, the scientific method has given us a great big mountain of real knowledge about the universe and there is much more to come. We really do know much more than they did in the 15th century.

So maybe I am wrong. Where is the mountain of real knowledge that religion gives us and who really thinks religions agree like core science? (Please don't bother pointing out that scientists disagree about some cutting edge stuff. Thats not the point. I am talking about that imagined library of core stuff that they do largely agree on to the extent that they keep putting it in the university science book without anyone claiming its wrong.

What are the agreed upon religious truths?

Does it ever amount to being to more than being told to be nice and follow this list of restrictions and rituals?

Oh wait they don't even agree on the rituals.

I think the being nice part we figured out on our own.

If you have gotten the sense that I am tired of the old "science is just another religion" nonsense and that I am tired of the polemic exaggeration of the disagreements in science then you are right. Science is a success!

[Confidential Informant]

If you have gotten the sense that I am tired of the old "science is just another religion" nonsense and that I am tired of the polemic exaggeration of the disagreements in science then you are right. Science is a success!

And yet, for all your condenscening "rightness", your science still has no power to change people's lives. It cannot convince a drunk to stop drinking and regain his life. It cannot convince the adulterer to come to his wife. It cannot convince the abuser to turn his life around. It cannot cause people to strive to be better, to treat each other with kindness and respect.

In the end, all your facts are simply trivia, with no real power at all.

C.I.

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm sure that believers like Owen Gingerich, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Allen Sandage, Francis Collins, Charles Townes, Alister McGrath, and many, many others also recognize the success of Western science.

But they apparently don't recognize how this discredits religion. Silly fools.

[Uncle Dale]

...

Now letâ??s compare revelatory, specifically religious, knowledge that has been brought to

us by religious visionaries and priests etc. and is agreed upon by all religions to the

same extent as science.

What books contain this knowledge? How much is there?

...

According to Gautama Siddhartha, none of that stuff is relevant -- and nothing useful can be

expressed in human words concerning religion or metaphysics.

A great deal might be usefully written and published upon the subject of our taking proper

care of one another, however --- or upon justice --- or upon love --- or upon poetry.

What dreadful limitations on the human experience would we have to set, in order to confine

all poetry to a single slender book?

Uncle "Yes, we've had this discussion before and you don't much like Buddhist atheism -- sorry" Dale

[Tarski]

And yet, for all your condenscening "rightness", your science still has no power to change people's lives. It cannot convince a drunk to stop drinking and regain his life. It cannot convince the adulterer to come to his wife. It cannot convince the abuser to turn his life around. It cannot cause people to strive to be better, to treat each other with kindness and respect.

Yes and people do that just fine. Religion fails daily to convince addicts to quit. Religion may also help but apparenly it works just as well with the "false" religions like Islam and Buddhism. Placebos work wonders too.

Brains science might help understanding addiction too dontcha think?. (BTW, I have a son who is an addict--he was an addict while being religious--go figure)

In the end, all your facts are simply trivia, with no real power at all.

Trivia? Tell that to the sick little girl getting an MRI (That Magnetic Resonance Imagining--uses quantum mechanics).

"science is trivia"...sad.

[e=mc2]

Tarski my man,...... have you never read the scripture that says they will be ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth? THAT is why there are SO MANY science books.......

[Tarski]

According to Gautama Siddhartha, none of that stuff is relevant -- and nothing useful can be

expressed in human words concerning religion or metaphysics.

What dreadful limitations on the human experience would we have to set, in order to confine

all poetry to a single slender book?

Uncle "Yes, we've had this discussion before and you don't much like Buddhist atheism -- sorry" Dale

Actually, I might be considered a Buddhist atheist in some ways.

As for your quote above about all of this stuff being useless well, I disagree. I am not bound by a such a dogma. I guess it quotes like that that are the reason we are told to kill the Buddha if we see him on the street. I'm pointing my mental sword at that quote!

A great deal might be usefully written and published upon the subject of our taking proper

care of one another, however --- or upon justice --- or upon love --- or upon poetry.

I don't think I said anything to contradict that did I?

You would like to take religion to be metaphorical poetry but take a look around. That's not what I am talking about. I am talk about straightforward truth claims and knowledge. Or maybe you don't believe in good old objective truth?

I am also not claiming that science is the only thing or even the main thing that we need. It isn't.

That wasn't the point!

Tarski my man,...... have you never read the scripture that says they will be ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth? THAT is why there are SO MANY science books.......

So you suppose those books do not contain truth? Come on. We are ever learning and we are gaining knowledge.

[Tarski]

I'm sure that believers like Owen Gingerich, John Polkinghorne, Arthur Peacocke, Allen Sandage, Francis Collins, Charles Townes, Alister McGrath, and many, many others also recognize the success of Western science.

But they apparently don't recognize how this discredits religion. Silly fools.

By itself it doesn't. That wasn't the point. The point is to make a comparison of relative success rates on aquiring knowledge.

BTW, name dropping? What religion do those guys espouse? Could you also list some Shintoists or some Hindus?

What is the package to be considered? What is religion selling? Indeede which religion? It looks like a radically splintered project to me.

I am a better friend of Mormonism than is Evangelicalism ( or a dozen other dogmatic religions). Haven't you heard? You worship the wrong Jesus.

[e=mc2]

Is knowledge final though? They gained knowledge in oh say Charlamange's day, but would we possibly be interested in using it today in our doctor operations in hospitals? Knowledge is different than truth.

And I ***DO*** enjoy a lot of those books for their knowledge....... but science is tentative, haven't you heard?

[Tarski]

Tarski my man,...... have you never read the scripture that says they will be ever learning, yet never able to come to the knowledge of the truth? THAT is why there are SO MANY science books.......

So you suppose those books do not contain truth? Come on. We are ever learning and we are gaining knowledge. You would be more impressed with just a couple of books? Jee, then would we have medicine, engineering, astronomy, etc.? Those books aren't full of poppycock, fantasies or political opinions.

Is knowledge final though? They gained knowledge in oh say Charlamange's day, but would we possibly be interested in using it today in our doctor operations in hospitals? Knowledge is different than truth.

And I ***DO*** enjoy a lot of those books for their knowledge....... but science is tentative, haven't you heard?

Yes and that ruins my point how? We will never know it all and it will never be final (thank goodness!)

At least the actual knowledge is piling up an in a clear way that doesn't produce a thousand opposing sects. Religion on the other hand,....

[e=mc2]

Medicine not full of poppycock? Pray tell where have you been there young man?! We are ALL guinea pigs to all those damnadable pills they keep inventing to prevent something or other, without their ever having tell us what else those "medicine" pills are destroying, our livers, kidneys, gall bladders, lungs, brains, eyeballs, jaws, etc.

[e=mc2]

Besides Tarsk...... buddy ole pal, remember the Brigham Young quote that ALL truth, no matter where it comes from, belongs to the Gospel, whether its science, mythology, religion, math, you name it, it's part of the Gospel of God, and Mormonism is interested in it, as a restoration of ALL THINGS. It isn't an opposing factional set of ideas set out against another set. The superset includes all other sets of knowledge.

[Tarski]

Medicine not full of poppycock? Pray tell where have you been there young man?! We are ALL guinea pigs to all those damnadable pills they keep inventing to prevent something or other, without their ever having tell us what else those "medicine" pills are destroying, our livers, kidneys, gall bladders, lungs, brains, eyeballs, jaws, etc.

Oh oh. What are you goning to do when you need surgery or a get a big fat life threatening infection? Pray and wait?

By the way. What about vitamins? and the germ theory of disease?

[e=mc2]

I'm going to be practical like Brigham Young taught, and go with where we know the best, and try my best with the limited amount of knowledge I have. There is a practical side of things in Mormonism too, DUH! In other words, when I need a doctor, I go to one. This ain't rocket science.......

[Tarski]

Besides Tark...... buddy ole pal, remember the Brigham Young quote that ALL truth, no matter where it comes from, belongs to the Gospel,

Neat rick. I guess he can claim anything he wants to be a part of the gospel including fancy trousers.

But science does not belong to a religion and just declaring that all the truth those scientists dig up is just more proof of my religion or is just declared included in my religion "by definition" is a bit useless.

I Tarski declare that all truth no mattaer the source is part of the good news of our master Dawkins (sounds a bit silly right?)

[asbestosman]

The point is to make a comparison of relative success rates on aquiring knowledge.

I think the comaprison is apples and oranges. Religion, specifically the restored gospel, is very good at teaching us the essentials for salvation. Furthermore an increase in such knowledge seems to be predicated more upon mankind's willingness to properly apply that which they have already received. No such restrictions for science. Even if we completely disregarded the implications of General Relativity we could still learn much in molecular biology.

Now I grant that religions disagree more than scientists about what our core religious knowledge is. So what? It seems to be the nature of religion what with faith and all (something which I really have a hard time seeing the need for).

Also as an aside, I think we actually could have more religious knowledge than scientific knowledge. At the very end of the Gospel of John:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

[e=mc2]

Tarski:

But science does not belong to a religion and just declaring that all the truth those scientists dig up is just more proof of my religion or is just declared included in my religion "by definition" is a bit useless.

Nope, it all depends on what point of view one upholds......

I Tarski declare that all truth no mattaer the source is part of the good news of our master Dawkins (sounds a bit silly right?)

A bit silly? No, absolutely stupidly silly. Dawkins is arguing like a whining baby.

[asbestosman]

I guess he can claim anything he wants to be a part of the gospel including fancy trousers.

All right Mr. smarty pants.

But science does not belong to a religion

Oh yeah? Well what about "Scientology" and "Christian Science" hmm?

and just declaring that all the truth those scientists dig up is just more proof of my religion or is just declared included in my religion "by definition" is a bit useless.

Not if, if I understand the context, it's that we have no need to fear science or other knowledge. Indeed, I think many truths worthwhile even if they aren't likely to be taught in the scriptures and sunday school. I'm pretty sure that's what the point was in context.

I Tarski declare that all truth no mattaer the source is part of the good news of our master Dawkins (sounds a bit silly right?)

Especially considering the things Dawkins says which seem neither to be good news nor truth.

[Uncle Dale]

You would like to take religion to be metaphorical poetry but take a look around.

That's not what I am talking about. I am talk about straightforward truth claims

and knowledge. Or maybe you don't believe in good old objective truth?

...

Metaphysics is its own truth and is never objective -- therefore, I think that Science won its

battle with Religion back in the days of the Greeks (who, I think, had some dim comprehension

of metaphysics being something non-objective).

Platonic Ideals are metaphysical, but they cannot be relied upon as supplying our race with

"good old objective truth." They belong to a different realm of human experience altogether.

Do most religionists understand this? Sadly, no -- and to them you might try convey a message

of some value. Those people who still think that the Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah's

Flood could use a goodly dose of your message, I suppose. But they will not listen. You know that.

So, if the battle has already been won -- and the Noah's Flood-believers are not going to

much listen to you anyway, then who is there to hear?

Religion was not something that a long-forgotten theocratic emperor inflicted upon the human

race -- it is not an external influence -- it cannot be separated out of the human experience,

like removing a tumor from the brain or spinach from our dinner plate. In large part, religion has

brought us to where we stand today, like it or not.

We cannot invent a time machine and travel back to Thermopylae, and inform the 300 Spartans

in the pass, that they might as well run, every man for himself, because their religion is phoney

and the Oracles speak with words of men. Rather, entire civilizations fought and triumphed, in

part, because their religion held them togther and gave them a greater purpose than survival of

the physically fittest.

So, at least I am one voice here, to admit you are right and that your point is valid ----

Uncle "and to say that you have once again missed the entire point, as well" Dale

[Tarski]

Religion, specifically the restored gospel, is very good at teaching us the essentials for salvation.

Think about just how much you need the "specifically the restored gospel" for this to make sense.

How about this: "Religion, specifically Scientology, is very good at teaching us the essentials for salvation".

My point is that there just isn't a religious body of knowledge that can be agreed upon.

While there isn't perfect agreement in science, the stuff we do generally agree on could fill libraries.

By the way, given that being good to each other and being fair and harmless is wisdom that even atheists and Buddhists understand, what is there left? Ordinances?

Do you really think that all of these rituals are the kind of thing that actually makes a difference to the supreme being? Isn't that at least a little bit implausible? How does actually being immersed help anything (as opposed to sprinkling?)

[e=mc2]

Tarski:

How does actually being immersed help anything (as opposed to sprinkling?)

It doesn't. For heavens sakes man, DON'T DO IT! It'll ruin yer sense-a- modality of realism. DOUBt everything (except yer own religion of science).......

[Tarski]

Metaphysics is its own truth and is never objective -- therefore, I think that Science won its

battle with Religion back in the days of the Greeks (who, I think, had some dim comprehension

of metaphysics being something non-objective).

Platonic Ideals are metaphysical, but they cannot be relied upon as supplying our race with

"good old objective truth." They belong to a different realm of human experience altogether.

Do most religionists understand this? Sadly, no -- and to them you might try convey a message

of some value. Those people who still think that the Grand Canyon was carved out by Noah's

Flood could use a goodly dose of your message, I suppose. But they will not listen. You know that.

So, if the battle has already been won -- and the Noah's Flood-believers are not going to

much listen to you anyway, then who is there to hear?

Religion was not something that a long-forgotten theocratic emperor inflicted upon the human

race -- it is not an external influence -- it cannot be separated out of the human experience,

like removing a tumor from the brain or spinach from our dinner plate. In large part, religion has

brought us to where we stand today, like it or not.

We cannot invent a time machine and travel back to Thermopylae, and inform the 300 Spartans

in the pass, that they might as well run, every man for himself, because their religion is phoney

and the Oracles speak with words of men. Rather, entire civilizations fought and triumphed, in

part, because their religion held them togther and gave them a greater purpose than survival of

the physically fittest.

So, at least I am one voice here, to admit you are right and that your point is valid ----

Uncle "and to say that you have once again missed the entire point, as well" Dale

It seems like what you are into is spirituality more than religion. You like to gleen impressions, metaphors, and ideas from various traditions but its never quite the religion itself with you (it seems). That's good but then it isn't what i am barking at.

[asbestosman]

Do you really think that all of these rituals are the kind of thing that actually makes a difference to the supreme being? Isn't that at least a little bit implausible? How does actually being immersed help anything (as opposed to sprinkling?)

That sort of question is one I pose in the thread I recently started. I do wonder why baptism couldn't be superseeded by another ordinance just as burnt offerings was superseeded by the sacrament. However, I also think that the covenants made with the ordinances as well as the symbols make fairly good sense. Baptism symbolises death and burial of our sinful nature and resurrection with Christ. We covenant to forsake our sins. This makes a lot of sense to me although the precise method we impress them upon ourselves, namely baptism, doesn't seem nearly as vital to me so long as it is impressed upon us in some standard way.

[Tarski]

, DON'T DO IT! It'll ruin yer sense-a- modality of realism. DOUBt everything (except yer own religion of science).......

Huh?

Doubting science and testing it is part of science. I'm cool with that. That's why it isn't a religion. I can doubt it at any ime, redo the test or argue about their approriateness any time and be guilt free.

Which part of this essay specifically would you disagree with? Here

I know you must disagree since it is Dennett. But which part?

[Tarski]

We covenant to forsake our sins.

Why not just forsake your sins simpliciter?