The Narnia Code (1 Viewer)

[Alc]

Give him a ring and ask him to account for the popularity of religion then.

The declining popularity? I think that's accounted for nicely.

Or is the suggestion that people today are more willing to accept God as being behind events like eclipses, floods, than they were in the distant past?

 

[Rabbie]

Give him a ring and ask him to account for the popularity of religion then.

Peolple like comfort blankets!

 

[Rabbie]

So he was saying that quantum physics and the like is flying in the face of evolution? That's to say that by asking too many questions we could be doing ourselves harm?

No I wasn't. Don't distort what people say. It is a dishonest debating technique and not worthy of you.

What I was saying that most of us don't understand quantum physics simply because it is too complex for people without the necessary background. To take an example nearer home I find when explaining a database to people I have to give a simpler explanation of what it is doing than I would to some-one who was more Access aware.

 

[dan-cat]

No I wasn't. Don't distort what people say. It is a dishonest debating technique and not worthy of you.

Your Alc's psychology lecturer?

 

[dan-cat]

The declining popularity? I think that's accounted for nicely.

I think the historic popularity of religion challenges the idea that humans don't inherently ask why significantly, don't you?

Indeed, religion has attempted to answer the question 'why?' posed by billions in times gone by.

 

[Rabbie]

Your Alc's psychology lecturer?

I don't know. I don't condemn people on hearsay evidence. Neither do I distort what they say.

 

[dan-cat]

I don't know. I don't condemn people on hearsay evidence. Neither do I distort what they say.

I think you need to re-read some posts and clarify for yourself to whom I was referring.

 

[Rabbie]

I think the historic popularity of religion challenges the idea that humans don't inherently ask why significantly, don't you?

Indeed, religion has attempted to answer the question 'why?' posed by billions in times gone by.

Pity it has never come up wth a consistent answer then!. Just about as many answers as there are religions.

It is also amazing how hard some religions have worked to prevent their followers from asking awkward questions about both the how and why. look how the church persecuted Galileo

 

[Rabbie]

I think you need to re-read some posts and clarify for yourself to whom I was referring.

Point taken. However you were still distorting what Alc's Lecturer had said so my comments remain valid.

 

[dan-cat]

Pity it has never come up wth a consistent answer then!. Just about as many answers as there are religions.

I'm not attempting to validate religion. I'm simply disagreeing with Alc and his lecturer's position that humans don't inherently ask why. The popularity of religion in times gone by indicates the asking of why is indeed extremely common.

 

[dan-cat]

Point taken. However you were still distorting what Alc's Lecturer had said so my comments remain valid.

I really wasn't. My response was in question format because I wasn't sure of his point and wanted to clarify. I made no statement at all just an enquiry.

Now that the point has been clarified, I'm addressing it.

 

[Rabbie]

I really wasn't. My response was in question format because I wasn't sure of his point and wanted to clarify. I made no statement at all just an enquiry.

Now that the point has been clarified, I'm addressing it.

Glad to hear it. I felt that Alc's lecturer was actually saying it wasn't necessary to understand the science behind an action before you can use it. Similary you don't need to understand ballistics to be able to throw and catch a ball.

 

[Mike375]

Similary you don't need to understand ballistics to be able to throw and catch a ball.

But if someone gives you a much lighter ball (but same diameter) then with a knowledge of ballistics you don't have to throw it to know things will be different.

 

[JamesLast99]

Okay, we're getting somewhere. Assume by fictional I mean:
A creature/being created by man at some point in the past - probably for reasons of telling warning tales to people, back before science existed - and for whose existence there is no proof. A creature/being whose existence and abilities defy all known physical laws.

Well one by your definition is beyond all current scientific thinking?

 

[Rich]

Glad to hear it. I felt that Alc's lecturer was actually saying it wasn't necessary to understand the science behind an action before you can use it.

I remember being told by an electronics lecturer many years ago whilst he was explaining reactance’s etc and ohms law, not to get too bogged down with theories and to leave that part to "the clever people", just accept that it does what it does, much easier

 

[Rabbie]

But if someone gives you a much lighter ball (but same diameter) then with a knowledge of ballistics you don't have to throw it to know things will be different.

Agreed. but you can also learn that by experience. I don't know about you but I certainly played throw and catch a long time before I knew there was a science of ballistics.

 

[Mike375]

Agreed. but you can also learn that by experience.

But that is the slow way.

 

[Rabbie]

But that is the slow way.

Yes but you still don't need the science. Of course the science is useful - if it wasn't why would we bother.

I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

 

[Mike375]

.

I can teach my 5 year old grandson to throw and catch but I think i'll wait a few years before teaching him ballistics

Agree. Best to go with the God option to fill in the gaps.

 

[Rabbie]

Agree. Best to go with the God option to fill in the gaps.

Why? The tooth fairy pays better and is at least as real