What is a nun good for? Experimentation?

Share |

Here follows more useless science. Dare I say it - another rationalisation to defend religion, altruism and 'positive' thinking. Such studies are performed despite the gaping contradiction of the study....its lack of relevance to the broader community. The study professes to look at Catholic nun's with the intent of determining the relationship between their brains and their 'positive thinking'.

The reality is that a nun is a parasite whom live off the guilt-induced efforts of others. They might be non-judgmental, so they are beyond judgement for most people - except me - but they are parasites regardless. They stand alone in that respect. We love to critique the parasitism of others like the unemployed, whom I would suggest mostly want a job, its just that they are validated or financed for doing nothing, so they just cannot motivate to do more than is required.

The guilt or ideological rationalisations which prompts you to support them is fuel for their happiness. They will live well on it. The 'unhappy' nuns are the one's who question their relationship to the world and realise that they are really the 'selfish' ones; but I don't like to call them selfish because they are really simply just 'anti-life', caught in a prison of personal ineptitude. i.e. Prisons of their poor early childhood decisions. Like doing the military.

The bigger target here are the researchers though who think science = correlation. Wrong! You need a theory of values. Your studies on nuns is not directly applicable to the broader population who actually work; moreover because they have a guilt which you seamlessly might avoid by 'virtue' of your utter righteousness. After all - who but me - would shoot down a nun 'metaphorically'...God's poor messengers.

-------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Christianity is the origin of capitalism

Share |

There is a belief among some Christians that religion actually gave rise to Christianity. This idea was suggested to me in my early 20s. He must have studied a different period to me because I had always associated religion with the political and religious oppression of the Dark Ages.

Years later I would learn more about the period in history which placed this notion in his mind. It was the Calvinists of Switzerland, and he probably took some comfort from Thomas Aquinas who also had some notional support for freedom from tyranny. Adam Smith was a Christian too, and perhaps John Locke.

It is safe to say that anyone in this period is going to espouse to be a Christian, even if they are not, precisely because these periods were periods of oppression. We even have this legacy today…why is it that no one talks about religion and politics. Ok, you won’t be executed, but in those days people were, so they were more cautious. Today you are merely marginalized or alienated.

The point is that Christianity was incidental to the development of religion. Certainly there was the concept of ‘divine rights’ but most of these philosophers did not argue them on the basis of divinity, but rather on the basis of logic, which is the counter-point of faith and mystic revelation. The implication is that philosophers did not seemingly have much integrity, and not much scope for honesty about their religious beliefs. To be fair, the clergics and followers would have pulled them apart if they preached anything which contradicted the church. Look what happened to Galileo.

---------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Intelligent Design - the pitfalls

Share |

I see this argument as an over-simplification or context-dropping if you prefer. Actually there is no definition of God since God does not exist. What people take to accept as God is really just a repudiation of what is 'real''. For instance God is 'supernatural' (= non-natural), Gof requires such to accept him on 'faith' (non-reason), he wants us to love others unconditionally (non-values), he wants us to live this life his way (non-reality) for a chance to live in another. When a dictator asks me to trust him to deliver a better life, I am cynical. When a ghost does it, I laugh. When >50% of the population think this is a reasonable proposition, I consider democracy dangerous.

Religious people seem to accept the notion that there was a Big Bang. I prefer to believe that there was a succession of Big Bangs every 24 billion years or so, that in fact the universe was not created or destroyed, but rather is recycled. I see no evidence that matter can be created or destroyed, just that it changes forms, whether at a chemical or sub-atomic level. The universe explodes, expands, coalesces, contracts, then explodes again. I dont see the need necessarily for a single 'symmetrical' Big Bang, because I see no structural reason for assymmetry. But maybe the assymmetry of the universe is reason to believe there are sometimes multiple Bangs or the coalition of matter. I don't know all the dynamics. I know that the ethics underpinning religion are flawed and contrary to human nature (ie. faith is not compatible with reason).
I dont think the creation of humanity is such a mystery. Nor do I think that the conditions for the development of life are so stretched. I think the problem is the low probability of sustaining conditions on a planet long enough (billions of years) without some meteorite destroying it. But we dont know we are alone. Maybe the odds are higher than we expect. Maybe lifeforms are on their way as we speak.
I dont think there is a wrong or right amount of energy, since there is a focus of area where conditions where conditions would have been right somewhere in the universe. The problem was not that there was no place suitable, the problem was sustaining those conditions. The 'cratered' moon shows Earth was spared destruction, that humanity was given the opportunity to evolve, because we had an atmosphere. Some want to believe it was because of God. But Earth is not the only planet with an atmosphere, or with oxygen. So where is the 'intelligent design' that requires God.
The next question is really a nonsense question. "Why were we created?" There is no answer to this question because its an illegitimate question. Its like asking the reason for reason. It just is. Reason is inherent in the transformation of things, not in the things themselves. You can't ask why an orange is yellow instead of green beyond understanding the light that causes it. It just is. At root this question is really 'why do life forms evolve?' to give it a non-religious bias? We just do. The nature of things is so organised. If we destroyed everything it would happen again, and not because of God's grace. What possible explanation could God have for the meteorite explosion that wiped out the dinosaurs? Did this perfect God decide to reschedule human evolution? Duh!
----------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Science quashes the existence of ghosts

Share |

This is a little off-topic but then, if you believe in God, I guess other forms of mysticism are not much of a stretch. Here is an interesting documentary I watched the other day. It presented evidence to disprove the evidence of ghosts - see http://www.tvokay.com/documentary/5th-dimension-ghosts.htm. Several of the conclusions were:
1. Magnetic fields are often around us, and they can cause people to feel a burning sensation on the skin or a sense that something has brushed by them. This can cause the person to think there is a presence in the room.
2. Dark places can make the most ardent 'ghost skeptics' believe there is something in a room. Being in a dark room elevates stress levels and this can cause people's sight to deteriorate, particularly peripheral vision. This observation was actually proven by a scientist who thought he was in the presence of a ghost. He tested his own hypothesis.
3. Rationalisations - people want to believe in certain things because they dont have the critical mind which would question the validity of their conclusions.

Perhaps more impressive was the fact that they even showed how these physiological responses occurred using a simulation when a person was placed under these types of conditions. Check it out!
----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com