Umm…sort of. Let’s see…making a joke out of a commonly used Christian symbol…yeah, I’d say that has to do with Christianity (which would be the Christian’s faith). Maybe I’m wrong?
Well, the Darwin fish/amphibian/whatever IS a direct commentary on the Christian faith. It is the intentional appropriation of a religion’s symbol with a slight modification designed to be an inversion of the symbol’s meaning. If someone took a star of david or a menorah, modified it to look like some form of animal, and put ‘Darwin’ on it, nobody in their right mind would think it DIDN’T comment on the Jewish religion, at least indirectly. As for my personal feelings on the matter, nothing is 100% but I’ve found that people who so freely announce their precious little beliefs in such a public fashion tend to be a bit on the dogmatic, not to mention booring, side…Like the damned fish (or amphibian) is going to make you a better driver…sheesh
You are either talking completly out of your ass or have an IQ close to zero. Out of all the millions of missing links why choose a fish with legs to represent darwin? Then consider all the different possible configurations for drawing a fish. To say that the selection the fish with the addition of drawing it complete identical to the body of christian fish with legs added was pure chance is absurd.
I’m the most conservative person I know (other than my wife), and I think the Darwin fish is funny even though I’ve never seen one. Conservative does not equate to Christian.
On the way home tonight, I noticed another of the little jesus fish on a car (Darwin fish with no feet) and it got me thinking. What kind of person really puts one of those on their car? Most (not all) of the people that I’ve known with those (jesus fish, not cars) are typically anti-intellectual assholes who think they have everything figured out (first clue that they’re missing something major), but that’s just from the microcosm that I call my own experience. I completely respect one’s right to believe or not believe in God, and that’s not what this post is about. Nor is this post about whether or not there is a God, and if so, which one s/he is. Those are questions that I would prefer not to get into in this format. I see where putting a jesus fish on your car is quite appropriate if you believe in God, but it must be quite offensive to those that don’t. I also wonder why it’s necessary that they let others know that they think the other person’s belief is a lie. For any of you that display jesus fish, what is your motivation to do so? For those that don’t, does this kind of thing bother you? To get rid of some unnecessary flames - yes people have every legal right to display jesus fish, and yes, I’m just expressing my opinion.
As a related issue, I don’t really like it when people identify themselves by their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, right off the bat. “Hi, my name is John, and I’m a Christian/Athiest/Britney Spears worshipper.” I just hate it when they bring everything back to their beliefs. I think it’s much more meaningful to get to know a person a little better before discussing God. Especially if you’re atheist. You shouldn’t have to tell me that you’re atheist, I should figure it out from the way you live your life. Unfortunately for atheism, it’s often so hard to tell just from observing someone’s life.
I never really understood why adherents of science and religion were so adamantly opposed to one another. After all, they are more alike than dissimilar. …This may be the stupidest thing I have ever seen on this forum.
Check this out: www.darwinfish.com. Click on “Car Plaques”.
I’m thinking of getting the devil fish. Not because I worship or even believe in the devil, but because it would piss squares off; getting pissed being the first sign that a person is thinking about something they haven’t thought much about before, which is good. Therefore, for the sake of all things good, I shall put a devil fish on my car. Or an alien fish. Or a reality fish. Or a fat buddha fish. Or maybe a real fish changed out daily for freshness. Oh wait, that may piss off animal rights activists and I would just HATE to do that. Perhaps I’d better strap a live animal rights activist to my car. Whatever I choose, I’m sure it will go well with my “Honk if you need shot dead right now” bumper sticker.
(No flames please. It’s Friday and I’m just feeling spunky.)
I wouldn’t mind stapping a live animal rights activist to my car. These people really aggrivate me.
Strike a nerve, did I? Huck, instead of suggesting that I have no idea what I’m talking about, how about you read what I have to say? Science is a religion, from a sociological standpoint.
Consider these similarities:
Both are belief systems designed to explain the world around us.
Both have zealous adherents that refuse to acknowledge the possibility that someone on the other side may, occasionally, have a point.
Both produce tangible, quantifiable results. Anyone who doubts this in the case of spirituality need look no further than what Western religions call an ecstasy. It’s very real for those that have experienced it (I have not, and hope I never do-too creepy).
Both have explicit rituals and protocols for their execution. In the same vein, both utilize hierarchical structure, special costumes, and special equipment unique to each belief system.
This is the one that most hard science types balk at: Both require faith. In the case of quantum physics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle absolutely requires that researchers rely on sights unseen. This is, as I see it, no different than how some people conceptualize “the invisible man in the sky”.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no biblical literalist. Honestly, I cannot abide the organized church in any form. I am a Gnostic. My faith is internal to me, and I explore it alone. I believe in God, but not as most religious people do. My skepticism of the Church extends to the belief system which has largely replaced it as an analytical tool to explain the stuff around us. In other words, I think the guy in the lab coat can be just as full of shit as the guy in the clerical robes. They need each other.
“Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.” -Albert Einstein
I rarely comment on these threads because they usually become as heated as hit vs. volume, but worse. I like brider’s comments and think he answered certain questions well, as well as Demo. I would like to add a few things. Sort of hand in hand to zero and Say. First, people like to claim intelligence and sophistication, but when it come to GOD, they usually revert to what they learned at 6 and never with a deeper understanding. For example, how can GOD be on two opposing combatants sides? Well, how can a quantum have two states of being at the same time? How can light be both a wave and a particle? You don’t know, but because it’s science, you take it as gospel. How about what I recently read. Bill Roberts has two classifications for steroids, but Brock Strasser does not agree. Both are well educated in the same subject matter, but both disagree. This is similar. People for some reason think that GOD must do good things, otherwise he does not exist, yet when a particle acts a certain way it should not, they still believe in the particle. in reference to the article that zero read, it is too simplistic. Again, taking everything at face value without digging. I forgot who said it in a earlier post, but he hit it on the head. One, the bible is translated, so you would have to look into the greek and aramaic terms to fully understanding. and then do a complete study of the Torah and Kabalah (sp). It is alluded to that while adam and eve were the first “man and woman”, there may have been other Sapiens. When it says that adam was made, it does not mean created. It is possible that when GOD breathed life into him, it could be metaphoric for becoming a homo sapien. There were other primates (cro magnon and neanderthal). This is a subject that should be looked at in depth that a lot of so called scientific minds take an oversimplistic view of. And so do Creationists. If you only believe that the earth was created in six literal days, then you would be right and wrong. Evolutionists say no, creationists say yse. Both are right. If you refer to Einstein’s theory of general reletivity, time is affected by gravity. This has already been proved. So if you look at it, in the early days of the universe, there would have been mass distortion of time, that you could not have accurately charted it. Also, this relates to the special theory, where it is all relative to who is observing the scene. To one source, it may be six days, to another, 14 billion years. I’ll stop on this note. Science and religion became a great split not due to Copernicus, or even Darwin. It was Darwins assistant, T.X. Huxley who said GOD is dead. Darwin, at the end of his original Origin of Species states that this is just one way that GOD may have arranged the species, quote paraphrased.
i was about to reply to huck on your behalf, and demonstrate precisely why science and religion can be profoundly similar, but i see you took care of it quit nicely.
all i’ll say is this: there will come a time when science and religion will converge. if you’re familiar with some of the nuances of modern physics, especially some of the more recent attempts towards a unification theory (m-theory, string theory, etc…) i assure you youd be very surprised at some of the similarities between some religious beliefs and some of the inferences made from studying the sciences. in all honesty, i think quantum mechanics alone bolsters some of my more deeply held beliefs on the nature of the universe, its creation, its ultimate end and so on…
as for the original post, you’re right. people who throw a darwin fish on their cars are especially going out of their way to insult christians and the like. while people have said evolution and christianity can be reconciled, thats not the issue here. no christian would ever put a darwin fish on their car. atheism is not a “faith” per se, and, in most cases, putting a darwin fish up is a declaration of contempt for christianity, nothing more. i can understand someone putting a bumpersticker up that says “ORIGIN OF SPECIES” or “DARWIN HAD IT RIGHT” or something like that, more of a scientif message in that. a darwin fish is simply the perversion of a symbol associated with another religion. it’s functionality as a message depends wholly on it being in the form of a icthus: whoever said earlier that it has nothing to do with christianity is, plainly, retarded, as the other posters have pointed out.
nevertheless, personally i dont take too much offense at people who rock these on their cars. it’s offensive in general (insofar that it attacks a christian symbol), but to me, it’s only a minor bother as they’re far and few between
as a sidenote, i usually try to pull up side by side to see what the driver of cars with the darwin fish looks like. it’s almost always a 40+yr old pencilneck/fatass tool. just fyi
Where can you get these Darwin fish?
Demo, I want to preface the following by saying that I am sure you are a great guy (look at your choice of SO ), and I usually enjoy your posts, but I am deadly serious about the subject at hand, and out of respect for you, I will not pull any punches. Here we go---- Strike a nerve, did I?.. Not with me, unless it is disappointment with an otherwise clear thinker…Huck, instead of suggesting that I have no idea what I’m talking about, how about you read what I have to say? Science is a religion, from a sociological standpoint…Wrong-- After reading your post, I have to say that you not only don’t know what you are talking about, you lack the logical skills for an effective debate – lets explore your points:
Both are belief systems designed to explain the world around us. …Wrong… Science is a method of discovering how the world works, through the scientific method. Religion is a set of beliefs that is not amenable to change, usually based on an old text, or the pronouncement of the current cult leader. Not only is religion not designed to explain how the world works, one of its main components is a denial of this world, and in some cases even a rejection of its reality.
Both have zealous adherents that refuse to acknowledge the possibility that someone on the other side may, occasionally, have a point. … That doesn’t mean they are similar. It simply points out an obvious characteristic of people in general.
Both produce tangible, quantifiable results. Anyone who doubts this in the case of spirituality need look no further than what Western religions call an ecstasy. It’s very real for those that have experienced it (I have not, and hope I never do-too creepy). …That religion produces results, I have no doubt. How about millions in impoverished south america rejecting birth control, even though they can little afford the children they already have, because an old man ( a virgin!) tells them how to run their sex lives. Science produces results of a very different kind. Like us discussing ideas at the very core of our belief systems while hundreds of miles apart. Vacinnes, space travel, modern civilization in general.
Both have explicit rituals and protocols for their execution. In the same vein, both utilize hierarchical structure, special costumes, and special equipment unique to each belief system. … Horseshit. Explain the hierarchical structure evident in thousands of independent scientists working on millions of problems across the globe? It is so unstructured that often different research groups unaware of each other solve problems and announce results at the same time. What is the “special costume” that a research assistant wears? The “equipment” used by religion is nothing but artifacts for ceremonies. Scientific equipment is constantly becoming more sophisticated, as science prgresses, and the type is determined by the problem under attack. Please explain the similarities in function or appearance of a chalice and an electron microscope.
This is the one that most hard science types balk at: Both require faith. In the case of quantum physics, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle absolutely requires that researchers rely on sights unseen. This is, as I see it, no different than how some people conceptualize “the invisible man in the sky”. ....That is because you are bending the meaning of the word faith to suit your argument. Scientists rely on repeatable experimental results and functional testing to determine the nature and existence of unseen objects. There is a difference between something that you cannot see because it is extremely small (or large) and something in the supernatural realm. I know that electrons exist. Otherwise, I could not type this message. I have no such funtional or experimental results for the supernatural. The world is full of things we cannot see, but we do not doubt their existence. We know they are real because of their existence acts as a causal factor to produce results that ARE visible. I can't see the "hole" in a doped piece of semiconductor -- but I know it exists. I can't see love. But I know it exists. And I can tell when it is gone -- because it acts as an unseen causal factor. No faith is involved, merely a rational examination of the evidence. Oh, as for the uncertainty principle, this merely says that we cannot know both the speed of an object and its precise location at the same time. Among other things, trying to measure, say, an electron's position will move it and change its speed, if you use an electron microscope to do the work. The UP really does not affect us (in any way we can see or measure)in the macro world we live in. It is a common mistake to take isolated scientific principles and try to apply them to commonplace situations or ideas. This is a logical error known as dropping context.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m no biblical literalist. Honestly, I cannot abide the organized church in any form. I am a Gnostic. My faith is internal to me, and I explore it alone. I believe in God, but not as most religious people do. My skepticism of the Church extends to the belief system which has largely replaced it as an analytical tool to explain the stuff around us. In other words, I think the guy in the lab coat can be just as full of shit as the guy in the clerical robes. They need each other. … No they don’t. They are mortal enemies. The very basis of religion is belief in the unseen and unknowable “just because” – because it is in an old book. Because someone says so. Science operates by the scientific method, which consists of constant experimentation, correction, and change. It is constantly morphing in an attempt to get closer to an explanation of what the world is and why. When an old idea is proven wrong, it is thrown out. New ideas and processes are being invented constantly.
“Religion without science is blind. Science without religion is lame.” -Albert Einstein
…He is one of my heroes, but he was wrong about the cosmological constant too. …Now let’s get personal: I don’t believe in god. And my reason was best expressed by Bertram Russell at a dinner near the end of his life: He was asked by one of his students, “What will you say if it turns out that you were wrong, and you find yourself standing in front of the Almighty?” Russell’s reply: “I will look him in the eye and tell him, You didn’t give me enough evidence!”
Yeah, it reminds me of the homos with the “fag flag” bumper sitckers. You know, that rainbow shit. Why the fuck are so many peoples’ indentities wrapped up in this kind of shit?
Interesting! Huck, while I essentially agree with your post, I think that it engages in one common fallacy…or rather, oversight…that’s common to this type of discussion. It doesn’t recognise the difference between science and its adherents – or to put it another way, it ignores the difference between science and scientism. The entire basis for a post like the recent one by Demo Dick probably stems from the fact that even a cursory investigation of the larger media-popular culture-science matrix will rapidly reveal that the ideals of science, no matter how many people WANT them to be true and consistent, can and will always be damaged by the human factor. Money, academic conservativism, jealousy, ignorance, and plain ol’ screw-ups make the scientific process NOT some exponential road to progress as adherents of scientism like to propose, but a very bumpy road that involves backslides, misinformation, misinterpretation, success, and failure. Hey, just look at the ‘science’ of nutrition alone, and how many theories have been recycled OVER and OVER for the past century…and how much can we REALLY say we know? Interesting theories far outnumber solid facts.
Now, huck, don’t get me wrong, I am fairly certain that you already know everything I write in this post. It’s mostly a free association, so don’t think I’m assuming you to be dense or anything.
To go on, you imply that science has the ability to discover the truth about everything (love, for example). C’mon…you know that just isn’t true. Science as a discipline is intended to investigate a specific range of phenomena – it can investigate why an architectural design distributes weight, but it CANNOT investigate why one architectural design is prettier than another.
Last but not least, and I implied this above, I think you (Huck) unintentionally maintain the misinformation which you claim is held by Demo Dick. That is, you almost refer to Science as…well…some kind of entity. As long as this entirely untenable position of holding up science as infaliable through the non-acknowledgement of the failures of humans operating within the bounds of modern science, then people will continue to hold the views expounded by DD in the above post.
In conclusion, it would help all parties involved in this exchange to remember that science is not faliable…science is not infaliable…science is a discipline, not an entity – like Karate or Cajun Cooking, it is a set of techniques to be learned and applied, and it makes no judgements. To continue on this path of scientism (which Demo Dick is essentially criticizing, not science itself…and Huck is extoling, perhaps unintentionally) won’t help to educate anyone.
I have the distinct feeling that in about an hour, I’m going to wish the t-mag forum had an ‘edit’ feature…
Damn it, I knew it…hey if any of you can glean one coherent thought from my last post, thanks for your generosity. Otherwise, please just consider what I have just learned – never try to do or say anything intelligent on the third day of a ketogenic diet…
Huck, let me assure you, my thinking is very clear on this matter. And I’m not alone in my views; more and more physicists are coming to the same conclusion.
“…Science is a religion, from a sociological standpoint.......Wrong-- After reading your post, I have to say that you not only don't know what you are talking about, you lack the logical skills for an effective debate –“
No, not wrong, RIGHT. I am a trained sociologist, so I kind of understand the whole concept of social constructionism. Religion and science serve the EXACT same sociological function-the need to explain the world around us. As for me lacking the skills for a logical debate, I’m about to prove you wrong.
“Science is a method of discovering how the world works, through the scientific method.”
Which is itself a codified dogma, much like the Ten Commandments or the Eightfold Path. The only difference is the one we choose to see.
“Religion is a set of beliefs that is not amenable to change, usually based on an old text, or the pronouncement of the current cult leader. Not only is religion not designed to explain how the world works, one of its main components is a denial of this world, and in some cases even a rejection of its reality.”
For some religions, yes. For others, absolutely not. My version incorporates this world and wholeheartedly accepts its reality. Many religions throughout history (i.e. Ancient Greek, various Native American religions, etc.) have done the same. In addition, my religion accepts the validity of science as an analytical tool.
“Explain the hierarchical structure evident in thousands of independent scientists working on millions of problems across the globe?”
Okay. First of all, they are not independent. As you pointed out, they must adhere to the scientific method. They cannot deviate from the accepted way of doing things. That is, if they want to get published. Which brings me to my next point: As publishing credentials add up, so does the esteem that particular researcher carries. Why does Joe-Jerk off from BFE not get the same respect as a researcher who has been published numerous times? Hierarchy. One has moved up the ladder; one has yet to.
“What is the "special costume" that a research assistant wears?”
A lab coat, dust booties, safety goggles, etc. The idea may seem silly, but it’s a costume.
“The ‘equipment’ used by religion is nothing but artifacts for ceremonies. Scientific equipment is constantly becoming more sophisticated, as science prgresses, and the type is determined by the problem under attack. Please explain the similarities in function or appearance of a chalice and an electron microscope.”
Both a chalice and an electron microscope are physical objects, without which the ceremony in question (scientific discovery or Communion) cannot progress. Both are considered sacred by the people who use them, and they both elicit great frustration and/or anger by their users when destroyed or damaged. But you’re not going to see this because you reject the idea that scientific experimentation is a ceremony. I don’t, so it’s very apparent to me.
“Scientists rely on repeatable experimental results and functional testing to determine the nature and existence of unseen objects. There is a difference between something that you cannot see because it is extremely small (or large) and something in the supernatural realm.”
Not really. If I can’t see it, but you assure me that it’s there and I believe you, I have accepted your assertion on faith. It really is that simple.
“I know that electrons exist. Otherwise, I could not type this message. I have no such funtional or experimental results for the supernatural.”
Really? How are the two (typing and electrons) related? Can you honestly PROVE that electrons exist? Can you PROVE the location and velocity of one? If so, then you have just one-upped every Quantum Physicist working on this problem (note-I have no doubt that they exist, but no one has ever proven it-once again, an issue of faith). The UP does apply to us, just as the parables in the bible. Both tell a story and both offer clues as to how things come together.
“They {science and religion} are mortal enemies. The very basis of religion is belief in the unseen and unknowable "just because" -- because it is in an old book.”
You want very badly for this to be true, but it simply isn’t. There is a growing trend, as already pointed out in this thread, to merge the two.
“{in the scientific community} When an old idea is proven wrong, it is thrown out.”
Let’s be honest here. Do you really think that no prejudice exists in scientific research? People, whatever school they fall into, are die-hards when it comes to changing ideas, even in the face of insurmountable evidence.
I’m sure I did nothing to change your mind, and I really don’t care. However I have put a great deal of thought into this issue, studied it in depth, and the conclusion that I have come to is based on years of study of philosophy, world religion, hard science, and sociology. Personally, my cosmology is that of a moebius vortex (the universe) inside a spherical constant (time). Somewhere in there and working behind it all is an intelligence of some kind. I believe in God because I simply have not seen evidence to suggest that the universe happened by chance.
You are so right, I am a Christian and believe in the Holy Bible as the literal word of God. I don’t go around telling other people what they should or shouldn’t believe. I simply live a good life and lead by example. Nobody is going to see a fish on a car or any other expression of faith or lack of, and decide, “Hey, maybe that guy is right?” LOL. It’s ridiculous and I couldn’t agree with you more. LEAD BY EXAMPLE!!!
Actually elegua, you nailed it. Scientism (science as the be-all end-all analytical tool) as opposed to science (which leaves room for other explanations) is what I don’t agree with. I just couldn’t conceptualize it.
I think you misinterpreted my post. I was pointing out the main differences between science and religion. I never said science could discover everything. I do think it moves inexorably forward, and that progress is coming at an ever increasing rate. OF course, it is not infallible – That is the point of the scientific method. We make a best guess, try it out, it looks OK --Then we find out something else. Now our previous discovery is found to be incorrect, or perhaps is subsumed within a new theory. The classic example is Newtonian physics giving way to relativity. Doesn’t mean we can’t still use Newton’s equations for some purposes, just that we now know they have some errors built into them – as a result of Newton’s imperfect understanding of nature. Einstien’s work will also be superseeded by a better understanding. The best way to picture it is as if science is a big ship, steering towards the truth. We do get off course, and we make rudder adjustments all the time – but we are clearly making progress. I am very aware, also, of the human component in science. Stories of grants denied and important research stymied by competitors are legion. Scientists are, after all, just people. As for science being an entity, I think it is a “thing” that exists, but not a man-created diety of some sort, if that is what you mean. Your choice a the word discipline is a much better one. Finally, as to beauty, there has been some progress in the area of human beauty, at least. It seems to be strongly correllated with symmetry, and there are certain angles and proportions for female facial features that are almost universally accepted as attractive.