chiplee Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 (edited) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm I don't know if I can think of anything it would be more ridiculous to fight about. Maybe the way your wife replaces the toilet paper roll, but at least toilet paper actually does something for us. Edited November 11, 2008 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
site Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 yea that's pretty low down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAinsworth Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 And I would've thought they could share the same God in peace. That's why I'm a starquester and not a monk. I've yet to be kicked by a fellow quester Jimmy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turborusty Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 That kicks a** on so many levels. Turborusty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marso Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Hey Hey with the monk-ees keep thinking our God is right your God's such an a-hole I'll kill you just for spite Violence in the name of God. I can't think of anything more evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Truth Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 And I would've thought they could share the same God in peace. That's why I'm a starquester and not a monk. I've yet to be kicked by a fellow quester Jimmy are you sure you haven't been emotionally kicked by a small Canadian fellow on a regular basis? LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctsi Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Not a way in which to settle anything. Violence will never solve problems like these. But if you have ever been in the middle of a family feud, then you will know how out of control it can get. I've seen fights more violent than this over much less. And its not self encompassing to just religious folks. Anyone that has a passion about things that are important to them can react the same way. I've seen Ford and Chevy guys go at it for little to any difference. Sports people... yeah just read where 2 people were killed over a College Football game. But its human nature at its worst. Go figure! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted November 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Not a way in which to settle anything. Violence will never solve problems like these. But if you have ever been in the middle of a family feud, then you will know how out of control it can get. I've seen fights more violent than this over much less. And its not self encompassing to just religious folks. Anyone that has a passion about things that are important to them can react the same way. I've seen Ford and Chevy guys go at it for little to any difference. Sports people... yeah just read where 2 people were killed over a College Football game. But its human nature at its worst. Go figure! I saw it as an example of the potentially fatal moment when two concepts of right meet headlong. Consider the company these monks keep if your example is meant to explain this away though; athletes, average families, car guys, college football fans. What is the usefulness of a life as a monk if it gives you as much grace and as much ability to suppress the worst of your human nature as a college football fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctsi Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Yeah thats how I took it. But you have to have a pre-concieved idea of what a monk does. I'm not a monk and I think you are not a monk either. So what exactly does this group of monks do. Just stay around and pray and give to the poor. I guess they have a life too. You could find the same on the left. Example: two tree huggers dissagreeing on plants and getting into a fist fight over the others extreme views. Its just human. a certain percentage of people are going to be extreme in their views. It works across the board and sits at no one table. Interesting... yeah. But not too unusual as humans go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted November 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) You could find the same on the left. Example: two tree huggers dissagreeing on plants and getting into a fist fight over the others extreme views. Its just human. a certain percentage of people are going to be extreme in their views. It works across the board and sits at no one table. Interesting... yeah. But not too unusual as humans go. I don't know if I can concede this point without a minor point of contention. It may be true that you could find a "certain percentage" of people to be extreme in their views on either end of the religious spectrum. But I don't think that percentage is certain to be the same on both sides. For example, individuals who regularly devote a little time to studying the staggering pictures taken by the hubble space telescope must be at least slightly less likely to value their own opinion highly enough to insist on its correctness to the point of brawling. Furthermore, if you choose to witness the spectacular beauty of the double helix and then go on to have your own genome sequenced you will certainly also come to the conclusion that this beauty lies at the core of your being and ties you inextricably to every other human on earth. Physical fighting over trivial matters must become at least "slightly" less appealing in this light. Indeed, true pursuit of the knowledge available on "the left", as you put it, leads one closer and closer to the realization that they really don't know much of anything. It leads us out of certainty and into true humbleness. Going back to the original problem or cause of these monks fighting, two conflicting concepts of certain correctness meeting head on, I find the side of the spectrum that comes to the table with all of the answers already in hand to be the side more prone to "extremities" of views. As the true capstone to this point, find me the link to a story about two brawling professors of chemistry or physics who cannot agree on who has the right to conduct laboratory work while the other is reading a book about molecular biology, and I'll retract my stance. Edited November 12, 2008 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
averse Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Professors are geeks who get beat up. Monks know martial arts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctsi Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 I'm sure I could. Science is similar to religion in some aspects. Theory. I work in the Nuclear field and the theory is evolving. Things from just 5 years ago and how we operate have changed. "Knowledge". is what can be proven today. We thought little of Alpha controls. We focused on Beta/Gamma, Neutron. These have high energy levels and that was our concern. Now we see Alphas as a major concern on the inside of the body to any soft tissue it comes in contact with. So I do see heavy discussion on a scientific level. Where theres passion for a cause or idea, there is room for up close and personal persuasion. The Monks were wrong and they need to behave themselves. But the only reason its news worthy, is because of our idea of Monks as quiet and passive. Seems to me some good rights and lefts were exchanged. Laying on of hands as we call it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeywrench Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 The first rule of Monk Fight Club is... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted November 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) Oh my. where do I begin? I'm sure I could. Science is similar to religion in some aspects. Theory. Science theories and religious theories are not similar though, not similar at all. And it's not just religious "theories" that scientific theories are not like. Scientific theories are unlike any other kind of theory. They're not hunches as the religious love to think they are, not to scientists. Scientific theory: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. This doesn't mean they're not open to being altered. It means they're not likely to be altered any time soon. In this case, the explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena. joe the plumber theory: In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them. I work in the Nuclear field and the theory is evolving. Things from just 5 years ago and how we operate have changed. What you're talking about is a change in the scientific method applied to the field, not a change in nuclear theory. "Knowledge". is what can be proven today. If you mean knowledge is tentative then I'll agree completely. But that doesn't mean "knowledge is what can be proven today". Nothing is ever proven, so perhaps you could have said, knowledge is whatever our current observations lead us to regard as true. There are no 100% certain scientific proofs, ever. Don't miss this point, and please stay with me here. I said that the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time, actually wikipedia did. Science insists upon calling a bit of information a theory, even when the rest of us would look at the mountain of information scientists have gathered to reinforce that bit and happily call it a "fact". It is out of intellectual honesty, and admission of what I'm about to explain that science only establishes THEORIES, not FACTS. religion and science are almost directly opposite for this reason. I'm going to copy a passage from the book I'm working on to explain why nothing is ever proven satisfactorily enough to be called a fact of science. In science a proof is first and foremost a logically deduced argument, not an empirical one. That is, to be a "proof", arguments must demonstrate that their proposition is true in all cases to which they apply, without a single exception. An unproven proposition believed or strongly suspected to be true is known as a conjecture. And outside of mathematics and logic... everything is a conjecture. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that, "The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world." He recognized (and it is an axiom of science) that there can be no such proofs in the empirical world. This is not because nothing is true, but because there is no mechanism for establishing any proposition as true "without a single exception." To empirically establish such a quality, we would have to actually observe every single instance of the event in question. How wonderful were we able to do such a thing. Sadly... we cannot. Therefore, in an empirical world where proof is forever foreclosed to us, we must depend on other tools for establishing confidence in any conjecture. And we are fortunate to have such tools: evidence and reason. These tool allow us to reach conclusions with great confidence. But that confidence must always remain tentative and provisional. Example: "The sun rises in the east." We have great confidence in the statement as a provisional truth. We have observed innumerable such events, and the sun has never dissapointed us... so far. Each one of these observations is additional evidence that the sun rises in the east, and reason allows us to inductively gain great confidence that tomorrow it will do the same thing. But... the sun does not actually rise in the east at all. In fact, the sun's own motion has nothing to do with our experience of the sunrise. It is the earth's rotation towards the east that creates the illusion of sunrise. We now have better evidence and better reasoning that allows us to understand that the conjecture "the sun rises in the east" (considered "proved" by many for most of human history) is not actually true at all. And no matter how many times you wake me up, turn me to the east and point out that "the sun is rising in the east," you are still offering no proof. You are merely providing an additional piece of evidence for a conjecture that ultimately is not true at all. History is filled with similar examples of things that were considered true (and mistakenly considered "proven") that ultimately turned out to be false. Wait... it does not stop there. Our current conjecture that the earth rotates towards the east is much better supported by both evidence and reason than the older conjecture that the sun rises in the east. We have great confidence that science is progressively and incrementally approaching truth... certainly in this example the step was a great one in that direction. But does that make our current understanding any more a "proof" than the older one? The earth rotates towards the east... today. It was not always so. It will not always be so. Let's just use the old colloquial "the sun rises in the east" for ease of understanding, but only as an idiom for the rest of this discussion. We expect the sun to "rise in the east" tomorrow, just as it always has. But there will be a day where that is not true. It is almost certainly absurd to imagine the transition will happen in a single night... and the probability of that is vanishingly small. But it is not zero. We can have great confidence that many of our conjectures are true. That confidence is necessarily so great that we lead our lives operationally understanding that they are. It would be futile to live our lives otherwise. And there is no need for anyone to embrace the absurdity that we do not know a lot of things that actually are true, just because we cannot prove them. But that does not change the fundamental reality that everything we believe, no matter how well supported by evidence and reason, is still conjecture and never proved. We thought little of Alpha controls. We focused on Beta/Gamma, Neutron. These have high energy levels and that was our concern. Now we see Alphas as a major concern on the inside of the body to any soft tissue it comes in contact with. So I do see heavy discussion on a scientific level. Where theres passion for a cause or idea, there is room for up close and personal persuasion. The Monks were wrong and they need to behave themselves. But the only reason its news worthy, is because of our idea of Monks as quiet and passive. Seems to me some good rights and lefts were exchanged. Laying on of hands as we call it. Well, I'm sorry but it sounds to me like you are unwilling to admit that scientists are less likely to come to blows over their "beliefs" than monks. For that I'm forced to point out the caption under the photo in the link I posted that says "these types of altercations are common at the shrine". My challenge remains. Find me the link where I can read about two scientists going at each other for an argument over who has the right to do what experiment at what time and I'll retract my entire argument. Edited November 12, 2008 by chiplee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctsi Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 So let me get this straight, if I find a news worthy article on two scientist pummling each other, then that proves my point? My point is we are human right, left, liberal, conservative, athiest or Christian. You will find these conflicts in politics, religion, and in the scientific world. Humans behave this way and if you don't believe me just walk up to one of those Monks and let them know how you feel about their Christian faith. I think they would lay hands on you. Just kidding about the Monks... they seem a little on edge, so I would not ask them at this time. Again only news worthy because of expected standards put on Monks. We should take this as a lesson in Monk 101. Just as Nuns they will get physical and they will reach out and touch you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelby Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 in history there are no more warant'd wars then the ones start'd by monks . priest's , pope's and Chip enought so call'd things or happenings can be taken to be fact to enableus to live our lives ,, like you eat a 44 mag bullit it'l most likely be your last meal,, you dive your F22 straight down 35,000 ft from 30,000 ft altitude and it'l be your last time flying , while you may not be able to prove these things to be a fact,, truth is they are real enought to kill you ,isn't that enought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted November 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 truth is they are real enought to kill you ,isn't that enought yes of course that's enough, shelby, especially for day to day life. But that post was in response to sctsi's assertion that science was like religion in that they're both theories. That's why I wrote the following, which I dare say you skipped over. "We can have great confidence that many of our conjectures are true. That confidence is necessarily so great that we lead our lives operationally understanding that they are. It would be futile to live our lives otherwise. And there is no need for anyone to embrace the absurdity that we do not know a lot of things that actually are true, just because we cannot prove them. But that does not change the fundamental reality that everything we believe, no matter how well supported by evidence and reason, is still conjecture and never proved." It's ok that you missed it, but some notions take more than a few sentences to convey clearly. At any rate it is only in science that we must concern ourselves with the fact that there are no provable things. In life concerning ourselves with that would be a complete waste of time. Knowing that scientists concern themselves with it should instill confidence in any science nay sayers though, because it is a tedious way to go about business, and they do it every day. That's why it's so absurd when creationists claim the "theory of evolution" is just a theory. By saying that, the creationist admits at the outset that he or she simply does not understand science at all, which effectively removes their input from the "viable" column, and places it in the ignorant chearleader for god column. No idea in science is given the grand title of "theory" until it has survived intense scrutiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted November 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 So let me get this straight, if I find a news worthy article on two scientist pummling each other, then that proves my point? No but thank you for requesting clarification. If you find a news worthy article on two scientists fighting over similarly trivial nonsense as these munks, it will disprove my point, not prove yours. I conceded yours right off, but I added the not so minor qualifier that there is no way people on both ends of the religious spectrum are equally likely to go to blows over conflicting views of what is right. My point is we are human right, left, liberal, conservative, athiest or Christian. You will find these conflicts in politics, religion, and in the scientific world. Agreed, again, I'm only suggesting that while you will find "conflicts", you will not be as likely to find physical fighting among PhD's of scientific fields, as you are to find physical fighting among various religious sects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sctsi Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 I thought you embraced science and the laws of averages. A certain percentage of the population is going to behave a certain way. Add that percentage to every group and there you go. This ain't hard. You can point out religious people at their worst but it is population wide. Nice try to pull the old science boys out of that one. I do recall a News story of a scientist returning to the lab and shooting his fellow scientist. I don't recall the reasons. I myself am not religious. That would be adding mans set of rules to how I believe in Christ. I go straight to the source, Holy Bible. I really don't expect you to understand and like you I could care less if you did. Makes no difference to me either way. I do like talking to you though so don't take this as a put down and I don't think you will. I won't talk in big words as I like to keep it simple. besides I can't spell half the big words I use anyways. I'm on nights and so my responses are late. Believe it or not Chip I don't hate on those whos beliefs differ from mine. But I will try to put my 2 cents worth in when I see someone pointing out a problem that is not just a religious one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted November 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 I thought you embraced science and the laws of averages. A certain percentage of the population is going to behave a certain way. Add that percentage to every group and there you go. This ain't hard. Well, it may not be hard but it isn't true either. You can point out religious people at their worst but it is population wide. Nice try to pull the old science boys out of that one. I do recall a News story of a scientist returning to the lab and shooting his fellow scientist. I don't recall the reasons. I myself am not religious. That would be adding mans set of rules to how I believe in Christ. I go straight to the source, Holy Bible. I really don't expect you to understand and like you I could care less if you did. Makes no difference to me either way. I do like talking to you though so don't take this as a put down and I don't think you will. I won't talk in big words as I like to keep it simple. besides I can't spell half the big words I use anyways. I'm on nights and so my responses are late. Believe it or not Chip I don't hate on those whos beliefs differ from mine. But I will try to put my 2 cents worth in when I see someone pointing out a problem that is not just a religious one. yeah, again, I wasn't suggesting it was solely a religious problem. I wasn't even really suggesting it was more likely to be a religious problem. I was suggesting that a life of scientific study and work will make an individual at least somewhat less likely to go to blows over his beliefs. I just won't agree that there is a universal percentage of people in any demographic who are willing to physically fight over something. Other than that we basically agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_B. Posted November 13, 2008 Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 I just won't agree that there is a universal percentage of people in any demographic who are willing to physically fight over something. I think the key word here is "physically." Coming from a small town that is populated with hundreds of opinionated scientists (Oak Ridge, TN), I can honestly say that there is plenty of fighting between scientists going on, whether it be over funding, having to share resources, or simply over who's calling the shots. The resulting scars may not be external, but I promise you they are still there. Ken B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiplee Posted November 13, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 13, 2008 I think the key word here is "physically." Coming from a small town that is populated with hundreds of opinionated scientists (Oak Ridge, TN), I can honestly say that there is plenty of fighting between scientists going on, whether it be over funding, having to share resources, or simply over who's calling the shots. The resulting scars may not be external, but I promise you they are still there. Ken B. well sure, which is as it should be. Look, I didn't mean for such a minor point to barrel out of control, or be so difficult to articulate. I thought I was being quite gracious in only offering a "minor" point of clarification. I agreed with the overall point that was being made and now sctsi refuses to return the favor and accept my minor counterpoint as true and obvious. Anyone can search google for "scientists fight" and find examples of exactly what you're talking about Ken. My point was that when you look for scientists fighting you'll find intellectual fighting, not physical fighting. Thousands of examples of "fighting" over funding, sharing resources and calling shots are readily available. It's just as easy to search for "monks fighting", and while current results are muddied by the recent episode that prompted this thread, if you click back a few pages you'll find rival Cambodian monks, Korean monks, Monks fist fighting on the street during a Sri Lankan peace rally and so on. If you want to delve more deeply into who is more prone to violence you can look to the not so distant past of religions around the world and find the following, just to name a few. Christians killing child witches in Nigeria one year ago http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/dec/0...igh.theobserver Muslims spraying acid in the faces of female afghan children for the horrible offense of "going to school" http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7724505.stm A 20th century Catholic Inquisition in South Vietnam http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...,874816,00.html Or anti-christian violence in India and so on and so on. My point was that "warring factions" of quantum physics don't attack each other for failing to comply with each others' opposing views. That's it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts