Does anyone else find........

[reohn2]

Define perfect?

Hi,
If "n" is infinity then perfect is close

That's about as clear as mud!

Where are we going...........

Well I'll be going to bed shortly but I'll be glad if you're not coming too

Seriously,what is perfect,define it!
Here's a clue,I have never found anything to be perfect,because it's subjective,I guess that's what Si's driving at.
Though if I have two apples and someone gives me two apples I'll then have four apples.That could be described as perfect maths.Though not necessarily perfect apples

If I read say The Bible,in an effort to find God things aren't as definitive as that and people draw different conclusions as to what God is by reading the same Bible,due to their perception.

To get back the OP "Does anyone else find that the Roman Catholic church anything more than a charade?"
As it sets itself up to be the moral authority and God's voice/organ/vehicle on earth, it's deeply flawed,both in that assumption and application IMHO.

[meic]

Horizon:
That takes us back to a point that I made several pages ago about proof being easier than disproof.

It would be possible to prove that MMR vaccinations did cause autism but it isnt possible to prove that it can not (until we know everything about autism). This is because the theory was that it only caused it to a minuscule fraction of the patients who have been given it.

If the mechanism did exist then eventually you might identify the vulnerable patients and show a correlation.
If the mechanism doesnt exist, then you can never show that autism developing afterwards didnt include a small fraction due to the vaccine without enormous very closely controlled tests, even then it could be claimed that somebody outside of your sample was vulnerable.

The numbers are so small that you couldnt detect it from the statistics, you would have to find a clue from the study of those with autism.

If you believe that vaccination is a good thing then the chance of your child being affected is so small as to be easily dismissed. If you dont believe it is a good thing then why take the risk.

Personally I wouldnt have paid any attention to the whole Autism-MMR thing if they hadnt gone after Andrew Wakefield in the way that they did and just attacked his findings. That was a typical bit of faith based reaction from the authorities.

[horizon]

Thanks for that meic. I must admit to not having been able to follow most of the preceding 25 posts. But then I am not a scientist. To be a scientist you have to be able to experience totally convergent thinking. To be a brilliant scientist you must be able now and again to experience totally divergent thinking. Not easy at all. I love scientists to bits but I am glad that they don't rule the world - yet. Take plastic packaging for example: brilliant science goes into the chemistry of making them. Recycling? Scientists are clueless about the people putting it in bins bit.

Anyway back to the Catholic Church. I was brought up a Catholic, attended three different Catholic schools and, quite coincidentally, saw the Pope (from a distance) at Crystal Palace in 1982. I was taught by nuns and priests and can still recite the Pater Noster in Latin, even in sung form if necessary. What I love most about the Catholic Church is that it is so deeply flawed and human. Only God is perfect say the Muslims. Don't take religion too seriously I say. I am no longer a practising Catholic but not for any of the reasons discussed here. You don't ever stop being one BTW.

PS I'm quite religious about MMR though and wouldn't touch it with a bargepole.

[meic]

Plastic bags are one of the best inventions ever, scientists can be very proud of that creation.

I can still remember when a plastic bag was valued. I remember a lecture in the army from a Parachute Regiment Major saying the most valuable piece of equipment you can add to your kit is a plastic bag.
If you can remember back to before we had them then you can appreciate them for what they are worth.

The over production and mass distribution and one way nature of their use are not problems of science.
They are problems of the economic system.

[horizon]

The over production and mass distribution and one way nature of their use are not problems of science.
They are problems of the economic system.

Or indeed psychological, moral, political, social or human problems. Which science doesn't pretend to solve. Except that science does put itself forward sometimes as the solution (e.g. more fuel efficient vehicles, nuclear energy) when in human behaviour lies both the cause and the solution.

[sjs]

Seriously,what is perfect,define it!
Here's a clue,I have never found anything to be perfect,because it's subjective,I guess that's what Si's driving at.
Though if I have two apples and someone gives me two apples I'll then have four apples.That could be described as perfect maths.Though not necessarily perfect apples

If I read say The Bible,in an effort to find God things aren't as definitive as that and people draw different conclusions as to what God is by reading the same Bible,due to their perception.

To get back the OP "Does anyone else find that the Roman Catholic church anything more than a charade?"
As it sets itself up to be the be a moral authority and God's voice/organ/vehicle on earth, it's deeply flawed,both in that assumption and application IMHO.

Regarding perfection, in religion we could discuss Anselm's "ontological argument" to prove God's existence. Turns out also that even pure maths is not as "perfect" as people used to think, for which we mostly have to thank Kurt Godel, who is well worth a googling.

[reohn2]

Regarding perfection, in religion we could discuss Anselm's "ontological argument" to prove God's existence. Turns out also that even pure maths is not as "perfect" as people used to think, for which we mostly have to thank Kurt Godel, who is well worth a googling.

I feel a brain hurting period approaching

[meic]

I had a brief look through it and decided that I am not willing to put in the work of learning all that would be needed to attempt to understand it. I am just a dabbler in these things.

That doesnt mean that I just accept it must be true because they have worked it out. Though it probably is as otherwise somebody else would be pointing out its faults.

[PaulCumbria]

I've been following this thread with interest, although I've not joined in - I've done so before on other fora, and the debate never seems to get very far!

Anyway back to the Catholic Church... I was brought up a Catholic... You don't ever stop being one BTW.

This is a widely expressed opinion - but it's quite wrong. The church itself makes it clear you are no longer Catholic if you 'formally defect' (although it doesn't define what that formal defection might comprise). Once baptised you can't be 'un-baptised', but clearly a committed atheist who expressly rejects their Catholic upbringing (like me) is not a Catholic, no matter what some Catholics might think or say.

[reohn2]

I've been following this thread with interest, although I've not joined in - I've done so before on other fora, and the debate never seems to get very far!

Anyway back to the Catholic Church... I was brought up a Catholic... You don't ever stop being one BTW.

This is a widely expressed opinion - but it's quite wrong. The church itself makes it clear you are no longer Catholic if you 'formally defect' (although it doesn't define what that formal defection might comprise). Once baptised you can't be 'un-baptised', but clearly a committed atheist who expressly rejects their Catholic upbringing (like me) is not a Catholic, no matter what some Catholics might think or say.

And seems to prove the whole show(the Catholic Church) is man made IMHO.
If everything is God you cannot exist outside of It,however if God is partial as in,there are part(s) of the whole that aren't God,then you can.
It then follows that either God is All or God either ceases to exist in some of Itself or some other being either greater or lesser than God has control of the part(s) outside of God either by God's consent or is God's superior.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
reohn2, I agee with everything you say in your first and last post, your headache is better now
My minds porridge so I am bowing out....................

[Mick F]

I was brought up as CofE and baptised as such when I was little. I can't say whether I believe or not, it seems to make little or no difference to my life one way or another.

If I was to "convert" to another religion, what proof do I or others have that I'm of that new religion? Say if I became a Muslim or a Quaker or a Pagan, would it matter? Would I feel any different?

Surely, one's religion is a personal thing inside yourself. If I converted to Muslim and didn't tell anyone, and then went to the local Parish Church, would anyone notice I wasn't a Christian?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

I was brought up as CofE and baptised as such when I was little. I can't say whether I believe or not, it seems to make little or no difference to my life one way or another.

If I was to "convert" to another religion, what proof do I or others have that I'm of that new religion? Say if I became a Muslim or a Quaker or a Pagan, would it matter? Would I feel any different?

Surely, one's religion is a personal thing inside yourself. If I converted to Muslim and didn't tell anyone, and then went to the local Parish Church, would anyone notice I wasn't a Christian?

Hi,
Sanity at last.................Thanks Mick
OPs I lied about bowing out...........

[Si]

Take plastic packaging for example: brilliant science goes into the chemistry of making them. Recycling? Scientists are clueless about the people putting it in bins bit.

Plastic bags are one of the best inventions ever, scientists can be very proud of that creation. I can still remember when a plastic bag was valued.

Another example! Plastic bags are neither good nor bad until they are observed, indeed, with out humans being present they are not even plastic bags, and then it needs to be the right humans. The nature of 'plastic bag' is not inherent within the article itself, but in how it is experienced and the habitus of the observer. again demonstrating the disconnection between the physical universe and the observation of it.

As for my definition of 'perfect'...for the same reason it isn't really possible to give it using language. Perhaps if I were to say: if we could describe the physical universe in our languages then we could describe pure physics/maths/etc (and the possible perfection there-in) but we can't. Again I will add, some people can get pretty close...but then you have to define what "pretty close" means for this statement to be meaningful....which you can't.

[meic]

Take plastic packaging for example: brilliant science goes into the chemistry of making them. Recycling? Scientists are clueless about the people putting it in bins bit.

Plastic bags are one of the best inventions ever, scientists can be very proud of that creation. I can still remember when a plastic bag was valued.

Another example! Plastic bags are neither good nor bad until they are observed, indeed, with out humans being present they are not even plastic bags, and then it needs to be the right humans. The nature of 'plastic bag' is not inherent within the article itself, but in how it is experienced and the habitus of the observer. again demonstrating the disconnection between the physical universe and the observation of it.

Not an example at all. Horizon and I were making general social observations not scientific ones.