@Cheri: In 1990, it was predicted that there'd be a massive solar flare that hit the earth and destroyed technology (kind of like how Y2K was supposed to 'destroy technology.')
"3...2...1...HAPP Y NEW YEAR 2000!"
"QUICK! Flush the toilet and make sure it still works!"
A solar flare did hit, May 24th 1990 I think it was, but it wasn't a big catastrophe. The irony of it is, a massive solar flare hit the earth in 2005 and did disrupt electricity in many parts of the world...but nobody panicked over it in advance.
The only thing I dislike about this list, is that it gives the impression that all
doomsday panics are caused by religious nuts...I mean, neither you nor the site have directly stated this, but someone stumbling along may get the impression. All it takes for all
religious scholars to look like buffoons is for one idiot in the bunch to come along and say "The end is near!" but for some reason when one scientist comes along and does this, everyone ignores him. *shrug*
And so I'd just like to emphasize this certainly isn't the case, as this is far from a comprehensive list...I mean, probably the biggest case anyone can remember, Y2K, had purely (misconstrued) scientific evidence, exaggerated by some fanatics...no religion in sight.
Not to mention, all that Large Hadron Collider black-hole doomsday stuff...which in theory, could happen (but personally, I believe it's just people exaggerating again).
I also missed this post my first time through. Time for matter and anti-matter to collide (inside joke):
Originally Posted by huzaifa47
Well I consider Religion and Culture to be overlapping terms(Since Religion is a product of Society)
I think this is a highly non-trivial statement...for two reasons.
1) To someone who believes their given religion is the quote unquote correct religion
, this is clearly a false statement, since their religion is independent of culture. Some of their customs, or rituals may be culturally based (ie. eating specific meals), but the religion itself, its scripture and its beliefs, are universal.
Of course the non-believer will say "that's a bunch of crap, someone just fairy-taled all that mumbo-jumbo" and the statement is true, trivial infact.
But who is right? Can you prove either one to be the case? Certainly not, because the second you throw a higher power into the mix, the second there's one thing you can't prove, then the very notion of proof gets tied up in knots.
So what it comes down to is "I'm right because I say so" vs "No I'm right because I
say so..." and you have a non-trivial statement.
2) Who's to say culture isn't a product of religion? Infact, it seems as though historically, the following four things had a very intimate relationship:
Any change in one of the four, prompted changes in the other three. I'm not a history buff here, but I think following a brief history of music is enough to see this is the case.
So the point is...why does this fact mean the 4 are 'the same' source? Looking at religion, there are laws/legal issues pertaining to religion, artistic expressions of faith and for instance, church hymns (like the Gregorian Chant), and the same can be noted for the other 3 (ie. inspiration for art and music, the need for certain laws/changes).
For this reason, I don't think we can really conclude society and religion give us 'the same' information. Though there may be some overlap, I think each are important in their own right.
Even though science is pretty much everything the human society knows upto a certain tangible limit!
Now this, I believe is cyclic reasoning...for the simple reason that your notion of 'tangible limit' is one which is based on scientific, or perhaps mathematical principles.
It's like saying "If I only look at this one book I'm holding right now, then it's the only book in the universe!" because who's to say that the scientific method, scientific deduction are the 'be-all and end-all' of truth?
Infact, anyone studying the scientific method will see that rule number 1 is that the scientific method never proves anything true...it just aims to 'approximate' truth.
But even the existence of some 'limiting truth' to approximate is a non-trivial assumption! I won't go into detail about because people are likely already bored enough...but it's just calculus: "Does the limit exist?" is a very reasonable question to ask.