Humanities desk
< November 21	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 22

Federal political parties in India

Besides Indian National Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party, is there any other political parties that are federal and they participate in the provincial elections like the two parties above? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.74 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See List of political parties in India. In this list, you will find parties under the heading "National Parties". These parties include Congress and the BJP. However, not just those two, but all of the national parties also participate in elections at the state level. (India has states and territories rather than provinces.) Marco polo (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Federal' isn't really a term used in Indian party politics. The Election Commission of India has three classes of recognition, 'National Parties', 'State Parties' and 'Unrecognised Registered Parties'. These recognitions mainly deal with the reservations of election symbols to be used in national and state-level elections. However, there is no limitation as to which elections that a party can contest. Do also note that there are many parties which never register themselves, but contest elections as independents or on the election symbols of other parties. Many of the state parties and unrecognised parties have nationwide party organisations and contest elections throughout India, and in total there would be 100s of political parties with some level of nationwide coverage. --Soman (talk) 17:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seats in South Asian Parliaments

I know there are 300 seats in Bangladeshi federal parliament but I need to know what are the ridings and what about the Pakistani federal parliament? How many seats and the ridings? what about Indian federal parliament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.74 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are from Canada. Ridings are called constituencies in South Asia and most other places. Wikipedia has this list for Bangladesh, but it is out of date. The current list of constituencies is published here, but it is in Bengali. As for the Parliament of Pakistan, or Majlis-e-Shoora, you might want to look at our article for general information. Our article on the Senate of Pakistan states that the Senate does not have constituencies as such but are with a few exceptions elected by the provincial assemblies. The National Assembly of Pakistan consists of members elected from 272 constituencies, plus 60 women and 10 members of religious minorities elected proportionally. This page lists the constituencies. The Parliament of India has a similar structure to that of Pakistan, with an upper house, the Rajya Sabha, elected by state legislatures and a lower house, the Lok Sabha, made up of members representing these constituencies. Marco polo (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Sri Lanka? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.74 (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.228 (talk) [reply]

Seeking reference materials on Ilse (F.) (Davidsohn) (Intrator) Stanley

I'm working up an article on this person, but am having trouble finding information about her on the Internet. Have searched: Google, Wikipedia, Ancestry.com, Google Scholar. To unscramble the title of my request: she was born Ilse (F.??) Davidsohn, married Intrator and was known as Ilse Intrator, later married Stanley and was known as Ilse Stanley. The middle initial "F." appears occasionally but I can't document it or when it entered the picture, or what it stands for (there is a hand-written note on the passenger record of the ship that brought her to the U.S. but I can't read it for sure). Thumbnail sketch of why I'm interested: she was a German Jewish woman who, with the collusion of a handful of people ranging from Nazi members of the Gestapo to Jewish civilians, secured the release of 412 Jewish prisonsers from concentration camps between 1936 and 1938. During that time she also helped countless others leave the country while it was still possible for Jews to do so legally. This story was sketched publicly in 1955 on Ralph Edwards's TV program, This Is Your Life, and told in vivid detail in her autobiographical book, The Unforgotten, published in 1957. Can anyone help? — Martha (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The internet is a big and wonderful place, but not everything is always here. May I suggest trying to work through a nearby university library, or perhaps asking for help through a geneological society? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this Worldcat ID lookup finds that the name has no lccn, but it does have several "personal ids" assigned by different libraries. There appear to be only two or perhaps three different books on her. Click on the links to find the libraries. -Arch dude (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Books on Guarany/Guarani language?

I'd like to research it for a school paper, but have been having a hard time to find original work in public libraries or even at Amazon.com and such. I'm fascinated by the fact that the language is still spoken but most of Paraguay's population, and would like to address that. I can read English, Spanish and Portuguese, so any suggestions on those three languages will be very helpful. Thanks a lot! 71.139.189.123 (talk) 09:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t go looking specifically for books on the language, but for articles that might either have the information you seek in them, or have references to books. Using “Guarani” alone as a search term, Google had over 9 million hits; with “Guarani language” the count dropped to 1 million 7. Here are a few entries:

Omniglot: Writing Systems and languages of the world: [1];

Languages of the world: [2];

Language links (has links to a Spanish site and links to a Guarani-related language mailing list): [3];

And a linguistics paper on the subject: [4].

Oh yes, and then there is the Wikipedia article Guarani which has links to external sites that look promising at the end of the article, as well as the one entitled Gramática do Kamaiurá, Língua Tupi-Guarani do Alto Xingu.

You might also find some help and/or information at the Guarani Language edition of Wikipedia [5]. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a summer in Paraguay, as it happens. In Asuncion, you're not going to hear much Guarani, but outside of it it's probably dominant (well, the mix is dominant, but it's pretty unintelligible to a Spanish speaker). And there are some people who don't speak much spanish at all. This is a decent dictionary; also, conjugation is fairly simple, just add a (I), re (you), o (him/her), ña (we, including the person you're talking to), ro (excluding the person), and pe (them) to the beginning of the verb, and then tense just comes from the suffix. Also, the word "jaguar" comes from Guarani. BTW, if you're wondering, the main reason Guarani still exists to such an extent is the Jesuit missions. The movie "The Mission" is about that, as it happens - not a bad movie, but it has a particularly good score... zafiroblue05 | Talk 02:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benefits of a bachelor degree for police officers?

Does anyone know the benefits a 4yr degree will provide for police officers? Not just as far as admittance, but for pay, ranking, and other important desires.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagefite007 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what country? I believe the UK has a fast track system for graduate police officers - ie. you get promoted at a significantly faster rate. Your terminology and the fact that you didn't specify a country suggests you are talking about the US, which I know nothing about. Somebody here might, though. --Tango (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is more of an opinion than fact, but in any society where education is heavily subsidized, education becomes more of vetting tool than a prerequisite. Why hire a police officer without a bachelor's degree when you can hire one with one? Also, it does become useful to have a degree later in your career. Most forces require you to spend several years on "patrol" doing the grunt work of the police department. When you choose to specialize afterwards, having a 4-year degree is useful. Becoming a detective, working in financial crimes, organizational management, crime statistics, IT etc. etc. Police departments have all of the needs that any large organization might have.NByz (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My wife is in Law Enforcement, so I have a bit more of a perspective on this than the average person. Its a misconception that there is a monolithic job called "police officer" where everyone does the same thing, wears the same spiffy uniforms, etc. etc. Law enforcement is a broad field with MANY different unique and non-interchangable jobs, each of which has different requirements and qualifications. The so called "Patrol officer" that you think of when you think "cop" actually represents a very small percentage of sworn law enforcement. Besides the "beat cop" or "patrol officer" there are detectives, IT professionals, forensic scientists, traffic control officers, highway patrol, etc. etc. My wife works in the crime lab, as a forensic chemist, but even there are probably a dozen or so specialities that require very specialized degrees and training. Drug chemists, trace evidence analysts, latent evidence analysist, DNA and blood analyst, firearms, computer crimes, document analyst, etc. etc. My suggestion is that you consider which part of law enforcement interests you, and then consider which field fits your interests. Contact a local law enforcement agency, and ask lots of questions about what you need to do to get that field. Also, even if you are just a "beat cop", having advanced training can lead to faster promotions. Most departments require supervisors to undergo extensive management training for example; I know my wife's boss had to essentially get his MBA before he got promoted to his supervisor positon; so if you are interested in getting into management positions in the department (lieutenants and captains and stuff like that), having that sort of training can't hurt. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Language spoken in heaven

Hello I am trying to locate a reference for an article on Church music. It is something like "I do not know what language is spoken in heaven, but I think it would be very similar to music". Google is no help. Grateful for any suggestions. The Land Surveyor (talk) 12:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds very similar to the basic premise behind the unfinished Who rock opera named Lifehouse (much of which would be released, sans plot, as the album Who's Next.) The concept is boiled down very well in the song "Pure and Easy", which was part of the "Lifehouse" cycle, but was later released on Odds & Sods. Lifehouse never got out off the ground, largely because the premise (Nirvana/Heaven is a single musical note; and people who tune their minds to that note achieve perfect bliss) was so weird and wacky that it didn't translate well to a real, plot-driven play. I would highly recommend hitting I-tunes or Rhapsody or whatever music service you like and downloading the song "Pure and Easy" by the Who. Its not one of their best known songs, but I have always liked it, and it pretty much deals with exactly what you are asking about. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books pretty quickly finds "The angels are so enamoured of the language that is spoken in heaven, that they will not distort their lips with the hissing and unmusical dialects of men, whether there be any who understand it or not" -- Ralph Waldo Emerson, Essay on Intellect. Some other authors seem to think that the language in Heaven is either a) Hebrew; b) Arabic; c) the unified language that was spoken by all humans before the Tower of Babel was built. 67.122.210.149 (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cymraeg yw iaith y nefoedd. AndyJones (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to InterTran, Andy's comment translates as: "Welsh is language the heavens." Even though the multiple Ys give it away, I always have to check. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or, with a bit more syntax than InterTran can wield, 'Welsh is the language of the heavens', or more naturally 'of heaven'. --ColinFine (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think every language is spoken in Heaven -- except German. Sorry Germans, but it has to stay heaven for everyone else too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.99.209 (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard that Hitler went to Heaven, and I'd guess he spoke German there. Later, he was asked to reincarnate, to come back to Earth and fix up all our problems. He was reluctant ("been there, done that" etc), but he finally agreed, saying "Oh, alright then. But this time, no more Mr Nice Guy". -- JackofOz (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart said of French "German is heavenly by comparison". Xn4 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

design

the role of thinking in design —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.204.224.41 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of a question is that? Is this one of those impossibly vague essay questions teachers like to set when they can't be bothered to think of a real question? If so, we won't do your homework for you. --Tango (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The role of questioning in answer Dmcq (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking age/sex/race questions of an applicant

In a country such as the U.S. where it is illegal to discriminate based on age/sex/race/religion, is it legal for a company to ask the age, sex or race of an applicant, or ask the applicant's religion in an interview?

Thanks, Sam 146.115.120.108 (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, it's common to ask those kind of questions on the application form for a job. The answers are kept from the people making the decisions and are only used to gather statistics in order to monitor their recruitment methods (and there's always an "Decline to answer" option which I always take - statistics don't prevent discrimination, not discriminating does). --Tango (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., many organizations are required to prove that they DON'T descriminate on the basis of (whatever) and in order to do that are required to collect data on their hiring practices (for example, you would need to know how many black applicants applied for a job, and then how many black employees you have, etc. etc.) Companies need to comply with the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which requires the collection of that data. You, as an applicant, are never required to answer that question, and the company cannot compel you, nor can they deny hiring you if you politely decline to answer it.(Politeness is the key. If you act indignant and raise a giant stink, well, they probably won't hire you because you were rude, and not because of whether or not you filled out the "race" box on the application.) So the key to the OP's question is that it IS illegal to descriminate in that way, however the data needs to be collected so the company can PROVE that it isn't descriminating... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope they don't DIScriminate either. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's politicians for you. Who's to say there isn't some reason why black (say) applicants are better/worse at the job that white (say) applicants? Just because you have the same proportions of employees as in the general population (or those applying, if you prefer) doesn't mean there isn't discrimination, and vice versa. (I'll stop ranting now!) --Tango (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the affirmative action days, discrimination was forced by having quotas for race/gender positions - not applicants, but positions. When I was hiring 5 computer programmers for a company, I was told that I had to hire two women and one black person. In all applicants, there were only two women (judging by their names). So, both were hired even though they knew nothing about programming. I had no black applicants. So, I told my waiter at the Huddle House to apply so I could hire him and get the quota out of the way so I could hire two programmers to do the work of 5 positions. I wonder why that company failed? -- kainaw ™ 18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Ontario (Canada), it is illegal to ask certain questions. Certainly no reference to them would appear in a job advertisement, and no HR professional would ever ask any of them. From [6] comes the following:

There are some questions that are illegal for employers to ask. In general, the employer cannot ask about your race, place of origin, ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital and family status, disability or financial situation. There are, however, certain situations when such questions are considered valid. According to the Ontario Human Rights Code, some of these questions are valid if

the nature of employment involves "serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status or handicap", or

the primary duty of employment is "attending to the medical or personal needs of the person", or

if a candidate is "the spouse, child or parent of the employer or an employee". ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it would be legal for them to ask, many companies have a strict policy of not doing so. If you ask a old/female/black/Jewish applicant their age/sex/race/religion and they don't get the job, they may sue you because they think that age/sex/race/religion discrimination was involved. (Why did you ask if it wasn't relevant?) Even if the hiring decision was completely impartial, the company will still need to waste time and money proving it in court. If you never ask about age/sex/race/religion, it's a lot simpler to show the judge that discrimination wasn't a factor. (As an aside, in the US a lot of the employment laws are handled at the State level. Even if Federal law doesn't prohibit asking, a state law may do so.) -- 128.104.112.72 (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, there were a couple US states that had propositions on their ballots during the recent election that asked if voters were in favor of ending the equal opportunity measures in their states. I can't find a link right now though since it's no longer news... Dismas|^(talk) 19:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Totally OR) ... Having applied for a number of jobs over the past few years in the U.S., my experience has been this: Companies ask you to fill in a job application with your name, address, etc., detailing your experience and qualifications for the job itself. You are also asked to fill in a separate optional form that does not have any personal identifying information on it, asking about ethnicity, etc., which is used by the company to meet its legal requirments. — Michael J 18:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

presidential gifts

On a recent episode of the Colbert report, Colbert suggested that he would try to bribe President-Elect Obama to come on the show by offering him an issue of spiderman with Stephen Colbert on the cover, signed by both the cover artist and colbert himself (apparently Obama is an avid spider-man collector). A one of a kind comic signed by its artist AND a character seems priceless. Were Obama to come on the show, would he even be permitted to accept such a gift? --Shaggorama (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the transition period, but when he becomes president, all gifts above a certain fairly low monetary value become property of the U.S. government... AnonMoos (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that AnonMoos? I'd be interested to read up on that...192.136.22.4 (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A certain competing encyclopedia owned by the Antichrist states "The Constitution also disallows presidents and other federal officials from receiving any title of nobility, gift, payment, or official position from a king, prince, or foreign state. All gifts to a president from foreign governments belong to the people of the United States rather than the president." For gifts from Americans, this says that "The president and vice-president are required to report gifts from US citizens that cost more than $US285" and "The majority of gifts are not accepted for their personal use, but rather on behalf of the United States and sent to the National Archives." Clarityfiend (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, presidents accept some, though not most gifts. since colbert isn't a government (yet), Obama could choose the comic as one of the few things he accepts as a gift during his presidency... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.99.209 (talk) 12:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of religion

Would it be theoretically (even if not practically) possible to scientifically prove the existence of God(s) or an afterlife? (I am not counting psychic powers because those have been tested and have not come out well.)

I was thinking that if an extraterrestrial civilization with a very similar mythology/religion to one of our own were discovered, that would be too unlikely of a coincidence to really be a coincidence. However, that is unlikely to happen in my lifetime (or this one of my lifetimes, if you prefer). Thoughts? 69.177.191.60 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. If gods existed, then they could easily prove themselves to exist by manifesting themselves and doing godly stuff. Algebraist 21:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may have difficulties with defining "god" and thus "godly stuff". How do you distinguish between a powerful alien with some kind of matter converter than can turn water into wine and an actual god? --Tango (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a rather interesting question, and one I've been thinking about recently. Suffice it to say here that I think the English word 'god' is sufficiently vague, and applies to such a diverse range of entities already, that I don't see anything wrong with declaring a super-powerful alien to be a god. Algebraist 22:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very interesting question and one that I've thought about a lot after watching Stargate (particularly the Ori arc - the heros keep saying the Ori aren't gods, but they've ascended to a higher plane of existence and have all kinds of powers over nature and the universe in general - sounds pretty god-like to me!). Your definition would allow humans to become gods simply through technological advancement (at least, if my example of being able to turn water into wine counts as sufficiently powerful - if the power level requires something beyond what our science says is possible, then things get a little more interesting). That doesn't necessarily invalidate the definition, but it does lead to interesting questions about where to draw the line - what we can do now (aeroplanes [a winged chariot, anyone?], atomic bombs [makes a bolt of lightning seem like child's play], computers that can perform calculations at incomprehensible speeds [would look like you're super intelligent to someone not in on the trick], space rockets [travelling to heaven, perhaps?]) would seem pretty super-powerful to humans 2000 years ago, so are we gods? --Tango (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entire purpose of Transhumanism is to turn us into gods—and, I must say, we've come a far ways to that end. By Medieval standards, any modern Joe today could have god-like powers. The Jade Knight (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidences should be expected. Lack of coincidence points to something odd. -- kainaw ™ 21:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the lack of coincidence may in fact be a coincidence in itself. SDY (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Descartes famously "proved" the existence of God in his work "Meditations." GreatManTheory (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, there have been many proofs. Unfortunately, they're all terrible. Algebraist 21:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is where the meaning of the words "prove" and "proof" come into their own. "To prove" does not, as is commonly mis-assumed, mean "to demonstrate incontrovertibly that the thing you're considering is true (or not)". It means "to test whether the thing you're considering is true (or not)". It's the process of testing that's the proof; it's not the outcome. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't describe a perfectly good usage as a mis-assumption. 'to prove' can mean either 'To establish as true; to make certain; to demonstrate the truth of by evidence or argument.' or 'To make trial of; to try, test.' This has been the case since at least the 13th century. Source: OED. Algebraist 22:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harumph! The OED - what would they know about English! (storms off). :) -- JackofOz (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another civilization (extraterrestrial or not) with similar beliefs is not at all any proof of anything other than the commonplace of beliefs. Whether said beliefs are true is entirely a different question. As for whether the coincidence of two civilizations with similar beliefs is noteworthy, it depends on a null sample which we simply do not have. (That is, it can't really be said whether it is probable or improbable. The sample size is too small and in any case there's no reason to suspect different beliefs is a more or less probable situation.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does one need any more proof of God than the fact that the Universe works at all? That the laws of physics set in motion by Him can produce the beautiful and the sublime that is Creation? That the Big Bang could ultimately create all of everything we see? That evolution could produce a creature capable of feeling His presence and of having a relationship with Him? It is a common misconception that the religious are expecting to see God's miraculous work as existing solely as inexplicable miracles and illogical events. God's work is everywhere, and he is manifest in the world. Being religious doesn't mean looking for the miracles that are coming; it means seeing the miracles that are all around us. It doesn't mean rejecting science for superstition, it means understanding that science has provided us with a finer and more complete understanding of His creation, and as such there is no holier work than science. This is just the rantings of one Christian; but please don't imply that being religious means the same thing as being superstitious, or that God's manifestation should exist solely in the unexplainable... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the inexplicable is the only refuge religion has. If something can be explained without requiring a deity then Occam's razor tells us we should assume that explanation is the correct one (there are probably some unimportant caveats to that, so if the pedants that like to point such things out whenever someone mentions Occam's razor could just assume I've already dealt with them, I would appreciate it - thanks!). --Tango (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends. Do you mean "inexplicable" to mean "the stuff that science has not explained yet" or do you mean "the stuff that science cannot explain". The former used to include such basic concepts as "why does it rain" and "why does the sun come up every day" and "where did all these animals and plants and people come from". Science pretty much nailed all those down. The latter category includes questions like "For what purpose does the Universe have" and "What caused the Universe to come into existance" (this is a DIFFERENT question than "by what process did it come into existance") and "Why would intelligent life evolve at all" and questions like that. Science will always lack the means to answer these questions; the answers to them MUST be taken on faith. Even the default answers, which is "we have no purpose" and "it happened because of dumb luck" are untestable and so beyond the scope of science; even if you come to those conclusions, you arrive at them via faith. I have arrived at answers to those questions, and they do not conflict with my understanding of the processes by which the universe operates. The human experience involves more than merely a collection of concrete observations about the world. The human experience involves art, and beauty, and faith, and lots of other experiences that are not part of the scientific discipline. "Why is a painting beautiful?" is as much outside the scope of science as is "Why am I here?", I would posit experiencing beauty and faith are as equal in importance to the human experience as is experiencing the truth of science. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith is a real thing. Everyone uses it every day. People post questions on this page with faith that they will be answered. If they didn't have faith that an answer would come, they wouldn't come here. You don't pursue someone romantically unless you have faith something will come of it. Wrad (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both meanings work - things which science can never explain will always be within the realm of religion. Things that science can't explain now but might in the future and currently in the realms of religion. One of the problems with religion is that it doesn't accept corrections when it is shown to be wrong. When the religions were first established they didn't really contradict anything because there was no better explanation, but as science has developed more and more things religion tries to explain have been explained more reliably by science but religions continues to insist on their original explanations (there is some variation in this, of course - some people are very fundamentalist about it, such as Young Earth Creationists, others accept science while still believing the religion which usually ends up with them believing contradictory things). --Tango (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's quite wrong too. Religions do change and evolve over time; and followers of that faith themselves change and evolve over time. Practitioners of any one religion are also highly diverse in their relationship with their religion. And never confuse the stubborness of individual people who refuse to accept science and claim (falsely) that their religion won't let them accept this; and the religious belief systems themselves, which may or may not take a "stance" on scientific issues... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you now saying that religion will change if science answers the question "What caused the universe to come into existence?"? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because then we would merely redifine the universe to be larger than currently envisaged. If you take the universe to mean "all of creation", and you take our universe to have been caused by some event in a larger, "multiverse", well, creation contains that multiverse as well. It goes back to Aristole's concept of "the prime mover". All creation must have a first cause, and that first cause must be God... If we come up with some process that caused the Big Bang before the Big Bang happened, then something must have caused THAT process to occur. And so on and so on. We can redefine "Creation" as science gains a greater understanding of it, but to get back to the First Cause will always be out of the reach of science... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you can provide a precise and testable ("falsifiable") definition for something, then science can in theory prove its existance. if it exists. (To prove non-existance, science needs a bit more than that.) So, you question is not specific enough. Please provide a precise definition of "god" for question 1, and of "afterlife" for question 2. -Arch dude (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked "Would it be theoretically (even if not practically) possible to scientifically prove the existence of God(s) or an afterlife?" The second part of the question ("or an afterlife") is clearly quite different from the first. Indeed, parapsychologists have put huge efforts into examining the evidence for reincarnation, communication with the dead, near death experiences, and so on. Although I believe there's no consensus on how successful all their efforts have been, the answer in principle must be Yes, or many intelligent people would know they were labouring in vain... which perhaps they are, of course, but that's another matter. (If this sounds subjective, look for a moment at the difference in our perceptions of parapsychology and astrology. Clearly, there is a consensus that parapsychology is a respectable discipline.) Xn4 (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Physicist Frank J. Tipler wrote an interesting book aiming to show that a kind of immortality or "afterlife" is physically possible: see Omega Point (Tipler)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have the best proof for the existance of god:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/thedishrag/2008/11/oh-dear-page-si.html

216.239.234.196 (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islam: group conversation customs?

I just visited my Muslim (originally Moroccan) neighbor on a festive occasion; there were a lot of men present (the women were the ones actually having the festive occasion, elsewhere). Aside from knowing how to say salaam aleikum and that you should eat with your right hand, I'm not well versed in Islamic customs (or Moroccan ones, if that makes a difference). After dinner, the guests started conversing among themselves. I didn't understand a word of what was spoken, as it was all Arabic, but two things stood out.

First, when the conversation started, the local geezer started flapping his gums for the good part of an hour (or so it felt, at least) while the rest was silent and listened, with only an occasional interjection. I assume this is a cultural "respect for the elders" kind of thing? Is the oldest member of the group actually expected to lead the conversation this way, or is it just a courtesy extended to them when they do start talking? Would he be expected to say something special or was he just saying "So I says to Mabel, I says..." in Arabic?

Second, at two seemingly random moments, one guy would start chanting and the others would join in (some with more dedication than others...) From what I could make out ("alhamdulillah") they were religious in nature. What's the deal behind this? Can anyone just start chanting, or is it supposed to happen at specific moments? What's the rationale behind it?

My neighbor's a nice guy who would have probably answered my questions, but I always feel a little embarrassed about such things, so I'm asking you instead. :-) 82.95.254.249 (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have lived for long periods in Morocco, so the following is based on personal experience. The old person mumbling and briefly interrupted was likely reciting a prayer. The occasional interjections are the Arab equivalent of Amen. The chanting were likely verses from the Coran; they are often recited in a sing-song style, as this is how they are usually memorized. This type of religious content is typical for a festive occasion, be it one of the Muslim feasts or a wedding, engagement, etc. Often, professional reciters will be invited to provide this service (for a fee of course). The recitations would have been in Arabic, but the rest of the conversation in Moroccan dialect, which is a quite different language. --Xuxl (talk) 16:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]