Intelligent Design

[quote name='helava']
Can you say science is free of dogma? Not absolutely, no. But you clearly don't understand the scientific *process*. Scientists don't believe in theories arbitrarily. What determines truth isn't simply consensus, but analytical review, and testing of hypotheses. Science isn't a religion *because* it relies on the facts that corroborate the theories, and if the facts disagree, that theory is tossed out. If a scientist is unable to let go of a theory, he must prove that there is merit in the theory, or move on. That's the way the process works, and the reason that it works is that we can explain the world works by using the scientific method. We can *predict the future* through science, in some cases, to 100% accuracy. You simply can't do that with religion.

seppo[/quote]

You are correct in that science does describe how natural phenomena work by describing the mechanism. What it cannot tell us is why they occur or even exist in the first place. You are addressing the wrong question. "Science" does not predict the future either, deductive reasoning does.

I understand the scientific method just fine, thank you. What you misunderstand is that science does NOT equal "100%" truth or accuracy in ANY case. You should familiarize yourself with this term: Principle of indeterminacy, or more commonly known as the uncertainty principle.

I'll agree that science's never ending quest for truth has more merit and application in the physical world than does religion. Religion's quest begins and ends in dubious unquestionable 'proof' in sacred texts written by men with no physical evidence whatsoever. However, when it comes to analyzing what existed before existence, science is in the same boat as the pope.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='helava']
Can you say science is free of dogma? Not absolutely, no. But you clearly don't understand the scientific *process*. Scientists don't believe in theories arbitrarily. What determines truth isn't simply consensus, but analytical review, and testing of hypotheses. Science isn't a religion *because* it relies on the facts that corroborate the theories, and if the facts disagree, that theory is tossed out. If a scientist is unable to let go of a theory, he must prove that there is merit in the theory, or move on. That's the way the process works, and the reason that it works is that we can explain the world works by using the scientific method. We can *predict the future* through science, in some cases, to 100% accuracy. You simply can't do that with religion.

seppo[/quote]

You are correct in that science does describe how natural phenomena work by describing the mechanism. What it cannot tell us is why they occur or even exist in the first place. You are addressing the wrong question. "Science" does not predict the future either, deductive reasoning does.

I understand the scientific method just fine, thank you. What you misunderstand is that science does NOT equal "100%" truth or accuracy in ANY case. You should familiarize yourself with this term: Principle of indeterminacy, or more commonly known as the uncertainty principle.

I'll agree that science's never ending quest for truth has more merit and application in the physical world than does religion. Religion's quest begins and ends in dubious unquestionable 'proof' in sacred texts written by men with no physical evidence whatsoever. However, when it comes to analyzing what existed before existence, science is in the same boat as the pope.[/quote]

Except that science IS analyzing it. The pope thinks he already knows and stopped looking.
 
Uh, I'm quite familiar with the uncertainty principle. Thanks.

What I said was that it can, in *some* cases, predict the future with 100% accuracy.

As to whether science addresses the question of "why," rather than "how" - in many cases, "how" and "why" are the same question. How we evolve, for instance, is tied almost directly into why we evolve.

Your line, "However, when it comes to analyzing what existed before existence, science is in the same boat at the pope," is sort of strange. What existed before existance? Nothing. If it existed, then it existed *during* existance, not before it.

But the point being, that there's a *huge* difference between believing you have the answers, and trying to make the world fit a set of arbitrary answers that have proven on a number of occasions to be totally wrong, and looking at the world, and trying to understand it. One leads to a greater understanding, the other works against it.

seppo
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='jmcc']I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?[/quote]

That's how I feel, you want to belive in something fine, you do that, just leave me the hell alone.

The problem is that organized religion is a cult, yep a cult. I asked my mom what she considered a cult. She's like "they brainwash people into beliviong and doing something and to further their ways". I'm like, "How is that different from a church?" I won, she didn't say anything.[/quote]


Organized religion vs. Cult is something I struggled with for a long long time in my faith. For a long time they seemed pretty similar to me and it really concerned me. I think where the literal difference is that a "cult" bu nature is a small offshoot of a larger religion. Thus, you could technically say that early chrisitianity (amoung the Jews) was a sort of cult (although it could be considered a type of Judaism back then...) So literally, Bhuddism, Judaism, Christianity etc. etc. cannot be a cult because they are massive. Obviously, this wasn;t enough for me to not consider my religion a cult. So I basically was able to boil it down to the fact that in the end, cults are much more aggressive in their efforts to convert. Cults are more forceful in their views than other, mainstream religions. I am not mindlessly following my ORGANIZED religion (and I;m not blind to the wisdom of other religions). I choose to follow because it fits my type. When I finally realized that I was pretty content with where I was... religiously speaking.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Wow, all of you religion haters make me sick.

First of all science can prove a lot of things, but it CAN'T prove how we were made/got here. All you have are theories that you idiots throw around like it was fact.

Second, Science is very much a religion with it's own belief system - you guys just choose not to see it that way. All of your theories can be equated to faith since you guys believe them and teach them even though there is little to no proof, and all of your science books are your bible.

Thirdly, this is why you wack ass liberals are so out of touch in this country. You swear you know what is best and what people want, but in reality you have no clue. You spew out your radical garbage and then when the rest of the country says your ideas suck you act like they are dumb and you, the minority, are somehow in the know. Please wake up from your fantasies and realize that this country isn't a radical piece of liberal shit like you want it to be and that you and your stupid ideas are in the minority.[/quote]

Skrubking,

Be wary of mixing religion and politics. Youre fighting a two front war (it didn;t work for hitler...) AND some of those "whack ass liberals" may be just as commited to their religion as you.
 
I don't think that say, the Branch Davidians have been nearly as "forceful" as the say, Roman Catholic church throughout the ages. The size argument, maybe, I dunno - is Scientology a cult, or a religion? (personally, I think it's *hilarious* that L. Ron Hubbard has gone on record stating that it was a profit-making scheme, and yet, people still believe it.) But the point being, there really is no distinction between a religion and a cult, save for mainstream acceptance.

seppo
 
[quote name='pumbaa'][quote name='David85'][quote name='jmcc']I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?[/quote]

That's how I feel, you want to belive in something fine, you do that, just leave me the hell alone.

The problem is that organized religion is a cult, yep a cult. I asked my mom what she considered a cult. She's like "they brainwash people into beliviong and doing something and to further their ways". I'm like, "How is that different from a church?" I won, she didn't say anything.[/quote]


Organized religion vs. Cult is something I struggled with for a long long time in my faith. For a long time they seemed pretty similar to me and it really concerned me. I think where the literal difference is that a "cult" bu nature is a small offshoot of a larger religion. Thus, you could technically say that early chrisitianity (amoung the Jews) was a sort of cult (although it could be considered a type of Judaism back then...) So literally, Bhuddism, Judaism, Christianity etc. etc. cannot be a cult because they are massive. Obviously, this wasn;t enough for me to not consider my religion a cult. So I basically was able to boil it down to the fact that in the end, cults are much more aggressive in their efforts to convert. Cults are more forceful in their views than other, mainstream religions. I am not mindlessly following my ORGANIZED religion (and I;m not blind to the wisdom of other religions). I choose to follow because it fits my type. When I finally realized that I was pretty content with where I was... religiously speaking.[/quote]

I do not see how a cult is more aggressive. The Catholic Church every other days says how things should be done. I couble months ago they pretty much said women shouldn't have rights and they should sit home and cook. Yet women still go to church because they are brainwashed to do so. The only difference I see is that small cults kill themselves and sadly the Catholic cults do not.
 
[quote name='David85'][quote name='pumbaa'][quote name='David85'][quote name='jmcc']I'm fine with spirituality. It's organized religion I can do without. If you need a church telling you how you should feel about the world around you, then how devoted are you to your faith?[/quote]

That's how I feel, you want to belive in something fine, you do that, just leave me the hell alone.

The problem is that organized religion is a cult, yep a cult. I asked my mom what she considered a cult. She's like "they brainwash people into beliviong and doing something and to further their ways". I'm like, "How is that different from a church?" I won, she didn't say anything.[/quote]


Organized religion vs. Cult is something I struggled with for a long long time in my faith. For a long time they seemed pretty similar to me and it really concerned me. I think where the literal difference is that a "cult" bu nature is a small offshoot of a larger religion. Thus, you could technically say that early chrisitianity (amoung the Jews) was a sort of cult (although it could be considered a type of Judaism back then...) So literally, Bhuddism, Judaism, Christianity etc. etc. cannot be a cult because they are massive. Obviously, this wasn;t enough for me to not consider my religion a cult. So I basically was able to boil it down to the fact that in the end, cults are much more aggressive in their efforts to convert. Cults are more forceful in their views than other, mainstream religions. I am not mindlessly following my ORGANIZED religion (and I;m not blind to the wisdom of other religions). I choose to follow because it fits my type. When I finally realized that I was pretty content with where I was... religiously speaking.[/quote]

I do not see how a cult is more aggressive. The Catholic Church every other days says how things should be done. I couble months ago they pretty much said women shouldn't have rights and they should sit home and cook. Yet women still go to church because they are brainwashed to do so. The only difference I see is that small cults kill themselves and sadly the Catholic cults do not.[/quote]

A cult is more aggressive because in many cults, there are a small number of people. Since cults target certain people (and personality types) i.e. people just gone though rough times, people that feel like they do not have a place in the world, etc. etc. Theres no space to disagree. Since there are a crap load of Catholics (and even more Chrisitans) there is enough flexibility to disagree with the religion and still consider yourself a part of it. When I say to other Catholics or Christians that I am think gays should have the legal right to marry, I've never had tell me that I'm no longer a part of the religion. I'm pretty sure the same thing goes for Judaism, Bhuddism, and Islam (more so even). Every religion has their extremists, but they shouldn't be rated on the extremists alone.

Lets not go making generalizations about people that are a part of organized religions when I know for a fact you have fought PAD overgeneralizations about people. I am a Catholic, doesn't mean I agree with everything the pope says. Thats the difference between a religion and a cult, I can disagree and still be an active part of the community.
 
[quote name='helava']I don't think that say, the Branch Davidians have been nearly as "forceful" as the say, Roman Catholic church throughout the ages. The size argument, maybe, I dunno - is Scientology a cult, or a religion? (personally, I think it's *hilarious* that L. Ron Hubbard has gone on record stating that it was a profit-making scheme, and yet, people still believe it.) But the point being, there really is no distinction between a religion and a cult, save for mainstream acceptance.

seppo[/quote]

Size is the point. No religion gets large by having a iron fist on opinions. A religion where discussion and change aren't allowed will not grow large. You are correct about acceptance, but not in the way you think. People stay with their religion past what their parents taught them because they CAN disagree and still be considered part of it. Mainstream is the entire point, religions exist because their original messages (Koran, Bible, Torah, Shinto Scriptures, etc.) made enough sense to appeal to the mainstream. These things have lasted for long, long time periods. I'm not saying any of them are more right than others, I'm just saying that large RELIGIONS are different from cults... fundamentally because of their mainstreamness. Religions could be called massive, mainstream, flexible cults... but they arent.. because that strips away exactly what a cult is.
 
So, the difference between a cult & a religion is "room to disagree"? So, if I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm pro-choice, and I'm disagreeing with the Pope, who's supposedly what, the voice of God on Earth, er... where's the room for disagreement? That the Catholics are lazy about enforcing their beliefs, or explicitly don't bother in order to keep their userbase large... That doesn't seem to me to be a particularly worthwhile distinction.

I don't have a problem with you *being* a cultist - I just think that if this is going to be the belief system that large parts of your life are going to be based on, that you at least have the guts to call it what it is, and not create some bizarre, arbitrary distinction between your cult and their cult.

seppo
 
Thank you helava.

If I went into a church wearing a rainbow cape do you really think they will welcome me? No, they might until I give them money then they wouldn't be welcoming.

They aren't called cults people if they did that would piss off the people who go to church and then they don't watch that station anymore and lose money.

Religoin is a big cult. They haven't changed that much, they still teach bullshit, just not in church, they say it on the airwaves. Like I said the church is against womens rights, but they only say that on the news, not in church because all the women would leave.

Religion is just a better plan cult that tries to hide what they belive when it doesn't help them out aka when it doesn't give them money.
 
[quote name='helava']So, the difference between a cult & a religion is "room to disagree"? So, if I'm a Roman Catholic, and I'm pro-choice, and I'm disagreeing with the Pope, who's supposedly what, the voice of God on Earth, er... where's the room for disagreement? That the Catholics are lazy about enforcing their beliefs, or explicitly don't bother in order to keep their userbase large... That doesn't seem to me to be a particularly worthwhile distinction.

I don't have a problem with you *being* a cultist - I just think that if this is going to be the belief system that large parts of your life are going to be based on, that you at least have the guts to call it what it is, and not create some bizarre, arbitrary distinction between your cult and their cult.

seppo[/quote]

Wow. Just.... wow. I'll tell you what. I'm Roman Catholic. Ask me about what I believe, and it probably won't fall in line with exactly everything the Catholic Church says. If you believe that every single practicing Catholic believes every single thing the Catholic Church believes... or that they SHOULD, you are pretty mistaken. Regardless, it doesn't matter. I understand and apologize for those who call themseleves religious and are intolerant, who are violent, and who use their religion as a status symbol. Real spirituality, REAL religion goes beyond that superficial shit. I don't want to fucking convert you, I voted for John Kerry, I'm for gay marriage, I dont think people are SAVED simply because they are christian. I follow a lot of Catholic things because they make sense to me. Example, I'm waiting to have sex til marriage (or at least a crazy awesome love) because I wanna have sex with someone who I truly love. I'm not your typical Chrisitan. I don't know what more to say, I see a distinction, you don't, I guess thats the best I can do.
 
[quote name='David85']Thank you helava.

If I went into a church wearing a rainbow cape do you really think they will welcome me? No, they might until I give them money then they wouldn't be welcoming.

They aren't called cults people if they did that would piss off the people who go to church and then they don't watch that station anymore and lose money.

Religoin is a big cult. They haven't changed that much, they still teach bullshit, just not in church, they say it on the airwaves. Like I said the church is against womens rights, but they only say that on the news, not in church because all the women would leave.

Religion is just a better plan cult that tries to hide what they belive when it doesn't help them out aka when it doesn't give them money.[/quote]

My church would be cool with it. Come on down to University of Florida, you might get some odd looks... cause... well... you are wearing a friken cape... but I can't see anybody turning you away or thinking of you as the evil gay guy... just the odd guy with the cape on.

If people were to strip away all the bullshit about "churches are only about money", and "the bible is all bullshit" and do some research. It makes a lot of sense. Yeah, I'm not naive... a lot of really horrible stuff has happened because of religion... but there are some truly amazing things to think about, at least in the religions Ive looked at.
Look at some of the points that different religious texts make, and take them out of their religious context. A lot of them are just common sense thing. Don't just look at Christitanity, look at some early Shinto writings, or the Koran, or some Bhuddist writings from Asia. I'm just saying, I completely understand the hostility, a lot of "religious" people are dicks... don't let that deter you from finding the good in it.
 
I believe one of the qualifications for a cult is a living, charismatic leader, if you want to get into semantics about it.
 
http://www.cultfaq.org/cultfaq-cult-definition.html

first result for google search of "definition of cult". Take it as you will... it really doesn't agree with either of us (or agree with both of us. ::shrugs::

Click on some of the other links and it seems like a cult, in the mainstream sense of the word... is identified as being "out of step" with mainstream theological or socital ideas.
 
Do we give money to CAG? Do we listen to everything people say and get brainwashed by it? Do we base our actions on what happens here.

cult: formal religious veneration : worship

Seems like a church to me...
 
[quote name='David85']Do we give money to CAG? Do we listen to everything people say and get brainwashed by it? Do we base our actions on what happens here.

cult: formal religious veneration : worship

Seems like a church to me...[/quote]

I'm building a golden idol of Cheapy D in my basement. Anyone want to come by and worship it for a while :)
 
[quote name='helava'][quote name='camoor']1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope. [/quote]

Then can you please define what a "proof" is, in your estimation?

seppo[/quote]

Proof - That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief.

The "degree of evidence" phrase is the key factor that I focus on.

Science has proven that our five senses can be fooled, think of an optical illusion (eg a desert mirage) or a technological simulation (eg the image on a tv screen). However the converse can also be true, it is entirely possible that sensual entities like a "thought in your head" or "an emotion" are explained more clearly and accurately by philosophy or religion then by science. After all, can an idea be simply described as a bunch of neurons in the brain firing positive and negative charges?

As our knowledge of the universe is limited, I choose to explain the sensations that I feel in both scientific and philisophical/religious terms. The empirical degree of evidence that I demand of philosophy/religion is fundamentally different the rational degree of evidence that I demand of science. However in my view, it is no less valid.
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='helava'][quote name='camoor']1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope. [/quote]

Then can you please define what a "proof" is, in your estimation?

seppo[/quote]

Proof - That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief.

The "degree of evidence" phrase is the key factor that I focus on.

Science has proven that our five senses can be fooled, think of an optical illusion (eg a desert mirage) or a technological simulation (eg the image on a tv screen). However the converse can also be true, it is entirely possible that sensual entities like a "thought in your head" or "an emotion" are explained more clearly and accurately by philosophy or religion then by science. After all, can an idea be simply described as a bunch of neurons in the brain firing positive and negative charges?

As our knowledge of the universe is limited, I choose to explain the sensations that I feel in both scientific and philisophical/religious terms. The empirical degree of evidence that I demand of philosophy/religion is fundamentally different the rational degree of evidence that I demand of science. However in my view, it is no less valid.[/quote]

So, to fill the gaps that science hasn't written in yet you're stuffing them full of spirituality? I suppose that's what most everyone does just to get through the day, but in a thousand years we'll be just as laughed at as all the goons back in the year 1000 are today...trepanning and bloodletting...those buffoons!
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='helava'][quote name='camoor']1. There is not necessarily a derth of proof for God, Buddha, Ganesh, Zeus, or whomever you may believe in. Many people consider proof to come from more places then a microscope. [/quote]

Then can you please define what a "proof" is, in your estimation?

seppo[/quote]

Proof - That degree of evidence which convinces the mind of any truth or fact, and produces belief.

The "degree of evidence" phrase is the key factor that I focus on.

Science has proven that our five senses can be fooled, think of an optical illusion (eg a desert mirage) or a technological simulation (eg the image on a tv screen). However the converse can also be true, it is entirely possible that sensual entities like a "thought in your head" or "an emotion" are explained more clearly and accurately by philosophy or religion then by science. After all, can an idea be simply described as a bunch of neurons in the brain firing positive and negative charges?

As our knowledge of the universe is limited, I choose to explain the sensations that I feel in both scientific and philisophical/religious terms. The empirical degree of evidence that I demand of philosophy/religion is fundamentally different the rational degree of evidence that I demand of science. However in my view, it is no less valid.[/quote]

So, to fill the gaps that science hasn't written in yet you're stuffing them full of spirituality? I suppose that's what most everyone does just to get through the day, but in a thousand years we'll be just as laughed at as all the goons back in the year 1000 are today...trepanning and bloodletting...those buffoons![/quote]

I'm not filling in any gaps.

Life is not a brick wall, with scientific facts as the bricks and religion/philosophy as the mortar.

No, I believe life is a synthesis of experiences, and we must consider all of these experiences together if we wish to discover truth.

An apple consists of natural sugars, seeds, stem, core, fruit flesh, and skin.

An apple is a delicious piece of food.

An apple is a group of atoms arranged in a compact but definable format.

An apple is a thing of beauty, a soothingly smooth rounded shape that can range in color from red to yellow to green.

An apple can impart new life and energy to animals.

I believe that every one of these statements contains a degree of evidence, so for me these statements are proof that an apple is more then just a dry scientific fact. There is no real reason to think that the person who considers an apple to be aesthetically pleasing, or a piece of food, would be considered foolish by future generations (assuming they still enjoy art or need to eat :wink: ). In fact, perceptions like these are a central part of the human experience. I would belittle noone who disavows the beauty of an apple as false and favors a completely logical and scientific perspective of what an apple is, and I would ask the same respect from them towards my blended humanistic/scientific views on what an apple truly is.
 
Sure, and most of those properties of the apple that you've described are explained by science. Why is it delicious? Why is it red? Why is it smooth? Why is it food? Why do we find it beautiful? How can it impart new life and energy to animals? All these things are either already largely explained, or being researched by scientists.

What you've done is listed a number of perceptions of an object - I don't see how this ties into "proof".

One of the reasons that science is peer-reviewed is that in many cases, a person's perception can be wrong. It's not perfect, but the process continues to strive *toward* perfection. What you've said is essentially, "Well, there's some crap we haven't explained yet, so I'll wave my hands in the air and call it proof that there are other avenues of exploration that are equally valid."

The fact that *you* don't understand the science behind the way you feel doesn't mean that someone else doesn't, or won't. Saying you're "filling in the gaps" is pretty insipid, to be perfectly blunt.

seppo
 
One day you could probably program a super computer to spit out a bunch of mathematical formulas that symbologically represent all these features of an apple.

However it would still not the be the be-all-and-end-all of universal truths *for me*

[quote name='helava']...Why do we find it beautiful?...[/quote]

One can produce scientifically accurate statistics on what makes a person consider an apple beautiful (IE symetry, smoothness, color, etc), or reason the beauty away as an evolutionary development that leads people to eat life-sustaining food. These ideas can certainly form the legitimate basis of a world-view.

However, from my perspective this would be missing the *essence* of beauty. Science is simply describing the phenomena that was physically manifested as a result of my coming into contact with beauty. It's categorically listing the qualities of the object that caused me to find the apple beautiful. I don't think I'm a robot that's running along and giving apples a score on 1 to 10 based on a laundry list of beauty characteristics, and then getting an emotional payoff based on that score. Instead I'm looking at an object and for a brief instance I'm seeing what that object truly is for me, organically merging all of the visual qualities of the apple with my current mental and emotional states, and for a brief moment connecting with the apple's true beauty in a sense that scientific jargon just doesn't capture.

I've had some trouble because it's a really tough concept to describe to a skeptic (I used to be of a completely scientific viewpoint myself). However I would never call the humanistic viewpoint of the world insipid, in fact my life is much more flavorful ever since I started to expand my horizons beyond the ordered universe of science and reason.
 
[quote name='camoor']One day you could probably program a super computer to spit out a bunch of mathematical formulas that symbologically represent all these features of an apple.

However it would still not the be the be-all-and-end-all of universal truths *for me*

[quote name='helava']...Why do we find it beautiful?...[/quote]

One can produce scientifically accurate statistics on what makes a person consider an apple beautiful (IE symetry, smoothness, color, etc), or reason the beauty away as an evolutionary development that leads people to eat life-sustaining food. These ideas can certainly form the legitimate basis of a world-view.

However, from my perspective this would be missing the *essence* of beauty. Science is simply describing the phenomena that was physically manifested as a result of my coming into contact with beauty. It's categorically listing the qualities of the object that caused me to find the apple beautiful. I don't think I'm a robot that's running along and giving apples a score on 1 to 10 based on a laundry list of beauty characteristics, and then getting an emotional payoff based on that score. Instead I'm looking at an object and for a brief instance I'm seeing what that object truly is for me, organically merging all of the visual qualities of the apple with my current mental and emotional states, and for a brief moment connecting with the apple's true beauty in a sense that scientific jargon just doesn't capture.

I've had some trouble because it's a really tough concept to describe to a skeptic (I used to be of a completely scientific viewpoint myself). However I would never call the humanistic viewpoint of the world insipid, in fact my life is much more flavorful ever since I started to expand my horizons beyond the ordered universe of science and reason.[/quote]

Nothing exists beyond the ordered unierse of science and reason, only what we understand of it.
 
[quote name='jmcc'][quote name='camoor']One day you could probably program a super computer to spit out a bunch of mathematical formulas that symbologically represent all these features of an apple.

However it would still not the be the be-all-and-end-all of universal truths *for me*

[quote name='helava']...Why do we find it beautiful?...[/quote]

One can produce scientifically accurate statistics on what makes a person consider an apple beautiful (IE symetry, smoothness, color, etc), or reason the beauty away as an evolutionary development that leads people to eat life-sustaining food. These ideas can certainly form the legitimate basis of a world-view.

However, from my perspective this would be missing the *essence* of beauty. Science is simply describing the phenomena that was physically manifested as a result of my coming into contact with beauty. It's categorically listing the qualities of the object that caused me to find the apple beautiful. I don't think I'm a robot that's running along and giving apples a score on 1 to 10 based on a laundry list of beauty characteristics, and then getting an emotional payoff based on that score. Instead I'm looking at an object and for a brief instance I'm seeing what that object truly is for me, organically merging all of the visual qualities of the apple with my current mental and emotional states, and for a brief moment connecting with the apple's true beauty in a sense that scientific jargon just doesn't capture.

I've had some trouble because it's a really tough concept to describe to a skeptic (I used to be of a completely scientific viewpoint myself). However I would never call the humanistic viewpoint of the world insipid, in fact my life is much more flavorful ever since I started to expand my horizons beyond the ordered universe of science and reason.[/quote]

Nothing exists beyond the ordered unierse of science and reason, only what we understand of it.[/quote]

Kant originally believed the same thing, but he in the end he came to the conclusion that reason (ie logic) is a self-referential system, and therefore is fundamentally limited in it's ability to "explain" the universe.

The main conceit of science is that we discover truths by deduction, ala Sherlock Holmes solving the crime by the evidence in hand. However in reality it is often the process of induction, or creative leaps of thought (tempered by logic) that lead to a wider scope of understanding about our universe. Science has a sophisticated method that can be used to run the result of induction through a battery of tests, and voila the end product is "proof". However why does the original process of induction work? How do the best thinkers (Einstein, Newton, etc) intuit their ideas and grasp the true nature of existence before they have sat down and logically worked out all the physical and chemical formulas behind these ideas? Science has never answered these questions with a degree of evidence that I find compelling.
 
You misunderstand what I'm calling insipid. It's not the humanistic worldview, it's the arbitrary distinction between your perception of how the world works. Science doesn't just work "some of the time," and basically what you've said is that you've chosen some things that you believe can't be explained, and then say well, science can't explain these things. Which is basically just a tremendously lame intellectual cop-out, IMO.

And re: that you don't think you're a robot - *why* don't you think that that's what's happening in your brain? Because you don't want to? The problem with the way you've described your belief system is that you're the only arbiter of what's "true" or not in your perception. The problem, of course, is that that's a really awful means of determining what's "true" or not.

seppo
 
The original process of induction *doesn't* always work, and that's why the battery of tests and review are necessary. That's the whole *point*. The best thinkers didn't intuit their ideas and grasp the true nature of existance. They guessed as to what it might be, then tested that guess against the real world to see if that's what *was*. The best thinkers were simply people who took the time to make those guesses, and had the intellectual curiosity to test them. Someone like Einstein was extraordinarily good at doing that, as is someone like Stephen Hawking - but it's not like they're instantly divining the "true nature of the universe" - they're guessing, based on their knowledge, and then seeing if those guesses hold up.

Why that needs a "degree of evidence [you] find compelling," is beyond me. It's just a process.

seppo
 
Yes, every idea coming out of induction will not be a bona fida scientific theory, but it is still the primary method that scientists use to discover truth.

As for the degree of evidence, I cannot agree that the difference between Einstein and the common scientist is their degree of intellectual curiousity or the number of their guesses on the nature of universal truth. I know a few physicists who are fascinated with the inner workings of the universe, people who make plenty of guesses and work long hours at the university labs to prove them, however these scientists will probably never contribute to our scientific understanding on the grand scale that Einstein or Hawking have.

I do not "fill in the gap" of what differentiates the average scientist from Einstein with philosophy or religion. The truth is that my perspective on philosphy/religion actually dovetails beautifully with science, enhancing and improving my understanding instead of merely supplementing it. Do science and philosphy/religion clash? Occasionally they certainly do, and many people focus on these differences rather then the similarities, yet to my way of thinking this is a fatal error. Instead I work to augment my scientific view of the world with philosophy/religion, and clarify my religious/philisophical views of the world with science.
 
Ugh. I hate metaphysics. I can live with not knowing why something is, but I can't stand a conclusion that I can't verify. If something is intangible for the sake of measurement, then it's not observable and if it's not observable how can I rationalize it?
 
[quote name='jmcc']Ugh. I hate metaphysics. I can live with not knowing why something is, but I can't stand a conclusion that I can't verify. If something is intangible for the sake of measurement, then it's not observable and if it's not observable how can I rationalize it?[/quote]

Just ask Schrodinger's cat.
 
[quote name='bmulligan'][quote name='jmcc']Ugh. I hate metaphysics. I can live with not knowing why something is, but I can't stand a conclusion that I can't verify. If something is intangible for the sake of measurement, then it's not observable and if it's not observable how can I rationalize it?[/quote]

Just ask Schrodinger's cat.[/quote]

Oh good, I'll take this time to repost the best version of said scenario:

"Schroedinger, Erwin! Professor of physics!
Wrote daring equations! Confounded his critics!
(Not bad, eh? Don't worry. This part of the verse
Starts off pretty good, but it gets a lot worse.)
Win saw that the theory that Newton'd invented
By Einstein's discov'ries had been badly dented.
What now? wailed his colleagues. Said Erwin, "Don't panic,
No grease monkey I, but a quantum mechanic.
Consider electrons. Now, these teeny articles
Are sometimes like waves, and then sometimes like particles.
If that's not confusing, the nuclear dance
Of electrons and suchlike is governed by chance!
No sweat, though--my theory permits us to judge
Where some of 'em is and the rest of 'em was."
Not everyone bought this. It threatened to wreck
The comforting linkage of cause and effect.
E'en Einstein had doubts, and so Schroedinger tried
To tell him what quantum mechanics implied.
Said Win to Al, "Brother, suppose we've a cat,
And inside a tube we have put that cat at--
Along with a solitaire deck and some Fritos,
A bottle of Night Train, a couple mosquitoes
(Or something else rhyming) and, oh, if you got 'em,
One vial prussic acid, one decaying ottom
Or atom--whatever--but when it emits,
A trigger device blasts the vial into bits
Which snuffs our poor kitty. The odds of this crime
Are 50 to 50 per hour each time.
The cylinder's sealed. The hour's passed away. Is
Our pussy still purring--or pushing up daisies?
Now, you'd say the cat either lives or it don't
But quantum mechanics is stubborn and won't.
Statistically speaking, the cat (goes the joke),
Is half a cat breathing and half a cat croaked.
To some this may seem a ridiculous split,
But quantum mechanics must answer, "Tough shit!
We may not know much, but one thing's fo' sho':
There's things in the cosmos that we cannot know.
Shine light on electrons--you'll cause them to swerve.
The act of observing disturbs the observed--
Which ruins your test. But then if there's no testing
To see if a particle's moving or resting
Why try to conjecture? Pure useless endeavor!
We know probability--certainty, never.'
The effect of this notion? I very much fear
'Twill make doubtful all things that were formerly clear.
Till soon the cat doctors will say in reports,
"We've just flipped a coin and we've learned he's a corpse."'
So saith Herr Erwin. Quoth Albert, "You're nuts.
God doesn't play dice with the universe, putz.
I'll prove it!" he said, and the Lord knows he tried--
In vain--until fin'ly he more or less died.
Win spoke at the funeral: "Listen, dear friends,
Sweet Al was my buddy. I must make amends.
Though he doubted my theory, I'll say of this saint:
Ten-to-one he's in heaven--but five bucks says he ain't."

--CECIL ADAMS"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top