|
MrRodgers -> RE: Why Don't Some People Believe In Science? (12/3/2016 10:12:48 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marini
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Oh I think by far most people do believe in the basic science we all learn in school. And I don't think they depart from science until one ventures into the insecurities involved in having to feel that there is an afterlife and all of the incumbent religious doctrine required to feel in their own minds, to substantiate that feeling or belief.
Once there, it's not science...it's mysticism. By definition, a doctrine of thought that transcends ordinary understanding and therefore...science.
I LOVE when non-believers DEMAND "Proof" that GOD exists.
LOL, I need PROOF!!
It's called "Belief", not mysticism.
That is why I call myself, a BELIEVER.
Enjoy your day!
hear hear! [:D]
good one.
most peeps get in way over their heads when arguing religions elements and principles.
He uses similar arguments to evince the failure of other modern "scientific" explanations for human consciousness. Behaviorism, he writes, sought to explain human nature as a set of responses to external stimuli. Yet, he writes, "behaviorism suffers from the same problems as Hume's empirical philosophy in that it cannot provide any plausible explanation of self-knowledge and can never achieve objectivity about introspection."
Similar problems arise, Dr. Khursheed says, for those who say that the mind is a sort of living computer and our thoughts are nothing more than complex algorithms. "Is self-knowledge the awareness of one's own computational processes as they are occurring?" asks Dr. Khursheed. "If so, which background algorithms are being executed to produce the awareness of these foreground computational processes?
"Our self-knowledge is punctuated by desires, intentions and purposes for which no amount of background symbol-shuffling can seem to account," he adds.
And he says that those who argue that human nature is merely the sum total of a series of "survival" experiences, compounded by evolution through the eons, face similar problems: if we are merely animals whose reactions and thought processes have been programmed by evolution, where is the explanation for self-consciousness, Dr. Khursheed asks.
Such "scientific" explanations have been widely accepted by modern society as proofs that human nature has no spiritual side, Dr. Khursheed believes. Yet such a conclusion is wrong, he writes. Most of the great scientific discoveries have stemmed not from methodologies based on pure logic and rationalism but rather on processes of insight and intuition that are more akin to the mystical experiences that are described in all of the world's religions, he writes.
"The reduction of human nature to animal nature is not supported by the findings of any single scientific theory or set of scientific theories."
-- Anjam Khursheed, The Universe Within
"The reduction of human nature to animal nature is not supported by the findings of any single scientific theory or set of scientific theories," he says.
In the book's second part, entitled "Personal Knowledge," Dr. Khursheed writes that scientific discovery is a process of insight and intuition that is quite similar to the religious experience. "Science relies on creative qualities of the mind, as opposed to any methodology based upon empirical observations and logical rules," he writes. He notes, for example, that insights gained from highly intuitive "thought experiments" led Albert Einstein to formulate the theory of relativity.
He goes on to suggest that successful scientific investigations also require a kind of "faith" -- a faith in the principle of causality and in the unity of the universe -- and that the really great discoveries, which almost invariably fly in the face of the
conventional wisdom, require a genuine "leap of faith."
Dr. Khursheed cites Newton's formulation of the first law of motion, which states that a body in motion tends to remain in motion, unless acted on by outside forces. Since there are always forces acting on the motion of an object under observation, such as wind resistance, gravitational forces and so on, Dr. Khursheed writes, it "would have been an impossible feat for Newton to observe the motion of an object with no forces acting upon it. His first law of motion is a statement of faith, an abstraction of the mind."
In the book's final part, entitled "The Inner Vision," Dr. Khursheed brings his thesis full circle, arguing that for humanity to achieve the necessary sense of collective self-awareness required for our age, the essential unity of science and religion must become widely recognized and encouraged.
"All noble enterprises, science, religion, art and ethics, rely on the spiritual core of human nature prevailing over the influence of other superficial selves. While Descartes' search for indubitable truths in effect reached the conclusion that the spiritual self is more fundamental to human character than any other self, it was not new. All the world's spiritual traditions reach the same conclusion. All religions, for instance, are based upon a belief in the primacy of the spiritual over the material in human nature." http://www.onecountry.org/story/does-good-science-require-leap-faith
just driving the point home :)
Such "scientific" explanations have been widely accepted by modern society as proofs that human nature has no spiritual side, Dr. Khursheed believes. Yet such a conclusion is wrong, he writes. Most of the great scientific discoveries have stemmed not from methodologies based on pure logic and rationalism but rather on processes of insight and intuition that are more akin to the mystical experiences that are described in all of the world's religions, he writes.
Bullshit
"The reduction of human nature to animal nature is not supported by the findings of any single scientific theory or set of scientific theories."
-- Anjam Khursheed, The Universe Within
"The reduction of human nature to animal nature is not supported by the findings of any single scientific theory or set of scientific theories," he says.
So what ? Another attempt to depart from facts not surmised.
He goes on to suggest that successful scientific investigations also require a kind of "faith" -- a faith in the principle of causality and in the unity of the universe -- and that the really great discoveries, which almost invariably fly in the face of the conventional wisdom, require a genuine "leap of faith."
Bullshit
Dr. Khursheed cites Newton's formulation of the first law of motion, which states that a body in motion tends to remain in motion, unless acted on by outside forces. Since there are always forces acting on the motion of an object under observation, such as wind resistance, gravitational forces and so on, Dr. Khursheed writes, it "would have been an impossible feat for Newton to observe the motion of an object with no forces acting upon it. His first law of motion is a statement of faith, an abstraction of the mind."
Bullshit
"All noble enterprises, science, religion, art and ethics, rely on the spiritual core of human nature prevailing over the influence of other superficial selves. While Descartes' search for indubitable truths in effect reached the conclusion that the spiritual self is more fundamental to human character than any other self, it was not new. All the world's spiritual traditions reach the same conclusion. All religions, for instance, are based upon a belief in the primacy of the spiritual over the material in human nature." http://www.onecountry.org/story/does-good-science-require-leap-faith
The so-called 'spiritual self' is totally subjective and has no place in science.
|
|
|
|
