|
SusanofO -> RE: The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Taken (9/10/2006 3:08:12 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chaingang
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
"Elwood?"
Elwood P. Dowd, from the beloved play and film "Harvey." Elwood seems to believe in a Pooka, a mythical creature that takes the form of a rather large rabbit and that likes to go drinking with him.
But is it true?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
If the subject at hand is the existence or non-existence of that which created all things, and if logic is a thing, well how in the heck can one expect logical analysis to tell that tale?
Well, for starters this isn't too far from my own agnostic position so I am not really opposed. But...
Chaingang: I know yor post wasn't a reply to me, b ut feel impelled to make a reply. I am an agnostic, too. But am starting to think that is realy just a "word" or a "label". I am not sure what it really means anymore, even though intellectually I can spout a definition.
I found most of your comments about the limits of logic to be primarily about the following:
1. not limits in logic, but limits in ourselves (our way of thinking about a problem, e.g. computational algorithms)
*I saw that as almost his entire point, overall, Chiangang. You can't expect human logic application to resolve what is findamentally, a question of faith. Someone's use of logic to resolve a question that is primarily a matter of faith, leads is going to result in circular reasoning, always (apparent though it might be, or not). Because the application of logic is a result of human consciousness. It simply can't be applied to figure out the "bounds of logic" if the essence or higher power or being that is being investigated is the source of said "logic." The fact that what is defined as "logic" in the first place is defined by humans (the "designers, if you will, of the concepts of "logic", might be able to tell you that, I'd think.
2. issues of a specific area of interest
Not really, I didn't think. Just basic examples to try to teach the point that this question of proving the originator of the universe cannot be resolved with any certainty on its most fundamental terms, I thought.
3. problems of mathematical syntax
Yes. Of course. Humans invented "logic" (as an area of study, anyway). What makes you think logic would be able to explain the existence of the Being responsible for their existence? And why would that Being have to be necessarily under "logical" restrictions anyway, as a condition of "proving " whether or not it exists?? It couldn't be, if there is a "logical" explanation. It's "logically impossible" to think it could. Trying to "reason it out", just goes round and round like that.
4. epistemological conundrums (because science actually takes the extra step and doubts itself, it specifically asks: "how do we know what we know?)
*theolgians do this as well, Chaingang. That's one reason, I think, why there are so many religions to begin with (which I think is just fine, btw). So do sociologists, criminologosts, anthropologists, and so on.
...and while science has yet to resolve those issues, religion provides no answers on those questions whatever nor does it hope to. Religion never doubts itself nor its fundamental assertions. Religion is always just a long string of assertions. Take it as it is, or leave it.
* Blanket generalizations. Ick. Yeah - right. That's why there are so many religions to begin with. Nobody ever doubted religious leaders. Not Martin Luther. Not the pagans. Certainly not Jewish people. Or Protestants on general. Or the Catholics. Not Muslims or Hundus or Bhuddists. People have always accepted one religious leader's "fundamental viewpints" - thta's why nobody has ever been inspired enough, or disagreed enough with one religion to start one of their own. Where did Fhuddism come from? The development of Christianity can be linked to developemnts of pagan rituals, but I don't see pagan as a dirty word. Martin Luther was so disillusioned by Cathoicism in the tmje he lived in, he began Lutheranism. Etc.
As for religion being a long string of assertions, so is logic, and the study of logic, I think.
I think I could make a case that some theologians make a 'science' out of the study of religion and questions of whether or not the existence of God can be proved. In fact that 's what theology is all about. What is your definition of "science"? And why is there necessariy a "bad connotation" having to associated, with either area of inquiry?
"Science", according to my pocket thesaurus, is:
1.body of knowledge, information, laws or principles; "discilpline, study, branch or field, area or subject, realm or sphere.
2. Skill, art, technique. Expertise, method, order, system".
That's hardly a plus in favor of religion.
Maybe, maybe not. There are many things that are not a "plus" about anthropology,sociology, criminology, psychology, medicine or any other area of human inquiry, depending on how one wants to view their application, I suppose. I think there's no doubt that much that can be construed as "evil" has been done in the name of "religion" (and some good as well). Tossing the baby out with the bath water, doesn't resolve the question of the existence of God or not. As if you expect the existence of religion in the first place to be able to ultimatley be able to prove, or not, the ultimate question of whether or not God exists? It cannot.
According to my pocket thesaurus, "religion" is defined as:
religion: Creed, belief, faith , doctrine, dogma.
By contrast, science does ask those questions and attempt to resolve apparent paradoxes, and given the methods of science there is at least a fighting chance that we can someday have satisfactory resolutions to those perplexing issues. science is flexible - ever expanding and adapting to new information as it becomes known.
Yes, but religion can be viewed this way (theologians can do this, to a degree) but many don't see it that way. And also why would ikt be? Believing or not in a religion is a matter of faith, (as is, I think believing in the fact that science holds the key to all of humanity's ills. Not to denigrate "science" - not at all.
I just don't think science is going to ever conclusively resolve the question of whether or not there is an all powerful being, whom many may view as God (at least not in my lifetime, anyway). Because, I think, resolving that issue is a matter of faith, not logic. It simply can't be reasoned out, only hinted at, and intuited. I think there is not much doubt there are many things various areas of scientific inquiry can claim as being, and that have really truly been, beneficial to many people. Medicine, AIDs research, a cure for tuberculosis and so many other diseaeses, including malaria (that is still killing millions in third world countries even today - although many humanitarian organizations are trying to stop the spread of it, and help peole who do have it, to point out a few mundane examples). Some of these organizations have religious affiliates, including Christian ones (and Jewish ones, and Hindu ones, so on).
But, I don't think science is necessarily always "resolving apparent paradoxes" Maybe certain scientists are attempting that, yes. But for centuries, some "leading scientists" believed the Earth was flat, and revolved around the sun. For years scientists didn't understand the concept of gravity, or quantum physics. There are peope who believe BigFoot is alive and well on Earth today, but simply not perceivable in the 3rd dimesnion to most humans. Ditto for "Nessie" in Loch Ness, in Scotland. Some think that Nessie is an ancient species of aquatic dinosaur that most have believed dead for centuries. If a live "Nessie" s found, and it is a dinosaur, I think that would turn the long-held view of evolution on its head, for many people. Nobody has been able tofigure out why the Neanderthal man, as opposed to homo sapiens, vanished comletely - there are simply therories about that. There's no conclusive explanation." Personally, I think it's a "paradox" that "science" can now actually clone living things (like "Dolly, the sheep, for example), and might some day be able to clone entire human beings. We can make human tissue out of stem cells, with apparent beneficial applications. I am not against that. I am all for it.
According to my pocket thesaurus, a paradox is defined as:
Paradox - incongruity, enigma, inconsistency, absurdity, puzzle, mystery, problem, dilemma.
Hmmm. Some "apparent paradoxes" have been resolved by science, and therefore it must follow that: The biggest question of religious nature of all, as well as science, perhaps, the question of the prigin of the universe, will therefore have a "fighting chance" to be resolved? Hmm, I am not going to rule it out, but I'm not betting any retirement accounts on the probability this issue wll be resolved with certainty. Can you define what you mean by "fighting chance"? Can you refine your defintion of what you mean by 'science' and 'religon', as well, too, first?
However, I am not sure who I want to leave the decision, of whether or not to clone a full human being, leaving it in the hands of "science", or "religion", if either area of inquiry doesn't include a pretty darned long, hard look at potential ramifications, both "good" and "bad" of making such a decision.
I've also read about some fairly dogmatic scientists, as well as some religious leaders who can interpret "matters of faith" in an an apparently flexible way.
[:)]
- Susan
-----
As to this whole "free will" issue, my observation is that we are meat puppets. Sad but true. If I take away certain hormones and other chemicals from your body, you die like a grape on a withered vine. If I hamstring you I just cut the puppet strings in your legs. If I slice across the tops of your forearms suddenly the fingers no longer work.
You are your nervous system. You are the chemical interactions in your nervous system.
Really? Did the mere "chemical reactions in your nervouse system" completely compose or-and inspire the thoughts that you typed out in your reply? Or inspire them? I don't have the answer, but I know I could never conclusively "prove" a blanket generalization like thhat one - that's for sure. But - I am asking - What is your definition of human consciousness?
-----
Ethics? I don't think he was saying thwhat you seem to be implying here at all, Chaingang.
The Abrahamic faiths teach the myth of genocide: ** And? This is a blanket generalization skewed by bias against a "religous viewpoint". I'm not saying it's good or bad - I'm just saying that's what it is. This "proves" what, exactly?
http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=406678
The ethic of reciprocity, or the "The Golden Rule"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
[N.B. This ethical principle is culture based but also quite universal. It is not exclusively from the domain of religion that this idea derives, secular philosophers and legal ethiscists also consider this a foundation principle.
* Yes, I've heard this. And simply because some of these prinicples are so "universal" and historically enduring, especially the one of the "Golden Rule" (which, btw transcends a couple of religions), I imagine that some people, theologians especially, might consider that a reason to argue in favor of/ For the existence of God, not against it..
-----
Bottom line:
Let's for a moment assume all things are equal in terms of believing or not believing in the old man upstairs. What's the point? Power for a few? Comfort for those that need to be told comforting lies?
*Whatever you want it to be. It's not anyone else's decision to make for another adult, I don't think. If those "comforting lies" do bring confort sometimes to many people, what do you care? You don't have to believe in any of them if you don't want to do it.
Religion doesn't bake bread, explain how to build a house, or take the approx. measure of a circle - those are things you can only do with the sciences.
Blanket generalization. Yeah, but I think some relgious affiliations do a fair amount of good in the world, and have a kind-hearted and well-intentioned say-so sometimes in the distribution of "wealth", especially for some people wh have less than a "majority". I live in Omaha and Boys and Girls Town (formerly known as Boystown) was satrted by a Catholic priest, Father Flanagan, who truly believe Bring on the arguments against this possibility if it make sou happy, I've already heard many of them. nea "religious" or "spiritually oriented" person might give you some bread, if you were hungry. Habitat for humanity is a "reliigious" organization, etc.
[:)]
- Susan
|
|
|
|
