Phi for All Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 I am a songwriter and musician as well as curious and I observe the world logically, artistically and intuitively.The reason the scientific method is so valuable as a tool is that using it properly gives the best chance for logical results. Abandoning it for bursts of artistic license and intuitive reasoning defeats its entire purpose.
mooeypoo Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 (edited) I am a songwriter and musician as well as curious and I observe the world logically, artistically and intuitively. Fair enough, I guess in art and philosophy you can discard of empirical methods. I didn't think about that. Good point. ~moo Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe reason the scientific method is so valuable as a tool is that using it properly gives the best chance for logical results. Abandoning it for bursts of artistic license and intuitive reasoning defeats its entire purpose. Actually, I disagree. If your goal is to describe reality objectively (like what Physics, Chemistry et al are trying to do) then you can't abandon the scientific method. I can see, however, how if you want to describe a personal feeling or a personal reality through a song you really don't need to stick to facts or empirical data, or have any sort of methodology (other than, maybe, making sure your notes sound good). The scientific method is good for obtaining objective description of reality, but if you have a subject that doesn't need objectivity (like music, art, philosophy, etc) then I can see how you can do without it. Edited December 18, 2009 by mooeypoo Consecutive posts merged.
Phi for All Posted December 18, 2009 Posted December 18, 2009 Actually, I disagree. If your goal is to describe reality objectively (like what Physics, Chemistry et al are trying to do) then you can't abandon the scientific method. I can see, however, how if you want to describe a personal feeling or a personal reality through a song you really don't need to stick to facts or empirical data, or have any sort of methodology (other than, maybe, making sure your notes sound good). The scientific method is good for obtaining objective description of reality, but if you have a subject that doesn't need objectivity (like music, art, philosophy, etc) then I can see how you can do without it. I didn't read walkntune's post #25 in the context of writing a song or describing a personal feeling. This chain of reference started with his statement: Besides some of us believe in the God of Sponaza and of Einstein and certain aspects of science are pointing in that direction and not away from it.He was quite clearly referencing aspects of science, yet later stating that scientific method was limiting in that regard and he also used intuitive thinking (a clear red flag to me when coupled with talk of Einstein). However, since this is the second time today, in this thread, that I have failed to make myself understood to you, mooey, I'm willing to believe the fault lies with me and splitting my attention between work and play. So sorry.
walkntune Posted December 19, 2009 Posted December 19, 2009 (edited) He was quite clearly referencing aspects of science, yet later stating that scientific method was limiting in that regard and he also used intuitive thinking (a clear red flag to me when coupled with talk of Einstein). My intentions were nothing more than just to throw out an idea that I was in agreement with Sisyphus on some points he was making and I also have beliefs in a cosmic order(cause and effect) and structure of the universe which I may refer to as a more logical or scientific God that might be impossible to prove nonexistent or otherwise.(after all, science pointed Einstein in the direction of his beliefs) Of course it's hard to even agree with someone on points on forums without them turning it into a debate or try to debunk you but I find it humorous and don't try and take it at face value. I am here to learn about this God of Spinoza, not try to prove it to others. With these kind of comments you might get a smile. So you're limited to tertiary sources (somebody writing about what Einstein thought about Spinoza's thoughts)? I didn't start from reading a source and form a belief or opinion, I started from a belief or opinion(intuitive sense if you will) and I find similar beliefs through sources I read. "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp: "In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views." "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." Now because i say that I don't limit myself to a particular method doesn't mean I put down any method, it just means I am open to all possibilities of observing and understanding the universe.(we belong to it, it doesn't belong to us).Who am I to create a system to observe the universe and try and make it fit into this method I create and manipulate it when and if it doesn't fit.I believe we sink from that which we hold on to,not that which we are willing to let go of and be open to. I am open to science and it has pulled me away from having a closed religious stance against other methods and helped me have some great understandings of why whatever it was that was working for me was actually working. I am open to how religion works for people as well and think although there are many aspects that are not understood in some religious folks, there are methods to it that work very well for many people. I believe the greatest truths will be revealed in the balance and harmony of intuition and logical rational thinking and not when one is leaning to far on one side or the other. Edited December 20, 2009 by walkntune
mooeypoo Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 (after all, science pointed Einstein in the direction of his beliefs) Okay, c'mon, please knock that off... I know that it's really awesome and great to take a famous figure and show them as a symbol of belief, but Einstein was *NOT* a religious believer in the least. Anyone reading what *EINSTEIN* said (as opposed to what was said about him) can see it clearly. It's a bit annoying, too, because this was pointed out to you before and you seem to just ignore it. It's a bit annoying, and, quite frankly, disrespectful for Einstein himself, to be used as a flagholder for something he didn't QUITE share.
walkntune Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 Okay, c'mon, please knock that off... I know that it's really awesome and great to take a famous figure and show them as a symbol of belief, but Einstein was *NOT* a religious believer in the least. Anyone reading what *EINSTEIN* said (as opposed to what was said about him) can see it clearly. It's a bit annoying, too, because this was pointed out to you before and you seem to just ignore it. Never claimed Einstein is religious and on the contrary stated he believes in a scientific cosmic order. Are you familiar with the God of Spinoza? If I make a statement about what he claimed to believe then I think it's only fair that I use his quote for such a statement as annoying as it may be. It's a matter of respect for him to use his quote when I claim he stated something and contrary to your unjustifiable claim that it's disrespectful. Since you have such a clear understanding and definition of his view on his quotes(that anyone can see) would you be willing to share? I will be open to your interpretation I promise.I will put them here "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
iNow Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 Since you have such a clear understanding and definition of his view on his quotes(that anyone can see) would you be willing to share? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein
walkntune Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavour of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals, and constantly to strengthen their effects." He argued that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors". This is a great link and actually almost every quote on it can back up and give me confirmation on views that I hold about cosmic order and nature itself being creator. I would love interpretations of what I have underlined above.
Mr Skeptic Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 Well, the way I see it: If they prove that there is no god (this is impossible anyhow), then for the most part no one will care. See evolution, only more so since people would not be able to reconcile this at all with their beliefs If they prove that god is unnecessary (ie anything that people thought needed a god to explain could be explained by natural causes), this would at least be possible but again no one would listen. If god were dead in the same sense that Thor is dead, ie the vast majority of the people don't believe in a god, then we would have a different society. Different how? Probably not much. Atheists can just as well be superstitious or believe in the paranormal, people who want to stir up troubles will find another motivator, people who want to do good deeds will do it for secular reasons, etc.
mooeypoo Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 [/u] This is a great link and actually almost every quote on it can back up and give me confirmation on views that I hold about cosmic order and nature itself being creator. I would love interpretations of what I have underlined above. The quote can be interpreted here and there, btw, but I am curious, as a side note, to know why is it so important -- or why is it important at all -- to use Einstein as support for your beliefs *AT ALL* ? Whatever you believe in is your business.. what difference does it make if Einstein supports your beliefs or not? Einstein's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) have no bearing over his scientific achievements, just like his treatment to his wife and kids (not a very nice one, according to his biography, he cheated, abandoned them, was too much into his work, etc) has no bearing *AT ALL* on his scientific achievements. In other words, why is this even an issue?
walkntune Posted December 20, 2009 Posted December 20, 2009 conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors". You see there is an on going debate through the ages between science and religion.Both are just different interpretations of the very same truths of understanding the force of nature or the cosmic order.To be able to understand and see both sides is what pushes and advances or knowledge and achievements further to come closer to truth. Any stance on either side is nothing more than a limit and makes one fall in the fatal errors category. Every ability to observe and understand our universe has evolved with a purpose and was never meant to be suppressed.Don't crush the abilities we have to interpret the world which people make religions out of just because people misuse this tool and maybe put in a little more imagination in then they should through folklore stories in order to get a point of truth across.(guns don't kill people,people kill people) We are so busy trying to rely on one method and suppress another that we blind ourselves not realizing that the more tools we can bring to a job the better. I came from a point of view of being a devout Christian and I embrace science very openly even though at one point I would have shunned the very word itself. I can recognize why religion is so far out there from rational and logical thinking but I also recognize the truth that it sees and why over 6 or so billion people on the planet follow a religion of some sort. My point in a nutshell is to be open to understanding or universe and not closed to any method.It created us and gave us our understanding and abilities to comprehend. Just take what works from all methods and leave the rest.You can't just take one tool and work on your car and fix everything, there are many intricate parts that need specialized tools to get the job done. So it is with our universe. If you use a method that is only logical then you can only see and understand what is logical. Reality and truth are way more than just logical and takes many different tools to study and comprehend. Einstein's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) have no bearing over his scientific achievements His ability to interpret the world had everything to do with his scientific achievements.
Taktiq Posted December 31, 2009 Author Posted December 31, 2009 Let's see...A few here have offered their opinions (good) and I found them interesting. A few are still debating whether God could or could not be proven (moot in this case). And others are debating everybody else's opinions without offering their own (pointless for this discussion). So, let's start over shall we? 1. Let's say, for the sake of argument, science HAS proven that the layman's idea of God and an afterlife DO NOT exist. There is no debate anymore on this. It's been proven beyond a shred of doubt. Period. Done. 2. What impact do you feel, think, believe, theorise this would have on humanity as a whole. I don't want data, just shoot from the hip. 3. I don't care if ANYONE has data to back them up either way. Nor do I care if someone's opinion here has basis in scientific fact. It is an opinion after all.
Mr Skeptic Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Again, a large portion of the people would not even listen to the proof, beyond a shadow of doubt or not. What if an alien 1 billion light years from here and with no contact with Earth proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God doesn't exist? Largely the same thing.
Taktiq Posted December 31, 2009 Author Posted December 31, 2009 Again, a large portion of the people would not even listen to the proof, beyond a shadow of doubt or not. What if an alien 1 billion light years from here and with no contact with Earth proves beyond a shadow of doubt that God doesn't exist? Largely the same thing. I see what you're saying there, and I agree, but what of the people who did believe in God/afterlife and listen to science? Humans overall are emotional creatures, do you think there would be a rational reaction to learning that God is dead?
walkntune Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 Well considering maybe 80% or so of the people on the planet believe in a God of some sort I believe the effects would be devastating. There would probably be a lot more controversial issues between survival of the fittest and morality for a better society as a whole.
mooeypoo Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 There would probably be a lot more controversial issues between survival of the fittest and morality for a better society as a whole. Only until it's shown that they don't come strictly from religion, exist in nature, and are solid in rationality.
pywakit Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." I don't know who posted this to begin with, but I could not disagree more strenuously. I have read a similar ( if not the same ) passage before and it is just another example of believers creating 'truisms' that are completely manufactured, irrational at their core, and designed to imbue a sense of credibility where none exists. I don't appreciate being lumped in with the 'we'. I think there are many more who would agree with me. I don't mean to offend, but believers as a rule are incapable of distinguishing reality from opinion. They also think there is safety in numbers, and if enough people share the belief, there must be some inherent truth. They also are incapable of grasping that reality and beliefs are completely, distinctly diametrically opposed. To them beliefs ARE reality. And furthermore, as they are unable to discern the difference, they claim that EVERYONE has beliefs. "You can't see the air, but yet you believe in it". How many times have I heard this nonsense? I am a non-theist. I don't have 'beliefs'. I don't wonder if the physical universe is just a grand 'shared' illusion, or my own. There is zero evidence of spirits, elves, ghosts, witches, gods, or whatever. The universe exists. Period. I have always understood ... since I was 4 years old that god(s) were manufactured deities, with zero evidence to back them up. OPINIONS. Nothing more. I consider myself reasonably intelligent, and I am not in that 'position' at all. YOU may be in the position of the little child, and I am sorry for that. I recommend the first thing you do is locate the section marked 'ENGLISH' since you clearly speak/write it. Next go to the 'NON-fiction' section. This will be a good starting point for you. Not so overwhelming, perhaps. Understand that you will never be able to read all the books, but that's ok, because most of it is garbage. People's completely unsupported opinions. Entertainment value ... perhaps some interesting philosophical constructs ... but that's about all. To say that this scenario is "... the attitude of even the most intelligent human being towards God" makes the irrational pre-supposition that your god's existence ever had any credibility to begin with. It didn't. Oh the arrogance of it all .... to assume 6 billion non-believers in your god are all messed up, but you are in the right camp. They have an opinion. You have an opinion. I am not familiar enough with other religions' 'holy books' but I am familiar enough with the bible to dismantle it in 10 paragraphs, or less. Ok. Maybe 15. Lol. Of course, if you are a true believer you know that's not possible, right? That's only if you are incapable of rational thought, or logic. Only when you close your eyes real tight and cover your ears. I'm going to step on another few sets of toes and assert that not only is it simple to disprove the christian god, but all other religions as well. Every single one claims special instructions set down from this 'higher power', or 'deity'. They all make claims about the universe we live in. They can all be proved to be nothing more than the active imaginations of very clever, but ultimately ignorant people. Well, you say ... getting a little steamed .... lol ... you can't prove a negative. We may have the facts a little off, but NOBODY can prove god(s) doesn't exist. Yes you can. The answer lies in the 'actual' infinite universe ... the real, physical one, and the 'eternal' universe ... again ... the real one. Not the one believers of all religions made up. Is this too off topic? Lol. I thought from what I read so far that it was kind 'open season' on the subject. I'll shut up now .... Shoot. Ok. The world would be much better off without ignorance. It would still be imperfect, but if people realized this is the only existence they get, they just might change their behavior a little. Maybe people would quickly realize there is no 'glory' in dying for god, or country. It just means you are dead. That might make it harder for leaders to send soldiers to war, don't you think? It also would make us better stewards of our planet, since the people would figure out that their deity isn't going to "come and take them to heaven so they don't really need to worry about the condition they left the planet in ....." ( edit ) Don't get me wrong. I am all for fantasy and illusion. We all need breaks from reality. I like to imagine Shakira running out of gas at my home, no cell service, and needs to borrow my land line. She falls in love with me and never leaves. *sigh* Well, at least I DO have a home ... and cells DON'T work as no tower is close by ... and Shakira EXISTS. So it's POSSIBLE! Lol. Ok. Just wishful thinking. I know the difference between reality ... and fantasy. And I don't really have this fantasy. Still ..... nothing wrong with dreams. Again, sorry for offending everyone. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedwalkntune wrote:Well considering maybe 80% or so of the people on the planet believe in a God of some sort I believe the effects would be devastating. Unless they are brain-dead, when they stop crying they will learn to adapt. And learn how to be happy, and content in other ways. They certainly won't all drop dead. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedMoo wrote: The quote can be interpreted here and there, btw, but I am curious, as a side note, to know why is it so important -- or why is it important at all -- to use Einstein as support for your beliefs *AT ALL* ? Whatever you believe in is your business.. what difference does it make if Einstein supports your beliefs or not? Einstein's religious beliefs (or lack thereof) have no bearing over his scientific achievements, just like his treatment to his wife and kids (not a very nice one, according to his biography, he cheated, abandoned them, was too much into his work, etc) has no bearing *AT ALL* on his scientific achievements. In other words, why is this even an issue? Moo, this is just a common tactic of believers. ( and salespeople, too ) It's called 3rd party endorsement. Designed to lend authority, and credibility where none exists. And it is very effective. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedwalkntune wrote: You see there is an on going debate through the ages between science and religion.Both are just different interpretations of the very same truths of understanding the force of nature or the cosmic order.To be able to understand and see both sides is what pushes and advances or knowledge and achievements further to come closer to truth. Any stance on either side is nothing more than a limit and makes one fall in the fatal errors category. Every ability to observe and understand our universe has evolved with a purpose and was never meant to be suppressed.Don't crush the abilities we have to interpret the world which people make religions out of just because people misuse this tool and maybe put in a little more imagination in then they should through folklore stories in order to get a point of truth across.(guns don't kill people,people kill people) We are so busy trying to rely on one method and suppress another that we blind ourselves not realizing that the more tools we can bring to a job the better. I came from a point of view of being a devout Christian and I embrace science very openly even though at one point I would have shunned the very word itself. I can recognize why religion is so far out there from rational and logical thinking but I also recognize the truth that it sees and why over 6 or so billion people on the planet follow a religion of some sort. My point in a nutshell is to be open to understanding or universe and not closed to any method.It created us and gave us our understanding and abilities to comprehend. Just take what works from all methods and leave the rest.You can't just take one tool and work on your car and fix everything, there are many intricate parts that need specialized tools to get the job done. So it is with our universe. If you use a method that is only logical then you can only see and understand what is logical. Reality and truth are way more than just logical and takes many different tools to study and comprehend. This is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. Here we have a very 'authoritative' piece. You wrote: You see there is an on going debate through the ages between science and religion. No there isn't. For one, science didn't really exist until about 500 years ago. And it was ... for the most part ... on the side of religion ... 2nd, a debate requires a minimum of 2 rational parties. You wrote: Both are just different interpretations of the very same truths of understanding the force of nature or the cosmic order. No they aren't. One deals with reality, and evidence. The other relies totally on "I read a book and I believe it's contents." You wrote: To be able to understand and see both sides is what pushes and advances or knowledge and achievements further to come closer to truth. This is not accurate, either. Whenever religion hears something that conflicts with their beliefs, their preferred method was/is to torture and kill the messenger. ( don't forget to get the confession signed! ) To stamp out all heretical speech before it infects others. What advances can religion claim in 'advancing our knowledge of the universe'? I can think of NONE. You wrote: Any stance on either side is nothing more than a limit and makes one fall in the fatal errors category. ????? You wrote: Don't crush the abilities we have to interpret the world which people make religions out of just because people misuse this tool and maybe put in a little more imagination in then they should through folklore stories in order to get a point of truth across.(guns don't kill people,people kill people) In other words ... telling lies to spread the truth. Now there is some rational thinking. Oh yes. I forgot. The 'ends justify the means' ... right? As long as it's for a 'good' cause. You wrote: We are so busy trying to rely on one method and suppress another that we blind ourselves not realizing that the more tools we can bring to a job the better. This one is particularly amusing. Science has no interest in 'suppressing' religion. Science just wants religion to leave them the hell alone. You have it backwards. Religion has a rich history of suppression. Science does not. And by the way ... what tools did you bring? You wrote: I came from a point of view of being a devout Christian and I embrace science very openly even though at one point I would have shunned the very word itself. This is because you fail to see you were indoctrinated from earliest childhood. You wrote: I can recognize why religion is so far out there from rational and logical thinking but I also recognize the truth that it sees and why over 6 or so billion people on the planet follow a religion of some sort. You realize it is irrational, yet you can ignore that reality ... and find safety, and apparently 'truth' in the irrationality of 6 billion people. Hmmm. You wrote: My point in a nutshell is to be open to understanding or universe and not closed to any method.It created us and gave us our understanding and abilities to comprehend. Saying God did it is hardly a 'method'. You wrote: Just take what works from all methods and leave the rest. In other words ... "It's a free country and you can believe whatever you want to believe." You wrote: You can't just take one tool and work on your car and fix everything, there are many intricate parts that need specialized tools to get the job done. 'God did it' is not a 'tool'. It's an unsupported, irrational opinion. You wrote: So it is with our universe. If you use a method that is only logical then you can only see and understand what is logical. God cast his children into the barren wastelands for wanting a little more knowledge than God felt like giving. If science ( and eventually, rational thought ) had not risen IN SPITE of religion I would not be able to do this ( rebutt your statements ) ... Lol. You wrote: Reality and truth are way more than just logical and takes many different tools to study and comprehend. So reality and truth are ILLOGICAL? I suppose so .... if you are incapable of recognizing it ... Having grown up in a christian home and on a christian island, I am very familiar with all these little pearls of wisdom. I swear, they teach you all the same stuff. Never changes. It's called ... "How to cast doubt on reality." Believers do a swell job. And they have been successful for thousands of years with these methods. Because there is a never-ending supply of weak-minded individuals already struggling with their own childhood indoctrinations. And religion offers them a 'home'. And 'love'. And strength in numbers. I really don't like tearing everything you said apart. I wouldn't feel the need if you had simply refrained from saying it. But I think in fairness, anything said here is 'debatable' ... so all of the above was my 'rebuttal'. Doesn't God have a sufficient number of coerced fans, yet? Or maybe you might not consider the threat of ETERNAL torture ( as the only alternative to 'loving' your God ) as coersion. Hmmmm. Let's see. Pulling my arms off. Nope. Hell is much worse. Poking my eyes out. Nope. Hell is much worse. My wife leaving me for my best friend. Nope. Hell is much worse. Watching my son die. Nope. Hell is all these things and much much more. And the pain never stops. For EVER. And believers claim their God loves us so much he has granted us FREE choice. Can you define 'irrational' please? Oh, by the way ... believers point to God's great sacrifice to show his love for us. He gave his 'only begotten Son' for us. Wow. Having lost my own son, I am rather impressed. It's been 23 years and I am still in agony over it. He was my only child, and 7 when he drowned. Must be terrrible for God, too. Never to see h....... woooops. Hang on now. Isn't Jesus with God? Yes. I think he is. So I guess God didn't really make that big a sacrifice for us after all. Well, I'm glad. Because I wouldn't wish this pain on my worst enemy ... if I had one ... which I don't. I wouldn't even wish it on God. And I can think of nobody more deserving .... Edited December 31, 2009 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
walkntune Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) In defense to your post you have written Pywakit I agree with your stance against religion and I do not believe in God in a religious sense. Your post just goes to show meaning is only a matter of interpretation and we can only see what we are willing to see.You see what you want to see in my post and assume I am religious and built a defense. I don't have a scientific background and my stance on what I see is way more intuitional then logical and I was very much in agreement with(some good ideas) your post on the assumption of bounded/unbounded space.If you go to my post on" continuation of energy concept" you will see what I actually think .I am like you even though I don't have even your science but I have steal what knowledge I can from others to understand logically.(its what you do learning from books or standing on the shoulders of the giants of the past anyway).I am looking for truth and choose not to be blinded by religion or science but just open and try to be outside of my own intentions so like what you did in understanding my post doesn't happen to my understanding the universe. There is a place for wisdom in all of this. I will share a story and it doesn't mean i'm religious but this is from another forum I wrote. This is a popular little story to share wisdom and although God may not exist, there is wisdom to be learned. There is a story told of a young man in a cabin who prays to God and asks God what He wants him to do with his life. God tells him to look at the massive rock that is in a valley beneath him and every day for the rest of his life he is to push that rock. The young man does as he is told by God and does so for about twenty years. After twenty years of frustration, the man then prays to God again and says to God, "I've done what you've told me to do and I haven't even moved that rock one millimeter." God answers him and says, "I didn't tell you to move that rock. I told you to push it. Look at your hands and arms and how strong they are. Look at the strength of your body that you obtained by pushing on that rock all of these years." We are blinded by our own intentions and interpretations. Let those who have eyes to see see and those who have ears to hear hear. My whole point was to share that it is better to be open to what the universe has to tell us about itself than to make it fit into our box or method of understanding after all it supplied our understanding did it not? To me the God and Satan of religion, the good and bad in psychology, and the positive and negative in science are all the same story with different interpretations. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged "I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God." I don't know who posted this to begin with, but I could not disagree more strenuously. I have read a similar ( if not the same ) passage before and it is just another example of believers creating 'truisms' that are completely manufactured, irrational at their core, and designed to imbue a sense of credibility where none exists. This was a passage spoken from Einstein and you are wrong, he was not a believer in any religious God but in a cosmic order of the universe. Interpretations my friend. Only until it's shown that they don't come strictly from religion, exist in nature, and are solid in rationality. I agree with this and that religion is just an interpretation of this force of nature that drives our sense of good and bad. Edited December 31, 2009 by walkntune Consecutive posts merged.
pywakit Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 I apologize for any misunderstanding. You wrote: I came from a point of view of being a devout Christian .... I really had no intent on attacking you personally. My attack is on irrationality as an accepted, and valid state of mind. I will read your posts. The statements you made that I rebutted are very familiar to me. They ( as all similar writings ) are stated in such a manner as to be construed as 'truth' ... a given. You wrote them trying to communicate a viewpoint to others, and I felt that counter-point was justified on the off-chance someone might take such irrational, and incorrect statements as 'truth'. Truth is not relative. It is not subject to interpretation. Truth is fact. Truth is REALITY. That does not stop us from interpreting it any old way we choose, does it? This is where the 'irrationality' comes in. There is nothing wrong with looking at 'evidence' and coming to different conclusions as long as you arrived there rationally. Irrational explanations are 'fairy tales' and have no place in scientific inquiry. If you choose to sit back and let God determine your fate ... if you choose to go in the library and spend your life in the 'pseudo-non-fiction' section, that is fine. I am not suggesting that is what you do, though. It sounds as if you are trying. As far as keeping an 'open mind', I studied the bible open to the 'possibility' that my view on the existence of 'higher powers' could be flawed. The more I studied it, the more I came to understand how and why it was written. And the more flaws became apparent. I gave it a fair reading, though. And I read it again. And again. It really just boiled down to "It's our opinion that God did it". And lots of people agreeing that no evidence was going to be required to back it up. This is not a useful tool when trying to understand how the universe functions. This road dead-ends in about 20 feet. Theology is the study of "others' irrational and baseless opinions built on unfounded and unsupported claims." To think that people will make a life-long career out of this is absolutely stunning to me. All those books in the library, and you spend your whole life on just one. Could you ( not you specifically ) be any more irrational? Yes. Einstein. My bad. It is very important to remember that nothing happens in a vacuum. Einstein danced on egg-shells. The view in America, and Europe was rather devoutly religious. The world view was on very shaky ground at that time. The universe was getting way too big for comfort. To claim atheism, or non-theism outright would have been to lay himself open to the most severe of attacks ... on his character ... and by extension ... on his science. I vaguely recall reading that many years ago now. And feeling disappointed, as it was clearly said to placate and sooth rumblings from the 'religious community' which was 90 plus % of the world. I can't help but notice you did not actually defend any of the statements I rebutted. Instead, you simply said I was wrong in assuming you are religious. So I would respectfully ask you go back and either falsify my comments, or concede yours were inaccurate. That said, thank you very much for the complimentary remarks. I think you are very much NOT your typical believer. As you said yourself ... before, you shunned the very word 'science'. At least you are trying to include rational thought. This is a good thing.
walkntune Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 You wrote: I came from a point of view of being a devout Christian .... I have come further than what I have made clear. I can't help but notice you did not actually defend any of the statements I rebutted. Instead, you simply said I was wrong in assuming you are religious. So I would respectfully ask you go back and either falsify my comments, or concede yours were inaccurate. Ok but hard to defend against a stance I am not necessarily taken. This is the kind of stuff that drives me nuts. Here we have a very 'authoritative' piece. Piece was written out of my humility to be open to all sources and not closed off with any authoritative stance. If you take it this way it's probably because the universe has a way of being a mirror to or own interpretations of how we ourselves are presented. You wrote: You see there is an on going debate through the ages between science and religion. No there isn't. For one, science didn't really exist until about 500 years ago. And it was ... for the most part ... on the side of religion ... 2nd, For me 500 years is ages ago.There are many rational thinkers in the sciences who have a belief in God. a debate requires a minimum of 2 rational parties. I will be honest i am not sure if this is irrational or arrogance in this statement? You wrote: Both are just different interpretations of the very same truths of understanding the force of nature or the cosmic order. No they aren't. One deals with reality, and evidence. The other relies totally on "I read a book and I believe it's contents." You wrote: To be able to understand and see both sides is what pushes and advances or knowledge and achievements further to come closer to truth. This is not accurate, either. Whenever religion hears something that conflicts with their beliefs, their preferred method was/is to torture and kill the messenger. ( don't forget to get the confession signed! ) To stamp out all heretical speech before it infects others. What advances can religion claim in 'advancing our knowledge of the universe'? I can think of NONE. Sorry I don't express clear my meanings with words because I get caught up in deep thought and maybe assume people will have a clearer understanding of my line of thought then I express. I feel truth and reality our found in the balance of rational thought and intuition, not religion. I believe religion is leaning to far on the side of intuition which falls in the fatal error category.When you lean too much on intuition you become irrational. You wrote: Don't crush the abilities we have to interpret the world which people make religions out of just because people misuse this tool and maybe put in a little more imagination in then they should through folklore stories in order to get a point of truth across.(guns don't kill people,people kill people) In other words ... telling lies to spread the truth. Now there is some rational thinking. Oh yes. I forgot. The 'ends justify the means' ... right? As long as it's for a 'good' cause. Here you are arguing against something I don't take a stance with. You wrote: Reality and truth are way more than just logical and takes many different tools to study and comprehend. So reality and truth are ILLOGICAL? I suppose so .... if you are incapable of recognizing it ... Never said it truth was illogical. Just said more than logical. There is intuitive truth and artistic truth...etc. My method is to just be open and aware of even that which is beyond my own intentions. I will share a post from another forum I truly enjoyed reading from someone named Timothy out of SPCF.He is much better at expressing these thoughts in words than I am. On Logical and Reasonable Conformity Postby Timothy on December 27th, 2009, 2:19 am Why must logic or reason coincide with reality or existence itself, if existence precedes human mind and reality flows from the human mind? Where does the consistency between logic and reason, and existence or reality arise from? Why must our mind necessarily determine how things actually are? To say things must be logical or reasonable is to say that we decide how things must be. To think solely within the realms of logic or reason, is to think within boundaries that will never illuminate that which is, to us, unreasonable or illogical. Furthermore, must logic and reason conform to reality, or must reality conform to logic and reason? If the former, how can we say things must be logical or reasonable? If the latter, how can we say 'we' do not decide how reality appears? Or where does logic and reason appear beyond the human mind? To say that everything is or must be logical or reasonable is to say that the universe is wrought of mind.
pywakit Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) That was nice. But not very logical. Irrationality is just that. Irrational. It fails to follow reason and logic and assumes facts not in evidence thereby rendering communication pointless. There is no such thing as being 'sort of' pregnant, any more than you can be 'sort of' irrational. You either are or you are not. The post by Timothy is a very good example of an 'appearance' of rational thought when it really is nothing of the kind. It makes false assumptions every step of the way, and in doing so claims 'false' choices as valid and reasonable ones. Essentially, he said 'nothing'. And made no valid, or rational /logical point. It may appear reasonable on the surface, but it lacks any substance. The point is, you can't claim irrational thought as a useful method or tool in determining the nature and structure if the universe. Art is not rational or irrational. It is only a form of expression. It does not seek to answer anything. It conveys a view, nothing more. There is no such thing as 'artistic truth'. And it was neither irrational nor arrogant on my part. It was annoyance. Lol. Look, we can examine the concept that 'God did it' then once we have determined it's potential value in scientific inquiry ( none ) we put it on the back burner, and get back to rational considerations. We can always come back to it at some future time and re-examine to see if our understanding of it, or what it offers provides a better solution than the ones we are coming up with. Don't let my irritation with religion bother you please. You seem like a very thoughtful human, and the world never has enough people like you. Edited December 31, 2009 by pywakit
walkntune Posted December 31, 2009 Posted December 31, 2009 (edited) Don't let my irritation with religion bother you please. You seem like a very thoughtful human, and the world never has enough people like you. I never take it personal first since I feel I have more to gain than to give by being in these discussions.I believe in humility and I care less whether someone takes my opinions as the word of God or not.Sorry If I don't take all science to be the word of God either.There is even so much debate between the sciences. Who is the rational one?Which rational truth will be here 100 years from now? If all of reality falls into one nice formula will this make all others become obsolete and irrational? Some see E=mc2 as a scientific formula having a major impact on science. I say maybe it had a bigger impact on psychology. The post by Timothy is a very good example of an 'appearance' of rational thought when it really is nothing of the kind. It makes false assumptions every step of the way, and in doing so claims 'false' choices as valid and reasonable ones. I would like you to demonstrate this instead of claiming it so I can see your point of view? I sense a lot of depth in your rational thinking. I would love it if you would read my continuation of energy concept post and shred it apart(don't hold back) sometime so I can understand what is completely illogical about it. Sorry I am not scientific minded. Edited January 1, 2010 by walkntune
pywakit Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 Another point to remember is ... all religions are 'models of the universe'. But they are not THEORETICAL models because they lack any physical evidence to support their model, there is no way to create an experiment to support their model, and they are incapable of accurately predicting any physical phenomena. So they are HYPOTHETICAL models. Purely speculative. And therefore useless in determining anything of a physical nature or structure in the universe. There is a reason why philosophy or beliefs must stay out of the laboratory ... A short story: Two neighbors ( both highly intelligent, and both with a strong belief in the Designer ) each in their respective yards, are relaxing under a tree. It is a pleasant summer, and they while away the afternoon contemplating the world around them. At about the same moment an apple falls on both, conking them hard on the head. "Ooowwww!" "Ooowwww!" The first man rubs his injured head and asks ... "Why did that apple fall?" The second man rubs his injured head and asks ... "Why did that apple fall on ME?" The second man retreats to his study, and spends hours ... days ... deep in thought, nursing his bruised head. Firmly believing that the Designer 'has a plan for him' ... he begins to speculate on the possibilities. What if ... this was a sign from above? What if ... the Designer is trying to send me a message? What if ... ( remembering what he was doing when the event happened ) I am being punished for contemplating the nature of the world I live in? Why did He DO this to ME? Weeks pass. He eventually leaves his study no closer to a solution than the day he walked in, concluding that it is an unsolvable mystery. The first man retreats to his study, too. He spends hours ... days ... deep in thought, nursing his bruised head. Of course, he immediately realizes that it was foolish for him to sit under the tree at that time of year, for the ground is always littered with apples in mid-summer. Still, he is curious. What makes things fall? Is it the Designer's hand? Or are there other forces involved? He devises a series of experiments. The results of those experiments inspire him to make further predictions, and devise more experiments. He leaves his study weeks later with a handful of empirical evidence, having laid the foundation for one of the most momentous discoveries in human history. Gravity's cause and effect. The second man shall remain nameless. The first man is Sir Isaac Newton. ................................................................................ Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI never take it personal first since I feel I have more to gain than to give by being in these discussions.I believe in humility and I care less whether someone takes my opinions as the word of God or not.Sorry If I don't take all science to be the word of God either.There is even so much debate between the sciences. Who is the rational one?Which rational truth will be here 100 years from now? If all of reality falls into one nice formula will this make all others become obsolete and irrational? Some see E=mc2 as a scientific formula having a major impact on science. I say maybe it had a bigger impact on psychology. I would like you to demonstrate this instead of claiming it so I can see your point of view? I also don't take science as the word of God. Meaning scientists are frequently wrong. I can't find much fault in what you say above. After a meal, I will address Timothy's post.
walkntune Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) I sense a lot of depth in your rational thinking. I would love it if you would read my continuation of energy concept post and shred it apart(don't hold back) sometime so I can understand what is completely illogical about it. Sorry I am not scientific minded. If you get time to address this in the near future I would be interested in your thoughts as well.(IF your interested of course) Edited January 1, 2010 by walkntune
pywakit Posted January 1, 2010 Posted January 1, 2010 (edited) Undeserved flattery, but thank you. Honestly, I am very surprised I have not been banned permanently. I glanced through the offences of suspendees and I think I am guilty of all of them. Maybe nobody is really paying any attention to me .... Lol. Anyway, I went through your stuff, and I really am unqualified to make judgements. But I have to side with Moo, SwansonT, and others. You actually start off quite well, but then things get a little murky. There is either an inherent capricious nature to the meta-physical, it is directed by an intelligence, or it doesn't exist. I'm in the 'does not exist' camp. Every claim of metaphysical/supernatural powers, events, occurrences has failed in the laboratory. There have been some famous ones, like Uri Geller who claimed to bend spoons with his mind. All such claims have been proven to be fraudulent. It defies logic that the event could occur outside the lab, but the moment you walk through a door, they evaporate. The american, and russian governments both spent millions, and many years trying to prove the existence of metaphysics for military/political applications. Yes, they took it quite seriously. They gathered up all the self-proclaimed psychics, and mediums in the world and tried like crazy to eke performances out of them. More often than not, they performed worse than control groups ... meaning they were incapable of improving upon normal expectations for 'chance'. As far as having a difference in proven experimental evidence ( like the double-slit experiment ) there was no observed effect. Yet the myths live on, the current generation of perps counting on the ignorance, and gullibility of their audiences, and their own clever slight-of-hand tricks. And the stories continue to circulate among the ignorant convincing them that there must be truth to it .... I would continue to explore the basic tenet of your theory, but I would also accept that there is no reason for researchers to 'fix' the experiments in such a manner that the results are skewed toward physical answers. On the contrary, I think science would be quite excited to find psychic phenomena are real. At some point, it's time to move on as the horse is long dead ... this doesn't mean it can't be revived one day though ... so keep the thought on the back burner ... I've been busy, and chose to address your request first. I'll still cover Timothy's post in a while. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Edited January 1, 2010 by pywakit Consecutive posts merged.
Recommended Posts