Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11601 - 11620 of total 22753 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 11, 2013 - 12:24pm PT
I laugh at your interpretation
right brain left brain?
come on, you can do better than that
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 11, 2013 - 12:33pm PT
evaluate and quantify what is graspable. Should you venture into the right brain, you will find a different world. To the left brain, that world looks "false," imagined, or mentally constructed, just as math folk cooked up Hilbert space.


If it is not "graspable", evaluation and quantification is moot. I certainly can't grasp all that Hilbert Space stuff, but I would be willing to see if others can, which requires an ability on their part to communicate it as much as my ability to "hear ' it. The parallel universe thing I find interesting, but in terms of practical usefulness, it does not prove of equal utility to the rational evaluation and quantification that science currently provides. It is a matter of weighting usefulness of the different processes of enquiry. The truth is of ultimate usefulness to us but if that truth is constantly "ungraspable" then there is a whole other universe that is - and is consequently more useful.

edit: "simple as that" huh? shouldn't you insert a little smiley face there?
WBraun

climber
Feb 11, 2013 - 12:44pm PT
There is no "need" for God.

God is already there. You can't create a "need" for something that already exists and has been eternally in existence.

I "need" money.

It already exists.

Do the work.

You don't do any work, you speculate and guess all day in your head.

Therefore no God and no money ......
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 11, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
Well werner I'm doing just fine without money and god..... which is more than you can say
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 11, 2013 - 12:55pm PT
Craig writes: This non-material is a "MAN MADE" concept

I would note that your mind wants to make no-things into things, in this case, concepts that are produced by a material brain. This fits neatly into a reductionist POV. What happens when you drop the duality of material and non-material. You're just here. What IS that presence?

So far as utility, this is also a function of the rational brain, which operates on the principals of practicality and material. What works. This is the realm of human doing. Spirituality is the real of human being. Of presence. The fact that this is all ungraspable (unquantifable) does not diminish this realm as a factor in your life, even as your brain tells you it is blow back transmitted by your brain.

And BASE, watch that spinniker.

JL


Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 11, 2013 - 01:01pm PT
I could agree with that, if it were true.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 11, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
hey I just thought of something. This right brain / left brain thing, whether it really involves brain matter or not, is a real pain in the ass and a total impediment to harmony of understanding. I am willing to consider the possibility that you Largo and werner and various other "spiritual" types are tuned into a universe that runs parallel to the one I think I understand (hows that for a mouthful?).

The problem in that case is the communication. The disconnect. And this is a point of utility. Without a successful communication your universe will remain ungraspable. The posit I believe is that if this ungraspable was to become graspable it would transend the utility of that which I can currently grasp, perhaps even in the sense of my universe becoming irrelevant to my "being".

Science is a communication, one that works. It has revealed to us that which was "ungraspable" previously. What is now material was at one time "not material" for all practical purposes.
MH2

climber
Feb 11, 2013 - 01:38pm PT
Simply put, human experience is qualitatively different than moving water because of the observer who bears witness to experience.


Thanks. I think that is useful. I don't intentionally pose questions as set-ups.

I question things which I don't understand. JL has often mentioned the possibility if not necessity for more than material explanations for human experience. I take a simpler view that from the palette of the Periodic Table of Elements natural forces have painted the entire amazing landscape we are part of. I don't see why atoms and molecules could not constitute and power a human.

As I see the disagreement, it is those who propose a basic flaw with the materialist view who are under the onus of explaining where materialism is incompatible with...whatever extra ingredient they think is out there. It isn't up to the materialist to prove that the non-materialist is wrong, unless a testable question is available that could settle a specific issue.

If a human bears witness to a waterfall, does that bring the waterfall into the same qualitative realm as the human? Couldn't a human and a waterfall simply be different molecular assemblages? Is there a qualitative difference between what a human and a monkey could bear witness to? Human and bat? Human and algorithm?
Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 11, 2013 - 04:52pm PT
Welcome back Largo



Here is my synopsis
There is No there there

You're trying to make something out of nothing
jogill

climber
Colorado
Feb 11, 2013 - 05:00pm PT
So at bottom, Hilbert [space] is a mathematical structure in which important ideas and measurements can find play

Yes, but do you conclude that this and other mathematical structures are merely products of the "right brain?" Mathematics is both a practice in logic and an art. Making a distinction between halves of the brain in this regard is absurd. But I may be reading something into your comments that is not there, and if so I apologize.


;>)
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Feb 11, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
Bruce and Mh2. Now I think we are getting at the heart of the issue. Of course Ed also summed it up some ways back when he said, (paraphrasing) if science can explain the material world, why would we need another explanation?

One of the many things I've become aware of while participating in this thread (and I've said this before) is the basic difference between those who want simple reductionist answers to material questions and those who like complication and mystery and speculation about human possibilities.

I also understand that to get to the reductionist answers about the fundamental nature of something is a very nuanced and complex process and more than enough to keep a scientist busy their whole life.

But there is a big difference between understanding the molecular or even subatomic properties of the human brain and water and just sitting there watching the waterfall flow and wondering who else has sat there, in what context, with what belief system, and what other than biochemistry you have in common with someone who sat there 2,000 years ago? Writing a poem or composing a piece of music about the universality of the human spirit over two thousand years in spite of cultural differences, is not practical, and it can't be measured with scientific instruments, but it's real and important for some people.

jstan has remarked that the idea of understanding physical reality through pure reason is obsolete and I agree. There is still plenty of space for philosophy however. Obviously also, the understanding of the material world through authoritative religious texts meant as guides for human behavior is also obsolete.That doesn't mean however, that they are necessarily obsolete for understanding human behavior.

So yes it's true, some of us are saying that there is a parallel universe out there. I can see how this assertion is frustrating to the show me- so- I- can- measure- it crowd. That doesn't mean it isn't there and it can't be tapped into however. And even if the source is proven to be the human brain, that doesn't make it any less unique and significant for the experiencer.

The struggle between science and religion is over power and who is going to control the narrative. The guy watching the waterfall isn't harming anyone and isn't really part of the debate. Neither science nor the Bible discusses his feelings.
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Feb 11, 2013 - 05:56pm PT
"God is already there."

Begs the question, doesn't it?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 11, 2013 - 06:09pm PT
So at bottom, Hilbert [space] is a mathematical structure in which important ideas and measurements can find play

Yes, but do you conclude that this and other mathematical structures are merely products of the "right brain?" Mathematics is both a practice in logic and an art. Making a distinction between halves of the brain in this regard is absurd. But I may be reading something into your comments that is not there, and if so I apologize.


You pretty much spelled out what I've been saying, or trying to say. When we are identified with a sub personality that the Voice Dialogue folks call the Rational Mind, everything looks a certain way - logical, tangible, material, linear. When this sub personality (mainly left brain function) runs aground, it is ofter the non-linear right brain - the "art" in JG's example above - that furnishes another way of approaching things. For the rational mind, everything issues from something else, something before hand. There is a link, a chain that we can normally follow in some way. With the right brain, we broach the possibility an idea or construct coming from nothing at all, a singularity of sorts, which is the bottom line with free will. It is "free" from antecedents and was not another domino in even a randomized, chaotic pattern in Hilbert space or maybe Craig's back yard. You cannot "reduce" an example of free will to that which came before. It didn't arise from "bottom up" sequencing.

That's the notion, anyhow. But I defy someone to prove it, since "proof" is showing the sequencing itself, and predicting the next form that should arise.

JL
jstan

climber
Feb 11, 2013 - 06:48pm PT
jstan has remarked that the idea of understanding physical reality through pure reason is obsolete and I agree. There is still plenty of space for philosophy however. Obviously also, the understanding of the material world through authoritative religious texts meant as guides for human behavior is also obsolete.That doesn't mean however, that they are necessarily obsolete for understanding human behavior.
Jan

I think one of our preeminent needs is to obtain a better understanding of human behavior. Here I have trouble seeing how fatally self contradictory historical texts are accomplishing that. These texts do mention the golden rule which is so ancient it probably predates all the extant religions. And religious organizations seem to be uncertain as to whether that rule or some other takes priority.

I'll give you an example which says Darwin is a far better source for understanding humans. Presently the number of humans approaches seven billion on a planet giving every indication it is unable to support that number. And yet the number continues to increase, thereby belying our belief that we are a rational specie.

Many years ago Scientific American published a picture of a bog person buried more than 5000 years ago. It was a female buried with her neonate. In the center of the picture, where it could not be missed, was a flint tool struck into the shape of a very sharp knife. A caesarian section had been attempted more than 5000 years ago and had failed. To understand how it is females are so focussed on giving birth when death is a very real possibility you need to take into consideration the very high likelihood 100,000 years ago our specie was on the verge of extinction. For a long period of time every single birth was essential. During that time only those females genetically inclined to assume huge risks toward that goal were propagated. Reality, the environment that existed 100,000 years ago, has caused us to evolve a defining characteristic that shows every sign of threatening us today.

Religious texts are a cacophony of words from ancient voices all driven by the politics and economies of their day. That muddle of voices is no more a guide to human behavior than the politics and economy of today is to our behavior.

As for room remaining for philosophy I would agree provided that "philosophy" confined itself to hypotheses that can be falsified, tested. In the absence of that discipline we get never ending massaging of words leading ultimately

to nothing.

Jan mentions parallel universes she is interested in hypothesizing. For forty years a physical theory melding quantum mechanics and general relativity has been developing a theory of parallel universes. Ten to the 500th power universes I read. That's a bunch. Jan is not the only one waiting with baited breath for a test of this idea.

We may see such a test in the next decade or so.



jogill

climber
Colorado
Feb 11, 2013 - 06:56pm PT
. . . is the basic difference between those who want simple reductionist answers to material questions and those who like complication and mystery and speculation about human possibilities

This seems to be a rather extreme polarization in a broad spectrum where many of the readers of this thread probably lie. Complication, mystery and speculation are hardly absent from science and mathematics - they are fundamental drivers of exploratory efforts that frequently lead to important discoveries (in the material sense). Without mystery the scientific process is indeed dry and quotidian. Perhaps the view expressed above arises from fundamental science courses where discovery and creativity are circumscribed and thus largely devoid of imaginative content. Perhaps not.


;>)
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Feb 11, 2013 - 07:02pm PT
It really all seems to boil down to aesthetic preferences and response biases. This thread itself proves that in spades.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Feb 11, 2013 - 07:43pm PT
The Divine Initiative
Predestination remains one of the grand mysteries of the Christian faith. How can a loving and sovereign God choose, before man is born, his eternal destiny?

http://www.ligonier.org/rym/broadcasts/audio/divine-initiative1/



Luke 7:36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and sat down to eat. 37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, “This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner.”

40 And Jesus answered and said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.”

So he said, “Teacher, say it.”

41 “There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?”

43 Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.”

And He said to him, “You have rightly judged.” 44 Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.”

48 Then He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”

49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”

50 Then He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”

Luke 8:1 Now it came to pass, afterward, that He went through every city and village, preaching and bringing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Feb 11, 2013 - 07:57pm PT
Does anyone read go-b's scripture posts? I know I sure don't. Dude, that you seem to lack a voice of your own nicely sums it all up in a nutshell.
MH2

climber
Feb 11, 2013 - 08:24pm PT
Does anyone read go-b's scripture posts?

I skim them. I don't see much.

I am much encouraged that jogill has offered a little more of his point of view. I read his stuff from several times from different angles.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Feb 11, 2013 - 08:44pm PT
nope. The odd time I start skimming them I usually quit half way through. There is something about the pedantic ancient droning style that is a total turn off. Its been like that ever since I first tried reading the bible decades ago. It would be the worst possible book to read just before sleepy time, unless you really wanted to konk out asap. I would much rather hear Go-B's own thoughts..... and somehow I can't see him thinking the scripture.....or maybe he does?!??

I think one of our preeminent needs is to obtain a better understanding of human behavior. Here I have trouble seeing how fatally self contradictory historical texts are accomplishing that.

Eh-men. If there is one single non negotiable hang up that mires all religions in ancient history its those bloody sacred texts. They all have them and they're all signed in blood as eternal like some mafia oath. But of course they do get revised and updated occasionally so there is a really wonderful precendent there - perhaps a great project for the new Pope!
Messages 11601 - 11620 of total 22753 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews