Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 15641 - 15660 of total 22988 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 12, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
. . . there's no merit in arguing the same thing over and over . . . Where you get hung up . . .

On the other hand, you might be saying that science is as much of a story as any other piece of fiction. I'd agree. That would make science fiction


No comment necessary.


Thank you, Jan, for your informative and unprejudiced posts.
go-B

climber
Hebrews 1:3
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:14pm PT
You don't want to stand before God in your own righteousness, like the emperor in his new clothes...

Revelation 3:17 Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see.

...try them on for size, you'll look sharp!
splitter

Trad climber
SoCal Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:27pm PT
In the spiritual realm, the opposite of faith is fear.

One requires faith, the other ones power is fear.

edit: they are opposites, but work the same way. God will do nothing without faith, Satan can do nothing without fear.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
^^^^God nor Satan (Good nor Bad) exist in the Spiritual Dimension. The two are based on human ego. As well as fear. Non-existent. It can not as there is no such thing beginning nor end. Birth or death. Those elements are all of human making. The material/physical platform is merely a vehicle.
splitter

Trad climber
SoCal Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
and where did you learn that ^ ? your ego is being feed a lot of crap (lies).

deception, spiritual deception is alive and well. why do you think he is called the great deceiver? he has you in the palm of his hand.

i came face to face with both. so will you sooner or later. one will deceive you till the end.

MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:04pm PT
"No comment necessary" is a comment, and it reveals prejudice as much as any comment does, Jogill. If you use words, you expose beliefs. Try "not communicating" with any word(s). You might as well say what's on your mind.
The Chief

climber
Climber from the Land Mongols under the Whites
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:27pm PT
and where did you learn that ? your ego is being feed a lot of crap (lies).

Ego?
jogill

climber
Colorado
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:30pm PT
You might as well say what's on your mind

Not much room to squeeze anything in here between spiritualism and religion. If I were asked to choose between the two, I would probably go with Jesus and the Baptist Church in which I was raised. The lessons of the New Testament are more palatable than this endless spiral into emptyness facilitated by denying one's sense of personhood; I consider my experiences with I-consciousness to reveal that that is the essence of being human. And yes, this is a belief, just as no-thingness is a belief and not simply an experience. If it were completely experiential its advocates would explain it once and not keep grinding on it.

But then I am reasonably well-adjusted and old to boot.

So, exit another science type.

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:35pm PT
I guess those last coupl of posts is what John The Revellator meant by;

"Afflict the comfortable"

Eh Norton?
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:58pm PT
If it were completely experiential its advocates would explain it once and not keep grinding on it.
--

The reason people keep grinding on it is not because it is something beyond a direct encounter, but because people keep trying to interpret what it is from the outside, or contrasting it to their own boundary experiences, or offering a zillion reasons why NOT to reach into your pocket for the doubloon, not one based on solid empirical evidence or experience.

What this shows us all is that changing our perspective is VERY difficult to accomplish, and even the smartest amongst us will seek to discursively transpose what is evidentally unknown to them into terms that they know by heart.

JL
MH2

climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 06:02pm PT
"No comment necessary" is a comment, and it reveals prejudice as much as any comment does, Jogill. If you use words, you expose beliefs. Try "not communicating" with any word(s). You might as well say what's on your mind.


Communication among humans takes many forms, not all of which are available, here. Perhaps jogill would have made a quizzical face if you could have seen him. I remember saying to BASE104 that a personal meeting and discussion with Largo would probably convince him of Largo's sincerity better than all the words Largo has written on this thread. We get many clues beyond words about what someone is thinking and feeling: skin color, facial tension, eyeshine, voice tone, a hand on the shoulder or elbow, etc.

Here, we must infer some of what the other person is trying to say.

Perhaps I was not clear enough in my attempts to respond to MikeL. Here is how it began:


Thanks for the article / url. According to depth psychologists, in every age, man projects the state of the development of his consciousness onto the universe, and the reflections of the projection is then perceived as a verification of the projection. Insidious reification.

How difficult would it be to break that cycle / process? Is it possible to see things as they really are (whatever that might be)?


Almost everything tells us that we are small, insignificant, separate individuals--with obvious, reinforcing, and socially confirming perceptions--living in a vast and immensely complex external universe that arose from cyclic prime causes.

What a story. I suppose it could be stranger, but as stories go, it's highly inventive and perhaps overly complex. What genre would one put it in? Romance? Tragedy? Comedy? Irony? Science fiction? A slice of life? Multi-plot? Anti-plot?



When MikeL says, "What a story," I must guess what story he is talking about. From my reading of other posts of his, I guess that he is talking about the story of science and our current picture of cosmology and possibly other branches of science. Science has romance, tragedy, comedy, irony, fiction, slices of life, and many plots, but science does not fit into any of those genres, unless you are Procrustes. It is like asking, "Is light a wave or a particle?" The question can't be answered at the level it is asked.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 06:13pm PT
If it were completely experiential its advocates would explain it once and not keep grinding on it.




I 've always thought the " grinding" was a notable feature because the advocates were essentially " one note Johnnies".
From the Urban Dictionary:
1. One Note Johnny

Someone who constantly talks about the same thing over and over again as if they had no idea that they were notorious for talking about the same thing over and over again.

Now I know that it's our fault entirely -in that our empirical minds, endowed to us by millions of years of evolution ,are at fault here.
Who would have thought that the rational mind would be an inherent liability when confronted with experiences that put nothingness at the center of sought- after consciousness.?
splitter

Trad climber
SoCal Hodad, surfing the galactic plane
Jun 12, 2013 - 07:30pm PT
Ego?
ego - preoccupation with self, pride, arrogance.

humility - opposite of ego.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 12, 2013 - 07:48pm PT
Ward, my sense of you is that you equate separating from your discursive mind, even an inch, and even for a moment, as a kind of half-cocked self-betral.

The interesting thing is that most of the people afraid or put off by the notion seem to imagine they could do so with ease if only they wanted to, that if they understood the "point" of wasting all those hard-earned evolutionary eons on "nothing," detaching from the diesursive mind would be easy money once they DECIDED to do so. If you only knew. That bad boys hangs on like grim death.

Ward, what I think is happening is that you are fixating on the part of the game that disturbs or affends your rational mind, or which you don't understand at all, and have missed all of the other aspects that have been disscussed here beyond emptiness. We could say that science is a one pony show of quantifying, but this would hardly be accurate.

Again, if you are pleased with the progress you have made in the internal realms, by whatever path you have taken, good on you. And if the terrain laying beyond the discursive is of no interest to you, that is strictly your affair. And if you are convinced, for lack of experinces that would prove to you otherwise, that the whole non-discursive shebang is malarky, so be it.

As Herman Buhl said in Lonely Challenbge: Tastes differ. I don't much care for shellfish. So it goes.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 08:37pm PT
Ward, my sense of you is that you equate separating from your discursive mind, even an inch, and even for a moment, as a kind of half-cocked self-betral.

My guess is that here you might be trying to get me to declare or reveal some kind of state of mind that would allow you to pro rate my convictions in this matter.
Okay I'll bite.

I am an artist. A musician, primarily, although I am a poet and a prose writer. I am acquainted with those realms of action, and experience , that feed my expression. These states of mind , while not necessarily qualifying as that which I have variously defined as "non-discursive " ,nonetheless involve approaches that can hardly be characterized as being participated in by someone who is afraid of disengaging from his strictly evaluating mind. If I want to write a tune that expresses my inner feeling ,in a way that creates an ambient environment that reflects that expression , with all the accommodating detail, with all the simpatico intended to communicate in uncommon ways, then I must consider a line of thought and action in which my rationalizing judgement is always tempered by intuition and the non- rational. And vice versa.
In fact , art is the final melding of intuition and rationality. Nothing is more rational and yet more intuitive than a piece by Mozart, Beethoven , or Bach.
Any artist who strays into those crazy regions of discovery, running it out big time ,and leaves behind the tether of rationality (and eschews the balance ) is asking for mucho grande trouble on the choss pile of life.
I come from a tradition that dynamically infuses many ways of thinking,of various forms of conscious and unconscious intent.
I am not a one note Johnny.
MH2

climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 08:53pm PT
Unfortunately, I find it easy to understand what you say, Ward Trotter. Our evaluating minds have gotten the best of us once again.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Jun 12, 2013 - 09:52pm PT
I would warn against considering non-discursive explorations a kind of side-armd snub against retionality, or in some wise the equal of searching for God by some other name. This is simply the baggage we carry into any kind of internal work. Like thinking it is all about fuzzy feelings, or any feelings, or beliefs, or faith, or ideas, speculations, hopes, spiritual prowess, or God.

JL
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Jun 12, 2013 - 09:54pm PT
Okay.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Jun 12, 2013 - 10:19pm PT
. . . science does not fit into any of those genres.


Why doesn't it?

According to literary criticism, it certainly could be. Into perhaps all of them.

I don't think you have the ability to use the same lens of evaluation that you use on things that appear to be non-scientific to you.

I've been around the block a couple of times with Ed on this, and he said that it was acceptable to admit that truth is not the end-all, be-all in science--predictability, parsimony, and empirical testing were, though.

This means that science is not sure-footed when it comes to The Truth. Instead, science takes a provisional ("as if") stance. Ed was ok on this, too. That means you can't be absolutely sure. You believe you have strong empirical, logical, rational bases for belief. But in the last analysis, you don't and can't know for sure with scientific means and method alone. (Ed was happy with that, and I demurred. Hey, when there are no problems--you're done.)

The complaint against religion, god, and other mythical views here on this thread has been that none of it (religion, god, etc.) can be known for sure. Granted. They are other examples of unrestrained beliefs again, although now supported with other "evidence" and methods than scientists rely upon.

I've taken a radical stance. I say there is no order or coherence (nihilism), nothing is graspable, there is nothing that one can know for sure other than "I am" (solipsism), experience / consciousness solves all problems (no problem really exists since all is within consciousness), and Reality is almost the opposite of what IT appears to be. We are deluded. There's no proof of any of this that I can provide to anyone.

Each point of view presents a story. Not one of them can be proven to others. Each of them makes claims based upon different kinds of data and different methods.

My point was that all of these stories are fantastic if we were to dramatize them. They are all just stories. They are all just beliefs. As such none are special, privileged, or particularly credible outside of their own constituency. As beliefs, they must all be false.

(I am not the first person on the planet to look at the enlightenment project and rational-mental scientific endeavors as stories, dramas, and interpretive scripts and schemes. Other post-modernists in the academy have made these arguments decades ago, although they've been a bit more incisive, critical, and articulate than I've been here.)
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Jun 12, 2013 - 10:47pm PT

We get many clues beyond words about what someone is thinking and feeling: skin color, facial tension, eyeshine, voice tone, a hand on the shoulder or elbow, etc.

That's the thing though, you can sum up everything In science with just words!

Looking back to school days,, the science teachers were the most staunch people on campus.
They always had the same face on. They made seem sooo droll. Who would want to be like them if they weren't happy? I'm sure it's changed now.. People are in love withh their iPhones.
Messages 15641 - 15660 of total 22988 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews