Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16061 - 16080 of total 22653 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
tioga

Mountain climber
pac northwest
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:06am PT
Science is a finite process in its nature...it acknowledges and uses the existence of mathematical infinities, with implications for quantum physics and cosmology--but as FINITE process it is unable to reach any of the infinities. Science can not reach infinity via experiment: it can mathematically prove the existence of infinities but it hits the limitation of NEVER being able to experimentally reproduce them--this is a good illustration of how limited science is really, only being able to work in the sandbox of its finite realm. Physical human, as a finite creature, can not experience infinity (however, human soul, which is infinite, can). The very fact that the science knows of the existence of infinities shows that the science knows own limitations. What is in infinities? Actually word "mystery" can be used--so, there's permanent presence of mystery in science--finite dealing with infinity, entire unreacheable dimension. Speaking of dimensions--there's infinite number of mathematical dimensions (yet, science can't recreate them and human can't experience them). Non-material, mysterious is all over the place--"time-space" merge, condition of space inside black holes, multiple dimensions, infinitesimal quantities, quantum fluctuations. Infinity concept, which is inseparable, core part of modern science, is a divine mystery, a path to a window into the divine world.
Please don't ever try to put science against divine/religion/spiritualism, whatever it's called. If anything, mathematics is a continuous proof of existence of divine. Science is just a language that describes physical aspect of the world that itself is mysterious, with potentially infinite number of aspects. Speaking of meditation--which I personally don't practice--it might be a way to experience infinite and non-material aspects for some.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:32am PT

Please don't ever try to put science against divine/religion/spiritualism, whatever it's called.

Science is never against divine religious spiritualism. After all science is just mans attempt to understand what has already happened in nature. The only thing to oppose is mans ego and what he does with that info.
tioga

Mountain climber
pac northwest
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:46am PT
This is an article on mathematics and religious impulse, somewhat a different view, but the same point:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/mathematics-and-the-relig_b_673359.html
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:51am PT
a wrong, and frankly arrogant statement said with such certainty because it is ludicrous to say that a rational thinking discursive human believes they can "know" anything they can "grock" onto


Had you read the rest of this thread - should you have a spare year or two - you will see the many answers to my question: What do you see per the limitations of the discursive mind? Many people said that in principal, whatever was real was open to purview discursively. This is what I meant by "knowing." And it is not a knock on your thinking, only an accurate picture of the discursive. Your "knowing" is more akin to "understanding." And of course none of us understand much at all.

The discursive is very jealous by nature, and it doesn't need to attached to a conscious person to sound off. It does it all by itself. In fact we can't take credit for the discursive in us till we know how it works, otherwise it's all autopilot - of that we may be sure.

JL
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 19, 2013 - 02:12am PT
^^^ Thats Right!
That's why we must always sound off to someone's unafffirmativeness.
To enlighten us all!


Edit: some believe to be God-like, one must be humble. But God shows us when dealing with Neanderthals act like a Neanderthal. And when in Rome, speak Roman.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 19, 2013 - 02:56am PT
People who meditate are clearly not free of rigid thinking.

You're not saying that questioning / doubting the concreteness, the surety, the graspability of any thing is rigid thinking, are you?

A few thousand posts ago, on another of Largo's threads, he argued that certain intellectual problems (consciousness, how the subjective gets translated into the objective, how one can know anything with certainty, etc.) presented unsolved conundrums. I think Ed, Dr. F., HFCS, Malemute, Norton, Jiggy, and you argued that Man and science WOULD solve them. It was only a matter of time.

I remember Werner, John, and I responded that claim presented an unfounded speculation. John refers to a source of this issue as "the discursive" (meaning, the wily thinking mind that creates itself and its reality).

Do you remember this better than I, or if the exchange should be understood differently?


In support of Jan's view, I believe that a few folks here value science more than they do art, because science is harder (rather than "soft"), faster (grippier, more valid pragmatically), measurable, logical, systematically devised, parsimonious, leads to solutions in a world of unending problems due to scarce resources, and is certainly not suspect of the pernicious "woo woo."

Jan's characterizations ("trying to break my statements into small bits that could be further dissected") seems to me to reflect the very nature of analysis, which is a central tenant of the scientific method. In that analysis could well be the wrong tool to apply to the practice of art, wouldn't the application of analysis to art constitute a bias?

Last, I don't understand the comment directed to me. Do you see impermanence in all the you see and experience? Your response suggests you do not, but even if you did, your life would look the same. I don't follow that.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 19, 2013 - 08:52am PT
I love art.

One time I took ten days off, flew to Baltimore, and hit the big east coast museums in an attempt to see as many Pollocks as I could. They have a wonderful one at the National Museum in Washington. Moma is good.

Hands down the best art museum I've been to is the Art Institute of Chicago. I spent three days in there, and I don't like anything pre-impressionist. I like Pollock, de Koonig, Richter, Rothko, that crowd.

I never enjoyed the super modern, where a string of Christmas lights are laying on the floor, or the Urinals.

No lie. If you ever, ever, ever, go to Chicago, take a whole day for the Art Institute. It has some of the most famous paintings in the world there.

Credit: BASE104

I used to play clarinet in band, but I wasn't musical. I was first chair because I could sight read music perfectly. My technique wasn't as good as a couple of the others, but I could read music very well. It is like math.

WBraun

climber
Sep 19, 2013 - 10:33am PT
I think Ed, Dr. F., HFCS, Malemute, Norton, Jiggy, and you argued that Man and science WOULD solve them.

They never will.

It's already been solved from the beginning.

You can't solve something that's already perfect from the beginning.

You only can understand and embrace it.

The whole truth reveals its self according to time and circumstance and when one is ready.

When humanity remains inharmonious with the Whole truth the complete whole remains ultimately elusive.

It's very very simple, extremely simple.

Even in a computer language it's ultimately only zero and one and how those two are manipulated.

Zero is the impersonal attribute and One is the personal attribute.

Out of the ONE comes the many.

Life comes from life.

The pond scum by chance mental speculation is made by poor fund of knowledge (just plain stupid) .....

Dr. F.

Ice climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 19, 2013 - 11:29am PT
Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.
Philip K. Dick

How can you justify your beliefs if you can't prove a single aspect of them, and if you stop believing, they do go away.

I used to believe in God, then I questioned all my spiritual experiences that I thought were influenced by spirits, or ESP, or God, or anything else paranormal, and I could easily explain them without any paranormal influence.

In other words, I was wrong, and was able to admit it, and move forward.

What is that?, that IS the Definition of having an Open Mind.

That is the definition of progress, of using critical thinking to evaluate yourself and your beliefs, and finding the truth that science can provide when it comes to reality.

The definition of a closed mind is fighting for your belief in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong.

or you read something that sounds good to you in some book, and then fight reality to support the idea even though you are a religion with a congregation of one,
and then you call everyone else stupid because they don't go along with your ideology of how reality functions = stupid.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
Werner +1

Base:

I used to live right behind the Wriggly building at River Oaks, and we would walk to the museum in Chicago to see the different exhibits. It might well be the best art museum in the world, as you say (but the the Parisians and the New Yorkers would disagree). It has a great set of Picassos.

And then you can walk or run Grant Park. Chicago is a great city, and a great place to live downtown.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:15pm PT
Reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away.

I defy you to quit believing in your experience.

Concepts, on the other hand, easy.
Jan

Mountain climber
Okinawa, Japan
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:24pm PT
There is an interesting critique of scientists and "scientism" and their views of the humanities in an editorial by a philosopher in the New York Times today. It's titled "Science's Humanities Gap" and specifically mentions Pinker. Once again, we seem to be discussing the pertinent issues of the day on this thread.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/18/sciences-humanities-gap/?hp

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:31pm PT
I used to believe in God,

I never believed in god not even in sunday school. Never.

I still don't believe in god.

My belief is completely independent of god. Despite my lack of belief, I know gods do in fact exist. The evidence? 2+ billion people worship them on a daily basis. The gods don't need my belief, though they are happy to ingest it should I desire to feed them.

Individual belief, or lack thereof, 'in god' is irrelevant to the existence of gods. The collective rules, sorry. You cannot turn off the belief in all those people.

DMT
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:33pm PT
I defy you to quit believing in your experience.
--

And I defy you to tell us what it is.

JL

Bellerophon
Bellerophon
Credit: Largo
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 19, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
Some yogis say it like this:

Witnessing the mind, with the accent on witnessing, is arguably the most essential spiritual practice. It involves consciousness becoming aware of the mind (and in later stages of itself), hence creating a clear and necessary 'space' between the two. After sufficient practice you will quickly realize the distinction between yourself and the mind.


It begins with you realizing: “Hey, the mind is over there while I am here observing it all.” Then when you get more used to this form of witnessing the mind you won’t even have that thought-form, that interpretation anymore. You will just be aware, present, conscious; either witnessing the mind without labelling what you observe or withdrawing awareness and residing in your own stillness. These experiences are the first signs of transcending the discursive "monkey" mind.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 19, 2013 - 05:46pm PT
Credit: Ward Trotter

"Dis-curisive-ly "

Credit: Ward Trotter
MH2

climber
Sep 19, 2013 - 09:46pm PT
MikeL asks

You're not saying that questioning / doubting the concreteness, the surety, the graspability of any thing is rigid thinking, are you?

No. I was saying that your presumption that I am serious and see things in concrete terms only is evidence of your inability to look beyond your own bias.



Another example

A few thousand posts ago, on another of Largo's threads, he argued that certain intellectual problems (consciousness, how the subjective gets translated into the objective, how one can know anything with certainty, etc.) presented unsolved conundrums. I think Ed, Dr. F., HFCS, Malemute, Norton, Jiggy, and you argued that Man and science WOULD solve them. It was only a matter of time.

Largo not only argued that certain problems are unsolved, he claimed outright that they are unsolvable. Speaking for myself, but probably including others of those you mention, Man and science MAY solve them.

Again, you see and remember through the filters of your bias. We all do. The only way around the problem of subjective bias is to test ideas and presumptions in the real world.


Last, I don't understand the comment directed to me.

I believe you refer to my comment implying that I am not considered concrete and serious by people who know me?

Your response suggests you do not

I thought my response suggested that I did,

but even if you did, your life would look the same. I don't follow that.


If you did follow it, that would make one thing graspable.




I know of people who meditate whose thinking is open-minded. There are probably people whose open-mindedness has been improved by meditation. What I am saying is that a history of practicing meditation is no guarantee that a person will leave all mental ruts behind them. This thread provides plenty of evidence to that effect.




MH2

climber
Sep 19, 2013 - 09:56pm PT
Riley said he doesn't understand Pollock. Here is a little help. If this IS Pollock:







I wouldn't know. But if it was, it would be Pollock in his Histology years. The above is a silver stain of nerve tissue. For reference:








But Pollock eventually realized he could never surpass the master Ramón y Cajal.




edit:

Let's see if I can link the source.


https://secure.health.utas.edu.au/intranet/cds/histoten/images/ADO42%20golgi.JPG
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 19, 2013 - 10:58pm PT
Largo not only argued that certain problems are unsolved, he claimed outright that they are unsolvable. Speaking for myself, but probably including others of those you mention, Man and science MAY solve them.
-

Where you lose you way here MH2 is in believing that the idea we cannot "solve" (quantify) experience is the earmark of rigid thinking, or some believe pulled from a mental rut that someday will be revised by scientific inquiry. I supposed it never occurred to you that this is no a belief nor yet an idea. Put differently, if you went up on the Good Book in Yosemite, climbed the route and saw and directly experienced that the dihedral was right facing, and said as much, would you consider the statement, "The corner on the Good Book is right facing" to be the fruit of rigid thinking?

I'm curious though. Insofar as believing that all reality is accessible to measuring is the essence of scientism, what if any limitatkions do you equate with the quantitative approach? IOWs, where, if anywhere, do yo believe that the numbers no longer apply?

JL
locker

Social climber
Some Rehab in Bolivia
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:42pm PT

Stupid...

Everyone is stupid!!!...




What we need is a savoir...

and I know the perfect person for the job...















































photo not found
Missing photo ID#322158
...

Messages 16061 - 16080 of total 22653 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