Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16321 - 16340 of total 22398 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 26, 2013 - 11:45pm PT
I really wish people wouldn't get hurt feelings here on ST.
I certainly don't take negative responses to heart. Only the positive ones.
Most of our posts here are coming from the mind. So that we can hear reverberations of our thoughts. Right? Except maybe Largo. HeHe. But seriously, we're juggling unknown truths.
The fun is in the mystery. Lets not get our panties in a bunch! Have fun with it. Maybe we can all learn something?

Base, I love ur posts. Even though I don't agree on alot of your ideas. Yours broadens my perspective. Keep'em come'in!

Drf, Drf, Drf. I still can't get your reason. But I sure love ur pics!
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 27, 2013 - 12:01am PT

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 26, 2013 - 05:49pm PT
according to Go-be
we should all be like Forest Gump
and be stupid idiots, and hopefully!! if you pray to the right spirit, luck somehow will empower you!! (if you are in a movie)

sorry bro, I took the opposite path
I'm not waiting for luck to save me.

Actually Drf, this is jus another of ur political attacks. Because of your narrow minded ness, and your self serving agenda. So f*#k you! You, norton, and malemute should go grow corn in Orange County.




Jus Kidd'in! See what I mean?
Don't string ur thong so tight!
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 27, 2013 - 12:44am PT

I would say anyone that looks at the starry sky with wonder exhibits a kind of spirituality. One doesn't have to believe in untenable Gods to feel the awe and wonder of being, to feel a part of the awe and wonder of being.

I wouldn't call the understanding of being small, spirituality.

But the awe and wonder can be the first step.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 27, 2013 - 01:05am PT

I've read a fair amount of creationist literature, and it is so shallow. The creationists don't dare look closely, because it will rip their beloved literal account of Genesis to shreds.

This isn't fair Base. I know many "creationist" that what ever you said, would not have their beloved rip to shreds. Our knowledge is that science only confirms God. Does your negativity come from your opposition toward ur dad? I'd bet a burger ur dads love for The Lord has nothin to do with when the earth came to life. I'll take an In-n-Out.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Sep 27, 2013 - 01:10am PT
Base104 answer = 'rap bolt it' '

:)

I always liked you, damnit.

:D

DMT
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Sep 27, 2013 - 01:12am PT
"I wouldn't call the understanding of being small, spirituality."

The realization of one's smallness in relation to the staggering immensity of our surroundings has to be the very basis of all spirituality. It is the mysterium tremendum et fascinans that is the basis of all religious and or spiritual thought. What else could it be?
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Sep 27, 2013 - 01:42am PT
The funny thing about a brick wall is that every time, and I mean every time you knock your head against it, it will do damage to your head. You can meditate for a lifetime and the brick wall will still be a brick wall ready to stop your head. Makes it hard not to respect the material world.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:02am PT
A brick wall is still a brick wall no matter what color your eyes see, or how it smells, or if it might give off some other emanation of sorts.

I agree with what I consider the realism expressed in this comment.
I believe in the existence of an external world independent of human consciousness.
I do not believe that external, objective reality is a de novo construct of human consciousness. I believe that the calibration of human neurobiology to the external world is mistaken by phenomenologists as an essentially creative act or as an essential construct.
Instead I think the sense perceptions of objects are an integrated mirrored reflection of the nature of those objects ex post facto, however limited and incomplete those sense perceptions are in any given context.

On this thread I have on numerous occasions linked organic human awareness to natural evolutionary factors. Perceptive functions of the human mind and nervous system have been developmentally calibrated to external reality to facilitate human survival in a world that is inherently and indigenously outside the control and creation of human consciousness.

I disagree with the school of philosophy, brilliantly outlined and enumerated by Kant and Husserl and others, that humans are incapable of experiencing the thing-in-itself because we can only know our essential sense perceptions of objects and not the objects themselves . This may be true in and of itself ,but the systematic implications are wrong. It has led existential thought into a dead end, a vacuum ; elevating human internal integrative sensory powers and subjective experience to a god-like a priori status.
I consider the impossibility of experiencing the thing-in-itself, versus our sense perceptions --especially from an evolutionary standpoint-- as being a useless distinction and an artificial dichotomy.

The tiger jumping out of the jungle aimed at the throat has an independent existence as an external object whether it is processed by human neurons as a sense perception or experienced by some undefined transcendental power as a thing-in-itself .( were that possible)
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 04:17am PT
The realization of one's smallness in relation to the staggering immensity of our surroundings has to be the very basis of all spirituality. It is the mysterium tremendum et fascinans that is the basis of all religious and or spiritual thought. What else could it be?

Possibly it could be the inspirational basis for spiritual feeling in certain individuals; especially by those individuals reared in a cultural climate aroused by modern science to accept and appreciate human smallness and insignificance as a matter of course.
I would not consider it the basis, or a first cause, for religion or spirituality in general, as traced throughout history and cultures.

Religion and spirituality has progressively evolved from essentially one dimensional animistic polytheistic tribal cults to ultimately providing a dynamic, functional, and inclusive mirror of central aspects of the human psyche and experience .In order to fit this historical progression religion has marched in harmonious lockstep to the much broader social and technological evolution.

When considered as a type of social technology the world's major religions, especially the great monotheisms, have had to maintain themselves at a high level of inter -relative utility in order to even hang around for this long amidst a maelstrom of change over the elapsed centuries. Actually a marvel of adaption, all things considered, and a testament to the intensely complex psychological and social nature of religion. As William James and many others once discovered.
This is certainly something perhaps not fully appreciated by contemporary critics or apologists.

Much of the atheistic jihads carried forth on this thread -- part of a broader fashionable cause celebre--suffer from a lack of profound understanding about the.complex nature and meaning of spirituality in the human psyche; resorting instead to simplistic reductionisms and ad hominems.
Conversely, traditional religionists fail to firmly grasp the legacy of centuries of persecution of atheists and others--- by over-domineering , power hungry, draconian churches bent on subjugation, fear, and manipulation.
That's partly why this historical polemic is destined to mere interminable confrontation without resolution, for as far as the eye can see. This is partly because atheism cannot.prove scientifically there is no god --just as religionists cannot prove there is a god. Religionists are viewed as superstitious deranged zealots, atheists as pathetic lost soul amoral misfits-- by their respective opponents.

What we are left with is a political struggle, a kulturkampf, over the heart and soul of society by two irreconcilable forces bent on ultimate dominance. With the preeminent leaders on both sides building careers, books, sermons, and lectures. This confrontation has been going on in the West for two hundred years now--and in some ways longer. The only thing that has changed are the characters, and some of the stage props.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Sep 27, 2013 - 10:00am PT
"Religion and spirituality has progressively evolved from essentially one dimensional animistic polytheistic tribal cults to ultimately providing a dynamic, functional, and inclusive mirror of central aspects of the human psyche and experience .In order to fit this historical progression religion has marched in harmonious lockstep to the much broader social and technological evolution."


The notion that religious ideas have "evolved" seems problematic at best.

The idea that it is somehow more sophisticated to worship one God instead of many seems only to be an imposed human paradigm.

It seems problematic as well to describe animistic worshipers as any less sophisticated than their Christian counterparts.

The leap of faith required for certain belief in any anthropomorphic deity is at least similar if not exactly the same. I would say the notion that "belief" is somehow reflective or parallel of and to scientific or technological evolution is simply an illusion.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Sep 27, 2013 - 10:07am PT
Interestingly, at the core of religion and religious sect differentiation?

Its the same essence as climb rating discussions...

its all about competition, it actually DEFINES the competition.

The competition to acquire and keep worshipers in the fold.

This is one of the most competitive arenas in human experience.

Religion = competition, at its most essential form, a competition for the heart mind and soul.

This competition has led to some seriously whacked wars and some seriously depraved acts. Not through devine inspiration hahahahahahaha! No, through ego-fueled competition; THAT has been the major driving force in tghe growth of world religions.

DMT
MH2

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 10:57am PT
In actuality, however, the above philosophical discussions concerning the extent to which our perception of reality and "actual" reality overlap or match are truly of little importance. All that is required is that the predictive properties of the computational states generated by the brain meet the requirements for successful interactions with the external world.

I of the Vortex: from Neuron to Self, Rodolfo Llinás, 2001
chapter 6, p. 129


When there is disagreement between perception and external reality, it is not the external reality that adjusts to suit your consciousness.



In fact, the difficulty of seeing things upright by means of upright retinal images seems to consist solely in the resistance offered by the long-established previous experience.

George M. Stratton in 1896 reporting that it took about 5 days for him to adjust to wearing glasses that made the world look upside down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M._Stratton



Another mess-with-your-mind George M. Stratton experiment:





edit
...he wore a set of mirrors attached to a harness as shown in the figure allowing, and forcing, him to see his body from above. He found the senses adapted in a similar way over three days. His interpretation was that we build up an association between sight and touch by associational learning over a period of time. During certain periods, the disconnect between vision and touch made him feel as if his body was not where his touch and proprioceptive feeling told him it was. This out-of-body experience, caused by an altered but normal sensory perception, vanished when he attended to the issue critically, focusing on the disconnect.


You, too...

http://www.gizmag.com/reversing-goggles-upside-down/21595/
Randisi

Social climber
Dalian, Liaoning
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:00am PT
If I recall correctly Stratton never fully adjusted to the inverted images.
MH2

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:06am PT
That could take more than a few days. Also, adults are less adaptable than infants.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:13am PT
The funny thing about a brick wall is that every time, and I mean every time you knock your head against it, it will do damage to your head. You can meditate for a lifetime and the brick wall will still be a brick wall ready to stop your head. Makes it hard not to respect the material world.
-

Paul, if you meditate for a lifetime you will still see a brick wall because you still have sense organs and a brain that will organize reality a certain way. I can still hurt my head with direct contact because my head remains a certain way. But all of these are not absolutes in any universal way. They are absolutes to ME, just as the brick wall is an absolute to me. Fine another life form somewhere else who organizes reality another way and your brick wall no longer is the same as what our sense organs tell us. We imagine there is a fixed universe out there full of stuff, like statues in a museum, and no matter who visits sees the same things.

Not so. We all see what we are made to see.

JL
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Sep 27, 2013 - 11:50am PT
https://www.upworthy.com/a-debate-between-an-atheist-and-a-christian-has-quite-a-surprising-result?c=la2
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Sep 27, 2013 - 12:01pm PT
Couldn't we say that our senses are a result of the environmental structure we find ourselves in? Our senses result from evolutionary testing in which the accuracy of our perception of the material world determines our survivial. How could any evolved being's senses develop but through this evolutionary process in which survival determines breeding determines continuance? How could a brick wall be perceived by someone with functioning sense capability as anything but a brick wall?

BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Sep 27, 2013 - 12:14pm PT

How could a brick wall be perceived by someone with functioning sense capability as anything but a brick wall?

How does one say, from the 30's look at El Cap and exclaim, That can't be climbed!
And then along in the 50's, someone sez, I climbed it!
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 27, 2013 - 01:17pm PT
//How does one say, from the 30's look at El Cap and exclaim, That can't be climbed!
And then along in the 50's, someone sez, I climbed it! //

That's not the same thing. Largo said that for some beings, El Cap is there. For others, it is not.

I challenge that one.

As for only being able to "prove" a null hypothesis, that isn't true. You can prove a positive, in a practical sense.

I can map an area and say that oil will be found in the Lower Skinner Sandstone at 7236 feet beneath this location. That is the hypothesis. You drill the well, to test the hypothesis, and if you are correct, then you have proven the hypothesis correct. If it is not there, then you were wrong. You didn't necessarily make a mistake, other than drilling a well without enough information.

Whenever you deal with an incomplete dataset, you usually have to make assumptions that put into play multiple working hypotheses. Drill the well and see if you are correct. Prior to drilling the well, there are multiple hypotheses that fit the data. After drilling the well, you have actual physical proof.

Much of science is like that. Take the example of supermassive black holes at the center of most galaxies. By looking at the morphology of a galaxy, you can make a guess that this one fits the model and should have a super massive black hole in it. Then you measure the radial velocity of stars near the center. If they are moving very fast, you can be pretty sure that there is a supermassive black hole in it.

I don't know about the Buddhists, but I find the discovery of supermassive black holes at the center of most galaxies pretty damn fascinating. The Buddhists work inwards. They aren't very concerned with what happens outside of the confines of their bodies.

I assume that, anyway.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Sep 27, 2013 - 01:49pm PT
"A camera can only record the light that reaches the sensor (or film)." The sensor or film is that which records the light that reaches it. All you have is a circular statement but with the word consciousness, which has various definitions. Can you define the word 'consciousness' clearly and succinctly enough so that we can judge whether it is identical to a person's entire life experience?

You ARE the camera: you ARE the recording, and you ARE the sensations. In practice, it's all you.

CONSCIOUSNESS / MIND CANNOT BE DEFINED; NOTHING CAN BE DEFINED
I could present a brief description of consciousness by some awakened folk, but I don't think it would mean anything to you unless you've looked closely at your own mind or consciousness. You'd first have to come to the notion that you can't say what it is. Then some similes, paradoxes, and metaphors might be useful, but none of them would say or could ever say what it is. If that's what you must have, then you're locked in a box.

I have said repeatedly that consciousness cannot be defined. More pointedly, I've said that nothing can be defined. It's all ungraspable. This is not an argument. It's a recognition. No one has defined anything ever . . . not in any way that folks ever got to the bottom of anything. Pick out an object, and say what it is accurately, fully, without qualification or reservation.

THE UNIVERSE IS CONSCIOUSNESS
Empiricism is based upon the senses, and they come through (are impressed upon) consciousness or mind. If you believe that you have access to the world in *some other way* than through your mind or consciousness (or for materialists or physicalists--the brain), then by all means, please explain.

MY SLOPPINESS
Thanks, Riley. I mis-spoke or was sloppy. In practice, we don't say we disprove a null hypothesis. We say we "accept" the null hypothesis (which should show the provisional nature of the scientific method).

DASEIN
Someone (Ward) is aware of "dasein." That's a good start. Someone is aware of being, as opposed to doing and the objective.

SURVIVAL AND COMPETITION
Many folks are oriented to survival and competition. Evolutionary theory sure gets a workout around here. To believe in the importance of survival it would seem that one would have to believe in a final death and a single birth. To believe in the importance of competition, one must believe that there are (i) scarce (limited) resources, (ii) some ways and things are better than others, (iii) a free-for-all test leads to useful outcomes. I'd counter with these ideas: (i) there is no death or birth; it just looks that way, (ii) the universe and everything in it is perfect; how could it be otherwise? (iii) there is no limit to creativity, entrepreneurship, innovation, imagination, (iv) tests assume zero-sum game dynamics, but those are man-made or man-envisioned; a test might be an improperly envisioned model of reality.

A FEW QUESTIONS
For naive realists who are so sure that objects are undeniable, solid, unambiguous, certain, definable, graspable, measurable, etc., how is it possible that there is ever a mistake made about what things there are? How is it possible that anyone at anytime would disagree about anything? How is it possible that anything ever changes? Why does any object need other objects?

Naive realists are naive. Radical idealism answers all those questions consistently and fully. But it's an insane explanation.
Messages 16321 - 16340 of total 22398 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