Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16341 - 16360 of total 22753 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:00pm PT
The Buddhists work inwards.

They aren't very concerned with what happens outside of the confines of their bodies.

Not true.

You assume wwwaaayyy tooooo much here and that's why you get so frustrated and bewildered.
MH2

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:05pm PT

how is it possible that there is ever a mistake made about what things there are?


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



These statements appear to conflict.


What is this YOU of which you speak? Does your notion of YOU apply to the people whose corpus callosum was surgically severed as a treatment for epilepsy? The procedure interrupts the usual communication between the two cerebral hemispheres.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
As for hurt feelings, that is not it.

I check in on the climate change thread and it is a solid wall of hate.

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that grown men and women need to behave that way. That is what makes this thread different. We all pretty much know each other by now, and we are civil.

BB,

Sorry, but if you studied geology or any physical science, they all point to an old universe. The Earth is incredibly old. For me to say otherwise would be foolish. I know too much about it.

It is too bad when science, or anything, conflicts with a rigid dogma, such as religion. I think it would all be much more tidy if the history of the planet and the universe DID fit a creation myth. Having a God around would make our decisions and actions far more meaningful, in a spiritual sense. As it is, humanity is fractured into many religions and beliefs. Most of them have no physical basis for belief. You were born into a spiritual community, adapt to join it, and live out your life according to those beliefs. Now, can they all be correct?

I've eaten bacon, and it is pretty good. The Jews, Muslims, and Hindus don't eat it. If you have ever been around pigs, then you can understand why. Pig sh#t is about the nastiest substance you can imagine, and pigs happily roll around in their own feces. You can still eat them, because they are easy to farm and multiply rapidly. They will also eat nigh anything.

I will give an example of an idea. I listened to an NPR interview with Supreme Court Justice Scalia once. His take on the constitution was that it was a "dead" document. That means that it says exactly what it means, and it does not adjust to changing circumstances through time. If we want it to mean something else, then we should change it through amendments, which used to be far more common than today. Now I don't believe that Scalia was being honest when he said that, as he has a definite ideological bent, but that was his argument. His whole philosophy.

Most religions are like that. The Bible is "dead" in the sense that it is also unchanging. For the moment we will ignore the many different interpretations of the bible. If the meaning of the Bible is absolutely literal, then it does not adjust to changing times and situations of humanity since it was written, a hundred or two hundred years after the death of Jesus.

Science is never a "dead" topic. It is constantly changing with new discoveries. To characterize science as meaningless, that it can only prove a negative hypothesis is very, very, wrong. Look at science during the lifetime of Newton and compare it to today.

The problem is that many people narrowly construe that word, theory.

I can understand the position of spiritualists who find science to be a dead end. In the physical sciences, there are no moral answers. There are just physical answers. You can measure the chemistry of an alien atmosphere, but you can't find any meaning regarding eating pork.

Morality is a philosophy question. Most of us try to be moral in a very shared way, whether we be scientists or Christians or Buddhists, or whatever.

It all comes down to "dead" fixed documents or ideology, or unfixed and changing information. To become an ideologue in science is pretty much the end of your career in the field.

Take Richard Dawkins. He isn't that interested in evolution anymore, as far as research goes, or from what I can tell. He is now on an ideological crusade to crush religion.

I don't know of a single scientist who is like that.

The only thing I have to add is that both Largo and Mike are on a spiritual quest within their own skin. They ponder the nature of reality.

That is a valid question, of course. There is always the possibility that none of you exist, I am in an insane asylum, and type away on an unplugged keyboard.

Even the notion of God is possible. There just isn't a lot of evidence to support it.

Science isn't any good at finding meaning, in a "human" sense. Certainly there are people in the social sciences who study this, but an astronomer can at the most feel awe at the complexity of the Universe.

I assume that this is the reason that many people reject science and seek "human truths." If you want to play Creationist and cherry pick science here and there, you are only fooling yourself.

Every now and then I will look up at the night sky and check out the starlight. Those photons left many of their parent stars before we were born. You can see the Andromeda Galaxy with the naked eye, and the light left there 2.5 million years ago. Then consider the light that you CAN'T see. You can't notice this light, because it is too weak, but nevertheless there are stray photons hitting your eyeballs from the furthest reaches of the universe. Our eyes are not telescopes, but that light hits our eyes nevertheless.

I find that pretty cool.
WBraun

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
Even the notion of God is possible. There just isn't a lot of evidence to support it.

If you really understood "Science" completely then you will ultimately "see" that there is nothing but God himself period .......
MH2

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
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.


If I am inside a building, I may look out at the world through a window. Does the window change what is happening outside? Saying that you have access to the world only through your mind may sound meaningful, but it isn't. To a biologist your brain is a structure which receives, stores, and operates on information. The question again is, where is this YOU of which you speak?
WBraun

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
where is this YOU of which you speak?


Yes .... this the most important root start question that there is period.

If one does not completely and fully understand the answer then one will remain in the mental speculation and theory world of the unknown.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
Werner, you could not have said anything different on the matter. It is a result of your Dogma.

If I have it wrong with Buddhists, then I apologize. We are mainly discussing Zen, which requires a lot of meditation to clear out the discursive mind. To me, it seems like a way to train your mind through meditation, and perhaps other techniques.

I've been listening to Mike and John for several years now.

I was just outside and saw a squirrel. I am fairly certain that that squirrel was real.
MH2

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:23pm PT
Yes .... this the most important root start question that there is period.

If one does not completely and fully understand the answer then one will remain in the mental speculation and theory world of the unknown.



The split-hemisphere people are going to have trouble, there.
WBraun

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
You are doing it again now, Base104

We can see how your mind runs amock .....
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
Saying that you have access to the world only through your mind may sound meaningful, but it isn't.

I agree with this.

It may sound meaningful, but it also sounds like a major branch of philosophy, as well as a significant chunk of the history of ideas for the last few hundred years-- to which I referred above.
Immanuel Kant pointed out that we can only know the world through our sense perceptions.We cannot experience objects "in-themselves".
Hence, the world as a construct of human consciousness and first person experience.

The fact that the external universe preceded human consciousness is discounted by subjectivists , some social constructionists, and phenomenologists .

The fact that we can look at something called the fossil record and clearly see that the universe existed long,long before the subjective human experience created it ---is a fact lost on anyone who thinks the objective world is a mere artifact of subjective experience.

When confronted with the fact that the universe seriously predates human awareness there is only one recourse to keep the human-consciousness-as-sole creator-of-the-universe firmly in the drivers seat ; and that is, to consider the fossil record and the physical evidence we can now see ---as similarly being a mere construct.
Does anyone seriously think that the 100 million yr old footprints of dinosaurs have been actually superimposed on our consciousness by subjective first hand experience?

Credit: Ward Trotter
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 27, 2013 - 05:36pm PT
The fact that we can look at something called the fossil record and clearly see that the universe existed long,long before the subjective human experience created it ---is a fact lost on anyone that thinks the objective world is a mere artifact of subjective experience.
-

No one is saying the external world is mere artifact of the subjective experience. What we are saying is that the specific forms we see as humans are in fact an undifferentiated flux extruded through our brain and organized so our brain can manage it. They are "Hilbert Space" models that work, that allow us to control and manipulate material to some highly useful degree.

Common sense insists that the rabbit is the same whether we or a green alien are looking at "it." So it's very tricky so see how this works, but probably no more tricky than the way stuff works on the quantum level - not that we're saying this is so here. Only that what our logic and sense organs tell us is oftentimes not a referent to a fixed, objective "reality" that is "out there," the "thing as such" that Kant ranted on for ages.

But this issue runs a lot deeper than this, but I don't have the time today.

JL
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Sep 27, 2013 - 05:41pm PT
Credit: Johnny Haglund
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Sep 27, 2013 - 05:53pm PT
What we are saying is that the specific forms we see as humans are in fact an undifferentiated flux extruded through our brain and organized so our brain can manage it.

well....that's no different for most of reality. Math, however, changes that.

Do you understand math?
PSP also PP

Trad climber
Berkeley
Sep 27, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
Here is a writing by Trungpa a well known tibetan teacher from the 70's about skandas. The Heart sutra says "when practicing deeply one perceives that all five skandas are empty and is saved from all suffering and distress" http://www.beezone.com/Trungpa/fiveskandas.html
cintune

climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
Sep 27, 2013 - 07:30pm PT


Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 27, 2013 - 07:34pm PT
Math, however, changes that.


I'd be very interested in hearing how math "changes" reality itself, as opposed to measuring what seems to be "out there."

Per the question: "Do I understand math?" Allow me a quote.

"Aristotle defined mathematics as 'the science of quantity,' and this definition prevailed until the 18th century. Starting in the 19th century, when the study of mathematics increased in rigor and began to address abstract topics such as group theory and projective geometry, which have no clear-cut relation to quantity and measurement, mathematicians and philosophers began to propose a variety of new definitions.Some of these definitions emphasize the deductive character of much of mathematics, some emphasize its abstractness, some emphasize certain topics within mathematics.

Today, no consensus on the definition of mathematics prevails, even among professionals.There is not even consensus on whether mathematics is an art or a science. A great many professional mathematicians take no interest in a definition of mathematics, or consider it undefinable. Some just say, "Mathematics is what mathematicians do," a definitive non-answer on par with, 'Consciousness is what the brain does.'"

JL
WBraun

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 08:13pm PT
Consciousness always is centered from the heart and then goes to the brain.

The brain can never ever function with out consciousness.

Once consciousness leaves the material body then it is just the material elements and is considered dead.

Modern material science is stupid to the knowledge of consciousness, it's localized position in the living entity and it's origin.

Modern material science is just plain guessing all along about Consciousness.

Consciousness has been understood eternally.

Only modern science is in the dark .......
MH2

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 08:25pm PT
But this issue runs a lot deeper than this, but I don't have the time today.


You and Fermat, eh? Maybe in a few hundred years someone will step up.


No one is saying the external world is mere artifact of the subjective experience.


MikeL says, "No thing is real." It sounds as though you and he disagree on the status of the external world.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Sep 27, 2013 - 09:06pm PT
No one is saying the external world is mere artifact of the subjective experience.


MikeL says, "No thing is real." It sounds as though you and he disagree on the status of the external world.


What he means by "real" is all things are impermenant and have no independent existence - one of the first things you come to experience directly in the experiential adventures. As I was saying, people think their mental representations of things represent fixed forms. This is another way of saying, all forms are "empty." But without the experience, this will all ring sort of hollow, a mere idea.
JL
MH2

climber
Sep 27, 2013 - 09:48pm PT
As I was saying, people think their mental representations of things represent fixed forms.


Fixed forms? To be real an object must be permanent and independent of everything else?


It sounds more to me like you are saying, "No one can get this right."


Your experiential experience should give us more.
Messages 16341 - 16360 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