|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are thoughts transcendant? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4933 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
Science is not a tool, it is a method. It is based upon logic, and most human beings claim to have some part of that. You do not gain knowledge from science, you use science to gain knowledge.
What you say is not logical, lindalou. That there is something that you feel exists only to a certain select minority, or exists to everyone and only a few can percieve it does not make sense logically. The world we live in is mundane and is subject to logic. Your fantasies are not. Like the science turn around, i dont judge experiances because ive already made up my mind, ive already made up my mind because of what i have experianced. The universe is not ours to make of it as we please, it is what it is. Maybe i will oneday have spiritual experiances. And that day i will change my mindset. But then again, maybe one day the Magical People of of the Woo will come and take you away. This statement is false. Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4328 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
So in order to be a scientist, does that mean you have to reject spirituality? You'd better go explain that to the theistic evolutionists here then.
Spirituality isn't logical. You can remind people of this as many times as you like, but don't be surprised if they don't immediately see your point of view and turn ahteist. Logical thinking is entirely appropriate in many situations, but sometimes it can be useful to utilise different parts of the brain too. Yes the universe exists as it is. Do you claim to have a complete understanding of how it works then? You seem to, if you are telling me that the way I perceive it is fantasy. Why not at least grant me the freedom to think that this is just a little narrow-minded, and that there may be more to life than science currently understands, or perhaps can ever adequately explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4607 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Why not at least grant me the freedom to think that this is just a little narrow-minded, and that there may be more to life than science currently understands, or perhaps can ever adequately explain. That's not the point. A true skeptic has no problem acknowledging that there is a lot out there that science hasn't been able to explain, or even observe. But she has the humility to acknowledge that any impressions, hunches or feelings that she has about this, are extremely fallible. And humility is indeed the right word here, contrary to the accusations that skeptics are so certain of themselves, so arrogant. A skeptic has doubt, whereas the true believer has unquestioned revelation and intuition. Why don't these people ever take it for possible that they are fallible, that they can fall into misconceptions or that they might not have enough knowledge and information to correctly interprete experiences? I mean, history is chock full of examples. Why would we be immune?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You seem to, if you are telling me that the way I perceive it is fantasy. It isn't what you perceive that is the primary problem; it is how you arrive at what you think you perceive. The methods you use to arrive at your accepted conclusions have been shown to be wrong over and over and over. You conclusions may or may not be correct in any given situation but it isn't possible to tell since we know the methods are faulty and lead to wrong conclusions very often. So yes, the way you perceive often leads to fantastical conclusions. What you perceive has to be dealt with case by case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Hey, Petro, any thoughts on my critique and questions found in message #55?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
I would REALLY like to see your reply to Annafan's message #93, LindaLou, as I've more or less said the same thing to you at least two or three times.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: Well, when skeptics are accused of arrogance, I think what people are really saying is, "You are arrogant because you don't unquestioningly believe whatever I tell you in the same way I unquestioningly believe what somebody else told me." Skeptics don't react this way to rational questioning or reasonable doubt. We welcome probing, investigative inquiry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4933 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
So in order to be a scientist, does that mean you have to reject spirituality? You'd better go explain that to the theistic evolutionists here then. Not in all aspects per se, but generally yes. If spirituality skews facts, then it has no place in science.
Logical thinking is entirely appropriate in many situations, but sometimes it can be useful to utilise different parts of the brain too. There isnt a section of your brain that is logical and understandable and a section that is filled with etherereal, mythical dust. From a computer standpoint, no matter how complex and abstract a system is, it is always founded in logic in its lowest layer. In its highest abstraction layer, things might not seem so, but that has no bearing on what truely makes the system up. Likewise with the Brain.
Yes the universe exists as it is. Do you claim to have a complete understanding of how it works then?
I dont claim to know the contents of the universe, but i do claim at least a bare knowledge of the rules of the game. What you say and think has nothing on the content that i percieve and even if it did i claim no knowledge over all of the contents. What you say goes against the basest rules of the universe, and unless we live in differant places, those tend to be the same. What you think has no direct impact on me, except that i percieve it to be wrong. Should i step back and say "hey, more power to you?" If that was the way things worked in debates nothing would be debated. This statement is false. Yeah so i lurk more than i post, thats why my posts are so low for two year's worth of membership. So sue me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4328 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
What is there to say? I don't think I have all the answers just because I am of a mystical bent. I simply believe that there are more ways at arriving at Truth that that which science provides. As it's impossible to explain this to anyone who says that this is simply fantasy, wishful thinking, lying to myself, delusion, etc, then there's nothing more for me to add here. I am not a theist but spirituality is a large part of my life. That is valid for me, and for many others.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4607 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
What is there to say? I don't think I have all the answers just because I am of a mystical bent. I simply believe that there are more ways at arriving at Truth that that which science provides. As it's impossible to explain this to anyone who says that this is simply fantasy, wishful thinking, lying to myself, delusion, etc, then there's nothing more for me to add here. I am not a theist but spirituality is a large part of my life. That is valid for me, and for many others. What I don't understand is how you use the word "Truth" here. Unless you are able to somehow convince (get to agree, or even better: convert) others of this "Truth", it can't be anything else but personal truth. Which, in the end, is nothing but a euphemism for opinion, don't you agree? It's fine to have opinions, but only as long as you're aware that they are opinions and that they could be wrong, and that they are severely lacking potential to reach agreement about with other people. Keeping opinions (personal truth) and objective truth seperate would go a long way in coexisting peacefully and preventing people from getting riled up
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Kitsune Member (Idle past 4328 days) Posts: 788 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
People have been debating about the nature of truth for thousands of years. The specialty of this forum is scientific truth. I have no trouble accepting that fossils are found in a geologic column containing rocks that can be dated by a number of methods. The truths that a person might learn from life experiences, other people, spiritual experiences, meditation, etc, are of a different nature. To call them nothing more than subjective opinions is to grossly belittle them. They should be questioned and discussed, yes. There will be some who disagree and see things differently maybe. That's fine. But are you willing to throw out the whole of philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence, because they are not as "true" as a fossil or a rock?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2197 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: But you do have a problem with accepting anything science says regarding any of the unsupported stuff you, personally, like to believe in, like poltergeists and medical conspiracy theories. You disregard science constantly, for exactly the same reasons creationists do.
quote: Aesthetic or moral "truths" are not the purview of science, but natural "truths" certainly are. Where the "truths" derived from the above subjective sources you listed claim something about the natural world that contradicts the scientific evidence about the natural world, the subjective experiences should always be discarded in favor of the scientific. In other words, when trying to understand the natural world, scientific evidence always trumps subjective evidence.
quote: But they are nothing but subjective opinions. We can't test someone's personal spiritual experience, can we? How are they useful in understanding the natural world? How do subjective opinions improve inquiry? How do we judge one person's personal "truth" to be more accurate than any other person's personal "truth". There's no way to tell. That's not saying that people's personal "truths" aren't valuable to them.
quote: It isn't a matter of throwing them out. It is a matter of understanding that they are subjective, and therefore are based upon personal opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2347 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
Damouse, I feel you are misrepresenting the scientific case, and I'm finding myself more and more inclining to agree with Linda Lou.
1. Science is not the same as logic. Science is empirical, i.e. it uses observation and experiment to understand the world. If logic contradicts reality (which it sometimes can do), then the logic is at fault.
There isnt a section of your brain that is logical and understandable and a section that is filled with etherereal, mythical dust. From a computer standpoint, no matter how complex and abstract a system is, it is always founded in logic in its lowest layer. In its highest abstraction layer, things might not seem so, but that has no bearing on what truely makes the system up. Likewise with the Brain. 2. The brain is not a logic machine. It works by association, not by logic. We have logical skills, but they're just a tiny part of what our brain does. For much our interaction with the world, logical thinking is completely inappropriate. 3. Science is not a complete world view. It is an analytical method for creating models of the world. Those models can be immensely powerful for making predictions, and for generating technology, but they're still models, not the reality itself. Science is a part of our understanding of the world - we also have our own experience, philosophy, religion (well, some of it anyway), music, poetry, tennis, rock climbing, art, children, love, sex, train spotting, internet forums, sunsets and sea urchins. (And one or two other things). 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JavaMan Member (Idle past 2347 days) Posts: 475 From: York, England Joined: |
What is there to say? I don't think I have all the answers just because I am of a mystical bent. I simply believe that there are more ways at arriving at Truth that that which science provides. As it's impossible to explain this to anyone who says that this is simply fantasy, wishful thinking, lying to myself, delusion, etc, then there's nothing more for me to add here. I am not a theist but spirituality is a large part of my life. That is valid for me, and for many others. What I don't understand is how you use the word "Truth" here. Unless you are able to somehow convince (get to agree, or even better: convert) others of this "Truth", it can't be anything else but personal truth. Which, in the end, is nothing but a euphemism for opinion, don't you agree? Don't you think it's possible to come to the truth about anything, except via scientific investigation or logic? 'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5900 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I'm just tempted to reply to this bit:
But are you willing to throw out the whole of philosophy and religion, which examine the nature of life and existence, because they are not as "true" as a fossil or a rock? Let's see, from my standpoint: philosophy = metaphysical navel gazing. Put two philosophers in a room, ask whether the sky is blue, and you'll get three mutually contradictory answers. religion = belief in the existence of something in the face of and in spite of an utter lack of evidence for that something. IOW, willfull self-delusion. In a word: yes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024