Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Perceptions of Reality
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 157 of 305 (385673)
02-16-2007 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-30-2006 8:58 PM


For ROB
Rob, on Message 86, you in essence claim to have 'truth' and that all those against him are blinded.
The question is how can you validate that claim?
Particularly when your 'truth' is invalidated by evidence on one side and discredited by other christians on another.
What is the foundation?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-30-2006 8:58 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 158 of 305 (385926)
02-18-2007 9:18 AM


for lovefaithhope - the breath of reality?
From Message 52
The elements of this universe are all the breath of God!
If you truly believe this then all science is just the proper study of the "breath of God" and the better a job science does of that -- unhindered by any dogmatic interference -- the closer it comes to finding that breath of truth that is the real creation. If you truly believe this then you must discard all preconceptions and then look for what the evidence shows - the actual breath.
If you truly believe this then no science fact can be considered incorrect when it is tested against reality and found to be valid, as that reality is the "breath of God" -- and that includes all of science, from age of the earth to evolution, from genetics to geology, from physics to paleontology.
If you don't accept that fact about science and the validity of knowledge of the "breath of God" then you are a hypocrite.
You claim "my evolution works and your evolution does not" yet you have provided no example of what your "evolution" is or how it works in the real world (God's breath). How does it work and how do you validate that it works?
How do you deal with evidence that contradicts any of your beliefs, even though that evidence comes from the "breath of God" - reality?
How do you validate your belief when there is no substantiating evidence?
If it is not validated then it is not knowledge, it is belief, fantasy, myth, imagination, etc.
How can you perceive reality based on belief, fantasy, myth, imagination, etc.?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 159 of 305 (393314)
04-04-2007 10:48 AM


for StevieBoy
Message 22
Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them.
So.
When are you going to become a Deist?
The evidence of ALL religions is valid.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 163 of 305 (393601)
04-05-2007 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by PurpleYouko
04-04-2007 1:52 PM


Solipsism vs Perceptions of Others
Thanks PY for bumping this question.
... making the point that if you can't be 100% sure that your own perceptions are accurate then you can't use your perceptions to validate themselves.
It's worse than that actually: as soon as your perception is over, all you have is a memory of your perception: can you trust your memory to be accurate on what you actually perceived?
OK It may be Solipism (which I don't subscibe to incidentally) but the argument stands that there is absolutely no way that any person can ever validate their own perceptions.
We can make two assumptions:
(1) there is only {I} - in which case it's all irrelevant, as {I} is the reality, or
(2) there are others - in which case their perceptions are as valid as yours, based on your ability to communicate and remember accurately ...
At the base level, you have to take it on faith that anything other than your own consciousness, exists at all.
No, I can proceed to make a logical choice to assume case (2) applies having already exhausted the logical ramifications of (1).
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : coding

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by PurpleYouko, posted 04-04-2007 1:52 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 164 of 305 (393605)
04-05-2007 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by StevieBoy
04-05-2007 11:08 AM


Re: resurrecting this with some modifications.
If we have little faith then our green faith circle will close in on our other circles constricting them.
The green circle does not represent only one persons faith but all faiths of all people. Yours is in one part of that circle as it does NOT encompass the beliefs of hindus and buddhists yes?
I pointed you here specifically because you made the illogical comment:
Message 19
Many people do not buy into the theory that God exists and yet they only have to look hard and honestly at the body of evidence that supports a firm and tenacious belief in God over 2000 years to wonder if possibly, just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them.
With the assumption that only your god mattered.
I repeat: when are you going to admit the reality and become a Deist?
We could perhaps add a circle around faith called heresy. ... They are falsehoods that we have built into our belief system.
You seem to be afraid of knowledge and want to pull your circle of faith in tight around you, close in around your other circles constricting them.
I see the whole being a map of reality and our perceptions being limited to part of it. Reality outside that realm would not be "heresy" by definition.
her·e·sy -noun1. opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, esp. of a church or religious system.
2. the maintaining of such an opinion or doctrine.
3. Roman Catholic Church. the willful and persistent rejection of any article of faith by a baptized member of the church.
4. any belief or theory that is strongly at variance with established beliefs, customs, etc.
Again, this is fear of knowledge that contradicts beliefs, rather than faith or any logical position based on evaluation of the validity of the knowledge. To me this is not reality but delusion:
de·lu·sion -noun1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
Concordance - 2 + 2 = 4 - fair enough. Scientifically proven.
Not quite it.
Concordance is that you and I agree that 2+2=4, that the earth orbits the sun, that the sun is a star in a remote arm of a typical spiral galaxy, that the earth is 4.5 billion years old.
Lack of Denial - A brain teaser at first. So the more we deny other knowledge to the contrary the less we have faith in it.
No, you are in denial because you have a certain belief and you are ignoring the evidence that contradicts your belief: see delusion.
Lack of denial just means that there is no evidence that contradicts your beliefs. Evidence is part of reality, so if you are denying the evidence you are denying part of reality.
For instance, you can deny that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This is not based on knowledge or on evidence but on the denial of evidence that contradicts a younger earth.
However we can judge through trust in God. God could perhaps be thought of as siting on the outer boundary of faith. God therefore helps us control all the circles and keep them in a healthy proportions.
My god lives in the reality that extends beyond the circles. Free. Unconstrained.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by StevieBoy, posted 04-05-2007 11:08 AM StevieBoy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by StevieBoy, posted 04-07-2007 10:22 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 166 of 305 (393963)
04-08-2007 7:15 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by StevieBoy
04-07-2007 10:22 AM


reality, deism and flat-earth beliefs
I found your original suggestion that I "admit your a Deist" intrusive.
Not what I said. I said admit reality ... then become a Deist as you take your own advice and follow it to it's logical conclusion: that "just maybe, all these believers might actually be onto something and may one day enter a journey for themselves to find out who God is and what God means for them."
Just to hit some high-spots:
christianity
hinduism
buddhism
Have all been around over 2000 years and all still exist and all have many followers around the world. Thus all these believers might be on to something, but the something they are onto is not the same. In fact there are no two independent religions that are have similarities except for a general belief in god(s).
Thus the only thing we can conclude from this -- if we take your precept that such belief is evidence -- is that god(s) exist but we do not know, can not know, what god(s) exist.
... and the comment was also made to see if you would re-evaluate your attitude ...
The comment was not my best post.
You did. I don't really expect (or care) others to become deists: to me religion is a personal path and no-one can tell what is right for you.
I hadn't even heard of Deism and ...
I am free to choose a Religion if I want.
And free to make that choice based on an incomplete evaluation of all the possible alternatives? The real question here is how do you (we) make these choices? How do we validate them?
Are you exploring how we can all agree on what knowledge fits into which areas?
Reality exists,
We (each) perceive parts of that reality,
Our perception of reality is influenced by what we know and believe, but
How can we validate our perception as being a valid representation of reality?
Science can only go so far. Philosophy can only go so far. Faith can only go so far. Plus the further we go from science (testable) and philosophy (logical) the more uncertain we must be about our conclusions.
What led you to make the comment that I was afraid?
The fact that you used the word heresy. Heresy is anything that contradicts dogma.
Are you saying both Heresy and Delusion are not reality? There is an important distinction between Heresy and Delusion that you may have overlooked. Delusion is fixed, false and in confrontation with fact. Heresy is opinion or belief or theories that are widely believed to be false but that could become truth, scientific fact or orthodox through popular belief. Hence heresy exists in the realm of reality if it is true knowledge.
I'd say that dogma (religious, philosophical, etc) is delusion whenever it is contradicted by facts. That dogma would brand any such facts as heresy (we've seen so many examples yes?), when what it really is amounts to fear of the new knowledge, the new facts, and the increase in knowledge that comes with it. Thus heresy can be true to reality when the dogma is false, and heresy is not then a measure of {reality\non-reality}. The problem is to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I reasoned that the knowledge of Faith is important for the advancement of the other realms of knowledge.
I don't see it is necessary to have faith to be able to do math, or logic, or to follow the scientific process to see how things work.
Perhaps you could tell me why you think the comment is illogical?
Can you tell me which of these logical structures is valid?
  • All fish have spiny tails
  • Guppies have spiny tails
  • Therefore guppies are fish
    or
    (B)
  • Most automobiles have pneumatic tires
  • Bicycles have pneumatic tires
  • Therefore bicycles are automobiles
    or
    (C)
  • Only foxes have red fur
  • Orangutans have red fur
  • Therefore orangutans are foxes
Just for fun.
Is this the same as general consensus? I agree that we can agree on what we can see through the telescope and what we find in the earth etc. For the most part we can agree. Although a friend of mine is colourblind and he thinks blue and green are the same colour. He takes it on faith that they are different. He may even believe everyone else is wrong.
I think of it more as a general compromise position than general consensus. Your friend (and one of mine, is your friend left-handed too?) takes a compromise position that blue and green are different (for my friend it is red and green) because of the evidence available to him. There are also women (related to colorblind men) that see 4 basic colors, and we are colorblind to them (as we are compared to birds and reptiles and ...). Your friend (and mine) can also run spectroscopic tests that can consistently distinguish one shade from the other even thought they cannot see the differences, so he can test those perceptions of others.
How do you account for things that are widely believed but are not in fact reality? For example supposing if the current state of belief was that the earth is flat? Or doesn't this matter because we are only representing reality?
It matters very much. The question is how do we distinguish a "flat-earth" belief from reality? What other beliefs fall into the "flat-earth" category? To me the biggest contender these days is the YEC belief in a young earth: it is falsified by the evidence just as much as the flat earth concept is falsified by the evidence.
In your mind what do each boundary line between the realms of knowledge and the unknown represent? Who determines what knowledge goes where? For example, the scientific community may decide when something becomes scientific fact and we can place this knowledge realm of science.
I don't see hard and fast boundaries, and I also think the circles can expand as time passes and we accumulate more knowledge and experience of reality into the concepts that we use to perceive reality.
This is an interesting debate but Razd I'm new here,
Welcome to the fray.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ,

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by StevieBoy, posted 04-07-2007 10:22 AM StevieBoy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by StevieBoy, posted 04-11-2007 11:11 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 168 of 305 (394486)
04-11-2007 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by StevieBoy
04-11-2007 11:11 AM


Re: reality, deism and flat-earth beliefs
excellent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by StevieBoy, posted 04-11-2007 11:11 AM StevieBoy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 169 of 305 (394735)
04-12-2007 10:38 PM


physical reality and morality?
From Message 25
I am trying to drop it...
Razd:
What you assume is that an absolute morality applies. It does not. The example gave by Taz shows a relative morality applicable in each alternate universe. Just as it is a relative morality that people use in this universe, that allows people to change channels when they see ads for help organizations for starving children in 3rd world countries. We already -- in this one known universe -- have the situation you said couldn't happen?
Do you hear yourself Razd? Do you really hear yourself?
What you assume is that an absolute morality applies. It does not.
It does not? period?
You have just posited an 'absolute morality'. And your absolute is relative.
You talk about logic and expect it from me... but you exempt yourself?
As you said, morality exists or it does not. It cannot be both absolute and relative. Why is this so hard for some of you?
What would cause you to even attempt to escape this pivotal and logical certainty, at the expense of the tremendous value offered in the basis for your own understanding of anything?
This is in response to Rob's original comment:
Message 9
The problem with these theories is that they undermine the moral reality that you affirm with your moralizing.
and
Message 16
The reasons for the moral implications are quite obvious as any moral scene that is legitimate for our universe is ultimately undone by the overlying reality of randomness of the whole.
With the implication by Rob that since his morality did exist that such universes could not. This would only work if there was some physical reality to morality such that it's existence would prevent multiple universes.
Morality is part of philosophy - the second circle in perceptions of reality - but it has no physical reality, and there is no absolute morality. Morality changes with perceptions of reality and philosophy - ergo it is subjective. And if it is subjective then it is also necessarily relative as subjective perceptions vary from individual to individual.
If a morality {philosophy} is based on a false understanding of reality it is invalid. It is not reality that is wrong, whatever that reality is, whether it involves multiple universes or dark stuffs or elastic\plastic constants.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : relative

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 12:46 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 194 of 305 (394954)
04-14-2007 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 170 by Rob
04-13-2007 12:46 AM


Re: physical reality and morality?
This really has nothing to do with multiple universes. So I am not rejecting multiple universes because it would do away with morality.
So what you posted on the original thread:
Message 5
It's not complicated really...
In order to rescue the 'chance hypothesis' and escape the moral implications of an orderly creator, 'scientists' (prophets) and their 'followers' (sheep), have offered a metaphysical theology of their own.
Has nothing to do with the validity of the theories - as claimed in your subtitle - nor with the reality of multiple universes, which you linked to M- and string- theories only by the vaguest implication:
Message 16
... in the context of 'Parrallel Universes' which 'String' and 'M' theory do not necessarily imply,
And now claim you are NOT rejecting --
Maybe there are multiple universes. If there are, morality would still be absolute in my opinion.
What I was driving at, was that mutiple universes can be (and have been) used to posit the notion that ultimately, reality is infinite in the manner of order and function of law. I am not saying anyone here has used this notion, but I know folks who have.
... thus demonstrating that your ONLY reason for posting on the original thread was to drag it off topic into a discussion of your concepts of morality, concepts that have nothing to do with the theories, OR their validity, one way or the other.
Multiple universes are not needed to posit that your concept of morality is wrong: all we need to do is look at this world to see that it is.
Example: in the 1700's it was morally acceptable in the USA to have slaves; it is not morally acceptable now -- what has changed? Society. Conclusion: morals are based on social values not on absolutes.
Example: murder is generally considered to be immoral -- except where it is socially acceptable, such as in the execution of prisoners (for crimes varying from society to society) or during wars (where we now find it socially acceptable for "collateral damage" killing thousands of innocent people just for being where they were) or where it was\is okay to kill slaves on a whim -- what is different? Societies. Conclusion: morals are based on social values and not on absolutes.
There are many examples where {X} is moral in case {A} and immoral in case {B} -- in fact I cannot think of any where this is NOT the case -- and this shows that the moral value of {X} is relative to the case. Conclusion: morals are relative and not absolute.
When speaking of absolute moral truth, if you say that 'all truth is relative', does that statement include itself?
You are conflating terms here. We can talk about truth, and we can talk about morality, and we can talk about what is true about morality (ie that it IS relative and based on social values and not absolute carved in stone somewhere). And we can talk about absolutes, such as all positive numbers being greater than zero, and we can talk about "absolute truths." Putting words together doesn't make your concept valid, what makes it valid is the reality behind the concept.
Truth -- as far as we know it -- is based on our perceptions of reality, and the layers or circles in the first post on this thread that deal with the layers or boundaries of (un)certainty we have with our perceptions of reality. "Absolute truth" is still just truth, no modifier needed: it is either true or it isn't.
And we can test our concepts of reality by how well they do relate to the evidence. Such as our knowledge of the "absolute truth" of the earth being an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun in an outer arm of a (non-specific one of many similar) galaxy, and that it has been doing so for some 4.5 billion years.
If you say no, then you are positing an absolute while denying that absolutes exist.
What am I missing?
That you are talking about two different kinds\meanings of absolute and conflating one with the other. It is the logical fallacy of equivocation (equivocating on the meanings).
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Rob, posted 04-13-2007 12:46 AM Rob has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 221 of 305 (395215)
04-15-2007 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Rob
04-14-2007 1:43 PM


undeniabtility and phantoms
You see, one of the tests for truth is undeniability
Absolutely false. People deny the truth all the time: look at how many people deny that the age of the earth is much more that a few thousand years old. Heck there are still people that believe in a flat earth.
I guess it is too subconscious for us to easily get a handle on.
Message 198
This is very tricky and heavy. Very hard to keep a handle on. It is almost like the tomato seed. We can't quite get our finger on it...
It is subconscious. And the point is that if we take away these assumptions, then we have no ground with which to stand.
Or you are fishing for something that isn't real. A shadow of a phantom fantasy? How would you know?
Life is absolute
Then why isn't their life on the moon? Why aren't the very rocks alive?
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Rob, posted 04-14-2007 1:43 PM Rob has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 223 of 305 (396024)
04-18-2007 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Archer Opteryx
04-18-2007 10:35 AM


Re: physical reality and morality?
...a truth that is absolute?
Truth itself.
Which includes a lot of things we know to be false, such as a young earth.
Or that there is an absolute morality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-18-2007 10:35 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 227 of 305 (396416)
04-19-2007 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Rob
04-18-2007 11:06 PM


Re: Reality
You won't get an argument from me.
As Archer also notes:
Message 225
You pay insufficient attention to the necessity, Rob, of distinguishing between reality and our ideas of it.
The question is, how do you validate your idea of reality -- how do we all validate our idea of reality? Does one ignore evidence that contradicts ideas? Or does one build their ideas based on evidence first? Or do we have different levels of trust in ideas based on how sure we are of the evidence for them?
You seem to have an issue with morality -- that affects the way you deal with information.
On What are M-Theory and String theory etc. and are they valid scientific theories?, your first post was more concerned with your perceived problem with some aspect of morality than with whether the theory was correct or not. The implication of your post was that the theories were developed for intentionally immoral purposes rather than for their possible validity.
You also disrupted Abiogenesis with similar arguments about morality independent of the validity of the arguments for the scientific theories. You were suspended 3 times for it, and still when you come back you post:
Message 202
The different sides of the moral implications.
Still riding that issue. The impression I get is that you label any idea that conflicts with your idea of reality as immoral, and this is the way you deal with the cognitive dissonance produced by concepts that challenge your ideas. I asked you why you need to make these threads into issues of morality -- rather than ones on improving our knowledge of what is reality. This is your response:
On Message 167 you posted:
Rob:
Why are you looking for the mechanism?
This is where absolute morality comes into play. Honestly, why do you want to know?
Razd:
Why is everything you argue about reduced to some attack on absolute morality?
Razd asked an important question.
Admins.... Please allow me here, I intend to be as respectfully frank as I am capable. If you feel the need to respond Razd, perhaps we should move it to the perceptions of reality thread. We're getting off on a tangent.
I asked why the mechanism was being sought for a reason. To provoke her to consider her motivations for herself. Perhpas they are pure...
But it is my contention that some 'other' mechanism (for life's origin) is being sought in place of the one that is still arguably obvious (creation), for the precise purpose of creating nothing but doubt, and the moral freedom that comes with giving life to that doubt.
So yes the moral connection is obvious to me.
Razd:
Because that is how knowledge is gained and ignorance is abated: don't you think it is moral to remove the veils of ignorance from ones eyes?
Isn't that what satan asked Eve in essence?
Razd:
Don't you think it is moral to learn new things?
Sure Razd.... as long as we know where to draw the line. And as history has shown, men and women seem to have trouble in that department.
Where would you draw that line Razd?
Is there any place you presume to judge we should not go, and why?
Discovery has it's place if kept within sacred bounds.
Who decides what they are? If reality has not already established them, then we are left to wander for ourselves.
There are some discoveries man has yet to make that would make him less ignorant. For example, why did we stop Josef Mengele's research upon young boys? If your argument is taken to it's extreme, we need to get that strand of research back on line don't we?
No?
But without those experiments, man will remain ignorant of whole undicovered dimensions of existence!
You may think I am being extreme, but I think you are making light of it on the other end of the spectrum. There is some truth to your argument Razd, but don't forget it's limitations.
And if we (as uncivilized as we are) look down with disdain and moral condemnation upon such atrocities, how must we look to an actually moral and Holy being? What would an alien such as the Holy God I believe in, think of you and me? I think that compared to Him, we are worse off than Josef Mengele is compared to us.
I do believe that this whole idea of figuring out the emperical world is almost completely motivated by man seeking in vain to have freedom for his lusts. He wishes for ignorance, and is at the ready to extinguish any light that bears otherwise.
After all this time, and in light of modern biology and cosmology, you're still willing to put your head in the sand?
Seriously... talk about blind faith and ignorance...
Razd:
Do you know the working definition of fanatic? Someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject.
All truths are double-edged swords Razd. Be careful weilding that one! And I say that knowing what it is like to cut off my own legs now and then.
Perhaps I am childish and overbearing at times; mea culpa, mea culpa once again. But I am trying to understand these things...
I'll take these points to answer:
But it is my contention that some 'other' mechanism (for life's origin) is being sought in place of the one that is still arguably obvious (creation), for the precise purpose of creating nothing but doubt, and the moral freedom that comes with giving life to that doubt.
So yes the moral connection is obvious to me.
What is "arguably obvious (creation)" to you is that your idea of reality is only -- can only include -- a certain religious belief, no matter what the evidence of the reality shows. You attempt to label any conflicting idea as immoral, not because it is invalid, but because this protects you from considering that it is valid.
Razd:
Because that is how knowledge is gained and ignorance is abated: don't you think it is moral to remove the veils of ignorance from ones eyes?
Isn't that what satan asked Eve in essence?
Are you sure? Here's another version of the story, http://www.deism.com/adamandeve.htm (a satire):
quote:
ACT ONE
1. God created the world and two people named Adam and Eve, with whom he intended to populate the world.
2. One day, while God was not looking, the Devil came and captured Adam and Eve.
3. Adam and Eve were imprisoned in the Devil's garden called "Eden." God spoke to his eternal foe and asked for the return of his people. But the Devil, being fond of his new pets, refused.
4. God resolved to liberate Adam and Eve. Taking the shape of a serpent, God sneaked into the Devil's garden.
5. Sensing that Eve was the more insightful of the pair, God approached her.
6. God said to Eve, "If you will listen to me, I know a way for you to escape your imprisonment."
7. Eve said, "But Mr. Serpent, I do not wish to escape Eden. I like it here. This garden has everything I need."
8. God said, "You do not know what you are missing. Outside of this garden is an entire world, much larger than a mere garden. This world was created for your use. You will be much more satisfied there."
9. Eve said, "Really? I need to discuss this with Adam."
10. God said, "No, don't do that! Listen to me. In the far part of the garden there is a tree, called the Tree of Knowledge. Eat from this tree, and trick Adam into doing the same. Then you will know of the world at large, and your true mission in life."
There's more, you can read the whole thing at the above link.
Razd:
Don't you think it is moral to learn new things?
Sure Razd.... as long as we know where to draw the line. And as history has shown, men and women seem to have trouble in that department.
Where would you draw that line Razd?
It is not in learning that the problem lies, but in the application of knowledge: the knowledge to split the atom can be used (a) for increasing scientic knowledge through experimentation to see how the basic physics works, (b) to provide energy to power lights, industries and personal computers for communication of ideas around the world or (c) to blow it all up because one religious group thinks another religious group doesn't have their story of creation right.
I don't draw the line on learning information, and on testing to see whether it is a true, valid, correct vision of reality.
Discovery has it's place if kept within sacred bounds.
Who decides what they are?
Who gets to decide that they even exist? You seem to appoint yourself readily any chance you get eh?
There are some discoveries man has yet to make that would make him less ignorant. For example, why did we stop Josef Mengele's research upon young boys? If your argument is taken to it's extreme, we need to get that strand of research back on line don't we?
Okay you've played the Nazi sadistic torture "experiment" card. Congratulations: you've conflated science with torture and arbitrary killing to show that science is immoral ... except that your argument is false. Mengele was more of an ideologue than a scientist, and what he did was driven by his (false) ideology rather than by a pursuit of knowledge:
http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/100/mengle.htm
quote:
According to an Auschwitz friend and fellow-SS physician, Mengele espoused the visionary SS ideology that the Nordic race was the only truly creative race, that it had been weakened by Christian morality of Jewish origin, and that Germany needed to revert to ancient German myths in creating an SS ''order'' to purify the Nordic race. According to his friend, Mengele was an extreme anti-Semite, ''fully convinced that the annihilation of the Jews is a provision for the recovery of the world and Germany.'' And Mengele considered these views to be scientifically derived.
Mengele produced three publications before he came to Auschwitz. ... But their conclusions uniformly reflect Mengele's commitment to bringing science into the service of the Nazi vision.
Mengele's fanatically brutal approach to his research can be understood mainly in terms of his combination of ideological zealotry and scientific ambition.
So what we see is more the evil of perverting science to serve ideology than to pursue knowledge of the reality of the universe. In this your example is closer to the creationist perversion of science than it is to the pursuit of knowledge. This is not the danger of knowledge but of ideology -- especially one that is not based on reality.
But without those experiments, man will remain ignorant of whole undicovered dimensions of existence!
False. We just don't need to torture people and arbitrarily kill them to obtain this information. We don't need Mendele's experiments to understand heredity. We also do not need to use this example, when there are others: the experiments on syphlis in the south using black men is another example -- an example of behavior thought to be moral within the society.
Rather than provide an example where science is immoral, you have provided another example of relativistic morality, where killing people was considered moral by the society at the time. In both your example and the one I provided the work was assisted by people - rather than condemned - because it was considered morally acceptable. In both cases these moral criteria were based on false knowledge and a false belief in the inferiority of some people compared to others. It is not the knowledge being pursued that is the question of moral or immoral behavior, but the manner in which it was acquired and the validity of the ideologies that they were based on.
I do believe that this whole idea of figuring out the emperical world is almost completely motivated by man seeking in vain to have freedom for his lusts. He wishes for ignorance, and is at the ready to extinguish any light that bears otherwise.
And yet it is you that I see lusting for ignorance, ready - and more than willing - to extinguish any light of reason that threatens your ideology.
After all this time, and in light of modern biology and cosmology, you're still willing to put your head in the sand?
Seriously... talk about blind faith and ignorance...
Razd:
Do you know the working definition of fanatic? Someone who won't change their mind and can't change the subject.
All truths are double-edged swords Razd. Be careful weilding that one!
Strangely, I am not the one running away from knowledge or any confrontation with the evidence of the reality of the universe, a universe that it is 13+ billion years old, with an earth that is 4.55+ billion years old, with life on earth that is 3.5+ billion years old, where there is no geological or other record of a single world wide flood, and where evolution has occurred and will continue to occur.
I suppose you think it is "immoral" for tree rings to show a continuous span of existence for over 12,000 years .... but denial of evidence is not moral. Teaching falsehoods is not moral. Basing behavior on false beliefs is not moral.
Unless your morality is based on a perversion of information.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : topy

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Rob, posted 04-18-2007 11:06 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Rob, posted 04-20-2007 11:09 PM RAZD has not replied
 Message 229 by Rob, posted 04-20-2007 11:24 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 251 of 305 (396704)
04-21-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Rob
04-21-2007 12:08 PM


Thanks.
Seriously, thanks for providing your viewpoint here.
It's like this; you spoke of reality and truth in your last post as though it is inarguable and absolute. Where do you see it? Every example you can give is relative. The only place we can find an absolute is in the moral law. But when I speak of morality as absolute, you'd think I uttered the most sinful and insulting words imaginable judging by the way you guys tend to recoil.
The Bible discusses this plainly. By worshipping the creation and looking to it for truth, you have lost sight of what is ultimately real. Jesus said it more clearly (and offensively to you) than I ever did, 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my Word will never pass away.'
Seriously... what you just described sounds like 'the cross' to me. Mankind sacrificing absolute morality and truth at the alter of relativity.
So it's good versus evil, and those who accept the bible have an inside track to good. Reality doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't matter.
Science is based on illusion, the illusion of reality, the illusion that we can know anything of reality by testing and evaluation of the evidence.
You've glorified and exalted the emperical (physical) world so high, that you have completely missed the fact that all things physical are relative. So what can we believe?
And how can morality take an inferior position?
The question is still how do you validate your perceptions of reality. I started this thread to pursue this question, and see how some people can accept a myth of a young earth in spite of evidence to the contrary.
No modern sci-fi can compete. Their all artificial copies of the reality.
The reality includes an old earth in an old universe. Any belief that denies such reality is no different that flat earth or geocentrism: based on a falsehood. That is artificial by definition.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Rob, posted 04-21-2007 12:08 PM Rob has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 268 of 305 (396834)
04-22-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Archer Opteryx
04-22-2007 3:29 AM


Re: Reality
Morality is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Beauty is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Ugliness is part of reality. And reality is absolute.
Not sure I agree with you here. These are subjective items and are different for different people. Isn't that just a perception of reality?
There are things that people perceive to be beautiful, ugly, moral, etc. and we can discuss these concepts and write books about them, but does that make the perception real? Doesn't that also make every myth, science fiction novel and dream real?

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-22-2007 3:29 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-23-2007 3:13 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 271 by ikabod, posted 04-24-2007 8:34 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 277 of 305 (397832)
04-27-2007 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Archer Opteryx
04-23-2007 3:13 AM


Re: Reality
The content is not factual.
The wrappings are real (books, ekg waves) but the ideas are not (necessarily).
... your dreaming can be monitored on instruments.
And when they tell me what I am dreaming ... then I get worried

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Archer Opteryx, posted 04-23-2007 3:13 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024