cool story.
What are the conflicts between atheism and science?
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
cool story.
Emotions are molecular events, but I do like emotions, and they can be a basis for decisions in life, for example, I bought a spacious house with cathedral ceilings instead of going for the square footage.
Emotions can't disclose truth in cosmology, though, perhaps even getting in the way, short-circuiting any further investigation beyond them. Sensation, sensation, sensation can be both a curse and a blessing.
That we love or hate some notion or theory a while lot won't make it any more true or false.
Not quite.
It was more a comment on the dearth of scientists who were prepared to publicly expound their ideas and explain them. That allowed the self-designated "intelligentsia" to get away with a (profound) ignorance of science and its workings while still maintaining they were "mentally superior".
I.e it was somehow admirable that a person could spend hours explaining the nuances of painting X or novel Y and still be regarded as clever while at the same time professing complete ignorance, (and, moreover, having pride in that ignorance) of, for example, thermodynamics.
As opposed to scientists who were also generally equally well-read but simply didn't talk about it.
At the cost of what?
Innit!
Rav,
What you know of me, is what I write.
If you consider what I write as irrelevant, then
you consider what you know of me, as irrelevant.
We haven't discussed religion.
You may beg to differ, but I know I haven't discussed it.
In fact, I very rarely discuss religion.
Correction; I was discussing the concept of God, not you.
The irritation did not arise out of the subject matter itself. But
your reluctance to engage in the discussion.
Atheists don't debate or discuss this topic, you only need to observe
this thread to see that.
The only time atheist can accept a concept of God, is when they think
it shows Him in a negative light.
Like you, he gets irritated, because there comes a point where he/you cannot respond effectively, where formal education says ''sorry mate, but you're on your own''.
You quoted Aristotle, a master thinker, who gave an insight into what is, an
educated mind, but you didn't follow it.
And this segment of your post shows that.
There is a fear amongst the atheists here, for some reason, they cannot accept the concept of God just for the purpose of discussion.
That's why I refered to Dyw.. as a coward.
Not that he himself (whom I don't know) is coward.
Don't worry, I'm not offended by you, nor Dwy...
I am very glad for the oppotunity to reason with you both, and
I absolutely apreciate the time and effort you spend responding.
No hard feeling at all.
jan.
jan.
What you know of me, is what I write.
If you consider what I write as irrelevant, then
you consider what you know of me, as irrelevant.
We haven't discussed religion.
You may beg to differ, but I know I haven't discussed it.
In fact, I very rarely discuss religion.
Correction; I was discussing the concept of God, not you.
The irritation did not arise out of the subject matter itself. But
your reluctance to engage in the discussion.
Atheists don't debate or discuss this topic, you only need to observe
this thread to see that.
The only time atheist can accept a concept of God, is when they think
it shows Him in a negative light.
In fact the number of times that I've seen you and Dywyddyr go at it leads me to believe that you're probably in the mood for it more often than I am
Like you, he gets irritated, because there comes a point where he/you cannot respond effectively, where formal education says ''sorry mate, but you're on your own''.
You quoted Aristotle, a master thinker, who gave an insight into what is, an
educated mind, but you didn't follow it.
And this segment of your post shows that.
There is a fear amongst the atheists here, for some reason, they cannot accept the concept of God just for the purpose of discussion.
That's why I refered to Dyw.. as a coward.
Not that he himself (whom I don't know) is coward.
Don't worry, I'm not offended by you, nor Dwy...
I am very glad for the oppotunity to reason with you both, and
I absolutely apreciate the time and effort you spend responding.
No hard feeling at all.
jan.
jan.
Don't know what makes you think that but its definitely not the hard science that you decree as supremely laudable in all affairs ...... in fact, if we give you a bit more rope to run with this fanciful idea, it might even rank as a classic example of a conflict between atheism and science
I once attended a stuffy old art lecture at Vassar College give by the art historian about some old black and white photographs. I nearly dozed off when they wanted us to note the use of “particular matter”, which was just some sand that happened to be in the background, of a treasured photo that had “departed from the canon”, which meant that it wasn’t taken indoors.
So, now we have Brian Greene, for example, bringing string theory to the masses, which may or may not be a good thing, without proof, but there was Carl Sagan in ‘Cosmos’ which was pretty awe-inspiring and somewhat poetic as well, and now we have Dawkins and Pinker, and more.
I do note that science now pervades all disciplines, and that the cultures still clash, but, to be fair, both science and art can be true.
Yet, there are revolutionary developments everywhere. Even in the past there were wonderful whole-like approaches, such as those of the long-gone giants of Leonardo, Newton, Michelangelo, Darwin, and Einstein encompassing all.
The previous incomprehensible humanism with an ignorance of science is fading fast away. This previous culture that dismissed science is soon to become a fossil. The self-referential disciplines go nowhere, being most often concerned with the exegesis of earlier thinkers, in which one reflects on and recycles the ideas of others, with no real expectation of any systematic progress. They just get further away from reality.
Science poses questions to elicit answers. And the more science you do, the more there is to do. Reality is the final check and balance. There are no fixed, unalterable positions. Life plays an ever greater role in the future of the universe. Science is involved in all the humanities now. Subject matter is discussed, not intellectual style. Scientists talk about the universe, unlike many old style humanities academicians—who only talk about each other. Those disdaining science are doomed to be left behind.
So, something radically new is in the air: new ways of understanding physical systems, new focuses that lead to our questioning of many of our foundations. A realistic biology of the mind, advances in physics, information technology, genetics, neurobiology, engineering, the chemistry of materials; all are questions of great importance with respect to what it means to be human.
(‘Scientific American’ listed the ten great scientific contributors to humanity a few years ago.)
At the cost of myth not being able to help the human race.
There's no way to really retard the box of truth opening its lid that the religious are sitting on, trying to keep it closed.
Don't know what makes you think that but its definitely not the hard science that you decree as supremely laudable in all affairs ...... in fact, if we give you a bit more rope to run with this fanciful idea, it might even rank as a classic example of a conflict between atheism and science
The molecular events are of brain neurotransmitters, such as serotonin and dopamine.
Which is different from what I said. I stated that I didn't consider you irrelevant and went on to explain why. But it seems that you're slapping away the olive branch I offered you here so I guess I don't have to feel bad if I don't offer it again.
Fair enough. I understand the distinction you are making.
You are equally reluctant to properly explore science as a means to explain all that we see and are, so I really don't see how you can claim the high ground. Besides, I've explored the idea of God far more deeply than I could ever do here with you. You can choose to see my reluctance to cover the same old all too familiar ground again as "fear", but that's just what you want to believe.
I can accept all kinds of conceptualizations of God (or Gods). For example, I can accept the idea of the Christian God, the Muslim God, the Hindu God, the Greek Gods, the Mayan Gods, the Aboriginal Gods of the Dreamtime, the Celtic Gods, the Druidic Gods and any other God or Gods that are proposed by anyone who can possibly conceive of such things. I can accept such conceptualizations because those conceptualizations exist. But if you're suggesting that accepting a particular conceptualization of a God (or Gods) means believing that that particular conceptualization is actually a true representation of something that actually exists in reality, then no, I don't accept it at all.
Which God do you believe in Jan? Which ones do you reject? What about Baruch Spinoza's impersonal naturalistic God, which is an idea that Einstein also claimed to embrace? Do you accept that?
Seriously Jan, stop being such a hypocrite.
Nonsense. It's about trying to find the motivation to engage in a far more in-depth analysis with someone who's probably just going to ignore all the additional information you present anyway. That is what you do. So I perform a simple cost/benefit analysis; what am I going to get out the discussion verses the effort I am going to have to put into it?
Earlier I posted a rather long winded (for a forum) account of my own experiences with God and Christianity. But look what happened. You still don't accept that I have sufficiently explored the concept of God.
No, that was the segment of my post where I was sticking to my guns but trying to be nice to you as well. This response of yours is yet another example of your refusal to acknowledge the validity of my previous experiences. Even Aristotle dismissed certain ideas after he properly examined them, just as I have done.
Fear? Nonsense. I can't speak for others but I have never been afraid of exploring the concept of God. Again, Jan, I have. More deeply than we could ever do in this thread. More deeply, perhaps, than even you have. You need to let go of this ridiculous idea that the only reason that people don't believe in God is because they are afraid of the truth. My obsession with truth is the reason that I don't believe in God. I am brave enough to face the idea of a reality within which there isn't someone who is always looking out for me. Fear, cowardice? It's absurd. Again, it's what you want to believe.
Don't worry, I'm not offended by you, nor Dwy...
I am very glad for the oppotunity to reason with you both, and
I absolutely apreciate the time and effort you spend responding.
No hard feeling at all.
Likewise
You'll have to translate this, please.
Just noticed this.
On the contrary, it is your refusal (or inability) to discuss anything other than your conception of god (and to accept the consequences thereof). But never mind.
And "reason" tends be something you abandon as soon as a potential conflict/ dichotomy appears.
With the exception of 'tao-ism', and, i think, buddhism, all the other belief systems united when it came to the definition of God.
You think you create dichotomies, but you don't.
You become irritated when you realise this.
jan.
Except that the links I gave showed that this isn't actually the case.
Then why do you resort to flailing, diversion and lies?
Nope. I get irritated when you obfuscate, evade and stall.
Perhaps "Which religion is the right one?" is an essentially misleading question to begin with.
It is considering this question to be a valid question that makes us see the various conceptions of God as they differ from one religious tradition to the next as competing, mutually exclusive, or as "you can only pick one".
Perhaps Jan doesn't start with "Which religion is the right one?" and has a very different approach than the majority of us is used to. So he is not necessarily lying or obfuscating and such.
Except that Jan claimed:
This was shown to be false by the links I gave.
The lying wasn't a reference to this particular thread.
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I remember feeling like that...for me there was always something I had to give up before I could really believe in the way that was required.
Often it was something that seemed like part of myself but once I was rid of it everything was so much better, made so much more sense even.
You might want to look for something like that in yourself?