Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guy Westcott
I don't argue that science is totally right about everything and that religion is totally wrong. For a start, I have often argued that the scientific view of the origins of the universe are wrong. And I use a mixture of scientific and philosophical ideas to do that.
|
Guy, I respect you. But I'm sure that if the origins of the universe had a beginning that is more "rational" than what scientists are saying now, they would have just said it or we will know it. I mean, I believe you're intelligent, but that is not your field of expertise. Laws that apply in other places may not apply elsewhere. And I share a similar view that religion is not totally wrong, and that there is a margin for scientific error. But I also know that in terms of concrete things like science, I'm out of my league. That goes for you too, you aren't a quantum physicist.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guy Westcott
I do think though, at times, these debates are fruitful. For one thing, I think debating difficult concepts like religion and science are good for our psychological development. I may be wrong about that though.
|
I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss science and religion. I'm saying there are topics of it that may be better off left for the individual to decide on. For example, we could have an archive of arguments for an atheist's perspective and those of a theist's perspective set up on the site and indexed. If a person wishes to make an argument against these patented points they can make a thread. But there should be a list of things that can't be contested, like faith. So, the suspension of disbelief should be something a person by rule cannot use in an argument. They can only go by points on what to think, which are added as debates go along. That might be more productive, and less repetitive.
There is simply a lot of repetition.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guy Westcott
My point still stands. So does GDwarf's. I'm learning from this. And if (sensible, considered) scientific arguments against (nonsensical, result-of-indoctrination) religious arguments prevent fence-sitters from turning into religious fanaticals then I shaln't lose any sleep over that. And by the same token, if (sensible, considered) religious arguments against (nonsensical, result-of-indoctrination) scientific arguments prevent fence-sitters' transformation into fools who can see no further than the end of their nose, even if I had been involved in that, I would lose no sleep over it.
|
So what if a fence-sitter becomes a religious fanatical? A few might or will anyway. Their minds might "need" something like that. I already said the numbers are declining. And besides, we all have mindsets we transition through, and no religion has been shown to change brain chemistry significantly enough that it can be said to have some real power. Religion is a tribal thing, a mentality. It's not evil, even if ignorant. Just misled. Over time, the generations will take care of themselves. That's why I'm saying it's not that vital we be so religion focused and that some limitations and points of redundancy should be made. That way, more progress can be made.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guy
I disagree. Yeah, we may be conditioned by our ways of thinking. But what conditioned our ways of thinking in the first place? Some ways of thinking are productive, some counter-productive. It is a counter-productive way of thinking to use an argument such as "the Bible says so, ergo it is true" or "a scientist said so despite the fact that it was based on since-disproven evidences, ergo it is true". But it is great to use arguments such as "x could not happen without God, x happened, therefore there is a god" or "x could happen without God, therefore x happening proves nothing".
|
I say our conditioning of mind arises out of utility. Yes, some modes of thinking are counter-productive to those that disagree. But it's still dualism, still a false view, regardless if it is objectively proven, in a larger sense. Because, every word you speak is just a symbol for what you can never experience. Everything you see, an illusion made of light. So, even the truth is a lie on another level.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guy
And the very statement "There is no Absolute Truth sensory-organ. There is a brain for storing and organizing DATA" seems like a problem to me. How can you know that? You only come to that conclusion because of your conditioned ways of thinking, as do I come to this one, so how can you argue it?
|
From what we can tell from observing human behavior, nothing gauges ultimate truth. The brain sorts information. Scientifically, we cannot say anything is absolute, except that nothing is absolute, everything is subject to decay or change. And it's not a conditioned statement. I am not saying this out of some fanciful desire. Evolutionarily, there was no need to know this idea of Absolute Truth. Just to survive and perpetuate the species.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guy
It happens. It doesn't have to happen a lot to make it a tragedy.
|
But is it a tragedy in the only sense that we can gauge to matter, i.e. perception? What if someone WANTS to die for some weird belief and would be miserable if they violated those laws? I don't think that it is particularly right or wrong, as my perspective would be a bias. Playing Devil's advocate, wouldn't saving a person from their subjectively apportioned fate be an evil?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guy Westcott
What alternative do you suggest?
|
I was pointing out good science is not in danger. Generations are becoming increasingly less fundamentalist, and so, religion is also fine.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Guy Westcott
Wasting energy? What activity can we engage in that can not be described by any as a waste of time and energy?
I think the disputes have been worth it, at least for myself. But really, what has ever been said on this forum, even outside the I:SB which you would consider worthy? The Zelda forums are just for discussing our views on a video game. That doesn't matter, if someone prefers WW to OoT it won't change my view. General Chit-Chat? Really, why bother? Oh do you hate haircuts? How messy is your room? What was your first car? Do any of these randomly selected from the GCC threads have any point beyond discussion itself? Doubtless not. Yet people consider it worthwhile, or they wouldn't post. Which brings me on to the next point - nobody who posts here is forced to do so. If they don't want to see arguments against religion/science there are two measures they can take to ensure that; 1) Do not create an argument in favour of religion/science, because it is natural for someone who disagrees to argue against it, and 2) do not open a thread with a pro/anti-religios title, such as "why God exists/why there is no God" because obviously you will find both sides in the argument. It's common sense really.
All the more I can say is that we should find a healthy medium, an argument somewhere in the middle, between philosophy and science, rather than rage on about just one of them.
|
I guess what I mean is some of the repetition comes off as a bit like ramming your head into a wall repeatedly in the midst of doing work. My suggestion above would probably address my concerns.