Discuss

[Hallam]

Re: Discuss

Well there is a point at which the empirical method approaches fuzzy maybes. Then there is the incompatibility between relativity verses quantum mechanics, the big picture verses the small.

I reckon there will in the future be some discoveries that will reveal a universe of knowledge we have no idea of at this stage of discovery and the ramifications will be mind blowing In their relationship to all sides or positions that are currently held or entertained. On one level our knowledge of what is possible is limited by our perception or our inability to measure that which we don’t know exists because of the limitations of our human faculties. What we do perceive informed the quest for knowledge as it has developed to the extent of our current understanding.

The adherence to one method should not discount the possibilities and potentialities of another method in the quest for knowledge.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Discuss

No one is questioning that belief or faith exists, it obviously does. What is in question scientifically is the existence of what the faith or belief purports to exist.

Personally I find it astounding that scientists of any type can also be religious. I really do not understand how the empirical can exist in tandem with the fuzzy maybes.

Just so. There is evidence that a need for a religion is genetic.
I am perfectly happy that scientists (and engineers who apply science) have a Faith.

But so much of religion seems to be supernatural e,g,
supernatural
su·per·nat·u·ral ˌsü-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl

1
: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

2
a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (such as a ghost or spirit)

Now, that raises a problem if a scientist cannot separate their Faith based beliefs from fact based science. Easy enough to do if your discipline is chemistry or material sciences like metallurgy or thermodynamics.
But . . . .

[skuthorp]

Re: Discuss

Likely they were certain that a god exists PM before they took up a scientific career. What happens to their persona if their science and their beliefs come into conflict? It may be that we are just not far enough along the discovery trail to reconcile that dichotomy scientifically yet.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Discuss

Well there is a point at which the empirical method approaches fuzzy maybes. Then there is the incompatibility between relativity verses quantum mechanics, the big picture verses the small.

I reckon there will in the future be some discoveries that will reveal a universe of knowledge we have no idea of at this stage of discovery and the ramifications will be mind blowing In their relationship to all sides or positions that are currently held or entertained. On one level our knowledge of what is possible is limited by our perception or our inability to measure that which we don’t know exists because of the limitations of our human faculties. What we do perceive informed the quest for knowledge as it has developed to the extent of our current understanding.

The adherence to one method should not discount the possibilities and potentialities of another method in the quest for knowledge.

On another thread, long, long ago, I posted:
Knowledge cannot be relied on, it keeps on changing,
Ignorance, however, is rock solid dependable.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Discuss

Likely they were certain that a god exists PM before they took up a scientific career. What happens to their persona if their science and their beliefs come into conflict? It may be that we are just not far enough along the discovery trail to reconcile that dichotomy scientifically yet.

Human beans are all different, that "conflict" will affect every one differently. Reaction will go from the extreme at one end, giving up their career in science, through compartmentalizing their thought processes, to becoming agnostic, or worse - atheist.
So I doubt that there will be any one size fits all scientific resolution.

[Hallam]

Re: Discuss

Ignorance can be viewed in at least two interpretations. One being of the wilful closed mind type of ignorance the other being unaware of much detail of the subject matter type ignorance.
The latter is often or most commonly the case for the uneducated and the former is often the case of the educated.
When it comes to discussions about spirituality the subject matter is vast yet many hard line viewpoints pertain to a very narrow subset of the wider subject.
It is true that for many, if not the majority, the notion of spirituality involves the negation of natural law in defiance of known truths pertaining to material reality and from historical evidence and spiritual belief systems it is easy to see why. The reality is that, speaking from personal experience there are no 'miracles' to be seen nor experienced that defy the laws of nature or the laws of physics. The miracles I have seen are those that seem to result from the power of the attitude of mind that in some cases results in a radical transformation in a persons health condition be it psychological physical or both. The essential ingredients seems to be along the lines of validation of ones worth and profound value as a person and that one is accepted, treasured and has a hope for a life lived with profound meaning and purpose.

Just as scientific knowledge gains in understanding over time with the result of current findings having an understandable impact on prior understanding, so is the case with spiritual discourse and the development of notions of what it is to be human that are not (as yet? ) understood in a quantifiable way yet have a bearing on psychological understanding and knowledge, interpersonal relationships, attitudes to moral behaviour and justice, social cohesion, etc etc.


As I have said before, there is a synthesis of my views that is sort of coming together at this stage of life in my late 60's. I still have some wild thoughts that I think are worth persuing but not now in this thread. Maybe later.

So there is Truth, empirical, that informs and is the foundation of understanding reality as we know it.
There is reason. Truth and reason are necessities.
There is faith for those who choose a faith based concept. Obviously there is great variety in faith based concepts. Faith for me still has at its core the search for truth and intellectual credibility.

At this point ( because I have ventured onto the subject of spirituality ) I would like to add one thing to my prior posts in this discussion re empiricism not being the sole option in the pursuit of knowledge. This being that other options in the pursuit of knowledge do not necessarily have to be about spirituality. Therefore the discussion is not limited to a polemic of empiricism verses spiritual or religious faith based notions of truth.

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Discuss

The Indian subcontinent was notable for religions that respected and pushed science forward. Both in astronomy and deeper thinking about the origins of the universe.

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/jantar-mantar-0013269

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Discuss

To clarify my position, I was not maintaining that empiricism does not work nor that Dawkins or anyone else is misguided in the persuit of knowledge via empiricism. What I am maintaining and exploring further is that the empirical method to the exclusion of other possibilities is the only option to the gaining of knowledge. As a simple illustration I see the gaining of knowledge represented as two circles next to one another with an area overlapping, one circle pertains to empirical methods, the other circle for other methods or ways for the pursuit of knowledge. . . .
So getting back to Dawkins, my problem with his position is I regard it as dogmatic in that he refuses to entertain the possibility that not there are other possibilities for the gaining of knowledge than those of empiricism. Empiricism works but so do other factors.

I'll repeat myself. One good thing about empirical evidence-based methods is that mistaken ideas can be disproven - and human beings make lots of mistakes. That's OK, sometimes quite useful, actually, as long as you have a way to test your ideas and throw out the wrong ones. So how do you test ideas non-empirically? How can you tell if Quetzalcoatl doesn't really want the still-beating hearts torn from the chests of sacrificial victims, or that he doesn't even exist? If Jesus didn't really die for your sins, how would you know? Or that Mohammad was or wasn't really God's prophet? I'm being somewhat glib and facetious, but it's a dead-serious question; if you can discover truth non-empirically, how do you tell if you've got it right or wrong? If you have faith, how can you tell if you have faith in something imaginary?

[leikec]

Re: Discuss

Why are humans the way we are?

When looking at the ecosystem, it seems that other forms of life on earth (both plant and animal) are dialed into a pattern of evolution that maintains a degree of balance, even as various plants and animals compete and win or lose their battles for ecological dominance.

Are we, with our polluting and other destructive behaviors, a rogue element in the web of life? Or is our destructive behavior just another layer in the complexity of evolution? Is our rise and fall a natural, predictable thing that simply leads to other life forms that are well suited to living in the type of ecosystem we will leave behind?

Or are we just bad code in an otherwise balanced world…

Jeff C

[Peerie Maa]

Re: Discuss

Why are humans the way we are?

When looking at the ecosystem, it seems that other forms of life on earth (both plant and animal) are dialed into a pattern of evolution that maintains a degree of balance, even as various plants and animals compete and win or lose their battles for ecological dominance.

Are we, with our polluting and other destructive behaviors, a rogue element in the web of life? Or is our destructive behavior just another layer in the complexity of evolution? Is our rise and fall a natural, predictable thing that simply leads to other life forms that are well suited to living in the type of ecosystem we will leave behind?

Or are we just bad code in an otherwise balanced world…

Jeff C

Because genes don't care, and cannot see into the future. Which is why there are no more trilobites, sabre-toothed cats or mammoths.

I'll bet all of those anaerobic species were a bit hacked off when photosynthesis evolved and polluted the planet with oxygen.

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Discuss

Why are humans the way we are? When looking at the ecosystem, it seems that other forms of life on earth (both plant and animal) are dialed into a pattern of evolution that maintains a degree of balance, even as various plants and animals compete and win or lose their battles for ecological dominance.

Nah. Take the long view. Being self-destructive is, well, self-destructive. If a species does something that damages its habitat too much, it either goes extinct or becomes less common, so that it can't do that any more. Human beings have been around in our current form for only a couple of hundred thousand years at most, and anything approaching industrial civilization for much, much less time; a proverbial eyeblink in evolutionary time. If we're too powerful and shortsighted, we won't be around long. And whatever harm we do won't last long either. New species will evolve to take the places of the ones we've killed off, and things will go on as they always have.

[Osborne Russell]

Re: Discuss

Other species have limited abilities to get around the limitations of physics. That's what creates the balance -- limits. Whereas, we have the ability to get around the limits, and are dedicated to it. In the process the balance is upset.

The balance as it was before we upset it tended towards equilibrium. It's not a mystery, in the sense of being supernatural. It's physics.

[leikec]

Re: Discuss

Yep.

We are an arrogant species, and we are stupid. We pollute the rivers and oceans that give us life. We realize we are being destructive but we do little to modify our behavior.

We look at ourselves and marvel at our unique abilities, to the point where we rationalize away any responsibility for the world we will leave to future generations, but at the same time we are finite, no matter what we do, both as individuals, and as a collective form of life. Even the planet we live on has a finite existence. It will all be dust at some point.

What really makes us unique (at least we think it does) is that we grapple with the reality of all of this while we are doomed to never really understanding the sense of any of it.

We exist. None of it really matters when looking at the long game, but I am still dumb enough to believe there is something worthwhile about everything. I’m glad I feel that way.

Jeff C

[Keith Wilson]

Re: Discuss

I suspect it's simpler than that. For almost our entire species' history we couldn't do much. Anything we could manage, destructive or not, was local, and even if we screwed it up very badly, we could always move to the next town or over the mountains to the next valley. We we didn't really have to think farther ahead than the next harvest, or at most the next decade. It's only in the past century at most that there have been enough of us and we've known enough to have effects on the scale of the whole planet. It's taken a while to figure that out; let's hope we manage it in time.

[LeeG]

Re: Discuss

No one is questioning that belief or faith exists, it obviously does. What is in question scientifically is the existence of what the faith or belief purports to exist.

Personally I find it astounding that scientists of any type can also be religious. I really do not understand how the empirical can exist in tandem with the fuzzy maybes.

Seems to me when someone grows up with a religion a language for fuzzy maybes and declaritive definites from above becomes a part of that person’s worldview and even though they no longer believe in literal interpretations the unknowns and fuzzies have a place. I like to keep things simple. You don’t know what you don’t know so don’t make up stories that imply knowing. Better to have a shelf for “I don’t know” than a shelf full of action figure dioramas explaining the unknowns.