|
The trouble with trusting complex science (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| nefardec |
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Sorry Lira, but the above statement is beyond absurd. God is an incredibly complicated explenation that requires an incredible amount of education, reflection, study to even begin to grasp let alone understand. |
I think you're right in a philosophical and theological sense.
However, you know well that the mainstream notion of God and of religion requires only to be born into a certain family that practices tradition. Obviously this isn't the deep theological understanding of God, but not everyone has that, or wants it, the same way they don't want or need to understand the way plants extract nitrogen from the soil. And obviously Lira was talking about this self-imposed ignorance. (which is the worst 'sin' in my book!)
I'll take this opportunity to stand on my anti-science soapbox. Actually it's not that I'm against science per se, but that I don't feel that the science of industry offers anything deeper to mankind. And when I say 'deeper' i mean 'truly fulfilling' or 'relevatory' or 'enlightening'.
once i told someone 'ultimately, all that science can offer mankind is increasingly fast, standardized misery under the guise of novelty and convenience.'
i believe that for every scientific 'advancement', especially those that purport to alleviate suffering or provide comfort or convenience, there are serious (hidden) costs incurred elsewhere.
for example, take the 'green revolution', the worldwide transformation of agriculture in the mid 20th century from rural/pastoral farms to the industrialized global food system. a man, norman borlaug, is credited with saving 'billions' due to a decrease in starvation in third world countries thanks to cheap, high yield cereal grains. yet if you put your devil's advocate hat on, you can turn this around completely and see that while lives were 'saved', the cost to due this includes making several third world countries dependent on dwindling foreign oil reserves that sustain the industrial food system and transportation infrastructure, overpopulation in countries that cannot support it economically (a malthusian catastrophe), and high rates of malnourishment and diabetes and so-called 'western diseases' caused by an overwhelming diet of nutrient-deficient monoculture grains.
i think the 'utility' of science is unquestionable. obviously it's 'useful' in a day-to-day sense. Because of science and industry, I can communicate these ideas on this messageboard. Because of science and industry, I can eat wild alaskan salmon by walking down to the corner store and then frying it in my pan from bed bath and beyond.
But what does 'convenience' and 'immediacy' really matter? For every convenience and immediacy there are 10 related inconveniences and 10 missed opportunities. I could go to wikipedia to learn about something, or I could go to the library and might meet my future wife, etc.
So I dont really want to disparage science, but I just dont think it's wise to put it on a pedestal and put all of this stock into believing that science will culminate in some kind of magical revelation about the world that will result in a golden age of understanding, peace, knowledge, everlasting life, and love.
As I said, all science can offer is a constant illusion of novelty and temporary happiness vis-a-vis convenience. Ultimately I believe the human condition has not changed substantively as long as humans have existed. Even if we're not starving to death, we are dying of cancer, heart disease, shooting ourselves and our coworkers because of credit card debt, etc, etc. misery is misery, and death is death, whether it's delayed because we can feed ourselves every day or not. in the end, will it matter if you die of fever in a jungle after eating a bad monkey brain, or you die in a hospital after going into diabetic shock after a lifetime of eating processed carbohydrate food?
As the OP originally suggested, even if science were to discover some 'secret of everything', how would the layperson understand it or even care, when due to science he has innumerable distractions in his life like farmville?
that's the end of my rant. as usual, i expect sheer outrage. |
|
|
| woscar |
Hint: Semantics is not going to get you out of this. ;)
If this is the "new official position of the Church" then I am afraid that the burden of proof lies with you. So please, be my guest.
I'm just going to leave this here, as further proof that you suffer from Don't-Know-What-The--I'm-Talking-About syndrome:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/n...ce.html?_r=2&hp
The whole point of indulgences as you (should, but most likely don't) know is to "reduce time in purgatory".
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL057372520071205 |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
I don't feel that the science of industry offers anything deeper to mankind. And when I say 'deeper' i mean 'truly fulfilling' or 'relevatory' or 'enlightening'. |
I tend to disagree on the enlightening aspect; however, I'm not sure providing any of these things was ever the intent of any science; subsequently, I'm not sure how one can fault science for not offering them. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Hint: Semantics is not going to get you out of this. ;)
If this is the "new official position of the Church" then I am afraid that the burden of proof lies with you. So please, be my guest.
I'm just going to leave this here, as further proof that you suffer from Don't-Know-What-The--I'm-Talking-About syndrome:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/n...ce.html?_r=2&hp
The whole point of indulgences as you (should, but most likely don't) know is to "reduce time in purgatory".
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL057372520071205 |
You're exhausting. Why do you continue with this? It's interesting you state semantics will not "get [me] out of this" yet you continue to base arguments on exactly that. Yes, indulgences have been brought back. Yes, they were intended to avoid time spent in purgatory; however, the use of the word time is simply there in plain language because it is relatable for most people's frame of reference. There is no actual time in the afterlife; this is the church's position. Feel free to continue belabouring the point; as it seems your only goal is to try and discredit me because you cannot get around that I was correct on the initial point of discussion I feel safe in assuming you'll just keep trying anyway. |
|
|
| epicaricacy |
| i trust anything that made Podophyllin possible:p |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| I remember as a kid praying to God every night for a new bicycle but I never got one. Then I remembered that God didn't work that way so I went out and stole a bicycle and then asked God for absolution. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by nefardec
I think you're right in a philosophical and theological sense.
However, you know well that the mainstream notion of God and of religion requires only to be born into a certain family that practices tradition. Obviously this isn't the deep theological understanding of God, but not everyone has that, or wants it, the same way they don't want or need to understand the way plants extract nitrogen from the soil. And obviously Lira was talking about this self-imposed ignorance. (which is the worst 'sin' in my book!)
I'll take this opportunity to stand on my anti-science soapbox. Actually it's not that I'm against science per se, but that I don't feel that the science of industry offers anything deeper to mankind. And when I say 'deeper' i mean 'truly fulfilling' or 'relevatory' or 'enlightening'.
once i told someone 'ultimately, all that science can offer mankind is increasingly fast, standardized misery under the guise of novelty and convenience.'
i believe that for every scientific 'advancement', especially those that purport to alleviate suffering or provide comfort or convenience, there are serious costs incurred elsewhere that.
for example, take the 'green revolution', the worldwide transformation of agriculture in the mid 20th century from rural/pastoral farms to the industrialized global food system. a man, norman borlaug, is credited with saving 'billions' due to a decrease in starvation in third world countries thanks to cheap, high yield cereal grains. yet if you put your devil's advocate hat on, you can turn this around completely and see that while lives were 'saved', the cost to due this includes making several third world countries dependent on dwindling foreign oil reserves that sustain the industrial food system and transportation infrastructure, overpopulation in countries that cannot support it economically (a malthusian catastrophe), and high rates of malnourishment and diabetes and so-called 'western diseases' caused by an overwhelming diet of nutrient-deficient monoculture grains.
i think the 'utility' of science is unquestionable. obviously it's 'useful' in a day-to-day sense. Because of science and industry, I can communicate these ideas on this messageboard due to science. Because of science and industry, I can eat wild alaskan salmon by walking down to the corner store and then frying it in my pan from bed bath and beyond.
But what does 'convenience' and 'immediacy' really matter? For every convenience and immediacy there are 10 related inconveniences and 10 missed opportunities. I could go to wikipedia to learn about something, or I could go to the library and might meet my future wife, etc.
So I dont really want to disparage science, but I just dont think it's wise to put it on a pedestal and put all of this stock into believing that science will culminate in some kind of magical revelation about the world that will result in a golden age of understanding, peace, knowledge, everlasting life, and love.
As I said, all science can offer is a constant illusion of novelty and temporary happiness vis-a-vis convenience. Ultimately I believe the human condition has not changed substantively as long as humans have existed. Even if we're not starving to death, we are dying of cancer, heart disease, shooting ourselves and our coworkers because of credit card debt, etc, etc. misery is misery, and death is death, whether it's delayed because we can feed ourselves every day or not. in the end, will it matter if you die of fever in a jungle after eating a bad monkey brain, or you die in a hospital after going into diabetic shock after a lifetime of eating processed carbohydrate food?
As the OP originally suggested, even if science were to discover some 'secret of everything', how would the layperson understand it or even care, when due to science he has innumerable distractions in his life like farmville?
that's the end of my rant. as usual, i expect sheer outrage. |
Very compelling post. But I think your distaste for technological ends is more rooted in the commercial aspect of supposed "development", and there I am completely with you; mechanical distraction has not sufficiently alleviated the ultimate ennui of being a lone mammal on a rock hurdling through an impossible space. But what if the aim of science was not to bring about a species-wide revolution by way of advancement, but is rather the mere symptom of a seemingly human need to explore one's curiosity to its absolute limit? What if religion comes from the very same fount?
Of course one could argue that curiosity is just another distraction, but it seems so much more than that when you consider how fulfilling and almost endless it is in a monkey with its mind in order. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I remember as a kid praying to God every night for a new bicycle but I never got one. Then I remembered that God didn't work that way so I went out and stole a bicycle and then asked God for absolution. |
:stongue: |
|
|
| epicaricacy |
 |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Infinite bitches is impressed. :toocool: |
|
|
| woscar |
:stongue:
What a convenient explanation! Consistent with your obsession with semantics, no less.
Still, you have not proven that the official position has "recently changed".
I am not "unable to get around" anything. As a matter of fact, I have stated repeatedly that your intent to rationalize faith is both ridiculous and incompatible with church doctrine. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I remember as a kid praying to God every night for a new bicycle but I never got one. Then I remembered that God didn't work that way so I went out and stole a bicycle and then asked God for absolution. |
:stongue:
Brilliant! |
|
|
|
|
