|
All Extremism is idiotic (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Christ on a bike, you just did what extremists do by quoting something out of context, then raving about it to suit your own agenda.
Pro Tip - Watch more SBS, less 7/9/10. |
haha yeah that was the point :p
As i said to Lews, see the ironic paradox in my sig, mirrored in the thread title here :)
(all extremists are idiot, i make a clearly extreme statement etc :p )
it was a -take thread, but then i ended up actually arguing when other people were arguing, and now i'm just saying things out of sequence based on whatever other people say :)
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
"Belief in something somebody told you" is not the crux of the matter, as that happens everywhere, as you note. "Why do you believe that guy rather than this other guy over here?" is the important question.
At some point everyone trusts institutions that claim to produce or hold some sort of knowledge -- both religious and scientific bodies fall into this category -- so the question then becomes what features of the institutions and their methodologies make them more or less trustworthy relative to one another. What you really need to argue, if you want to claim that belief in scientific assertions and belief in religious ones are on the same epistemological footing, is not just "Everybody believes stuff second-hand!", but that people have just as much as reason to trust religious institutions and their methodologies as they do scientific ones. I think that would be a difficult argument to make, but perhaps you do not. |
good points jbj :)
I've argued the case more seriously/in-depth in other threads, but this was more of a stab at the fact that scientists (especially lay scientists) believe they have a grasp of firm knowledge about the world just because they've read a book, or heard a smart person's conclusion, when in reality they have as much direct grounds for their beliefs as many religious people (both having gained "truth" about the world from indirect information, often neither empirical, or even rational (since they don't figure it out, or read through the actual theory, but just accept the conclusions blindly). |
|
|
| Lira |
This may be relevant to your thread, Egos:
| quote: | Stephen Hawking can't use physics to answer why we're here
Stephen Hawking makes the claim that it is not necessary to invoke God as the creator of the universe and the assertion that physics alone made it.
He may be correct in his first statement, but to rule out a possibly important role for God is in my view unjustified. It is certainly possible that God sets up and maintains or underpins the laws of physics and allows them to work, so that being able to explain the big bang in terms of physics is not inconsistent with there being a role for God.
As a scientist, you are continually questioning, rarely coming up with a definitive answer. The limitations of your own knowledge and expertise together with the beauty and mystery of life and the universe often fill you with a sense of profound humility. Thus, unequivocal assertions are not part of a genuine scientific quest.
Mathematics as applied to physics may be the queen of sciences according to Carl Friedrich Gauss, but it does not answer every scientific question. Chemistry, biology, psychology and the social sciences have their own ways of analysing the nature of reality which are complementary to those of physics and mathematics: indeed, they are not reducible to physics but their insights emerge at their own level of complexity.
Furthermore, many of the questions that are most crucial to us as human beings are not addressed adequately at all by science, such as the nature of beauty and love and how to live one's life – often philosophy or history or theology are better suited to help answer them.
The complementary nature of different questions and in particular of the difference between how and why are important. If M-theory does indeed turn out to enable a unified theory, Hawking may be able in future to say how the universe started, but as a physicist he cannot answer the question "why?"
This is well illustrated by John Polkinghorne's story about boiling a kettle: I can describe with physics how it boils in terms of the stove making its temperature rise; but why it is boiling is a different type of question altogether – most probably in my case because my wife is thirsty!
The so-called "God of the Gaps" is not part of modern religious faith. In this view, you invoked God to explain the inexplicable – at one time this would have been the weather or common diseases, and for Hawking apparently until recently the origin of the universe. Thus, when an alternative explanation arises, there is no longer any need for God.
The God followed by many people of a religious faith is not a God of the Gaps at all – rather a God who helps answer other nonscientific questions about why the universe and its amazing life exists and how to lead a good life. Also, they welcome the advances in understanding that modern science brings, since they reveal more of the incredible beauty, diversity and wonder of the nature of the universe.
You cannot prove whether God exists or not. But you can ask whether the existence or nonexistence of God is more consistent with your experience. It is up to each of us to reach our own conclusion, but for many of us it is and can make a profound and enriching difference to our lives. |
[Source] |
|
|
| woscar |
| Why assume there's a purpose or 'why?' question that needs to be answered in the first place? Many philosophers and theologians often take the existence of a purpose for the universe for granted and never stop to think about the possibility that maybe there is no purpose at all. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Why assume there's a purpose or 'why?' |
Apparently, because unless there is a purpose, there is no meaning and we're cheating if we come up with our own meanings. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Why assume there's a purpose or 'why?' question that needs to be answered in the first place? Many philosophers and theologians often take the existence of a purpose for the universe for granted and never stop to think about the possibility that maybe there is no purpose at all. |
wtf man, that was the entire point of my first post! LOL :wtf:
it's stupid people are trying to answer questions we will never find an answer to.
nice article Lira :) |
|
|
| Fledz |
No it's not, it's human nature to seek answers. That is our purpose in life.
If we all had your mindset, we'd never get anywhere.
I can just imagine caveman Egos:
"Who cares what's up in the sky? We'll never know the answer so why try"
/facepalm |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
If we all had your mindset, we'd never get anywhere.
|
Took the words right out of my mouth (or is it, fingertips? lol). |
|
|
| saluyamo |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
wtf man, that was the entire point of my first post! LOL :wtf:
it's stupid people are trying to answer questions we will never find an answer to.
nice article Lira :) |
No the stupid people are the ones that never try to answer questions.
I was watching a doco a few nights ago about the future of biomechanical technology. The narator said that 20years ago most scientists thought mapping the human genome was impossible, now we are trying to map every detail of every cancer in every way, which is the equivalent to mapping the human genome x 10. |
|
|
| Blake |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Why assume there's a purpose or 'why?' question that needs to be answered in the first place? Many philosophers and theologians often take the existence of a purpose for the universe for granted and never stop to think about the possibility that maybe there is no purpose at all. |
^Exactly.
In studying philosophy, physics, and the like over the years I've actually become quite comfortable with this notion. And yes, it's absolutely possible to believe that there's no point to existence, yet still be content, happy, and fulfilled. It's actually quite a liberating concept. Nihilism has just compelled me even more towards really doing what I love in life without being too attached.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
No it's not, it's human nature to seek answers. That is our purpose in life.
If we all had your mindset, we'd never get anywhere.
I can just imagine caveman Egos:
"Who cares what's up in the sky? We'll never know the answer so why try"
/facepalm |
I call BS! There's nothing wrong with us collectively having no purpose, but the thought of such a notion is just too hard a pill for most people to swallow.
I find it funny that we've pretty much determined that all actions and activities throughout the universe and throughout history are simply functions of some other universal activity & phenomena, and yet we don't believe the same about ourselves. It's possible to be compelled towards certain activities without them needing to have a grand purpose. We don't know that anything exists except consciousness itself. That doesn't mean we can't still do what we're compelled to do. Existence does not depend on there being a point to any of it, which is awesome!:wtf: |
|
|
| Fledz |
| Well personally, I have a clear purpose in life that I determine. If someone wants to wander around with no purpose it's their choice, as long as it doesn't affect me. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
No it's not, it's human nature to seek answers. That is our purpose in life.
If we all had your mindset, we'd never get anywhere.
I can just imagine caveman Egos:
"Who cares what's up in the sky? We'll never know the answer so why try"
/facepalm |
The "what's out there" question is a valid one..cuz we know there is something there. We know the universe exists, that we can explore and interact with it, and that it is intelligible to some degree.. On the other hand, we have no reason to assume the "why" question is even valid. There's nothing wrong with curiosity..but some questions are just stupid. Stick with something you have a reason to expect has an answer. Instead of asking "Why are we here?" (which has an unjustified assumption built into the question), the proper attitude is "Ok, we have a universe. What is the explanation for it?" |
|
|
| Blake |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
Well personally, I have a clear purpose in life that I determine. If someone wants to wander around with no purpose it's their choice, as long as it doesn't affect me. |
riiight... because you exist in a vacuum, completely independent of causality :rolleyes:
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The "what's out there" question is a valid one..cuz we know there is something there. We know the universe exists, that we can explore and interact with it, and that it is intelligible to some degree.. |
False! :wtf:
We don't know that a single bit of the universe exists. The only thing we all know for a fact is that consciousness exists. We know that we are having a conscious experience of what appears to be a universe, but we don't know that it actually exists.
Personally, I'm compelled towards a life in physics, in hopes to come to a better understanding of substantial reality. Unfortunately, even if physicists were to rip the entire universe in half one day, it would still NOT prove that the universe exists. "reality" as we know it is dependent on consciousness. One may freely interact with the universe without it having substantial existence outside of one's own mind. This is not a new concept. |
|
|
|
|
