Re: can science and religion be reconciled?
by nameta9 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:33 am
"The idea of going back for ever and ever was something I could not get hold of: it seemed impossible."
Compared to what ? to what you are familiar with ? to what you think is right or normal or logical ?
It may simply be, without further explanations or possibilities or impossibilities, it simply is, it is a random choice or contraption or design, just random without any why or how or logic or anything, just a random design chosen by nobody for nobody for nothing, just like the random pebbles you see in the street, just a random configuration of pebbles having no deeper reason or explanation or origin than nothing and no reason at all.
"Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning. "
Compared to what ? to what you are familiar with ? to what you think is right or normal or logical ?
Science itself is an act of faith or religon in LOGIC, in NON CONTRADICTION in the ability of the MIND and THOUGHT to figure things out, to find out and so forth, to control the world, to find mostly technologies that can benefit this quirkily designed chemical entity called Man and so forth.
And as such it wants to be totalizing, to explain everthing, to put everything inside a narrative, an explanation, a box and so forth. But all generalized, totalizing boxes that want to contain everything (just like religions and ideologies, just like economics and so forth) are destined to fail at some point, all are destined to be flawed simply because it is impossible to contain everything inside a single narrative, inside logic or thought or the mind or anything at all, everyhitng is always past itself, is non containable and so forth.
spark
Compared to what ? to what you are familiar with ? to what you think is right or normal or logical ?
It may simply be, without further explanations or possibilities or impossibilities, it simply is, it is a random choice or contraption or design, just random without any why or how or logic or anything, just a random design chosen by nobody for nobody for nothing, just like the random pebbles you see in the street, just a random configuration of pebbles having no deeper reason or explanation or origin than nothing and no reason at all.
"Nothing is nothing, not anything. So the idea of a beginning was unimaginable, which somehow made it seem impossible too. The upshot was that it seemed to be impossible for time to have had a beginning and impossible not for it to have had a beginning. "
Compared to what ? to what you are familiar with ? to what you think is right or normal or logical ?
Science itself is an act of faith or religon in LOGIC, in NON CONTRADICTION in the ability of the MIND and THOUGHT to figure things out, to find out and so forth, to control the world, to find mostly technologies that can benefit this quirkily designed chemical entity called Man and so forth.
And as such it wants to be totalizing, to explain everthing, to put everything inside a narrative, an explanation, a box and so forth. But all generalized, totalizing boxes that want to contain everything (just like religions and ideologies, just like economics and so forth) are destined to fail at some point, all are destined to be flawed simply because it is impossible to contain everything inside a single narrative, inside logic or thought or the mind or anything at all, everyhitng is always past itself, is non containable and so forth.
spark
- nameta9
- Philosopher
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am
Re: can science and religion be reconciled?
by nameta9 » Fri Aug 02, 2013 9:39 am nameta9 wrote:Science itself is an act of faith or religon in LOGIC, in NON CONTRADICTION in the ability of the MIND and THOUGHT to figure things out, to find out and so forth, to control the world, to find mostly technologies that can benefit this quirkily designed chemical entity called Man and so forth.
And as such it wants to be totalizing, to explain everthing, to put everything inside a narrative, an explanation, a box and so forth. But all generalized, totalizing boxes that want to contain everything (just like religions and ideologies, just like economics and so forth) are destined to fail at some point, all are destined to be flawed simply because it is impossible to contain everything inside a single narrative, inside logic or thought or the mind or anything at all, everyhitng is always past itself, is non containable and so forth.
spark
Compared to what ? to what you are familiar with ? to what you think is right or normal or logical ?
It may simply be, without further explanations or possibilities or impossibilities, it simply is, it is a random choice or contraption or design, just random without any why or how or logic or anything, just a random design chosen by nobody for nobody for nothing, just like the random pebbles you see in the street, just a random configuration of pebbles having no deeper reason or explanation or origin than nothing and no reason at all.
- nameta9
- Philosopher
- Posts: 1796
- Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:42 am
Re: can science and religion be reconciled?
by cba1067950 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:51 am
No. Not the way they stand today. Religion is
contradicted by science on many points, the origin of life, the creation
of the universe, energy in the form of a soul... I'm sure there are
others. Unless religious folks are willing to erase entire sections of
the word of God, they will continue to contradict.
- cba1067950
- Philosopher
- Posts: 1286
- Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2002 5:24 am
- Location: New York
Re: can science and religion be reconciled?
by nameta9 » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:41 am
Science in general is relevant in as much as it
has a consequence for us, it affects us in terms of pain/pleasure,
win/lose, goals and how to reach them and so forth: it is mostly a
technology even though we seldom realize it, it is mostly a device we
use for our pleasure, for our goals, for our intentionality of use, for
what we intend to do with it, even if we intend to just contemplate a
set of pretty equations or a theory that elegantly locks all the pieces
in place like Natural Evolution and so forth and so on.
But if it didn't effect us in any way, in terms of pain/pleaure, in terms of how we are configured with respect to Matter, to what is considered the outside Matter, the outside independent world, and the need to be able to predict and discover the laws that can help us navigate such a world so as to achieve the least pain, to achieve the most goals in short to make us get on top of the world - matter - the independent forces that can pop up and ruin our intentions and plans, would it matter at all ? would it have any relevance ? would we even care ?
If it weren't for the real elementary particles that are the arbitrarily configured and designed pain/pleasure circuits of the way Man, this quirky chemical entity is designed and set up to interact with its outside world (the entire interaction set of Man <-> Environment), science wouldn't exist at all (or any science would do, any science no matter how fictional and elaborate and false would be perfectly correct and valid just as much as our "real" science) since knowing or not knowing the laws governing the navigation of an independent world from us would be irrelevant, wouldn't touch us in any way, wouldn't effect us in any way, it would be irrelevant whether the laws are true or false, wether any theory or set of laws or technologies were functional or fictional, true and correct or completely wrong and false since it wouldn't touch us in any way in terms of pain/pleasure and so forth.
Hence this justifies the "Scientific Program" of designing new Brains and Minds having any possible interaction set with any possible outside environment created for it, any possible pain/pleasure circuits and so forth (the true evolution of technology, "Technology Achieved", technology on steroids, as only the pain/pleasure circuits count in the end and technology is only a means to achieve more pleasure than pain, etc.), this justifies the fact that reality is just an event, a point like event that can be emerged within any Interaction Set and Information Set and Experience Set, since the "event" is only ever all reality and truth, independent of any laws used to navigate it, nay, the laws can be invented, can be any at all, hence science is truly arbitrary as it pertains to only one set of interaction laws set up by Natural Evolution with respect to this quirky, random chemical set called Man.
Science is 100 % arbitrary and invented in as much as it pertains to the Interaction Set of a 100 % arbitrarily designed, wild and quirky and random chemical entity called Man, it reflects the totally arbitrary nature of how we are configured with respect to Nature. There are trillions of other possible configurations for a chemical entity simlar to Man but having all kinds of new interaction sets, circuits, and so forth, and each one of these would discover and create a completely new science that would appear and be perceived as an absolute truth and as a real science since such an entity (just like us) could never really go outside of itself and see just how aribtrary his laws really are (although Man, by creating science is always pretending to be some Objective Independent Observer looking at the Universe from the outside, not noticing that he is actually simply looking mostly at himself and his own arbitrary laws of interaction and discovering only these random numbers), as they are just one set of laws, Interaction Sets and Experience Sets, Information Relationships from many trillions of other possible sets.
And in fact, anyways most science today is so abstract, detached and removed from any possible clear cause and effect in terms of pain/pleasure, so indirect, that any infinite complex theory made up is equivalent to any real theory, any real theory or truth is established only in as much as it has a consequence on pain/pleasure, but take away the pain/pleasure circuits or change them and any new science can be discovered and so forth.
Notice how the scientists always say that the GOD particle they discovered and the investment will be justified by some future "technological application", as if all science is worthy only if it has some consequence for us, not for its abstract beauty and such, but then any complex theory having any abstract beauty, even if never will lead to a technological application is just as valuable or useless anyways.
spark plug
But if it didn't effect us in any way, in terms of pain/pleaure, in terms of how we are configured with respect to Matter, to what is considered the outside Matter, the outside independent world, and the need to be able to predict and discover the laws that can help us navigate such a world so as to achieve the least pain, to achieve the most goals in short to make us get on top of the world - matter - the independent forces that can pop up and ruin our intentions and plans, would it matter at all ? would it have any relevance ? would we even care ?
If it weren't for the real elementary particles that are the arbitrarily configured and designed pain/pleasure circuits of the way Man, this quirky chemical entity is designed and set up to interact with its outside world (the entire interaction set of Man <-> Environment), science wouldn't exist at all (or any science would do, any science no matter how fictional and elaborate and false would be perfectly correct and valid just as much as our "real" science) since knowing or not knowing the laws governing the navigation of an independent world from us would be irrelevant, wouldn't touch us in any way, wouldn't effect us in any way, it would be irrelevant whether the laws are true or false, wether any theory or set of laws or technologies were functional or fictional, true and correct or completely wrong and false since it wouldn't touch us in any way in terms of pain/pleasure and so forth.
Hence this justifies the "Scientific Program" of designing new Brains and Minds having any possible interaction set with any possible outside environment created for it, any possible pain/pleasure circuits and so forth (the true evolution of technology, "Technology Achieved", technology on steroids, as only the pain/pleasure circuits count in the end and technology is only a means to achieve more pleasure than pain, etc.), this justifies the fact that reality is just an event, a point like event that can be emerged within any Interaction Set and Information Set and Experience Set, since the "event" is only ever all reality and truth, independent of any laws used to navigate it, nay, the laws can be invented, can be any at all, hence science is truly arbitrary as it pertains to only one set of interaction laws set up by Natural Evolution with respect to this quirky, random chemical set called Man.
Science is 100 % arbitrary and invented in as much as it pertains to the Interaction Set of a 100 % arbitrarily designed, wild and quirky and random chemical entity called Man, it reflects the totally arbitrary nature of how we are configured with respect to Nature. There are trillions of other possible configurations for a chemical entity simlar to Man but having all kinds of new interaction sets, circuits, and so forth, and each one of these would discover and create a completely new science that would appear and be perceived as an absolute truth and as a real science since such an entity (just like us) could never really go outside of itself and see just how aribtrary his laws really are (although Man, by creating science is always pretending to be some Objective Independent Observer looking at the Universe from the outside, not noticing that he is actually simply looking mostly at himself and his own arbitrary laws of interaction and discovering only these random numbers), as they are just one set of laws, Interaction Sets and Experience Sets, Information Relationships from many trillions of other possible sets.
And in fact, anyways most science today is so abstract, detached and removed from any possible clear cause and effect in terms of pain/pleasure, so indirect, that any infinite complex theory made up is equivalent to any real theory, any real theory or truth is established only in as much as it has a consequence on pain/pleasure, but take away the pain/pleasure circuits or change them and any new science can be discovered and so forth.
Notice how the scientists always say that the GOD particle they discovered and the investment will be justified by some future "technological application", as if all science is worthy only if it has some consequence for us, not for its abstract beauty and such, but then any complex theory having any abstract beauty, even if never will lead to a technological application is just as valuable or useless anyways.
spark plug
No comments:
Post a Comment