Creationism in schools.

[Loredoctor]

Well, first off, I'm an atheistic existentialist, and I don't believe in any sort of a god at all.
What I'm talking about is an aspect of the human experience, a *wince* feeling of spirituality.
It's a mode of thought and appreciation. They can obviously coexist, and should. I'm just saying you can't just sweepingly say that science has all the answers, because it doesn't. That's just fanaticism, and blind faith.

Oh, for f**** sake!
I am NOT saying that science has all the answers! I never said it has all the answers - earlier on I state that science is not an encyclopedia of the universe. That it is not about the hoarding of facts. Science is a PROCESS of discovery.

Okay, how is iscience a clumsy tool for relationships and emotion? I'm a psychology postgraduate and that statement is incorrect. There have been great strides in science to working out the biological basis of emotion. And just because we haven't worked it all out yet is not evidence it cant be worked out; we just need more sensitive instruments.

Sorry you have to go, Jem. I am enjoying this debate.

[The Pumpkin King]

Well, first off, I'm an atheistic existentialist, and I don't believe in any sort of a god at all.
What I'm talking about is an aspect of the human experience, a *wince* feeling of spirituality.
It's a mode of thought and appreciation. They can obviously coexist, and should. I'm just saying you can't just sweepingly say that science has all the answers, because it doesn't. That's just fanaticism, and blind faith.

Blind faith could also be classified as automatically attributing something to being "mystical" or somesuch.

Science never says it has all the answers. A critical part of what makes science, well, science is that it freely admits it doesn't have all the answers. Science is as much about as what one doesn't know as what one does.

Science is merely a process to find all the answers. Whether it finds them all or not in our time (which it inevitably won't) is a totally different discussion.

[Loredoctor]

Well said, Pumpkin King!

[lurch]

..Take it one step further..consider,,Science as a process that guarantees , not finding answers,,but ,, always finding questions....?..MEL

[Loredoctor]

But science does not claim truth, so therefore it has to ask questions. If someone finds X causes Y, well what is being the process? To ask more questions is part of the process of science. Just because you find more questions doesn't mean that what you have found is wrong or that there is some great mysery (God) at the end. Heck, that's one thing most religions don't do - they assume they have found truth and stick with it and never ask questions.

[lurch]

..Oh I understand what you are saying LM. i guess i am trying to take it around the corner to...It wasn't always so. During The Enlightement Era..man and society believed that they had achieved a Glorious Understanding of All That..had achieved a Peak of Wonderfulness.
..Then Goethe and his fledgling " romantics" came along and introduced this " always exploring,,always questioning,,always searching,,never become complacent" modern romantic notion. That was the initial bet between Meph and God..fausts soul became Satan's the moment faust was happy and content with the way things were. ( faust didn't know about that little wager between god and meph tho),,and even then Meph, snatched fausts soul on a weak technicality after being continually frustrated by fausts natural inclinations. God decided to over rule because faust was really a good person.,,well intended..Any way, yes, answer and question are two parts of the same..just as the only thing that is constant is change....couple of more posts and maybe I'll have a whole poem.MEL

[The Dreaming]

The Animism thing was a joke. I was poking fun at myself for the obvious hole in my argument.

[Loredoctor]

Okay, got ya, Dreaming.

Lurch - interesting post!

[Avatar]

Well Well. Some very interesting posting going on.

I'm torn again. On the one hand, I agree that the entire world has a "mystical" quality to it. That there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophies.

On the other, I don't think that the mystical qualities automatically point to some higher being. I agree with LoreMaster that the world is full of beauty and richness, and that we can enjoy and experience them all without the implication that some sort of god is responsible.

My life was good when I sought "mysticism", and it was good when I dismissed it. Science may one day answer all these questions, but, as has been pointed outm those answers rarely do anything but engender more questions.

Are there things in the universe that smack of spirituality? Undoubtedly. But I'm always reminded of Bohr saying that "Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Things happen. Sometimes we know the reason, and most times we don't. The thing is no less remarkable regardless of our understanding of it. Or at least, it doesn't have to be.

Revel in the mysterious. It may not be that way for much longer.

--Avatar

[Cybrweez]

Cyberweez - I'm sorry, but again you fail to understand my point. I'm not arguing for science's dominance over religion - I'm arguing that a tool for working out how the universe works (and yes, it can be used badly) could be used for seeing if God exists, or how the universe came to be. Science has already proven itself to be a useful tool. If we ignore science, we go back to a dark age.

Loremaster, I don't want to ignore science, far from it. I'm a computer programmer and majored in computer science, I hope I don't want to ignore it. Science is a useful tool in finding out how the universe works. However, science only deals w/evidence, what you can see and verify through testing. The world contains more than that. So, I don't believe it is a complete tool.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Avatar, you seem to kind of be suggesting that eventually nothing will be a mystery.... that we'll have the answers.
Good to hear.

However, I think a large part of the importance of these discoveries will occur in how the human person will be able to absorb and put to use the new information.

For example, I already know that if I fall off of a stepladder, I won't be seriously hurt. I know about physics, and about my personal anatomy, and there's no way I'd actually be killed falling 2 feet from the ground. However, I'm absolutely terrified of it.

I wouldn't know the earth was round unless someone told me, I've never left northeastern ohio.

In a fight, I understand that when people get angry they tend to act a certain way, and do things in a certain way, that can be counterproductive to useful communication. I learned this in my psych classes. However, when I'm IN a fight, that is of little use to me.

I can tell someone about spiritual things in a scientific mindset, and explain exactly how and why certain spiritual experiences are important, and what sorts of circumstances might bring them about. However, until someone has come to these conclusions for themselves on an emotional level, it will be of no use to them.

The tao that can be recorded is not the true tao, right?

Also, I have to mention a thing that sort of bugs me.... if there was an infinite being (which I don't believe by the way, please remember I'm 100% grade A existentialist) wouldn't it be a bit difficult to grasp it with a finite science?

I mean, you'd be basically measuring the unmeasurable, classifying the indefinable...

When you cut something up and define it rationally, you're making it subordinate to rational thought. I suggest that there are certain things that are not able to be groked by rational analysis.... rational analysis is a good method for doing some things, but an uncomfortable method for doing others.

Good for diagnosing schizophrenia, bad for preparing someone for death. Stuff like that.

[Avatar]

A good point, and a good example. As someone once said, there is convincing evidence that the world is not rational.

Perhaps not that nothing will be a mystery, but certainly that what is mysterious now will not always be. New mysteries are inevitable.

And certainly there is a big difference between knowing something intellectually, and knowing it emotionally. Nothing to be done about it really though. We can't teach "emotional" knowledge, we can only learn it.

--A

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Luckily, we don't need to teach emotional knowledge Existence does that for us.

We can, however, give people the tools to become seekers of the truth, and show people how that can benefit them. Teach them tactics like meditation and reflection, as well as open communication.

[dennisrwood]

or prayer and reflection?

[Avatar]

We can offer the tools all we want. The problem lies in creating an environment in which people want those tools.

--Avatar

[The Pumpkin King]

We can offer the tools all we want. The problem lies in creating an environment in which people want those tools.

--Avatar

That's 'cause well, a tool is just that. A tool. It requires direction, and will behind it, as it can't accomplish a thing on its own. And, even so, some tools are more appealing than others; more durable, more ergonomic... Picking the right one can be critical to any job.

In case nobody's getting the big metaphor there, it's that, well, there's a particular implement, such as a screw, which would stand for some sort of issue, and the person. A tool is what connects these two things together; nothing more.

Find the RIGHT tool and you can connect people to self-betterment if that particular tool is easy enough to use.

[Avatar]

The eternal quest for convenience? "I want to be able to seek out the truth, but it's just too difficult. It requires too much effort. Can't somebody come up with an easy way that I can arrive at answers which will satisfy me?"

That's the thing. There are no easy answers, and no easy ways to find them. Actually seeking the truth requires years of effort, of dedication.

Countless failed attempts, (or rather, because no attempt is completely a failure, countless attempts which may move you only a little closer than you were already) are a given. Can't stress this often enough-- There is no easy way, no "one size fits all" answers. Hell, there may be no answers at all.

And that may be part of the problem. How many people are willing to dedicate themselves to something that, to all intents and purposes, may have no tangible result?

These are tools that we can't make easy to use. Just using them creates difficulties on its own. And giving people the desire to use them seems well-nigh impossible to me. At least on a large scale, at least today.

The "tool" is not the issue, IMHO. Instead, the people using it are. A butter-knife can be used as a screwdriver. A spanner as a hammer. Tools are as adaptable as the people who use them.

Teach meditation? Even meditation requires a mental effort. Hell, I stopped making that particular effort long ago. And while experience might teach emotional knowledge, is it the right emotional knowledge? And how do we even know?

We have to embrace ignorance, delight in the fact that we may never know, and still keep trying.

And not everybody can do that.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Well as far as how we know if its the right emotional knowledge, my measuring stick for that is that when I apply it to my life, good things happen to me. If I apply it, and all sorts of bad things happen to me because of it, then I cast it off.

As far as the right tool goes, there are a lot of options. I know that in the inner city, or in areas with high criminal activity, one method that works well is having people who have left the lifestyle behind go back and talk to the kids who are coming up in it now, because they know where they are coming from.
That's going to be a helluva lot more useful to the kids than the King James Bible.

[Kymbierlee]

As far as the right tool goes, there are a lot of options. I know that in the inner city, or in areas with high criminal activity, one method that works well is having people who have left the lifestyle behind go back and talk to the kids who are coming up in it now, because they know where they are coming from.
That's going to be a helluva lot more useful to the kids than the King James Bible.

Agreed! Look at Stanley Williams. He co-founded the Crips, but now he is reaching out to kids from Death Row and making a huge impact.

[Avatar]

Well as far as how we know if its the right emotional knowledge, my measuring stick for that is that when I apply it to my life, good things happen to me. If I apply it, and all sorts of bad things happen to me because of it, then I cast it off.

Unfortunately, not everybody is as critical or analytical to be able to apply that reasoning.

As far as the right tool goes, there are a lot of options. I know that in the inner city, or in areas with high criminal activity, one method that works well is having people who have left the lifestyle behind go back and talk to the kids who are coming up in it now, because they know where they are coming from.
That's going to be a helluva lot more useful to the kids than the King James Bible.

Agreed, it's an effective tool. But it's the people doing it, not the kids to whom they're speaking, who are using an effective tool. If the kids take it to heart, (and while there may be some, I think that not many will), then that tool has been passed on. Hope that made sense.

--Avatar