This:-
"Point is, there's always been far more to reality than we imagine. Instead of producing insurmountable discontinuities, the horizons of human knowledge and objective reality tend to expand astronomically. We used to think this world was all there was. We were wrong. We used to think this solar system was all there was. We were wrong. Some of us think that this universe and this existence are all there is. Especially in light of emerging evidence combined with past tradition, isn't there a reasonable chance that they, too, are wrong?
Of course the following is not infinitely extensible, but the truth is, often when we try to set a limit on what Nature can do or has done, it is us who ends up looking the fools."
Okay, baby steps now.
"Point is, there's always been far more to reality than we imagine."
I guess we are talking 'reality' that DOESN'T include all the gods that even you or I can think of that used to explain 'reality' to so many people throughout time. Traditionally, all we HAD was our vivid imaginations.
" Instead of producing insurmountable discontinuities, the horizons of human knowledge and objective reality tend to expand astronomically."
I suppose we are being constrained to imagine the exponentially larger our universe seems to be 'getting' the more we look out at it? And here I was thinking that the TRADITIONAL explanations were at least part of the problem. (consider 'Intelligent Design' in the 21st. Century.)
" We used to think this world was all there was. We were wrong."
So all traditional astrologies and what-not including Stonehenge, the pyramids, Sun-worship etc. can be dismissed from this discourse due to their dismissal BY modern science then?
Fact is that we NEVER thought that the world was all there was, but we were totally wrong about the conclusions that we came to.
" We used to think this solar system was all there was. We were wrong."
Really? We didn't notice all them little lights that we call stars now?
" Some of us think that this universe and this existence are all there is."
Here's a giant leap. He seems to be implying that since science has brought us out of our traditional godly explanations of the heavens, that doesn't give us license to dismiss ALL traditional godly explanations.
" Especially in light of emerging evidence combined with past tradition, isn't there a reasonable chance that they, too, are wrong? "
BOOM! Having completely demolished our new GOD 'Science', showing us how 'HE' changes through time, we can now 'reasonably' still use science and combine THAT with Jesus rising from the dead to save our souls, to form our reasonable religious worldview!
- from here:-http://www.thewarfareismental.info/the_warfare_is_mental/2009/02/why-arent-less-science-students-atheist.html
21 comments:
"Given the countless times scientists have tried to set limits on reality and they've been wrong, is this trend not sufficient preliminary justification for the idea that perhaps this universe, life and perhaps death itself are not discontinuities, that perhaps, as our Earthist views of life eventually crumbled, that perhaps one day our Universist and Materialist views of life will also crumble, too?"
-----------------------------------
Pboy,
His end 'point,' which I think he made accidentally, is a speculative yet logical conclusion.
What he means is, "Won't everything just go back to what we used to believe?"
Which isn't technically what he said.
Wouldn't it be nice if the whole world would learn how to say ...
" I don't know the answer to that question but I'll look into it! "
"Given the countless times scientists have tried to set limits on reality.."
Really, oneblood, do you not think that scientists qua people who like their own ideas are what's setting the limits(if any) is more likely than the "given" notion that scientists qua scientists?
On a completely arbitrary tangent...
I watched part of a movie and one of the characters said (stteo) "Now everybody's going to think we're lowland Scots."
It was said disparagingly. Does that highland/lowland stuff actually mean something nowadays?
Anyway, oneblood, if you imagine that scientists are 'setting limits' you HAVE to be POSITIVE that religion sets limits, right?
Oh, yea, but when scientists do it, they're just ignorant and when religionists do it THEY'RE somehow 'looking past science'?
All scotsmen are daft!
Even me.
Pb,
Given my limited notion of qua (and this after googling), can you rephrase?
Okay..
Scientists in their capacity of "people who like their own ideas" set limits on stuff, but in their capacity as scientists they ought to know that they should NEVER do this.
I picked up that word as a Scrabble word and I just think that everyone should know it. LOL
To be clear, if I were a surgeon like Harvey, it would do me no good to expound on mathematics in my capacity as a surgeon.
Similarly, when the Church persecuted scientists THEY were 'out of order'!(and it took a while for them to realize THAT!)
You're not daft you boggin ba'heid.
Science and Religion both leave things open; but only science leaves things open permanently. Religion is closed by dogma but open by speculation, on the hows whys and wheretofores.
To me the only thing that limits science is men. Science itself can never close the book on something by default. All our science is contigent. Or 'matters of fact' as Hume would put it.
By the by pb and joy,
You never told me what kind of music you listened to when I asked.
Beethoven? Daft Punk? Johnny Cash? NWA? Los Lobos? Musicals? Dixieland? Howlin Wolf? Dick Gaughan? I know he's Scottish. David Hasselhoff? Metallica?
It's driven me batty.
LOL.. I'm not 'daft' BUT I'm a ba' heid?!
Okay. I'll let you figure out THAT paradox.
Anyway, I'm sure that every great scientist falls into the 'trap' of imagining that they are 'brilliant'.
Look how Einstein was absolutely wrong with his, "God does not play dice..", famous saying.
I did!
I said Jethro Tull. But I really listen to classic rock as you were imagining.
David Bowie.
Phil Collins.
Elton John.
Not much country.
Hardly ANY rap.
Everyday ordinary guy.(that's in my 'music' now. tks.)
Some classical. Flight of the Valkyries.
Dun ta-da dun DUN!
Oh, yea, and I like some of 'The Corries' for Scottish music.
I was a raving Scottish Nationalist when I was a kid!
"Oh flower of Scotland
When will we see your like again
That fought and died for
yer wee bit hill and glen
And stood against him
Proud Edward's army
and sent him homeward
to think again...
(Oh yea, I know ALL of that one.)
I just started a new book that's exactly on this subject. I'll be blogging about it soon, it's by Neil Degrasse Tyson (i hate his name, makes me want a chicken patty!)
It's about time Neil Degrasse Tyson wrote about Scottish Nationalism.
yea, oneblood, I'm sure Tyson's book is all about 'Braveheart' and Robert the Bruce!
What he means is, "Won't everything just go back to what we used to believe?"
Nah, but thanks for linking to the post anyways!
Rereading this jibberish I found another perfect example of why I have a hard time taking pboyfloyd seriously, and maybe someone can shine some light:
I said, "We used to think this world was all there was. We were wrong."
Pboyfloyd says, "So all traditional astrologies and what-not including Stonehenge, the pyramids, Sun-worship etc. can be dismissed from this discourse due to their dismissal BY modern science then?"
Huh? Talk about a conclusion out of left field. How does me saying an Earthcentric worldview proved wrong entail that Stonehenge and the pyramids can be dismissed from this discourse? Can someone please explain?
oneblood,
You said, "His end 'point,' which I think he made accidentally, is a speculative yet logical conclusion."
Although I didn't quite mean exactly what you said I meant, and it wasn't made accidentally, thank you for attempting to unspin some of pboyfloyd's web in your first comment.
I don't mind when someone I view as irrational spews vitriol about me, but I do get irritated when they start to succeed at influencing others who simply believe what they say without asking me.
cl asks, "How does me saying an Earthcentric worldview proved wrong entail that Stonehenge and the pyramids can be dismissed from this discourse? Can someone please explain?"
I meant that YOU were dismissing it.
Post a Comment