Posted by Tyler on January 04, 1997 at 07:59:36:
: : :Do you not think we would be better off in believing in things that we can see - things that are natural - things that are realistic? : : Be careful about this sort of talk. What you describe, if I understand your words correctly, leaves out theoretical exercises. What of atomic theory? Surely on the scale of our existence, it was once thought, these things are not worthy of out attention. Now it's the quantum, and the two relativity theories? Most undeniably, relativity has no applications to our slothly motions. It does assist us in astrophysics, but that also is a pragmatists thorn. Pure mathematicians do not deal in the tangible, the visible, the mundane. What they do now may become applied mathematics in the future, but today it is absolute abstraction. AND there remains a large body of work that is centuries old but has no applications. This would bring us to the fine arts and music. Neither deal much with the tangible or mundane; they are in the realm of transcendence and ineffability. Both give us glimpses behind, through, or outside the human experience. Should these not be persued? I'm more that a little curious about your outlook!:You're completely correct her and shit, the same thought occured to me but the words to explain myself were nowhere to be found. First I think we must focus on reality but of course I know that our imaginations have led us to new and great discoveries - scifi is exciting in that aspect. But how can I define what I mean? I am trying to say that sure we can hypothesize about this and that and then check if there's any reality to it but in the case of God - the hypotheses has been unchanged for 2000 years more or less - continually being pushed further back by science - evidence continues to accumulate to show that it's unlikely - how can I differentiate between this example and the wonderful other examples of something that wasn't thought to exist in the beginning but then WOW - it does? It completely baffles me that the God hypothesis has lasted this long on faith alone and it has a majority of followers. There has got to be a simple explanation to explain what I'm trying to say but I'm still in the process of definition. Any ideas?I do not completely agree with you on this. I think that it is more to the point to say that science and evidence has rolled back our arrogant idea of self-importance in the universe. First it was losing the geocentric conception of the solar system in favour of a heliocentric model. Then alnog came Darwin, and I do not need to regurgitate what his theory did to our conception of preferred placement in the scheme of things. Next was A. Einstein who demonstrated, through relativity, that there is no preferred frame of reference in the universe. Light is the only reliable and constant measurement tool in the universe, not the human immortal soul (quantitatively at least). Next was Edwin Hubble and his expansionary model for the universe. We do not sit in the centre of the universe's expansion; come to think of it, there is no centre of expansion for all things are in recession of one another. And now with modern cosmology and cosmogony, along with the Big Bang theory, we see that a supernatural hand is likely unnecessary to guide the universe to its present structure and features.Let me state that I do feel that there is something that is infinite, completely incomprehensible, pervasive and ineffable that transcends human experience. I cannot subscribe to the Christian idea of same. No "wise, old, bearded caucasian man", no intimate interest in the goings-on of this very, very insignificant section in a very large place, no interest in individuals, no vindictive retribution, none of it. I think that we are alone in this respect and must, as you say, pay attention to the mundane here-and-now things that you talk about b/c there is nothing else that will. BUT, I need to think abstractly, theoretically and imaginatively; this is the "stuff" of my soul, if you will. It is what keeps me "alive" and vigorous, and nary a day passes that I am not in either proactive thought about, or passionate banter with, friends at work about the nature of God, beauty, life, the universe, the unknowable. I am on a quest; one that will undoubtedly yield no answers to the unknowable questions, but I will continue to try!Also, you or anyone interested in science ought to be reading the book that I am. It is entitled, _The End of Science; Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age_. A very compelling read so far, and you can see a synopsis of it at the Amazon Books link below.CHEERS!