summerof2010 said:
Do I sound like I'm saying you can't have science and religion at the same time? Because I'm not. I think the two are completely separate.
I do not agree that they are both completely separate, they have much common ground. I would prefer to say that science makes external observations, and religion makes internal ones (keep in mind that the scientist is an observer ? something quantum theory shows us is very important).
If you are asking questions, whether questions about yourself or questions about the world around you, then you are within this common ground I speak of.
For this reason I basically discount everything in religion that is supposed to be taken literally ? for these are children?s stories. There was no Adam and Eve, but their story is indeed relevant and symbolic to our own humanity.
The best way I can clarify all that is by saying that
Religion is not all subjective, and science is not all objective.
When attempting to understand a problem, you will first make observations and considerations of the objective facts. The hypothesis you use in an attempt to explain the concept will indeed be subjective. If you can prove your hypothesis to be mostly accurate, is still a subjective understanding of the objective world, it?s just a very accurate one.
The beauty I speak of is that all science is uncertainty, and to stand on the edge of that uncertainty, and say ?I understand, but only up to this point.?
summerof2010 said:
Now, science can study things which are subjective (i.e. statisticians taking polls or psychologists trying to understand why people feel bad about themselves), but the claims it makes are necessarily objective.
Any claim is subjective; the very word ?claim? itself betrays this knowledge to us. You can make an objective claim, but it is a subjective view based on objective data. The truth of this claim can be communicated through the objective act of speech, but it will undoubtedly be subjectively interpreted by the listener.
Just as I cannot gleam every shred of thought from your words, you cannot gleam every shred from mine. We are both however, engaged in this conversation with careful adherence to certain objective rules based on our desires to understand ? we speak the same language. Anything I say is subjective, until you compare what I say to objective facts you have subjectively analysed.
All I?m trying to get across with all this mumbo-jumbo is that nothing is certain. So to claim ?absolute objectivity? is folly.
summerof2010 said:
Nothing that is markedly religious has anything to due with the true nature of reality, which is not to say that there is nothing to be gained from it, just that it's not about knowledge. Well, it shouldn't be, because it's really bad at it.
To me this gleams some information about your religious knowledge. The following is quoted from ?The Tao of Physics?.
?The manifestations of Hinduism range from highly intellectual philosophies involving conceptions of fabulous range and depth to the naïve and childlike ritual practices of the masses. If the majority... keep religion alive in their daily worship, Hinduism has, on the other hand, brought forth a large number of outstanding spiritual teachers to transmit its profound insights.?
This is true of every religion. There is huge depth, variety, and meaning in every religion. You simply must be of a mind to sift through what most would agree to be children?s stories from the deeper tales worthy of intellectual discussion.
summerof2010 said:
As for the specific stuff I quoted, I'll go point by point:
I was saying that when there are conflicts within scientific circles, resolving that conflict becomes the immediate priority of everyone involved in that study. In religious circles, people tend to just live and let live. I don't think that quantum theory has anything to do with that, but could you explain what you meant?
What I?m saying is that there is not always one answer.
In the words of Robert Oppenheimer:
? If we ask, for instance, whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say ?no?; if we ask whether the electron?s position changes with time, we must say ?no?; if we ask weather the electron is at rest, we must say ?no?; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say ?no?. ?
summerof2010 said:
Philosophy, science, and mathematics are all based on the fundamental properties of logic. Philosophy and mathematics consist almost entirely of defining those properties and carrying them out to their farthest implication, while science uses philosophy and mathematics to help it draw conclusions from empirical data (philosophy helps us to understand what questions to ask). All of these things are intimately related when it comes to understanding the nature of the universe, and I would not say that science is closed to philosophy or the other way around.
I?d prefer to use the phrase ?The language of logic?, implying that logic is flexible, rather than forever fixed.
Scientific experimentation and mathematics will produce equations that approximate some of the mechanics of reality,
Philosophy produces thought experiments that reveal some of the mechanics of reality.
They both rely on observations, they both use logic to come to conclusions, they both make some assumptions, and they both have a degree of uncertainty.
summerof2010 said:
I'm not sure, but I get the impression you think of agnosticism as a middle ground between atheism and theism. This is partly because it's a rather common view and partly because I can't think of anything else agnosticism might sit between. If this is true, you should know that agnosticism has nothing to do with belief. It's a position about knowledge. Agnostics believe that supernatural claims cannot be shown true or false, but may be theist or atheist. This is because you do not have to know something is true to assert that it is (or is not). Therefore, there is not "agnostic line."
If you are a rational individual, it is logical to be agnostic.
If you are a rational atheist, you understand that there is no way to know, but choose to believe there IS NO god.
If you are a rational theist, you understand that there is no way to know, but choose to believe there IS a god.
In the case of ?The Tao of Physics? (to which I was referring to when mentioning the agnostic line) I was trying to say that if you are RATIONAL (Interested in understanding) then it did not matter if you were Atheist, or Theist, or ?on the line?, when you read the book, as it is purely rational in nature.
summerof2010 said:
Are you not counting neurology as having "penetrated the human mind?" I mean, we haven't figured everything out yet, but it seems pretty apparent that consciousness is a product of the interaction of our neurons. And for an even longer time, science has been well on it's way to understanding human behavior and emotion through psychology. What does religion have to offer this investigation exactly?
All the really interesting observations that can be made of consciousness can only ever be subjective, either ones inside the head of the scientist, or ones in the head of a test subject.
If you?re happy to just say ?it seems pretty apparent that consciousness is a product of the interaction of our neurons? then I guess that?s enough for you?
I?m currently reading a book called ?Consciousness explained? ? Daniel Dennet and it basically outlines how little we truly know, and how we effectively lack the language to begin contemplating how consciousness works. Because we are ?inside? the machine, we cannot see how it works, and in understanding it, we would on some level be ?outside?. Mind blowing stuff.
It is a very dense read, but fascinating. You really should read more, you?re seemingly concrete understanding would be shook to its foundations; a brilliant and exciting feeling indeed.
For example the concept of time occurring in a straight line is a logical observation you could make using the idea of cause-effect.
However, this is only the way time is presented to you through consciousness by the way your memory works, and actually changes what you remember happening in the past so that it ?makes sense? in the present. I would like to type out the details of a few experiments but maybe that?s best for PM or another thread haha.
summerof2010 said:
I think the reason those questions are unanswerable is because they don't make sense. DuctTapeJedi is fond of the phrase "Those who speak of Tao know nothing of it," and I suspect that the reason for that is because "zen" questions like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" are meaningless. It's just rhetoric. Sometimes they do make sense, but they almost always have answers, in which case people are just pretending they don't so they can seem really "with it." If consciousness is indeed a product of the brain, then when the brain dies, the consciousness ceases to exist. Do we wonder where the light goes when you turn a lamp off? No, we conclude it's just not there because the thing that was generating it has stopped doing that. It's not "gone" anywhere. The implied significance of such questions is inane.
?Sense? is something you can ?make? when you have understanding.
I gotta say I?m a little disheartened to continue the discussion at this point, but I shall none-the less.
Here is a classic then, which you shall no doubt face-palm at hearing. It has exactly the same answer as the other Koan you mentioned, and both are about perception, not physics.
?If a tree falls in the woods, and there is no-one around to hear it, does it make a sound??
The point it?s trying to make is that the observation of an event changes the event.
Obviously the laws of physics tell us it does indeed make a sound, but what is a ?sound? other than a certain sequence of neurons firing within our brain allowing our consciousness to interpret it so.
In Quantum mechanics ?the observer? is a really big deal. That quote from Robert Oppenheimer is profound, because what you try to observe on a quantum level changes what is being observed. It is a strange and fascinating property of the universe, and of consciousness.
I don?t know if you grasp this, or if you?re just going to wave me off the stage rolling your eyes; as most would.
summerof2010 said:
Please explain to me the last part. You're lonely?
What I was getting at is that I have met very few people in my life that are willing to discuss philosophy, science, and religion as if they are all part of the same tapestry.
This view I have, it gives me no identity. There are few I?ve met who are willing to hold a conversation on such matters in my life, and those that do are close friends.
Whereas were I a Christian, a Muslim, or a Jew; there would be communities that I could feel a part of.
I would consider myself an atheist, as I do not entertain the existence of god. But most atheists do not wish to get their feet wet in the realms of philosophy and even less in religion.
At some point our understanding of the human condition, and of the physical world, will meet. At this point ?the quests for meaning? will converge, where seeking understanding would be an end unto itself.
So sign me up, for Zen Starfleet. Or, you know, whatever.
P.S.
Also, *here* is a goddamn medal for reading all this, you fucking lunatic.
44 second YouTube clip reward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xuivSVxZG8
