tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post5788616497350736866..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: The "Ayes" Have It—Science and Religion Are CompatibleLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26532067878535697162010-07-15T03:19:48.426-04:002010-07-15T03:19:48.426-04:00YA
Both Science and religion are mutually exclu...YA <br /> Both Science and religion are mutually exclusive compatible with each other i agree with you.Journey of Ettore Grillohttp://lhote.blogspot.com/2010/03/books-that-have-made-me.htmlnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46364003526807340562010-02-15T19:07:52.689-05:002010-02-15T19:07:52.689-05:00Ettore Grillo says,
Personally in my quest I use ...Ettore Grillo says,<br /><br /><i>Personally in my quest I use both faith and reason, science and religion, they are like two wings of a bird, as a bird cannot fly by only one wing, so we cannot go on in our physical or metaphysical researches by using only one wing. We need both.</i><br /><br />I just got back from a month in Belgium—one of the least religious societies on the planet. (Along with Denmark and the Netherlands.)<br /><br />Those countries are doing remarkably well considering that half of the population is flopping around on one wing.<br /><br />I don't need faith and neither do most of my friends. I challenge you to demonstrate that we are somehow more deficient than people like you who claim to need faith in order to "fly."<br /><br>Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9389161913645887332010-02-15T15:25:50.552-05:002010-02-15T15:25:50.552-05:00We are too accustomed to the duality. So we tend t...We are too accustomed to the duality. So we tend to discriminate between things, ideas, morals and so on. We don’t see the human being, the life like a whole, an unity. So we discriminate, between good and evil, science and religion, faith and reason, spirit and material, physic and metaphysic, and so on. Indeed everything is energy. Einstein demonstrated that, at the light speed, the matter turns into energy. According to the Russian writer Outspensky, also the inorganic matter has psychical processes. Personally in my quest I use both faith and reason, science and religion, they are like two wings of a bird, as a bird cannot fly by only one wing, so we cannot go on in our physical or metaphysical researches by using only one wing. We need both. <br />The book I have recently written may help in this direction and I want to draw it to your attention. The title is “Travels of the Mind”. It is available at http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/TravelsOfTheMind.html<br />If you have any questions, I am most willing to offer my views on this topic.<br />Ettore GrilloEttore Grillohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07721932161573781073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-76204503114236484862010-02-15T08:08:43.424-05:002010-02-15T08:08:43.424-05:00Grasshopper, each journey starts with a single ste...<i>Grasshopper, each journey starts with a single step...</i><br /><br />Really odd, I just got in the season 1 & 2 DVDs!shonnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08852080660380595251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-27194364950730863382010-02-15T04:57:19.411-05:002010-02-15T04:57:19.411-05:00I don't think the General Synod's motion i...I don't think the General Synod's motion is bad news at all. On the contrary, I think it's very good news. As it was when the Pope said that evolution by natural selection was not incompatible with RC Christianity. Of course the whole theology of Christianity is nonsense because there isn't any theo- to have a -logy about. But that's simply irrelevant.<br /><br />It's reasonable to take as a given that a bunch of professional dog-collar wearers are NOT going to pass a motion saying "yes, we admit all our stuff is drivel, we think we should ditch the supernatural drivel and stick to science."<br /><br />Given that, how much more pro-science could the assembled bishops and bible-bashers be? They're saying something like "hey guys, science is good, science is a great way of understanding the world, we respect it, let's even promote science for understanding of the real world from our pulpits."<br /><br />I can't see the bad in that. Perhaps in some dreamworld the Synod might sudddenly realise the error of their ways and have a bonfire of their cassocks and collars, but that isn't going to happen.<br /><br />But they have affirmed that rationality should not be completely discarded simply because one has some bonkers ideas.<br /><br />In short, I say it's good because they're pointing and moving in the right direction. I think you're saying it's bad because they haven't arrived at the destination.<br /><br />Grasshopper, each journey starts with a single step...Sam Cnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-78590305292299811422010-02-15T01:22:01.451-05:002010-02-15T01:22:01.451-05:00I think that the ineffable feelings I sometimes ha...I think that the ineffable feelings I sometimes have while listening to moving music, be they rapturous or melancholy, cannot be described in scientific terms satisfactorily. <br /><br />Psychologists can, and to my limited knowledge do, investigate the neural mechanisms that give rise to such feelings. Let's suppose that in 1000 years all of these phenomena can be utterly described, and even predicted, by scientific theory (although I might argue for the impossibility of this in principle). <i>Even so</i>, I find that these scientific viewpoints are incapable of broaching the irrationality of musical experience. <br /><br />Music is real, it exists. Yet as human subjects perceive it, it is profoundly irrational; that is, in its complexity and mystery, it is impossible to truly <i>know</i>, in any logical sense, the source or nature of this mystery.<br /><br /> The ultimate cause of this irrationality at the nexus of subject and object most likely lies in the contingencies of human evolution and the evolution of our brains. Mechanistic causes, all — but because we can never escape our subjectivity, even through the tools of science as I discussed in paragraph 2, we cannot know for sure the nature of the things in paragraph 3.Ford Prefectnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-71117758418308301912010-02-14T23:55:42.364-05:002010-02-14T23:55:42.364-05:00"...I was criticizing the view that this is t..."...I was criticizing the view that this is the only way of knowing that same music."<br /><br />But the 'other' way of knowing music is merely emotional, and varies widely among people - offering no real universal truth, just a subjective appreciation.<br /><br />This is all that religion can offer, but it instead is attempting to argue that its 'truths' are rational, universal, moral, and should hold dominion in civic affairs. There is the rub.Gingerbakerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211637630936981883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-42094362167844024012010-02-14T23:47:21.194-05:002010-02-14T23:47:21.194-05:00Well Ford, what part of music do you consider to b...Well Ford, what part of music do you consider to be inaccessible to empirical observation?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17949972520871418816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-41690285330791083782010-02-14T20:27:57.096-05:002010-02-14T20:27:57.096-05:00I never meant that those aspects of music could no...I never meant that those aspects of music could not be explained on scientific grounds; perhaps I was unclear. I was criticizing the view that this is the only way of knowing that same music.Ford Prefectnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-26825749054111194992010-02-14T20:18:15.758-05:002010-02-14T20:18:15.758-05:00Ford Prefect,
Music is entirely describable in sc...Ford Prefect,<br /><br />Music is entirely describable in scientific terms- not just the frequency, pitch, etc, of the sound itself, or the mechanics of the musicians technique, but the historical context in which it was written, and the changes in brain chemistry it evokes in the listener. Understanding at this level (even though we still have far to go to be able to do so) certainly doesn't marginalize or alienate a crucial part of what you call human experience, but enriches it. <br /><br />Can you imagine the rapturous fervor felt from a musical piece after its been properly distilled? It'd be akin to what we've done with the sugar from sweet tasting fruits.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17949972520871418816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-28755493584527295412010-02-14T18:05:06.043-05:002010-02-14T18:05:06.043-05:00Larry, how would you scientifically analyze a piec...Larry, how would you scientifically analyze a piece of music?<br /><br />Unless you think that music is fully describable in scientific terms, (i.e. frequencies of pitches, the mechanics of the musicians technique), you must be disingenuous in the statements I see you make in this blog. By totalizing knowledge into scientific terms, you are marginalizing and alienating a crucial part of human experience.<br />(You may take this as a compliment, but you validate my so-called "straw men" regarding scientism in arguments such as these)<br /><br />On the other hand, Marc, whence cometh absolute ethics? I simply see no basis whatsoever for any "inherent" good or evil. I agree that infanticide is reprehensible, but only because it violates a morality that I myself have constructed.<br /><br />Also, you can find a person to instantiate any ill, but that doesn't make you right. I think moral absolutists, by and large, are far more dangerous than moral relativists.Ford Prefectnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-77549371625255033512010-02-14T17:32:32.525-05:002010-02-14T17:32:32.525-05:00"There's someone that became prime minist..."There's someone that became prime minister in 1933 that had pretty similar thoughts."<br /><br />Wow, didn't take long for Godwin to appear in this one.The Rathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02487724361976424018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14536972527948592462010-02-14T15:29:07.528-05:002010-02-14T15:29:07.528-05:00Larry,
I just noticed that you responded to my la...Larry,<br /><br />I just noticed that you responded to my last comment. Given that this is sort of on the same topic, I respond to it here.<br /><br />I wrote "You fail to understand that not everything is science. Math, ethics, aesthetics, logic, those are not science."<br /><br />To which you responded "Science is a way of knowing about the universe we live in. It requires evidence and rationality. Which of those other things count as valid ways of knowing that replace (compete with) science in some contexts?"<br /><br />Jeez... they don't have to compete with anything. They have different scopes. You see a universe where there's just science and nonscience, which includes pretty much only mumbo-jumbo.<br /><br />I really think you should learn some Epistemology 101. Your discourse is filled with philosophical and ethical statements that have nothing to do with science.<br /><br />Interestingly, you say "Cat aesthetics isn't any more productive than human aesthetics. Neither is cat ethics, for that matter." So the ethics of siblicide and infanticide that is rampant in feline biology is not necessarily "better" than ours. In other words, there's no inherent good or evil. There's someone that became prime minister in 1933 that had pretty similar thoughts.Marcnoreply@blogger.com