|
|
Veteran
Posts: 101
| ollie - 2007-06-09 12:18 AM
tweeva - 2007-06-10 5:09 PM
Even your statement requires belief: The belief that there is nothing beyond the empirical, phenomenal reality. Can you provide proof to substantiate this belief?
It would be more accurate to say that "I see no evidence of anything beyond or outside of this universe", and "I believe in nothing I don't have good evidence for."
Why do I trust, say, the scientific method? Answer: demonstrable results.
Science has produced good (e. g., established cures for horrible diseases, increased life spans, better health ) and evil (atomic weapons, napalm ) and things like the internet that I am currently using.
Hence, I see the sceintific method as having produced tangible things; (e. g., that atomic weapons work verifies the models of nuclear physics, even though these weapons are evil ).
So, no, I see no contradiction in being strictly secular.
Oh well, I know a thing or two about the "scientific method" (but I'm not a scientist). I work with it every day in the disease fighting area. It's largely the same as the one politicians and statisticians use. One can "prove" anything one likes with numbers. Some scientist sees through some (part of an) aspect of reality, provides a scientific explanation (thus an interpretation) and does the experiments to "prove" this in their common frame of reference, he (preferably) produces some unintelligible formula, et voilà. The fact that this explanation makes no sense whatsoever to anyone else, especially those who are not used to that particular frame of reference, does not really matter much. Scientists tend to have very strong beliefs (in casu: the belief that the phenomenal reality is the only one and that it can be fully proven) and the belief of one scientist may suffice to uphold the illusion that a phenomenon is understood and proven. They are very good at staging entertaining shows.
They also tend to forget about the exceptions to their rules (which they aptly call "the rules of nature"). They are not that important in their frame of reference (that might be the one thing they're right about), and they obscure these inside their premises.
- Others notice, through very carefull observation, that every once in a little while, the rules "simply" seem to change. Do they? How do they do that? I don't claim to know and I don't really care.
While science surely has it's value and merrits it merely provides nothing more and nothing less than a perception of reality which is at, any point in history (or time), incomplete at best.
Or do you believe that the force,which is called "gravity" by a very powerfull scientist, did not exist before it was proven? I'm sure you will agree that it did, yet it was not understood in a scientific frame of reference. What would your position towards this have been? People used this force to their benefit, long before it was "captured" into theories. And what about electricity? Pure magic!
In fact: the mere forces which we, and science, use everyday are not completely understood by scientists (although they will do their best to convince us otherwise). For instance: what exactly is gravity? What causes it? There are theories, built on assumptions and they seem to work and that's ok. The model works and we can send people to the moon. Until something happens that defies the theory, so that it needs to be adjusted. But wait a minute. The theory was proven wasn't it? No worries: the scientific method provides plenty of backdoors. There is no problem in the phenomenal world, science's playground, that science can't prove and solve (in theory). This is exactly their premise and it holds.
- But will it keep on holding?
Seekers are driving us ever forward. The scientific method holds value, but noone should give it more credit than it needs.
Does science really produce tangible results? The results seem tangible but nothing more. Can you proof they remain tangible for the current equivalent timespan of a (very modest) 1000 earth revolutions around it's star? You can not and they won't (remain tangible).
I'm not attached to any scientific "truths" but tend to let scientists have fun in their world, their frame of reference. They sometimes do produce entertaining results. And what about their "mistakes"? Fortunately, I believe there is "more than meets the eye".
What is it? I don't know, I might never fully know and that doesn't really matter. It is entertaining. Knowledge is just part of an empirical world.
There is more.
Some call it God.
The "concept" of God is, by definition, "beyond proof" and this is completely irrelevant.
What is truth anyway? "Truth is in the eye of the beholder".
Do I believe that you can do a perfect one-armed handstand? Yes, I do believe you can, if you believe it.
BTW: I used to be a atheist, until very recently.
What wonders will the future hold?
Tw |
|
| |
|
| ollie - 2007-06-10 9:58 AM
Anyway, the purpose of my post was to see if there are any others like myself here; it wasn't to poke a stick in anyone's eye.
By the way, I do my morning meditation while sitting in an easy cross legged postion and I do it because it calms and centers ME; for me this is a perfectly natural, secular thing.
Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!!  |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Wise words indeed. So why the need for any -ism?  |
|
| |
|
| I'm a chemist, and I guess you could call me a scientist if you wished to label me.
I've watched as many politically motivated scientific studies have loaded the dice before measurements were made.
It's enough to rattle the foundations of ones' confidence in science itself.
However, folks that don't get the scientific training or have the notion to analytically critique an experiment or how it is set up wouldn't really notice and continue to be bewildered about how science and our political leadership could ever be so absolutely wrong when acting with the best of intentions based upon scientific evidence.
I'm jaded. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 101
| SCThornley - 2007-06-09 3:20 PM
I'm a chemist, and I guess you could call me a scientist if you wished to label me.
I've watched as many politically motivated scientific studies have loaded the dice before measurements were made.
It's enough to rattle the foundations of ones' confidence in science itself.
However, folks that don't get the scientific training or have the notion to analytically critique an experiment or how it is set up wouldn't really notice and continue to be bewildered about how science and our political leadership could ever be so absolutely wrong when acting with the best of intentions based upon scientific evidence.
I'm jaded.
Steve,
Seems that we share more than just a few experiences and views... Shouldn't we start a new -ism?
Tw |
|
| |
|
| Please, please : Start in my Brother SCT's name. He is big in name and fame (sorry, fame and frame)!!! |
|
| |
|
| LOL
I've already started my own, I advise you to start yours in your name.
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 101
| SCThornley - 2007-06-09 4:03 PM
LOL
I've already started my own, I advise you to start yours in your name.
Somehow, I knew that you did. 
And, I did too. |
|
| |
|
| bstqltmkr - 2007-06-11 8:04 AM
Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!!
Thank God. |
|
| |
|
| Actually this blogger seems to see things in the way that I do:
http://www.agnosticmom.com/2007/01/23/agnostic-mom-worships-a-sun-god/
She calls herself an agnostic. That is what I call myself in public, though I am NOT a theist; I see no evidence for a deity and if there were something grand and wonderful outside of our universe, I doubt that it would be so vain and petty to require worship.
Then again, I could be wrong...
 |
|
| |
|
| Ollism!!!! |
|
| |
|
| well
if God is to be 'God' it would need to include everything, right?
that is the good and the bad
Muahahahahahahahahahahahaha
MUUUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA
have you seen this?
http://video.stumbleupon.com/#p=7ktlyxqco9 |
|
| |
|
| I've heard about it, and agree with it.
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Fine by me, Steve, you can be evil for the next yuga or so (give and take a few years). |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
 
Location: A Blue State | Thanks, Ollie, this is interesting. You've noted that the idea of a deity is tied to the abridgement of the laws of physics, or, by extension, abandonment of the process of rational thought (which is all that physics really amounts to). So this leads me to two responses. First, it's well established that rational systems may not admit full self-consistency (profoundly demonstrated by Kurt Godel, e.g.). Second, rational systems, by their nature, do not encompass irrational processes. For example, "scientific" explanations of love and desire leave much to be desired in terms of the human experience that they aim to "explain". Or, more to the point, a positivist approach cannot address questions of morality, justice, etc. ("what we ought to do...") in a substantive way. I'll cheerfully admit that I am not fond of teleological explanations of nature, as they are rarely predictive. Anyway. For me, I have no problem in adopting irrational ideas so long as I do not bring them into conflict with what my rational mind demands. For example, I can meditate on Siva and soak in the bliss of Siva (Sivoham, Sivoham); but I would never use a perceived whisper from Siva as a basis for quitting my job or investing my money. To answer your question, I used to be an Atheist, and a very proud, loud, noisy, and cynical one at that. Then Siva reached out and touched me, and everything changed. So, now I am a very quiet atheist, who does not believe that deities influence human affairs or even give a tinker's dam about human affairs; but I find that deities are open to me as a place of peace and refuge, and a place where I can ground myself before and between applying my rational and atheistic mind to the challenges of daily and yearly life. I think this is also what you meant when you wrote of meditation. ... bg |
|
| |
|
| Thank you, BayGuy. |
|
| |
|
| ollie - 2007-06-11 12:51 PM bstqltmkr - 2007-06-11 8:04 AM Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!! Thank God. Shouldn't you be saying "Thank Me!" ?
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 101
| OrangeMat - 2007-06-10 12:34 PM
ollie - 2007-06-11 12:51 PM bstqltmkr - 2007-06-11 8:04 AM Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!! Thank God. Shouldn't you be saying "Thank Me!" ?
Same difference to some
Tw |
|
| |
|
| tweeva - 2007-06-11 5:31 PM
Fine by me, Steve, you can be evil for the next yuga or so (give and take a few years ).
evil and good
incorporating everything in proper measure
except, I've eliminated intoxicants and meat
I used to be such a party animal, now I just have my beans and rice or a salad and answer my e-mail, read stories to my kids..............
MAN
I need to go to a big ROCK and ROLL concert or something and groove............
eh
sometimes I feel too old for that now. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 101
| SCThornley - 2007-06-10 2:09 PM
tweeva - 2007-06-11 5:31 PM
Fine by me, Steve, you can be evil for the next yuga or so (give and take a few years ).
evil and good
incorporating everything in proper measure
except, I've eliminated intoxicants and meat
I used to be such a party animal, now I just have my beans and rice or a salad and answer my e-mail, read stories to my kids..............
MAN
I need to go to a big ROCK and ROLL concert or something and groove............
eh
sometimes I feel too old for that now.
Who needs intoxicants?
I recommend attending a TOOL concert. Next best thing to performing yourself. They produce some very "spiritually tainted" rock (never thought I'd write something like this down).
But beware: This is not for the faint of heart. Balancing on the edge for sure.
To get a taste for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlC7oG_2W4&mode=related&search=
You're not too old. You just think you are 
Tw
|
|
| |
|
| OrangeMat - 2007-06-12 5:34 AM
ollie - 2007-06-11 12:51 PM bstqltmkr - 2007-06-11 8:04 AM Hey Ollie, I don't think there's anyone like you!! Thank God. Shouldn't you be saying "Thank Me!" ?
Nope. The non-existence of god means that I am not a god either.
But my irony was intentional. |
|
| |
|
| tweeva - 2007-06-13 6:07 PM
I recommend attending a TOOL concert. Next best thing to performing yourself. They produce some very "spiritually tainted" rock (never thought I'd write something like this down).
But beware: This is not for the faint of heart. Balancing on the edge for sure.
To get a taste for it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDlC7oG_2W4&mode=related&search=
Pretty good, but if you want rock, these are your guys:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMEqVAt7s8U
Jonathon |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 101
| Well, they used to. 
I'm afraid we're moving waaay off-topic.
Tw
Edited by tweeva 2007-06-12 11:43 AM
|
|
| |
|
| so like atheist,
I guess maybe, but only in the way that it would be that others so far don't have the definition of God that I do.
I don't expect anybody else to have the same idea that I do
but
I do believe in my belief and part of my belief is that infinity is and all is one
I think I read that on a bottle of soap somewhere |
|
| |
|
| SCThornley - 2007-06-09 3:26 AM
I know that if there is a GOD, that GOD can take care of getting the message out...
I don't have any particular agenda with this, but your comment reminded me of parable:
Old Mrs. Watkins awoke one spring morning to find that the river had flooded the entire first floor of her house. Looking out of her window, she saw that the water was still rising.
Two men passing by on a rowboat shouted up an invitation to row to safety with them. "No, thank you," Mrs. Watkins replied. "The Lord will provide." The men shrugged and rowed on.
By evening, the water level forced Mrs. Watkins to climb on top of the roof for safety. She was spotted by a man in a motorboat, who offered to pick her up. "Don't trouble yourself," she told him. "The Lord will provide."
Pretty soon, Mrs. Watkins had to seek refuge atop the chimney. When a Red Cross cutter came by on patrol, she waved it on, shouting, "The Lord will provide." So the boat left, the water rose, and the old woman drowned.
Dripping wet and thoroughly annoyed, she came through the pearly gates and demanded to speak to God. "What happened?" she cried. "For cryin' out loud, lady," God said. "I sent three boats."
Author Unknown
|
|
| |
any atheists here?
