Need A Reply For This

[Tony]

Tony, just a few "bits' for thoughts where science have yet way to go to explain and thus beliefs take a place (though I admit that Christian beliefs do not explain it to me well enough)

I was somehow involved in supporting human genome project, trying to decipher a genetic code. It has this remarkable trait as if it was done by some "engineering design" We try to decipher it and to understand it but we have NO clue how it all came about ... it's too sophisticated to happen by coincidence but at the same time "too old" to be easily explained by "creationist theory". So where does it came from? I don't know and sometimes just unscientific beliefs help us "keep going."

But let's not stop there, this "space and universe thing" is another mystery hard to explain. It's simply there ... is there some beginning? All we know so far it keeps going for trillion of years and it's changing, and the life begins somewhere and the life eventually disappear in a "black holes" But can anybody explain where is came from? How it all started? From nothing or from something else? I don't know. There is stuff that blows you mind away.

And when one does not know it helps to have some beliefs to deal with unknown.

JMO



What is this guy talking about?

[wollery]

He's talking about god of the gaps. We don't understand it so it must be divine in nature. Just point out all the things that we didn't understand 100 years ago and have since been explained by science. All these things which are currently mysterious will be inexorably revealed to conform to physical laws. It's just a matter of time.

[c0rbin]

True enough. Argument from Ignorance.

I don't know and it seems really complicated, therefore some hyper-intelligence must be at work (as opposed to random natural processes plus a ***** load of time--i.e. billions of years).

[Brian the Snail]

I was somehow involved in supporting human genome project, trying to decipher a genetic code. It has this remarkable trait as if it was done by some "engineering design" We try to decipher it and to understand it but we have NO clue how it all came about ... it's too sophisticated to happen by coincidence but at the same time "too old" to be easily explained by "creationist theory". So where does it came from?

It didn't happen by "coincidence", it happened due to billions of years of natural selection. The "engineering design" arose as part of this process

I don't know and sometimes just unscientific beliefs help us "keep going."

No, it just stops us from finding out the answers to those "don't knows."

But let's not stop there, this "space and universe thing" is another mystery hard to explain. It's simply there ... is there some beginning? All we know so far it keeps going for trillion of years and it's changing, and the life begins somewhere and the life eventually disappear in a "black holes" But can anybody explain where is came from? How it all started? From nothing or from something else? I don't know. There is stuff that blows you mind away.

Yes it does blow your mind away. Finding the actual answers, rather than just making ***** up, is even better.

And when one does not know it helps to have some beliefs to deal with unknown.

Does it? I've never tried it myself. Doesn't seem to have affected me too badly, though.

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh Brother. He was "somehow involved"? What, he read his grade 10 biology book?

There is a design, called evolution. DNA is really not that complicated. Evolution is.

This does not explain the origins of life, but does explain the human genome.

We can hang on to gods as life originators, or we can be curious and seek out something more plausible and fascinating.

[Tony]

But in a nutshell: what we know is by definition structured by the very nature of our thinking aparatus (our brain.) Any structuring implies a limit. There's a long and honored tradition in philosophy examining what those limits might be. But that they exist is purely logical--even from your rationalist and materialist bias. Why? Because what we know--from your perspective--emanates from an organic reality: the structure and function of our brains. As I pointed out, any structure has boundary and presupposes constraints and limitations. To argue that the finite structure of our organic makeup can provide for infinite understanding defies the very reason you want to champion.

[Brian the Snail]

Tony, are you having a debate on another forum? If so, maybe you could post a link, if that's at all possible. It might be useful to see the exact points being discussed, that's all.

[Chanileslie]

One of religions purposes in ancient civilizations and even in today's civilizations to some extent, is to explain the unexplainable. It may have been for some a valuable tool that helped them to deal with their universe in a low technology setting. I do not feel that this is viable today in today's world.

We do have science, which is a tool, and nothing more. Science is not the answer, but rather the search for answers and a process with which we can search for those answers. Science is more of a question: Why is this this way? Why does that happen? How do we explain this? And for some of those questions, we may never have answers and for others after evaluating the evidence and testing that evidence, we can make hypotheses and theories that bring us understanding of what is and what isn't. I don't know is actually a viable answer.

To put belief in something unrealistic or that isn't supported by evidence rather than admitting we just don't know is not viable or in my opinion healthy. Not to mention, rather intellectually dishonest. Also, if we are willing to accept one idea that is not supported by evidence and believe it whole heartedly, how can we actually judge that we aren't shading our preceptions of reality with that irrational belief and thereby missing valuable data or information?

I don't feel that irrational belief always stay in their nice little compartments to be pulled out when needed, but they tend to escape their compartments and flood the rest of our thought processes with crap.

Basically, how can we judge reality if we are willing to accept fantasy as real? How can we tell fact from fiction when every day, we allow fiction to rule a part of our thinking processes?

[Tony]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail
Tony, are you having a debate on another forum? If so, maybe you could post a link, if that's at all possible. It might be useful to see the exact points being discussed, that's all.


Gladly (you might need to sign up)

http://www.forum.scullyspost.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18682

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And when one does not know it helps to have some beliefs to deal with unknown.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Does it? I've never tried it myself. Doesn't seem to have affected me too badly, though.

And what does it say when the person basically comes out and says that s/he is only using it as a crutch? Wow, that is some wicked religion you got there...no need to care about reality as long as you have a pacifier to suck on.

[c0rbin]

There's a long and honored tradition in philosophy examining what those limits might be.

Interesting, but philospophy does not equal science. Therefore it is dangerous to even mention philosophy in regards to scientific questions.

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


And what does it say when the person basically comes out and says that s/he is only using it as a crutch? Wow, that is some wicked religion you got there...no need to care about reality as long as you have a pacifier to suck on.

Exactly.

Tony, thanks for the link. I don't think I'll register, though. One forum is distracting enough...

But regarding the second post, what I would say is that science and reason doesn't claim to provide "infinite understanding" or the Absolute Truth(TM), but just provide the best tools to arrive at approximations to the truth. Believing stuff that just makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside is okay if that's all you want from life, but it's completely useless if you're actually seeking to understand this amazing universe we live in. After all, isn't it a bit self-centered to expect the universe to conform to our whims?

[Z]

I fully admit, the 'beliefs' that I have are a crutch. It's always relieving to me when science gives me the tools I need to pry away another crutch. I think there's a certain inherent need in people to believe in something - it's a tool for dealing with the unknown, especially with the rather stunning thought of death everlasting. I can look back with all the reason and logic I can command and see this is so, and see that it is most likely that everything is a natural, logical consequence of basic laws and near-infinite time... yet, in spite of this, I still seem to need to cling to the idea of a creative intellect (who created all these 'laws' in the first place) and to be open to 'mystic' and 'unexplained' phenomena. It's very annoying to be aware of the crutch, yet somehow be unable to toss it aside entirely. I can only imagine what those with less reason must be going through.

[Correa Neto]

Rregarding the following

"Any structuring implies a limit. There's a long and honored tradition in philosophy examining what those limits might be. But that they exist is purely logical--even from your rationalist and materialist bias. "

I would like to point that not every logical construct is a true one.

We have several philosophical (note that as previously mentioned by c0rbin philosphy is different from science) points-of-view, schools, etc. , each one of them with its own particular logical sets or chains of logical rules and postulates. And they are not, necessarily, true. The may follow a set of logical rules, the arguments may be logicall, but still, not necessarily, true.