Texas has problem recognizing a "black hole"

[smiller]

Following on from Seth's question, my question, to explore how open-minded you might be in the other direction is, do you discount the possibility of a direct spiritual experience, an epiphany? And for a person who has experienced an epiphany, would it matter whether an intellectual answer is found to the question, other than that some people, and I include myself in this group, may find gratification in solving a Freecell puzzle, the answer to which is already known?

Not sure who you're addressing here Dave, or perhaps everyone. In my case it's not my place to doubt whether someone may have had what they believe to be some kind of spiritual experience, but given that such things are of a purely subjective nature they're not of much probative value to anyone other than the one having the experience.

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Bob, there's a frequently-quoted statement attributed to Arthur C. Clarke that touches closely on your point. He said (allowing for a fuzzy quote", "Any technology so advanced that one cannot understand it is indistinguishable from magic."

 

The corrolary is often applicable:

 

"Any technology which is distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."

 

[Dave McReynolds]

Following on from Seth's question, my question, to explore how open-minded you might be in the other direction is, do you discount the possibility of a direct spiritual experience, an epiphany? And for a person who has experienced an epiphany, would it matter whether an intellectual answer is found to the question, other than that some people, and I include myself in this group, may find gratification in solving a Freecell puzzle, the answer to which is already known?

Not sure who you're addressing here Dave, or perhaps everyone. In my case it's not my place to doubt whether someone may have had what they believe to be some kind of spiritual experience, but given that such things are of a purely subjective nature they're not of much probative value to anyone other than the one having the experience.

 

Well, what you're saying simply simply strengthens my belief that both science and religion have put on blinders, and have excluded so much of reality that either or both may well be doing the equivalent of playing a complicated game of Freecell, or, as in my earlier analogy, trying to figure out banking by analyzing the bricks and mortar of the bank building.

 

For religion, for example, to exclude the evidence of the true age of the earth, and to insist on an interpretation of the bible that says the earth was created X thousands of years ago, because they fear that anything else will cause God to abandon them, simply means to me that they have abandoned God, and have instead made an idol out of a book, a physical book itself, as opposed to the meaning contained therein.

 

For science to say that the spiritual experiences of many billions of people, including many scientists, are "not of much probative value to anyone other than the one having the experience," strikes me as the epitomy of selective color-blindness. If a respected scientist came back from an island and described a colony of six-legged frog he found there, and oh by the way, the island sank and he was the only one that ever saw the frogs, it wouldn't stop you all from coming up with all kinds of theories as to why there might be six-legged frogs.

 

And after he died, if his memoirs indicated that he was only joking and there was no such thing as a six-legged frog, some scientists would say he was just joking about joking, and still go on writing about six-legged frogs.

 

But no matter how many, or of what credibility, people many have spiritual experiences, it's just "not of much probative value to anyone other than the one having the experience."

 

It was mentioned that science itself wasn't the problem that has caused us to be at a point where there is serious doubt as to whether we will be here as a species in a thousand years, but individual people. But if the reason human beings took up science was to aid the cause of survival of our species, and if that particular reason has been abandoned as one of the components of science, leaving us only with science as a blind tool, perhaps of our destruction, shouldn't that be a reason to question the value of science itself?

[smiller]

For science to say that the spiritual experiences of many billions of people, including many scientists, are "not of much probative value to anyone other than the one having the experience," strikes me as the epitomy of selective color-blindness.

Absolutely not, and I continue to be amazed at the lack of understanding of the scientific process evidenced in these threads. I scarcely know where to even begin, other to again repeat that science is a tool based on objectivity and not on whose entirely untestable personal epiphany might be correct. If your epiphany disagrees with my epiphany what do we do... draw straws to see who is right?

 

If you are using 'epiphany' as a synonym for inspiration, of course that has a place in scientific investigation. Einstein had a great inspiration in that gravity might be a result of curved space, BUT... he went on to calculate the effects and they have been found to be observable. That's how science uses an epiphany, and sorry, 'God told me and I believe it' just doesn't make the cut.

 

BTW there are any number of reasons why billions of people might report religious experiences. One is that they are of supernatural inspiration. Another is that it's just the natural way the human mind plays trick on us.

 

If a respected scientist came back from an island and described a colony of six-legged frog he found there, and oh by the way, the island sank and he was the only one that ever saw the frogs, it wouldn't stop you all from coming up with all kinds of theories as to why there might be six-legged frogs.

Hey, we all love a good time. But 'coming up with a theory' and it being accepted as scientific fact by evidence, experimentation, and peer review are two entirely different things.

 

[Couchrocket]

In any event your repeated attempts to try to spin science into dogma is not all that helpful to the debate.

 

 

I disagree. I think it is central to the debate. It is precisely the inability, or unwillingness, of the average materialist to see that their theory (especially, vis-a-vis evolutionary "science") has in fact become dogma for its priesthood, that is a major contributor to the average ignorant understanding of and response to concepts like ID (among others). There is no discussion, there is merely a parroting of the party line. This is a serious problem for the scientific community. Both science and non-hard-science pursuits would be better served if this were not so.

 

This is less problematic for the hard sciences, and in fact much of the present difficulty for the neo-Darwinists is coming from the hard sciences, cosmology and micro-biology in particular.

[smiller]

In any event your repeated attempts to try to spin science into dogma is not all that helpful to the debate.

I disagree. I think it is central to the debate. It is precisely the inability, or unwillingness, of the average materialist to see that their theory (especially, vis-a-vis evolutionary "science") has in fact become dogma for its priesthood, that is a major contributor to the average ignorant understanding of and response to concepts like ID (among others). There is no discussion, there is merely a parroting of the party line. This is a serious problem for the scientific community. Both science and non-hard-science pursuits would be better served if this were not so.

That view is itself a projection of your own personal belief and is for the most part not true. It seems to me from reading your comments that you are the one who has made an a priori determination and are frustrated that there is no hard evidence to support it. I suppose that you can blame God for the lack of evidence if you like, but not science.

 

It would be fair to say that current mainstream scientific thought is skeptical of ID as it is a theory somewhat lacking in hard evidence. If that bothers ID proponents then they can provide proper support for their position. Scientific theories are modified, or even found to be dead wrong, with regularity. All it takes is for someone to come up with a more supportable case. They're waiting.

 

 

[Couchrocket]

In any event your repeated attempts to try to spin science into dogma is not all that helpful to the debate.

I disagree. I think it is central to the debate. It is precisely the inability, or unwillingness, of the average materialist to see that their theory (especially, vis-a-vis evolutionary "science") has in fact become dogma for its priesthood, that is a major contributor to the average ignorant understanding of and response to concepts like ID (among others). There is no discussion, there is merely a parroting of the party line. This is a serious problem for the scientific community. Both science and non-hard-science pursuits would be better served if this were not so.

That view is itself a projection of your own personal belief and is for the most part not true. It seems to me from reading your comments that you are the one who has made an a priori determination and are frustrated that there is no hard evidence to support it. I suppose that you can blame God for the lack of evidence if you like, but not science.

 

It would be fair to say that current mainstream scientific thought is skeptical of ID as it is a theory somewhat lacking in hard evidence. If that bothers ID proponents then they can provide proper support for their position. Scientific theories are modified, or even found to be dead wrong, with regularity. All it takes is for someone to come up with a more supportable case. They're waiting.

 

This is one of those times when we'll just have to agree to disagree. My only possible response would be to accuse you of either willful, or benign ignorance, and I honestly don't wish to do that on any kind of personal level. That is where the disconnect is, however, in my view. I hesitate to even "say this" because in mentioning it, I've "done it." So, let me just say that I've "done it" for the benefit of those reading this conversation who might actually do the research required in order to see which of our positions most accurately reflects reality.

 

So I ask you not to take my rebuttal personally. Since we don't know each other, that shouldn't be too difficult. I take what you say, and your critique of my thinking in the light that you seem to intend it... as "criticism" in the classical sense, and not personal -- and hope you can do the same. Having a lively debate is good... having a struggle of wills is not, and not what I would intend for us here. Besides, this place has a reputation of a "clean well lighted place" to uphold.

 

Coming to an impasse such as this, is actually a good thing. A certain level of clarity of positions has been achieved, which in my view is one of the "best hoped for" results for a conversation such as this has been.

[smiller]

Yes, no offense meant by my comments either, and certainly none taken.

 

My primary itch was with those seeming to want to argue the controversy vs. argue the facts. Points regarding which 'side' is or isn't closed-minded are largely irrelevant and a diversion. Facts and evidence speak for themselves, and they are either present or they are not.

 

And we'll leave it there as there is no need to beat evolution to death, nor flagellate (get it?) criticisms concerning irreducible complexity.

 

 

Coming to an impasse such as this, is actually a good thing.

No doubt that many on the forum would agree.