| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"AbhiEJeet" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2006 09:26:26 PM |
| Object: |
Physics and Philosophy |
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
.
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
03 Mar 2006 10:14:52 PM |
|
|
"AbhiEJeet" <AbhiEJeet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141442786.116327.273400@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life.
Who said that advancements in physics had anything to do with the "meaning
of life"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "aran" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
05 Mar 2006 03:33:29 AM |
|
|
it has to do at least with the meaning of physics itself where the
prophesores and universities are against that , and physics it turned
to be engeneering , physics is physics because it should have meaning
and also to be related to the meaning of life .
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mattias Ostlund" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
11 Mar 2006 07:02:35 PM |
|
|
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
If earth, our planet, collaterated in peoples minds, we the people
should be able to distinct between two dimensions or horizons,
where one is supported by traditional western idealisms,
such as eyedominance, progressive materialism, socialcreationism,
economic and religious powers, patent and security laws,
the alcoholist drugculture and social dominion -
where as one brainhalf competes with another.
That phenomenon could be called a three dimensional,
room-shaped, "cellular worldview".
The other horizon collaterals two brains with the world and
a fourdimensional world of inner culture and outer culture.
It could be regarded as the natural collateration of the world
in peoples minds and would be a essential psychological
balance between peoples minds too.
Normal examples of missunderstandings based on the
gallileo-worldview, which acctually only is an earthview,
is all people who feel needs to specialize in certain
relations to other people (also internally based on fear and stress)
and preserve incompetent cultural patterns as a means
to create (creationist) balance.
That sort of balance-creation is at the same time a sort of
internalization of culture and supported be stronger forces
in sociaty, rather than weaker and more sensible abilities
of human beings.
Then it is a mistake and culture shoule be externalized first
before it can be internalized as a balanced and harmonized
culture defined by planned size and organization.
What if that is the most important discovery of
physics, regarding the purpose of living and understanding
each and one another.
Then we should research that physic and change culture
into primarily externalizing and a collateralization of the
world and the earth in the worldview.
That is the collateration that we could then transform into a
externalization of the history of cultural problems
in sociaty.
In such case, people no more would have to suffer the
tremendous lack of
imagination in that sense of "externalization" or ability
to rediscover the world is flatter and the brain, earth
and everything that we are, is actually round and funny.
The opposite of this worldview is the preconception
that the world, is round and funny, but the brain,
earth (as the worldview) and everything that we are
is flat and boring.
It is a essential difference I should appose. There are more
examples of similiar theories, where as the worldview
is undergoing a transformation from threedimensional
to fourdimensional thinking and natural world,
which turns out as the usual problems
and makes the obviousness of every
discovery more or less essential for the
philosophy of living.
Maybe because it have in some ways always been
like a problem of acceptence and balancing between
the two or three alternatives. The western cultural science
have evolved into the winning, but only partially
conscious mind.
Imbalances between the world and humanity have
the strongest support in specialized threedimensional
and materialistic research, but two and fourdimensional
thinking and experience is still as much important
in most aspects of life.
Forgetfulness of the humanrace have been drunk.
Maybe it takes an universal meta-physical model
of general explaination to make it possible for
everything to flow and cope better with the
brain to come along with culture more as a
humanist-rational world planned for by nature.
emo
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
11 Mar 2006 10:29:49 PM |
|
|
On 11 Mar 2006 17:02:35 -0800, "Mattias Ostlund" <emo77@telia.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1142125355.450558.168090@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
If earth, our planet, collaterated in peoples minds, we the people
should be able to distinct between two dimensions or horizons,
where one is supported by traditional western idealisms,
such as eyedominance, progressive materialism, socialcreationism,
economic and religious powers, patent and security laws,
the alcoholist drugculture and social dominion -
where as one brainhalf competes with another.
That phenomenon could be called a three dimensional,
room-shaped, "cellular worldview".
The other horizon collaterals two brains with the world and
a fourdimensional world of inner culture and outer culture.
It could be regarded as the natural collateration of the world
in peoples minds and would be a essential psychological
balance between peoples minds too.
Normal examples of missunderstandings based on the
gallileo-worldview, which acctually only is an earthview,
is all people who feel needs to specialize in certain
relations to other people (also internally based on fear and stress)
and preserve incompetent cultural patterns as a means
to create (creationist) balance.
That sort of balance-creation is at the same time a sort of
internalization of culture and supported be stronger forces
in sociaty, rather than weaker and more sensible abilities
of human beings.
Then it is a mistake and culture shoule be externalized first
before it can be internalized as a balanced and harmonized
culture defined by planned size and organization.
What if that is the most important discovery of
physics, regarding the purpose of living and understanding
each and one another.
Then we should research that physic and change culture
into primarily externalizing and a collateralization of the
world and the earth in the worldview.
That is the collateration that we could then transform into a
externalization of the history of cultural problems
in sociaty.
In such case, people no more would have to suffer the
tremendous lack of
imagination in that sense of "externalization" or ability
to rediscover the world is flatter and the brain, earth
and everything that we are, is actually round and funny.
The opposite of this worldview is the preconception
that the world, is round and funny, but the brain,
earth (as the worldview) and everything that we are
is flat and boring.
It is a essential difference I should appose. There are more
examples of similiar theories, where as the worldview
is undergoing a transformation from threedimensional
to fourdimensional thinking and natural world,
which turns out as the usual problems
and makes the obviousness of every
discovery more or less essential for the
philosophy of living.
Maybe because it have in some ways always been
like a problem of acceptence and balancing between
the two or three alternatives. The western cultural science
have evolved into the winning, but only partially
conscious mind.
Imbalances between the world and humanity have
the strongest support in specialized threedimensional
and materialistic research, but two and fourdimensional
thinking and experience is still as much important
in most aspects of life.
Forgetfulness of the humanrace have been drunk.
Maybe it takes an universal meta-physical model
of general explaination to make it possible for
everything to flow and cope better with the
brain to come along with culture more as a
humanist-rational world planned for by nature.
emo
That philoso-bot is getting a hammering.
I hope it doesn't blow a fuse.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "aran" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
05 Mar 2006 03:23:45 AM |
|
|
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life.
The advancements in physics should be interpreted into meaning to
understand the meaning of life , but in the old times physics was not
in advance as it is now but people could get the meaning of life ( the
profets of the old testements , the sages buddha , confucious
,Zaraduastra and the great master of taoism Lao Tzu ).
If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
By whom , that what should we agree about now , the sages could do it ,
If I voulunteer to do that will people accept that ,there are people
who allready did that in some web sites in the Taoism and I cheng web
site .
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
This is some way true because advancements in physics is some thing
material ,and phelosophy is mental which needs to be shown materially
(physically) , this exactly as the light wave length ( found in physics
) and the light colour detected by our senses and been given the
meaning and found by our mental/brain to be red or blue , by physics
there are no any evidance to make a certain light frequancy to be red
or blue it is our brain who do give the meaning to the light and the
meaning is cleared as a color .
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gigantul" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 03:27:07 AM |
|
|
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life.
meaning of life is damn well shown by darwinism. What more do you
want??
And meaning of *your* life is something that you should find it
yourself. It's utterly stupid to ask some religious numbnut to explain
it to you. Do your thinking.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
08 Mar 2006 12:46:35 PM |
|
|
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
This is why God let Christianity do the ground work among men
and raise up their level of conscience before science flourished.
And all the sudden men think he is an evolving monkey
.
|
|
|
| User: "explainer" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
08 Mar 2006 05:00:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
This is why God let Christianity do the ground work among men
and raise up their level of conscience before science flourished.
Suggesting Christians alone are the "chosen and only" of God's humans?
And all the sudden men think he is an evolving monkey
And your source for this scientific evidence is?
Am unable to break your code.
All the best, Gordon Hill
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
03 Mar 2006 11:37:14 PM |
|
|
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
God does not exist and can't help you. Science is all you get.
That and the Church of the SubGenius
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
--
An Inuit hunter asked the local missionary priest: "If I did not know about
God and sin, would I go to hell?" "No," said the priest, "not if you did
not know." "Then why," asked the Inuit earnestly, "did you tell me?"
-Annie Dillard, Pilgrim at Tinker Creek
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
05 Mar 2006 08:41:37 AM |
|
|
Great post! I copied it.
Gary Eickmeier
wbarwell wrote:
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
God does not exist and can't help you. Science is all you get.
That and the Church of the SubGenius
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self-
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible
gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god
of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disproven and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris H. Fleming" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
03 Mar 2006 09:38:58 PM |
|
|
AbhiEJeet wrote:
Only advancements in physics is not enough to understand meaning of
life. If you develope physics theory and invent some device to reach
stars but you have no clue about meaning of life, purpose existence of
universe, supernatural then we are still living in darkness.
Advancement in physics and philosophy must be simultaneous from now.
One without other is not useful to find the truth.
Hmm... I'm working on quantum brownian motion right now. Solving for
the markovian dynamics of a ohmicly coupled oscillator at arbitrary
time and temperature.
What philosophy do you suggest I couple this to before I submit the
paper?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
03 Mar 2006 10:44:57 PM |
|
|
Your sceptical stance might reinforce the position of some Christians
and scientists that science is strictly concerned or should be strictly
concerned with the empirical and not, assome folk in love with the
scientific method have pontificated "all reality is encompassed by the
scientific." As if science should be the decisive factor in ethical,
political, social
issues. For instance social darwinism back in the 20th century
postulated survial of the fittest in economic
terms with vast implications for government,
business and social engineering. In fact,
the real truth is that science is inherently
incapable of ethical/value judgements.
And science while not capable of proving
God exists, also can not disprove
his existence.
Thus, once science and religion both become
more humble and both accede to the limitations of all human inquiry,
they just may
go forth to further human enlightment. Or, at least, not mess up each
others efforts in that direction.
In this connection it may be helpful to consider the nature of mythical
writing.
The New Testament, as well as the Old, is filled with this type of
writing. More than Christians usually care to admit, the New
Testament is filled with myth, stories that obviously for modern folk
are not empirically or historically true. Scientists of the last two
centuries has been, in their preoccupation with the empirical, been
overzealous to
undercut the value of myth as a bearer of truth
about life/ Reality. In extreme form, the Bible is declared a pack of
lies, so goes the claim. However, its obvious
to most educated rational folk that science
is not equipped to deal with matters that
relate to the person and will of God.
If Genesis is, as some Christians claim, literal
historic truth re the origins of the world and life, then science can
declare it null and void.
However, if Genesis 1 is taken as myth
i.e. a story to convey the truth empirical
reality is grounded in a spiritual reality, God,
then this truth/reality is not to be assessed
by science. Rather by personal experience of God. I.e. faith and
revelation. Then
science in partnership with religion, can go on to give the empirical
details of how the world and universe originated.
Of course, the new myth will be subject to
further revision with the passage of time.
The Truth, accepted in faith, that the physical world is grounded in
the will and power of God
will never change for the Christian. The
description of the Big Bang, the formation of
galaxies, 2nd generation stars, evolution,
the emergence of homo sapiens will be
scientifically derived. And subject to
revision, the correction of new scientific
observations and theories, ......
So, if you wish - the glory of human choice is yours - you might be
moved to couple your
conclusions to some sort of Christian
interpretation of reality. Spiritually moved,
I hope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 08:55:03 AM |
|
|
said:
<...>
Thus, once science and religion both become
more humble and both accede to the limitations of all human inquiry,
they just may
go forth to further human enlightment. <...>
It's there now. Just as with religion, the deeper you get into
science, the more you will find reason for humility.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gary Eickmeier" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
03 Mar 2006 11:19:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Your sceptical stance might reinforce the position of some Christians
and scientists that science is strictly concerned or should be strictly
concerned with the empirical and not, assome folk in love with the
scientific method have pontificated "all reality is encompassed by the
scientific." As if science should be the decisive factor in ethical,
political, social
issues. For instance social darwinism back in the 20th century
postulated survial of the fittest in economic
terms with vast implications for government,
business and social engineering. In fact,
the real truth is that science is inherently
incapable of ethical/value judgements.
And science while not capable of proving
God exists, also can not disprove
his existence.
Thus, once science and religion both become
more humble and both accede to the limitations of all human inquiry,
they just may
go forth to further human enlightment. Or, at least, not mess up each
others efforts in that direction.
In this connection it may be helpful to consider the nature of mythical
writing.
The New Testament, as well as the Old, is filled with this type of
writing. More than Christians usually care to admit, the New
Testament is filled with myth, stories that obviously for modern folk
are not empirically or historically true. Scientists of the last two
centuries has been, in their preoccupation with the empirical, been
overzealous to
undercut the value of myth as a bearer of truth
about life/ Reality. In extreme form, the Bible is declared a pack of
lies, so goes the claim. However, its obvious
to most educated rational folk that science
is not equipped to deal with matters that
relate to the person and will of God.
If Genesis is, as some Christians claim, literal
historic truth re the origins of the world and life, then science can
declare it null and void.
However, if Genesis 1 is taken as myth
i.e. a story to convey the truth empirical
reality is grounded in a spiritual reality, God,
then this truth/reality is not to be assessed
by science. Rather by personal experience of God. I.e. faith and
revelation. Then
science in partnership with religion, can go on to give the empirical
details of how the world and universe originated.
Of course, the new myth will be subject to
further revision with the passage of time.
The Truth, accepted in faith, that the physical world is grounded in
the will and power of God
will never change for the Christian. The
description of the Big Bang, the formation of
galaxies, 2nd generation stars, evolution,
the emergence of homo sapiens will be
scientifically derived. And subject to
revision, the correction of new scientific
observations and theories, ......
So, if you wish - the glory of human choice is yours - you might be
moved to couple your
conclusions to some sort of Christian
interpretation of reality. Spiritually moved,
I hope.
Why, if science is continually showing the Christian interpretation to
be myth?
Gary Eickmeier
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 03:17:11 AM |
|
|
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ir9Of.54006$Fw6.15550@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
onmark50@hotmail.com wrote:
Your sceptical stance might reinforce the position of some Christians
and scientists that science is strictly concerned or should be strictly
concerned with the empirical and not, assome folk in love with the
scientific method have pontificated "all reality is encompassed by the
scientific." As if science should be the decisive factor in ethical,
political, social
issues. For instance social darwinism back in the 20th century
postulated survial of the fittest in economic
terms with vast implications for government,
business and social engineering. In fact,
the real truth is that science is inherently
incapable of ethical/value judgements.
And science while not capable of proving
God exists, also can not disprove
his existence.
Thus, once science and religion both become
more humble and both accede to the limitations of all human inquiry,
they just may
go forth to further human enlightment. Or, at least, not mess up each
others efforts in that direction.
In this connection it may be helpful to consider the nature of mythical
writing.
The New Testament, as well as the Old, is filled with this type of
writing. More than Christians usually care to admit, the New
Testament is filled with myth, stories that obviously for modern folk
are not empirically or historically true. Scientists of the last two
centuries has been, in their preoccupation with the empirical, been
overzealous to
undercut the value of myth as a bearer of truth
about life/ Reality. In extreme form, the Bible is declared a pack of
lies, so goes the claim. However, its obvious
to most educated rational folk that science
is not equipped to deal with matters that
relate to the person and will of God.
If Genesis is, as some Christians claim, literal
historic truth re the origins of the world and life, then science can
declare it null and void.
However, if Genesis 1 is taken as myth
i.e. a story to convey the truth empirical
reality is grounded in a spiritual reality, God,
then this truth/reality is not to be assessed
by science. Rather by personal experience of God. I.e. faith and
revelation. Then
science in partnership with religion, can go on to give the empirical
details of how the world and universe originated.
Of course, the new myth will be subject to
further revision with the passage of time.
The Truth, accepted in faith, that the physical world is grounded in
the will and power of God
will never change for the Christian. The
description of the Big Bang, the formation of
galaxies, 2nd generation stars, evolution,
the emergence of homo sapiens will be
scientifically derived. And subject to
revision, the correction of new scientific
observations and theories, ......
So, if you wish - the glory of human choice is yours - you might be
moved to couple your
conclusions to some sort of Christian
interpretation of reality. Spiritually moved,
I hope.
Why, if science is continually showing the Christian interpretation to be
myth?
Gary Eickmeier
For a start, imho, irrespsecitve of the Christian interpretations, the story
of Genesis itself is "mythical" or more precisely alogorical, or even say a
parable. Much the same as Moses' Promised Land was not actually the dirt
called Israel, people misunderstand the principles being expressed.
Truth can be found in many forms, not just science and math. Just because
some religious folk take the Gospel as well literally gospel, doesn't change
the original truths of the myths, nor their telling.
One does NOT need science to show Genesis is alogorical. I worked that out
before 10 year old, and I was no scientist, well I didn't have a Ph D, put
it that way. :-)
Secondly, if you had the awareness to personally understand the meaning of
the "myths" you would have no need to ask the question you did.
Never the less, keep your focus on science if that is your desire, because
as time goes on science more and more is proving the validity of the meaning
of the myths anyway. It matters not which path one follows in seeking
understanding and the truth, for they end at the same point eventually.
In the process it will undoubtedly shake up all believers be they
scientific, or religious, or any other kind. <G>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Fletcher" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 08:03:40 AM |
|
|
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fGdnXWFoeKFxpTZRVn-jg@inspired.net.au...
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ir9Of.54006$Fw6.15550@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
onmark50@hotmail.com wrote:
Your sceptical stance might reinforce the position of some Christians
and scientists that science is strictly concerned or should be strictly
concerned with the empirical and not, assome folk in love with the
scientific method have pontificated "all reality is encompassed by the
scientific." As if science should be the decisive factor in ethical,
political, social
issues. For instance social darwinism back in the 20th century
postulated survial of the fittest in economic
terms with vast implications for government,
business and social engineering. In fact,
the real truth is that science is inherently
incapable of ethical/value judgements.
And science while not capable of proving
God exists, also can not disprove
his existence.
Thus, once science and religion both become
more humble and both accede to the limitations of all human inquiry,
they just may
go forth to further human enlightment. Or, at least, not mess up each
others efforts in that direction.
In this connection it may be helpful to consider the nature of mythical
writing.
The New Testament, as well as the Old, is filled with this type of
writing. More than Christians usually care to admit, the New
Testament is filled with myth, stories that obviously for modern folk
are not empirically or historically true. Scientists of the last two
centuries has been, in their preoccupation with the empirical, been
overzealous to
undercut the value of myth as a bearer of truth
about life/ Reality. In extreme form, the Bible is declared a pack of
lies, so goes the claim. However, its obvious
to most educated rational folk that science
is not equipped to deal with matters that
relate to the person and will of God.
If Genesis is, as some Christians claim, literal
historic truth re the origins of the world and life, then science can
declare it null and void.
However, if Genesis 1 is taken as myth
i.e. a story to convey the truth empirical
reality is grounded in a spiritual reality, God,
then this truth/reality is not to be assessed
by science. Rather by personal experience of God. I.e. faith and
revelation. Then
science in partnership with religion, can go on to give the empirical
details of how the world and universe originated.
Of course, the new myth will be subject to
further revision with the passage of time.
The Truth, accepted in faith, that the physical world is grounded in
the will and power of God
will never change for the Christian. The
description of the Big Bang, the formation of
galaxies, 2nd generation stars, evolution,
the emergence of homo sapiens will be
scientifically derived. And subject to
revision, the correction of new scientific
observations and theories, ......
So, if you wish - the glory of human choice is yours - you might be
moved to couple your
conclusions to some sort of Christian
interpretation of reality. Spiritually moved,
I hope.
Why, if science is continually showing the Christian interpretation to be
myth?
Gary Eickmeier
For a start, imho, irrespsecitve of the Christian interpretations, the
story of Genesis itself is "mythical" or more precisely alogorical, or
even say a parable. Much the same as Moses' Promised Land was not actually
the dirt called Israel, people misunderstand the principles being
expressed.
Truth can be found in many forms, not just science and math. Just because
some religious folk take the Gospel as well literally gospel, doesn't
change the original truths of the myths, nor their telling.
One does NOT need science to show Genesis is alogorical. I worked that out
before 10 year old, and I was no scientist, well I didn't have a Ph D, put
it that way. :-)
Secondly, if you had the awareness to personally understand the meaning of
the "myths" you would have no need to ask the question you did.
Never the less, keep your focus on science if that is your desire, because
as time goes on science more and more is proving the validity of the
meaning of the myths anyway. It matters not which path one follows in
seeking understanding and the truth, for they end at the same point
eventually.
In the process it will undoubtedly shake up all believers be they
scientific, or religious, or any other kind. <G>
It may well shake them up which will produce believers who are "all shuck
up".
Science and philosohy are not unlike the two faces of a coin, but the coin,
they are not.
BOfL
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 11:30:15 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:17:11 +1000, "Sean"
<santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ir9Of.54006$Fw6.15550@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
snip
For a start, imho, irrespsecitve of the Christian interpretations, the story
of Genesis itself is "mythical" or more precisely alogorical, or even say a
parable. Much the same as Moses' Promised Land was not actually the dirt
called Israel, people misunderstand the principles being expressed.
It is pretty clear that the people who wrote the story meant it to be
taken literally by the people it was written for. There is no
objective reason or historical documentation for thinking otherwise.
Truth can be found in many forms, not just science and math. Just because
some religious folk take the Gospel as well literally gospel, doesn't change
the original truths of the myths, nor their telling.
You have given no reason to believe that the stories were meant to be
taken other than literally or that you have any special insight into
any "original truths".
One does NOT need science to show Genesis is alogorical. I worked that out
before 10 year old, and I was no scientist, well I didn't have a Ph D, put
it that way. :-)
You were able to see that one can give an allegorical meaning to the
story; that does not mean they were written as allegories. One can,
in fact, make up an allegorical meaning for any story.
Secondly, if you had the awareness to personally understand the meaning of
the "myths" you would have no need to ask the question you did.
Never the less, keep your focus on science if that is your desire, because
as time goes on science more and more is proving the validity of the meaning
of the myths anyway.
Oh?
It matters not which path one follows in seeking
understanding and the truth, for they end at the same point eventually.
In the process it will undoubtedly shake up all believers be they
scientific, or religious, or any other kind. <G>
Undoubtedly? Do you have anything besides your assertions to offer?
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 09:08:17 PM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:05jj02l9g6ojkb2rg0316p6ec793pu3176@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 19:17:11 +1000, "Sean"
<santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ir9Of.54006$Fw6.15550@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
snip
For a start, imho, irrespsecitve of the Christian interpretations, the
story
of Genesis itself is "mythical" or more precisely alogorical, or even say
a
parable. Much the same as Moses' Promised Land was not actually the dirt
called Israel, people misunderstand the principles being expressed.
It is pretty clear that the people who wrote the story meant it to be
taken literally by the people it was written for. There is no
objective reason or historical documentation for thinking otherwise.
Why is it pretty clear? Do you have one or more objective reasons to support
your own proposition?
Truth can be found in many forms, not just science and math. Just because
some religious folk take the Gospel as well literally gospel, doesn't
change
the original truths of the myths, nor their telling.
You have given no reason to believe that the stories were meant to be
taken other than literally or that you have any special insight into
any "original truths".
That's right. Doesn;t mean I am wrong either :)
One does NOT need science to show Genesis is alogorical. I worked that out
before 10 year old, and I was no scientist, well I didn't have a Ph D, put
it that way. :-)
You were able to see that one can give an allegorical meaning to the
story; that does not mean they were written as allegories. One can,
in fact, make up an allegorical meaning for any story.
True. That does not change my perspective however.
Secondly, if you had the awareness to personally understand the meaning of
the "myths" you would have no need to ask the question you did.
Never the less, keep your focus on science if that is your desire, because
as time goes on science more and more is proving the validity of the
meaning
of the myths anyway.
Oh?
It matters not which path one follows in seeking
understanding and the truth, for they end at the same point eventually.
In the process it will undoubtedly shake up all believers be they
scientific, or religious, or any other kind. <G>
Undoubtedly? Do you have anything besides your assertions to offer?
Thomas P.
I may do. Do you have anything more than your own assertions?
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
"Life must be lived in the now, or it is not real living."
(Sean)
.
|
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 09:33:05 PM |
|
|
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KeednY2jE_a-y5fZRVn-pg@inspired.net.au...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
It is pretty clear that the people who wrote the story meant it to be
taken literally by the people it was written for. There is no
objective reason or historical documentation for thinking otherwise.
Why is it pretty clear? Do you have one or more objective reasons to
support your own proposition?
I don't think asking whether or not the people who wrote the tale meant it
to be taken literally is the right way to think about it. They certainly
didn't look at the world as we do their experiences of the world are of a
very different time and place. The intention of writer(s) was almost
certainly not explanatory of the world in the sense that we explain the
world today. The tale was made for the many needs of the tribe and was
useful as it was written, spoken, and heard. It's "truth" was... good
enough for the time. It served *their* purpose.
Our experiences are radically different and such a tale can't serve the same
purposes that it did for an ancient people in a distant land. We have more
useful ways of describing nature (namely, our science), so it won't do as a
way of explaining nature. It won't do as history, since we do that
different and judge history by different standards. It might do for
teaching a moral or aesthetic message, but it whatever that is today is
probably not what it was in those very different circumstances and times.
If it speaks to us, it speaks to us we want it to speak to us or for us
today (if we care to do that at all) for the reasons *we *want it to.
It's probably unlikely that we or they were shooting for the same thing, as
some ahistorical "truth" that we'd agree upon across time, space, and
culture.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
04 Mar 2006 10:33:53 PM |
|
|
"gibbs" <gib459@fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote in message
news:gvednVsKaMJoxpfZnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KeednY2jE_a-y5fZRVn-pg@inspired.net.au...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
It is pretty clear that the people who wrote the story meant it to be
taken literally by the people it was written for. There is no
objective reason or historical documentation for thinking otherwise.
Why is it pretty clear? Do you have one or more objective reasons to
support your own proposition?
I don't think asking whether or not the people who wrote the tale meant it
to be taken literally is the right way to think about it. They certainly
didn't look at the world as we do their experiences of the world are of a
very different time and place. The intention of writer(s) was almost
certainly not explanatory of the world in the sense that we explain the
world today. The tale was made for the many needs of the tribe and was
useful as it was written, spoken, and heard. It's "truth" was... good
enough for the time. It served *their* purpose.
Our experiences are radically different and such a tale can't serve the
same purposes that it did for an ancient people in a distant land. We
have more useful ways of describing nature (namely, our science), so it
won't do as a way of explaining nature. It won't do as history, since we
do that different and judge history by different standards. It might do
for teaching a moral or aesthetic message, but it whatever that is today
is probably not what it was in those very different circumstances and
times. If it speaks to us, it speaks to us we want it to speak to us or
for us today (if we care to do that at all) for the reasons *we *want it
to.
It's probably unlikely that we or they were shooting for the same thing,
as some ahistorical "truth" that we'd agree upon across time, space, and
culture.
Why is it "probably unlikely"?
Society may have changed, cable tv is here, man walks on the moon, but what
has really changed as far as what human beings are "shooting for"?
There's a saying the more things change,. the more they stay the same. ;-)
Ok may I a offer one example?
The world was created in 6 days and the Lord God rested on the 7th.
OK let's accept that the average person in society of the time was not as
"knowledgeable" about the world scientifically as we are today.
So they had no knowledge of dinosaurs, or ice ages, and the like. No Darwin
had yet written his theories, nor was there biology studing things like
shared DNA spirals between all sentient life.
So, what is a "day" as far as Genesis is concerned in the context of
speaking to ancient peoples?
1:1
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
1:2
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of
the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
1:3
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
1:4
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the
darkness.
1:5
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the
evening and the morning were the first day.
Earth was first created without form, and void? How could it be "earth"
without form?
How could it be "earth" without the Sun, without night and day, without the
stars in the sky already?
God called the light "day" ...... and the darkness "night" .. yet how can
this be so unless it is merely an allogorical explanation to the people of
the comparitive difference between light and dark and a sense of time from
start to finish. How could it be a 24 hours period of one day?
Especially considering the following:
1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide
the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for
days, and years:
1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon
the earth: and it was so.
1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth,
1:18
And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from
the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
1:19
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
Therefore it is illogical to think of the "day" in Genesis as literally a 24
hour period, of sun up to sun up on Earth. As such, each "day" denotes a
period of TIME .... a time of unfoldment as creation took place ... a very
long period of time.
For the people of those times who were given this story, a day was able to
be grasped as a period of time, because the concept of millions or billion
sof years was perhaps outside their ken.
Therefore when one looks at the story allogorically it begins to make
rational sense in our time when viewed with current knowledge.
As such it also shows that the originators of the story or myth, knew far
more about the beginning of the world than they have been given credit for.
Especially when one looks at the physics of relativity, light, and quantum
physics especially.
That a long line of people and traditions have subsequently reworked,
misunderstood, twisted, and held the "literal" is of no consequence to the
orignal writers who were expressing the truth within this allogorical "myth"
of creation.
Yet how did they know this without the scientific evidence we have today?
mmmmm, good question no?
Cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
05 Mar 2006 07:23:11 AM |
|
|
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:toOdnfi1huyv95fZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@inspired.net.au...
That a long line of people and traditions have subsequently reworked,
misunderstood, twisted, and held the "literal" is of no consequence to the
orignal writers who were expressing the truth within this allogorical
"myth" of creation.
Yet how did they know this without the scientific evidence we have today?
mmmmm, good question no?
I can't pretend to know what the needs of the people in a pre-industrial,
pre-scientific, nomadic societies were that such a tale would have
significance. The tale no doubt *was* significant (or the different
versions of it that come down to us), but it is hard to attribute what that
significance was through our eyes. Did they look at it as "allegorical" or
"literal" - I don't know. It was a tale that spoke to them and they
probably didn't even think to ask themselves if it were allegorical or
literal. It was useful and suitable to their experience of the world and
the question of literalness was probably not even raised: it was the story
of the tribe, it held the tribe together, and there were more important
things to sort out in their rugged life.
Society may have changed, cable tv is here, man walks on the moon, but what
has really changed as far as what human beings are "shooting for"?
Yes: I don't think you can carve an abstract "man" out from his society.
Some things are the same, some different. We look at life differently
because we don't exactly experience the same world as they did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
06 Mar 2006 05:58:50 AM |
|
|
"gibbs" <gib459@fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote in message
news:dNSdndYBb7fRe5fZnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:toOdnfi1huyv95fZnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@inspired.net.au...
That a long line of people and traditions have subsequently reworked,
misunderstood, twisted, and held the "literal" is of no consequence to
the orignal writers who were expressing the truth within this allogorical
"myth" of creation.
Yet how did they know this without the scientific evidence we have today?
mmmmm, good question no?
I can't pretend to know what the needs of the people in a pre-industrial,
pre-scientific, nomadic societies were that such a tale would have
significance. The tale no doubt *was* significant (or the different
versions of it that come down to us), but it is hard to attribute what
that significance was through our eyes. Did they look at it as
"allegorical" or "literal" - I don't know. It was a tale that spoke to
them and they probably didn't even think to ask themselves if it were
allegorical or literal. It was useful and suitable to their experience of
the world and the question of literalness was probably not even raised:
it was the story of the tribe, it held the tribe together, and there were
more important things to sort out in their rugged life.
Society may have changed, cable tv is here, man walks on the moon, but
what has really changed as far as what human beings are "shooting for"?
Yes: I don't think you can carve an abstract "man" out from his society.
Some things are the same, some different. We look at life differently
because we don't exactly experience the same world as they did.
Throughout all time ......
All humans are born of a woman.
All suckle at their mothers breast, or that of a nurse.
All are born into a culture and a community.
All learn from significant others.
All learn to communicate verbally.
All seek to become a part of their community in order to survive.
All seek love and comaraderie.
All have an ego.
All use the power of their word.
All have desires, some fullfilled some not.
All suffer loss.
All breathe.
All sleep and dream.
All fall over and hurt themsleves.
All seek success.
All dread failure.
All laugh.
All cry.
All die.
What's different today, than any other day? :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
06 Mar 2006 06:25:30 AM |
|
|
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y5GdnWiatvBjvpHZRVn-ug@inspired.net.au...
What's different today, than any other day? :)
Cable, dirty mpegs, and nuclear holocaust.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
06 Mar 2006 07:04:16 PM |
|
|
"gibbs" <gib459@fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote in message
news:VrednefmKuimt5HZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Y5GdnWiatvBjvpHZRVn-ug@inspired.net.au...
What's different today, than any other day? :)
Cable,
There has always been "news", eg the town crier, "advertising" when the
Caravan from the East arrived in town, and "entertainment" even if it was
simply banging 2 sticks together ... or a Shakespearian play.
Despite the speed of the arrival via cable, the effect on the individual has
always been the same.
dirty mpegs,
The dance of the seven veils, the local tavern, and prostitution the oldest
profession on earth.
De Sade was jailed for dirty mpegs in text .... creating the image in the
readers mind.
and nuclear holocaust.
Fear of an untimely death, or a mad ruler leading one into an unwinnable
war, has always been a constant thru time. Even the undefeatable Romans,
were wiped out by uneducated thugs. That primarily came about becuae of
their own false belief they were undefeatable as the #1 power in the world.
Tough lesson that.
So is today, despite the apparent difference in forms, really any different
than what individual man has had to deal with throughout history?
I do not think it is. Your mileage may vary. :)
.
|
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
07 Mar 2006 07:05:56 AM |
|
|
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6OadncNSMPyJQZHZRVn-vQ@inspired.net.au...
There has always been "news", eg the town crier, "advertising" when the
Caravan from the East arrived in town, and "entertainment" even if it was
simply banging 2 sticks together ... or a Shakespearian play.
Despite the speed of the arrival via cable, the effect on the individual
has always been the same.
I don't deny that there are things we have in common. But, without going
into detail, I think the worldview of the industrial man is far-removed from
nomadic man or agriculture man. There has been cultural experience and
evolution that have transformed individual and social experience.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
07 Mar 2006 02:23:14 PM |
|
|
"gibbs" <gib459@fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote in message
news:rrCdnR4GyYaqGJDZRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6OadncNSMPyJQZHZRVn-vQ@inspired.net.au...
There has always been "news", eg the town crier, "advertising" when the
Caravan from the East arrived in town, and "entertainment" even if it was
simply banging 2 sticks together ... or a Shakespearian play.
Despite the speed of the arrival via cable, the effect on the individual
has always been the same.
I don't deny that there are things we have in common. But, without going
into detail, I think the worldview of the industrial man is far-removed
from nomadic man or agriculture man. There has been cultural experience
and evolution that have transformed individual and social experience.
In other words the one constant has always been man's "expereince"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
07 Mar 2006 07:18:35 PM |
|
|
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:SpWdnaWouKwrdpDZnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@inspired.net.au...
"gibbs" <gib459@fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote in message
news:rrCdnR4GyYaqGJDZRVn-jA@comcast.com...
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6OadncNSMPyJQZHZRVn-vQ@inspired.net.au...
There has always been "news", eg the town crier, "advertising" when the
Caravan from the East arrived in town, and "entertainment" even if it
was simply banging 2 sticks together ... or a Shakespearian play.
Despite the speed of the arrival via cable, the effect on the individual
has always been the same.
I don't deny that there are things we have in common. But, without going
into detail, I think the worldview of the industrial man is far-removed
from nomadic man or agriculture man. There has been cultural experience
and evolution that have transformed individual and social experience.
In other words the one constant has always been man's "expereince"?
After Darwin the only way to think about man (or any other organism) is that
we are constantly adapting to new environments. New problems for new times.
What worked for pre-industrial, pre-scientific man isn't going to work for
us, though some of the problems are the same (eg, disease). Even today, the
problems an individual and his society has to work out in an intense,
industrial urban environment are vastly different from what someone and some
society in a remote, third world fishing village must grapple with. Human
nature is not fixed and is constantly creative.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
05 Mar 2006 04:51:46 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:33:05 -0500, "gibbs"
<gib459@fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote:
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KeednY2jE_a-y5fZRVn-pg@inspired.net.au...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
It is pretty clear that the people who wrote the story meant it to be
taken literally by the people it was written for. There is no
objective reason or historical documentation for thinking otherwise.
Why is it pretty clear? Do you have one or more objective reasons to
support your own proposition?
I don't think asking whether or not the people who wrote the tale meant it
to be taken literally is the right way to think about it.
In this discussion it is, since the claim is that it is an allegory,
even though both Jews and Christians accepted it as literal truth up
until at least the 1800's; and many still do to this day. In other
words it was obviously not intended to be an allegory, and the person
claiming that it was is wrong.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Milan" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
07 Mar 2006 11:40:32 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:0tnm02l8nl0juui6528afr2gg8bms7e732@4ax.com...
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 22:33:05 -0500, "gibbs"
<gib459@fakedemailaddress.edu> wrote:
"Sean" <santimvah_notspam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KeednY2jE_a-y5fZRVn-pg@inspired.net.au...
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
It is pretty clear that the people who wrote the story meant it to be
taken literally by the people it was written for. There is no
objective reason or historical documentation for thinking otherwise.
Why is it pretty clear? Do you have one or more objective reasons to
support your own proposition?
I don't think asking whether or not the people who wrote the tale meant
it
to be taken literally is the right way to think about it.
In this discussion it is, since the claim is that it is an allegory,
even though both Jews and Christians accepted it as literal truth up
until at least the 1800's; and many still do to this day. In other
words it was obviously not intended to be an allegory, and the person
claiming that it was is wrong.
I would agree. The Bible was not meant as a book of metaphors; it is only
read that way by "moderate" Christians today only due to the long battle
between science and religion, with the latter constantly on the losing side.
regards
Milan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "gibbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Physics and Philosophy |
06 Mar 2006 07:06:06 AM |
|
|
"thomas p" <tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:0tnm02l8nl0juui6528afr2gg8bms7e732@4ax.com...
In this discussion it is, since the claim is that it is an allegory,
even though both Jews and Christians accepted it as literal truth up
until at least the 1800's; and many still do to this day. In other
words it was obviously not intended to be an allegory, and the person
claiming that it was is wrong.
I completely disagree. The poets who made that verse lived in a far removed
time. They didn't divide the world up into fiction and non-fiction writers,
let alone writers of science and writers of moral tales. What was written
and preserved was considered sacred, but was evaluated by the ancient mind
as being true or false in the ways we'd look at it. Over time, of course,
it became dogma, especially when it became apparent that if it were
literally true it had to be true on faith. For the way we think about the
world gradually changed and the way we think about ancient writings changed.
The poets who created those tales didn't sit down and think, "I'm creating
an allegory." or "I'm creating a piece of science that must be seen as
factual."
They told stories and the priests preserved the more useful ones.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
