»THE RABBIT HOLE«

some people believe science and religion should be seperated, some that they should be unified. To me it seems painfully obvious that science and religion cannot meet unless science explains EVERYTHING, or unless God reveals everything. Science is a sort of bottom-to-top approach; religion is the opposite. But at the end of time I suppose science and religion will find their meeting place, assuming the human race does things God's way.

This will seem oversimplified, but for the moment I think it will do. If anyone is interested in understanding physical reality, they should study it scientifically. Religion and its principles should have nothing to do with it(except as in above para). When you're dealing with questions like the meaning of life, love, eschatology, etc which are beyond the realm of science, you should use religious principles, and science should have nothing to do with it. In both of these we MAY use logic and reason; but the principles which define science are not and should not be found in religion. If you mix up both right now, when we don't understand either physical or spiritual reality fully, you'll be left with meaningless crap.

Quote:

it is not my nature to accept that something works without asking why.

Don't be offended, but I find this very hard to believe. Judging solely from what you post here, I think you accept things based on how they improve your feelings of self-worth. Think about it. If you're genuinely interested in the nature of the universe, as I said before, get into physics. A good place to start(assuimg ur in or have completed high school) would be the feynman lectures. I assure you its sometimes more enjoyable than philosophy.

with regard to 'heaven', its only common sense that you shouldn't try to cross the bridge before you reach it. And from a christian point of view its quite clear in the gospels what you have to do to reach it, and that our main objective in this life is to do those. But without focusing on how we actually have to live our lifes, and start dreaming about the rewards before the work....

Is this still the same Ralph that I used to be so impressed with? You seem to be so much more nieve than I remember you being. Still a very sensible poster, mind you...

Science is just a way of collecting data and positing theories. What is helpful about science is that it puts theories and evidence as equally important. The important thing to notice is that the word 'discovered' is often used misleadingly.

Newton didn't just discover gravity. His views on physics didn't fall out of the sky. He invented physics. Darwin didn't discover evolution. He invented evolution - and so far it is working very well indeed.

It seems that religion is just another paradigm. Just because someone talks of the world in terms of angels, demons and gods it does not seem obvious that they consider these entities to exist. Religion is another way of looking at the world. This may seem strange but eastern medicine looks at things in terms of elements and chi and it still works! A different perspective is often very helpful.
Science consists of theories and we accept the theory that works the best with our data. There doesn't even seem to be any good way to compare scientific theories.

Anyone confused here should either do some quick internet research on the work of Thomas Kuhn or (if you have more time on your hands) read 'Philosophy Of Science' by James Ladyman.

The conclusion of philosophy of science seems to be that there is no way we can compare evolution theories and creationist theories, even though they appear to be mutually exclusive.

I knew that would draw flak, I was just being pragmatic. I didn't see any point in confusing 555 with all those problems about the absence of any proper definition or understanding of the 'scientific method'. I thought it would be more useful if a clean(although somewhat false) view of science and religion being divided neatly into two self-contained spheres were presented.

Quote:

Newton didn't just discover gravity. His views on physics didn't fall out of the sky. He invented physics. Darwin didn't discover evolution. He invented evolution - and so far it is working very well indeed.

Of course - this is what makes science so exciting! The theories are as much a creation of our minds as they are reflections of the 'real world'. If you remember I spent almost an entire topic berating people who use quantum physics as gospel truth.

Quote:

but eastern medicine looks at things in terms of elements and chi and it still works! A different perspective is often very helpful. The conclusion of philosophy of science seems to be that there is no way we can compare evolution theories and creationist theories, even though they appear to be mutually exclusive.

this is true to an extent, but only because we don't understand the scientific method, if there is such a thing. There IS a difference between the sort of 'dodgy' science(I dont know how to describe them) and the orthodox stuff like mainstream medical science. It is quite subtle but I believe there is a difference.

The problem, I think, arises from the way scientific theories are validated. Basically something like this :
If X, then Y.
X is the theory and Y is the prediction. Now if Y is observed, then that means X is true. The problem is that X can be anything. For example, I might say that the rain god will cry tomorrow, and hence it will rain. A meteorologist may say that it will rain tomorrow based on his atmospheric model.

How do we differentiate the rain-god theory from the atmospheric model? IMO, maybe Occam's Razor, structural elegence, conformity with long-established scientific facts, simplicity, etc..
I've also read something about 'patching'- the number of ad hoc modifications a theory has to undergo reduces its validity. Obviously we don't understand the difference fully. But I don't think its right to say that there is no difference between all the dodgy stuff and mainstream science.

On your last point, not meaning to press this issue too much, there are a few points you may not have considered.

Whether a system works might be seen from whether it produces results. Thus oriental medicine (such as acupuncture) has been shown to work cnsistently in curing a number of different medical problems. The fact that it does not seem to involve a scientific method is irrelevant.

If we go back to evolution/big bang theory and creationism the problem is that NEITHER of them produce results (not at the point they disagree at least - the origin of the universe and mankind). If they don't produce results how can you judge whether the scientific theory has produced BETTER results?

It seems to me that when opinion comes in, it is difficult to dictate objectively what conclusions others should be drawing. I personally think that creationism is no good because it has ad hoc modifications galore, but that simply means that it is not scientific - not that it is wrong...

Well, as I said before, results aren't the only thing which decides if a theory is scientific. But of course, as you say, if it's not scientific that doesn't mean its wrong.

We all know Stephen Hawking.. but the fact is cosmology is pseudoscientific, because its not falsifiable. Origin of the universe theories will always be like that.. they work backwards from the observations. And whatever predictions they might come up happen on a time frame uncomparable with the duration of human life, or maybe a better comparison would be human civilization. But I read something about Hawking coming up with a cosmological theory that is falsifiable. There is a lecture about it on his site, but I don't think I have the foundations to understand it now, so I didn't read it.

If there is a falsifiable scientific theory of the origin of the universe, and creationism stays in its current state, then maybe we can choose one over the other.

Thank you Ralph/Fatpie for your views. i have fallen a bit behind due to some complications with my web site. please visit the forum. i cant think of 2 better minds to start the ball rolling.

ps. i believe the creator uses science to create and sustain everything and is therefore inseperable from any element of creation.

555 you've been very keen to tell us your views, but not so keen to tell us why you believe in them. You tell me you think that the world is very complex and you think it is produced by a supreme being. Isn't this a bit of a jump? Surely things can be very complex even when they are entirely random, so it is pure speculation to start postiting 'supreme beings' solely to fill the gaps (Ockham's razor).

When I said that Darwin invented evolution that was not to suggest that it was wrong, but simply to point out that he didn't see it sail past his bedroom window, catch it, and put a flag on it. Darwin didn't 'discover' evolution, he invented it to do what theories are meant to do - explain results. Evolution was a breakthrough in the understanding of how life develops.

Religion is also a kind of invention. It takes a different approach to life and provides us with different conclusions. Don Cupitt is a Christian who does not believe in God. He claims that he believes in God the same way he believes in socialism. Just because he believes in socialism does not mean that he thinks it actually exists - that there is actually a state out there exhibiting all the traits needed for a perfect socialist society. What it means is that he is committed to certain goals. His belief in God highlights his approach to life.

As I have already said - maths does not exist. There are not 3s flying around the room. Maths, science and even logic are simply ways of looking at the world which allow us to successfully adapt to the world around us. While they continue to work in this way they will continue to be useful.

i believe that there is only 1 true being and that His consciousness penetrates everything in his creation as his creation is effectively a part of him. try to think of Him as the CPU of 'creation'. I believe every aspect of creation has its own minor CPU but the processes of those CPUs are either permitted or restricted by the true Central processing unit.

i reffer to The Supreme Being as a 'He' as a reflection of the attributes necessary to plan an existence as complex as the one in which we exist (logic). i believe logic to be a masculine attribute and fundamental in the design of such complex mechanics but for something to be created, it must do so in some sort of environment. this environment must also be planned (designed) in such a way that when a certain thing is inserted in to it, the environment in which it is placed nurtures it from its original state in to the desired state.

i visualize the nurturing environment in which reality is placed as feminine hence 'mother nature'. i believe this to be the womb in which creation as we know it exists. i believe current conditions appear less than 'Godly' but are ALL exactly as The Creator intends them to be.

i believe the human beings purpose is to overcome everything thrown at him in this forming environment/matrix/womb we call reality and i believe the reason of this is to strenthen us. nothing can strengthen without first enduring difficulty.

i believe 'Jesus' did walk this earth as a human being but i consider Jesus to be more a title or achievement than an individual. i believe the way to achieving this state of being is to completely submit to the will of The Supreme being thus allowing his will to manifest through you. as a result, all of the negative attributes (programs) we see human beings displaying become redundant (and thus return to The Source).

at my current level of understanding, i believe what we term 'devil' is simply the result of The Supreme Being depositing His fiery, angry, impatient etc attributes in to one consciousness. i believe this is what the matrix calls the "singular consciousness that spawned an entire race of machines". an example of one of these machines is the serpant that whispered in the garden of eden. imagine a state of mental paradise (this is the garden of eden). the serpent is the suggestion of the devil within our own minds.

the devil exists within us and our goal is to completely overcome it. i believe we are just the vessel in whic both God and the devil manifest. i belelieve we all have a balance but it is our purpose to strengthen through the over coming of the negative attributes by allowing the positive attribultes to manifest more frequently. thus giving the devil within no justification for existing inside of us and therefore orders to return to the source.

i believe every intelligence is created by a superior intelligence (naturally) unless it is so intelligent and self comprehending that it can self create.

i believe it is your duty to achieve mastery over self (the devil within) and use that mastery to willingly want for your self and others what The Creator wants for us. if you can completely do that then you are Jesus.

this thread is a bit of a mess in terms of my intended presentation but if there is anything you believe i have failed to explain then be sure to let me know.

would it be too much to ask of me to transfer this discussion in to my forum (www.realmatrix.0catch.com) as i am begining to question the logic of having such an interesting discussion in a site designed for film critics when i have designed a site specifically for the very conversation we are having. your choice but would be much appreciated.

Fatpie42 wrote:

Religion is also a kind of invention. It takes a different approach to life and provides us with different conclusions. Don Cupitt is a Christian who does not believe in God. He claims that he believes in God the same way he believes in socialism.

That is a concept which only a very few people are comfortable with. No common believer will dare to think religion is a human invention. When considered this way, of course science and religion are just two different paradigms of adpating to the world.

But most people prefer to believe that there is a 'Right Religion' which is handed down through divine revelation. It does not matter whether this religion finds any support for it in observed reality - since the individual believes that divine revelation cannot be wrong, and that he/she has received it. From this perspective it seems science has nothing to do with religion.

Quote:

i believe that there is only 1 true being and that His consciousness penetrates everything in his creation as his creation is effectively a part of him. try to think of Him as the CPU of 'creation'. I believe every aspect of creation has its own minor CPU but the processes of those CPUs are either permitted or restricted by the true Central processing unit.

Whatever view we have religion, it is essentialy something designed to spawn a code of morality, or an approach towards life and other human beings. A succesful application of this approach is supposed to gain us 'heaven' or 'enlightenment' or 'nirvana' or whatever you wish to call it in your religion. But how is this approach or moral system affected by whether you think of God as a CPU or a matrix or the fundamental energy vibration? How is it affected by whether you think you are vibrations of a fundamental medium, or code in a matrix, or an inexplicable consciousness? I fail to understand how such descriptions, let me call them pseudoscientific, can find a place in religion.

"i believe every intelligence is created by a superior intelligence (naturally) unless it is so intelligent and self comprehending that it can self create."

Here's the problem. Everybody asks that old question "who created God?" So religion insists on the absurd idea that God created himself. "How can anything create itself?" is that natural question which follows. Surely anything that is capable of creating, already exists and therefore does not NEED to do any kind of self-creating (except perhaps in the sense that we self-create when we have plastic surgery, go to an orthodontist, etc.)

Here's where the crux of the argument comes in, and essentially fails to impress. Theologians describe God as 'eternal'. This means that God is outside of time, essentially existing in all times at once. This makes sense to them since he is meant to have created all physical laws, even time.

However, I consider eternal to be almost a nonesense term. We have never seen anything in our experience which could be called 'eternal' so how can we just presume that God has this property. The fact is that we haven't a clue how God came about, how he created the universe and we are kidding ourselves if we think we can KNOW that he exists.

Quote:

However, I consider eternal to be almost a nonesense term. We have never seen anything in our experience which could be called 'eternal' so how can we just presume that God has this property. The fact is that we haven't a clue how God came about, how he created the universe and we are kidding ourselves if we think we can KNOW that he exists.

We haven't experienced anything that has the property 'eternal'. But what exactly do we mean by an idea we have experienced and one we haven't? Surely we must admit that things which we do not 'understand' may also exist. So if we can express what we know in symbols, and then extend them to what we can't 'understand' directly, the conclusions we derive from them should be correct, provided that the system of symbols we use is coherent. For example, 2 is a rational number since you can go to the bakery and ask for 2 loaves of bread. But what is the ratio of the side of a square to its diagonal? It seems to be root 2 - but we call root2 irrational because we cannot ask the baker for root2 loaves of bread. But just because we cannot grasp root2 does not mean that the ratio of the side to the diagonal is NOT root2, because the system we have used to derive that result is coherent. We may not 'grasp' the concepts of infinity and eternity, but at least we can use those words wherever necessary and be assured that something like that 'exists'(or has an equivalent in 'reality', or, blah, i dunno) the same way we use root2 to denote something we don't 'grasp'. So, we may not be able to 'know' what an infinite and eternal god is but can't we use those words in place of what we don't understand because they denote something in reality? ok, now fatpie tell me what this is called in philosophy...

Fatpie42 wrote:

Everybody asks that old question "who created God?" So religion insists on the absurd idea that God created himself. "How can anything create itself?" is that natural question which follows. Surely anything that is capable of creating, already exists and therefore does not NEED to do any kind of self-creating (except perhaps in the sense that we self-create when we have plastic surgery, go to an orthodontist, etc.) Here's where the crux of the argument comes in, and essentially fails to impress. Theologians describe God as 'eternal'. This means that God is outside of time, essentially existing in all times at once. This makes sense to them since he is meant to have created all physical laws, even time.

i believe that most/all beings other than the supreme have difficulty getting their head around 'self creation'. the way i see it is that our idea of creation is bound by a mind which is bound by time which generates a flaw from the outset.

time is the monitoring of physical occurance and the essence of all living things is spirit and not physical. try to picture there being only 1 real consiousness/intelligence. when you visualise everything we have ever known as simply existing with in the mind of that consciousness that created physical matter and thus created time (out of himself/within his own mind) The self created becomes more understandable.

i agree that it doesnt matter whether you want to call this the matrix, energy vibration or some dream. what matters is how you live your life, the choices you make and the spirit in which you come. what does matter is the search for the truth. if you are not working toward finding the truth (even if it conflicts with what you have already grown to believe) then how on earth can you have confidence that you are fulfilling your purpose?

i take that as a no with the forum thing.

There's a difference between accepting something as possible and accepting something as true.

Ralph, what you are describing is NOT empiricism (not everyone thinks empiricism is coherent anyway). I don't know what it IS, but empiricism it ain't. Empiricism is the view that anything we accept as true must be based on experience (not necessarily our own mind you).

However, most criticisms of empiricism I have seen have been sceptical views which consider the view idea of proof through experience to be futile. The idea being that the meanings of words depend upon their usage and so any meanings are arbitrary.

Perhaps the nearest thing to what you are saying is the view of Kant that we can come across ideas of religion and trancendental reality through reasoning. However, most serious philosophers are unconvinced by Kant's trancendental arguments intended to do this.


555:
"what does matter is the search for the truth. if you are not working toward finding the truth (even if it conflicts with what you have already grown to believe) then how on earth can you have confidence that you are fulfilling your purpose?"

You are sounding a lot less wishy washy than you did when this thread first started. Either what I am discussing with you is closer to home or the forum's general way of thinking is washing off on you. (That's a compliment btw )

In answer to the above quotation I have to disagree. In would have to side with Nietzsche on this issue and say that "the will to truth" is unhelpful because it tries to establish 'eternal' unchanging truths when nature and history show us that things are constantly changing.


About your site, 555, I do not wish to move this discussion to it but I will have a look and you may well see me there in the future. I will definately check it out!

I just scroll through this topic and gaze at the neverending posts, i dont have the time or willpower to read this from the beggining. Please someone break it down to me. WTF IS THE RABBIT HOLE!

Well if empiricism is doubtful then the whole of science is futile. There's this quote from by R. P. Feynman which might be relevant and which I also found incredibly funny-

Quote:

For the accuracy we need at present, we need not be very careful about defining things precisely. Perhaps you say, ``That's a terrible thing--I learned that in science we have to define everything precisely.'' We cannot define ``anything'' precisely! If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, ``You don't know what you are talking about!'' The second one says, ``What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?,'' and so on. In order to be able to talk constructively, we just have to agree that we are talking about roughly the same thing.

Quote:

You are sounding a lot less wishy washy than you did when this thread first started. Either what I am discussing with you is closer to home or the forum's general way of thinking is washing off on you. (That's a compliment btw )

You are aware of the law of reflection. so reflect.

Male human beings are obviously inclined to masculine attributes. not that they are unable to manifest feminine atributes but we begin with our inclination tilting toward the obvious attributes. the equivelant can be said for females.

as i am sure you know, the left side of the brain is responsible for logic and such patterns of behaviour. the right is responsible for certain types of sensitivity, creativity and so forth. as i have mentioned before, logic is a masculine attribute and creativity is a feminine. regardless of whether we are male or female, i have learned that unless we are sitting equidistant between the 2 (balance masculine and feminine attributes) we are in fact in a state of inbalance.

research 'binural beats' and reflect on what i have said. binural beats has been proven to balance the hemespheres of the brain (left and right) and thus contributes toard perceiving reality in a more holistic way. i produce music and utilize binural beats in my production. i will leave you to come to the obvious conclusion as i have.

what i am getting at is that i have sensitivity (probably a lot more than most males) but being male and being blessed by my creator with a reasonable level of intelligence, i also have the logic. my logic cant always explain what my sensitivity detects but it doesnt mean that i dont know what i can 'see'.

this may be the reason why we have had difficulty communicating in the past. not because i dont know what im going on about but because you dont. this was not through any fault of your own but because of the communication problem.

Quote:

In answer to the above quotation I have to disagree. In would have to side with Nietzsche on this issue and say that "the will to truth" is unhelpful because it tries to establish 'eternal' unchanging truths when nature and history show us that things are constantly changing.

the truth is not only helpfull but imperrative. the problem is that people often take it personally when it conflicts with their comfort blanket. most people only think they want to know the truth. theres a difference.

555 wrote:

as i have mentioned before, logic is a masculine attribute and creativity is a feminine.

I vehemently disagree with this. This is just short of being sexist. To say that males inherently have a higher logical capability, or that women are more creative, is of course ridiculous. This might be all very good for the purpose of making interesting characters in romantic fiction, but of course it has got nothing to do with reality. You may label logic as masculine and creativity as feminine with aesthetic considerations but thats about it, it doesn't mean anything useful.

ralph_angelus wrote:

555 wrote: as i have mentioned before, logic is a masculine attribute and creativity is a feminine. I vehemently disagree with this. This is just short of being sexist. To say that males inherently have a higher logical capability, or that women are more creative, is of course ridiculous. This might be all very good for the purpose of making interesting characters in romantic fiction, but of course it has got nothing to do with reality. You may label logic as masculine and creativity as feminine with aesthetic considerations but thats about it, it doesn't mean anything useful.

you do not understand what i am saying. (that wasnt a question). its only sexist if you have a narrow perspective.

an attribute is not a charecteristic that the individual is bound to but more an inclination. i didnt say that men have a higher logic capability i merely said that they are designed with a higher inclination. theres a difference is there not? are you suggesting that the differences between male and female lie striclty biologically? your smarter than that.

try to control that urge to jump on every word i say outside your current understanding. first appreciate the possibility that i am right even if you dont initially understand how i could be. then reflect on what i have said, not just on a base-level or with a n attacking mind set but from as neutral a perspective as you are capable. then, if you disagree i am willing to elaborate and we can reason further. i dont profess to be 100% right but dont assume there is no thinking behind what i say simply because you have difficulty trying to 'hack' in to my psychology.

Peace

BaDboYDC_101 wrote:

i dont have the time and patience

if we do not ever take time....

BaDboYDC_101 wrote:

I just scroll through this topic and gaze at the neverending posts, i dont have the time or willpower to read this from the beggining. Please someone break it down to me. WTF IS THE RABBIT HOLE!

you have watched the matrix, yes? have you watched alice in wonderland?

you have in fact answered the question yourself (metaphorically).

"I just scroll through this topic and gaze at the neverending posts"

truth is never ending because it is the basis for everything. even lies. I called this "The Rabbit Hole" because when you set out in search for THE truth you never return. likewise,looking at the way the subject matters warp in and out of eachother in this forum, there is no fore seeable reason why this forum should dry up.

lies are seperate. we can weave quite a big, tangled web when we begin to lie but someones elses lie can (and probably will) clash with yours. Truth is Truth is Truth. you can have your opinion on the truth but your opinion doesnt change truth. truth should change (or atleast be the basis of) your opinion.

any clearer?

ignore this

555 wrote:

its only sexist if you have a narrow perspective.

Ahem! Whatever!

555 wrote:

i merely said that they are designed with a higher inclination

designed?

555 wrote:

an attribute is not a charecteristic that the individual is bound to but more an inclination. i didnt say that men have a higher logic capability i merely said that they are designed with a higher inclination. theres a difference is there not? are you suggesting that the differences between male and female lie striclty biologically? your smarter than that.

So where's your evidence that women are more inclined to towards creativity than men. Also where's your evidence that men are more inclined towards logical thinking than women? I think you have no evidence and that this is simply sexist stereotyping.

555 wrote:

try to control that urge to jump on every word i say outside your current understanding. first appreciate the possibility that i am right even if you dont initially understand how i could be. then reflect on what i have said, not just on a base-level or with a n attacking mind set but from as neutral a perspective as you are capable. then, if you disagree i am willing to elaborate and we can reason further. i dont profess to be 100% right but dont assume there is no thinking behind what i say simply because you have difficulty trying to 'hack' in to my psychology. Peace

Now that both Ralph and me have told you that we don't agree maybe you can explain what we are missing, cause i'm damned if I know....

555 you keep on talking about The Truth as if there were a singular objective truth about everything. The truth about things is subjective and constantly changes. What is important is the way we adapt to the changes in values so we can progress.

This is probably the longest thread ever. Damn. Ok i get it, the rabit hole goes deep.