[everymansmedium]

Hello friends:
I think we need to be a bit more definitive about where the real disagreements are.
There is as much faith needed to follow the sciences today as there is to believe in a divine force.
It is not the belief in a divine force that is the problem. It is the organizations that create a doctrine that must be followed by those in the organization. Also the power of these organizations to influence the political structure and the actual governing of our world. This is where the problems is.
These are the peoples that are preventing our world from finding a unity of purpose based on the extension of life itself. It is not science that we have in common. It is not religion we have in common.
What we have in common is, life, consciousness, and being.

Please for the sake of us that do not wish to mark the divine variable as 0, discriminate us from those that are confined to an organized doctrine.
John .

[folla rule]

Originally Posted by Graybeard [font=Verdana][size=3] I don't think it is just a matter of perspective. Science is required to be objective and 'perspectives' are subjective ...alto I have been known to get mixed up with things ending in '......ives'

Science might very well be objective but as observers, the best we can hope for is an subjective view of objectivity... which as soon as its observed and interpretated becomes subjective..... so much for objective science... but i think subjectivism is a whole other debate <smile>

Thanks for the warm welcome... but if its all the same with you, i'll not climb up onto that pedestal... it sure looks an awfully long way to fall

Ellie...

Psst.... can someone please help with the whole quoting thingie. <blonde head tilt>.... it's driving me crazy!!

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by folla rule Psst.... can someone please help with the whole quoting thingie. <blonde head tilt>.... it's driving me crazy!

Just hit the quote button. If you need to cut the message off half way, then delete the stuff you don't want to quote and end with a [ /quote] (without the space in the square brackets).

[eyeboy]

Not sure if this has been said already, but.

Whether we think or not science should be influenced by figamentalists or religion, isn't really the point. There's a chance for all sides of any argument to find the TOE. As dviewing was originaly getting at, its not helpful to asign beliefs to a subject on a seperate issue.
If i choose to wonder wether I'm real or not I'll guess I'll look in to it. Whilst
as a 'realist' (beleif in the real, in case i offend) I would like to examine what I beleive as being real.....science.... repeatable and measurable.

[not2too]

I know you've all probably heard this a million times already, but I'm going to say it again anyhow...each and every one of us...scientist...philosopher...religious zealot...mathematician, etc. must have a world view (belief system) in order to have a world to view. That's the way we're wired. The scientific narrative of the modern age is as mythopoetic a world view (belief system - B.S. to many) as any novelist's, and the great ones (scientists) embrace it.

Albert Einstein said:

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

All the best,
not2too

[Profpat]

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, "Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
Best to all,

Pat

[David Maes]

There is really something I just keep wondering about.

We could say we're nothing more than just a bunch of molecules, we could say 'it's all chemicals', nothing more. Cause there isn't really any scientific proof of anything more.

There is this pattern in spacetime, called a 'David Maes'. Now, this 'David Maes' could in fact be nothing more than an illusion. Only because of chemical interactions, this 'David Maes' is formed.
Likewise, we have a 'Dleviwing'-pattern, or a 'Mkirkpatrick'-pattern...

Of course I am the 'David Maes'-pattern. I have always been this pattern. When I go to sleep, when I awake, always the 'David Maes'-pattern, never the 'Dleviwing'-pattern, or the 'Mkirkpatrick'-pattern for example.

But if 'David Maes' is just a pattern, and if 'Dleviwing' is just a pattern, then why am I always the 'David Maes'- pattern?
What's the necessity for that?

That's what I keep wondering about...

[Graybeard]

I don't quite get your point ??? ......

greg

[David Maes]

Well, what I mean is, if we're completely reductionistic; I am just a pattern of chemicals and you are just a pattern of chemicals. Why exactly are you you and am I I?

Say there is no spirit, no mind, no 'ghost', just pure chemicals; then you could explain that 'I' am just purely my pattern of chemicals and you are purely your pattern of chemicals. So there wouldn't be anything more at all.

So from totally nothing, this 'totally nothing' should have succeeded to build chemicals, and these chemicals should have build us.

Or it's infinite.

But why do I exist? Why am I David Maes?
I mean, I could have been Dleviwing, I could have been Mkirkpatrick.
But no, I am David Maes. But what's the obligation for that?

I don't understand.
Sorry.

[Graybeard]

I understand.

Each pattern is unique in its particular arrangement.
ergo: Each pattern is indentifiable
Each pattern is organic.
ergo: uniquely identifiable organic substances.

Why wouldn't you be you and me me ? Propose an alternative.

cool bananas ... greg