Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[atheistgirl]

… all righty, thanks, welcome to the Baptist fraternity, please take a cucumber sandwich, your hazelnut chocolate days are behind you now.

:bighanky::bighanky::bighanky:

Oh well.

It was always going to end some time.

I guess in time I will grow to love the cucumber sandwich.

:bighanky:

I found out a little while back, I know a Baptist.

A man of impeccible integrity, retired, highly evolved social conscience, heavily involved with a group of disadvantaged young people I do some work with.

A really nice guy.

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

You wrongly characterize this as a self improvement book. Alfred Korzybski wrote “Science and Sanity” a treatise on non-aristotelian logic, the basis for the study of General Semantics. This gave birth to NLP based on the work of John Grinder and Richard Bandler, and the book you refer to as self improvement is a treatise on Neurosemantics. There are many models of the mind. The point is that these models should be tested and see if they work.

Reviews of a book is what you base your understanding on? I suggest you try reading “Science and Sanity”…good luck.

This is the website on actualizing excellence…via Neurosemantics…you may change your mind as to self help. It is based on work of Maslow. Rather than studying deranged minds, the study of minds that excel and modeling them is what NLP and Neurosemantics is based on. If you believe your mind is genius then there is no need to see if you can learn how to run your own brain and you can continue to believe that your thoughts are you.

neurosemantics.com/

You say it’s not about self-improvement but the page you linked says Neuro-Semantics focuses on self-actualization for individuals, companies, communities, and nations.

Sorry, that’s a product in my book, I’ve been on management courses selling similar, there’s loads of them if you look. I mean it may just be the one and only answer to a maiden’s prayer, the one correct theory, but the chances are no.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’ve been told on an online forum that I’m going to hell when I was questioned about something and my atheism became clear.

I’ve been told by a preacher guy, definately Christian but I don’t think Catholic, that the fires of hell can’t wait to engulf me, because I’m the spawn of the devil.

I’ve been told by Jehovah’s Witnesses that I will be ‘‘annihilated’’ if I don’t convert to Christianity, and, more importantly, believe as they do, as they alone have the truth.

It’s not that unusual for certain people fired up with the zeal of their faith, to proudly proclaim others damned if they don’t correct the error of their ways

Sarah x

These people are just bummed because their fairy Godmothers refused to turn their mice into horses to take to them the ball.

http://www.retro-cafe.com/60s/images/cast-fractured.jpg

Call them “gruntled” or “disgruntled,” either way they sounds like boars. I’m glad they won’t be at the ball – who wants to even be around them?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I found out a little while back, I know a Baptist.

Oh, no! Well you know what they say, “it takes one to know one.” :twocents:

Ranch?

 

[inocente]

If Tonyrey will permit me

Unlikely but let’s throw caution to the wind.

With all due respect, my friend (I hope), what does a Baptist-in-Spain believe?

I know another poster who uses “with all due respect” - it’s her baseball bat, you see it and know to duck.

Is it OK to believe that God is devoid of a Mind that can and, no doubt, did originate this universe?*

No, wouldn’t that would make God a bystander or else make God the product of some Mind?

What is the proof for “reality?” “Mass?” That is, the mass of things that all consist of point particles?

The proof of reality is drop a bowling ball on your foot and if it hurts it’s real.

 

[atheistgirl]

A-Girl:

And you will no doubt agree that there are ridiculous zealots on both sides of the fence.

Absolutely.

You’re here, at Catholic Answers Forum, precisely because you know that worthy Catholics will not say those things to you (although, in their heart of hearts, they might believe them.)

That - and the fact this is a very well run forum with some really intelligent and interesting people, coupled with some genuinely very nice people, to engage in conversation with.

Let’s face it, shall we?

Ooops. Here we go

You believe in “nothingness”, and, perhaps, “nothing;” don’t you? (Platitudes will not be the subjects of serious discussion with me.)

I believe in people, and their ability to do good, and be worthy stewards of this fragile earth we have no claim over, but must leave in a better condition than we found it, for our future generations.

Sarah x

 

[tonyrey]

The appeal to extreme improbability reveals a desperate ploy to justify the mere possibility of the blind Goddess hypothesis - which is negligible when every factor is taken into account.

1. These statements are based on the unsubstantiated assumption that natural phenomena are the **sole **phenomena despite the fact that rational beings transcend natural phenomena by their insight and control of natural phenomena.
2. Without minds we wouldn’t even be aware that matter exists.
3. The power of the mind is sufficient evidence that it is not derived from matter.
4. Calculations of probability are not associated with purposeless particles but with rational beings.

The desperation is actually on the side of the theists who say, “We don’t know how the universe originated, therefore god.”

Argumentum ad hominem.

Scientists are just getting on with the exploration.

1. The unsubstantiated assumption that scientists are in principle capable of explaining everything is falsified by Godel’s incompleteness theorem since it implies they can explain themselves.

Your terminology in this list betrays a particular ontological view of the world - a top-down conception that phenomena such as “autonomy”, “morality” and “love”, for example, are things that exist in their own right, rather than features of the way humans and human communities are constituted.

1. That objection betrays a particular ontological view of the world - a **bottom-up (!) **notion that phenomena such as “autonomy”, “morality” and “love” are merely human ideas that don’t correspond to material reality.

You also seem to assume that the apparent orderliness of the universe is a thing in itself, something imposed from beyond the stuff that constitutes the universe, rather than just the way that stuff tends to behave.

1. The unsubstantiated assumption that matter is **necessarily **orderly overlooks the fact that this universe is not the only possible universe.
2. There is no rational basis for the assumption that every event is due to physical necessity.
3. Matter and energy are certainly brute facts from a materialist’s point of view but materialism is a discredited hypothesis due to its dependence on the verifiability principle.

Why does it behave in such ways? Well, as you say, we haven’t explained that yet. Matter and energy may just be brute facts, in the way your god is taken by believers to be a brute fact.

1. Your matter and energy are certainly brute facts from a materialist’s point of view but **your **materialism is a discredited hypothesis due to its dependence on the verifiability principle.

(Indications of needless discourtesy which reveals an aggressive hostility towards religion, infringes the forum conduct rules and is evident in other of your posts.)

Speaking of scientific exploration, the conditions and processes by which life arose are presently a topic of extensive research. The explanation of the development and evolution of life, its survival by adaptation to changing environments, is becoming more detailed by the day, bolstered by more and more findings both in the field and the laboratory.

1. Blind faith in the power of science to explain every detail of life in terms of inanimate molecules fails to recognise that information systems such as DNA presuppose intelligence.

And just to reiterate - rattling off this list as if to add at the end, “Therefore, god”, is no help to anyone seeking an explanation.

1. “rattling off” the list of what scientists as if to add at the end, “Therefore, matter” is no help to anyone seeking a rational explanation.

If science has not (yet) explained these things, religion cannot.

1. A superb example of hyperdogmatic materialism.

Religion might have developed as a stop-gap measure to compensate for human ignorance; but it does not deal in real-world explanations.

1. Science is certainly used by materialists as a stop-gap measure to compensate for their ignorance but it does not help people to deal with their **personal **affairs in the real world.

It can invent myths and dogmas and fill the gaps in our knowledge with idle speculation and unfalsifiable assertions, but that’s it.

1. Materialists - as on this thread - invent myths and dogmas about the power of science and fill the gaps in our knowledge with idle speculation and unfalsifiable assertions about what science will discover, but when it comes to daily life they act on the assumption that life has value, meaning and purpose and - in most cases but not all - treat others as persons rather than naked apes.

The items in your list are open questions as far as scientists are concerned. If you insist upon treating them as closed, you shut down any possibility of learning and discovery.

1. The items in the list are closed questions as far as materialists are concerned and they thereby eliminate the possibility of discovering truths about **their spiritual development - **which is undoubtedly a cause for compassion on the part of those who believe persons are not merely naked apes…

 

[inocente]

I found out a little while back, I know a Baptist.

A man of impeccible integrity, retired, highly evolved social conscience, heavily involved with a group of disadvantaged young people I do some work with.

A really nice guy.

Integrity? Social conscience? Can you give his name and bank account please, he’s obviously letting the side down and in urgent need of a period of “re-education”, poor demented soul.

 

[inocente]

Call them “gruntled” or “disgruntled,” either way they sounds like boars. I’m glad they won’t be at the ball – who wants to even be around them?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gx2xsvA8n...OnKxg/s400/Timon-and-Pumbaa-THE-LION-KING.jpg

Do you see wild boars? - we have them here, they mosey around in autumn, mainly at night, eating the almonds which didn’t get picked. They’re rather endearing except never get between a mother and her children or she will gruntle you like there’s no tomorrow, seriously, they are muy peligroso.

 

[JDaniel]

I know another poster who uses “with all due respect” - it’s her baseball bat, you see it and know to duck.

I know - that’s why I gave you that warning!

No, wouldn’t that would make God a bystander or else make God the product of some Mind?

Or, there’s another possibility, (wait for it!) perhaps there’s no God at all!

The proof of reality is drop a bowling ball on your foot and if it hurts it’s real.

Yes: the old Samuel Johnson approach to reality. Yet, what is pain?

So, the doctor says to me: “You are not suffering any pain. Pain consists in the firing of certain neurons, and those neurons are not firing.” - Robert Spaemann’s, Rationality and Faith in God.

Prove pain.

God bless,
jd

 

[Solus_vistor]

I’ve been told on an online forum that I’m going to hell when I was questioned about something and my atheism became clear.

Well, this is sort of similar to the experience I have had many times on another forum, frequented mainly by atheists. Obviously, I have not been told I was going to hell, only attempts to explain my position were called, “nonsense”, “mental gymnastics”, “intellectual gymnastics”, “sophistry”, “condescension” etc, simply because they did no agree with some naive outsider’s view of religion or Christianity (or were incomprehensible to him/her).

One of my standard answers was:

As I said many times on this thread, I would not call nonsense, or mental or intellectual gymnastics, opinions, definitions, concepts etc. that I could not understand.

I think you will find insecure, hence defensively aggressive, adherents of all sorts of world-views, theist or atheist.

 

[JDaniel]

That - and the fact this is a very well run forum with some really intelligent and interesting people, coupled with some genuinely very nice people, to engage in conversation with.

Well, thank you; thank you very much. - Elvis impression. :tiphat:

Ooops. Here we go

The ride of . . ., well, nevermind.

I believe in people, and their ability to do good, and be worthy stewards of this fragile earth we have no claim over, but must leave in a better condition than we found it, for our future generations.

Noun
a remark or statement, especially one with a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful - the Oxford Dictionary

Remember what I said about “platitudes?”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Do you see wild boars? - we have them here, they mosey around in autumn, mainly at night, eating the almonds which didn’t get picked. They’re rather endearing except never get between a mother and her children or she will gruntle you like there’s no tomorrow, seriously, they are muy peligroso.

Inocente:

You didn’t have to translate that into Spanish, we’re all adults here.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

1. “rattling off” the list of what scientists as if to add at the end, “Therefore, matter” is no help to anyone seeking a rational explanation.

Correction:

1. “rattling off” the list of what scientists are attempting to explain - as if to add at the end, “Therefore, matter” - is no help to anyone seeking a rational explanation…

 

[tonyrey]

1, 2, 3 - see the anthropic principle.

What does that prove? Apart from the fact that anthropology is alive and well…

4 is unscientific – there’s no way to know what conditions life in other parts of the universe requires.

It is unscientific to believe life elsewhere **must **have something in common with life on this planet.

8, 9, 10 - are impatient given the science of the mind is so young - are we there yet? are we they yet?

Blind faith in the power of science to explain everything - even God - again rears its ugly head but provides plenty of fodder for science fiction fanatics… :takeoff:

The rest are explained by evolution, discussion of which is banned.

What’s in a word? Ah! The marvellous solution to every conceivable problem for those who are determined to make religion redundant at all costs and conveniently relieve them of all their obligations by making morality a human invention and reducing men to magnificent machines completely incapable of controlling either their thoughts or actions, of deciding what is good or evil or of reaching valid conclusions about what they are, how they exist and why they ever had the monstrous misfortune to be born as impotent cogs turned relentlessly by their inscrutable mistress: the blind Goddess…

Eureka! It’s not science that can really explain reality. It’s Chance!

 

[Solus_vistor]

CORRECTION

Well, this is sort of similar to the experience I have had many times on another forum, frequented mainly by atheists. Obviously, I have not been told I was going to hell, only attempts to explain my position were called, “nonsense”, “mental gymnastics”, “intellectual gymnastics”, “sophistry”, “condescension” etc, simply because they did no agree with some naive outsider’s view of religion or Christianity (or were incomprehensible to him/her).

should read

Well, this is sort of similar to the experience I have had many times on another forum, frequented mainly by atheists. Obviously, I have not been told I was going to hell, only attempts to explain my position were called, “nonsense”, “mental gymnastics”, “intellectual gymnastics”, “sophistry”, “condescension” etc, simply because my position did no agree with some naive outsider’s view of religion or Christianity (or was incomprehensible to the “attacker”).

 

[atheistgirl]

Remember what I said about “platitudes?”

God bless,
jd

One man’s platitude, is another woman’s framework for her daily interactions with people, animals and the environment

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, this is sort of similar to the experience I have had many times on another forum, frequented mainly by atheists.

I think you will find insecure, hence defensively aggressive, adherents of all sorts of world-views, theist or atheist.

Absolutely.

Sarah x

 

[JDaniel]

One man’s platitude, is another woman’s framework for her daily interactions with people, animals and the environment

Sarah x

AG:

As I said. It appears that you still refuse to debate/discuss in good faith. With that in mind then, I will bid you adieu.

God bless,
jd

 

[atheistgirl]

AG:

As I said. It appears that you still refuse to debate/discuss in good faith. With that in mind then, I will bid you adieu.

God bless,
jd

What am I not discussing in good faith

My reponse is serious.

But hey, good luck to you to.

Sarah x