| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> And let me mention that a spider web is, to me, quite the piece of art as
> well. Leftist thinking or Rightist thinking does not an artist make, nor
> intelligence or stupidity a defining factor for art, or for that matter,
> even *human*. I find beauty and art everywhere--the leaves in the fall, the
> spots on a leopard, whatever... But we even have a french phrase to
> describe such things 'je ne sais quoi' - it has a certain factor which is
> *inexplainable*.
The book is speaking about what part of your brain you use to execute art,
not your relative liberal or conservative thinking. Read the book and
you'll understand.
> An emotional appeal that cannot be rationally logically, scientifically
> explained, and yet, omigoodness-there it is--it *does* exist. It exists
> even though it's *outside* science. Is it real? I think it is. Is it
> important? Inasmuch as people's feelings, their emotions are important for
> us being human. Does science *care*? Prob'ly not. But if it dosn't factor
> into science, then it must exist *outside* of science. So there you are.
What is this "it" are you talking about? An emotional appeal? Yes, it
exists outside of science, it has nothing to do with science, but you keep
citing it as if it does. It has no logic, you just seem to hope that no one
notices the lack of substance.
> No, 'Sciencism' is robbing me of my humanity.
What in the world is "sciencism"? What utter nonsense in any case.
> You may say it's all fine and
> dandy to say that science covers *all* aspects of your life, but just by my
> God's very nature, it cannot encompass mine.
Stop. Halt. Stop this nonsense once and for all. I did not say science
covers *all* aspects of life. It is something you keep repeating endlessly
despite corrections, nothing more.
> It also cannot encompass the
> 'je ne sais quoi' of life, either, so foget about *my* God, and just know
> that science does not, and cannot, know all.
It doesn't pretend to. The only problem here is that you keep claiming it does.
> > The final argument of the religious is invariably to reduce the opposition
> > to its own terms. Belief in god is blind. It is a matter of faith.
> > Science isn't a matter of faith (no, don't start in on you have to have
> > faith in your senses - science doesn't trust those either). Science isn't a
> > god because it isn't a matter of faith. Further, science doesn't claim that
> > it is good for everything - those are words constantly put into its mouth by
> > the religious so it can knock down a straw man.
> Belief in God is *faith*. Your very wording is demeaning.
Oh, puh-leeeeeze. Look at the very next sentence I wrote, "It is a matter
of faith". What did you just write, for heaven's sake: "Belief in God is
*faith*". Faith in this instance means you take it as a matter of belief,
without requiring proof (Blind faith).
> You want me to
> give you respect (which I give you anyways 'cause that's just who I am) but
> you demean and put down my ideas and ideals and subscribe them to the realm
> of some sort of 'mass dellusion'? Yes you are doing that by saying 'belief
> in God is blind'.
Here's more of the problem: quote me where I said your ideas and ideals are
mass delusion (please, no half-quotes willfully misconstrued as above)?
What you just wrote is yet another emotional defense having nothing to do
with reality. If you wish to continue with this line, I challenge you to
find anywhere where I said your belief in God is wrong, your belief in
religion is wrong. Not scientific, yes, but wrong, no.
>
> Not once have *I* asserted that science claims that it is good for
> everything.
You keep asseting that *science* claims that, which it doesn't. You are
merely splitting hairs about what way you have gotten it wrong.
> All my posts have stated time and time agian that science can
> not, by its very nature, explain everything. That's what some other
> proponents of scientific godhood claim.
You are again attempting to reduce science to a religious level so that you
can attack it better. It's the crux of my argument against you from the
word go.
> I have mentioned that I don't have
> a problem with science. Science is wonderful. Science is great.
> "Sciencism" reduces the scope of everything into itself--there's your straw
> man, my friend. Sciencism claims that which cannot be observed or studied
> via the scientific method cannot be shown, therefore cannot be believed
> therfore cannot exist.
I have absolutely no doubt (no evidence, but a matter of faith that I'll bet
money on) that "sciencism" is a term used by religious groups in an attempt
to reduce the one to the other's level ("Dang, we can't foist off
Creationism as scientific, so we have to define science as a religion, then
they are the same thing and we can attack on religious grounds instead of
scientific). "Sciencism" is a convenient straw man argument (knocking down
a pre-arranged target that does not, in fact, represent the other side).
>
> Show me *any* evidence that God exists - those are words constantly put into
> my face by the close minded people who believe in the god of science so they
> can knock down my *belief*.
I'm not asking you to show any evidence that God exists. Just don't advance
your beliefs as scientific theory if you don't want to be challenged to ante
up some evidence.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: slight
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes: <snip> (...) Love to read it, and I'll get to it. (...) Thank you for making my point clear--emotions have nothing to do with science, and I never wanted to infer, allude, or say they ever (...) (22 years ago, 17-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) And let me mention that a spider web is, to me, quite the piece of art as well. Leftist thinking or Rightist thinking does not an artist make, nor intelligence or stupidity a defining factor for art, or for that matter, even *human*. I find (...) (22 years ago, 16-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
