Subject:
|
Re: For some Lego is a religous experience. (Was: Re: Quantifying and Classifying the LEGO Community
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Apr 2003 12:58:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2612 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli writes:
>
> > You see my problem is that science has yet to answer 'Why' anything happens.
> > There are lots of good theories on how things happen but not one single answer
> > as to why.
>
> Mike--are looking for a metaphysical, over-arching "reason" behind the
> universe? What if there simply isn't one? Science isn't in the business of
> determining "why" things happen in this transcendent sense, nor should science
> be required to do so.
That would be analogous to asking "by what chemical
> process does the eucharist become the Body of Christ?" The question, in that
> sense, isn't relevant.
> Some people aren't content to except that things may just happen without a
> metaphysical "reason" behind them. By extension, that's similar to how some
> people claim "The reason 'why' I didn't take the bus is because I had a feeling
> it would be in an accident." Such people are not content to say "I didn't take
> the bus today *AND* the bus was in an accident;" they seem to need to attribute
> a karmic (so to speak) cause to it.
> On the other hand, science does address *why* things happen in a more
> mundane, causative way, such as: "Why does electrolysis of water yield two
> parts hydrogen and one part water? Because a water molecule contains two
> hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom." But there's no supposition of
> metaphysical cause.
>
> > I really don't see how
> > that will be any more effective than the Taoist approach of meditating in
> > search of perfect enlightenment. (Science still hasn't worked.)
>
> Your parenthetical comment eludes me: science "hasn't worked" in what
> context? Also, you're comparing an introspective and fundamentally personal
> meditative system to a system of teamwork, re-examination, and data-sharing.
> The two are not comparable in any real sense; one is a belief system, the other
> is a method of analysis.
>
> > The faith that
> > science holds all the answers seems as silly to me
>
> It likewise seems silly to me, especially since it's not a matter of faith
> but of evidence and reproducibility. To assert otherwise is to create a straw
> man that doesn't pertain to the argument at hand.
>
> > I also happen to believe that limiting oneself to accept only that which is
> > tangible will prevent Humans from further evolving and learning 'Why'.
>
> Let me ask you this: Why does God allow innocent babies to starve to death?
> Unless you can give me the answer to that question (or many other similar
> questions), then you can take comfort only in the *hope* that a reason
> exists, even if we have no way to know it. Other than by the introduction of a
> metaphysical being, how does that assessment superior to the view that the
> universe simply exists without need of a reason why?
>
> Dave!
If we were to look at it from an opposing angle--how is the assessment that
there *is* a God "behind the scenes" inferior to the view that the universe
is there all by itself?
Science doesn't have to tell us "How and Why?" in the metaphysical sense,
and yet 'scientists' want 'those God folk' to explain "How and Why?" in a
physical sense.
Hope and Faith--"Why does God allow..." (for me personally, it's "why do I
allow..." but that's neither here nor there--I do what I can)
My rusty theology--*we* caused the fall, the separation of ourselves from
paradise. Basically we goofed around and God kicked us outta the pool (as
Cosby would say). Don't you think that if we caused it, that we should live
with the consequenses? Or are you advocating that God is a socialist and
should come and take care of us and make sure nothing bad happens to
us--even if we allow babies to starve? It's like "I'll jump off this bridge
here, but that's okay because God'll take care of me." That's not *my* faith.
Anyway, too early in the morning ;)
Dave K
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 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
|
|
|
|
