| |
> Because it is difficult to declare absolutes in a relative world; because • it
> makes people uncomfortable to think that there is a right and a wrong, and
> thus that there is a possibility that they are wrong; because a lot of
> people are uncomfortable telling others that they themselves are right and
> others are wrong; that absolutes might require the existence of God, right
> and wrong, sin and forgiveness, Heaven and Hell.
>
> I have a teacher who is dead set on the idea that everything in life is a
> false construct and arbitrary division, all relative. Except for science • of
> course.
This is an interesting point of view. If I am to be totally rigorous then
as I sit here typing how do I know the back of me head still exists? I
can't see it, I'm not touching it, It doesn't hurt or tickle or anything,
there is no sensation I can pinpoint coming from there. In fact how do I
know I'm even at work typing? I might be at home asleep, Or in fact I could
be a brain in a vat in some mad scientists lab being fed psychotropic drugs
to give me strange nightmares.
Sometimes it's fun to remember this argument while sitting on the bus or
talking to someone who is particularly boring, it changes your view on life.
In practice however I assume a hole lot of things, I assume I can trust my
sense to some degree of accuracy, I assume that Cause and Effect
relationships that I have witnessed in the past will continue to hold true
into the future, and I assume the back of my head won't suddenly disappear.
I don't believe science is an absolute truth. I believe Practical science
is the sum total of knowledge at the present time about all theses common
sense rules that we run our lives by. Notice I say "at the present time"
This is because there are parts of science that are probably going to be
proved incorrect at sometime in the future. Science as we know it is an
approximation, we discover rules and equations that seem to work and fit
experimental data but there is no way to say they are absolutely correct.
We might find a better answer next week.
Formal science is the procedure we use to discover these rules, the
"Scientific Method" It is interesting to note that this too as part of
science could change if a better way was discovered.
Science does not preclude the existence of a Supreme being, but Science is
about the things we see around us and how the interact. If god does exist
then I see know reason why science cannot discover it and the rules that
govern it, catalogue and absorb them.
however at the present time there are no rules, there are no experiments,
Hell perhaps our entire method is insufficient to discover it. That doesn't
mean that some time in the future we can't (assuming the object of our quest
exists)
Cheers
Tim
p.s. Thanks Todd for providing an Off topic newsgroup I enjoy these sort of
discussions and it's nice to share them with such a friendly group of
people.
p.p.s. Why are Lego fans so Friendly? are the influenced by the perpetual
smiley face?
p.p.p.s. if So what are we to make of the recent trend to depict "baddies"
as frowny faces?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Frog
|
| (...) Think on this some more and you'll be the Ruler of the Universe. [0] Jasper [0] No points for this reference. (25 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Frog
|
| John Neal wrote in message <36BFA673.677B4B70@u...st.net>... (...) Because it is difficult to declare absolutes in a relative world; because it makes people uncomfortable to think that there is a right and a wrong, and thus that there is a (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
115 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
|
|
|
|
