| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2008 12:10:16 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I've been having a conversation with mathematician about the "paranormal" and the existence of other intelligent life. In a nutshell he feels that it is so improbable as to be virtually impossible that we would ever experience other beings in our solar system. My lifelong experiences (which I won't share here for obvious reasons) give me reason to think that other life forms exist, right along beside us, in some parallel reality. Right now I am a nut job for believing my own "eyes" and what I have seen. If the multiverse theory were ever to be proven I might suddenly not seem so crazy.
The idea of a "sixth sense" seems impossible now, because it is so hard to imagine how such information could be obtained. I still think that science may open up these doors and change the unexplained into the "normal". That's not to say that I think everything that happens is woo woo; just that a scientific discovery could make a lot of us crazies seem a little more sane. |
Well, I'm sure there are those (perhaps many is this very thread) that will think you are a nutjob, but in reality you have simply experienced something that you are searching for an explanation for. The idea that the multiverse theory may offer an explanation may be appealing, but I doubt there is any evidence for or against it at this point (this is obviously said without knowing anything about what you have experienced). That is the general theme that the "science-side" of this thread is taking. Without any reproducable evidence, there is nothing to judge the merits of any given hypothesis. You are free to believe what you want, but you can't expect others to validate your beliefs if it can't be independently verified. However, if evidence does come to light, then the matter can be re-evaluated. It may turn out that your beliefs are just "ahead of the curve". It may also turn out that you're just a nut job ;-) |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 12:57:37 PM · #427 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
The idea of a "sixth sense" seems impossible now, because it is so hard to imagine how such information could be obtained. I still think that science may open up these doors and change the unexplained into the "normal". That's not to say that I think everything that happens is woo woo; just that a scientific discovery could make a lot of us crazies seem a little more sane. |
Originally posted by eqsite:
You are free to believe what you want, but you can't expect others to validate your beliefs if it can't be independently verified. However, if evidence does come to light, then the matter can be re-evaluated. It may turn out that your beliefs are just "ahead of the curve". It may also turn out that you're just a nut job ;-) |
Thing is......it's frustrating to be what you'd think is rational, and sensible, have linear thought processes, and have some weird, inexplicable thing happen.
You *KNOW* that whatever it is, people will generally not accept even the possibility that what happened is viable if it's outside the generally accepted parameters, even if what happened has been described by others who have shared a similar experience.
I guess in my case, having seen a lot, most of which *IS* easily explainable and logical, those offbeat incidents ARE part of what makes life magical for me.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:07:18 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Well, I'm sure there are those (perhaps many is this very thread) that will think you are a nutjob, but in reality you have simply experienced something that you are searching for an explanation for. The idea that the multiverse theory may offer an explanation may be appealing, but I doubt there is any evidence for or against it at this point (this is obviously said without knowing anything about what you have experienced). That is the general theme that the "science-side" of this thread is taking. Without any reproducable evidence, there is nothing to judge the merits of any given hypothesis. You are free to believe what you want, but you can't expect others to validate your beliefs if it can't be independently verified. However, if evidence does come to light, then the matter can be re-evaluated. It may turn out that your beliefs are just "ahead of the curve". It may also turn out that you're just a nut job ;-) |
Either way, I'm cool with it. The earth will continue to spin, until it stops. And the fact that I believe "sixth sense" experiences will be explained by science should have no affect upon those who are certain there is no such thing. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:09:56 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Thing is......it's frustrating to be what you'd think is rational, and sensible, have linear thought processes, and have some weird, inexplicable thing happen.
You *KNOW* that whatever it is, people will generally not accept even the possibility that what happened is viable if it's outside the generally accepted parameters, even if what happened has been described by others who have shared a similar experience.
I guess in my case, having seen a lot, most of which *IS* easily explainable and logical, those offbeat incidents ARE part of what makes life magical for me. |
I guess I don't understand why you feel that science takes anything away from that. You still had your experiences, we still don't know what caused them. To me, it's the unknown that's magical. Remember Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". All that means is that if we don't understand the mechanism, it looks like magic. That doesn't mean it is magic, though. But it can still feel magical, can't it?
FWIW, I've had unexplainable experiences, and I believe that there may be a "sixth sense" of some form (and I have plenty of hypotheses to go with it). But there is no evidence to support my hypotheses, so I am just as open to the notion that perhaps my beliefs are wrong (how's that for strength in my convictions!). |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:10:24 PM · #430 |
I believe in a sixth sense and I'll tell you why. I haven't read a single line of this topic but I believe I can tell you what has happened so far in this thread.
1. Religion was discussed.
2. The same 4 or 5 that are in every rant thread are herding, pointing out what they consider hypocrisies of one or two.
3. These same people who attempt to make you think they have family values are spending countless hours of every day arguing in a rant forum instead of spending time with that family.
4. Religion was discussed.
Am I close? |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:19:17 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by Phil:
I believe in a sixth sense and I'll tell you why. I haven't read a single line of this topic but I believe I can tell you what has happened so far in this thread.
1. Religion was discussed.
2. The same 4 or 5 that are in every rant thread are herding, pointing out what they consider hypocrisies of one or two.
3. These same people who attempt to make you think they have family values are spending countless hours of every day arguing in a rant forum instead of spending time with that family.
4. Religion was discussed.
Am I close? |
Hahahaha, too funny... and too true... xD
and to rox_rox, thanks for reviving this thread. I was finding it interesting to watch before it died off but didn't have anything new to add. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:23:22 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by Phil:
2. The same 4 or 5 that are in every rant thread are herding, pointing out what they consider hypocrisies of one or two.
3. These same people who attempt to make you think they have family values are spending countless hours of every day arguing in a rant forum instead of spending time with that family.
Am I close? |
Omygosh! You NAILED it. In fact, you turned it into a self-fulfilling prophesy - by making statement number 3 ( pointing out the hypocrisy of "these same people", you caused statement number 2 ( pointing out what they consider hypocrisies of one or two )to become true ( even if it hadn't been up until your post made it so ). |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:23:58 PM · #433 |
Originally posted by Phil:
I believe in a sixth sense and I'll tell you why. I haven't read a single line of this topic but I believe I can tell you what has happened so far in this thread.
1. Religion was discussed.
2. The same 4 or 5 that are in every rant thread are herding, pointing out what they consider hypocrisies of one or two.
3. These same people who attempt to make you think they have family values are spending countless hours of every day arguing in a rant forum instead of spending time with that family.
4. Religion was discussed.
Am I close? |
You forgot 5.... Someone came in and pointed out how predictable and tiresome this thread and the people involved are.
Message edited by author 2008-09-02 13:29:42. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:26:39 PM · #434 |
| And number 6... people pointing out things other people forgot to point out when pointing out things about others. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:28:25 PM · #435 |
| It's probably been said; but "I had a feeling it would come to this". ;^) |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:36:10 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
It's probably been said; but "I had a feeling it would come to this". ;^) |
Just when it was starting to get back to interesting and informative again too. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 02:00:16 PM · #437 |
Originally posted by DarkRider:
Originally posted by Hatchet:
 |
Lets just sit back and watch the show!!LOL |
OK, so it's from another thread - trouble with this one is someone brought out the dead horses and forgot the popcorn - shouldn't need any senses for that... |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 02:10:06 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Thing is......it's frustrating to be what you'd think is rational, and sensible, have linear thought processes, and have some weird, inexplicable thing happen.
You *KNOW* that whatever it is, people will generally not accept even the possibility that what happened is viable if it's outside the generally accepted parameters, even if what happened has been described by others who have shared a similar experience.
I guess in my case, having seen a lot, most of which *IS* easily explainable and logical, those offbeat incidents ARE part of what makes life magical for me. |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I guess I don't understand why you feel that science takes anything away from that. You still had your experiences, we still don't know what caused them. To me, it's the unknown that's magical. Remember Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". All that means is that if we don't understand the mechanism, it looks like magic. That doesn't mean it is magic, though. But it can still feel magical, can't it? |
Actually, that was my point.
I don't feel that I'm either hamstrung by having to have an answer, nor do I believe that just because something hasn't been proven, that it doesn't exist.
I live in a constant state of wonder.
I will continue to be amazed and amused every day!
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 03:27:47 PM · #439 |
I find it odd that the Farmers Almanac can reportedly predict future weather patterns (2 years in advance) within an 80-85% accuracy, while my local doppler radar can't seem to know the weather accurately for the next few hours - or so it seems. Although they most likely at least meet the 80% threshold within a given 24 hour cycle. Doubt they could hold 80% 2 years out though.
Are calculations based on known givens that translate into a predicted future event the workings of science or the paranormal? Neither? Both? Something else?
Is the predicition of future earthquakes in California along the San Andreas fault the result of science? Is the predicted path of a given hurricane the result of science? Is the predicted coming of another messiah the result of science/tom follery/hocus pocus/the paranormal or...? Is the gut feeling one has when they "know" they are going to drop this putt, or roll this strike, or make this goal/basket/etc the result of predictive science or something else? Is the suspicion one gets from a cheating partner the result of predictive science or some other intuitive sense? Unless one can lay claim to defining the super cognitive state that allows many of these "feelings" to be based on a heightened communication bewteen the normal 5 senses, then some other explaination is required. If one can suffer from cognitive dissonance during or after a high stress encounter, then why couldn't the mind also tune in to the senses in a heightened communicative state, processing data and deriving conclusions (feelings or senses) based on this activity? Some have a heightened ability for mathematics, or vocabulary, or languages, or politics or...
Is this increased ability the result of random order or scientific certainty? If it is random order, then who are we to say, in which ways the outcome is limited to? Why couldn't one possess a higher cognitive ability in intuition rather than mathematics or music? If it is scientific certainty, then we should be able to predict everything. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 03:39:56 PM · #440 |
Originally posted by Flash:
[lots of stuff]...
If it is scientific certainty, then we should be able to predict everything. |
You seem to be setting this up as science vs. "all this other stuff" but that's not right. Science isn't a cause of intuition (or whatever), it simply seeks to explain it. That said, science doesn't claim to be able to predict everything with 100% certainty either. There are too many variables for large systems such as weather and congnitive abilities. Furthermore, there are some things that science claims cannot be predicted with any certainty at all (i.e., quantum mechanics). It can only predict the odds of something happening. And while quantum mechanics may operate on the small scale, it certainly has an impact on large-scale systems. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 03:55:59 PM · #441 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Thing is......it's frustrating to be what you'd think is rational, and sensible, have linear thought processes, and have some weird, inexplicable thing happen.
You *KNOW* that whatever it is, people will generally not accept even the possibility that what happened is viable if it's outside the generally accepted parameters, even if what happened has been described by others who have shared a similar experience.
I guess in my case, having seen a lot, most of which *IS* easily explainable and logical, those offbeat incidents ARE part of what makes life magical for me. |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I guess I don't understand why you feel that science takes anything away from that. You still had your experiences, we still don't know what caused them. To me, it's the unknown that's magical. Remember Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic". All that means is that if we don't understand the mechanism, it looks like magic. That doesn't mean it is magic, though. But it can still feel magical, can't it? |
Actually, that was my point.
I don't feel that I'm either hamstrung by having to have an answer, nor do I believe that just because something hasn't been proven, that it doesn't exist.
I live in a constant state of wonder.
I will continue to be amazed and amused every day! |
What I find most interesting about these recurring discussions is how emotional people get when their views are challenged. I understand Christian fundamentalism, as I grew up being taught that those who were not saved would burn in Hell. That creates a certain sense of urgency to convert the heathens.
The atheist POV is a little more mystifying to me. The way I understand it is: Our bodies are machines and our emotions are electro-chemical reactions. When the machines stop running, it's game over. So why the interest in future generations and science in general? Scientific discoveries are nothing more than ways to stimulate our brains during this lifetime. Some will change our quality of life during our brief existence, but most are for future generations. Why should we care what happens after our bodies are dead? Even our progeny are nothing more than biological machines (whose every action will one day be explained by science). Since our thoughts and emotions will cease upon death, we really have no reason to be concerned about their futures. So why is it so important that others "get it"? I don't get it.
I entertain the possibility that a "sixth sense" may be an indicator that our energy force neither begins nor ends with this physical existence, but continues to resonate simultaneously in multiple dimensions. I place no religious connotation upon this idea, but do "believe" that physics will some day explore this.
As far as the "dead horse" goes...just one click on the red X and the smell is completely gone:) |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 04:17:14 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
What I find most interesting about these recurring discussions is how emotional people get when their views are challenged. I understand Christian fundamentalism, as I grew up being taught that those who were not saved would burn in Hell. That creates a certain sense of urgency to convert the heathens.
The atheist POV is a little more mystifying to me. The way I understand it is: Our bodies are machines and our emotions are electro-chemical reactions. When the machines stop running, it's game over. So why the interest in future generations and science in general? Scientific discoveries are nothing more than ways to stimulate our brains during this lifetime. Some will change our quality of life during our brief existence, but most are for future generations. Why should we care what happens after our bodies are dead? Even our progeny are nothing more than biological machines (whose every action will one day be explained by science). Since our thoughts and emotions will cease upon death, we really have no reason to be concerned about their futures. So why is it so important that others "get it"? I don't get it.
I entertain the possibility that a "sixth sense" may be an indicator that our energy force neither begins nor ends with this physical existence, but continues to resonate simultaneously in multiple dimensions. I place no religious connotation upon this idea, but do "believe" that physics will some day explore this.
As far as the "dead horse" goes...just one click on the red X and the smell is completely gone:) |
I think, especially here in the US, that there is a feeling by many atheists that a free society should not allow our moral code to be dictated to us by religiously based ideals. Since this has an impact on their lives while they live them, it's obviously in their best interest to care. As for their children, while the atheist may not believe that they can physically care for their children after death, they would still feel a responsibility for trying to shape the world and their children in such a way to best provide for them in the future. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 04:51:05 PM · #443 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I think, especially here in the US, that there is a feeling by many atheists that a free society should not allow our moral code to be dictated to us by religiously based ideals. Since this has an impact on their lives while they live them, it's obviously in their best interest to care. |
I agree with this and feel the same way. But shouldn't the focus be on stopping others from imposing their beliefs rather than convincing them that their beliefs are invalid? To me that seems as futile an effort as a Christian trying to convert an atheist.
Originally posted by eqsite:
As for their children, while the atheist may not believe that they can physically care for their children after death, they would still feel a responsibility for trying to shape the world and their children in such a way to best provide for them in the future. |
On the surface that sounds good; but if everything stops at death wouldn't that include any responsibility for the future of the living? Isn't "caring" a function of our finite biological being? I'm not trying to be a contrarian; I'm truly looking to understand exactly how atheists view the world and their place in it. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 04:58:07 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I think, especially here in the US, that there is a feeling by many atheists that a free society should not allow our moral code to be dictated to us by religiously based ideals. Since this has an impact on their lives while they live them, it's obviously in their best interest to care. |
I agree with this and feel the same way. But shouldn't the focus be on stopping others from imposing their beliefs rather than convincing them that their beliefs are invalid? To me that seems as futile an effort as a Christian trying to convert an atheist. |
I agree with this, and I get frustrated watching people demean other people's belief no matter which direction it goes. Unfortunately, that has become the way of discourse in our society.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by eqsite:
As for their children, while the atheist may not believe that they can physically care for their children after death, they would still feel a responsibility for trying to shape the world and their children in such a way to best provide for them in the future. |
On the surface that sounds good; but if everything stops at death wouldn't that include any responsibility for the future of the living? Isn't "caring" a function of our finite biological being? I'm not trying to be a contrarian; I'm truly looking to understand exactly how atheists view the world and their place in it. |
I don't think I know any atheists who don't love their children (those that have them). My love for my child directs me to provide the best for her, especially in the event of my death. Why should that be any different for an atheist? Just because I'm not there to experience it, the world still goes on without me. And so, hopefully, will my daughter's life. And I want her to have a good life, regardless of whether I am alive to enjoy it with her. Why would an atheist feel any differently? |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 05:21:45 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
I don't think I know any atheists who don't love their children (those that have them). My love for my child directs me to provide the best for her, especially in the event of my death. Why should that be any different for an atheist? Just because I'm not there to experience it, the world still goes on without me. And so, hopefully, will my daughter's life. And I want her to have a good life, regardless of whether I am alive to enjoy it with her. Why would an atheist feel any differently? |
I'm not questioning anyone's capacity for love. I am curious how true scientific atheists define it. My questions are based upon the idea that we are biological machines and that everything we do and feel has a scientific explanation. If this is the case, wouldn't it be understood that our feelings of love and responsibility are measurable reactions in our brains, designed to assure the continuation of our species? And knowing that, wouldn't we expect everything to cease when we die (including our concern for the future)? |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 05:26:59 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
The atheist POV is a little more mystifying to me. The way I understand it is: Our bodies are machines and our emotions are electro-chemical reactions. When the machines stop running, it's game over. So why the interest in future generations and science in general? |
Have you read any Shakespearean sonnets? His themes for achieving immortality are inspirational and have nothing to do with any faith.
We are biological beings with the same biological urges to survive and reproduce as other biological entities. We might also be able to reason and rationalise our biological urges, but those urges are unmistakeably there.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Scientific discoveries are nothing more than ways to stimulate our brains during this lifetime. |
They are quite a lot more than that. They are a way to understand how the universe works without being clouded by human failings (such as a propensity for seeing meaning in statistical coincidence).
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Some will change our quality of life during our brief existence, but most are for future generations. So why is it so important that others "get it"? I don't get it. |
long analogy alert...
Imagine that you lived in ancient Greece and the prevailing theory was that the Earth was flat. You travel long distances for business and recognise the difference in the appearance of the sun's movement according to your location. You theorise that one explanation for this might be that the earth is curved, not flat as everyone thinks. So you go to great lengths to carry out sophisticated measurements designed to test your theory, and the results of your tests accord precisely with your theory. You get excited and make hundreds of other measurements and they all accord precisely with your theory. You write down your theory and explain it to others, who check and confirm the apparent accuracy of your theory with thousands more measurements.
Then someone says "but it is written by our ancient legends that Zeus says that the Earth is flat". Wouldn't you have the slightest irritation that others believe the flat-earther and deride your views - even worse start designing navigational aids that rely on the flatness of the earth. Even worse still when the flat-earthers start making money from people who are gullible enough to believe them and who buy their misconcieved products, and who are later dashed on the rocks - all the while blaming Poseidon.
Originally posted by rox_rox:
... continues to resonate simultaneously in multiple dimensions. I place no religious connotation upon this idea, but do "believe" that physics will some day explore this. |
Multiple dimensions and multiple universes are already essential elements of the leading theories in physics and cosmology. You have posited a theory surrounding them. Wouldn't you be fascinated to design an experiment to test whether your theory is right or wrong? Even if your experiment proved your theory to be wrong, wouldn't that be an amazing thing - you prove a commonly held belief to be false, and you have the invigorating challenge of coming up with another theory to test.
Message edited by author 2008-09-02 17:28:55.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 05:31:24 PM · #447 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I'm not questioning anyone's capacity for love. I am curious how true scientific atheists define it. My questions are based upon the idea that we are biological machines and that everything we do and feel has a scientific explanation. If this is the case, wouldn't it be understood that our feelings of love and responsibility are measurable reactions in our brains, designed to assure the continuation of our species? |
How would you define it otherwise given swans mating for life, sea turtles mourning a lost mate, animals putting their own lives at risk for their babies, or hundreds of similar examples in the animal kingdom? |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 05:46:29 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I don't think I know any atheists who don't love their children (those that have them). My love for my child directs me to provide the best for her, especially in the event of my death. Why should that be any different for an atheist? Just because I'm not there to experience it, the world still goes on without me. And so, hopefully, will my daughter's life. And I want her to have a good life, regardless of whether I am alive to enjoy it with her. Why would an atheist feel any differently? |
I'm not questioning anyone's capacity for love. I am curious how true scientific atheists define it. My questions are based upon the idea that we are biological machines and that everything we do and feel has a scientific explanation. If this is the case, wouldn't it be understood that our feelings of love and responsibility are measurable reactions in our brains, designed to assure the continuation of our species? And knowing that, wouldn't we expect everything to cease when we die (including our concern for the future)? |
If you think of us as machines programmed to ensure the survival of our species, doesn't it make sense that this machine would want it's proginy to survive? |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 06:25:26 PM · #449 |
Hello guys:) Thanks for coming back to the party. Please be nice to me. I know how smart you are, and I'm truly here to understand what makes you tick.
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
The atheist POV is a little more mystifying to me. The way I understand it is: Our bodies are machines and our emotions are electro-chemical reactions. When the machines stop running, it's game over. So why the interest in future generations and science in general? |
Have you read any Shakespearean sonnets? His themes for achieving immortality are inspirational and have nothing to do with any faith. |
How does Shakespeare define immortality and inspiration?
Originally posted by Matthew:
We are biological beings with the same biological urges to survive and reproduce as other biological entities. We might also be able to reason and rationalise our biological urges, but those urges are unmistakeably there. |
What if some of us have the biological urge to find greater meaning for our existence than science currently allows? Who is in charge of validating biological urges?
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Scientific discoveries are nothing more than ways to stimulate our brains during this lifetime. |
They are quite a lot more than that. They are a way to understand how the universe works without being clouded by human failings (such as a propensity for seeing meaning in statistical coincidence). |
What if the propensity for seeing meaning in statistical coincidence is actually an innate human trait critical for the survival of our species?
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Some will change our quality of life during our brief existence, but most are for future generations. So why is it so important that others "get it"? I don't get it. |
long analogy alert...
Imagine that you lived in ancient Greece and the prevailing theory was that the Earth was flat. You travel long distances for business and recognise the difference in the appearance of the sun's movement according to your location. You theorise that one explanation for this might be that the earth is curved, not flat as everyone thinks. So you go to great lengths to carry out sophisticated measurements designed to test your theory, and the results of your tests accord precisely with your theory. You get excited and make hundreds of other measurements and they all accord precisely with your theory. You write down your theory and explain it to others, who check and confirm the apparent accuracy of your theory with thousands more measurements.
Then someone says "but it is written by our ancient legends that Zeus says that the Earth is flat". Wouldn't you have the slightest irritation that others believe the flat-earther and deride your views - even worse start designing navigational aids that rely on the flatness of the earth. Even worse still when the flat-earthers start making money from people who are gullible enough to believe them and who buy their misconcieved products, and who are later dashed on the rocks - all the while blaming Poseidon. |
How did I get the technology to test my theory? Why would I bother to test it unless I believed that I would make a new discovery? Did the majority of the scientific community consider me an outsider for investigating a theory that (to date) was considered impossible?
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
... continues to resonate simultaneously in multiple dimensions. I place no religious connotation upon this idea, but do "believe" that physics will some day explore this. |
Multiple dimensions and multiple universes are already essential elements of the leading theories in physics and cosmology. You have posited a theory surrounding them. Wouldn't you be fascinated to design an experiment to test whether your theory is right or wrong? Even if your experiment proved your theory to be wrong, wouldn't that be an amazing thing - you prove a commonly held belief to be false, and you have the invigorating challenge of coming up with another theory to test. |
Absolutely. What irks me is that some people seem bent upon insisting that (despite advances in modern physics) any such thing is absolutely impossible. To top it off, they choose to deride anyone who dares to imagine the possibilities. Proving a sixth sense right now, today might be as difficult as proving the world is round by walking round it. Who's to say that tomorrow's technology won't reveal the new Copernicus?
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
I'm not questioning anyone's capacity for love. I am curious how true scientific atheists define it. My questions are based upon the idea that we are biological machines and that everything we do and feel has a scientific explanation. If this is the case, wouldn't it be understood that our feelings of love and responsibility are measurable reactions in our brains, designed to assure the continuation of our species? |
How would you define it otherwise given swans mating for life, sea turtles mourning a lost mate, animals putting their own lives at risk for their babies, or hundreds of similar examples in the animal kingdom? |
So, you are saying that animals feel love? This is a purely biological phenomenon, isn't it? The difference between animals and humans is that we have the ability to prove that there is nothing mysterious about emotions, otherwise they don't exist, right? |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 06:38:53 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Originally posted by rox_rox:
Originally posted by eqsite:
I don't think I know any atheists who don't love their children (those that have them). My love for my child directs me to provide the best for her, especially in the event of my death. Why should that be any different for an atheist? Just because I'm not there to experience it, the world still goes on without me. And so, hopefully, will my daughter's life. And I want her to have a good life, regardless of whether I am alive to enjoy it with her. Why would an atheist feel any differently? |
I'm not questioning anyone's capacity for love. I am curious how true scientific atheists define it. My questions are based upon the idea that we are biological machines and that everything we do and feel has a scientific explanation. If this is the case, wouldn't it be understood that our feelings of love and responsibility are measurable reactions in our brains, designed to assure the continuation of our species? And knowing that, wouldn't we expect everything to cease when we die (including our concern for the future)? |
If you think of us as machines programmed to ensure the survival of our species, doesn't it make sense that this machine would want it's proginy to survive? |
I don't know. If the quest for future survival is purely a biological process, I might cease to care once I understood that there was nothing more to it (provided I honestly believed that to be the case). |
|
