epistomology 5
bob - fred smith wrote: Okay, have your fun. But it is impossible to have a debate with someone about these issues when that person so clearly does not have even a clue about where and how debate on this has developed.
I appear to have enough of a clue about it to make a stronger case here than you. That should be good enough.
Quote: You can pretend all you want that you are just a commonsense kind of guy though the first two of those syllables would perhaps be more accurate than a total inclusion of all three, but the actual underpinnings to which you seem to think that you have free latitude to base your ideas on concepts that have not been conceptually proved. Anyway, enough from me.
"Conceptually proved"? You mean by those guys sitting around wondering if we really exist and whether we can really know anything? How bout the idea of god being a good, loving guy with a plan? Has that been "conceptually proved"?
Actually I think I've discovered a cause effect relationship here!
It goes like this....
The more clearly you defeat fred smith in an argument the more stridently he will come out banging his "you obviously have never studied philosophy" drum.
fred smith - I would like to ask you two questions.
Have you ever studied philosophy?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
In summation, I would be highly surprised if you had made the stronger argument here. Again, we are talking metaphysically. I have stressed this all along.
Now, if in the context of this debate, you can find me a post or link to someone who agrees to your assertion that science from a metaphysical point of view does not collapse given that it assumes the existence of concepts that it cannot scientifically prove then pony it up. Otherwise, believe you me, you are only making yourself look foolish. Anyone who has ever studied metaphysics or philosophy knows exactly what I am talking about. Again, you may not want to discuss metaphysics but to my understanding this debate is to be centered around epistemology, ontology and metaphysics hence the title epistemology, right?
You can think it is all a bunch of whacked out people pondering shit or whatever dude and pass the doobie please but this is and has been the core of our knowledge of what we know and how we know it. Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own ?cough cough?common sense? haha
Elegua - Quote: Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own
I think you don't understand science - and you are assuming equivalence to philosphy. Science makes no claims to understand things that cannot be proven scientifically. If it cannot be proven scientifically, then it is not science, its something else. Science is based upon questioning and understanding that we don't know what we don't know. Science also does not claim that its understanding at any given time is absolute. For example, will not claim that God does not exist as there is no proof that God does not exists. It will raise a doubt that God might exist as there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non existence that we know of at this time.
fred smith - I think you don't understand science - and you are assuming equivalence to philosphy. Science makes no claims to understand things that cannot be proven scientifically. If it cannot be proven scientifically, then it is not science, its something else. Science is based upon questioning and understanding that we don't know what we don't know. Science also does not claim that its understanding at any given time is absolute. For example, will not claim that God does not exist as there is no proof that God does not exists. It will raise a doubt that God might exist as there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non existence that we know of at this time.Quote:
Fred Smith says.... I do not know how this fucking god damned Mac in Mexico works so this is all reversed. The quote should be for the previous person and not me but whatever.... perhaps it believes that it is a scientist too and does not want to help me with my philosophical argument haha. The computer is playing god with me.
I think that you do not read very carefully. Again, no where have I said anything against science. What is the title of this particular thread? It is called epistemology right? Now, what does epistemology deal with? It deals with what knowledge we can have and how can attain that knowledge. Philosophers have dealt with this subject for the better part of two millenia. Science falls under empiricism generally. This is not a new subject, one that has not been dealt with before.
Again, if no one here has any grounding in basic philosophy this conversation is going to go nowhere and fast. No where have I said that science does not have a place. I am talking about how scientific theory cannot prove the very principles upon which it is based from a point of view of epistemology.
Clearly, there are very few people on this thread that know what that means. My mistake for attempting to open a conversation on the subject here. I should have known better. I promise that henceforth I will ask only what your favorite color is and what it tells about your political views. haha
bob - [quote="fred smith"]I would like to ask you two questions.
Have you ever studied philosophy?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
In summation, [quote]
In summation of what? All you did was ask two questions.
Quote:
I would be highly surprised if you had made the stronger argument here. Again, we are talking metaphysically.
Whatever.
Quote: Now, if in the context of this debate, you can find me a post or link to someone who agrees to your assertion that science from a metaphysical point of view does not collapse given that it assumes the existence of concepts that it cannot scientifically prove then pony it up.
OK so science collapses and with it the universe. Nothing is known. It's all an illusion, excpet the God part of course, he is real "because" unlike the atoms that make up this universe, philosophers of a certain persuasion have conceptually proven the possibility. Does that about sum it up professor?
Quote: Otherwise, believe you me, you are only making yourself look foolish. Anyone who has ever studied metaphysics or philosophy knows exactly what I am talking about. Again, you may not want to discuss metaphysics but to my understanding this debate is to be centered around epistemology, ontology and metaphysics hence the title epistemology, right?
I didn't give it this title. This thread was split from the global warming thread.
Quote: You can think it is all a bunch of whacked out people pondering shit or whatever dude and pass the doobie please but this is and has been the core of our knowledge of what we know and how we know it. Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own ?cough cough?common sense?
See now you've been using that approach for so long now it just doesn't phase me a bit anymore. Perhaps it is time that you experimented a little, grew as a writer. Who knows it might help to slow the gradual degeneration of the mental faculties that we've seen happening for some time now.
fred smith - Perfect timing with that last statement. I will be off the air for a while and am relieved that you had nothing of relevance or interest to add lest I be tempted to make the effort to come back to post. There is a God and he just saved me from continued tedium. haha
bob - Where are you going this time? Taoyuan?
fred smith - Dear Bob:
After thorough search, I have determined that Hume, Heidegger, Nietzche and others all support my view that science cannot prove itself scientifically. You may have some better ground to stand on going with Kant because of his views on transcendental idealism but I have to reread the section to determine if this would include ALL concepts or just those of time and space. Admittedly, I find his writing a bit heavy going. Filthy Germans, even worse filthy East Prussians. That said, unfortunately, he is going to be just about the only one that would maintain that we can have any true knowledge of the concepts that would underpin scientific knowledge. The rest of the crew is dead set against it.
Just for fun, you could check out Jurgen Habermas as well since he is a fan of the Enlightenment and Reason and has attempted to preserve ways to maintain the traditions despite the onslaught of destructuralist and postmodern thinking. I, too, admire the accomplishments of the Enlightenment. In fact, my last name does in fact mean that very thing in Latin. Changed in 1147 apparently because of a fetish and fad for all things Latin then. Ironic isn't it?
But there you are. You have two philosophers out of the rest that would lean toward a view that science in terms of epistemology can use concepts to prove true knowledge but even then I would say that with Habermas the overall view is one that recognizes the limitations of such knowledge while advocating the spirit of the Enlightenment and again for Kant, I am rereading and rereading but I am having a hard time determining whether his views on transcendental idealism would enable such concepts to be used.
One philosopher that I have certainly found great affinity with is Emmanuel Levinas. Check that one out as well. Let me see if I can get the links to make this easier for you... I know that hard word is anathema to you. haha
Quote:
During the period of his academic career, extending from 1747 to 1781, Kant, as has been said, taught the philosophy then prevalent in Germany, which was Wolff's modified form of dogmatic rationalism. That is to say, he made psychological experience to be the basis of all metaphysical truth, rejected skepticism, and judged all knowledge by the test of reason. Towards the end of that period, however, he began to question the solidity of the psychological basis of metaphysics, and ended by losing all faith in the validity and value of metaphysical reasoning. The apparent contradictions which he found to exist in the physical sciences, and the conclusions which Hume had reached in his analysis of the principle of causation, "awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber" and brought home to him the necessity of reviewing or criticizing all human experience for the purpose of restoring the physical sciences to a degree of certitude which they rightly claim, and also for the purpose of placing on an unshakable foundation the metaphysical truths which Hume's skeptical phenomenalism had overthrown. The old rational dogmatism had, he now considered, laid too much emphasis on the a priori elements of knowledge; on the other hand, as he now for the first time realized, the empirical philosophy of Hume had gone too far when it reduced all truth to empirical or a posteriori elements. Kant, therefore, proposes to pass all knowledge in review in order to determine how much of it is to be assigned to the a priori, and how much to the a posteriori factors, if we may so designate them, of knowledge. As he himself says, his purpose is to "deduce" the a priori or transcendental, forms of thought. Hence, his philosophy is essentially a "criticism", because it is an examination of knowledge, and "transcendental", because its purpose in examining knowledge is to determine the a priori, or transcendental, forms. Kant himself was wont to say that the business of philosophy is to answer three questions: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope for? He considered, however, that the answer to the second and third depends on the answer to the first; our duty and our destiny can be determined only after a thorough study of human knowledge.
Whoops I guess we can take Kant off that list as well. Back to you bucko.
bob - Science has no need to prove "itself" scientifically because that is not it's concern. It's concern is with proving physical theories until better ones come along. Of course, a lot of these theories relate to the acts of reason and perception themselves, as well as the limitations of each. Our perceptions are narrow and that is why the majority of research done in a physics lab these days is done using instruments that help us overcome those limitations. Will this acknowledgement of our own sensory limitations in combination with the technology we use to break free of them ever lead to true, absolute knowledge concerning the origin and nature of the universe and what we can know about it? I hope not. I am fairly certain though that a scientific view of philosophy will ultimately have more influence in this regard than a philosophical view of science.
Sorry, the writers you mentioned speak in a foreign that would probably take a few weeks to learn, and as I am headed to China next week I might perhaps be better advised to study up on the language spoken there.
fred smith - [quote]Science has no need to prove itself scientifically because that is not it's concern.[/quote]
I would love to have this preserved as one of the most incredible things that I have ever read on this forum.
Quote:
It's concern is with proving physical theories until better ones come along. Of course, a lot of these theories relate to the acts of reason and perception themselves, as well as the limitations of each. Our perceptions are narrow and that is why the majority of research done in a physics lab these days is done using instruments that help us overcome those limitations.
This is incredible. What are you saying? I have always said that science has a role, but now you have finally come around to admitting that science cannot prove itself scientifically (a major challenge in my book) and that it must "freeze" things to examine them in a lab, but since the world is ever-changing, how does this make sense? Again, I am not in any way criticizing science or its accomplishments. In fact, I am a firm believer in the development of new technology especially regarding global warming, er climate change, er alternating weather patterns. There, you seem to be the skeptic. Ironic isn't it?
Quote:
Will this acknowledgement of our own sensory limitations in combination with the technology we use to break free of them ever lead to true, absolute knowledge concerning the origin and nature of the universe and what we can know about it? I hope not.
I am curious as to why you would hope not.... Isn't science and technological achievement your "god?"
Quote:
I am fairly certain though that a scientific view of philosophy will ultimately have more influence in this regard than a philosophical view of science.
What in the world is this supposed to mean?
Quote:
Sorry, the writers you mentioned speak in a foreign that would probably take a few weeks to learn, and as I am headed to China next week I might perhaps be better advised to study up on the language spoken there.
You do realize of course that Hume, Kant, Nietzche, Heidegger, Levinas, et al are absolute beginning blocks to the study of philosophy including epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. You did realize that didn't you?
Now, I would like to make my final point now that you seem to have conceded finally that science cannot prove itself scientically. Now, let's go back to our original discussion regarding Intelligent Design (only with my preference not for the political theory but intelligent design as in small caps). I have "faith" in something Godlike which I prefer to call the Ultimate Formula lest it raise your discrimination and prejudice against traditional religion. You now admit that you are putting your "faith" in science. You do realize now that we are on equal planes at least philosophically. Now, pondering that I want you to admit to yourself that highly intelligent people may examine these issues and come to different conclusions than you. I have never told you that it was ridiculous to believe in or put your faith in science but I do not believe that the opposite has been true. And I believe that my faith gives me strength in terms of ethical standards, morality and the confidence and security that comes from believing that there is a purpose to our existence. Can I prove any of this? No. But I want you to understand that likewise you cannot prove anything at this level using science. And to me, ultimately, I may appreciate the technological benefits that science and new discoveries can deliver, but I would not want to live my life with science as the ultimate arbiter in deciding how I live my life. Now, do you understand where someone like me is coming from? Again, I am not condemning science but I do want you to understand that religious people such as myself whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or other have wrestled with these issues in a multitude of ways for millenia. I just want you to accept this and perhaps view those of "Belief" in a Higher Intelligence with a bit less smug, self-satisfied superiority in full recognition of the time and effort that has been put into studying and pondering these issues. Fair? Point made? Can you meet me half way on this?
I appear to have enough of a clue about it to make a stronger case here than you. That should be good enough.
Quote: You can pretend all you want that you are just a commonsense kind of guy though the first two of those syllables would perhaps be more accurate than a total inclusion of all three, but the actual underpinnings to which you seem to think that you have free latitude to base your ideas on concepts that have not been conceptually proved. Anyway, enough from me.
"Conceptually proved"? You mean by those guys sitting around wondering if we really exist and whether we can really know anything? How bout the idea of god being a good, loving guy with a plan? Has that been "conceptually proved"?
Actually I think I've discovered a cause effect relationship here!
It goes like this....
The more clearly you defeat fred smith in an argument the more stridently he will come out banging his "you obviously have never studied philosophy" drum.
fred smith - I would like to ask you two questions.
Have you ever studied philosophy?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
In summation, I would be highly surprised if you had made the stronger argument here. Again, we are talking metaphysically. I have stressed this all along.
Now, if in the context of this debate, you can find me a post or link to someone who agrees to your assertion that science from a metaphysical point of view does not collapse given that it assumes the existence of concepts that it cannot scientifically prove then pony it up. Otherwise, believe you me, you are only making yourself look foolish. Anyone who has ever studied metaphysics or philosophy knows exactly what I am talking about. Again, you may not want to discuss metaphysics but to my understanding this debate is to be centered around epistemology, ontology and metaphysics hence the title epistemology, right?
You can think it is all a bunch of whacked out people pondering shit or whatever dude and pass the doobie please but this is and has been the core of our knowledge of what we know and how we know it. Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own ?cough cough?common sense? haha
Elegua - Quote: Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own
I think you don't understand science - and you are assuming equivalence to philosphy. Science makes no claims to understand things that cannot be proven scientifically. If it cannot be proven scientifically, then it is not science, its something else. Science is based upon questioning and understanding that we don't know what we don't know. Science also does not claim that its understanding at any given time is absolute. For example, will not claim that God does not exist as there is no proof that God does not exists. It will raise a doubt that God might exist as there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non existence that we know of at this time.
fred smith - I think you don't understand science - and you are assuming equivalence to philosphy. Science makes no claims to understand things that cannot be proven scientifically. If it cannot be proven scientifically, then it is not science, its something else. Science is based upon questioning and understanding that we don't know what we don't know. Science also does not claim that its understanding at any given time is absolute. For example, will not claim that God does not exist as there is no proof that God does not exists. It will raise a doubt that God might exist as there is no conclusive proof of the existence or non existence that we know of at this time.Quote:
Fred Smith says.... I do not know how this fucking god damned Mac in Mexico works so this is all reversed. The quote should be for the previous person and not me but whatever.... perhaps it believes that it is a scientist too and does not want to help me with my philosophical argument haha. The computer is playing god with me.
I think that you do not read very carefully. Again, no where have I said anything against science. What is the title of this particular thread? It is called epistemology right? Now, what does epistemology deal with? It deals with what knowledge we can have and how can attain that knowledge. Philosophers have dealt with this subject for the better part of two millenia. Science falls under empiricism generally. This is not a new subject, one that has not been dealt with before.
Again, if no one here has any grounding in basic philosophy this conversation is going to go nowhere and fast. No where have I said that science does not have a place. I am talking about how scientific theory cannot prove the very principles upon which it is based from a point of view of epistemology.
Clearly, there are very few people on this thread that know what that means. My mistake for attempting to open a conversation on the subject here. I should have known better. I promise that henceforth I will ask only what your favorite color is and what it tells about your political views. haha
bob - [quote="fred smith"]I would like to ask you two questions.
Have you ever studied philosophy?
Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
In summation, [quote]
In summation of what? All you did was ask two questions.
Quote:
I would be highly surprised if you had made the stronger argument here. Again, we are talking metaphysically.
Whatever.
Quote: Now, if in the context of this debate, you can find me a post or link to someone who agrees to your assertion that science from a metaphysical point of view does not collapse given that it assumes the existence of concepts that it cannot scientifically prove then pony it up.
OK so science collapses and with it the universe. Nothing is known. It's all an illusion, excpet the God part of course, he is real "because" unlike the atoms that make up this universe, philosophers of a certain persuasion have conceptually proven the possibility. Does that about sum it up professor?
Quote: Otherwise, believe you me, you are only making yourself look foolish. Anyone who has ever studied metaphysics or philosophy knows exactly what I am talking about. Again, you may not want to discuss metaphysics but to my understanding this debate is to be centered around epistemology, ontology and metaphysics hence the title epistemology, right?
I didn't give it this title. This thread was split from the global warming thread.
Quote: You can think it is all a bunch of whacked out people pondering shit or whatever dude and pass the doobie please but this is and has been the core of our knowledge of what we know and how we know it. Science is only one part of that knowledge and again it assumes concepts that it cannot prove using scientific methods. Can you find someone who will disagree with my assertion rather than relying upon your own ?cough cough?common sense?
See now you've been using that approach for so long now it just doesn't phase me a bit anymore. Perhaps it is time that you experimented a little, grew as a writer. Who knows it might help to slow the gradual degeneration of the mental faculties that we've seen happening for some time now.
fred smith - Perfect timing with that last statement. I will be off the air for a while and am relieved that you had nothing of relevance or interest to add lest I be tempted to make the effort to come back to post. There is a God and he just saved me from continued tedium. haha
bob - Where are you going this time? Taoyuan?
fred smith - Dear Bob:
After thorough search, I have determined that Hume, Heidegger, Nietzche and others all support my view that science cannot prove itself scientifically. You may have some better ground to stand on going with Kant because of his views on transcendental idealism but I have to reread the section to determine if this would include ALL concepts or just those of time and space. Admittedly, I find his writing a bit heavy going. Filthy Germans, even worse filthy East Prussians. That said, unfortunately, he is going to be just about the only one that would maintain that we can have any true knowledge of the concepts that would underpin scientific knowledge. The rest of the crew is dead set against it.
Just for fun, you could check out Jurgen Habermas as well since he is a fan of the Enlightenment and Reason and has attempted to preserve ways to maintain the traditions despite the onslaught of destructuralist and postmodern thinking. I, too, admire the accomplishments of the Enlightenment. In fact, my last name does in fact mean that very thing in Latin. Changed in 1147 apparently because of a fetish and fad for all things Latin then. Ironic isn't it?
But there you are. You have two philosophers out of the rest that would lean toward a view that science in terms of epistemology can use concepts to prove true knowledge but even then I would say that with Habermas the overall view is one that recognizes the limitations of such knowledge while advocating the spirit of the Enlightenment and again for Kant, I am rereading and rereading but I am having a hard time determining whether his views on transcendental idealism would enable such concepts to be used.
One philosopher that I have certainly found great affinity with is Emmanuel Levinas. Check that one out as well. Let me see if I can get the links to make this easier for you... I know that hard word is anathema to you. haha
Quote:
During the period of his academic career, extending from 1747 to 1781, Kant, as has been said, taught the philosophy then prevalent in Germany, which was Wolff's modified form of dogmatic rationalism. That is to say, he made psychological experience to be the basis of all metaphysical truth, rejected skepticism, and judged all knowledge by the test of reason. Towards the end of that period, however, he began to question the solidity of the psychological basis of metaphysics, and ended by losing all faith in the validity and value of metaphysical reasoning. The apparent contradictions which he found to exist in the physical sciences, and the conclusions which Hume had reached in his analysis of the principle of causation, "awoke Kant from his dogmatic slumber" and brought home to him the necessity of reviewing or criticizing all human experience for the purpose of restoring the physical sciences to a degree of certitude which they rightly claim, and also for the purpose of placing on an unshakable foundation the metaphysical truths which Hume's skeptical phenomenalism had overthrown. The old rational dogmatism had, he now considered, laid too much emphasis on the a priori elements of knowledge; on the other hand, as he now for the first time realized, the empirical philosophy of Hume had gone too far when it reduced all truth to empirical or a posteriori elements. Kant, therefore, proposes to pass all knowledge in review in order to determine how much of it is to be assigned to the a priori, and how much to the a posteriori factors, if we may so designate them, of knowledge. As he himself says, his purpose is to "deduce" the a priori or transcendental, forms of thought. Hence, his philosophy is essentially a "criticism", because it is an examination of knowledge, and "transcendental", because its purpose in examining knowledge is to determine the a priori, or transcendental, forms. Kant himself was wont to say that the business of philosophy is to answer three questions: What can I know? What ought I to do? What may I hope for? He considered, however, that the answer to the second and third depends on the answer to the first; our duty and our destiny can be determined only after a thorough study of human knowledge.
Whoops I guess we can take Kant off that list as well. Back to you bucko.
bob - Science has no need to prove "itself" scientifically because that is not it's concern. It's concern is with proving physical theories until better ones come along. Of course, a lot of these theories relate to the acts of reason and perception themselves, as well as the limitations of each. Our perceptions are narrow and that is why the majority of research done in a physics lab these days is done using instruments that help us overcome those limitations. Will this acknowledgement of our own sensory limitations in combination with the technology we use to break free of them ever lead to true, absolute knowledge concerning the origin and nature of the universe and what we can know about it? I hope not. I am fairly certain though that a scientific view of philosophy will ultimately have more influence in this regard than a philosophical view of science.
Sorry, the writers you mentioned speak in a foreign that would probably take a few weeks to learn, and as I am headed to China next week I might perhaps be better advised to study up on the language spoken there.
fred smith - [quote]Science has no need to prove itself scientifically because that is not it's concern.[/quote]
I would love to have this preserved as one of the most incredible things that I have ever read on this forum.
Quote:
It's concern is with proving physical theories until better ones come along. Of course, a lot of these theories relate to the acts of reason and perception themselves, as well as the limitations of each. Our perceptions are narrow and that is why the majority of research done in a physics lab these days is done using instruments that help us overcome those limitations.
This is incredible. What are you saying? I have always said that science has a role, but now you have finally come around to admitting that science cannot prove itself scientifically (a major challenge in my book) and that it must "freeze" things to examine them in a lab, but since the world is ever-changing, how does this make sense? Again, I am not in any way criticizing science or its accomplishments. In fact, I am a firm believer in the development of new technology especially regarding global warming, er climate change, er alternating weather patterns. There, you seem to be the skeptic. Ironic isn't it?
Quote:
Will this acknowledgement of our own sensory limitations in combination with the technology we use to break free of them ever lead to true, absolute knowledge concerning the origin and nature of the universe and what we can know about it? I hope not.
I am curious as to why you would hope not.... Isn't science and technological achievement your "god?"
Quote:
I am fairly certain though that a scientific view of philosophy will ultimately have more influence in this regard than a philosophical view of science.
What in the world is this supposed to mean?
Quote:
Sorry, the writers you mentioned speak in a foreign that would probably take a few weeks to learn, and as I am headed to China next week I might perhaps be better advised to study up on the language spoken there.
You do realize of course that Hume, Kant, Nietzche, Heidegger, Levinas, et al are absolute beginning blocks to the study of philosophy including epistemology, ontology and metaphysics. You did realize that didn't you?
Now, I would like to make my final point now that you seem to have conceded finally that science cannot prove itself scientically. Now, let's go back to our original discussion regarding Intelligent Design (only with my preference not for the political theory but intelligent design as in small caps). I have "faith" in something Godlike which I prefer to call the Ultimate Formula lest it raise your discrimination and prejudice against traditional religion. You now admit that you are putting your "faith" in science. You do realize now that we are on equal planes at least philosophically. Now, pondering that I want you to admit to yourself that highly intelligent people may examine these issues and come to different conclusions than you. I have never told you that it was ridiculous to believe in or put your faith in science but I do not believe that the opposite has been true. And I believe that my faith gives me strength in terms of ethical standards, morality and the confidence and security that comes from believing that there is a purpose to our existence. Can I prove any of this? No. But I want you to understand that likewise you cannot prove anything at this level using science. And to me, ultimately, I may appreciate the technological benefits that science and new discoveries can deliver, but I would not want to live my life with science as the ultimate arbiter in deciding how I live my life. Now, do you understand where someone like me is coming from? Again, I am not condemning science but I do want you to understand that religious people such as myself whether Muslim, Christian, Jew or other have wrestled with these issues in a multitude of ways for millenia. I just want you to accept this and perhaps view those of "Belief" in a Higher Intelligence with a bit less smug, self-satisfied superiority in full recognition of the time and effort that has been put into studying and pondering these issues. Fair? Point made? Can you meet me half way on this?
posted by david at 2:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home