I believe that there exists beyond ourselves a physical world, and that this physical world exists independently of us. I believe that insofar as some model, idea, postulate hypothesis, or model conforms in its properties to the real world, it is true, and insofar as it does not, it is false. I believe that the more we understand about the physical world, the better our understanding of ourselves.
Physical world... that's it? So, human consciousness is nothing but swirling particles of matter? Over eons, they became intelligent and self-aware [somehow] and found themselves posting at the Fine Tuned Mac forums chatting about quantum electrodynamics and string theory? Them's some miraculous particles. How do suppose they
do that?
FWIW (not much perhaps), I more-or-less subscribe to this sort of (unproven) thinking:
I would make the case that physicists have bumped up against the ultimate barrier of the physical world. The reason their thoughts are rational but not visualizable is because they remain rational scientists, but they believe, without proof, in the metaphysical reality of a material world without a spiritual substrate. They have shut themselves off from, a priori, the very substrate of the material world, the spiritual world.
You may remember reading that in Matherne's review of Pagels'
"The Cosmic Code" which i linked to a few posts back (i'd never seen it before then). Interestingly, that's not so different from Capra's take on things... but not identical either. Do i find it comforting? Not particularly, but my brain cells tend to drift in that direction... until someone proves otherwise i suppose. AFAIK, it's *not* a religion -- more of a concept rather (with "pantheistic" qualities perhaps, as i've also recently learned). I'm pretty sure that sort of thinking has never erected cathedrals or waged war... nonetheless, i won't be offended if it makes you
uncomfortable. [time to pull out that "promiscuous teleology" pill.]
And--perhaps most key--I do not believe there is any advantage to holding onto an idea simply because we find it pleasing or comforting.
Not sure if you're speaking generally here, about any-and-all ideas?... or were you referring to one idea in particular? [edit: BTW, if you wish to hold on to ideas that *
don't* please you... i think an exception can be made.]
I do not believe that the comforting lie is superior to the comfortable truth.
But realistically that isn't even the choice, is it? Not as far as i'm concerned anyway. Again, i don't know to what specifically you might be referring... but, if you're suggesting that i'm "holding on" to some "comforting lie" despite being aware of an alternative [corresponding] "comfortable truth"... i'd say that in all probability you are mistaken.
1. That is not a good tool for understanding the physical world.
Did i ever say it was? No... thus: no argument.
2. "What you want" and "what pleases you" most often means what supports your prevailing prejudices, insecurities, and fears." This is why we see, over and over, some kind of faith used as the foundation of morality, yet we also see that the moral values given to us by preachers and prophets are evil, twisted, corrupted versions of the very prejudices held by those preachers and prophets. From the Christian Bible, which endorses slavery and teaches that women are inferior to men, to the rural parts of India where religious faith teaches that it is acceptable to burn a woman alive if she is suspected of infidelity, we see over and over again that taking things on faith is the easy way to justifying atrocity, and that the beliefs which are most pleasing are those which most legitimize the evil impulses of the believer.
I said
believe whatever you want... not
do whatever you want. [i've shortened my credo during the last few exchanges... but you may recall back on
page 2 i specified:
"so long as it doesn't harm the other visitors on this planet." That part seems fairly self-evident, so i haven't been repeating it.]
For those who care passionately about the truth, "believe what you want, whatever pleases you" is moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Not really. The problems usually arise when "
believe what i tell you to believe" comes into play. If everyone
practiced "believe whatever you want" no one would be bothering each other about their respective beliefs. Is that not logical? [again, within the framework of not harming one's neighbor. One of them might wish to paint their house pink or maybe burn a pentagram on the lawn... but local laws prohibit that sort of thing, etc. YMMV.]
edit: BTW, is repealing the
First Amendment high up there on your To-Do list then?
It seems to me that that, in a nutshell, is the core of this entire discussion and the most fundamental difference between you and I..
Okay. Well then -- aside from "posting" me into oblivion and repealing the First Ammedment -- how do you presume to overcome this (perceived) predicament? Whether consciously or not, you appear to be tippy-toeing right into
"believe what i tell you to believe" territory... much like the zealots you purport to despise (ironically enough).
Was there some verbal misunderstanding, or are you having delusions? [i hear the banks charge as much as $20 now for bouncing "intellectual" checks.]
--
At this juncture i would like to point out that -- back on
page *4* -- i tried to redirect the angular momentum of this thread into a slightly more elevated orbit. I linked to that 'Interpretation
s of Quantum Mechanics' page and tried to solicit views on the various schools of thought listed there. In essence, you declined that invitation (and my
2nd appeal as well), with not so much as a relevant response... let alone any direct reply to my specific "Copenhagen" query. Indeed it can be said you have been totally 'tacit' in that respect.
Somehow, the focus always strays back into one of these anti-religion sermons and/or questionnaires; going to the extent of researching the names of every god in the wiki (or did you recall all those from memory?) Your point has been well made for over (at least) 6 of the past 8 pages, repetitiously so. Parts i agree with and parts don't seem to pertain to me. In those places where we both disagree (and it does apply to me), i don't wish to dwell... but, i have placed some responses earlier in
this post. I have absolutely no interest in "converting" anyone (do you?). Or is the purpose of this anti-religion smokescreen to *
avoid* actually engaging in discussion wherein ideas about various (as yet) unexplained scientific principles could be shared? Remember... "unexplained
scientific principles"...the original title of this thread?
Live long and prosper.
