Its quite sad to hear such beliefs after how much we've learned since we lived in caves. The amount of sheer knowledge we have gathered in the last 10,000 years and the rate at which its speeding up now seemingly every decade is quite staggering.
To consider it impossible for us to learn the processes which have brought us our existence is outright silly and even though its a vastly difficult question with such incredible complexity does not mean we cannot eventually find the answers.
I agree but perhaps when we solve the how we will only find we have a whole new batch of questions that we can't even fathom today.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeBass For This Useful Post:
do you think, though, that it would be difficult to colonize space since the dead mormons own so many of the planets already? I hope they each get just one when they die...
From a science point of view, how can anyone ever expect an organism that was created within a system to ever be able to develop the intelligence capacity to unravel the secrets of the system that it was created in? The complexity of the universe will always be greater than the abilities of the human mind in my opinion.
This is an enourmously subjective position. What constitutes "complexity", and how does one gauge it? Especially when it comes to making comparisons between two things for which you have not drawn a correlation, in this case, the human mind and the "universe"?
On the other hand, perhaps your above statement actually points towards the absence of any sort of "transcendent" reality. The fact is that the human mind has come to grasp vast amounts of complexity, and seems to be expanding the compendium of knowledge at an increasingly exponential rate...
*cue peter12 anti-science rant*
...Does this not nullify your incredulity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyceman
That's my thoughts as well. You articulated it better then I could. Can the toy out think the toy maker? The smartest ant in the world will never be able to comprehend the vastness that we as humans comprehend.
Given that we are still learning about the brain and the human mind, it still remains unknown what we can and cannot intellectually achieve. But this and the previous posts are great examples of arguments from incredulity:
"I can't imagine something, ergo it must be impossible."
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
God, I hate Todd Friel! But what I hate even more is that scientists feel pressure to avoid using language for fear of being misunderstood. It's like the intelligent design movement has cornered the market on the use of the word "design", when in fact it is very effective for explaining phenomena and processes in the natural world. I resent the notion that "complexity" or "design" preclude "design-er" and "complexit...or(?)"
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Please clarify: why are the new atheists not "deserving" of the moniker "humanist"? How does one become deserving of this label? Perhaps you find them depressing in large part because they do not share your own sense of purpose? This seems to come up a lot in your posts, and it strikes me as unnecessarily axiomatic.
I can go into my "sense of purpose" if you like, but honestly most people won't bother to read what I write.
It's about horizons and Nietzsche and Hannah Arendt. I'll think about it for a bit and post a little blurb.
We can't say for sure that god isn't a giant plate of noodles and meatballs, even if he is so tasty you'd be crazy to deny him.
We can't say for sure what love is but that doesn't indicate that it doesn't exist or that its existent is relevant on the subjective experience, even though it is.
We can't say for sure what love is but that doesn't indicate that it doesn't exist or that its existent is relevant on the subjective experience, even though it is.
Yes but reality comes from a universally confirmed perception; God is not universally confirmed, love is.
On the other hand, perhaps your above statement actually points towards the absence of any sort of "transcendent" reality. The fact is that the human mind has come to grasp vast amounts of complexity, and seems to be expanding the compendium of knowledge at an increasingly exponential rate...
This implied progress of knowledge is something that comes up repeatedly in your posts and you get away with it because it's a shared postulate with most of the board.
If you are suggesting that we have accelerated and increased the amount of technical knowledge than I would agree. In other fields, such as the humanities, we're still at square one.
The amount of people here who believe that their opinions and beliefs are ex nihilio is totally startling to me. All of this has context and if one doesn't know the literature or philosophy that supports/opposes a particularly humanist outlook, one isn't a real freethinker.
I can go into my "sense of purpose" if you like, but honestly most people won't bother to read what I write.
It's about horizons and Nietzsche and Hannah Arendt. I'll think about it for a bit and post a little blurb.
I would actually prefer that you address my earlier questions: namely, why are the new athiests not deserving humanists, and how does one become deserving?
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
Theres a biological need to bash groins, but Love is a concept invented by Hallmark.
Invented by humanity. It's pretty clear that romance encapsulates a need to bash groins but it definitely doesn't stop there.
We can objectify people through sex and we do that all the time, but there are human universals which are worthy of our contemplation and action. Love is one of them. I personally think God is another, even if I don't necessarily believe he exists.
I would actually prefer that you address my earlier questions: namely, why are the new athiests not deserving humanists, and how does one become deserving?
I think this question becomes a bit of a shield issue for humanists as they are not necessarily sure what their own humanism means so they depend upon opponents to define it for them so they can critique it.
The point is, real humanism doesn't exist anymore because it has separated itself from the historical reality of atheism and proper humanism. Two things, actual atheists like Nietzsche and Marx aren't properly read or understood anymore and the Enlightenment ethic that opposed Aristotelian science has been completely subsumed by the worship of technological innovation.
I find that if you toss away your belief in Love, that life becomes simpler and far less expensive.
I don't know where I stand on the god issue, I don't believe in the whole day to day intervention, but I do believe in the possibilites of higher beings.
But then I get the whole man created in his own image and look at a picture of carrot top and I wonder.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
