It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

beyond science, beyond religion

page: 5
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I believe that teachings which cause more pain and struggle than relief and joy are untrue.


So, in essence, truth is determined by emotion?

What feels good is true, what feels bad is wrong?

[edit on 23-8-2007 by melatonin]




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:42 AM
link   
yes, thats basically what I would say. "what feels good" meaning what causes relief, relaxation, love, joy, respect and enthusiasm.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
yes, thats basically what I would say. "what feels good" meaning what causes relief, relaxation, love, joy, respect and enthusiasm.


So, if I ever get chased by a bear I can just say that because it makes me scared and aroused it isn't true?

To be alive means to take the rough and the smooth. Or as William Blake said...

It is right it should be so;
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.

Joy and woe are woven fine,
A clothing for the soul divine.
Under every grief and pine
Runs a joy with silken twine.

It doesn't really work really. I'm sure if you asked a hardening fundamentalist Xian they'd say their faith brings them joy and relaxation, maybe suicide bombers feel a sense of joy in fulfilling their martyrdom and love towards their magic-man.

All a bit too relative and subjective.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


The bear chasing me is showing me "stay away from the bear". the religious cultist waging war shows me "stay away from that religion". Its the same principle. I am not disagreeing that there is a balance of dark and light, but that our feelings may INDICATE in which way something is good/not-good for us personally. And that will DIFFER for each person.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:49 PM
link   
As you might gather, I dont buy the popular belief "no pain, no gain". Thats one of the major beliefs used by religion (and many other systems).



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
As you might gather, I dont buy the popular belief "no pain, no gain". Thats one of the major beliefs used by religion (and many other systems).


Well, I dunno. Maybe it depends. I don't think it can be used as a general rule.

Perhaps something based around delaying short-term gain for better long-term gains would be better saying.

What I'm trying to say though is that emotion can't really determine truth. In a Damasio-style emotion-based heuristic, it can provide gut-feelings and intuitive judgments. But intuition is also far from a perfect method of determining fact and truth.

Wouldn't you think that reliable evidence is the best way of finding truth?

I think that religions already depend on emotion-based truth.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
what I am actually saying is that religion and science use certain "measures of truth" and that I disagree with both.

The measure of truth in science is "evidence", meaning what can be seen with the extremely limited senses. Society has been indoctrinated into believing the authority of "evidence". This submission to authority is evident all over ATS when people cry for "evidence" on a consistent basis.

The measure of truth in religion is "believe it". But that does not suffice for me either.

For me the measure of truth is "experiencability" if such a word exists. or "workability" or good FRUITS. Judging religion by its FRUITS, by the ultimate results, its not all good. Judging science by its FRUITS, its ultimate results, its not all good. Some of it is...but only some of it.

If I read a piece of philosophy and start feeling warm and well inside, this indicates to me that this would be appropriate TRUTH for me personally for that time. Intuitive feeling and effectiveness is my measure of truth.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


I wrote my last post before noticing yours.

No, I dont think reliable evidence is the final measure of truth because our senses our very limited.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:02 PM
link   
I believe there are TRILLIONS of things going on that I am not aware of. Because of this I dont think it is wise to even begin to purport what "truth" is. I will admit that scientific evidence is workable to some degree, but will add its only the tip of the iceberg and not a representation of what the whole of reality is about.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   
come to think of it: The best things I experienced, learned and felt in life were neither science-based (schooling, school curriculum) nor religion based. They were Intuition and self-trust based.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Well I think that's why we develop fancy telescopes and MRI machines and all that other amazing stuff to take our experience and observations beyond the limits of our senses.

I really do think people should believe what they like as long as it directly hurts no-one else, but honestly, I think that serving on a jury might not be the best thing for you.

Feelings are great, they give us drive and impetus. But as a guide to truth, I dunno. Emotions underlie prejudice and a lot of other human ugliness.

ABE: yeah, I have some great experiences that are also not science-based, but pure subjective experiences. Real space-cadet stuff. I wouldn't change them for the world. But they were not a guide to truth. Gave me some personal insight though, and a rather different way to view things at the time.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:11 PM
link   
alright, how about this: when you are in a good state (emotionally), you can think clearer, act better and make better decisions.

also, consider this: given the choice of reading the facts of mathematics or having sex with the woman of your dreams, what would you choose?

I would say that choosing the later is MORE of what life is about (without invalidating the maths necessary to get stuff done).



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Emotions underlie prejudice and a lot of other human ugliness.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]



No. LOW emotions do.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Imagine an ant that knows nothing but its immediate surroundings: The ant-hill and grass.

The science-ant is saying: We should rely only on hard evidence. This grass and dirt is all there is.

The religion-ant is saying: Oh no, theres a god and its a foot and its going to come some day and crush those who believe differently.

and the ant beyond science and religion is saying: "Theres a lot more out there than the foot or than the dirt & grass. I can intuitively sense it.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Mmm, dunno. Prejudice can be sourced through love prejudice or hate prejudice. For example, the jury who let OJ off with murder probably had a bit of both. Love for an ingroup member who made good, and hate for a outgroup of insitutionally racist police officers. Enough of these people allowed OJ off.

If all you are trying to say is that people should embrace good feelings and emotions, then maybe yeah, we should try. But I also think it's good to feel bad occassionally, it gives some perspective to the good.

A bit like eating chocolate for every meal. Becomes mundane and dull eventually.

As for the maths or sex stuff. I'd have to go with the maths, as I don't think my partner would approve. But, in essence, time and place for everything. If we all went around like Bonobo apes we'd never have cured small pox.

Bit of work, bit of play.

I think life is about acquiring experiences, and I try to pass that off on my son. But, pure selfish sensation-seeking ain't a path to a utopia.

ABE:


The science-ant is saying: We should rely only on hard evidence. This grass and dirt is all there is.


But science doesn't say that, in this analogy, the grass and dirt is all there is. It says that is all we can observe, test, and understand with science.

That's why there are scientists who believe in magic-men and reincarnation etc.

Science just doesn't go there, it can't.

As for intuition, that's what told us that the earth was flat and that big rocks fall faster than small rocks...

Science tries to go beyond the intuitive sense. And it tends to do so successfully.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

But science doesn't say that, in this analogy, the grass and dirt is all there is. It says that is all we can observe, test, and understand with science.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]


I basically agree with everything you have posted up to now, including the way you interpret science, so this is a kind of fake debate.

Only one little thing though: "This is all we can observe, test, and understand with science" says the scientist ant. responds the enlightened ant: "yeah, have fun studying more of the ant-hill, I am going on a journey beyond this area."



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I basically agree with everything you have posted up to now, including the way you interpret science, so this is a kind of fake debate.

Only one little thing though: "This is all we can observe, test, and understand with science" says the scientist ant. responds the enlightened ant: "yeah, have fun studying more of the ant-hill, I am going on a journey beyond this area."


Have fun on such journeys.

It is quite possible that science will find new forces, new energies, alternate universes, new lifeforms etc. Who knows? I don't.

All science does is say 'don't know'.

And it's great to be able to say it. Rather than force gods into gaps etc.

'Where did the singularity come from and what came before'

Don't know, we're trying to find out. It's quite liberating.

The one thing to know about science is that it is far from 'absolute truth'. Suppose its a bit like an arrow shot towards the unknown truth, which self-corrects on its way there. All the time we are getting a better glimpse of truth, but we'll never hit the target. Always more to know and study.

That's why science will trump religion every time. Only religion has the Truth (TM).

[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   
yes, but the fact that I am not arguing the science side does not mean that I am arguing the religion side...far from it. I can tell you EXACTLY what science and religion lack: a sense of fun and excitement.

look at the geek-ant studying books, facts and evidence all day.
look at the religion-ant worshipping wrathful gods all day.

and then look at the ant who may be studying a little bit and worshipping something a little bit, but spends most of his lifetime simply enjoying the ride...dancing. What I AM arguing is that this ant will fulfill lifes purpose more than the other two.

I guess there are the believer-types (religion), the study types (science) and the experience types. All three are valid. But the reason this thread was opened in the first place is because EMPHASIS is placed mostly on the first two types (as can be seen in thousands of threads on ATS) while discounting or not even being aware of the third type of system of thinking, feeling and acting.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
Don't know, we're trying to find out. It's quite liberating.
[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]


that can be liberating, yes. now go outside and get drenched by rain in a summer storm. then go dance til you drop. then make passionate love. then meditate in silence. thats liberating too.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Skyfloating]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
that can be liberating, yes. now go outside and get drenched by rain in a summer storm. then go dance til you drop. then make passionate love. then meditate in silence. thats liberating too.


I'm sure it is. Been there and done that, without the meditation bit though, heh.

We need a bit of everything though, yeah? We can't just seek short-term sensation, sex, highs, and subjective experience. That's a rather selfish way of life.

I think science can be in some ways exciting.

Find a problem no-one has even touched. Develop a good way to test it. Collecting the first data ever on a particular issue, bringing it through to completion, analysing the data. Finding something completely unexpected. Spend six months racking your brains trying to find a good way to understand the results, lots of 'out-the-box' methods to find new ways of viewing the problem, lots of reading....Eureka. Publish the first set of data ever on a particular issue.

Might take a few years from start to finish. But it beats an hour of nookie, heh.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join