It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by PrimalRed
A zen buddhist would never claim that
None of us will ever know the true nature of reality and it's origins. The best we can manage is to chip away at it using science and reason. Religion of any sort is a kind of cowardice in my opinion. It requires far more courage to come to the realization that we are nothing more than the product of chance in an indifferent universe than it does to blindly take comfort in myths and lies.edit on 9-12-2011 by Atzil321 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by charles1952
Thank you for responding so gently to my post which was not, perhaps, as polite as it could have been. Please allow me to try again, now that I have a better understanding of your position.
I admire your faith in science, but I still believe you are asking too much of it. Science won't discover the cause for the universe. Not in this generation or the next, or in any generation. It can't. It is as incapable of it as a man is of being his own great-grandfather.
The scientific method uses experiments and observations. How will you set up an experiment which begins as an entirely empty infinite space, with no energy, matter, force, anything? That's what you would need as a starting point. If you say "it," whatever "it" is, comes from a parallel universe, then you have to explain the parallel universe. This is not a question that science will ever be able to solve, no matter how much "faith" people put into the idea that someday it will.
One other area I'd like to touch on in this post is morals. If I understand you, all humanity has the same set of morals and those morals are the ones which insure our specie's survival.
I have four areas of concern:
1) Obviously, these morals must have changed over time. There was a time in the last thousand years when people needed to have as many children as possible to keep the family alive. If we did that now we'd have serious population problems. Morals don't seem to be hardwired in your description, but changing and adaptable.
2) The highest good, the most moral act, is one that insures you and others survive. Consider a murderer who has killed once, in an incredibly rare circumstance, who knows to a certainty that he will never kill again. Society believes that the death was accidental. Does he turn himself in and give up the chance to father children? Does he flip a coin to decide because society will keep going either way? What is "morally" correct?
3) Do people have a choice in recognizing something as morally good? By that I mean is morality something the same for all people because it's hardwired in? Or if it changes, could you explain how everyone "gets the memo," so to speak that its time to change morality? Perhaps its taught by a society's most moral? If so who decides who the teachers are?
4) How did we decide that survival of the species is the highest good? Where did we get the idea that there is no more noble activity than staying alive? If we have no choice but to believe it, then morality has changed it's definition so drastically that we need another word. It is not a moral act to do something you "have" to do, morality involves choosing. Who, then, teaches us morality?
Again, many thanks for taking the time to write to me. I admire the work you put into your response.
It could be the mythology which is hard to take.
Is it possible? Sure. Anything is possible, but on the subject of religion, to entertain the idea of this story is right up there with entertaining the possibility that a blue fairy princess flies around at night making sure the trees all grow straight and tall... It's just something that makes no logical sense...