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.
“The old, confident distinction between materiality and non-materiality is not a thing modern science can endorse…modern physics and cosmology are conspicuous by their absence from the arguments of these self-declared champions of science, reason and enlightenment.” (p. 112-113, ix-x)
“Religion is a point of entry for certain anthropological methods and assumptions whose tendencies are distinctly invidious. It is treated as a proof of persisting primitivity…a hermeneutics of condescension.” (p. 14)
“If the Christianity [Bertrand] Russell loathes is the Christianity he encountered, then that is a form in which the religion has lived in the world. Others have encountered other Christianities. This is one more instance of the universe of difficulties that surrounds a definition of one religion, not to mention religion as a whole.” (p. 12)
“There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all.” (p. 12)
–Bertrand Russell, 1927
“I have no opinion about the likelihood that science, at the top of its bent, will ultimately arrive at accounts of consciousness, identity, memory, and imagination that are sufficient in the terms of scientific inquiry. Nor do I object, in our present very limited state of knowledge, to hypotheses being offered in the awareness that, in the honorable tradition of science, they are liable to being proved grossly wrong. What I wish to question are not the methods of science, but the methods of a kind of argument that claims the authority of science or highly specialized knowledge, that assumes a protective coloration that allows it to pass for science yet does not practice the self-discipline or self-criticism for which science is distinguished.”
How can we deny the power of the mind, Robinson asks, when we consider remarkable scientific discoveries? How can we deny experience? Why continue to insist on selfishness and untrustworthiness as fundamental aspects of being human? "Each of us lives intensely within herself or himself, continuously assimilating past and present experience to a narrative and vision that are unique in every case yet profoundly communicable, whence the arts. And we all live in a great reef of collective experience…The schools of thought I have criticized exclude the great fact of human exceptionalism, though no one would deny that it is a pure expression of the uniqueness of the human brain." Surely, Robinson argues, there is room in our vast imagination to "acknowledge some small fragment of the mystery we are."
Robinson explores that old irritant in the flesh of positivists — altruism. She argues that the inability of most parascientists to adequately explain why humans share information and help each other exemplifies not only the blindness of modernists but also their assertion that humans are basically selfish and unreliable. The idea, according to E.O. Wilson, that the " brain is a machine assembled not to understand itself, but to survive," she writes, means that the mind, "unaided by factual knowledge from science sees the world only in little pieces. It throws a spotlight on those portions of the world it must know in order to live to the next day, and surrenders the rest to darkness." This suggests, to Robinson, that Wilson believes in science "as a kind of magic, as if it existed apart from history and culture, rather than being, in objective truth and inevitably, their product." The mind is little more than a "passive conduit"— "our minds are not our own."
But positivism and modernist thought have had the opposite effect: They encourage the "exclusion of felt life": We are discouraged from making explanations about our place in the universe. Subjectivity is not allowed; instead, there is what Robinson calls an "absence of mind." This is, she writes, one of the reasons why modernist thought and parascientific literature so often include polemics against religion. "The physical universe, as it is known to us now, is not accessible to the strategies of comprehension that once seemed so exhaustively useful to us." Along with a "sterilized and occluded mind," she writes, comes a "missionary zeal, an impatient need to enlist believers."
She is annoyed by the arrogance of modernist thought, which has entrapped us for so many generations: "After Darwin, after Nietzsche, after Freud, after structuralism and post-structuralism, after Crick and Watson and the death of God, some assumptions were to be regarded as fixed and inevitable and others as exposed for all time and for all purposes as naïve and untenable."
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by jiggerj
I don't know where to start with this. You think science and religion are forever separate. You have no respect for the wonders and mysteries of the universe. You think there's no intelligence to ANY of this. You would rather see the entire world reduced to numbers than enjoy a simple sunset and not think about what's causing the colors.
So what's your point? Give up religion and rely on cold logic? Well, there's no reason not to kill you then. My goal is survival, you have resources, my life is obviously more central to me then yours is. Oh well. That's what logic does.
That's what I get from this. Cold hard systematic methodical 0's and 1's. There's no joy in that. I don't want to live for science, I want to live for understanding. And that includes understanding when to let science go and just EXPERIENCE. Is that too much for you?edit on 2-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by jiggerj
i think science dropped the ball on virus's. if we would have left well enough alone, sure more people would die, but virus's wouldnt be mutating and becoming stronger and faster. in the end science is just setting us up for a super virus to kill billions at once instead of a smaller more spread out death toll.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Give up religion and rely on cold logic?
It's the religious who would be more inclined to use it though.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Really? Just like that? Just gonna throw that out there, without substantiating or justifying such a cruel statement?
Allow me to inform you with a little bit of reasoning. As much as the more zealous of the religious sects might hate the rest of humanity, there's a certain point at which they draw the line.
I doubt mass murder is the agenda of any Christian or Catholic or Baptist or Mormon or Judaic or Abrahamic religion.
See, what are the chances that innocent people will die? Brothers and sisters? Priests? Clergymen? Children? It's guaranteed. Viruses do not discriminate - if it's viable, it's game.
What self-respecting Christian would take the chance of destroying that many of their "family"?
Not even a chance, a guarantee. A miniature Armageddon, launched upon their own church.
You think they'd do that? I wonder exactly how biased or prejudiced your ideas are. I get the feeling they are more emotion based than anything else.
If the religious are potentially so free-handed with viral weaponry, then what about atheists?
That would be more of a reason they would not use it. 1 life to live.
They have no reason to believe in an afterlife, or judgment, or any kind of universal law in regard to ethics.
Anything along that line is man-made. Purely the product of humankind. They could use that as an argument toward the idea that this makes the human race weak, unwilling to seize power and wield it effectively.
The weak deserve to die, they would say, and I deserve to live because I have seized my potential. I have taken power, and I am ready to stand up and claim my place. I have earned it, and if they won't join me, then they will die. When it comes down to survival and cold logic, it's eat or be eaten. And if you don't get out of the way, you're going down.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Well, there's no reason not to kill you then. My goal is survival, you have resources, my life is obviously more central to me then yours is. Oh well. That's what logic does.
Originally posted by Wifibrains
Are you saying there are no religious scientists?
Faith has nothing to do with fact, and fact has nothing to do with truth, truth is belief. IMO science is nothing more than a religion. For those who have no faith. No?
Your statement has to be the most ignorant I have ever read. It is man, not religion or any god, that developed the survival technique of cooperation. You don't kill my people and my people won't kill your people. You don't steal from me, and I don't steal from you. I guess your bloodline skipped that part of evolution.
To the person who could push the button, none of that matters.
That's the heart of the idea though. No Self-respecting human being would even begin to think such a thing.
I wasn't targeting Christians specifically but any religion that has used violence as a means to an end.
I do. I was being subjective. Objectively, a human could push the button but i'm more inclined to believe that they would be religious due to the tensions between them.
That would be more of a reason they would not use it. 1 life to live.
I have a high sense of morality with no reason to believe in judgement.
I am no more inclined to kill with viral weaponry then a peaceful Christian.
Religion has nothing to do with THAT.
What religion does have to do with this is that it creates the divisions necessary to use such a weapon.
You sound like Vegeta
That's a cultural idea. In our Centrist society that just doesn't fly.
Those are the types of people that are being fought by people like us daily, whether subtly or directly.
I'll answer your second half later or tomorrow when I have more time.
I can't put as much detail into my ideas as i'd like, yours was very well thought out.
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Don't insult my bloodline. That is immature on your part, and says that you aren't developed enough to make a point without resorting to childish techniques. Also, those rules come from the OT. The commandments were designed to allow an unruly tribe to survive without killing each other off. Same goes for much older civilizations, whose laws also originated with religious figures reputed to be connected with a higher being.
Originally posted by DocHolidaze
reply to post by jiggerj
i think science dropped the ball on virus's. if we would have left well enough alone, sure more people would die, but virus's wouldnt be mutating and becoming stronger and faster. in the end science is just setting us up for a super virus to kill billions at once instead of a smaller more spread out death toll.