|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 11/10/2007 : 20:42:16 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
H. Humbert.....
I stated, among other things:
It seems to me that a irrefutably logical, totally inclusive, completely Critically Thought-Out argument as to why Carroll's definition of "faith" must be the only definition that the language will allow, needs to be made!
Do you have one?
I feel it has to be made to validate your argument! |
Context is still relavent bng! I don't see where anyone is arguing against a more dramatic or allegorical usage of the word outside of the academic context.
In this post I attempted to answer your question (in no way speaking for H.H.).
I'll re-post the pertinent bits:
Dude said:
Also, word usage here (on the SFN) is mostly intended in the academic sense. This helps to clearly define words, and be able to then use those words to make equally clear distinctions. Which is the language mechanism that makes communication possible in the first place.
When we blur words and concepts, our ability to communicate in a clear and concise manner becomes impaired.
So yes, saying that football is a religion is perfectly acceptable in a literary or dramatic context. That type of word usage allows us to be poetic, artistic, and eloquent and can add great value to the written word! I don't think many would disagree with you on this point, as long as the context is clear.
But in this context, that of critical thinking, formal argument and skepticism, words necessarily must have a more clinical precision. We have to be able to make very clear distinctions, or we are wasting out time. So precise academic definitions are not only desired, but mandatory. The less precisely defined your words are, the less precise your arguments and conclusions become.
If I am doing drug research on the pill that is going to keep you alive for another 10-15 years, do you want my lab journal filled with vague poetic colloquialisms, or precise academic terminology?
The default context for a forum dedicated to skepticism is the academic one. Perhaps those of us who are longtime members here take that for granted, and maybe it isn't clear to new members. Here, in this context, the more precisely defined a word is, the better it is!
|
I'll add another argument as well. It seems to me that the academic context of word usage is what lends power to them when they are employed in literary, slang, or other dramatic contexts. If it wasn't commonly understood that "religion" means something to do with faith, deities, or the supernatural... would it have the same impact when someone proclaims "Football is my religion!" or "Ozzy is my God!". I don't think so. The precise clinical definition, that which is most useful for communication, actually empowers the literary type usages you argue are valid (and I agree, in proper context, are valid).
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 08:37:22 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | But you then go on to define "unknowable" in such a way that you end up including science and skepticism in your definition of religion. |
Initially in this discussion I didn't offer any concise definition of religion, and then with my very long response to Humbert I posted the suggestion of a definition which included that groups must "self-define" as religious and be recognized by outside groups as such. So I have not defined religion in a way which includes science and skepticism.
I brought this topic up so I could think about it more by getting other points of view and get the conversation ball rolling. I didn't start it with a specific agenda of my own to persuade all of you to agree with. A lot of my thoughts on this topic aren't yet able to be articulated. I feel offended by something, but I can't exactly say why yet, so I want to figure out why I feel offended. Bring some clarity so I can figure out if I should feel that way or if I should change my thinking, and in turn, how I feel about it.
I'm glad you called me out on the "unknowable" concept, although I regret my initial response to you. Indeed, I defined the "unknowable" as the "unknown", and that was wrong of me.
I've been further contemplating the "unknowable" concept. I rushed to respond to you without fully thinking it through. When I said that the unknowable is that which we can't find out now, that didn't sit right with me but nothing else was evident at the time. Now I've had a few days if it nagging at me and I've been able to think it through. The concept of the unknowable is indeed a useful and meaningful one, and it is something that most religions either give (false) answers to or provide concepts and metaphors to meditate on or become a focal point for ritual and response to our own questioning and yearning to know that which we cannot. There really are unknowables from a human perspective. We can't know our own futures. We can make educated guesses about things, but we are without certainty. We also can't know that which is beyond our ability to comprehend. For example, there are aspects of physical laws that can be described mathematically, but which most people would be utterly perplexed by. When I read descriptions of cosmological theories in physics which use metaphors, I feel I am thinking about something real, but I'm not because the real thing is beyond my understanding, and so I must be satisfied to contemplate the metaphor.
Occasionally in SF pop culture we'll hear a reference to humans or other sentient beings eventually becoming "like Gods" due to advanced technology. An example would be the Q of Star Trek. This phrase comes to easily and is so easily understood because religion has always been about contemplating the unknown and the unknowable. And sure, we could speculate that some day humans will reach a level of technological sophistication that we can know our own futures and the entire history and nature of the all that naturally exists in every detail and have been able to modify ourselves in a way which allows us to fully comprehend this knowledge without the aid of metaphors. But this is speculation. Given how small we are in the universe and how little we know, is it such a stretch of vocabulary to have both a concept of the unknown and the unknowable, and have that be meaningful when we ponder the big picture of reality and our place in it?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 08:53:38 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Yes, I'm well aware of that, as the legal definition of religion is even more broad than the one you've put forth. The courts reject your "generally regarded as" clause, and instead stick with a definition almost identical to yours for art: if the adherents "honestly believe" that they're a part of a religion, then they are. But to offer equal protections under the law, the courts have also come to the absurd conclusion that atheism is a religion. |
The courts aren't sticking with my proposed definition that is similar to art because atheists do not say that atheism is a religion, nor is atheism generally regarded by academic and social institutions as a religion.
However, the law had to recognize atheists as such for a particular reason, and this gets to what I was saying about the word "secular" being abused by "Secular Humanists". Our government is supposed to be religiously neutral. And while all of us on SFN pretty much understand what that means, this is a pretty complicated issue for a lot of people. Many evangelicals are against church-state separation because they are confused and think it means the explicit promotion of atheism in schools. This is similar to how many of them think that acceptance of biological evolution automatically requires an atheistic worldview. The law shows us that religion is about beliefs, if not necessarily faith. With regards to my beliefs, I am a religious Humanist even though my beliefs require no religious faith and skepticism is one of my core values.
In most of the world, especially the West, the faith aspect of religious institutions has taken precedent, and therefore the concept of a secular government was necessary. However, in other cultures and even among minority communities in the West, this divisions makes little sense. For instance, the Quaker worship is indistinguishable from a secular ritual, but should it then be allowed in public schools? These are grey areas worth examining simply for the sake of deeper understanding of the nature and history of religion.
| The current interpretation of the First Amendment puts the courts into the bizarre position of having to treat every person as if they have a religion, whether they do or not (the question under discussion here, really), and so I believe we're forced to reject the courts' definition. |
I agree, but I only brought it up because you asked who recognizes the religions I brought up and then said that the government doesn't. I think social and academic institutions are proper "outside sources" of acceptance, and they do recognize Ethical Culture as well as Eastern religions which take a naturalistic literal worldview.
| Yes, and I don't give a fig about "belief in the existence of God" when so far as I can tell, Buddhism, Taoism and EC (at least) all still rely on articles of faith. Not faith in a deity, but faith that one or more unprovable assertions are true. |
And I'm arguing that they do not rely on articles of faith. They put forth concepts which are a point of focus for ritual or for contemplation about the big picture of existence. An atheist Quaker would say they "believe in the Inner Light" and that this concept is meaningful to them, but if you asked them if they thought it was a supernatural thing they would say no. It is a concept for accepting that all humans be regarded as having a sense of worth and dignity, and that we are all both individuals and part of larger bodies, such as family, society, an ecosystem, etc. It is a concept for grounding oneself, for thinking that with all that changes, some things are constant and we can find some solace and strength in that idea.
Sit down and have a real conversation with a Buddhist priest. Whenever they mention anything which sounds supernatural, question them on whether the thing has specific and definable traits that would reveal it to be supernatural. You will get a string of "no".
The Dalai Lama said that Tibetan Buddhism is an "atheistic religion".
And on top of all this, Physicists who are writing books for the laymen often turn to traditional myths to describe different basic perceptions of how the universe works.
I totally agree that if someone literally believes that the world is held up by an elephant named Maha-pudma, who is held up by a tortoise names Chukwa, their beliefs are absurd, worthy of criticism, and depending on the context and how this belief relates to their other values and behavior, potentially dangerous. But this Hindu legend is also quite eloquent and gives us incite into the human perspectives about the big picutre that created and perpetuated it. And many Hindus today still also find it a meaningful concept in their religious practice, even if they think a literal belief in it is silly.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/11/2007 08:55:55 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 09:46:30 [Permalink]
|
marf, you're adding the word "supernatural" where it does not belong. I know that Tibetan Buddhism is an "atheistic religion," but the "Four Noble Truths" are still statements of faith. Anyone who treats them as metaphorical is no more a Buddhist than someone who treats Jesus' sacrifice as metaphor is a Christian. I can self-identify as a police officer, but that doesn't make me one.
"Faith" also doesn't mean "literal belief."
You wrote:| I totally agree that if someone literally believes that the world is held up by an elephant named Maha-pudma, who is held up by a tortoise names Chukwa, their beliefs are absurd, worthy of criticism, and depending on the context and how this belief relates to their other values and behavior, potentially dangerous. |
You agree with whom? Calling something "faith" doesn't mean that it's absurd, worthy of criticism or dangerous. Faith certainly can lead to insight and meaning, but that doesn't make it not faith.
And so, since your objections seem to be about something I wasn't talking about, I stand by my earlier statement that tenets of faith are what distinguishes religion from non-religion. This distinction would even properly include Discordianism as a religion, even though it is generally regarded as a joke. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 16:05:41 [Permalink]
|
marf said:
| There really are unknowables from a human perspective. We can't know our own futures. We can make educated guesses about things, but we are without certainty. We also can't know that which is beyond our ability to comprehend. |
Name one thing that has an inherently unknowable nature, and then explain to me why that is so and how you know it is unknowable, and how your explanation is different than saying that same thing is merely unknown.
Make that case, then you might be able to sway me to your side of this argument.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 17:55:20 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....you ask:| Name one thing that has an inherently unknowable nature, and then explain to me why that is so and how you know it is unknowable, and how your explanation is different than saying that same thing is merely unknown. |
Marf said:| There really are unknowables from a human perspective. We can't know our own futures. We can make educated guesses about things, but we are without certainty. We also can't know that which is beyond our ability to comprehend. |
It seems to me that she has answered your question with the first example:
1. Name one thing: Future events
2. The future is unknowable because an instance of knowing it (consistently 100% accurate prediction of future events without failure in excess of 10 to the 100th power times) would constitute proof of determinism. Determinism completely assumes that an event has occurred before the conditions necessary for its occurence have come into existence, which is a logical self-contradiction!
3. I know that it is unknowable because a logical self-contradiction is totally equivilant to impossibility. Nothing can both be and not be simultaneously! (Hamlet had it right!)
4. If something is merely unknown, it has the possibility of being known. If something is unknowable in the above sense, it is not possible.
However, "we cannot know what is beyond our ability to comprehend" does not necessarily preclude any possibility of knowing what that unknown is at some piont in the future when comprehension of such matters has increased. The statement might make sense if it was appended to say,"We cannot know what is forever beyond our ability to comprehend" but I would probably take issue with most definitions of "forever". It is a pretty vague term!
A complete epistemological proof would require more verbiage. This is a condensation!
There are other examples, but let's examine this one first! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 19:47:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave,
| Calling something "faith" doesn't mean that it's absurd, worthy of criticism or dangerous. Faith certainly can lead to insight and meaning, but that doesn't make it not faith. |
I'm a little lost here, help me out. I was deliberately using a more narrow definition of "faith" to refer to the type of religious faith that I assumed Humbert meant when he stated that faith is the opposite of skepticism. If we use a broader concept of faith, Humanism includes articles of faith - we believe in human rights and an essential value in just being human. But I don't think that kind of moral or philosophical faith is comparable with the faith that Jesus literally rose from the dead and then ascended into heaven. I totally agree that certain types of faith can lead to incite and meaning, but other types are lazy thinking or accepting irrational ideas out of fear or ignorance.
I find the comparison of the Four Noble Truths to Jesus's sacrifice very odd considering that one is a simplified perspective of the essential human condition coupled with philosophy of how to deal with that condition, and the other is a historical event that most adherents claim to be fact. If I accept the Noble Truths as articles of faith, I can only do so in the same way that I could accept that my Humanist philosophy has articles of faith. Again, it is a type of moral or philosophical faith, and that wasn't the type of faith I was referring to. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/11/2007 19:48:52 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 19:57:44 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: Name one thing that has an inherently unknowable nature, and then explain to me why that is so and how you know it is unknowable, and how your explanation is different than saying that same thing is merely unknown.
Make that case, then you might be able to sway me to your side of this argument. |
Like I said, we can always speculate that maybe someday humans will technologically alters ourselves and our surroundings so dramatically that we will run out of questions about the natural world because any questions we can think of have been answered. This is, of course, wild speculation, and thus falls into the categories of unknown and perhaps unknowable.
That said, I can say with pretty strong certainty that given my likely lifespan, a vast number of things about the universe will be unknowable for me. I think it is a safe bet that human beings aren't going to invent technologies that will allow me to know every little detail of my own future, the example bngbuck put forth, before I die. My future is ultimately unknowable.
Now if we move beyond the subjective point of view of the individual and talk about humanity in general, the only thing we can say for sure is unknowable is if there is more to reality than we are able to perceive with our senses and our technology. Even if the scenario I described above - where we are able to know and control every aspect of every part of material reality that we can find - were to happen, we still wouldn't know if that was truly all there is. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/11/2007 20:00:12 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 20:41:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I'm a little lost here, help me out. I was deliberately using a more narrow definition of "faith" to refer to the type of religious faith that I assumed Humbert meant when he stated that faith is the opposite of skepticism. |
Well, there's the problem, right there: how can we define religious faith without first having answered the question in the title, "What is religion?" "Religious" is an adjective that depends upon the meaning of "religion" for its own meaning, after all.
I am talking about any sort of faith that creates a foundation for a broad philosophy or worldview. Under my distinction, Humanism would be a religion because (as you say) it includes articles of faith. Simple as that.
I don't find much of a distinction between the faith that the Four Noble Truths are an accurate distillation of the human condition and the faith that Jesus died for our sins. It's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind. Adherents are asked to believe something for which the evidence is scant or for which some tortured logic is required (or both) to say, "this is truth." Faith, to me, is nothing more than a firm belief in the undemonstrable. (Perhaps next is a thread on the definition of "faith.")
I knew you were talking about a narrower definition of faith, which is why I kept trying to tell you that I wasn't talking about belief in God or the supernatural.
At several points through the years, marf, it has seemed clear that you want Humanism to be recognized as a religion by other skeptics here. It seems to me that that desire is what's causing your discomfort - you weren't exactly pleased with the idea that a definition would be put forth here which would convince you that Humanism isn't a religion. (Yes, this is armchair psychology - if I'm wrong, please simply disregard as me being full of crap.)
The definition of "religion" that I'm offering is one that will keep Humanism firmly inside the religion box. It may also require H. to re-think what he's said about Humanism in particular.
And that's even if Humanism promotes skepticism. Because having articles of faith at all is what's in conflict with our skeptical toolkit.
Because we can build a broad, culturally relevant and self-consistent morality (or worldview - take your pick) without resorting to faith in anything, as I'm sure you know. Articles of faith aren't required for morality or philosophy. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 20:56:24 [Permalink]
|
And on that other note...
"Is our universe reality?" is a question that cannot be answered. It is unknowable in principle.
To answer it in the affirmative (without resorting to qualifications like, "there's no evidence otherwise" or "pragmatically speaking...") would require us to falsify an infinite number of alternatives - an impossible task.
To answer it in the negative (by finding evidence of the Matrix or whatever) is to broaden our "universe" to include some sort of meta-reality, and it simply shifts the ultimate question up a level. (That's actually something that disappointed me about those movies: nobody bothered to ask if the "real" world was really real. Nobody thought to wonder if someone wouldn't show up there with red and blue pills.)
We can't even positively affirm or deny that there exists some sort of objective reality, regardless of whether our universe is it or not.
It's completely unknowable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 00:32:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
We can't even positively affirm or deny that there exists some sort of objective reality, regardless of whether our universe is it or not.
It's completely unknowable. |
This is the only thing I might agree that meets the conditions of inherently unknowable. It has to be assumed true though, or you have nothing at all, no basis for any other argument, observation, or whatever. The question is between a pointless internal reality, or an external objective reality populated with real things.
My primary objection is to stating it in such certain terms. I don't know how to test it, I don't know if it is even testable, so the only conclusion I can comfortably state is that it is unknown to me if I exist in an external objextive reality. I behave as if I do, for pragmatic reasons, because the other option renders everything moot.
And really, if all this was your own internal subjective reality... wouldn't you have arranged things differently? I know I would. I'll concede that this isn't a close to a conclusive test, but imo it is a strong indicator.
bngbuck said:
1. Name one thing: Future events
2. The future is unknowable because an instance of knowing it (consistently 100% accurate prediction of future events without failure in excess of 10 to the 100th power times) would constitute proof of determinism. Determinism completely assumes that an event has occurred before the conditions necessary for its occurence have come into existence, which is a logical self-contradiction!
|
The question of time is not settled, nor is the one of determinism. In the last 100 years we have shown that human perception of time is not only flawed, but inherently incorrect. Einstein's space-time is very counter-intuitive, but it has also been demonstrated correct.
The standard model of particle physics is also under heavy assault, because no one is happy with it. It leaves to many questions unanswered.
Itzhak Bars of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles has something new to say about the nature of time. Not confirmed by physical experiments as yet, still interesting and credible none the less.
Also, his hypothesis is good enough to meet peer review and get published.
So time, and the various issues around it, get the label of unknown rather than inherently unknowable. We have the basics, but there is clearly much more to be discovered.
But even using just plain old Newtonian physics we can make some predictions about future events with certainty. For example: As long as the density, rotation, and mass of the earth remain as they are now, acceleration due to gravity on earth's surface will be 9.8M/s/s.
3. I know that it is unknowable because a logical self-contradiction is totally equivalent to impossibility. Nothing can both be and not be simultaneously! (Hamlet had it right!)
4. If something is merely unknown, it has the possibility of being known. If something is unknowable in the above sense, it is not possible.
|
Yes, mutually exclusive propositions mean that one of them is not possible if the other is true. Even with Dave_W's example (objective external reality) this holds. You have solipsism or you have objective reality. Both can't be possible.
But that has very little to do with determining a thing has an inherently unknowable nature. It is useful for known vs unknown certainly, but impossible does not always mean the same thing as unknowable.
marfknox said:
That said, I can say with pretty strong certainty that given my likely lifespan, a vast number of things about the universe will be unknowable for me. I think it is a safe bet that human beings aren't going to invent technologies that will allow me to know every little detail of my own future, the example bngbuck put forth, before I die. My future is ultimately unknowable.
|
It would be more accurate to say that these things will remain unknown to you.
On an only slightly related aside: It is interesting to me the number of times here (some recently) that this kind of inherently egocentric (not meaning to be insulting, using that in a more clinical sense) thinking has interfered with people understanding some salient points made by others. Just because you may never be able to predict the details of your own future in no way assigns an inherently unknowable nature to it. At some future point we may be able to make that case, or the opposite, but for now we have to describe it as only unknown.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 01:17:17 [Permalink]
|
Marf.....
You said:| We also can't know that which is beyond our ability to comprehend. |
I said:| However, "we cannot know what is beyond our ability to comprehend" does not necessarily preclude any possibility of knowing what that unknown is at some point in the future when comprehension of such matters has increased. The statement might make sense if it was appended to say,"We cannot know what is forever beyond our ability to comprehend" but I would probably take issue with most definitions of "forever". It is a pretty vague term! |
Later you stated:| That said, I can say with pretty strong certainty that given my likely lifespan, a vast number of things about the universe will be unknowable for me. I think it is a safe bet that human beings aren't going to invent technologies that will allow me to know every little detail of my own future, the example bngbuck put forth, before I die. My future is ultimately unknowable. |
I did not put forth the example you posit!
Please note that you said "we", not "I", can't know that which is beyond "our", not "my", ability to comprehend. You were speaking in the general collective sense of "mankind", not with reference to your own personal ability of comprehension. My point was simply that with sufficient (and likely) growth of technology, some of that which mankind (collectively) cannot comprehend today , may well be possible to understand at some indeterminate time in the future! Certainly not I, and very probably not you, is going to exist long enough to see many of today's incomprehensibles become lucid! - like how did Cheney and his poodle become President of the United States? |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 04:08:01 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: I did not put forth the example you posit!
Please note that you said "we", not "I", can't know that which is beyond "our", not "my", ability to comprehend. You were speaking in the general collective sense of "mankind", not with reference to your own personal ability of comprehension. |
What!? What you have said is true for what I said in the paragraph after the one you quoted. I was talking about two different levels of unknowables, one for mankind in general and one for me. And I was saying that the example of "my future" was an unknowable for me. Rub your eyes and read it again. Here, I'll bold the important bits for you: | That said, I can say with pretty strong certainty that given my likely lifespan, a vast number of things about the universe will be unknowable for me. I think it is a safe bet that human beings aren't going to invent technologies that will allow me to know every little detail of my own future, the example bngbuck put forth, before I die. My future is ultimately unknowable. |
Dude wrote: | It would be more accurate to say that these things will remain unknown to you. |
Yes, again, that is why I explicitly phrased the future example that way.
Jeez, you guys, give me some credit!
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 12:06:45 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Your statement....| The question of time is not settled, nor is the one of determinism. In the last 100 years we have shown that human perception of time is not only flawed, but inherently incorrect. Einstein's space-time is very counter-intuitive, but it has also been demonstrated correct. |
....is perhaps suggestive, but not definitive of your thesis. If you anticipate future discoveries in particle physics as capable of demonstrating that what has not yet happened actually has already happened in every instance, then at that time, Zeus willing, I will agree with your premise!| But even using just plain old Newtonian physics we can make some predictions about future events with certainty. For example: As long as the density, rotation, and mass of the earth remain as they are now, acceleration due to gravity on earth's surface will be 9.8M/s/s. |
But what gives absolute certainty to the guess that these variables will not change? And if they do, you have to couch your statement in a conventional past-present-future time line!
| But that has very little to do with determining a thing has an inherently unknowable nature. It is useful for known vs unknown certainly, but impossible does not always mean the same thing as unknowable. |
I yearn for the formal proof that that which is inherently unknowable to human experience is not also impossible as impossibility is perceived by human cognition! Fulfil me! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 12:38:43 [Permalink]
|
Marf.....
Upon rereading your post...| that human beings aren't going to invent technologies that will allow me to know every little detail of my own future, the example bngbuck put forth, |
....and mine| However, "we cannot know what is beyond our ability to comprehend" does not necessarily preclude any possibility of knowing what that unknown is at some point in the future when comprehension of such matters has increased. |
I see that you were making a simple reference to my statement. I stopped reading (and thinking) at the word "forth," and proceeded to retort to what I had misperceived as your intended statement. I owe you an apology and you have it right here! I think I may spend too much time proofreading my own posts before submitting, and not enough time completely reading and understanding that which I am responding to! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What is religion?
