Do You Have a Thinking Problem?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Friday, April 24, 2026 00:33
VIEWED: 13256
PAGE 10 of 17
Yeppers.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree. That is my goal as well, as a scientist.
Originally posted by rue:
Science (the study of observable phenomenon) seeks a rational, self-congruent explanation for everything observable - from the most commonplace to the entire universe. If it did not, it wouldn't be science, it would be dogma. It's goal is to nibble away at the unexplained and eventually consume it all.
Quote:Again, I don't think it is either / or. Going back to the sunset example (see my posts above), does poetry exist only in absence of scientific language? Can't we use both at the same time to describe the same thing?
Faith is what exists in the absence of a rational explanation.
See, I keep hearing this from you guys. Science vs. Not Science. Let me toss out another perspective. All science in one layer. All faith on the next layer. 200% in a manner of speaking. Imagine that.
Quote:You can increase faith in DEPTH in the small area in which it exists. You don't have to increase it in BREADTH. Think multi-dimensional. It isn't just the x-axis, where the more positive one is, the more negative the other is. There is the y-axis and z-axis and time to boot. Think calculus, not arithmetic.
If faith is what exists in the absence of explanation, then to increase faith one must decrease the explanations.
Quote:Only if you see science vs. non-science in a single dimension.
The two are exactly mutually exclusive. Even more, they are in a zero-sum relationship. The increase of one causes the decrease in the other.
BTW, this was a good, well-worded post Rue. It helped me understand better where you guys are coming from.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's by definition.
FAITH is what exists in the absence of proof. Faith is what you choose to believe in when there is no rational reason to do so. By definition faith and science ARE mutually exclusive.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL. Now what is that saying....oh yes. Reality sucks, especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas. (
Originally posted by SignyM:
You know, I looked up the definition of "religion" too and it sucks.
and a hug, Sig)Quote:LOLOL. Isn't that what I've been saying all this time?
Apparently religion is whatever anyone chooses it to mean. It could be having an invisible friend (like Harvey) or finding awe in mathematics or convincing everyone that I am the one true GOD and therefore you should GIVE MONEY!!
Quote:Same reason Eskimos have 39 words for snow, or something like that, and Africans don't. Same reason the Chinese have a words for "external grandchild" (child of a daughter) and "internal grandchild" (child of a son) and American's don't. These are nuances that reflect our cultural value system. (I know zip about economics, but languages is a hobby of mine.)
So if it's all the same thing why do we have words like "philosopy", "ethics", "science", "mysticism""beauty", "hope", "delusion" and "faith"? Ghandi's "truth" is a philosophy (of course, we'd have to get into a discussion of what he means by "truth"... which, in my book, is not the same as "honesty").
Quote:Oh, that will take a little time, and my daughter is nagging me. Let me get back to you on this.
So, aiming for more precision and description, how is your reality different from your deity? (You use two words so I assume you're trying to describe two different things.)
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
I'm going to post my guesses, which I hope CTS doesn't read first, 'cause you asked a really vital question that I'd like to see the answer to.
so CTS - PLEASE DON'T READ FURTHER until you post - OK ? THANKS! 
Select to view spoiler:
From the posts, I gather CTS had a transforming event, in which she experienced a presence that was both grand and intimate and clearly personal. Since then, everything has been framed in that reference. I'm not sure faith or religion are the correct words. Awe and trust in the being she experienced might be better words.
I just read through another thread where this was said, just in different words. :NEVERmind:
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey guys, I'm not going to be able to post like I hoped tonight. I'm also going to be traveling this weekend (moving back to the States from Peru!). I'll get back to you next week, ok? Have a good Labor Day Weekend.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Just my opinion, of course. But this whole pitting rationalism vs. faith (or logic vs. religion) feels like an artificial, forced division to me. Take intelligent design for example. I can blend both rational study of evolution AND faith in a Creator that started this evolution (in absence of convincing evidence of how it all started).
Intelligent Design is the result of that blend of science and faith. And it is even more reprehensible for it.
If there are gaps in your scientific theory, you either try to explain them with rational guesses but label them as such or you state that these areas are uncertainties. That is the scientific way, the logical way. You do not state "We don't know what caused this, therefore it was God."
ID is the perfect example of why religion should be kept firmly out of science - it has no place there, it has no reason to be there and its presence only makes the science worse.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS- Holding till you return.
Hope you have a good trip.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, I agree with you on that. But apparently CTS is working on a different definition of religion. "God" is apprently not a required part of the definition of religion, and this definition appears... alas... in Miriam Webster.
If there are gaps in your scientific theory, you either try to explain them with rational guesses but label them as such or you state that these areas are uncertainties. That is the scientific way, the logical way. You do not state "We don't know what caused this, therefore it was God."
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME