6 of 6
6
scientifically speaking: there is an afterlife
Posted: 21 November 2008 04:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2008-11-21
citizenschallenge - 14 August 2008 10:06 PM

From there it is easy to embrace God as the poetic summation of it all.

Mind you that poetry is a lucid deception.  It’s the conscious choice to describe the human condition and all its implications in figurative language that paints each aspect in a light that is anything but literal.  The difference between poetry and God is that people who believe in God would also believe that metaphors are literal.  Poets know that rhetoric is fancy dressing for reality.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2008 10:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
sate - 21 November 2008 09:51 AM

sate: I never said you said it. Perhaps you should work on your own perspicacity, then judge mine.[/color]

OK, so we both suck at communicating.

Happy Thanksgiving & a Very Merry New Year
================================
Sate listen

I, actually, really do, agree with what you say concerning science.

But, in addition to that, science isn’t all there is to life…. or more precisely, not to our perceptions of ourselves in relation to the ever changing (perceived) reality that surrounds us.

I appreciate your frustration with me.  I admit to sloppiness in my expression. 
It, the writing… me, are a work in progress.  Thanks for pushing me. 
.....................................

I don’t want to go further in replying, because I know many of the things you knock me for, aren’t what I’m understanding, nor what I want to express. 
Give me a little time, I’ll come up with something more nuanced - but I’m slow and life is crowded.
.......................................

As for my digression into modern media.  That was a rant at the whole state of things.  Yes, sure, of course, there have always been a small group of experts, and knowledgeable people validly exposing flaws and giving warning* >>> but would you know it from our politicians or media or business titans !  -

I’m just plain frustrated and sick at heart, especially, having an inkling of what’s coming at us - and how easy the nasty scenarios heading our way could have been avoided.  Had ‘Willful Ignorance’ not replaced enlightened self-interest, during the Reagan Revolution (i know there’s more to it), still I’ve spent decades paying attention to news and science, and have watched one predictable fiasco, or catastrophe, after another play out like a serial TV show - always setting the groundwork for the next failure of reason and compassion.  And now, it’s looking like the serious fun is getting ready to begin. 

>>  And at every step along the way, on all sides of the issues, we see the self-certain ‘movers & doers’ who believe they are above seriously entertaining any other input.  My way, or the highway.  Excuse me for taking it out on you.

This Monday, I’ll be going to a first grade and then a pre-school program, my grandkids.  They’re beautiful and bright and bubbly-ready for life…... and then I look at what we’ve allowed to happen to their future.  Besides making me cry, it makes me angry, and it motivates me to write what I write.

Ignoring the political (or the thinking of the masses) doesn’t help.

.....................................................................................................................................................

Sate, as for the god/science thing I feel my reply to morganti, gets closer to where I’m coming from….........
.........give it a consideration:

————————-
Quite right.  It would be absurd to think that our conscious can remain intact when it departs from our body.

————————-

I believe our understanding of “afterlife” is what needs to stretch a bit.

—————————-

When viewing the pageant of evolution there is something more than “simply changing” going on.
To me your statement sounds like a denial that there is a direct connection between me and a flatworm way back in the dawn of prehistory. 
Well I do believe in that connection -
and that something is closer to an “afterlife” than mere “ simply changing.”

_________________________

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2008 11:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Sed non Satia - 21 November 2008 03:59 PM
citizenschallenge - 14 August 2008 08:49 PM

Science will gain no meaningful political ground if all you show is contempt for other’s deepest beliefs.

Science is not a political venture, it merely describes the facts of our objective reality.  The onus of living without self-deception is on our own fragile egos, not on science.

=========================================================

(Ah, who’s deceived, who’s not deceived, and by how much… is it possible to have complete perception?)

................................................................................
Science shouldn’t be a political venture, I totally agree. 

But, it’s not that simple is it?  What about the real world of funding, grants, goals, oversights, political clout, not to forget that age old human drive for fame and fortune?
.................................................................................
Regarding my statement, you are right, it’s wrong. 

It should have read: The struggle for reason based thinking (over dogma driven ideology) won’t gain meaningful political ground until scientists do a better job of enlightening the “entire population” as to how science works, what its discoveries are and their various implications.

Or, perhaps even more importantly, nothing meaningful will change until scientists find a way to enable people, laypeople, joe-blows, the masses, to connect, not only with the basic workings of science, but to figured out how to describe the workings of our planet in a way that has traction on main street. 

how to describe the workings of our planet in a way that has traction on main street. 
So far, with few exceptions, you scientist guys & gals deserve a C- at best!

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 November 2008 11:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Sed non Satia - 21 November 2008 04:03 PM
citizenschallenge - 14 August 2008 10:06 PM

From there it is easy to embrace God as the poetic summation of it all.

Mind you that poetry is a lucid deception.  It’s the conscious choice to describe the human condition and all its implications in figurative language that paints each aspect in a light that is anything but literal.  The difference between poetry and God is that people who believe in God would also believe that metaphors are literal.  Poets know that rhetoric is fancy dressing for reality.

what the F is this mumbo jumbo?

poetry is poetry

the reality of human emotions, spiritual impulses and generations old beliefs is another!

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2008 01:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  227
Joined  2008-07-26

cc:I, actually, really do, agree with what you say concerning science.
But, in addition to that, science isn’t all there is to life…. or more precisely, not to our perceptions of ourselves in relation to the ever changing (perceived) reality that surrounds us.

I’ve never said anything so mad as science is all there is to life. I do say it is the only reliable path to knowledge about most things, and a main ingredient to informity about anything. Including ourselves, perceptions and environments.

cc:Give me a little time, I’ll come up with something more nuanced - but I’m slow and life is crowded.

granted. I’m not out to get you, cc. I am defending science where you seem to attack it. You admonish me not to carelessly step on the deep beliefs of others while cutting away at my own deeply held beliefs, the belief in the power of reason and science. Whether or not it is intended, it is the perception.

Anyway.. it seems like your consternation lies more squarely with politics, media and maybe the education system. I’d bet we share the same dim view of most of these institutions. re: the thinking of the masses; This is of import to me. I’m a huge fan of the so-called Third Culture (edge.org), a collection of great minds who only have one thing in common: the goal and value of bringing access to leading edge science to the lay person. I find their charter a noble and vital effort. To my knoweldge, such an effort has prior never existed in human history.

You want me to consider these bits…
Quite right.  It would be absurd to think that our conscious can remain intact when it departs from our body.

I believe our understanding of “afterlife” is what needs to stretch a bit.

When viewing the pageant of evolution there is something more than “simply changing” going on.
To me your statement sounds like a denial that there is a direct connection between me and a flatworm way back in the dawn of prehistory. 
Well I do believe in that connection -and that something is closer to an “afterlife” than mere “ simply changing.”

On the first part, I agree. On the second.. I find that “afterlife” is a nonsense word which comes to us from religion and nowhere else. If we “continue” in any meaningful way after physiological death then it isn’t really “after” life. I think we’re better off just not bothering with such empty terms. On the last part, there is certainly some sort of connection between all living things (as we are technically, all cousins). This is important to biological understanding.. but I’m not sure what else you want me to take away from it. Your descriptions of evolution do raise my hackles because they are too flowery, positive, and creation-y sounding. A pageant is a carefully staged event with intelligent actors deliberately following a planned sequence of events. Evolution could not be less so. Evolution has also been a billion years of horror and suffering. Annihilation in the nastiest ways. 99.99% of all creatures consigned to extinction. Evolution is powered by wide-scale death and suffering. A few are “selected” to survive means all the competitors die (then an era later, the winners die out anyway). Evolution gave us parasites, plagues and pain. Cannibalism, carnivores, and cancer.
This is the other side of the “pageant” which you devote no stanzas to.
In your darkest thoughts about the tragedy of our “willfully ignorant” and shortsighted society bear in mind that on the vector of “design” or systematic creation of living conditions on Earth… the absolute worst of mankind could never hold a candle to the prolific death and suffering, the amoral mindless millions and millions of years of agony wrought by good ol’ mother nature.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2008 03:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2008-11-21
citizenschallenge - 21 November 2008 11:05 PM
Sed non Satia - 21 November 2008 03:59 PM
citizenschallenge - 14 August 2008 08:49 PM

Science will gain no meaningful political ground if all you show is contempt for other’s deepest beliefs.

Science is not a political venture, it merely describes the facts of our objective reality.  The onus of living without self-deception is on our own fragile egos, not on science.

=========================================================

(Ah, who’s deceived, who’s not deceived, and by how much… is it possible to have complete perception?)

................................................................................
Science shouldn’t be a political venture, I totally agree. 

But, it’s not that simple is it?  What about the real world of funding, grants, goals, oversights, political clout, not to forget that age old human drive for fame and fortune?
.................................................................................
Regarding my statement, you are right, it’s wrong. 

It should have read: The struggle for reason based thinking (over dogma driven ideology) won’t gain meaningful political ground until scientists do a better job of enlightening the “entire population” as to how science works, what its discoveries are and their various implications.

Or, perhaps even more importantly, nothing meaningful will change until scientists find a way to enable people, laypeople, joe-blows, the masses, to connect, not only with the basic workings of science, but to figured out how to describe the workings of our planet in a way that has traction on main street. 

how to describe the workings of our planet in a way that has traction on main street. 
So far, with few exceptions, you scientist guys & gals deserve a C- at best!

I agree that science should be made more freely available and digestible to the hoi polloi.  I think you may have confused that responsibility, though, as owned by scientists.  What is really failing America is our deteriorating education system. 

On the other hand, the internet has been made easily accessible to anyone and everyone who get off their lazy asses to look for it.  It’s as simple as going to the nearest public library and using it for free, if one does not have the luxury of owning a computer at home.  There are so many websites and articles available that it’s ridiculously easy to help yourself understand science.  In that case, it’s not science’s fault for not being lucid, it’s the average Joe’s fault for not educating himself.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2008 03:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2008-11-21
citizenschallenge - 21 November 2008 11:09 PM
Sed non Satia - 21 November 2008 04:03 PM
citizenschallenge - 14 August 2008 10:06 PM

From there it is easy to embrace God as the poetic summation of it all.

Mind you that poetry is a lucid deception.  It’s the conscious choice to describe the human condition and all its implications in figurative language that paints each aspect in a light that is anything but literal.  The difference between poetry and God is that people who believe in God would also believe that metaphors are literal.  Poets know that rhetoric is fancy dressing for reality.

what the F is this mumbo jumbo?

poetry is poetry

the reality of human emotions, spiritual impulses and generations old beliefs is another!

I have attempted to define poetry and illustrate the difference between poetry and your conception of how god’s influence might be seen as such.  I should hope you are clear in what you mean by poetry besides the fact that…it’s poetry.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 November 2008 10:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Sed non Satia - 22 November 2008 03:12 PM
citizenschallenge - 21 November 2008 11:09 PM
Sed non Satia - 21 November 2008 04:03 PM
citizenschallenge - 14 August 2008 10:06 PM

From there it is easy to embrace God as the poetic summation of it all.

Mind you that poetry is a lucid deception.  It’s the conscious choice to describe the human condition and all its implications in figurative language that paints each aspect in a light that is anything but literal.  The difference between poetry and God is that people who believe in God would also believe that metaphors are literal.  Poets know that rhetoric is fancy dressing for reality.

what the F is this mumbo jumbo?

poetry is poetry

the reality of human emotions, spiritual impulses and generations old beliefs is another!

I have attempted to define poetry and illustrate the difference between poetry and your conception of how god’s influence might be seen as such.  I should hope you are clear in what you mean by poetry besides the fact that…it’s poetry.

ok ~ I’m sorry, it was late, I was exasperated.

This evening I’ve been reading and rereading your sentence.
You write: “people who believe in God would also believe that metaphors are literal.”

Yea, I agree that’s true much of the time… but by no means always.

But being the laymen I am, I’m imagining the way to go at the problem is expand our perception of what God is or isn’t.

A key to my way of thinking is that the “reality” of God is much less important than people’s “perceptions” of God. 

————————————-
I just figured out what set me off in your paragraph:  “the people who believe in God.”  The issue is way beyond people’s conscious “believing” or not believing.  From my experience people have an innate receptor for spiritual and cosmic moments, along with a need for experiencing those moments from time to time.  The actual personal experience of those moments are beyond quantification, or replication, but they are no less real and influential to their recipients.  They are supra religion, but what religions build on. 

People need to feel cosmically connected.  Why do scientists belittle that?

My own perception of standing on the knife edge of an infinity going in both directions, can’t be quantified, nor can it be dismissed with a stupid stoner joke.  We are connected, we are human, and the attuned will always perceive more than scientific formulas can replicate.  And this pragmatic fact should be danced around rather than denied and stonewalled.

—————————————-
DON’T GET ME WRONG ~ IT IS ‘NOT’ SCIENCE THAT I THINK SHOULD CHANGE! ~

IT IS HOW SCIENTISTS COMMUNICATE WITH THE MASSES THAT NEEDS IMPROVING !

LIKE IT OR NOT
THERE IS A PR STRUGGLE GOING ON
WITH STAGGERING CONSEQUENCES

ivory tower smugness won’t help any of us.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 November 2008 09:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  16
Joined  2008-11-21
citizenschallenge - 23 November 2008 09:49 PM

But being the laymen I am, I’m imagining the way to go at the problem is expand our perception of what God is or isn’t.

A key to my way of thinking is that the “reality” of God is much less important than people’s “perceptions” of God. 

People need to feel cosmically connected.  Why do scientists belittle that?

We are connected, we are human, and the attuned will always perceive more than scientific formulas can replicate.  And this pragmatic fact should be danced around rather than denied and stonewalled.

These are the phrases in your post I take most issue with. 

Why must we expand our perception of what God is or isn’t? 

Why is reality less important than perception? 

How does science belittle people’s need to feel cosmically connected?  (I might add that not everyone feels that way.  I personally think that’s rubbish.)

Why should we be willing to stop at perceiving, rather than forge on to gain understanding through science?

I don’t understand why you say these things, and I frankly am somewhat abashed as to how you can be so satisfied with an attitude that is prone to mysticism instead of searching for validation of reality as all people can know it objectively.  I don’t think I can respond with anything but a mouth agape until you explain yourself further.  I’m assuming that you’ve already come up with a frame of reference in which all these things make cogent sense.  I’m just not seeing it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2008 08:38 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  342
Joined  2008-06-23
citizenschallenge - 22 November 2008 10:37 PM

People need to feel cosmically connected.  Why do scientists belittle that?

Hmm.  That’s interesting because I don’t feel like that’s necessarily the case.  Richard Dawkins devoted an entire book to that vein called Unweaving the Rainbow.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson, in his many lectures, often talks about how powerful a thing it is to gaze up into the heavens knowing how tiny and insignificant we all are.  Jill Bolte Taylor, in My Stroke Of Insight, talks about her experiences with a stroke and how it opened up that overpowering feeling of connection to everything and “oneness” for her.  And, while he’s more of a philosopher and promoter of science than an actual scientist yet, Sam Harris devotes the end of his book The End of Faith to talking about experiences with consciousness and how to achieve happiness on that kind of a level via science. 

I think what may happen instead is that scientists belittle emotional responses as a means to achieving scientific ends, or perhaps belittle religion’s supposed monopoly on these experiences.  I don’t know of any scientist who actively belittles the beauty of nature and the awe inspiring feeling we get from witnessing it and then understanding it.  I would call these kind of connections cosmic in a general sense, though I imagine different people experience different “flavors” of these experiences to varying degrees of intensity depending on both the personality of the scientist and the field in which they work (An astrophysicist probably has a more visceral, emotional reaction to looking up at the night sky whereas a botanist might have that reaction every time (s)he observes a rare plant).

 Signature 

“There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere.”   

..............-Isaac Asimov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 November 2008 10:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Chocotacoi8 - 24 November 2008 08:38 PM
citizenschallenge - 22 November 2008 10:37 PM

People need to feel cosmically connected.  Why do scientists belittle that?

Hmm.  That’s interesting because I don’t feel like that’s necessarily the case. Richard Dawkins devoted an entire book to that vein called Unweaving the Rainbow.  Neil DeGrasse Tyson, ...  Jill Bolte Taylor, ...  Sam Harris…
................     

Thank you for that post. 

You’re right in implying “scientists” is going a little far in generalization.  Sorry another example of sloppy writing. 
I meant some scientists, certain cfi contributors and some others.

As for the rest of your post I wholeheartedly agree. 

I’m also wondering what Sed non Satio & Sate think of it.

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2008 12:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
Sed non Satia - 23 November 2008 09:49 PM

Why is reality less important than perception? 

Because reality is beyond our (complete) perception… ability  
    I live on an urban wilderness interface, and am keenly aware that there are many entities, and systems on this planet that perceive their surroundings and interactions in incredibly varied ways. The who and what of it boggles my mind ~ life has taught me to take human’s unyielding certitude in their ever developing understanding with a pinch of salt.
    Interestingly having lost my interest in superficial security, I seem to have tapped into a deeper, if more elusive, security.  That may be why it is so easy for me to jump back and forth over a line that causes you to stand back all agape.

Sed non Satia - 23 November 2008 09:49 PM

How does science belittle people’s need to feel cosmically connected?  (I might add that not everyone feels that way.  I personally think that’s rubbish.)

You answered your own question. 
I came up with another couple cute lines, but then thought of something much more to the point.
Instead of the how, let’s look at the failure of a belittling mindset:
Scientists have yet to come up with a series of arguments, presentations or a concerted successful campaign to once and for all silence the Creationist clap-trap in front of the public.  I’ve watched Creationists videos and presentations ~ it’s obscene the distortions, deletions, fabrications regarding clear-as-day facts they get away with.  That they continue to successfully feed the public’s imagination stands as a screaming rebuke to the guardians of science.
You can manage to win court battles, but in the court of public opinion you guys still fail. 

With a touch more humility, diplomacy, education, humor bet you folks could have come up with something long ago.  This failure shouldn’t be acceptable ~ nor open to rude put downs ~ nor dismissed as irrelevant to science’s job wink

Watch some David Attenborough and ponder the challenge.

Sed non Satia - 23 November 2008 09:49 PM

Why should we be willing to stop at perceiving, rather than forge on to gain understanding through science? 

We are talking apples and oranges.
I say nothing against science forging on, that’s the apples to my oranges.
A diplomatic approach to educate a greater number of the public is an entirely different matter.

Sed non Satia - 23 November 2008 09:49 PM

I don’t understand why you say these things, and I frankly am somewhat abashed as to how you can be so satisfied with an attitude that is prone to mysticism instead of searching for validation of reality as all people can know it objectively.

define mysticism

I do have the greatest awe for science’s validations of reality.
I have enjoyed following and learning from science’s discoveries and developing insights since my childhood.  And have spent much time pursuing a path intent on learning every day given the potentials presented.  My level of success, that’s a different story. 
But, to your question:
I am dissatisfied that so many important, influential folks refuse to acknowledge the embedded “mysticism” that is undeniably present in way too many Americans. Why not address it with more than put downs.

I am dissatisfied that these folks can’t see how allowing teaching scientists to dance around that “mysticism” (that is undeniably present in others), doesn’t have to be a horror.  Seems to me, it’s the first step in getting those religious masses onto another saner way of viewing and dealing with our world (I think it can be done while remaining true to the bedrock important principles of science).

after all: isn’t teaching the scientific process more important than teaching particular “facts.”

Give a person a fish, s/he’ll eat for a day.  Teach a person to fish, s/he’ll eat for a life time.

[ Edited: 25 November 2008 12:38 AM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 November 2008 01:59 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

Anyway.. it seems like your consternation lies more squarely with politics, media and maybe the education system.

Quite Right,........ but scientist don’t get off that easy

Sate,
I went at my post backwards so wound up with yours last.

There is a lot in there, thank you for taking the time.  It just might be the best reply I’ve received so far, I have been working on a note, but I’m done for tonight.
Gotta get some sleep, and it’s too chopped up to send right now -

In any event thanks for the conversation.

Oh, one thing ~ you said I give the perception of attacking science.
I can see why you say that.
And its probably true… in its way,
    please understand I do it with no malice ~ besides, if I am attacking, it’s not science that’s the target.


ps.  rural elementary school holiday functions ROCK

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 08:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

I’ve never said anything so mad as science is all there is to life. I do say it is the only reliable path to knowledge about most things, and a main ingredient to informity about anything. Including ourselves, perceptions and environments.

OK,  Science is a bedrock foundation for knowledge. 
Other stuff like religions and art belong to the fuzzy subjective, relativist realm of knowledge.
I also agree that humanity would be much better off if science became the filter through which all people strove for knowledge, and based decisions on.
Furthermore, I believe humanities future depends on people weening themselves from their self-serving dogmatic belief systems, and adopting a more clear eyed scientific perspective.

sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

granted. I’m not out to get you, cc. I am defending science where you seem to attack it. You admonish me not to carelessly step on the deep beliefs of others while cutting away at my own deeply held beliefs, the belief in the power of reason and science. Whether or not it is intended, it is the perception.

The dumb reply to this would be to say, you are a person of higher education and advanced judgement capabilities, it ought to be easy to remain above anything a schmuck like myself could throw at you.
But, the more important reply would be to ask you to try to empathize with those millions who haven’t had higher education and who cling to tradition out of insecurity, fear, and habit more than any considered decision.
How do you imagine your phrasing might hit them, before they even have a chance to listen to your presentation of science.

sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

Anyway.. it seems like your consternation lies more squarely with politics, media and maybe the education system. I’d bet we share the same dim view of most of these institutions. re: the thinking of the masses; This is of import to me.

I don’t know.
Fortunately, most of my direct experiences with the education system have been more good than not.  To be honest, I am firmly convinced that our nations number one education fault lies squarely with parents.  Spend real homework time with your kids during their first fews years, listen to them, question them, answer them, interact and get good habits started.  Nothing any other institution can ever do, will replace that.  There are plenty of great reasons this doesn’t happen ~ unfortunately, justifications don’t negate outcomes.

sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

I find that “afterlife” is a nonsense word which comes to us from religion and nowhere else. If we “continue” in any meaningful way after physiological death then it isn’t really “after” life. I think we’re better off just not bothering with such empty terms.


In a perfect world, sure.  But you’re overlooking that “afterlife” as a concept is embedded in an overwhelming number of Americans… humans.  It needs to be dealt with one way or another, ignoring it, allows it to maintain its hold on the large majority of American’s you’re still not reaching.

sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

On the last part, there is certainly some sort of connection between all living things (as we are technically, all cousins). This is important to biological understanding.. but I’m not sure what else you want me to take away from it.

You know this past summer I worked on fancy houses along an exclusive golf course.  I’m over fifty, even played a few rounds back thirty plus decades ago.  I’ve watched it, had friends who loved it, still the game is absolutely and totally beyond my comprehension, or interest.  To me it seems forever an absurd waste of time.  But, does that imply its worthless and belongs in the bins of oblivion?  No, I just don’t get the game, others do.

sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

Your descriptions of evolution do raise my hackles because they are too flowery, positive, and creation-y sounding. A pageant is a carefully staged event with intelligent actors deliberately following a planned sequence of events. Evolution could not be less so. Evolution has also been a billion years of horror and suffering….This is the other side of the “pageant” which you devote no stanzas to.

So true!  You got me by the gullet here.  I have omitted those stanzas, though not because I’m unaware of them.  I’ve been staring at your words for a long time.  I’m silenced, except for a meek comment, when speaking with developing kids, people we often omit the more unpleasant sides the future has to hold.   

i know this is no justification.  I have been coming from a pr-for evolution perspective.  Thanks for calling me on it.  You can bet I’ll be mulling it over.

sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

In your darkest thoughts about the tragedy of our “willfully ignorant” and shortsighted society bear in mind that on the vector of “design” or systematic creation of living conditions on Earth… the absolute worst of mankind could never hold a candle to the prolific death and suffering, the amoral mindless millions and millions of years of agony wrought by good ol’ mother nature.


True, but I’ll wager as true is that today’s way of society will bring with it a convolution every bit as ugly as what evolution has brought us before.

And we are the ones that, given our self conceits, should have known better, should have been able to ~ if not sidestep, at least dance with evolution’s mechanism a tad better than today’s headlong march into the dark side of evolution.

edited for typos

[ Edited: 26 November 2008 08:31 PM by citizenschallenge ]
 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 November 2008 09:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1783
Joined  2008-08-09
sate - 22 November 2008 01:11 AM

Your descriptions of evolution do raise my hackles because they are too flowery, positive, and creation-y sounding. A pageant is a carefully staged event with intelligent actors deliberately following a planned sequence of events. Evolution could not be less so. Evolution has also been a billion years of horror and suffering. Annihilation in the nastiest ways. 99.99% of all creatures consigned to extinction. Evolution is powered by wide-scale death and suffering. A few are “selected” to survive means all the competitors die (then an era later, the winners die out anyway). Evolution gave us parasites, plagues and pain. Cannibalism, carnivores, and cancer.
This is the other side of the “pageant” which you devote no stanzas to.
In your darkest thoughts about the tragedy of our “willfully ignorant” and shortsighted society bear in mind that on the vector of “design” or systematic creation of living conditions on Earth… the absolute worst of mankind could never hold a candle to the prolific death and suffering, the amoral mindless millions and millions of years of agony wrought by good ol’ mother nature.


It just occurs to me, when considering the incredibly wonderful lifestyle we Americans have know ~ and we dissect its ways & means ~ it turns out our affluence is upon the backs of many, many…. and cause of much suffering.

is there a certain symmetry in there?

 Signature 

The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus is not formed by scientists !
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Consensus IS formed by the data being gathered !

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 6
6