|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
Paluka just said this
"Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one." Which made me think of this: Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best. Thoughts? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
I see it as the complete opposite.
its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion. I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most.
Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most. Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day. [/ QUOTE ] Science cannot rationalize how we got here. There are plenty of people who believe in god that have no trouble rationalizing thier existence. You say they believe in a big Unicorn, but most of them, while in your opinion may be ignorant, are probably much more happy and at peace with things (ecspecially near the end of thier days). If ignorance is bliss, i have no trouble being happy. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
Science cannot rationalize how we got here. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not inclined to say that this is completely true, but suppose that it were. To me, this is pretty much saying that it is impossible to rationalize how we got here at all. There's not really a strictly rational way to introduce God to the conversation. In that case, why try to rationalize? Why does there need to be a reason at all? I've never really understood the "Why are we here? What is the meaning of life?" style questions. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most. Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day. [/ QUOTE ] IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno". |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most. Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day. [/ QUOTE ] IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno". [/ QUOTE ] That's not the point. Science can accept "dunno". It is critical to the process that there be an unknown or an unsatisfying answer to a question. This may drive them to probe the question further, think more deeply about it, and try to test their new concepts. Science does not allow unproven or unprovable concepts to become truth. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But science, and scientifically inclinded folk are far more comfortable with an end result of "dunno" than most. Obviously a drive for exploration is great. It's when that bricks out that I see mistakes being made. Obviously religion is the best example. (warning, crude, inartful example follows) We cannot rationalize how we got here, etc, so some folks made up a Unicorn in the sky to help them get through the day. [/ QUOTE ] IMO, if science and scientfically minded people, start getting comfortable with an end result of "dunno" when things start to brick out, I think humans as a whole, are going to start to suffer. I personally believe that science has progressed due to the simple fact that there are certain people who refuse to accept the "dunno". [/ QUOTE ] That's not the point. Science can accept "dunno". It is critical to the process that there be an unknown or an unsatisfying answer to a question. This may drive them to probe the question further, think more deeply about it, and try to test their new concepts. Science does not allow unproven or unprovable concepts to become truth. [/ QUOTE ] By definition if you accept an end result of "dunno", there should be no more drive to probe the question further. I think what you guys are trying to say is that scientists can accept that they are wrong sometimes, or dont know the methods to find the answer yet, but the search will continue. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
I see it as the complete opposite. its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion. I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this 100%. I would say then that the "flaw" would be accepting solutions to questions you have about life, etc. without questioning them to some degree, as well as failing to understand someone else's point of view on the same situation. I think that encompasses crazy religious people. Being stubborn is, in some cases, a level of dangerous ignorance. Also, I'm not saying "question everything" but simply take the time to understand it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
Paluka just said this "Nope. I believe that the only reason anyone believes in God is because they desperately want there to be one." Which made me think of this: Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best. Thoughts? [/ QUOTE ] Wow, I literally just posted about this in the other thread. I absolutely agree with you, but to a point, which I'll get to in a bit. I also agree with [censored] in that science has strived to come up with explanations for these things we don't fully understand. But as [censored] also said, the fact that people take religion as the explanation that makes them feel best is likely not enitrely true. I'm sure for many people, the fear of not knowing some of life's eternal, or not so eternal, questions may lead them to God as a way for comforting them. For others, faith is likely instilled in them at a young age by their parents, or they just happen to align with a particular religion's beliefs. However, if the beliefs happen to be of a moral nature, then you can refer back to the God thread about my thoughts on that. |
|
|