by onacruse 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
whoa whoa whoa!
Reductionism has taken us this far, and I'd guess there is at least a thousand years of reduction left to be...uhm... reduced, so I'm sticking with reductionism as my religion!
And hey, if at the end of the thousand year reign of reduction, it turns out that God is, y'know, everywhere and everything, well, .....heck, I knew it all along.
The editors of Red Herring magazine ought to be up there on the stand next to Martha Stewart... but as far as their credibility involving picking stocks or prognosticating about the viability of technologies, I give them a pass.
While I think I understand what you mean about the limits of reductionism (and if I do, then I think I agree) if you're gonna whomp on reductionism in this crowd, I politely suggest you're gonna have to do better than that, or they're gonna try to break your kneecaps.
Hey, I'm just sayin', is all.
I'm pleased at least that SOMEBODY is beginning to understand my complaint about reductionism.
In that regard, my objection is that it has become an unchallenged habit of thought, that it has limits,
and that we are long overdue for some correction.
A famous skeptic named Victor Stenger argued against critics of his theory on decoherence ( he doesn't like the idea
of non-local effects in physics) that some things 'just are'. You can also read about this idea in the writings of Carl Jung
and Victor Mansfield ( Science, Soul-Making and Synchronicity). At the quantum level, objective reality gets fuzzy
and effects may become truly 'acausal'.
My point here is that while some discerning scientists are willing to admit that the universe is arbitrary and acausal
at some microscopic level ( it "just is"), we have not fully explored the possibility that some macro- world phenomena
could "just be" also! So far, no one can reduce a mind to any simple set of rules - it's failed. As Derek notes,
it seems as if you put enough neurons together and consciousness somehow emerges. Given that matter and energy
are primary phenomena - underlying everything else that's real - could consciousness be a primary phenomena also?
I further assert that this view of reducing everything to mechanical pieces is running into an impenetrable brick wall
on biology and genetics. About a hundred years ago a Hindu sage expressed his belief in reincarnation and skepticism
about heredity , in which some tiny cell component holds the whole detailed blueprint of life. Fast forward to the DNA age,
and that skepticism still looks pretty good - when genome researchers announce "it's not a blueprint." If it isn't a
"blueprint", could the genome be more like a token at a coat and hat check? ( "Here's your legs and eye color, sir")
Ghosts? reincarnation? souls? ESP? Who knows? Welcome to the "Just Is" Universe - where the inhabitants
think that a thousand years of progress based on strict nuts-and-bolts reductionism will always explain everything.
As the Buddhists say, all is impermanent.
metatron
I personaly believe that advances in quantum physics will meld religious and scientific theory together. Science can only explain things on the physical and mental realms. There are no scientific tools to deal with meta-physical issues. Just because we don't have a way to measure "dark matter" in the universe, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as scientist are begining to find out.
I think quantum physics is the bridge between both worlds. I don't see anything for creationist or evolutionist to fear. I don't think they cancell each other out. (Unless your an idiot and believe the universe was created in 7 days about 6000 years ago.).
(Unless your an idiot and believe the universe was created in 7 days about 6000 years ago.)
Unfortunately it seems that people are signing up for these kinds of fundy beliefs in far greater numbers than are people who are looking for spiritual enlightenment by studying quantum physics, which nobody *really* understands.
Yeah, I'm with you Dan, in that I would like the whole quantum physics thing to work out, but as far as whether I think it's right or not, my opinion is pretty close to worthless... because I am not a quantum physicist.
No, Science will not replace religion. But it is about to modify it.
Religion is constantly in process of change. It changed in nearly every culture during the axial period over 2000 years ago. With the changes in society brought on by scientific enlightenment, added to the recent perspective on matter that quantum physics has brought us I suspect religion is in for another reality check and a radical tranformation, but what will emerge will still be 'religion'.
As religious historian Karen Armstrongs says repeatedly, 'When our religion no longer works for us, we make a new one'.
Another very interresting thread.
Steve
Will religion ever be forgotten? How long.....will people on this planet right now at this moment......continue influencing ongoing generations about religion? How many generations do myths last......even though these myths are exposed as myths?
If the day comes when mankind is enlightened enough as to the "whys" of his existence.....then perhaps religion will cease. I figure we will all be dead before that day comes.
Gumby
Metatron writes:
This conclusion was reached, not by me alone, but in a full page editorial in Red Herring magazine a couple years back
It doesn't matter if the entire magazine supports that conclusion. My point is that it was a totally ridiculous jump to say that since the Japanese can't create artificial intelligence, that therefore the mind cannot be reduced to a simple set of rules. It's like saying since the neighborhood kid doesn't get algebra, that math as a system doesn't work. The simple fact that we don't understand something now is never proof that we won't tomorrow.
Dolphman writes:
Just because we don't have a way to measure "dark matter" in the universe, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, as scientist are begining to find out.
Again, the inability to measure dark matter today does not mean that it will be that way indefinitely, and it certainly doesn't mean that dark matter is mystical in some way. It just means we haven't figured it out yet.
I don't like this kind of argument (not only because it's illogical) but because it feels so much like the WT logic. Remember this one? "Scientists don't even understand why humans grow old and die. Therefore, we must be made to live forever!" It's a total non sequitur.
Not knowing something can never form the basis for any other positive statement. "I don't know how much money Bill has. Therefore, Bill is poor." It just doesn't make sense. And banking on science not figuring something out is an enterprise that is doomed to failure, looking at its track record.
SNG
Dude, I totally didn't know that if I reply to a post in the middle of a thread, my reply goes right beneath that thread! Sorry!
SNG
Umm....okay, I guess it only appears directly beneath the thread in the "title" view. Disregard.
