Dogma and Metaphysics.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 05:27 PM
Dogma and Metaphysics.
To speculate about cosmic moral possibilities is seen as ridiculous to most atheists.
As infinity and infinitude (the implications thereof) cannot be observed, quantified, weighed up , and tested leading to scientific laws we are left with a taboo area.

Is it not possible that there could be metaphysical systems that for some reason or other transcends the evolved scientific method. Can the science that allegedly had its genesis in the Big Bang disprove other modalities relating to cosmic potentiality, other than within the scope it pre determines for itself? In his book The God Delusion Richard Dawkins makes mention of a God who had evolved, prior to setting up the system, as the only conceivable option if one indeed did exist.

It should be noted that science deals very efficiently, within its limited time span, in terms of healing and destroying . AS the cosmos is boundless, from a moral perspective, anything is possible, including senses, sensations, and meanings completely remote from our understandings. Speculation is not synonymous with absolute stupidity any more than scientism is some sort of absolute panacea.

If we choose a 100% materialistic approach, ignoring emotion, intuition, sense of awe and subjectivity, apportioning all to brain function for our assumed finite duration, we might be right in terms of probability within our scope; then again we just might be short changing ourselves in any potential bigger picture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 06:28 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 06:36 AM by Ghost.)
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
Hey, Woof.

I've said this countless times, but it has difficulty slicing through the ideology. Science can only comment on the physical; those phenomena that are the result of the interactions between matter and energy.

While that intuitively might seem to some to encompass "everything", there is no way of knowing. However remote the possibility of other phenomena might seem, the cry of, "there is no proof," winds up being, intentionally or no, disingenuous, because proof is the language of science and the material. It's as if I said women aren't human because they haven't shown me their penis. They don't have one to show no matter how many times I ask, no matter how hard they look; their claim is supported in other ways. So if one decides, rather arbitrarily, that the penis is the only proof of humanity, one automatically cuts oneself off from an entire realm of possibility. The other ways of knowing don't have empirical proof to offer because if they did have proof of the interactions of matter and energy, they'd BE science.

So absolutely, the discussion of the non-scientific becomes a taboo, because to support a non-scientific notion discredits that scientist in the eyes of other scientists because scientists deal only in proof. It is, in effect, an act of heresy.

Whether or not there are other metaphysical, or simply non-physical, phenomena is beyond the point. The fact is that science cannot comment on them even if there were. Other ways of knowing employ their own methods, like reason, logic, intuition, art (and yes, of course, some use utter bullshit), but none are science. And science can't comment on any of them.

Trust in science is a discipline. It doesn't come naturally. It requires an absolute fealty to empiricism. Once that commitment is made, people feel secure in it, buoyed by the reliability of the data. Trust in other ways of knowing is equally a discipline and one that scientists find anathema. The other ways of knowing require an equal level of discipline and dedication and many of the practitioners of those ways feel as fulfilled and as supported by their way as scientists do.

The fear in all of this is that the other ways of knowing can be co-opted by the snake oil salesman, the charlatan, the fly by night, the tin pot dictator, the charismatic leader, in short, the bullshit artist. And the only honest rebuttal to that is, yes, that is absolutely true. It's undeniably true. So there you have it. The fear is legitimate. But why should fear of abuse negate all of the possible positivity that could come from a thing? When I have sex, I run the risk of getting an STD, no matter how many precautions I take. Abstention is the only way to ensure that I never run that risk. But FUCK THAT.

Yes, dogma in any form is a negative because dogma is the end of a conversation and we should always be striving to open and re-open the conversation. You do a good job of that here, Woof. I'm sure a lot of people will just dismiss what you're suggesting out of hand.

Because science is limited to the physical and because it cannot prove that there is nothing beyond that, yes, anything is possible. That's irrefutable. It's also not the issue. The issue is, what is to be trusted?

The debate about what is to be trusted is not a scientific one. It's not a religious one. It's a political and an ideological one. Unless we begin from that understanding, then all we'll have is finger pointing and recrimination.

I think that if we open up the conversation and change the question from, "what is to be/not to be trusted," to, "for what reasons are ways of knowing trustworthy," then we change the conversation from a zero sum identification of that which is to be trusted and what is to be abhored (or eliminated), and we open up avenues for inquiry and avoid the inevitable wars over who has it right. It stops being about stopping that which is untrustworthy, that which is dangerous and to be feared and reviled and destroyed along with anyone who thinks that way, and starts being about, "How do people view things and why?" Recognising and understanding the other ways of knowing doesn't mean that you endorse blind faith in them; on the contrary, the very nature of the conversation includes an understanding of their limitations (along with the limitations of science). It's simply acknowledging that which is there and the right to look at the world and our place in it in whichever way we see fit.

In the end, it's all inquiry. And inquiry is a good thing.

Quote:What we call "science" is only one particular science, a style of filtering experience that has been designed by and for a culture of uniformity and central control. It accepts only experiences that can be translated into numbers, that are available to everyone, and that can be reproduced on command. This is what scientists mean when they demand "proof." But this is only a tiny thread of all possible experiences, most of which are unique, not quantifiable, not reproducible, and not the same for all observers.
-Ran Prieur

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 01:23 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
(04-04-2013 05:27 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  If we choose a 100% materialistic approach, ignoring emotion, intuition, sense of awe and subjectivity, apportioning all to brain function for our assumed finite duration, we might be right in terms of probability within our scope; then again we just might be short changing ourselves in any potential bigger picture.

Whatever "metaphysics" is, it has no practical relevance. "Sense of awe", "emotion", "intuition", and "subjective feelings" ARE completely within the scope of Neuroscience, and Neuropsych. No "meta"-anything is needed. There is no "bigger picture" that will ever be discovered apart from what is known, and "knowable" by our human brains. It's all woo woo.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-04-2013, 06:50 AM
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
(06-04-2013 06:28 AM)Ghost Wrote:  ...
The other ways of knowing don't have empirical proof to offer because if they did have proof of the interactions of matter and energy, they'd BE science.
...

How useful are these "other ways of knowing"?

And of course "women aren't human"... ridiculous of you to imply otherwise!

Ohmy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
06-04-2013, 05:02 PM
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
(06-04-2013 06:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 05:27 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  If we choose a 100% materialistic approach, ignoring emotion, intuition, sense of awe and subjectivity, apportioning all to brain function for our assumed finite duration, we might be right in terms of probability within our scope; then again we just might be short changing ourselves in any potential bigger picture.

Whatever "metaphysics" is, it has no practical relevance. "Sense of awe", "emotion", "intuition", and "subjective feelings" ARE completely within the scope of Neuroscience, and Neuropsych. No "meta"-anything is needed. There is no "bigger picture" that will ever be discovered apart from what is known, and "knowable" by our human brains. It's all woo woo.

If hypothetically, there was for some bizarre reason higher intelligence(s) for good or evil purposes was trying experimentally, to encourage us to transcend both science and religion, for our benefit or theirs, could this not be the case?
For me, this may be highly improbable, but not woo. TRanscendence may or may not be simply mechanical brain reaction alone.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 05:06 PM
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
(06-04-2013 06:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 06:28 AM)Ghost Wrote:  ...
The other ways of knowing don't have empirical proof to offer because if they did have proof of the interactions of matter and energy, they'd BE science.
...

How useful are these "other ways of knowing"?

And of course "women aren't human"... ridiculous of you to imply otherwise!

Ohmy

Conversely,Ohmy if scientific dogma is too strident and manipulated by self assured inhumane types it may serve as a god in its own materialistic image and be just as bad or worse than that of religion. The writing emerges on the wall.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 05:10 PM
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
(06-04-2013 05:02 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 06:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Whatever "metaphysics" is, it has no practical relevance. "Sense of awe", "emotion", "intuition", and "subjective feelings" ARE completely within the scope of Neuroscience, and Neuropsych. No "meta"-anything is needed. There is no "bigger picture" that will ever be discovered apart from what is known, and "knowable" by our human brains. It's all woo woo.

If hypothetically, there was for some bizarre reason higher intelligence(s) for good or evil purposes was trying experimentally, to encourage us to transcend both science and religion, for our benefit or theirs, could this not be the case?
For me, this may be highly improbable, but not woo. TRanscendence may or may not be simply mechanical brain reaction alone.

Right, don't forget about the metaphysical spirit reactions.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 05:19 PM (This post was last modified: 06-04-2013 05:25 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
(06-04-2013 05:02 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 06:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Whatever "metaphysics" is, it has no practical relevance. "Sense of awe", "emotion", "intuition", and "subjective feelings" ARE completely within the scope of Neuroscience, and Neuropsych. No "meta"-anything is needed. There is no "bigger picture" that will ever be discovered apart from what is known, and "knowable" by our human brains. It's all woo woo.

If hypothetically, there was for some bizarre reason higher intelligence(s) for good or evil purposes was trying experimentally, to encourage us to transcend both science and religion, for our benefit or theirs, could this not be the case?
For me, this may be highly improbable, but not woo. TRanscendence may or may not be simply mechanical brain reaction alone.

Then I would be pissed off, and not interested in their manipulaive experiments, and refusal to show themselves.
Until or unless there is any evidence for "transcendence" it has as much relevance as the hypothetical 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto. I remain open to that too. Weeping
Everyone in human history, (so far) that ever believed in anything trancendent, is dead and moldering in their graves. Is there any reason to excpect that to change ?
No.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 05:29 PM
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
(06-04-2013 06:43 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Whatever "metaphysics" is, it has no practical relevance.

In Girly's experience, it's the only thing of practical relevance. Tongue

As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-04-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: Dogma and Metaphysics.
(06-04-2013 05:19 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(06-04-2013 05:02 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  If hypothetically, there was for some bizarre reason higher intelligence(s) for good or evil purposes was trying experimentally, to encourage us to transcend both science and religion, for our benefit or theirs, could this not be the case?
For me, this may be highly improbable, but not woo. TRanscendence may or may not be simply mechanical brain reaction alone.

Then I would be pissed off, and not interested in their manipulaive experiments, and refusal to show themselves.
Until or unless there is any evidence for "transcendence" it has as much relevance as the hypothetical 1957 Chevy orbiting Pluto. I remain open to that too. Weeping
Everyone in human history, (so far) that ever believed in anything trancendent, is dead and moldering in their graves. Is there any reason to excpect that to change ?
No.

No reason to expect it, nor reason to categorically deny potentialities extant but beyond our present cognitive abilities for some possible yet ineffable reason.
57 Cheves make for a strange example......Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: