exercise in futility

actually, science hasnt been proven.  it "evolves," per say.  Theories of old have come and gone.  Theories that are around now will be gone eventually and disproven.  The Big Bang is a theory.  Evolution, no matter how popular, is still a theory.  There has been no discovery of the "missing link."  Science is as much by faith as faith in God is.  It\'s a personal perception of a progression of steps that lead to a proposed conclusion based on facts or theories or personal experiences.  Science is based off of human logic, a lot of it, and we all know what the deal is with human logic.  Faulty by nature.  it takes faith to believe in science...

 

To go even further:  say the root of me (my perception) is off, it would follow suit that the whole tree (all my deductions based off that perception) would be rotten from a faulty root.  Now, can a crazy man improperly diagnose himself as sane??  Yes.  So if I was crazy, i wouldn\'t necessarily realize my perception of everything around me was skewed...  but of course this argument is full of water so lets take it one step further.  We KNOW that our sanity is , say, in tact because we look in the mirror that is our peers , or textbooks, or psycologists/psychiatrists and they tell us or would tell us if there were something wrong.  but that\'s entirely based on the idea that society is correct in diagnosing what is the true status quo of sanity in the social norm.  But I look at society and feel that the social norm is ridiculiously skewed so if they\'re for the most part (I believe) at least partially insane and I believe that their perception is off, then how can I rely on a warped mirror like that to assure me that my own mental state is sound? 

Let\'s use the abercrombie and fitch shirts as an example.  Say I\'m a "hot chick" that wears those shirts that say "I make you look fat" or something like that.  Now to me and MY perception, THAT is a clear cut symptom for some kind of sickness - there is something skewed TO ME in that person for wearing that kind of slogan and putting that kind of negative/disgusting vibe out there into the social scene.  A sickness.  But that person doesn\'t perceive it as a sickness.  And neither do millions of other people.  So how can I, for arguments\' sake, rely on you or anyone else out there to tell me whether I\'m nuts or not when I perceive half the people out there to be somewhat nuts themself?  People, in my opinion, are often sick without realizing it...... can i expect myself not to be subject to that same futility?  On the contrary, perhaps it is only when looking through the glass of the eyes of a sick humanity that I can see that very sickness reflected in myself to some extent.  In my opinion, I realize that we are all subject to a degree of that sickness......  I mean, I\'m not perfect here - am I?  Ahhh, how dimly we see through these sallow eyes... 

 yeah, its a tough argument.  yeah, its wordy and difficult to connect.  But i\'ll try my best here to sum it up:  Whether I believe in God or not, firstly - science is by faith(big bang THEORY, THEORY of evolution, human error, etc.)  But secondly, and perhaps more to the root - We have a faith in our own logic that is grounded in nothing more than an imperfect humanity.  People logically believed the earth was flat.  Native Americans logically believed the europeans were half man/half horse because they had never seen horses before.  People logically believed the universe revolved around the earth.

Even if science is constant, man\'s calculation and perception is subject to error.  Philosophy ends in futility because philosophy is the work of imperfect man\'s hands.  If there is such thing as truth, it would have to be a capital "t" divine Truth that surpasses such a base creature as mans\' understanding, and therefore human philosophy will never conquest that great divine Truth it so wishes to master...

Man has faith in science, which is ultimately subject to being filtered through imperfect intelligence - if its not comprised nearly wholly thereof.  To me, that is more like having faith in error than having faith in God is- because at least in the theory of God there is a perfect intelligence that knows more than we'll ever know.  But with science, the faulty logic of man gets disguised as divine law and we nod and we smile and we fold our hands, pleased with how civilized we are and how far we've come since those ancient and barbaric ideas like God and Christ and sin.........

well...at least until the next revision that is.

 

 

 

i could be wrong...

 

TheJoeD on
Are you in agreement with that whole 'intelligent design' thing?
johnlanguage on
if by 'intelligent design' you're asking whether I believe God created things, and that He's an intelligent dude.... yeah. but somehow i suspect the question goes deeper than that. but i cant really answer the question until it's clarified (if there's more to it than that)...
TheJoeD on
Well, some public schools (mostly in rural and 'bible-belt' areas) are trying to incorporate the idea of 'intelligent design' into their cirriculum. So now instead of science and biology, they would also teach the theory that some all-knowing creator designed the earth rather than the ol' hot magma and water idea. Thus blurring the line between church and state even more. My question is; do you think this is an appropriate thing to teach kids in a PUBLIC school?
xxkpmxx on
I think everyone should have exposure to everything. Then once someone has (close to) all the information they could take that and believe what they want and come to their own conclusions. When theory is taught in conjunction with religion there is not one subject that is favored over the other and they are not putting a gun to someone’s head saying, "believe this and nothing else", that happens elsewhere in the world.
johnlanguage on
i guess my point is this: if you're gonna teach creationism in school - it's by faith. if you're gonna teach evolution in school - it's by faith. Why? Because they've never found the missing link. If you're gonna teach Big Bang in school , you're teaching it by faith unless you stress the THEORY end of it. Biology, science. Those things are great. But if you hold them up as infallible, which humans often do, then that's almost in itself a religion. The religion of many scientists is Science. They believe in no Creator besides Nature, and therefore in Nature resides the question of God -Does this science/nature have a consciousness? Does it know of itself, and of us? Or is it dead and empty, a set of amazingly rigid structure with no pre determined purpose or thought or idea or reason for existence? Science claims a purposelessness with order - a creation of a certain set of extremely and amazingly rigid laws of existence that somehow came into existence without intent or pre determined thought THUS making it a product of randomness. Without reason comes random, no? If there was no thought behind science, then it's a random set of intricate laws that just kindof 'popped' into existence for no reason, randomly and coincidentally. Therefore if nothing was intended, all things are coincidential/inconsequential. Which, if all that's true, how/why am I sitting here typing reasonable and logical arguments that you can understand and reply back to logically if our logic comes from the great Illogical? can order come from chaos? can reason come from randomness? can something come from nothing?? A Theory is a set of proposed logic, so even something like the "chaos" theory is rendered unchaotic by the fact that it follows the (unchaotic) rules of logic to come to it's conclusion! So, we are faced with two conclusions: 1. everything is meaningless. we are all a product of a random yet soemhow exceedingly great and orderly series or set of events. if the beginning was random, then logically we must also be random... yet i still perceive order. what are the chances that existence randomly popped up inside nonexistence? astronomical im sure. and for every future event inside this astronomically odded existence, the odds should go up exponentially. so, existence = astronomical. life popping up inside of an astronomically random existence? double astronomical. a set of laws and rules randomly popped up inside of a randomly popping up life inside of randomly popping up existence? astronomical x 3. How many astronomical odds would that chain of events pass through until it got down to us???? Infinite, would be my guess. or close to it. so then the odds for us sitting here, filtering down from all those random events would have to be something like ASTROMONICAL TO THE ASTROMONICAL POWER. the chances might as well be absolute zero. or choice number 2. something created all of this intelligently. whether it's still around is another argument, but something created this....................... intelligent design? sign me up.
TheJoeD on
Hey guys, we evolved from fish and apes, deal with it.
xxkpmxx on
I evolved from the three toed sloth.
Lastexit29 on
all i can think about is how joe spelled curriculum.
lisakaye on
I think this is a subject that is going to be tossed back and forth for the rest of forever just because no one will ever agree and I am seriously refraining from throwing in MY opinion because I'm sure we all know by now what that is :o)
TheJoeD on
Man, I can't believe how much I really gave a crap about religion and what other people thought. To each his own.
Ringer on
Yeah dude, you did suck for a nice stretch there.

Then again, you still do suck.

Carry on.
johnlanguage
Male - 28 years old
LOS ANGELES, CA
United States
Bookmark and Share