Re: Whatcha Think ?
- From: Alvin Toda <aet@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:55:18 -1000
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:04:14 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 07:13:33 -1000, Alvin Toda <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 05:13:08 GMT, Rumpelstiltskin
<PleaseDoNotReplyByEmail@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 08:56:47 -1000, Alvin Toda <aet@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 8 Apr 2006 12:30:18 -0700, "AndyS" <andysharpe@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll be happy to do that. Or rather, I'll let a far more wise man
than
myself tell you: ----etc..... McDave
Andy writes:
I think that most of us would agree that Einstein would be a
great guy to get answers from about relativitiy.
However, his personal life was so messed up that I would
hesitate to ask him for marriage advice.
It is important to use "references" only in the area that they
have demonstrated competence.
While Albert may very well be correct in his metaphysical
utterances, it is equally true that anyone here may also be
correct, or incorrect. Albert has no special qualifications that
make him God's interpreter......
I , personally, really like believing in facts I can prove either
by experiment or inductive reasoning. Some facts cannot be
proven either way. I respect them as "working hypothesises (sp? )
I kind of like the Big Bang thing. I also kind of like the benevolent
Creator that uses evolution as a way to refine his "grand experiment".
But I can't even begin to think of a way to verify either. And, as
has been stated before here, evolution, intelligent design, and a
master Creator are not exclusive at all --- but rather a
rationalization
of how one hypothesis may have used a method to achieve His
results........ But, it really ain't all that important......
Andy in Eureka, Texas
Einstein knew his own limitations. Didn't he have someone else do his
taxes?
However, I think that he's a good source for the truth-- both in
science and in religion. Theorists do need to see when there is
sufficient beauty in a concept to declare it to be true.
Religion isn't "truth", or it wouldn't be "religion".
But it has it's own intellectual environment with it's own ideas and
perceptions of reality. There may or may not be rational explanations
for some religious ideas that seem to work. For example the flow of
energy, or Chi, to explain ideas in acupuncture, a healing art, which
has been somewhat successful in helping people.
Yes, "within its own ideas". The pope, for a famous example,
refused to look through Galileo's telescope, saying there would
be no point because it could not be true according to the
scriptures. Has there ever been anything at all that was a
mystery to science when the church stated its "truth" about it,
but which is no longer a mystery to science now, that is not
completely at odds with what the Church had earlier stated
with certainty was the truth? That's what one gets when one
just "guesses" at mysterious things, without the benefit of
ideas inconceivable to the people of one's own day.
The church had alternate theories. IIRC they even looked to scripture
to justify epicycles in the motion of planets. Galileo's Theory of
course was simpler. But that's faith talking, and a mature thinker's
reasoning. More experimental data was needed to differentiate between
the two theories.
I "believe" in the many worlds interpretation of QM, but if
somebody said his telescope proved it was wrong, I would look
through the telescope, so my "belief" is my judgment of
likelihood based on strong clues, not something I have sworn
never to change.
But QM is not an explanation on the macroscopic level. Such
uncertainty only exists at the microscopic.
If people believe in a myth and not the facts, then are they wrong, or
is the myth true, and the facts a metaphor for the "truth"? I recently
read the "Da Vinci Code" novel, which sort of discusses this issue
with the Christian religion. There may never be real hard evidience
that can distinguish the various theories of Christ, but the book (and
I would agree) concludes that it doesn't make a difference. The
"truth" that people believe will not be affected. It seems to me that
many people go through life just brainwashed from early experiences of
some theology of their parents. BTW, the title reminds me of a local
word "da kine". It's a little funny.
Well, that seems to be mostly about "social truth", which is not
absolute truth at all since, such "truths" change with time and
place. At all times, though, the "laws" of physics hold. Our
understanding of the laws of physics varies and errs, but there's
good evidence the laws themselves hold generally. Mercury's
orbit was known to be too slow by 43 seconds of an arc per
century long before Einstein discovered the dilation of time under
the influence of a nearby massive body: in the case of Mercury,
the sun. And the new calculations using General Relativity,
when they were done, did indeed account for the extra 43
seconds.
I agree that people don't really observe their religions, but from
my point of view, that's just the difference between a "mistake"
and a "mistaken interpretation of a mistake", of course.
I'd like to see what discussion follows the release of the movie.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Whatcha Think ?
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Whatcha Think ?
- References:
- Re: Whatcha Think ?
- From: Alvin Toda
- Re: Whatcha Think ?
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Whatcha Think ?
- From: Alvin Toda
- Re: Whatcha Think ?
- From: Rumpelstiltskin
- Re: Whatcha Think ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Whatcha Think ?
- Next by Date: Re: Global Warming
- Previous by thread: Re: Whatcha Think ?
- Next by thread: Re: Whatcha Think ?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
