NASA OR THE BIBLE

[bedeviled1]

[MENTION=9214]KDude[/MENTION]

We're all connected to something great just by being. Why anyone would want to see that destroyed is beyond me.

It boggles my mind that Apocalyptic predictions and network marketing are still effective.

But to me black and white, true or false, good or bad seems to be the best while others have more of a gray area to operate in. To say take some instruction here and some advice there while both sources are in direct opposition, or contradiction seems to be a passive way to live. Things that are true are concrete. Perhaps I am dogmatic but I THINK that I have more than a good degree of self doubt.

 

[ygolo]

It boggles my mind that Apocalyptic predictions and network marketing are still effective.

But to me black and white, true or false, good or bad seems to be the best while others have more of a gray area to operate in. To say take some instruction here and some advice there while both sources are in direct opposition, or contradiction seems to be a passive way to live. Things that are true are concrete. Perhaps I am dogmatic but I THINK that I have more than a good degree of self doubt.

To me, the synthesis of opinions based on multiple sources is the main indication of a free and independent mind.

I consider someone who parrots a single source or believes a particular source without question as either being brainwashed or mindless...or at the least, unable to think for himself.

 

[bedeviled1]

To me, the synthesis of opinions based on multiple sources is the main indication of a free and independent mind.

I consider someone who parrots a single source or believes a particular source without question as either being brainwashed or mindless...or at the least, unable to think for himself.

There iis safety in a multitude of counsellors alright. But I'm not so sure that would be my interpretation of an independant mind. Whether it is many sources or few it would still not be original or independant thought. It would make one feel more secure I suppose and maybe the best way to live but there is still fact and truth. Whether you and I believe it or not. To me science is truly amazing but is only a studyof something that already exists or has and having a hard time trying to figure out where it came from. Maybe it will help mankinds future, maybe not. Where's the originality ? We are so preoccupied with the past and afraid of the future that the present is slipping away.

 

[swordpath]

Let me say this, THERE IS NO ANSWERS FOR WHEN THE WORLD WILL END. God can't/won't tell us and science can't/won't tell us.

 

[Lexicon]

 

[ygolo]

There iis safety in a multitude of counsellors alright. But I'm not so sure that would be my interpretation of an independant mind. Whether it is many sources or few it would still not be original or independant thought. It would make one feel more secure I suppose and maybe the best way to live but there is still fact and truth. Whether you and I believe it or not. To me science is truly amazing but is only a studyof something that already exists or has and having a hard time trying to figure out where it came from. Maybe it will help mankinds future, maybe not. Where's the originality ? We are so preoccupied with the past and afraid of the future that the present is slipping away.

A synthesis based on multiple sources does not require accepting any of them. But after being informed, one may choose to reject all of them.

My main objection was to the blind acceptance of a single source on all matters. I see no originality there.

Using multiple sources is necessary for independent thought but not sufficient.

Yes. There is fact and truth that exist independent of our beliefs, but the question of course is what that is, and the best we can do is a model. Science at least has methodology for choosing between models. That methodology has helped us cure disease, and even makes this conversation possible. It seems to work, and improves on itself. It even works well (perhaps even better) when people skeptical of this methodology participate in it.

 

[ptgatsby]

Using multiple sources is necessary for independent thought but not sufficient.

I'd argue that it is sufficient - in fact, using single sources is common.

If you take the whole body of 'knowledge' that you have, including all the foundations for what you know (beyond just facts you can recall in the moment), only a very small portion of it has been critically examined and personally validated. This is especially true if you consider the rabbit hole effect of validating one concept you have by learning another concept which is equally suspect until you are able to validate it.

Independent thought, to me, is adaptability; to changing one's accepted knowledge to the most likely accurate knowledge in and of that moment. Independent in the sense that it is personally subjective and evaluated; at least a decision on the knowledge being presented is being made.

 

[Mole]

We're all connected to something great just by being. Why anyone would want to see that destroyed is beyond me.

Gene sequencing shows us precisely how we are connected to every creature that has ever lived on Earth over the last four thousand million years.

I don't think our minds or our hearts have quite caught up with this yet.

 

[KDude]

I'm with ptgatsby on the decision making, but I'm not going to bother with telling anyone else how to think. They can believe the world is ending tomorrow with an attack of flying monkey nazis dropping out of a hole in space, for all I care.. All I ask is they shut the fuck up. Leave your stupid beliefs to yourself. It clogs up the airwaves too much, for my taste.

 

[Mole]

Let me say this, THERE IS NO ANSWERS FOR WHEN THE WORLD WILL END. God can't/won't tell us and science can't/won't tell us.

We know the Sun will turn into a red giant in another 4 billion years and swallow the Earth. And we know the universe will keep expanding at an accelerating rate until even the black holes will evaporate and the universe will reach an unchanging state of low entropie and time will come to an end.

 

[bedeviled1]

A synthesis based on multiple sources does not require accepting any of them. But after being informed, one may choose to reject all of them.

My main objection was to the blind acceptance of a single source on all matters. I see no originality there.

Using multiple sources is necessary for independent thought but not sufficient.

Yes. There is fact and truth that exist independent of our beliefs, but the question of course is what that is, and the best we can do is a model. Science at least has methodology for choosing between models. That methodology has helped us cure disease, and even makes this conversation possible. It seems to work, and improves on itself. It even works well (perhaps even better) when people skeptical of this methodology participate in it.

I can't argue with that except I'm not so sure that multiple sources are necessary for independant thought. It could promote it I guess but a lot of great discoveries have been made purely by inquisitiveness of the person. John Nash dared to look at equations that went against all the great minds of that day. And there's Benjamin Franklin...

What if you don't see the answer you are looking for? What then?

Mankind has prospered by scientific progress. But what about the influence of religious(I use this word for lack of a better one) promoters on the heathen world. Can anyone ever measure the progress made on societies through this means. You might say it was because of the scientific proponent but then you would have to acknowledge the scientific component in the system.

The greatest discoveries can be the most unexpected.

 

[bedeviled1]

I'd argue that it is sufficient - in fact, using single sources is common.

If you take the whole body of 'knowledge' that you have, including all the foundations for what you know (beyond just facts you can recall in the moment), only a very small portion of it has been critically examined and personally validated. This is especially true if you consider the rabbit hole effect of validating one concept you have by learning another concept which is equally suspect until you are able to validate it.

Independent thought, to me, is adaptability; to changing one's accepted knowledge to the most likely accurate knowledge in and of that moment. Independent in the sense that it is personally subjective and evaluated; at least a decision on the knowledge being presented is being made.

Then mabe it would be arrogant or narcissistic to think anyone could have original thought?

 

[bedeviled1]

Gene sequencing shows us precisely how we are connected to every creature that has ever lived on Earth over the last four thousand million years.

I don't think our minds or our hearts have quite caught up with this yet.

Could it be our hearts and minds are struggling to hold on to smething we are in danger of abandoning in the process?

 

[bedeviled1]

I'm with ptgatsby on the decision making, .

U guys are right. Everybody that has a different opinion just shut the fock up now.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Forget NASA. The first man in space was the Russian Yuri Gagarin, on April 12 1961.

Upon returning, he met with Soviet leader Kruschev, and told him, "I've got bad news. I've been up there and I saw angels flying around, I am afraid God exists and our atheist ideology is wrong"

"I know, I know!", says Kruschev. "But don't go spreading it around!"

Two days later he is at an event with Pope John XXIII, to mark his historic journey. He says to him, "I've got bad news. I've been up there and there is no heaven".

"I know, I know!", says the Pope, "I'm not an idiot. But don't go spreading the news!"

 

[bedeviled1]

We know the Sun will turn into a red giant in another 4 billion years and swallow the Earth. And we know the universe will keep expanding at an accelerating rate until even the black holes will evaporate and the universe will reach an unchanging state of low entropie and time will come to an end.

Sounds like an apocalyptic prediction. Trouble is I doubt any of us will be around to see the date come and go.

 

[bedeviled1]

I'd argue that it is sufficient - in fact, using single sources is common.

If you take the whole body of 'knowledge' that you have, including all the foundations for what you know (beyond just facts you can recall in the moment), only a very small portion of it has been critically examined and personally validated. This is especially true if you consider the rabbit hole effect of
validating one concept you have by learning another concept which is equally suspect until you are able to validate it.

Independent thought, to me, is adaptability; to changing one's accepted knowledge to the most likely accurate knowledge in and of that moment.
Independent in the sense that it is personally subjective and evaluated; at least a decision on the knowledge being presented is being made.

IYO
Can a person stay in tact emotionally and abandon their core values and beliefs?

 

[Mole]

Could it be our hearts and minds are struggling to hold on to smething we are in danger of abandoning in the process?

Of course this is the case, our religions supported slavery, misogyny and child abuse. And we have been emotionally and intellectully shaped by our religions.

Our religions are also institutions who are loathe to give up their power, even when they are destroying the psyches of children in their care. For instance, we see this today in Germany where the hierarchy are blocking even their own inquiry into child abuse, causing the public resignation of the catholic in charge of the enquiry as a matter of conscience.

Yes, Germany should follow the example of Ireland and Australia and have an independent judicial enquiry into institutional child abuse. It's plainly hopeless having the church investigating the church.

 

[Mole]

Sounds like an apocalyptic prediction. Trouble is I doubt any of us will be around to see the date come and go.

Not one of us was here to see the beginning of time, and none of homo sapiens will be here to see the end of time.

It is extraordinary that this hominid, homo sapiens, knows precisely when time began 13.5 billion years ago, and we know how time will end and roughly how long it will take.

 

[Mole]

IYO
Can a person stay in tact emotionally and abandon their core values and beliefs?

No.

We know that with the gifted, in order to reach a higher integration, they go through a breakdown of their psyche.

Of course most of us aren't gifted and so we hang onto a lower integration as though our lives depended on it.

We prefer to hang onto misogyny, rape culture, child abuse and guns, rather than follow our conscience and reach for a higher integration. The price of intellectual and moral integrity is too high for most of us.