Science versus Paranormalcy Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

RAMSEY CAMPBELL » Discussion » Science versus Paranormalcy « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - 08:36 am:   

Quite out of the general thread...I'm queasy at TV arena talk shows (in Italy, at least) pitting science bigwigs against "paranormally" endowed people who are generally poor in rhetoric except assert to their "powers" or "gifts", so scientists have good game in demolishing such arguments, more often than not with the insulting arrogance of denial on the basis of experimental evidence.
Whatever can't be placed somewhere under the Gaussian bell of measurable probability is declared scientifically non-existent.
But is to exist the same as to be? To my mind, fairies do not exist yet they ARE!
Accompanying the moral slaughter is the bovine applause of biased spectators adequately led by the media conductors.
It's true most, maybe all, future-seers and miracle-healers are bent on squeezing money from the desperate and the credulous, so the adverse campaign is utterly justified, but the general denial goes far beyond.
I am not rooting for the "panormals", I am only indignant at the moral slaughter in the name of the Galilean method of experimenting the truth, whereas quantum phisics is intrigued by the paradoxically "anti-scientific", even "miraculous" behaviour of sub-atomic particles.
A woman-journalist quoted Dante's Inferno and asked the bigwig where would he place poetry under the probability curve. Clearly, she was hinting at a different kind of reality (whatever "reality" may mean). The egg-head only laughed and that would have been a nice zen reply had it not been in such supercilious a style.
On the other hand, who on Earth could ever be a hard bone to chew for the culturally exalted power of the scientific mind or the Vatican-like certainty of the faithful?
I am imagining someone like Merleau-Ponty, or Binswanger, or Jung, or who knows, as the ones not to defend paranormalcy but to throw a hard bone for the Galilean lab's officiants to chew, and that on the basis of the rhetoric of metaphorical reality and language.
As an aside, Jung was not a champion in wishful thinking as someone here once implied...on the other side, indeed many Jungians are trying to experiment with synchronistic phenomena, which are unmeasurable by definition (sometimes called "little miracles) by "scientific" methods, an unforgivable misunderstanding!
Enough with delirium. Sorry to have bothered.
Yours, Giancarlo
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.110.230.110
Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - 09:05 am:   

Giancarlo, it was me who said that Jung measured the truth of a proposition by its emotional appeal: if it sounds beautiful, it must be true. Paranormalism, New Age philosophy and the like are just new versions of what Victorians like Sir Oliver Lodge (and later Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) were trying to do, which is to broker a deal between science and religious faith.

I think we have to be honest and distinguish between what we believe because of evidence and what we believe because it appeals to our emotions and imagination. I believe I'm a hedgehog born by mistake in a human body, since my natural instinct is to hibernate and dream through the winter, but I haven't presented myself to a genetics lab for analysis because they would tell me I was nuts.

If you feel the paranormal should be immune from scientific experimentation, you are clearly placing it in the realm of religion: a matter of faith, not facts. That's a far more honest stance than those who claim the paranormal evidence is somehow hiding itself from the eyes of scientists: it doesn't happen when there's a camera/tape recorder/witness because the spirits are bashful!

I was involved in psychical research for three years as a student – long enough to see we were getting none of the evidence we all hoped to see – and neither was anyone else in the field. I chose not to believe that didn't matter.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - 09:20 am:   

That's okay, Joel!
My own idea is the word "BELIEVE" has yet to be seen through.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, May 11, 2010 - 12:41 pm:   

You're on my favourite topic, Giancarlo.

I believe in the paranormal as it would be illogical not to using the strictest "scientific" definition of the word logic. Let me prove it to you: an infinitude of natural phenomena must exist throughout the universe that are inexplicable to our limited senses and level of intelligence. Some paranormal phenomena were once so and we have now explained them making the once miraculous appear normal to us now (e.g. meteors), some currently decried paranormal phenomena we will explain and be astonished by in the future (I would suggest the apparently psychic bond between twins as a likely contender) and an incalculable amount more will forever remain beyond our ken and damned as "impossible" by scientists (the concept of a spirit world or afterlife for example). Realisation and understanding of this unalterable reality is called Forteanism - standing in the middle ground between blind faith and blinkered skepticism.

Science is essential for our practical survival in the world but should never be considered to provide all the answers. Philosophy is the art of thinking outside the box and making sound postulations about what could be. Study of the paranormal needs to combine the scientific nuts-and-bolts approach with the open-minded philosophical approach to give us at least a peek beyond the veil... to the next veil beyond that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 03:28 pm:   

I think Derren Brown's programme about Joe Power is very relevant here. It should still be available for replay on your televisions.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 03:37 pm:   

My views on the subject are so complex, and mostly indebted to that which I believe science has yet to explain, but most people think I'm a lunatic, so I hardly bother saying anything.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 03:48 pm:   

Sorry, Ramsey, but a conman being investigated by an entertainer hardly constitutes scientific rigour or philosophical insight.

I don't see why people fear there being a limit to human knowledge but there is and beyond it lies the paranormal - to me that's nothing but sound common sense. The Joe Power's, Derek Acorah's, James Randi's & Derren Brown's of this world only serve to muddy the waters imho.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.143.178.131
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 03:50 pm:   

I do like Derren Brown though we don't see eye-to-eye on religion. Some of his big tricks have been just stunning. The seance one was very compelling and the reveal actually really uplifting.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 04:07 pm:   

Well, my apologies to Steve and Giancarlo, but you've both rather confirmed my sense that people who claim paranormal powers tend to betray a dislike of investigation and are forever finding excuses why they either shouldn't be rigorously investigated or why the investigation seems to disprove their claims.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.165.34
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 04:18 pm:   

>>>I don't see why people fear there being a limit to human knowledge but there is and beyond it lies the paranormal

Well, I personally do see a limit to human knowledge, but I don't believe in the paranormal (afterlife, ghosts, etc).

Not being able to prove it doesn't have mean it has to exist, does it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.146.249.100
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 04:22 pm:   

Steve, in what way do James Randi's attempts to distinguish truth from lies 'muddy the waters'?

The fact remains that people like Sylvia Browne mislead bereaved parents, actively impede police investigations, and toy with people's grief for financial gain. Your argument is just as silly as the 'Richard Dawkins is equally as bad as religious fundamentalists' one. No, religious fundamentalists kill people because of their beliefs; actively doing a wicked thing is not morally equivalent to pointing out (however vociferously) that other people do wicked things. The correct position is not always mid-way between two extremes.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.146.249.100
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 04:39 pm:   

"an infinitude of natural phenomena must exist throughout the universe that are inexplicable to our limited senses and level of intelligence."

This is untrue. There may be very many, but as there is a finite number of natural phenomena, there can't be an infinite number of ones we can't explain.

And I would suggest that a paranormal explanation for any phenomenon doesn't leave it 'unexplained' it just offers a weak and unverifiable explanation.

If a phenomenon is observable, science attempts to explain it. A lot of 'paranormal' phenomena do not seem to be observable at all, which means that we shouldn't have to explain them. The problem is not that there are lots of phenomena we can see that have no explanation, but rather that there are people who tell us that there are phenomena when we can see none.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 04:59 pm:   

I'm not saying that all claims of paranormal phenomena must be true or even might be true, that would be ridiculous.

Of course there are no such things as vampires or people who turn into wolves during the full moon and an infinitude of other physical impossibilities but the Universe is infinite (I subscribe to the theory of a Multiverse, personally) and there are an infinite number of perfectly natural phenomena within it that we cannot detect or begin to explain, nor will we ever be able to.

We may catch glimpses of those that are closest to us by the weird side effects they have on our own limited perception of reality and that is what constitutes some of the inexplicable, and damned by science, paranormal phenomena that people report time and time again.

To claim that there is no limit to human knowledge and that some day we will have all the answers is the arrogance of human nature speaking. If James Randi had lived a few hundred years ago I guarantee he'd have been catapulting boulders over hills to "prove" that meteors were impossible. Skepticism is not truth. Science cannot provide ALL the answers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.165.34
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 05:43 pm:   

>>>and there are an infinite number of perfectly natural phenomena within it that we cannot detect or begin to explain, nor will we ever be able to

Claiming without any evidence that such things do exist is surely as dubious as science claiming these things don't exist simply because it has no evidence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 06:02 pm:   

"Science cannot provide ALL the answers."

THIS IS HERESY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Seriously, I agree with you, Steve.

I don't think the empirical model of truth-getting (youch what an awkward phrase) is the be-all-and-end-all explanation of what constitutes reality.

I'm off to think about qualia for a bit.

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.12.129.12
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 06:23 pm:   

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence


********weber ducks for cover********
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.165.34
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 06:32 pm:   

True, but absence of evidence isn't proof of presence.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 06:37 pm:   

"Science cannot provide ALL the answers."

Why not?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 06:56 pm:   

Proto, because some of the scientific answers are not emotionally satisfying enough to be acceptable as true. Apparently that's what really counts.

No, me neither.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 07:36 pm:   

Science cannot provide all the answers because it's rubbish at answering "why" and not "how" questions.

End of.



Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.8.97
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 07:54 pm:   

Science CAN provide all the answers... just not always right now.

Science, for example, could provide the answers to how an iPod is able to deliver music to the ears. It couldn't, however, back in the days of the Roman Republic.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts)
Username: Tom_alaerts

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.179.203.34
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 08:04 pm:   

"Science cannot provide ALL the answers."

Why not?


When people agree or not to the above statement, it is a matter of what they believe and assume.

Interestingly, science has PROVEN that we will never know everything. It's a kind of variant of Gödels mathematical theorem which stated that with a finite set of axioms there will always be things you can't prove.

Before I click "post" I did a quick search and indeed here's a clarifying and interesting article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=limits-on-human-comprehension
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.165.34
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 08:36 pm:   

I now declare this thread officially boring. :-)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 09:11 pm:   

Proto, because some of the scientific answers are not emotionally satisfying enough to be acceptable as true. Apparently that's what really counts.

No, me neither.


I like you, Joel, as a rational thinker but on this issue (for some reason) you keep ducking the issue.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 09:12 pm:   

I'd just like to add here that I actually do know everything.

Just saying, like.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2010 - 09:49 pm:   

I believe it was Merleau-Ponty who settled this debate...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P-nZZkQqTc

My mistake, actually, it was Ferrero Rocher.



Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Protodroid (Protodroid)
Username: Protodroid

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 147.252.230.148
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 01:57 pm:   

Why not?

"Science cannot provide all the answers because it's rubbish at answering "why" and not "how" questions.

End of."

But you've just answered a "why" question, so either you're being unscientific or your premise is incorrect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hubert (Hubert)
Username: Hubert

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 78.21.23.66
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 02:17 pm:   

I personally do see a limit to human knowledge

I don't. It is forever expanding and we have to be careful not to suffer a wholesale relapse into magic or religion. I see the scientific approach as a philosophy in its own right and believe most people here are talking about institutionalized science.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tom_alaerts (Tom_alaerts)
Username: Tom_alaerts

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.179.212.89
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 02:43 pm:   

As I mentioned (incl an illustrative link), it has been scientifically PROVEN that we will never know everything. Now it all depends on what we mean with everything. It's not yet clear if at one point there will be less and less things (or less important things) that we don't know (visualise a 1/x curve).

Another thing is that there is clearly a limit to the knowledge of 1 person, and big advances are more and more the result of group work, which entails its own problems since it becomes more and more difficult to have a larger view of the whole. Computers will eventually help with that but they're not yet nearly intelligent enough.

Anyway I do think it's healthy to try to understand and know as much as possible.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 02:59 pm:   

Tom - it has been scientifically proven (for now perhaps) that we will not know everything, and I agree, for all time, but whether that limit has been reached remains to be seen.

And yes, absolutely, it's most certainly healthy to try and understand as much as possible. Sorry for repeating essentially what you've just stated.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 04:14 pm:   

I think we're getting muddled in our definition of the word "believe" in regard to the paranormal i.e. reported phenomena that appear to transcend what we perceive as normal.

Our perceptions and level of intelligence are limited therefore what we can perceive, quantify and explain is limited therefore our very science is limited in what it can accomplish.

I believe there are natural phenomena in the Universe that fall outside our range of perceptions. We can grapple with some of these phenomena by applying rational thought processes to the glimpses of things just beyond our range - there is nothing wrong with theorising as long as the theory is not mistaken for truth (the mistake religion and mysticism makes).

Think of the range of our perceptions as a curtain hanging just in front of us that we can never reach or get past due to being chained round the waist to a great winch behind us. The curtain is in constant subtle motion, bulging and rippling, sometimes opening a minute crack to let a ray of light from beyond pass through. These movements and gleams are the only glimpses we get of the world that exists beyond that curtain. Every now and again the winch is turned and the chain is let out a bit so that we may advance beyond the curtain which disappears to reveal a whole new level of perceptions and reality with another identical curtain hanging just in front of us again. This continues until eventually the chain has been let out as far as it will go and the last curtain marks the physical limit of our possible knowledge with worlds beyond it no less real for the fact that we can never know them.

That's what I mean when I say I believe in the existence of paranormal phenomena as a wider concept. Specific reports of individual phenomena must all be treated on their own merits or demerits by the application of fair-minded and rigorous scientific experimentation aided by the wisdom of rational philosophical theorising.

Do I believe in the paranormal? Yes, as defined above.
Do I believe in ghosts? I accept the possibility within a range of definitions of the word "ghost" and admit that I do not know... but I would like to know.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 04:27 pm:   

Elegantly put, Steve. I'm agree with you 100%.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2010 - 04:27 pm:   

I agree, even.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2010 - 01:43 am:   

Stevie, more power to you.

However, if you believe, as I do, that a final understanding of the universe (or reality) is beyond human comprehension then that makes you a mystic. You may not like it, but that's what you are.

Just like me

Welcome.

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2010 - 09:04 pm:   

I've been called a mystic, a romantic, a believer and even irrational many times (I do read Tarot) but I don't like the automatic associations that go with those terms - particularly the last lol.

I'm more a logical, open-minded accepter of what might be and what we can never hope to know in this physical reality we find ourselves currently in i.e. a Fortean.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.165.34
Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 08:34 am:   

But why presuppose (and it does sound as if you are) a choice between being a hardline empiricist who believes wholly in imperious science and a mystic who holds to all or even just some of that other stuff?

As I said, I don't believe that science can Grand Narrativise the whole of reality, but that doesn't mean I believe in the efficacy of Tarot, in ghosts or the afterlife, etc.

As I said, having no proof - and perhaps never being likely to have any proof - of something doesn't mean it has to exist.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 12:59 pm:   

It all depends on what you're saying Steve is presupposing about. Surely some are less likely, whilst others have a higher probability in comparison. This is not to say they exist, just that there are chances of probabilities. Also, interpretation is an important definition here. You may define differently to Steve's definition of certain things.

Ghosts for example. I don't believe in ghosts, not in the sense of 'dead people' haunting the real world, but I do think it's possible to explain somewhere along the lines of 'The Stone Tape'. I don't think that's too implausible, is it?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 01:13 pm:   

I agree, that's what I meant when I said all reported phenomena need to be judged on their own merits or demerits and me saying "Tarot works for me, don't ask me how, but it does - or appears to time and time again" does not constitute proof but rather a statement of my own personal experience - an experience that seems to have been shared with countless others from time immemorial.

Likewise we've all experienced deja vu and that sensation of curiously looking round just as someone is staring at you or thinking about someone out of the blue just before they contact you or a song coming into your head which you hear playing soon after, etc, ad infinitum... things people shrug off but that hint at something currently beyond our knowledge. Time and existence being non-linear perhaps?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 01:57 pm:   

Sorry: I shouldn't have labelled you a mystic Stevie, I got a bit carried away on that jag.

I wonder if you've read Robert Anton Wilson's ideas on the subject (in "The New Inquisition" for instance)?

I particularly like this quote:

"it appears that the materialist model of mechanical consciousness covers some but not all experience and it excludes precisely that part of experience that makes us human, esthetic, moral and responsible beings."

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.16.15.11
Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 02:59 pm:   

Love RAW's sombunall (some but not all) concept. Right up there with Ken Wilber's idea of all theories being true but partial as no one is clever enough to be 100% wrong. Although I think that "sombunall" and "true but partial" applies just as much to RAW's and Wilber's ideas as it does to anyone else's.

Btw, Mark did you want to borrow RAW's novel Masks of the Illuminati? Explores some of his concepts in a supernatural mystery featuring Crowley, Einstein and Joyce. There's even a Machen quote on the first page.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 04:19 pm:   

Cheers Stu, love to have a read, could you bring it along to the next Penderels pub meet?

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 07:28 pm:   

Robert Anton Wilson was a committed Fortean and shared with Charles Fort a priceless sense of humour and keen sense of the absurd - essential when trying to make sense of this mad old universe. He often contributed to Fortean Times and I've been aware of and loved his theories since my teens... a true iconoclast. The Illuminatus books are indescribably wonderful imho.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Sunday, May 16, 2010 - 10:24 pm:   

Thanks Stevie

Must admit: I do admire RAW for his genuinely free-thinking approach.

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.3
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 07:38 am:   

I "believe" science ought to be set apart from scientism. Unluckily, there are scientists who hold an attitude of scientism, thus making them a little less scientific than they would credit themselves to be.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stu (Stu)
Username: Stu

Registered: 04-2008
Posted From: 86.16.8.175
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 12:12 pm:   

Mark, I'll bring Masks along to the Penderels.

I'm trying to remember the RAW quote about Belief Systems. Something like "Never totally believe someone else's BS. And never totally believe your own BS."
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 12:26 pm:   

Kinda like "I can think of nothing in Science, Philosophy or Religion that is anything more than the right clothes to wear at the time" - Charles Fort.

Check this link for Fort's influence on weird fiction: http://www.andrew-may.com/asf/fort.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 12:39 pm:   

I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.3
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 01:14 pm:   

Zed, that's a poetic affirmation having its own perceptual value. Perception as metaphor and metaphor as perception: not "like", AS! Could we not bring a poetic perception to bear upon a scientific one, instead of letting "science" giving us its own experimental definition of perception?
YES WE CAN!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 01:19 pm:   

There seems to be an emerging consensus here that only shallow people require evidence for what they believe. The deeper kind of truth has nothing to do with anything as superficial as facts. That being the case, I'd like to share my belief that all RCMB members are field-mice, hedgehogs, minks, stoats and other small mammals. Their 'human' surrogates are mere appearances (the word 'mere' being, of course, hugely pejorative in this context). I look forward to future threads on slug recipes, nest assembly and other pastimes of the field and hedgerow... which may, of course, have the mere appearance of being about films and books, which will fool no-one since small mammals are unable to read, write or operate technology. If you ask how we can go online depite those limitations, I can only say that it's a mystery and you shouldn't expect to understand everything.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 01:33 pm:   

Personally I don't believe anything unless it's backed up by facts - and even then I have my doubts.

I don't believe in ghosts or gods or fieldmice. It's all just a crutch for those too scared to admit that nothing matters. Especially the fieldmice.

Thank you, and I'll bid you all good day.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 01:41 pm:   

That's fighting talk, coming from a vole.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 01:43 pm:   

That's Mr. Vincent Vole, the hedgerow assasin.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 01:44 pm:   

Or even assassin. Depends on how much sibilance you prefer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.3
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 01:47 pm:   

Yes, "NOTHING MATTERS ANYWAY, THAT'S THE HELL OF IT". I agree. I remember these lines from the song-track in the "Oh, Lucky Man" movie. By the way, more than animals, I suspect shapeshifters to be able to read!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.64.9.233
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 01:57 pm:   

I have no problem in people believing in anything they want as long as it does not affect my civil rights as a vole, hedgehog or fieldmouse.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Gary Fry (Gary_fry)
Username: Gary_fry

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.31.165.34
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 02:17 pm:   

The EU is a hedgehog - it's true!

Behold: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10117050.stm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 03:54 pm:   

Hallelujah!! We are finally reaching a consensus.

I hereby wish to announce the Church of Steviology formally opened with me as Pope and our one piece of dogma being that only one person is allowed to believe in Steviology at a time... you'll all just have to wait your turn!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 04:57 pm:   

squeak, squeak, squeak, squeak, squeak, tippity-tappity, tippity-keyboard-tappity, squeak, squeak.

Oops. Slipped up for a moment.

The house-mouse known as "Mark S"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 05:20 pm:   

Of course we all know that science is always right and never contradicts itself. That's why we should believe everything it tells us.

***weber runs for cover again***
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2010 - 06:03 pm:   

Eugenics.

Squeak!

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:39 am:   

Actually, the song quotation, "NOTHING MATTERS ANYWAY..." from my latest post is from De Palma's "Phantom of the Opera". Just for the sake of truth.
Shall we open a debate about the supposed reality of truth, or the truth of reality?
Oh, no, I hope not!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 01:18 pm:   

Interesting that eugenics discredits 'science' but the Inquisition's tortures and Sharia law's 'honour killings' don't discredit 'religion'. Could it possibly be that individual beliefs/theories and practices have to be assessed on their own merits?

(I wouldn't know, I'm still hibernating.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 01:32 pm:   

Which actually brings me back to something I noted before: Richard Dawkins' most interesting observation is that no-one is more passionately anti-religious than a religious believer.... regarding every religion, and even every sect, but their own. No-one is more anti-Catholic than a Protestant or more anti-Protestant than a Catholic, no-one is more fervently opposed to Islam than a Christian (or possibly a Hindu or Sikh), etc, etc. All major religions are corrupt and lying, according to Jehovah's Witnesses. If anyone supports religion in general, he or she would be utterly vile and corrupt according to almost 100% of religious believers.

(Hard to type while running in a wheel, but I manage. Keep spending most of life living in a hamster's paradise.)
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 01:35 pm:   



Oh, Joel...sometimes you slay me.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 01:39 pm:   

One of the strangest encounters I had was with a twenty-four year old teacher (English) working in Poland. He had a Masters Degree in anthroplogy, was working on his PhD, and had spent time in west Africa living among a tribe in a jungle. His views on religion were interesting to me, and utterly bewildering. He stated that Islam was the one true religion according to what he'd learned, yet he was part of a Christian sect which when congregated spoke in tongues. He also believed that all religions precluded all others and laid claim to being the definitive religion, yet he would extend his reasons for the Islamic opinion. He was also a firm believer in no sex before marriage. He really was a walking contradiction.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 01:43 pm:   

Partly truth and partly fiction? Taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 01:45 pm:   

Perhaps, but he seemed sincere. He didn't strike me as a liar, or somebody who exaggerated. But yes, the walk home would be a lonely one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 02:19 pm:   

Richard Dawkins, the voice of tolerance? Oh dear. Give me a break.

His intolerance towards people of faith even extends as far as condemning the poor old Amish, who do no-one any harm and, rather like we housemice, like to live a quiet life:

In Dawkins's own words:

"There is something breathtakingly condescending, as well as inhumane, about the sacrificing of anyone, especially children, on the altar of 'diversity' and the virtue of preserving a variety of religious traditions. The rest of us are happy with our cars and computers, our vaccines and antibiotics. But you quaint little people with your bonnets and breeches, your horse buggies, your archaic dialect and your earth-closet privies, you enrich our lives. Of course you must be allowed to trap your children with you in your seventeenth-century time warp, otherwise something irretrievable would be lost to us: a part of the wonderful diversity of human culture."

The man's an authoritarian. He doesn't get a free pass because he's an atheist and a scientist...

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 02:29 pm:   

Mark - for all of his arrogance, I think the reaction to Dawkins is pretty unfair considering the air-time, page space, and wars spent killing one another for the past two thousand years. Religion has had the front seat for so long that it has become standard and acceptable, whereas one man challenges with relatively very few words comparing to the trillions upon trillions of those of religion, and he is lambasted by too many intelligent people who should at least share some of his sentiments.

With regards to the Amish, fair enough, but I'm not sure I agree with taking away individual choice at such an early age is the way to improve. I'm not totally against it, but all forms of religion appear to offer some way back to 'better values', rather than working in the present and now.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 02:45 pm:   

Reverting to the original Fortean theme of this thread – I bought a copy of Fortean Times and was so disappointed.

I mean, not even once.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 03:22 pm:   

... that no-one is more passionately anti-religious than a religious believer.... regarding every religion, and even every sect, but their own.

=====================

The same has normally applied to political beliefs, too. Until the coalition, perthaps....

Religions and politics have also led to wars.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 04:35 pm:   

Joel, sadly the Fortean Times of today is but a shadow of the august journal it was throughout the 70s & 80s having succumbed (ever so gradually) to the dumbing down of western society that is killing us all... BUT even yet it is still the only truly free-thinking, genuinely neutral, all-encompassing and rigorously researched (with all source references given) mass market publication dealing with what we don't know that is available to us and a thorough reading every month will not only result in fits of laughter in between bouts of horror and "no fucking way!" but also moments of genuinely mind-expanding and frequently unsettling "I wonder... nah, it couldn't be, could it?!". Just like Fort's original books IMHO.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.166.117.210
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 04:41 pm:   

Whoosh! Over the head...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 04:44 pm:   

I feel that what we do here on RCMB and in our work is a phenomenon of Forteanism, even if we do not realise this at the time we are doing it. The Synchronised Shards of Random Truth & Fiction. Only Connect.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 04:50 pm:   

As Zed, may have spotted, I had bought Fortean Times in the mistaken belief that it was a 'candid' memoir describing the events of a summer night.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Joel (Joel)
Username: Joel

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 217.37.199.45
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 04:53 pm:   

Now I'm putting in redundant commas. As if I were... oh, never mind. I need more sleep.

I'm resuming my interrupted hibernation. See you in the summer when the acorns are ripe for gathering.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.0.125
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 04:54 pm:   

I've come to the conclusion recently, that most established religions, in order to create a great many "cogs" for its machine - the generalized vast congregation that is needed to come dutifully every week, sit in the pews, and most importantly of all, contribute funds - that again, most established religions, require not just that the "cogs" be ignorant of many of the very precepts and beliefs that make up that religion; but must actually and actively be ANTI- the very and supposed religious principles of the churches where they gather.

To be a good Christian, for example - a good "cog" Christian - one cannot really take the words of Jesus to heart, and leave aside all worldly goods, and "let tomorrow take care of itself," and "consider how the lilies grow," and so on. One cannot open one's heart to the world, and go from town to town and preach the good news, an itinerant life. Instead, one must shut out the world entirely, and focus on one's own ego-centric problems, and one's own ego-centric pleasures, and not believe the days of the Kingdom are at hand; rather, one must basically ignore the specific teachings of Jesus, and simply be a good, money-dropping cog, in a giant machine - a machine-for-machine's-sake of hypocrisy....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 04:55 pm:   

Yep, it's leaving yourself open to the connections.

I would even say that any purveyor of weird fiction faced with writers block, like Tony for example, need only pick up a copy of Fortean Times (or ultimately any newspaper, but first things first) and read it, with an open mind for the story behind the facts, from cover to cover to find themselves spilling over with jotted ideas from which new worlds may spring.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 05:29 pm:   

That makes me think of Stephen King's 'The Night-Flier'. The cynical journalist working for a version of National Enquirer who discovers that one of the 'preposterous' stories might actually be the real deal.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 05:35 pm:   

Craig

Well, you can't have it both ways. If you think the perfection of the Christian faith in this day and age lies in hordes of wild-eyed, raggedy preachers coming round to your house and banging on your door day and night, telling you all about the gospel even if you're a convinced atheist, a devout muslim or a practising Jew; great.

Back in the past, when that method was the only way of disseminating information to an illiterate populace, it was indeed pretty commonplace.

It's the spirit and not the letter of the law that's important.



Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:00 pm:   

What is the good of religion? Any religion?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.7.172
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:06 pm:   

A related question, Des: What is the purpose of God?

Mark, can you honestly say, that the vast majority of Christians are living "perfect" Christian lives? And no, clearly I'm not asking if Christians are perfect - no one is. I mean, can you honestly say, that for the vast "cog" majority of Christians - that their expression of their beliefs... that the religion as they perceive it in their minds, as seeded there by their leaders... that that religion is a perfect exemplar of Jesus' teachings?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:10 pm:   

Well, presumably God only has a purpose if He exists. And, even if He exists, His purpose may be a gratuitous one. (Upper cases as a courtesy).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:12 pm:   

Des

One of the good things is it can inspire lovely jubbly songs. Like this one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwy9DSX6yBg



Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:13 pm:   

That's a silly answer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:14 pm:   

The good of religion is to give life a meaning, to say that this existance isn't all there is, life isn't just an accident and we aren't all living pointless lives.

It gives moral guidance to people - whether they choose to take it or not - and gives something to aspire to where there's no other hope.

According to science all we are is wormfood that's still moving because of some spark inside us (that incidentally science can't explain) and when that spark goes that's it and our entire existance has been pointless.

I know which version I prefer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:17 pm:   

That's a less silly answer. I'll reply later.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.7.172
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:23 pm:   

Weber, I agree with you... but I think so many religions have turned God around, literally - God is not God, but rather, "dog."

A faithful dog, that is a constant, unconditional companion, slavering love all over you at your mere presence. Barking away at intruders, protecting you from assailants. Fetching your slippers when you command it. Sure, the dog needs some basic attention, like a brisk walk - that's fine, you need a good walk too, it's good for your health. But then the dog is always able to be put in a kennel when one wants a personal vacation, or put outside the bedroom when "bedroom activities" are called for.... And hell, if the dog gets to be vexatious to one's personal lifestyle, then it's time to put the dog down or give it away, and get a NEW dog....

And then some terribly calamity hits - terminal cancer, death of a child, loss of everything material, etc. - and you realize, too late: the dog bites back.

I'd respect and admire most the religion that said something like this: God is God, worship Him, He commands it, He makes NO promises to you, of any kind. You will do it, 'cause He's God. End of story.

The Old Testament has a lot of this in it, actually... Abraham, Job, Jonah... but then, much later - did you hear the one about the traveling salesman?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Allybird (Allybird)
Username: Allybird

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 79.64.9.233
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:28 pm:   

'What is the good of religion? Any religion?'

It seems to be doing more harm than good on some subjects.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html

'The case has caused a furor. Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or when the mother's life is in danger, both of which apply in this case. (The girl's immature hips would have made labor dangerous; the Catholic opinion was that she could have had a cesarean section.) When the incident came to light in local newspapers, the Church first asked a judge to halt the process and then condemned those involved, including the 9-year-old's distraught mother. Even Catholic Brazilians were shocked at the harshness of the archbishop's actions.'
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:33 pm:   

I'm actually a bit confused about all this "cog" thing, Craig. But I'll try and get a handle on it...

The point you make has been levelled against the church almost from the beginning of its foundation. It's the basis of Gnosticism and then later Protestantism.

I think we might both get a "yawn factor 10" warning from the other RCMBs if we go down that road.



I've probably missed about 15 cross-posts whilst typing this...

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:38 pm:   

Actually, I find it rather interesting...but then never get stuck with me in an elevator/lift....

Talking of Dawkins a few posts back, I once put on one of his audio books at night and fell asleep, only to wake up three hours later and the thing was still playing...God knows how much I absorbed (:
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:41 pm:   

Anyway: as I said before, it's the spirit not the letter of the law that counts.

That's the essential point.

And Des, I was being silly because your question was silly. If I'd answered it fully it would have been as an essay, not as a messageboard posting...

It's like me saying to you: what good is art?

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:49 pm:   

If there is a good about religion it should be communicable here.

I can point to many bad things about religion, that we all know about, so no need to go into them here.

I'm just interested in the good of religion other than Weber's 'opium for the masses' answer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.7.172
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:50 pm:   

Yeah, my little rants mean nothing in the scheme of things, Mark.

Believers would agree by definition: religion is there to put a nicer shade on hideous reality. It's not like people ditch religion for some better world... that other world there, is pretty wretched. It's just that religious fervency requires a level of "untruth" that is difficult for the novice to accept... but must be accepted, pod-people-like, if one is ever to enjoy the fruits thereof....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.7.172
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 06:58 pm:   

Des - here's the admittedly extremely caustic, cynical, black and bleak positiveness of religion:

The world is filled with teeming, miserable masses. Most of these teeming miserable masses will live miserable lives and die miserable deaths.

The "powers that be" in some distant past decided that it didn't have to be miserable for everyone. A few select, could enjoy fabulous sensual enjoyments... but it would require sometimes 20 slaves, or maybe 100, or maybe 1000, per person enjoying desired level of sensual enjoyments, to enjoy.

So how to get so many many miserable masses to cow-tow to the selfish desires of one miserable little worm? When they could so easily rise up against the worm, if they wanted to? Simple: sell them on the wonders of "the other side."

Upside for both! One gets to luxuriate in pleasure for a brief span of years. The many many others get to serve the luxuriating individual for those brief span of years, happy at THEIR turn, on "the other side"....

Religion, thus, benefits masses of miserable individuals that are just going to go their miserable ways to miserable ends anyway.

End of bleak black horrible despairing parable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.7.172
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:04 pm:   

Ever notice the oddly reversed similarity, between Christian faiths, and the Islamic faith?...

Christians believe in drunken sinful Earthly orgies, followed by a good cleansing and a decidedly chaste, sanitized afterlife (the lambs singing the praises of God around the altar for eternity, for example).

The Muslims believe in a chaste and chastened worldly existence, followed by a sensual and luxurious afterlife (the 77 virgins with its implied orgy of sexual gratification, etc.).

Even the Buddha had to go through the extremes of sensuality and celibacy, to arrive at his own golden mean.

Those who would rob anyone of a rich and "sinful" life? They are the evil ones... and 99/100's of the time, hypocrites....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:21 pm:   

Yeah, my little rants mean nothing in the scheme of things, Mark.

That's not what I meant, Craig. Simply that your objections have a long history behind them, way back even before the secular Enlightenment.

Sometimes we absorb cultural mores without being aware of their origin: they're part and parcel of the society in which we live.

If, however, I've misinterpreted you: my apologies.

I wasn't having a pop.



Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:23 pm:   

Religion is some sort of conspiracy against the human race. It's just a question of deciding whether it is a good conspiracy or a bad one, when comparing ends and means.

Meanwhile:
Any religion: war, abuse, hierarchy...

IMO.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:25 pm:   

I thought it was Ligotti who was the author of the conspiracy against the human race.

I'm being silly again. Sorry. I'll push off now for a few hours...

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:28 pm:   

Yes, and I thought you were a Ligottian, Mark?
des
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:40 pm:   

Des - I'm an athiest but I can think of one good thing about religion: it gives people hope, and faith. I have no faith in anything, and that's a very lonely path. I rather envy people who can believe in something as nebulous as a diety...and hope that its there waiting for them when they die.

All I see ahead is eternal blankness. Who's the mug there, I ask?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:40 pm:   

Or even a deity...

Fuck me, I'll give someone a blow job for an edit button. Serious offer.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.7.172
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:42 pm:   

Nah, Mark, it's true - my rants really aren't original or fresh.

I'm actually jealous of those who've learned the wonderful trick of blinding themselves to the world's pure filth and horror, and are able to go to their churches and temples with joy and faith abounding, to yet exalt the supreme Stander-Byer-Doing-Nothinger.

Must be nice.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.7.172
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 07:44 pm:   

I seem to have echoed Zed! Oddly coincidentally.

I'm considering your offer of a BJ. I assume you won't be the one giving it, right?...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 08:19 pm:   

So Zed's vote is for a good conspiracy where medium-term ends justify the means for some, if not for him.
Fair enough.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 11:00 pm:   

No, I'd say the conspiracy is both good and bad. Or neither. People are good and bad (both). I'm actually against organised religion - hate it - but I'm all for faith and hope. I just wish I had some.

Sorry; been writing and editing for over three hours and I have a cold. My head's in bits.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 11:44 pm:   

Faith is a loaded word. But I reckon hope is something that all human beings need and can grow from uncertainty.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 82.17.252.126
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 12:08 am:   

Do I believe in God? As defined by the rest of the human race definitely not but I do accept that the Universe is infinite which implies the existence of infinite lifeforms and intelligences far beyond our hope of understanding. I also accept the possibility that over it all exists ONE all encompassing, all knowing infinite consciousness - the sentient universe model. To some people that might imply God but to my mind it would rather be the organism of which we are all merely cells and our consciousness merely thoughts. Think of one being with an infinite number of different perspectives on the Universe all of which are equally true and valid and that's as close as I believe we're ever going to get to an understanding of "God".

I'm an Agnostic because it's the only honest stance to have... atheism is as much a form of faith as the most ardent religious belief.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Zed (Gary_mc)
Username: Gary_mc

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 81.96.240.106
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 12:50 am:   

I believe in Cheesus. Does that count?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 06:46 am:   

In some countries faith and hope = running water, electricity, four walls and a roof, and food, of course.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.3
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 08:02 am:   

About Stevie's comment of "an infinite number of different perspectives on the Universe all of which are equally true and valid", he seems to be echoing James Hillman's concept of "psychological polytheism". Even William James, the champion of Pragmatism, asked himself if something like polytheism (the Gods as living metaphors) should be taken in serious consideration, the Universe as really a Cosmos, a set of perspectives each one complete in itself, "a set of eaches". Henry Corbin, the scholar of Iranian sufi philosophy, wrote "there is no God but the Gods", the idea of one god should be taken pluralistically: the One is made of the Many and the Many preserve the possibility of the One.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.3
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 08:07 am:   

...of course "psychological polytheism" isn't all that psychological in the academic personal meaning of "my psychology". Maybe "cultural polytheism" would be a better term, or the mere word "polytheism" would suffice if adequately seen through.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 09:40 am:   

My considered view is that there is much discontent built into a fragile certainty of faith but much potential hope in resilient uncertainty.

Faith seems to me (i.e. to someone without faith, admittedly) as if it is built on the sands of wishful thinking rather than true belief. How can one believe in, say, a One True God more than ome can believe in, say, the power of some Fiction that many of us here do write?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.5
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 09:46 am:   

Yes, "Healing Fiction", a challenging book by James Hillman.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 11:19 am:   

Giancarlo, for the one universal consciousness to make sense of itself and avoid going insane with boredom (or maybe it did) it would have to allow fragmentation into an infinitude of limited chunks of consciousness unaware, except by inference, that they are all a part of the whole. Logically the first split would be into two equal halves and opposites then those into equal halves and converses, etc, etc, ad infinitum until we end up with You and I and every other possible individual that can be imagined - going on forever... I find that the only philosophical model that stacks up rationally and even it must be wrong due to the limitations of our own intelligence and ability to perceive.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 02:12 pm:   

Theology has survived the depredations of logical positivism!



Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 02:16 pm:   

What does that mean?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Rhysaurus (Rhysaurus)
Username: Rhysaurus

Registered: 01-2010
Posted From: 212.219.233.223
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 04:38 pm:   

I think it means that Mark is living in the 1930s and still disputing with A.J Ayer. Probably in a drawing room at Oxford. With leather patches on the elbows of tweed jackets...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 04:48 pm:   

depredation - an act of plundering and pillaging and marauding.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 04:56 pm:   

Theology: the study of a god or, more generally, the study of religious faith, practice, and experience, or of spirituality.


A study of anything tends to continue if anyone is still interested in the subject whatever the climate of empirical logical thought that surrounds it. A study of something doesn't necessarily entail a belief in it, merely an interest in it. .
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 05:33 pm:   

In attempting a logical definition of a possible "God" (I prefer the term "sentient universe") the above theory is the best I could come up with and I'm quite happy with it. As Des says, I don't believe in it but I accept it as a very real possibility that covers all the observable facts. Yes, I am an optimist whereas a pessimist might say there is no universal consciousness but just a neverending infinite mass of energy in eternal random flux out of which we just happened to spring by pure happy chance - hey, whadaya know, we're back to being optimistic again!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.245.126
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 05:35 pm:   

Harold Bloom puts it an interesting way, Des. Since the Judaeo/Christian God (and most gods) we know from literature (the Bible, etc.), theology is actually literary criticism - specifically, the study of a specific literary character/creation.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.145.226.3
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 05:59 pm:   

I'm actually reminded here of the famous conversation between Tolkien and C.S. Lewis on the nature of mythology and Christ.

That took place back in the 30s too.

These days logical positivism is called scientific realism. I get confused.



Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 06:02 pm:   

C.S. Lewis holistically rhymes with D.F. Lewis.

Actually, I have studied Astrological Harmonics for many years but I do not believe in them other than as a random synchronicity.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 11:41 am:   

But if the universe is infinite then all the processes within the universe must be going on infinitely... including evolution. Was the perfect evolution of a sentient universe always inevitable because of existence, as opposed to non-existence, being reality. But then we're getting trapped into thinking in a linear fashion again. I prefer to think of Time as much an illusion as the concept of individuality. No beginning, no end, no separation, just the eternal moment in neverending contemplation of itself. Looked at that way the very concept of an afterlife is nothing more than the wrong answer to a question that need never have been asked in the first place!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 11:57 am:   

I am completely in tune with that, Stevie. Bravo! It sits well with my recent theories on retrocausality (Cern Zoo) and the Snychronised Shards of Random Truth & Fiction (the subtitle of the 'Weirdmonger' book). :-)

For me, it makes more potential sense, too, than what is in The Bible.

But nobody knows.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Tony (Tony)
Username: Tony

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 86.143.128.213
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 12:14 pm:   

All religion is an awareness that there is something under the blanket, a fumbling to find what. What people haven't realised is that the blanket might be part of it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey)
Username: Ramsey

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 195.93.21.74
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 12:25 pm:   

So that's why I kept fumbling under the blanket in my Catholic adolescence!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 12:44 pm:   

Thanks, Des! I consider that praise indeed.

I'll be getting stuck into the 'Best New Horror' volumes soon and see you have stories there from the very first one on... I'm looking forward to entering your world.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 78.149.116.138
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 03:28 pm:   

But the universe isn't infinite. If you accept the Big Bang as the most probably explanation for the origin of the universe then it is, clearly, not infinite. It's enormous and expanding, but (as we've known for almost 50 years now) not infinite.

Which is why I don't think that any reasoning based on an infinite universe is much use to us. Because we don't live in one (unless by 'infinite' you include things that are curved upon themselves so that they don't have edges).
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Des (Des)
Username: Des

Registered: 06-2008
Posted From: 86.172.184.103
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 03:33 pm:   

Perhpas the Universe being infinite is more a faith than a fact, then.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 03:57 pm:   

For "universe" read multiverse and an infinite number of apparent finities within the infinite, not to mention infinities within infinities - as mathematicians have proved do indeed exist. Ultimately there must be only ONE reality that encompasses everything we or the greatest scientific and philosophical brains can possibly imagine... and beyond that, still more. Nothing comes from nothing and nothing ever began (with a Bang or otherwise) it simply all IS. To imagine the opposite is to believe that existence can co-exist with non-existence which is patently ridiculous not to mention illogical. No, Des, I don't believe it is a matter of faith but merely the best model of reality I can think of that appears to cover all the observable facts - Big Bang theory doesn't do that because it ignores (or damns) what must lie beyond the Bang.

My head hurts...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.224.213
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 04:02 pm:   

All religion is an awareness that there is something under the blanket, a fumbling to find what. What people haven't realised is that the blanket might be part of it.

Tony, I read a great line from Avram Davidson recently, can't quite remember it though, where he says something like: we're groping for a pattern in the "fabric" of the Universe, unaware that that fabric might be lace, and the holes are all part of it.

To me, it's all simple - atheist or non-atheist, life is eternal.

Non-atheist: pick your religion and its religious afterlife speculation.

Atheist: I don't care if trillions and trillions of trillions and trillions of years go by... if it's like Stephen King's example of the bird sharpening its beak on a mountain-top once every 1000 years, and when that mountain wears down to a nub, 1 second of eternity has passed - take an extra trillion of those... at SOME POINT, it is simply inconceivable that YOU, your consciousness, in some form or other, won't return. It happened once, as Descartes I think said (was it Voltaire?). And from the final shutting of the eyelids to that brand new reality - it's a blink, it's time that never passed at all....
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.142.169.99
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 04:05 pm:   

Natt's right: it is possible to determine the limits of the universe. But I suppose it's going to eternally expand (rather than there being a "big crunch"). But as it does so all the energy will be exhaused and it'll end as extremely widely dispersed inert dust-clouds.

Then again, one could start talking about the multiverse: but evidence of that has not been detected as yet, so it's only a theory at this stage.

There was a great BBC programme about dark matter and dark flow on a couple of months back. It was called "Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong?"

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mark_samuels (Mark_samuels)
Username: Mark_samuels

Registered: 04-2010
Posted From: 86.142.169.99
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 04:08 pm:   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge6RjTgyLr0

Oh!!!!! If you're quick you can catch it on You-Tube. It's not on the BBC iPlayer anymore...

Well worth it, believe me.

Mark S.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 04:27 pm:   

The necessary professional discipline that scientists must work under means they have to limit themselves to what has been proven or theoretical models that have yet to be disproven.

Even though it is possible to infer what must be from what is right in front of us the scientist cannot go there until it has been proven whereas the philosopher can and indeed must go there.

This theoretical three dimensional model of our universe that scientists are tinkering with has to be contained within something else otherwise what is it folding back on itself through and what gives it concrete reality and measurable dimensions other that which it is measured against. It can't exist within nothingness therefore it cannot be all there is... simple!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Giancarlo (Giancarlo)
Username: Giancarlo

Registered: 11-2008
Posted From: 85.116.228.5
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 07:48 am:   

My stance in all this is I believe I don't believe, which is a double-binding assertion in that I am assuming my non-belief on belief and viceversa. Opposites are both implying each other as mutually exclusive, a schizogenic frame of mind...where are my pills?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 10:11 am:   

???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan (Jonathan)
Username: Jonathan

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 91.143.178.131
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 11:15 am:   

For the record I have faith and it has sustained me through a lot, but I generally don't proselytize and most of my friends are non-Christian or atheist, which is absolutely fine with me. I can admire many different viewpoints without branding anybody,
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 11:52 am:   

The universe might not be infinite, but that it grew out of the big bang presents the question: what was before?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 12:45 pm:   

The fact that scientists insist on there being a start moment but not necessarily an end moment proves the limitations of that rigid way of thinking - though necessary on a practical level.

I believe we have to get out of this linear way of thinking and realise that our existence proves there is a positive reality that can have no boundaries as opposed to the negative unreality of infinite void or nothingness. The two cannot co-exist so there cannot have been a start to the universe/multiverse/existence or whatever you care to call it. It has always been and always will be. Scientists may accept that privately but can never prove it so can never accept it professionally... yet the truth of that reality is self-evident.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 12:57 pm:   

Steve - actually, you might be surprised at how much work has been conducted by some physicists to disprove the big bang theory as the beginning. It might have been the beginning to 'this' universe, but it does not explain what was before.

Somebody once said to me: 'There was nothing.'
"But yes," I said, "that nothing was a something. You can't have a nothing in that case."

They didn't get it, or didn't want to.

I'm with you on this, Steve.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 01:16 pm:   

Our planet might just be an electon floating round the nucleus of an atom in an unimaginabley huge other universe. If that nis an atom of carbon, it could be in a cotton compound and we could all be part of some emormously gigantically massively huge jockstrap.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 01:16 pm:   

electron
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 01:23 pm:   

No, too late, you said it, we'll take your first example, ELECTON. Besides, it has a far funkier ring to it than boring old electron.

Inside one huge universe, but still no nearer to explaining where everything comes from.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 02:16 pm:   

If my theory is correct - an unimaginably vast JJB sports.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 02:18 pm:   

My idea of hell.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 02:36 pm:   

Could be worse - it could be Sportsworld.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 02:41 pm:   

Luckily haven't heard of that one. I'm not against keeping fit and healthy, but those places make me depressed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 02:47 pm:   

Sportsworld is like a cut price version of JJB.

I know a lad who worked there, according to him, every shop (and their warehouses) in the chain is staffed by 90% teenagers under 16 or illegal immigrants - anyone they can get away without paying minimum wage to.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 03:58 pm:   

I'm reminded of the opening scene to 'Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life'...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.253.239
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:33 pm:   

"But yes," I said, "that nothing was a something. You can't have a nothing in that case."

The profundity here, Frank, is that atheists - and theists too, sure - but both must admit, that either way: something does, sometimes, come from nothing. The most basic law OF the Universe, is one that only seems to be defied within it.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:36 pm:   

Craig, man, that makes no sense whatsoever.

What is this something that comes from nothing...???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.253.239
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:45 pm:   

If there was nothing, Stevie, then something came from it - all the elements within our Universe.

Unless everything always was - God always was, say - but even then, change has been injected. God-Universe: us, eschatology, etc. No-God-Universe: simple observation reveals change occurring everywhere (evolution, entropy, etc.).

Always + change = something from "nothing." Let alone the more literal: Nothing + something (the Universe we see, material, etc.) = something from nothing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:50 pm:   

I remember reading (or hearing somewhere - possibly on QI) that 90% of every atom is empty space - the distance between the nucleus of an atom and it's surrounding electrons if scaled up would be equivalent to planets orbiting stars. If 90% plus of every atom is made up of nothingness, then everything is 90% nothing.

Unless we really are a superhugevastbig jockstrap in which case we're 90% cotton fibre and 10% polyester.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Stevie Walsh (Stephenw)
Username: Stephenw

Registered: 03-2009
Posted From: 194.32.31.1
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 04:56 pm:   

You are saying that 1=0 which negates all the rules of mathematics not to mention common sense!

Actually, I've thought about this co-existence of everything AND nothing. Our consciousness of existence implies everything and allows for the imaginary concept of nothingness as an opposite state to what we observe but if nothing were all there were then everything could not be imagined which means 0 cannot equal 1 which proves that 1 cannot equal 0.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.4.253.239
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 05:01 pm:   

Yes, it does defy common sense, Stevie....

Weber: then 90% of nothing is itself 90% nothing, which is also 90% nothing, which is also 90% nothing, and so on and so on, at which point you get to the fact that... nothing exists....

Like that old conundrum about having to travel a distance, you first must go halfway, and before that halfway to that spot, and halfway to THAT spot, and so on and so on, which concludes: movement of any kind is logically impossible.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 05:03 pm:   

Craig - but that nothing is a something. Describe nothing, as in nothing before the big band (I will leave this typing error as a testament to the 'real truth' )theory. Describe the nothingness that Weber has mentioned between atoms, it's still a something. Nothing is something.

Our human brains are too small to understand...EXCEPT mine. Mine is vast and without limits...I am time, but not time...no more Frank, no more, go rest, it must be the sun...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Craig (Craig)
Username: Craig

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 75.5.1.48
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 05:32 pm:   

But Frank, nothing is only something semantically: it is only "something" as defined as a concept that we can talk about, to quantify an intangible. Elves are also not nothing. So is ennui. So is the color yellow. So is the opinion that THE MIST is a good film.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Weber (Weber_gregston)
Username: Weber_gregston

Registered: 03-2008
Posted From: 194.176.105.55
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 06:11 pm:   

But if our universe is just a supergianthuge jockstrap it would explain everything.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Frank (Frank)
Username: Frank

Registered: 09-2008
Posted From: 85.222.86.72
Posted on Friday, May 21, 2010 - 10:08 pm:   

Craig - I think we're on the same page, except mine's a completely different book to the one you're reading.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nathaniel Tapley (Natt)
Username: Natt

Registered: 11-2009
Posted From: 86.172.241.39
Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2010 - 04:22 pm:   

Sadly, Martin Gardner died the other day, a great example of someone whose desire to expose frauds and charlatans was not incompatible with a belief that science was limited in its current knowledge and still had great mysteries left to solve.

A great programme about him (especially interesting to those who are into maths or magic) is here: http://vimeo.com/7176521

(The last ten minutes directly concern this thread, the rest is an overview of many of the intersections between magic and mathematics...)

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Bold text Italics Underline Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image

Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration