Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Omkara]

RTeacher,

Do you understand why intelligent design is not a theory?

You speak of science as if it were a doctrine or a creed. It is neither. It is an epistemological method with very strict requirements. These requirements are why it is so successful.

A theory must be able to predict something. It must be able to take the form: If X is true, then Y will occur under specific and specified conditions.

Intelligent design cannot do this. Therefore, until it can, it does not belong in a science classroom--anywhere.

Now, if someone wants to research and build a theory, then let them find someone to fund them. But until intelligent design can put forth a testable hypothesis, it is merely conjecture.

You simply must get this point if you are to have your opinions about god and respected among the educated.

The creators of expelled do not get this point and cry foul. But they are playing a different game with different rules.

If ID were to win this argument, the game of science would change and become something other than science. Civilization would take a backward turn for losing the greatest epistemological method ever created. Therefore, we should defend science.

Here, you really, really need to watch this argument put forth by a respectable christian scientist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

[mindmetoo]

http://www.mountainx.com/movies/review/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed

[mindmetoo]

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=61134

[Rteacher]

My opinions are based on acceptance of the Vedic system of authorized disciplic succession linked to the ultimate authority.

It's a descending process that conveys knowledge from a perfect source.

In contrast, the ascending process used by science to acquire knowledge is limited by human imperfection.

Most of my posts involve relating what transcendental knowledge I've been fortunate enough to receive from bonafide spiritual preceptors who are pure devotees of God.

I try to do so using clear English.

In contrast -

"You simply must get this point if you are to have your opinions about god and respected among the educated." -

[mindmetoo]

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/i_get_email_18.php

PZ makes a good point:

[Omkara]

I get that point. I've studied the vedic philosophies, lived in an ashram, done my time.

To simply assert that your source is perfect. . .well, I can assert any number of non-falsifiable claims. But there is some irony in the implication you make thereby, that science is an inferior source since it builds from the bottom up, that your souce is superior.

Science is a method which has more to do with our psychology and the limitations thereof than it has to to with the so-called "material" reality.

Your source may indeed be perfect. But, what about your ability to understand that source? Then, is not your so-called knowledge also inferior for not having an epistemic system by which you can guard against the infirmities of the human mind?

Why are you so willing to trust these bhakti authority figures? They can teach you a devotional practice which may have great benefit for you--I do not doubt that it does--, but does the fruit of this practice make you a sufficient judge on other matters? Is not science a complimentary practice, namely a form of Jnana?

Also, if you have not, give the video I posted at least five minutes. I think you'll enjoy it and get to know what the danger is in this video. Jnana is not bhakti.

[Binch Lover]

[mindmetoo]

[mindmetoo]

[Omkara]

Thanks!

Like you, I have come to appreciate the power and importance of science.

For many years, when I studied philosophy in universtity, I took the side of the argument which assumed a false dichotomy: religion/science. I sided with the more spiritual side of the dichotomy, though with no particular religion.

I have since come to a position which does not assume this dichotomy. Rather, instead of siding, I prefer to use critical methodology and have found that scientific reasoning prevents us from making many errors and kinds of error.

Any man or woman who is authentically spiritual will have a desire to know the truth. Hence, scientific reasoning ought to be an aspect of a modern, spiritual philosophy. Even, it should, with other critical methodologies, be used to interrogate spiritual doctrines.

We should recognize that scientific analysis my not be appropriate for certain inquiries--such as with an analysis of Hamlet--, but where and when it may be properly applied, we ought to use it and integrate it into our thinking about the truth.

I think this requires a certain kind of maturity and, to use a vedic concept, non-attachment; for, to arrive at the truth we must be willing to let go of our cherished errors.

This is exactly what Expelled fails to do. It uses a certain kind of insideous rhetoric to make its point, it mis-uses and abuses studies, etc. It is highly un-scientific.

But, is this not what Plato warned us about so many years ago?

I'm beginning to think that that poetry which Plato banned from his republic might be in some respect the equivalent to what we'd call scripture today. I doubt he'd have banned ee cummings. The verses of scripture have an emotional appeal which is dangerous and can even--if you'll excuse the use of the word--abort reason.

I would not, let it be said, have such verse banned. But, I think that Plato's point is worth thinking about. Is Expelled the result of this kind of "poetry"?

One wise woman once said to me, "Who cannot read poetry cannot read the Bible." I don't know about your view, but it seems to me that today's fundamentalists are very, very un-poetic.

[BreakfastInBed]

^ I think you're spot on and doubt it could be said much better. What is it that keeps people from arriving at, or understanding, or accepting this entirely sane, reasonable view? What is the great threat this poses?

[Omkara]

Hmmm . . . tough question.

I think, in part, and in many cases, it comes down to this: "knowledge" equals control.

There are many kinds of control: control of one's self, of one's environment, of one's peers. None of these are in themselves bad things; we have to look more closely at the way the control is intended or the consequences of it in order to make that kind of judgement.

To look at just one kind of control, I like to think of the "good life."

One concept involved in the "good life" is that of social status and the spoils thereof. To have mastery of a given knowledge--especially when that knowledge is "absolute"--puts a man (as it is usually a man) in a very high position. That status, therefore, depends entirely on the validity of the so-called knowledge. Any negation of that knowledge, therefore, results in a loss of status and privilege. In short, is it a loss of the "good life," or at least, of one concept of the good life.

Notice that this is an ego-centric conception of the good life. It was owing to the serious blows to the status and egoes of the men of knowledge in Athens that Socrates was put to death.

But implicit in that control lurks a shadow: death. The preservation of the ego is fundamentally not different than the hope of surviving death. However, how we relate with this anxiety is what distinguishes the character of men and women.

The same anxiety is involved in that man or woman who would support such "men of knowledge." By having membership in the group, they share in a kind of power or control. By being a member of the in-group, resources and benefits are secured, and the probability of a hastened death is diminished.

Death and the preservation of the ego and ego-identity is at the heart of the resistance to anything inimical to the doctrine which secures these things.

[Pink Freud]

[Justin Hale]

[Omkara]

No, since words have multiple definitions, and being myself aware of the ambiguities, and knowing that the ambiguities are no problem for what I wanted to convey in this particular context, I have chosen correctly. I am in command of my vocabulary and need no one to tell me how to choose my words. Question my use, that's fine. But telling me what words I should use, that presumes too much. (I just re-read your post. . .you presumed less than this reply might suggest.)

The word spirit is rooted in the latin word meaning "to breathe," spirare. We can still see that meaning clearly connected with our word "respiration." And since breathing integral to our life, we can see an added shade of meaning in the word "expire." When life ends, so to the breath.

I am a very spiritual man. I get out of bed at 4:50 and spend the first 30 minutes of my day practicing pranayama, or breath control. When I sit in meditation, I watch my breath in stillness, watch it breathing itself, know my mind by watching my spirit.

Something amazing transpires when you watch your breath thus. It is a direct way of aprehending Truth, is a way of becoming inspired.