Korean Job Discussion Forums

[n3ptne]

I ran across an interesting article on ShoutWire (address provided below) entitled "The Fall of Reason in the West". I don't wish to discuss the article itself, but more of the general point it tries to raise.

Now as a man of Science, or as a man who likes to think of himself as a man of Science, I will be the first to admit that Science does not know even a percent of the total potential knowledge in the Universe, either empirically or theoretically. Coupled with this insufficency, we are no closer in the realm of Philosophy to working understanding of everything either. Not all is lost however, as I equally and firmly believe that what we have so far conceptualized and proven affords us the ability to understand a near total comprehension of the overall structure of everything.

This is somewhat of a contradictory statement but nevertheless I believe it is exactly our current state. It is though we can see that a forest exists, and are aware that there are trees comprising it (the actual fact we can see the forest at all is a stunning fact) but are completely unaware as to how 99% of the trees function , only that they must function together.

Enter the Theory of Evolution and the mass societal resistance against it. Again, I'll be the first to admit it, we cannot prove anything... but how in the name of intelligence can anyone stand to argue that the essence of the theory is not perfectly accurate? How can they challenge it's teaching in schools when there is so much accompanying empirical evidence to prove the bulk of its validity? It can only be explained as the willful and futile attempt to force Science into agreeing with Religion. It can only be explained to any degree of accuracy by using the word "stupid".

Personally, I am not religious, insofar as there is no officiating by a third party between me and what I percieve the idea of God and creation to be, but that shouldn't suggest that I lack a degree of respect for said religions. What I cannot understand though is this:

If there is a God, and he created all things, then does it not logically follow that he must be the creator of Science, and does it not further follow that through Science we are able to gain further insight into the footprints of God? By this I mean God created the Universe and created it to work in a specific fashion, and using Science affords us with an oppurtunity to "reverse engineer" his methodology.

And:

If these tenents should logicially follow then should it not equally follow that Religion should be made to agree with Science rather than the opposite? Aren't the complications in Religion that Science illuminates proof positive that the religious conceptualization of the divine must be erroneous?

Or:

Is it more logical to assume that God did everything as described in the Bible and then using the powers of the divine faked the whole of scientific history (specifically in regards to Evolution) to sort of "balance an equation"? And if so, then isn't his willful faking of the validity of the Theory of Evolution still just as valid and shouldn't it still be taught in schools to glean a better understand of the Divine's fraud?

Oh yes, and I wrote this while living in South Korea following a meal that comprised of Kimchi and rice. Had it not been for the miracle powers of Kimchi I perhaps never would have thought of it. Isn't kimchi grand?


http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/17769/The_Fall_Of_Reason_In_The_West

[flotsam]

[n3ptne]

Please see edit and then proceed to drown yourself in a filthy toliet.

[laogaiguk]

I think n3ptne I can sum up all your questions by changing what I think is your base theory.

Organised religion is not about God in any way. It is about control. I think that explains all your questions about why religion is doing what it is doing

[flotsam]

[pastis]

There is no universal truth, no god, no scientific metaphysics. Metaphysics is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. 'Dasein' is metaphysics (ek-sists) and I doubt he has the stomach for kimchi. Stick to the earth.

[Junior]

[ChopChaeJoe]

Kierkergaard (sp?) was a very lonely fellow in Denmark, late 1800's. He pointed out that religion, well christianity anyways, was totally about faith. Scientific knowledge had nothing to bear on it. Even by his time, science had "disproved" the old myths.

His response was, well that's tough, but you cannot have faith if you're trying to get science to agree with you. At that point faith is unneccesary, a paradox. So if you wanted to be a Christian, as he did, you have to find a way to live with your faith in a world in which faith is nearly impossible.

On the other hand, my science degree has given me the insight that the western idea, "scientific method," is total bs. Is it really wise to think that we can understand "nature" by isolating "it" in the laboratory and hold all variables but one constant? Simple hubris. Are nuclear bombs and deadly designer viruses any kind of display of superiority?

Just a thought.

[Rteacher]

It's getting late and I'm too tired to write anything new - so I'll just copy an excerpt of this interview with a Vedic creationist (Michael Cremo) that I posted on the CE forum:

You talk about the present time as being an important juncture in the renegotiation of our picture of life. I think that essentially we're sick of being lied to and some of us are demanding a major correction to the textbooks. Would you agree?

Yes. The view that is presented in the textbooks is a strictly materialistic view, which involves a Darwinian evolutionary conception. But if you look at Gallup surveys of the actual beliefs of the American people, you will find that most people do not accept the Darwinian theory of evolution and its underlying materialistic ontology. About 45 percent believe that God created human beings in the beginning. Now these same people may have some pretty sectarian religious views, which I would not endorse, but I think they do have it right on the question of evolution. An additional 37 percent of the American people believe that God created human beings but He did it by evolution, while only about 12 percent accept the theory of evolution as it is put forward in the textbooks, as a random natural process. So clearly the vast majority of the American people do not accept the theory of evolution as it's taught in the textbooks.

Gallup surveys also show that most of the American people accept things that contradict the materialistic worldview that underlies the evolution theory. For example, about half of the American people accept extrasensory perception (ESP). And such beliefs are not confined to the people in general. They have also infected the scientific community itself. In various parts of the world, scientists are forming alternative science organizations to investigate phenomena that are out of bounds in mainstream institutions. Here in the US we have the Institute for Noetic Sciences, founded by astronaut Edgar Mitchell, and in the UK the Scientific and Medical Network. So this is a situation that is not very stable. The majority of people and many in the scientific community are opposed to what is being forced upon us in the textbooks by a now dominant elite.

What would you like the textbooks to say in the future about the genesis of humanity on Earth?

In the immediate future, I would like the textbooks to present alternative views of human origins. Let them present the Darwinian theory of evolution, but let them also present alternative ideas, such as intelligent design theory and devolution. I think the extraterrestrial theory also deserves mention. These alternative ideas should not be presented in a derogatory way, but in a neutral way, and students should be invited to make up their own minds about the question. I think that if this is done, eventually, the Darwinian theory is going to find itself in the place of an "alternative" idea. I do not think it will ever disappear, but it will assume a lesser status...
http://www.biped.info/articles/cremo.html

[Juregen]

This problem only occurs in America.

I doubt that America contains the entire Western society.

[steroidmaximus]

I'll take a stab at this, although I myself am "not a religious man".

*puts on priest hat*

Yes, God created science. God created all of us with reason and free will. To have the ability to make judgements concerning ultimate causes and our relation to the world is the greatest gift we have been given. How we choose to exercise that free will is the ultimate challenge.

Science in and of itself is not a bad thing. I like shitting indoors. I like ice in my scotch. I like being able to hook up the internet and download movies, music and porn. I like being able to wash my clothes in a machine and not by hand (trust me, by hand sucks ass hard). But as anything, science can be perverted and rendered to destructive and grotesque ends. This is where the question of choice really comes into play: do you choose to serve God, or some other power (greed, lust, wrath, gluttony, pride, sloth or envy, and their anthropomorphic representations)? Do you choose to answer a higher calling, or to respond to the base mewlings of human nature?

Whether you choose evolution or intelligent design, there is no absolute proof either way. Both sides can argue that reason justifies its existence. Ultimately, either choice is a question of faith, and this is how God seperates those who are worthy from those that are not.

To use wisely and for the greatness of God the tools and gifts we have been bequeathed is the challenge of everyday living.

*takes priest hat off*

As a final note: if the theory of evolution isn't 'disproved' as being woefully inadequate and erroneous before I die, I'll eat that hat.

[ellamarie]

Juregen wrote:

[RACETRAITOR]

There's no point in debating about evolution vs creationism. Creationists just don't get it. They're only trying to dismantle scientific thought and process.

[RACETRAITOR]

[Juregen]