Editor's Blog4 mins ago
Fun Science Question (I think!)
38 Answers
Evening All,
It's been a while since I graced Science with my ramblings so hopefully you've all had suitable time to recover!
I was out for dinner with a friend this evening and he was telling me about a show he heard on Radio Four (he thinks). The show itself was apparently about a maths equation or something with an Oxford Professor as part of the pannel (again, he thinks, I never heard it). At some point in this show a tangent was taken and the prof remarked that he believed in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy because you couldn't actually disprove their existence 100%
I obviously had a bash but I quite like the idea of fairies so I was rubbish. I was wondering if any of you could scientifically prove it? (Alternatively, if you know what show he was listening to, I'd quite like to know what the maths thing was about too!)
Cheers
China
It's been a while since I graced Science with my ramblings so hopefully you've all had suitable time to recover!
I was out for dinner with a friend this evening and he was telling me about a show he heard on Radio Four (he thinks). The show itself was apparently about a maths equation or something with an Oxford Professor as part of the pannel (again, he thinks, I never heard it). At some point in this show a tangent was taken and the prof remarked that he believed in Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy because you couldn't actually disprove their existence 100%
I obviously had a bash but I quite like the idea of fairies so I was rubbish. I was wondering if any of you could scientifically prove it? (Alternatively, if you know what show he was listening to, I'd quite like to know what the maths thing was about too!)
Cheers
China
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by China Doll. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
My entry into this thread was to demonstrate that the general rule that you cannot prove a negative was false, which I did.
Of course, there may be a Santa (or a God). I have already said that (like Russell's china teapot) I cannot prove his non-existence. But since the idea is absurd the onus is entirely on those who claim he exists to offer at least some glimmer of evidence that we can take seriously. Otherwise we would be pursuing every weird idea that anyone chooses to conjure up.
Clarke's Third Law (as Dawkins has pointed out) does not work in reverse. From it one my not assume that any magical claim that anybody may make at any time is indistinguishable from a technological advance that may come in the future. A very few do but vast numbers don't.
I use 'religionist' as the opposite of 'atheist'. I am an atheist: I consider all religious belief to be absurd and an insult to, a betrayal of, that intellect that evolution has given us. If you believe in one or other of the thousands of gods that mankind has dreampt up you are a religionist, whatever your role is.
I have studied gods and the Jesus story for decades but since I don't believe in either I am not a religionist.
Faith is exactly what it implies: belief without the need for evidence. Those who believe in God do so merely from faith and their articles of faith are repeated unchanged as ritual. Those who believe the Jesus story do so from faith because the story has no historical or evidential basis. It is not just scientists who reject this misuse of the brain but ordinary rational people like me.
Of course, there may be a Santa (or a God). I have already said that (like Russell's china teapot) I cannot prove his non-existence. But since the idea is absurd the onus is entirely on those who claim he exists to offer at least some glimmer of evidence that we can take seriously. Otherwise we would be pursuing every weird idea that anyone chooses to conjure up.
Clarke's Third Law (as Dawkins has pointed out) does not work in reverse. From it one my not assume that any magical claim that anybody may make at any time is indistinguishable from a technological advance that may come in the future. A very few do but vast numbers don't.
I use 'religionist' as the opposite of 'atheist'. I am an atheist: I consider all religious belief to be absurd and an insult to, a betrayal of, that intellect that evolution has given us. If you believe in one or other of the thousands of gods that mankind has dreampt up you are a religionist, whatever your role is.
I have studied gods and the Jesus story for decades but since I don't believe in either I am not a religionist.
Faith is exactly what it implies: belief without the need for evidence. Those who believe in God do so merely from faith and their articles of faith are repeated unchanged as ritual. Those who believe the Jesus story do so from faith because the story has no historical or evidential basis. It is not just scientists who reject this misuse of the brain but ordinary rational people like me.
I consider all religious belief to be absurd and an insult to, a betrayal of, that intellect that evolution has given us.
May I point out that this "betrayal" has led to some of the greatest feats of man, the greatest works of art and allowed people to endure the greatest hardships imaginable. Clarke's law is not a law, it is an observation and as such can be seen to exist in reverse. The glimmer of evidence lies in the fact that everyone one of us has a faith in something that has no rational empirical evidence behind it. I too am an atheist but as a scientist I find the dismissal of faith an insult to the philosophy of science. Science is meant to study all elements of the universe, especially those which we don't understand and faith is undeniably a huge influence on the world around us, to dismiss it because we don't know where to start and insult those who acknowledge it is the greatest betrayal of scientific principles imaginable.
May I point out that this "betrayal" has led to some of the greatest feats of man, the greatest works of art and allowed people to endure the greatest hardships imaginable. Clarke's law is not a law, it is an observation and as such can be seen to exist in reverse. The glimmer of evidence lies in the fact that everyone one of us has a faith in something that has no rational empirical evidence behind it. I too am an atheist but as a scientist I find the dismissal of faith an insult to the philosophy of science. Science is meant to study all elements of the universe, especially those which we don't understand and faith is undeniably a huge influence on the world around us, to dismiss it because we don't know where to start and insult those who acknowledge it is the greatest betrayal of scientific principles imaginable.
My oh my, aren't we having fun!
Patterning ones beliefs around imaginary beings and basing your choices on the dictates of a perverse fiction is not adhering to scientific principles. Such beliefs have only and can only lead one away from discovering the methods required and amenable to living and evolving in an ever changing world.
Faith is neither a requirement of nor pursuant to gaining knowledge and understanding of reality, a task the fulfillment of which is required for the survival and well-being of those having the capacity to do science.
Patterning ones beliefs around imaginary beings and basing your choices on the dictates of a perverse fiction is not adhering to scientific principles. Such beliefs have only and can only lead one away from discovering the methods required and amenable to living and evolving in an ever changing world.
Faith is neither a requirement of nor pursuant to gaining knowledge and understanding of reality, a task the fulfillment of which is required for the survival and well-being of those having the capacity to do science.
Faith is a requirement of the human condition, faith in love, faith that anything is worth doing, faith that at the beginning of a project the research will lead somewhere. Faith in a God is simply a faith that when the sun burns out and when humanity reaches its end there will be something else and that there is a reason we are here. Pure empiricism leads to nihilism and nihilism leads to depression.
Many minds more intelligent than all of us combined had faith and found it critical to their work and life. Einstein, Freud, Newton, Galileo, Euler, Shakespeare the ancient mathematicians. To say faith is not pursuant of knowledge is to ignore history and the power and motivation faith can bring to a individual.
We all have faith, we are born with the capacity to believe, you have faith that our current understanding of science can be built upon and progressed indefinitely instead of grinding to a halt at a point where the universe is incomprehensible or incomprehensible to us and our system of logic and maths. Read up on how by definition our own minds are incomprehensible to us as how can a mind fully understand the power of itself when the understanding must be done within the mind.
P.S. all modern political, social and financial ideologies are based on one perverse fiction or another, perverse to those who don't agree anyway.
Many minds more intelligent than all of us combined had faith and found it critical to their work and life. Einstein, Freud, Newton, Galileo, Euler, Shakespeare the ancient mathematicians. To say faith is not pursuant of knowledge is to ignore history and the power and motivation faith can bring to a individual.
We all have faith, we are born with the capacity to believe, you have faith that our current understanding of science can be built upon and progressed indefinitely instead of grinding to a halt at a point where the universe is incomprehensible or incomprehensible to us and our system of logic and maths. Read up on how by definition our own minds are incomprehensible to us as how can a mind fully understand the power of itself when the understanding must be done within the mind.
P.S. all modern political, social and financial ideologies are based on one perverse fiction or another, perverse to those who don't agree anyway.
Faith is only required by those who have allowed themselves to be led to believe, without reason, that �a higher knowledge� is available to those willing to suspend reason.
A �love� built on faith is a blind delusion headed towards an abyss of disaster. Love, which is a value of no less value than any other, demands appreciation, respect and understanding of the value that it is, and divorced from such an understanding, love will evaporate into the mists of the swamp of the delusion that allowed one to believe, beyond hope, they had found it without daring to question the true nature of what they have, in embracing their own ignorance, poisoned their own capacity to hope for.
A mind persuaded to abandon its own potential is a mind programmed to self-destruct in a fear driven quest to pursue the �safety� of mediocrity in an ever sinking downward spiral. Those who embrace reason, realise that reason is the reason we have achieved the ability to free ourselves from the bondage of the chains of faith by virtue of an improved ability to grasp the chain of causality. It is through an appreciation of the past successes of rational pursuits one is provided with the hope that motivates them to envision and realise greater dreams.
Faith is impotent to move a mole hill. Agreement for the sake of agreement is not the distiller of truth. In my personal pursuit of reality I have realised a potential to observe and appreciate wonders that, by comparison, left delusions of fairies in the dust.
A �love� built on faith is a blind delusion headed towards an abyss of disaster. Love, which is a value of no less value than any other, demands appreciation, respect and understanding of the value that it is, and divorced from such an understanding, love will evaporate into the mists of the swamp of the delusion that allowed one to believe, beyond hope, they had found it without daring to question the true nature of what they have, in embracing their own ignorance, poisoned their own capacity to hope for.
A mind persuaded to abandon its own potential is a mind programmed to self-destruct in a fear driven quest to pursue the �safety� of mediocrity in an ever sinking downward spiral. Those who embrace reason, realise that reason is the reason we have achieved the ability to free ourselves from the bondage of the chains of faith by virtue of an improved ability to grasp the chain of causality. It is through an appreciation of the past successes of rational pursuits one is provided with the hope that motivates them to envision and realise greater dreams.
Faith is impotent to move a mole hill. Agreement for the sake of agreement is not the distiller of truth. In my personal pursuit of reality I have realised a potential to observe and appreciate wonders that, by comparison, left delusions of fairies in the dust.
mib's analyses are so good that I will make only a few more short comments:
The expression 'Clarke's Third Law' is ironic.
That faith has inspired beauty says nothing about what that faith is based on. Beauty has also been inspired by tales which are accepted as fiction such as Greco-Roman mythology and the legend of Romeo and Juliet.
"Pure empiricism leads to nihilism and thence to depression" is one if those sweeping statements which simple observation would tell you is not true - unless, of course, your have your own definition of empiricism. (That faith is necessary to produce knowledge is equally easy to refute by observation.)
I have never yet seen a successful attempt to reconcile religion with science. During the course of a long correspondence with that arch-promoter of compatibility, Dr Denis Alexander, he sent me a copy of his book on the subject called Rebuilding the Matrix. Nowhere in its 473 pages (excluding notes) is he convincing.
The expression 'Clarke's Third Law' is ironic.
That faith has inspired beauty says nothing about what that faith is based on. Beauty has also been inspired by tales which are accepted as fiction such as Greco-Roman mythology and the legend of Romeo and Juliet.
"Pure empiricism leads to nihilism and thence to depression" is one if those sweeping statements which simple observation would tell you is not true - unless, of course, your have your own definition of empiricism. (That faith is necessary to produce knowledge is equally easy to refute by observation.)
I have never yet seen a successful attempt to reconcile religion with science. During the course of a long correspondence with that arch-promoter of compatibility, Dr Denis Alexander, he sent me a copy of his book on the subject called Rebuilding the Matrix. Nowhere in its 473 pages (excluding notes) is he convincing.
. . . and furthermore . . .
If Juliet had not placed her faith in a hereafter would the tale have ended less tragically? We may never know.
Looking forward to realising an even brighter day is not an act of faith by those groveling for the favours of a divine overseer of reality whilst trembling at its base and throwing their virtues into the mouth of an erupting volcano but an acknowledgement of that which has already been achieved by those with the vision and courage to gamble on the prospects of success.
If in a few tens of hundreds of thousands of million years the failure to pursue reason has not provided humankind a means to escape the waning light and warmth of a sun which having provided them the opportunity to evolve ever improving survival skills then threatens to consume them within its swelling sphere, no amount of faith will ease the pain of blistering, boiling, scorched flesh. Nor will any unfounded, unjustified, mindless beliefs, no matter how devoutly clung to, shield the faithful from the inevitability of truth. In the choice between faith and reason, time marches on and sooner or later runs out.
Fear is not the motivator of success but the running away from the hope that reason has demonstrated time and again a justification for believing in its existence. The awesome powers that technology has laid at our feet no longer afford us the luxury of falling asleep at the wheel of human progress. Pandora�s box has already been opened and the roulette wheel is already spinning and the bets have been placed on reason to win. There is no turning back. Our only choice now is to embrace our destiny or ignore it at our own peril.
If Juliet had not placed her faith in a hereafter would the tale have ended less tragically? We may never know.
Looking forward to realising an even brighter day is not an act of faith by those groveling for the favours of a divine overseer of reality whilst trembling at its base and throwing their virtues into the mouth of an erupting volcano but an acknowledgement of that which has already been achieved by those with the vision and courage to gamble on the prospects of success.
If in a few tens of hundreds of thousands of million years the failure to pursue reason has not provided humankind a means to escape the waning light and warmth of a sun which having provided them the opportunity to evolve ever improving survival skills then threatens to consume them within its swelling sphere, no amount of faith will ease the pain of blistering, boiling, scorched flesh. Nor will any unfounded, unjustified, mindless beliefs, no matter how devoutly clung to, shield the faithful from the inevitability of truth. In the choice between faith and reason, time marches on and sooner or later runs out.
Fear is not the motivator of success but the running away from the hope that reason has demonstrated time and again a justification for believing in its existence. The awesome powers that technology has laid at our feet no longer afford us the luxury of falling asleep at the wheel of human progress. Pandora�s box has already been opened and the roulette wheel is already spinning and the bets have been placed on reason to win. There is no turning back. Our only choice now is to embrace our destiny or ignore it at our own peril.
I did not state that faith was necessary to find knowledge, simply that faith is not mutually exclusive to reason and knowledge as shown by observation.
Pure empiricism says that only what can be demonstrated and proved is true and possible, that which is unknown or undemonstrated is by definition untrue and impossible. So within pure empiricism anything that we have not seen yet cannot happen, man cannot go to mars and a cure for cancer cannot be found. But living things die and stars burn out.
Any person working towards something out of curiosity or hope is operating outside that which is empirical, they are in the realm of hope and empirically speaking delusion, a delusion that something which hasn't happened (or been proved true logically) can or will happen.
In what way does faith persuade a mind to abandon its own potential, look at the great things achieved by people with faith and how they ascribe the success to their faith, many say they could not do it without faith, be it faith in themselves or a greater being or mechanism. Success in sports, arts, science and even in the face of great danger and peril (holocaust survivors).
Pure empiricism says that only what can be demonstrated and proved is true and possible, that which is unknown or undemonstrated is by definition untrue and impossible. So within pure empiricism anything that we have not seen yet cannot happen, man cannot go to mars and a cure for cancer cannot be found. But living things die and stars burn out.
Any person working towards something out of curiosity or hope is operating outside that which is empirical, they are in the realm of hope and empirically speaking delusion, a delusion that something which hasn't happened (or been proved true logically) can or will happen.
In what way does faith persuade a mind to abandon its own potential, look at the great things achieved by people with faith and how they ascribe the success to their faith, many say they could not do it without faith, be it faith in themselves or a greater being or mechanism. Success in sports, arts, science and even in the face of great danger and peril (holocaust survivors).
A mind that has shackled itself with only reason for company has abandoned the great gifts of humanity, compassion, mercy, imagination, beauty and hope. Reason says that all these things should be ignored, beauty and aesthetics serve no purpose, mercy towards an enemy is unreasonable as it leaves the enemy alive to fight another day, hope is unreasonable things will happen or not and you wishing will make no difference.
Beauty is not always inspired by faith and faith does not always inspire beauty, but the freedom that faith gives the mind to explore the incomprehensible and the ineffable without a logical proof. On what scale can beauty be measured, what equation or law can explain what is more beautiful than something else. Faith is necessary to experience something more than what we can immediately observe faith, faith is what allows a consciousness beyond logical and empirical.
You have all mistaken faith as the philosophical principle of a consciousness beyond the mundane for faith as a religious shackle. No religion requires that anything not in the holy texts doesn't happen or is evil, bishops drive cars, surf the internet and use modern medicine even though the bible doesn't mention them. The bible doesn't need to mention them, the moral and ethical dilemmas and crises people experience are timeless despite their context and it is here that the bible offers guidance.
Reading Denis Alexander is the wrong route to look to, compatibility has been far more thoroughly explored during the renaissance, the age of enlightenment and by philosophers, theologians and thinkers ever since. The texts of these people and the holy texts that the religious faiths are based on (millions of pages excluding notes) bring a greater understanding of the issues in question.
p.s. please don't mention things like the length of a book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was well over 500 pages. Still rubbish, still never went anywhere.
Beauty is not always inspired by faith and faith does not always inspire beauty, but the freedom that faith gives the mind to explore the incomprehensible and the ineffable without a logical proof. On what scale can beauty be measured, what equation or law can explain what is more beautiful than something else. Faith is necessary to experience something more than what we can immediately observe faith, faith is what allows a consciousness beyond logical and empirical.
You have all mistaken faith as the philosophical principle of a consciousness beyond the mundane for faith as a religious shackle. No religion requires that anything not in the holy texts doesn't happen or is evil, bishops drive cars, surf the internet and use modern medicine even though the bible doesn't mention them. The bible doesn't need to mention them, the moral and ethical dilemmas and crises people experience are timeless despite their context and it is here that the bible offers guidance.
Reading Denis Alexander is the wrong route to look to, compatibility has been far more thoroughly explored during the renaissance, the age of enlightenment and by philosophers, theologians and thinkers ever since. The texts of these people and the holy texts that the religious faiths are based on (millions of pages excluding notes) bring a greater understanding of the issues in question.
p.s. please don't mention things like the length of a book, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was well over 500 pages. Still rubbish, still never went anywhere.
I don't think any scientist will give you an argument about the the utility of faith in winning football matches or in the creation of great works of art.
It'svery good at that.
It's very bad at determining the way the Universe works.
We don't train pilots or surgeons in faith.
I still think you are absolutely wrong about the soul. I think it is the critical area of reality where science and religion conflict and that the crucial offering of religion to their followers is the promise of life after death.
If religion would not fall apart without that - tell me, where are the religions that do not offer it?
It'svery good at that.
It's very bad at determining the way the Universe works.
We don't train pilots or surgeons in faith.
I still think you are absolutely wrong about the soul. I think it is the critical area of reality where science and religion conflict and that the crucial offering of religion to their followers is the promise of life after death.
If religion would not fall apart without that - tell me, where are the religions that do not offer it?
Symmetryigr8, your verbosity allows you make too many untrue assumptions about the rational mind that it would take many pages on this site to counter them.
Fortunately, most of them are self-evidently flawed. Just one example: reason certainly says that undemonstrated things (using a loose term) are untrue but not that they are impossible. Also that old chestnut about rational minds being immune to all those wonderful things in life would be insulting if it were not such demonstrable nonsense.
Again your love of words without substance leads you to say vague things about the compatibility of science and religion having been demonstrated - but you give no examples. I have never found any.
How about fewer words and more facts, more argument?
Start with your ideas (or those of others if you can be specific) as to why the facts and logic of science can be reconciled with the superstition of religion.
Fortunately, most of them are self-evidently flawed. Just one example: reason certainly says that undemonstrated things (using a loose term) are untrue but not that they are impossible. Also that old chestnut about rational minds being immune to all those wonderful things in life would be insulting if it were not such demonstrable nonsense.
Again your love of words without substance leads you to say vague things about the compatibility of science and religion having been demonstrated - but you give no examples. I have never found any.
How about fewer words and more facts, more argument?
Start with your ideas (or those of others if you can be specific) as to why the facts and logic of science can be reconciled with the superstition of religion.
Any awesome power that technology has laid at our feet has not disproved religion, has not weakened or diminished the power of religions world wide. Reason and faith are not direct combatants, together they allow the human race to expand technologically and philosophically, to explore our own minds, the universe and our place in it in terms of art and literature.
Most of the funding and impetus for scientific and intellectual progress came from the churches, faith was pursuing reason for many reasons, chief among them being what you call empirical reason and the principle of faith achieve very similar goals. Both allow and even demand that our minds explore, explore how the world works and explore how our own minds work, how we perceive the world and our place in it. Your idea about realising our destiny shows a strong faith that you believe we have a destiny, that we won't eventually die out and time will erode all evidence of our existence, that I'm afraid is the reasonable, empirical conclusion. The actions of a mind accepting the freedom of thought beyond this hollow plain, into the realm of the imaginary and the incomprehensible allows one to deal with the inevitability of it all. Reason and logic says if something is ultimately futile then it should not be done, nihilism holds court. A mind with the capacity for thought beyond reason, the admittedly irrational and delusional can do something out of compassion for others, even though they are too doomed or even as an intellectual exercise, a pointless diversion.
Most of the funding and impetus for scientific and intellectual progress came from the churches, faith was pursuing reason for many reasons, chief among them being what you call empirical reason and the principle of faith achieve very similar goals. Both allow and even demand that our minds explore, explore how the world works and explore how our own minds work, how we perceive the world and our place in it. Your idea about realising our destiny shows a strong faith that you believe we have a destiny, that we won't eventually die out and time will erode all evidence of our existence, that I'm afraid is the reasonable, empirical conclusion. The actions of a mind accepting the freedom of thought beyond this hollow plain, into the realm of the imaginary and the incomprehensible allows one to deal with the inevitability of it all. Reason and logic says if something is ultimately futile then it should not be done, nihilism holds court. A mind with the capacity for thought beyond reason, the admittedly irrational and delusional can do something out of compassion for others, even though they are too doomed or even as an intellectual exercise, a pointless diversion.
You repeatedly refuse to use the scientific method you so fiercely defend to examine yourself and your own thoughts.
Science cannot explain imagination or love or hate and religious observance cannot discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Schrodinger's one dimensional time independent equation or explain how atoms are formed.
The key is that no religion tries to explain these concepts, they may claim that ultimately a greater being designed or set up the rules, but that doesn't make the rules incorrect or the investigation worthless in the eyes of religious believers, a christian may believe God made the universe but that doesn't mean he thinks we should ignore how God made it work and we shouldn't use these rules for our own gain.
And conversely most scientists admit they can't explain the mysteries of life and consciousness, it is the militant attitude of those who cannot see these boundaries and persist in belittling and trying to destroy those who disagree with them.The greatest argument against "men of reason" and the greatest shame of "science" is their unreasonable and bigoted attitude towards religion and people of religious faith. Ridiculous rhetoric claiming that any kind of faith or diversion away from soulless, clinical scientific reasoning and progress will doom the human race and destroy us.
You rightly point out the progress humans have already made and the technological advances we possess and they all came with religion and science both prevalent, we naturally seek an equilibrium where both elements exist together. Theocracies denying any advance die out and regimes outlawing religion and focusing on only reason die out.
Science cannot explain imagination or love or hate and religious observance cannot discuss the strengths and weaknesses of Schrodinger's one dimensional time independent equation or explain how atoms are formed.
The key is that no religion tries to explain these concepts, they may claim that ultimately a greater being designed or set up the rules, but that doesn't make the rules incorrect or the investigation worthless in the eyes of religious believers, a christian may believe God made the universe but that doesn't mean he thinks we should ignore how God made it work and we shouldn't use these rules for our own gain.
And conversely most scientists admit they can't explain the mysteries of life and consciousness, it is the militant attitude of those who cannot see these boundaries and persist in belittling and trying to destroy those who disagree with them.The greatest argument against "men of reason" and the greatest shame of "science" is their unreasonable and bigoted attitude towards religion and people of religious faith. Ridiculous rhetoric claiming that any kind of faith or diversion away from soulless, clinical scientific reasoning and progress will doom the human race and destroy us.
You rightly point out the progress humans have already made and the technological advances we possess and they all came with religion and science both prevalent, we naturally seek an equilibrium where both elements exist together. Theocracies denying any advance die out and regimes outlawing religion and focusing on only reason die out.
What is your position on atheistic scientist like myself, advancing knowledge and science but accepting and rejoicing in the exist of faith? Or atheistic musicians or playwrights not contributing anything scientifically and dealing in imaginary delusions.
I personally fear the blinkered ill-informed regardless of faith as more dangerous to progress, people who wan tall the benefits of technology and none of the compromise. Anti-nuclear power protestors who still demand high amounts of cheap electricity or people who object to medical research on grown tissue samples yet still want a quick cure for all their ills.
Give me a well-educated priest who will consider and research all options for power generation over an atheist who believes one viewpoint regardless of evidence or necessity. They are people who have the kind of beliefs you describe, not the religious by default.
I personally fear the blinkered ill-informed regardless of faith as more dangerous to progress, people who wan tall the benefits of technology and none of the compromise. Anti-nuclear power protestors who still demand high amounts of cheap electricity or people who object to medical research on grown tissue samples yet still want a quick cure for all their ills.
Give me a well-educated priest who will consider and research all options for power generation over an atheist who believes one viewpoint regardless of evidence or necessity. They are people who have the kind of beliefs you describe, not the religious by default.
Hey China! Is it safe for me to come out from behind my toadstool now?
A bit more reckless and perhaps a bit less wise as Chakka, I venture once again into dubious territory . . .
The refusal to contemplate, however remote, the possibility that it could all be over tomorrow, that the environment that supports life on Earth might succumb to a collision with an unwelcome heavenly visitor, and to deny that life and consciousness are a limited quantity terminated in death, diminishes ones ability to appreciate the values presented by virtue of existence, life and consciousness. The expense incurred by attempts to escape the realities of pain and sorrow numbs one to the experiences of pleasure and joy.
Some tribulation in life is inescapable but through understanding its nature and causes much of the suffering is avoidable in proportion to our understanding of the nature and causes of pain that in many cases are only the result of a refusal to accept reality on its own terms. Whatever the source of a particular instance of disaster, we are victims of our own fear of discovering the nature of our adversary or of not having at the time of reckoning acquired the knowledge of how to avoid and/or deal with the consequences.
Life is not an unearned and eternal gift bestowed by the whimsical waving of a magic wand. Life is a precious opportunity to discover and imbue with meaning an otherwise pointless, purposeless universe.
A bit more reckless and perhaps a bit less wise as Chakka, I venture once again into dubious territory . . .
The refusal to contemplate, however remote, the possibility that it could all be over tomorrow, that the environment that supports life on Earth might succumb to a collision with an unwelcome heavenly visitor, and to deny that life and consciousness are a limited quantity terminated in death, diminishes ones ability to appreciate the values presented by virtue of existence, life and consciousness. The expense incurred by attempts to escape the realities of pain and sorrow numbs one to the experiences of pleasure and joy.
Some tribulation in life is inescapable but through understanding its nature and causes much of the suffering is avoidable in proportion to our understanding of the nature and causes of pain that in many cases are only the result of a refusal to accept reality on its own terms. Whatever the source of a particular instance of disaster, we are victims of our own fear of discovering the nature of our adversary or of not having at the time of reckoning acquired the knowledge of how to avoid and/or deal with the consequences.
Life is not an unearned and eternal gift bestowed by the whimsical waving of a magic wand. Life is a precious opportunity to discover and imbue with meaning an otherwise pointless, purposeless universe.
Nor is love inflicted on an otherwise uncaring species from the bow of a less than benevolent archer. Love grows out of a recognition of the values that life and consciousness lend to an otherwise sterile, unseen universe and the desire to be a contributor to the net worth of existence.
All that is meaningful in life is derived from and through reason, no less is meaning itself. Where meaning lies unresolved, reason alone awaits our request to provide the resolution. Apart from reason there is no reason to live, think, or hope or to seek justice, beauty, or love.
Fantasy is an invaluable tool for exploring what might be possible. But a fantasy that can not be made to conform to reality remains until such time, only a fantasy. A love made real is a tribute both to love and to those whose vision and rationality make it a feature of the reality they have earned the privilege to experience; an achievement that fairies can not hope to dream of.
There is a room in the house where I live devoted solely to fairies. There you will find a beautifully adorned polished brass bed, a book shelf filled with classics such as �Alice in Wonderland�, �The Cat in the Hat�, �The Broonie, Silkies & Fairies�, �The Invisible Man�, �Ripley�s Believe It or Not!, Creepy Stuff�, to name a few and ceramic caricatures hiding amongst the flowers or with feet dangling precariously from a shelf, and pictures of fairies displayed in an adoring environment that would make any real fairy feel quite at home. It is ubiquitously known as �The Fairy Room�. But not once have any of them offered to pay one nights room and board. Such is life . . .
All that is meaningful in life is derived from and through reason, no less is meaning itself. Where meaning lies unresolved, reason alone awaits our request to provide the resolution. Apart from reason there is no reason to live, think, or hope or to seek justice, beauty, or love.
Fantasy is an invaluable tool for exploring what might be possible. But a fantasy that can not be made to conform to reality remains until such time, only a fantasy. A love made real is a tribute both to love and to those whose vision and rationality make it a feature of the reality they have earned the privilege to experience; an achievement that fairies can not hope to dream of.
There is a room in the house where I live devoted solely to fairies. There you will find a beautifully adorned polished brass bed, a book shelf filled with classics such as �Alice in Wonderland�, �The Cat in the Hat�, �The Broonie, Silkies & Fairies�, �The Invisible Man�, �Ripley�s Believe It or Not!, Creepy Stuff�, to name a few and ceramic caricatures hiding amongst the flowers or with feet dangling precariously from a shelf, and pictures of fairies displayed in an adoring environment that would make any real fairy feel quite at home. It is ubiquitously known as �The Fairy Room�. But not once have any of them offered to pay one nights room and board. Such is life . . .
As a person of faith, rooted in what I believe is evidence to base my faith on, I find it difficult to accept that I could possibly be viewed by rational purists, as somehow lacking in the capacity to enjoy my life to the full, but must travel this road constantly looking over my shoulder for fear.
I do not live my life in fear. Awe, yes, and many many times of painful anxiety, but not cowered by the thoughts of a cruel God awaiting my ultimate demise, to give me, "what for!"
I do not live my life in fear. Awe, yes, and many many times of painful anxiety, but not cowered by the thoughts of a cruel God awaiting my ultimate demise, to give me, "what for!"
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.