4 ms·

> Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen. Boogiemen like the belief that humans are more than collections of ato

> Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen. Boogiemen like the belief that humans are more than collections of atoms and random emergent behaviors? Because if those are your boogiemen, there's no particular reason to rejoice in reason, or anything else for that matter - it's all ashes in the end, and nobody will be left to care, whether we colonize Andromeda or blow ourselves up this afternoon. Science is a collection of methods for determining facts. I find it odd when people describe it in religious-sounding terms and simultaneously scoff at religion. But perhaps I misunderstood you?

acqq 12y ago
"Ancestral boogiemen" - see: religions. You know, those that teach that some deity actually exists "on heavens" and from time to time actively selects some groups of humans to give them some "truths" in order to make them fight with some other groups of humans (which that group will call "unbelievers" and vice versa). Some people try not to use that "religion" word in a fear to be named "intolerant" even if they don't name particular deity, naming which some particular religious group can be offended this or any time.
Luc 12y ago
> humanity's ancestral boogiemen. Comets used to have a bit of a bad reputation, as harbingers of doom. I think there's one in the bible, one appeared before the Great Plague of London, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London "During the winter of 1664, a bright comet was to be seen in the sky[7] and the people of London were fearful, wondering what evil event it portended."
agildehaus 12y ago
To say that we are "more" than just atoms is worthless without defining what that actually means. Magic dust doesn't have much of a place in reality, and that seems to be what you're offering. Why can't we just be a collection of atoms? Saying science thinks we're just atoms and "random emergent behaviors" is no better than those pushing intelligent design saying evolution is a "random" process. It shows gross ignorance of how order can emerge from chaos, and the processes we already understand. And, as best as I can tell, nobody would care if we disappeared tomorrow. The universe would keep on universin' as it always has. The reason to rejoice thinking this way is because of how amazing it is that we have the ability to know this and do things to prolong ourselves and our species.
gjm11 12y ago
> there's no particular reason to rejoice [...] it's all ashes in the end I hear this sort of thing quite often and I am never convinced that it makes any sense. The underlying, unstated assumption seems to be: Whether we care about something now should depend on what will happen in the infinitely distant future. But why? What's supposed to be wrong with rejoicing now in the discoveries we're making now (and the ones in the past that have affected us, and the ones in the nearish future that our work may contribute to)? Why should something millions of years in the future that I can't do anything about determine what I care about now? (Of course maybe we can do something about it; maybe some amazing future discovery will allow us to extend the lifetime of the sun, or escape to another universe, or something. But for present purposes I'm granting the premise that we can't do anything about it, and that it inevitably is "all ashes in the end". If not, obviously the argument nathan_long is making gets even weaker.)
Retric 12y ago
I don't see how having 'god(s)' out there some how magically adds meaning?
kingmanaz 12y ago
>Boogiemen like the belief that humans are more than collections of atoms and random emergent behaviors? "Behind all of these dehumanizing practices is the idolization of science, an attitude that results in the attempt to reduce all things to the level at which they will be fit objects for study according to the canons of natural science. The massive material success of science has made it seem to many a panacea. It suffices to claim that a thing must be attempted for the sake of science in order to silence all abjections. Nonetheless, although the achievements of science are in themselves great and great are its benefits to mankind, it is absurd to believe that science is man's highest good, let alone the highest good in itself" (Hildebrand, "On Science Fetishism"). Now the Almighty demands, "Why do this people approach With their mouth and their lips, To pay honour to Me, While their heart is far off? Their reverence is worthless to Me;-- It teaches the doctrines of men! "So on this Race I lay wonders, Add wonders to wonders, Destroying its scientists' science, And baffling its scholars' researches." Fools! Is the Formed thought its Framer? Can the Work tell the Workman, "You never made me?" Or the Made tell its Maker, "You do not know how?" Isaiah 29:13-16 >Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen. "It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance" (Hildebrand, "On Temporal Parochialism").

acqq 12y ago

"Ancestral boogiemen" - see: religions. You know, those that teach that some deity actually exists "on heavens" and from time to time actively selects some groups of humans to give them some "truths" in order to make them fight with some other groups of humans (which that group will call "unbelievers" and vice versa). Some people try not to use that "religion" word in a fear to be named "intolerant" even if they don't name particular deity, naming which some particular religious group can be offended this or any time.

Luc 12y ago

> humanity's ancestral boogiemen. Comets used to have a bit of a bad reputation, as harbingers of doom. I think there's one in the bible, one appeared before the Great Plague of London, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London "During the winter of 1664, a bright comet was to be seen in the sky[7] and the people of London were fearful, wondering what evil event it portended."

agildehaus 12y ago

To say that we are "more" than just atoms is worthless without defining what that actually means. Magic dust doesn't have much of a place in reality, and that seems to be what you're offering. Why can't we just be a collection of atoms? Saying science thinks we're just atoms and "random emergent behaviors" is no better than those pushing intelligent design saying evolution is a "random" process. It shows gross ignorance of how order can emerge from chaos, and the processes we already understand. And, as best as I can tell, nobody would care if we disappeared tomorrow. The universe would keep on universin' as it always has. The reason to rejoice thinking this way is because of how amazing it is that we have the ability to know this and do things to prolong ourselves and our species.

gjm11 12y ago

> there's no particular reason to rejoice [...] it's all ashes in the end I hear this sort of thing quite often and I am never convinced that it makes any sense. The underlying, unstated assumption seems to be: Whether we care about something now should depend on what will happen in the infinitely distant future. But why? What's supposed to be wrong with rejoicing now in the discoveries we're making now (and the ones in the past that have affected us, and the ones in the nearish future that our work may contribute to)? Why should something millions of years in the future that I can't do anything about determine what I care about now? (Of course maybe we can do something about it; maybe some amazing future discovery will allow us to extend the lifetime of the sun, or escape to another universe, or something. But for present purposes I'm granting the premise that we can't do anything about it, and that it inevitably is "all ashes in the end". If not, obviously the argument nathan_long is making gets even weaker.)

Retric 12y ago

I don't see how having 'god(s)' out there some how magically adds meaning?

kingmanaz 12y ago

>Boogiemen like the belief that humans are more than collections of atoms and random emergent behaviors? "Behind all of these dehumanizing practices is the idolization of science, an attitude that results in the attempt to reduce all things to the level at which they will be fit objects for study according to the canons of natural science. The massive material success of science has made it seem to many a panacea. It suffices to claim that a thing must be attempted for the sake of science in order to silence all abjections. Nonetheless, although the achievements of science are in themselves great and great are its benefits to mankind, it is absurd to believe that science is man's highest good, let alone the highest good in itself" (Hildebrand, "On Science Fetishism"). Now the Almighty demands, "Why do this people approach With their mouth and their lips, To pay honour to Me, While their heart is far off? Their reverence is worthless to Me;-- It teaches the doctrines of men! "So on this Race I lay wonders, Add wonders to wonders, Destroying its scientists' science, And baffling its scholars' researches." Fools! Is the Formed thought its Framer? Can the Work tell the Workman, "You never made me?" Or the Made tell its Maker, "You do not know how?" Isaiah 29:13-16 >Once again the light of reason continues to chase away humanity's ancestral boogiemen. "It is a characteristic symptom of immaturity to feel oneself more mature and independent than men of previous times, to forget what one owes the past, and, in a kind of adolescent self-assertion, to refuse any assistance" (Hildebrand, "On Temporal Parochialism").