I can see your post being acclaimed by the religionists as rather wise, as already exemplified in the following replies. I guess the loosing side of a logical argument must really desire a tie where they can claim the old cant prove me wrong trip.
Nevertheless, your post contain mistakes that I wont be shy in expose in the following text. So, lets get started.
Birdjaguar said:
A critical mind as you describe it is like an accountant; they are always looking backward at what we know, never forward to guess where we might be in the future, or where we might want to go. We do not need more accountants.
I wonder for how long will you keep insisting on this strawman of my argument. I have already stated that I am not arguing or favoring a closed mind that is incapable of creativity or excrutination. Minds surely should travel freely. Only that elocubrations should not be mistaken with opinions, and opinions should not be mistaken with conclusions.
The quality of being critical does differ from the quality of being open-minded. Only that they are not mutually exclusive, and, on the contrary, they have a perfect symbioses. A skeptical without an inch of imagination is a poor bastard, all right. But a deluded without critical sense is probably even worse.
I am stating, constantly, that those qualities should be tempered in the drawing of human conclusions, being the critical skepticism the trait that prevents a wide imagination to become lunacy. So, despite I had already stated this very clearly, I hope this time you finally accept what my true stance is, and stope replying to me as if I were advocating a closed mind without the capacity to envision new paths to human knowledge.
Birdjaguar said:
Our senses may be how we know things, but our imagination sets us on the path of finding out new things. The unwise blind men "accept" only what they sense, and declare all else false. A wise blind man would ask the question "Are there any other answers that could resolve our diverse and disagreeing opinions?" He does not predefine an elephant. He lays out a path for exploration. Maybe its two beasts or even three.
Well, I have a newsflash for you the universe is not political or ecumenical. The true nature of reality does not have to lay in the middle ground between different opinions, only because they happen to have important places in human society. Its just as possible that one side is totally right (making the other totally wrong) as it is that some common ground exists.
Other than that, dont mistake an adamant defense of a good idea with an incapacity to be a visionary, or to expand ones own perception. You have to separate a man being stubborn from a man having method;, and abiding to that method. And a method that includes tools to separate real data from elocubrations is a method that has a pretty good starting axiom.
Your defense here may sound wise, politically speaking, as it sees to claim for open-mindedness and dialogue, but it in fact it comes down to placing the blame of disagreement in the shoulders of those who arent willing to treat a wild and unlikely guess just like they treat a solid and well-put idea. A blind man is he who dont see what is around that is a bad fate; but its not worse than one who cant tell imagination apart from fact as the static on his mind will also prevent him to react correctly before the world, the very reason why being blind is bad in the first place.
Birdjaguar said:
It is no different than the search for a unified field theory. Scientists look for ways (dream up possibilities) that might reconcile quantum theory with gravity and then test to see if they are right.
Nah, its altogether different. You have a very romantic view of science and its findings. Do you really believe that Einstein dreamt the theory of relativity? That Heisemberg proposed quantum physics due to inspiration?
No way, José. The reason why people try to reconcile these two things is because they are backed up by solid mathematics and some empirical confirmations that works to one but not to others. There is valid reason to assert that each ofem has valid claims in at least one aspect of their teachings, and they have a great deal of work demonstrating their findings.
You will notice the relevant fact that there is no attempt to find a unified theory of relativity, quantum physics, and some dreamt up third theory. No, to achieve such status as to claim validity, you have to have something to show.
Imagination is a wonderful quality, but we have to keep in mind what its good for. Its good to inspire, not to describe. Logic works better to that task.
To Caesar whats Caesars,
Birdjaguar said:
My goal in all this is not to define the elephant as god, but to show that the theists, atheists and agnostics posting here are for the most part blind to the fact that they are on dead end streets. All they can do is "demand more proof", or "dig their heels in further", quote scripture, and claim I'm right and you are wrong, we agree to disagree. Each party has a vested interest in preserving the status quo. They are rigorously "orthodox".
Not quite. See, despite we cant really have a perfect proof of Gods existence or non-existence, we in fact cant have a perfect proof of anything. Rigorously speaking, apart from knowing we exist, thanks to Descartes, all else anyone perceives can be an illusion. So, in practice, we merely ascribe probabilities from the data that we recieve.
That data does not imply that tables or vanilla ice cream dont exist. But they do that about God. And not only because I think I am right, but because the entity God is full of internal incongruences in its very concept. So, we can have an
rational disbelieve in God, just like we can have a rational disbelive in round squares or in flat roundness or in still movement, without deciphering the entirety of reality in all its levels to do so.
To demonstrate that this is wrong, we need a profound demonstration, that, simply put, do not exist.
Having an open mind that listen to and evaluate all ideas does not mean that we have to consider them all equally valid after the evaluation is done. If we could not validly rule out what is preposterous, no evaluation would have been needed in the first place. As Carl Sagan said in his A Demon-Haunted World, painful as it is, some ideas are, simply put, better than others.
Birdjaguar said:
Creativity, imagination and science are all about breaking down orthodoxy and redefining the rules we use to view the universe. Imagine a discussion about how to reconcile religion, science and atheism. Most posters would give up at the start and say it cannot be done. To begin you would have to concede all three could be true. And that would never do!
As I said, your ecumenical desire to reconcile everything is pretty but not practical, nor functional, and actually, not desireable.
Creativity and imagination are great qualities only when tempered by a sense of reality, whiteout what, they become a dangerous ego trip.
And science is relentless, and its part of its nature to shatter whatever is its path. What is a good thing, by the way. Id hate to live in a society where scientific findings were challenged and disregarded in the name of a good relation between labs and churches. As it is, I think there is already too much interference of dogma in the realm of reason.
Nevertheless, I do concede that all could, theoretically, be true. Dont think I treat each paradigm differently from the other one inch. Only that how seriously I take the claims of each side depends on how well they can argue their cases, and how much they are willing to back their claims. The challenge is open, and the judgement, impartial.
Problem is that, so far, only one of them decided to face that burden and actually demonstrate the hows and whys of its discourse. And it aint religion, just in case it was not obvious by now.
Regards
.
The question remains: will it be an Indian or African elephant?
