Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 0:18:07 GMT -5
"No Matter What"
No matter what they tell us No matter what they do No matter what they teach us What we believe is true
No matter what they call us However they attack No matter where they take us We'll find our own way back
I can't deny what I believe I can't be what I'm not I know our love forever I know, no matter what
If only tears were laughter If only night was day If only prayers were answered Then we would hear God say
No matter what they tell you No matter what they do No matter what they teach you What you believe is true
And I will keep you safe and strong And shelter from the storm No matter where it's barren A dream is being born
No matter who they follow No matter where they lead No matter how they judge us I'll be everyone you need
No matter if the sun don't shine Or if the skies are blue No matter what the end is My life began with you
I can't deny what I believe I can't be what I'm not I know this love's forever That's all that matters now No matter what
No matter what
No, no matter That's all that matters to me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2015 0:56:49 GMT -5
No matter what they tell you No matter what they do No matter what they teach you What you believe is true
That sums it up for me.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Sept 30, 2015 13:05:25 GMT -5
Can you force yourself to believe anything?
Can anyone force you to believe anything?
Can you be blamed for what you believe, or don't believe?
No doubt folks could quote scripture around this subject, but are they correctly interpreting the word "believe" in scripture?
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 30, 2015 17:02:51 GMT -5
Can you force yourself to believe anything? Can anyone force you to believe anything? Can you be blamed for what you believe, or don't believe? No doubt folks could quote scripture around this subject, but are they correctly interpreting the word "believe" in scripture? I have zero aspiration to be a Bible scholar, but I am curious what you (and others) might think the correct interpretation might be of the word as far as scripture is concerned? To me, belief is a choice. If you are sufficiently invested in something, you will find a way to believe it; if you are not, you won't. ("Forcing" yourself or someone else to believe in something might be possible - if you set the stakes high enough that the alternative to belief is too costly - for example, banishment or shunning from a community that you might question your ability to do without...) I was surprised to find a lot of (IMO otherwise intelligent people) who did not find belief a choice. The only way I have been able to reconcile it in my own mind (so far) is that these people subscribe to naive realism. (Naive realism is the belief that we see reality as it really is (objectively and without bias); that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.) I don't subscribe to this view.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 30, 2015 17:18:12 GMT -5
To me, belief is a choice. This article pretty much sums up how I see it. I "believe" I have some control over my belief by indirect doxastic voluntarism but in general I can't willfully choose what I believe. This question is highlight by Pascal's Wager
|
|
|
Post by xna on Sept 30, 2015 19:55:41 GMT -5
Can you force yourself to believe anything? Not normally. I don't subscribe to Doxastic Voluntarism but allow for some effects of Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism. If you were isolated within a closed group where you were wholly dependent on that group, and prohibited from free inquire, you could come to drink their koolaid. Can anyone force you to believe anything? Not normally. But under extreme psychological pressure like in forms of mind control, also as in Stockholm syndrome, or when you go past the the breaking point of person as in mental breakdown, some drugs can alter beliefs and values, etc. Those in Plato's cave had their beliefs controlled due lack of free inquire. Can you be blamed for what you believe, or don't believe? Normally you should not be blamed for what you believe.However, If your beliefs or disbeliefs causes harm to others & does not benefit the greater good of mankind, you have some blame coming. In many religions you will go to hell for not believing the right things, which I believe is largely out of your control.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 1, 2015 4:54:16 GMT -5
Can you force yourself to believe anything? Can anyone force you to believe anything? Can you be blamed for what you believe, or don't believe? No doubt folks could quote scripture around this subject, but are they correctly interpreting the word "believe" in scripture? I have zero aspiration to be a Bible scholar, but I am curious what you (and others) might think the correct interpretation might be of the word as far as scripture is concerned? Sharon, I'd be interested to know what you think of the following:
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Oct 1, 2015 5:04:12 GMT -5
To me, belief is a choice. If you are sufficiently invested in something, you will find a way to believe it; if you are not, you won't. ("Forcing" yourself or someone else to believe in something might be possible - if you set the stakes high enough that the alternative to belief is too costly - for example, banishment or shunning from a community that you might question your ability to do without...) I was surprised to find a lot of (IMO otherwise intelligent people) who did not find belief a choice. The only way I have been able to reconcile it in my own mind (so far) is that these people subscribe to naive realism. (Naive realism is the belief that we see reality as it really is (objectively and without bias); that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.) I don't subscribe to this view. I expect there are people who would give their right hand to be able to believe a religious doctrine, but simply cannot. What do you do if you really want to believe something, but can't? What if an Atheist desperately wanted to believe in God? Could you choose to believe that the 2x2 church started on the shores of Galilee and has survived to this day? Could you choose to believe that Peter was the first Pope of the Catholic Church?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2015 17:12:48 GMT -5
When we say “I believe you” in the pre-1600 context, it adds another wonderful layer to a relationship. We don’t just believe what a person is saying in a particular instance, we belove them as a whole person. That would make for mixed emotions when someone states "I hate you and wish you were dead!" and you believe them. I am looking for that wonderful layer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 17:27:33 GMT -5
No matter what they tell you No matter what they do No matter what they teach you What you believe is true That sums it up for me. I sense from your comment that this verse is meaningful to you. Can you provide an explanation as to what it actually means? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2015 17:57:23 GMT -5
To me, belief is a choice. If you are sufficiently invested in something, you will find a way to believe it; if you are not, you won't. ("Forcing" yourself or someone else to believe in something might be possible - if you set the stakes high enough that the alternative to belief is too costly - for example, banishment or shunning from a community that you might question your ability to do without...) I was surprised to find a lot of (IMO otherwise intelligent people) who did not find belief a choice. The only way I have been able to reconcile it in my own mind (so far) is that these people subscribe to naive realism. (Naive realism is the belief that we see reality as it really is (objectively and without bias); that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.) I don't subscribe to this view. What if an Atheist desperately wanted to believe in God? I don't place myself in the atheist box but if you were to ask me could I choose to believe in the Christian God if I desperately wanted to I would have to say that is not at all possible. Belief isn't a choice. I tend to find that many of those who claim that belief is a choice are those who would have you believe that you can believe in Jesus if you really want to on the grounds that belief in Jesus (whatever that means) is within the grasp of everyone. It clearly isn't. You can't believe in Jesus any more than you can believe that the world is flat or that Santa Claus is real once you understand why it is not the case. Not even if you desperately wanted to. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Oct 1, 2015 18:00:55 GMT -5
Sharon, I'd be interested to know what you think of the following: I like that interpretation, and looking into the history and origins of the word, I think you could definitely argue a case for it. I am not a person who gets too hung up on the ideas that someone keeps thinking (largely modern day belief) – it’s simply not that significant to me. What is more significant is who we are and how we show up here (i.e., this existence, not the TMB). I know this is not quite Borg meant, but I think if the directive was simply “be love”, I don’t think a human being could aspire to anything higher in their time on this planet. (Gee, our pets manage to do this.) I regard much of modern day religious teachings (regardless of context) may be much like the product of the "Chinese Whispers" game.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Oct 1, 2015 19:20:08 GMT -5
I don't place myself in the atheist box but if you were to ask me could I choose to believe in the Christian God if I desperately wanted to I would have to say that is not at all possible. Belief isn't a choice. I tend to find that many of those who claim that belief is a choice are those who would have you believe that you can believe in Jesus if you really want to on the grounds that belief in Jesus (whatever that means) is within the grasp of everyone. It clearly isn't. You can't believe in Jesus any more than you can believe that the world is flat or that Santa Claus is real once you understand why it is not the case. Not even if you desperately wanted to. Matt10 Obviously you are not invested enough to “believe”! Ha! I think there are a lot of ways to look at this and to argue this. A couple of points from the article that xna posted the link to: “The objection to Pascal’s Wager is that we form our beliefs on the basis of evidence, not on the basis of desire, i.e. that we cannot choose our beliefs. No matter how much I may want to believe that a given proposition is true, I cannot bring myself to do so simply by willing that I do so. Rather, in order to come to believe that the proposition is true I require some evidence for its truth.” “Though we do not have direct, voluntary control over our beliefs, it does seem that we have indirect control over them. We are able, for instance, to exercise control over the kinds of evidence to which we are exposed. We can choose to associate with people who believe in God; we can choose to read books by noted apologists; we can choose to act is if we believe and see what happens. Each of these choices would increase the likelihood of our coming to believe in God.” Of course, to anyone subscribing mostly to the first quote, you first have to believe that “evidence” is Truth, rather than merely a species specific perceptual experience. I readily admit that I have a very malleable mind – not from drug use (as you might validly suspect), but from a great deal of exposure to the KJV, Dr Suess, and Joseph Campbell. I easily see metaphorical and allegorical Truths – and find them every bit as “real” as any “evidence” based Truths. For example, from ages 6 – 11, I did not believe in Santa Claus. When I was 11, I came across the newspaper article Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. Since then, I have been a believer. I do not think this is at all unusual for people who might label themselves as “believers” these days. (I always watch the atheist/believer debates with fascination, particularly when the atheist’s “God” concept obviously does not line up with the believer’s “God” concept – and the atheist has difficulty fathoming this.) BTW, I get the “god who makes the grass grow”, and probably struggle less with this concept, than with the one who washes sin “white as snow” in blood.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 1, 2015 19:54:27 GMT -5
I readily admit that I have a very malleable mind
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Oct 1, 2015 20:05:54 GMT -5
@redback "No matter what they tell you No matter what they do No matter what they teach you What you believe is true"
The person who is adamant that they heard god tell him/her to kill their parents, is just one example of why the claim in the above verse has to be dismissed.
Imaginings must be identified and distinguished by using factual, evidenced-based knowledge as the standard otherwise delusional thinking is validated.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Oct 1, 2015 20:38:45 GMT -5
I readily admit that I have a very malleable mind :) :)Fitzgereld just needed an Electric Monk! From Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency by Douglas AdamsSo after a hectic week of believing that war was peace, that good was bad, that the moon was made of blue cheese, and that God needed a lot of money sent to a certain box number, the Monk started to believe that thirty-five percent of all tables were hermaphrodites, and then broke down. The man from the Monk shop said that it needed a whole new motherboard, but then pointed out that the new improved Monk Plus models were twice as powerful, had an entirely new multi-tasking Negative Capability feature that allowed them to hold up to sixteen entirely different and contradictory ideas in memory simultaneously without generating any irritating system errors, were twice as fast and at least three times as glib, and you could have a whole new one for less than the cost of replacing the motherboard of the old model. Learn more about the Electric Monk.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 1, 2015 20:54:54 GMT -5
Fitzgereld just needed an Electric Monk! I wasn't aware of the Electric Monk, that's cognitive dissonance to the max! This can get very messy quick... I wonder how it works if one has Multiple Personality Disorder where some personalities believe, but in different gods, & others are atheists? Would these people have multiple souls? Need multiple baptisms etc. The same goes for Conjoined Twins, if one is a believer and the other isn't.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 2, 2015 18:53:08 GMT -5
Can you force yourself to believe anything? Can anyone force you to believe anything? Can you be blamed for what you believe, or don't believe? No doubt folks could quote scripture around this subject, but are they correctly interpreting the word "believe" in scripture? I have zero aspiration to be a Bible scholar, but I am curious what you (and others) might think the correct interpretation might be of the word as far as scripture is concerned? To me, belief is a choice. If you are sufficiently invested in something, you will find a way to believe it; if you are not, you won't. ("Forcing" yourself or someone else to believe in something might be possible - if you set the stakes high enough that the alternative to belief is too costly - for example, banishment or shunning from a community that you might question your ability to do without...) I was surprised to find a lot of (IMO otherwise intelligent people) who did not find belief a choice. The only way I have been able to reconcile it in my own mind (so far) is that these people subscribe to naive realism. (Naive realism is the belief that we see reality as it really is (objectively and without bias); that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.) I don't subscribe to this view. I cannot choose to believe in God if I can see no evidence for God. That's not a choice and I don't understand why you have such a hard time seeing that? Just because you think you can believe whatever you want doesn't mean that's the way it is. When I lost my belief in any God existing it was something I fought at first. It isn't how I wanted things to be. However, the lack of any evidence there is a God, imo, made it impossible to fight it and I had to finally concede to my non belief. When it comes to belief in God, I do not agree that there is a choice to believe if you want to. One, of course, can lie to themself. I did for awhile. But it makes no sense to keep doing it if it really doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Oct 2, 2015 19:30:17 GMT -5
I have zero aspiration to be a Bible scholar, but I am curious what you (and others) might think the correct interpretation might be of the word as far as scripture is concerned? To me, belief is a choice. If you are sufficiently invested in something, you will find a way to believe it; if you are not, you won't. ("Forcing" yourself or someone else to believe in something might be possible - if you set the stakes high enough that the alternative to belief is too costly - for example, banishment or shunning from a community that you might question your ability to do without...) I was surprised to find a lot of (IMO otherwise intelligent people) who did not find belief a choice. The only way I have been able to reconcile it in my own mind (so far) is that these people subscribe to naive realism. (Naive realism is the belief that we see reality as it really is (objectively and without bias); that the facts are plain for all to see; that rational people will agree with us; and that those who don't are either uninformed, lazy, irrational, or biased.) I don't subscribe to this view. I cannot choose to believe in God if I can see no evidence for God. That's not a choice and I don't understand why you have such a hard time seeing that? Just because you think you can believe whatever you want doesn't mean that's the way it is. When I lost my belief in any God existing it was something I fought at first. It isn't how I wanted things to be. However, the lack of any evidence there is a God, imo, made it impossible to fight it and I had to finally concede to my non belief. When it comes to belief in God, I do not agree that there is a choice to believe if you want to. One, of course, can lie to themself. I did for awhile. But it makes no sense to keep doing it if it really doesn't work. This is really fascinating to me, because I kind of feel like SA -- I could choose to believe -- yet I see what you're saying, Snow -- how can I choose to believe in something about which I see no evidence? I wonder if it's like this: --Evidence-based belief requires evidence first, and the belief will follow. It's based on the scientific method. (I saw a plant sprout from a seed, and so I believe there was life in the seed.) --Choice-based belief requires no evidence -- Believe first; supporting evidence will be found. (I have decided to believe in God. Yesterday, I was humming "Amazing Grace" to myself on my drive to work when it played on the radio! I know that was God acting to confirm my belief in Him!) Perhaps both are valid within their own constructs?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 2, 2015 19:58:54 GMT -5
or like a tag line I once saw, something about a .... WILLPOWER based belief ? or self-deception based belief? Or _____
|
|
|
Post by snow on Oct 3, 2015 9:25:37 GMT -5
I cannot choose to believe in God if I can see no evidence for God. That's not a choice and I don't understand why you have such a hard time seeing that? Just because you think you can believe whatever you want doesn't mean that's the way it is. When I lost my belief in any God existing it was something I fought at first. It isn't how I wanted things to be. However, the lack of any evidence there is a God, imo, made it impossible to fight it and I had to finally concede to my non belief. When it comes to belief in God, I do not agree that there is a choice to believe if you want to. One, of course, can lie to themself. I did for awhile. But it makes no sense to keep doing it if it really doesn't work. This is really fascinating to me, because I kind of feel like SA -- I could choose to believe -- yet I see what you're saying, Snow -- how can I choose to believe in something about which I see no evidence? I wonder if it's like this: --Evidence-based belief requires evidence first, and the belief will follow. It's based on the scientific method. (I saw a plant sprout from a seed, and so I believe there was life in the seed.) --Choice-based belief requires no evidence -- Believe first; supporting evidence will be found. (I have decided to believe in God. Yesterday, I was humming "Amazing Grace" to myself on my drive to work when it played on the radio! I know that was God acting to confirm my belief in Him!) Perhaps both are valid within their own constructs? I suppose it boils down to what you understand about the world. The more you understand how things work and fit together in the nature of things the less you believe in a supernatural reason for things happening? We have seen this consistently happen throughout history with many things that people no longer believe are supernatural because they know now why they happen in a scientific explanation. For me, things that other people see as a 'miracle' or 'god's planning' all can be explained. There are still things we can't explain in the world because we haven't figured them out yet, but there is no evidence that anything supernatural is going on just because we don't understand it yet. For me, science explains so many things and it is just a matter of time and it will explain more. I have never understood how anyone can deny a scientific explanation for something in favor of keeping their unsubstantiated beliefs alive. That takes work and blind faith imo and for what? So you can think you are going to have a nice eternity? Right! I can do just fine not knowing and not having to give a supernatural meaning to things I don't know, AND, I can hum Amazing Grace because it's a fantastic tune. The words don't do anything for me though. But then, I think you already know all this Gene.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Oct 3, 2015 11:10:05 GMT -5
This is really fascinating to me, because I kind of feel like SA -- I could choose to believe -- yet I see what you're saying, Snow -- how can I choose to believe in something about which I see no evidence? I wonder if it's like this: --Evidence-based belief requires evidence first, and the belief will follow. It's based on the scientific method. (I saw a plant sprout from a seed, and so I believe there was life in the seed.) --Choice-based belief requires no evidence -- Believe first; supporting evidence will be found. (I have decided to believe in God. Yesterday, I was humming "Amazing Grace" to myself on my drive to work when it played on the radio! I know that was God acting to confirm my belief in Him!) Perhaps both are valid within their own constructs? There are a couple of popular sayings: “I will believe it when I see it”. “You will see it when you believe it.” Truth to be told, we all probably cobble our world view together with a mixture of both these approaches, whether we can step back far enough to see it objectively or not. I personally see people who base their world view mainly/exclusively on empirical evidence have first chosen the belief that empirical evidence is Truth. For myself, I would tend to regard empirical evidence as simply a species specific perceptual experience. I am not saying this is a bad approach to life, and for a lot of things (organization of society, a system of law, etc…) it is the only reasonable approach. But I think you limit the human spirit (and your own experience), if you choose to think that this is all there is.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Oct 4, 2015 4:42:14 GMT -5
I cannot choose to believe in God if I can see no evidence for God. That's not a choice and I don't understand why you have such a hard time seeing that? Just because you think you can believe whatever you want doesn't mean that's the way it is. When I lost my belief in any God existing it was something I fought at first. It isn't how I wanted things to be. However, the lack of any evidence there is a God, imo, made it impossible to fight it and I had to finally concede to my non belief. When it comes to belief in God, I do not agree that there is a choice to believe if you want to. One, of course, can lie to themself. I did for awhile. But it makes no sense to keep doing it if it really doesn't work. This is really fascinating to me, because I kind of feel like SA -- I could choose to believe -- yet I see what you're saying, Snow -- how can I choose to believe in something about which I see no evidence? I wonder if it's like this: --Evidence-based belief requires evidence first, and the belief will follow. It's based on the scientific method. (I saw a plant sprout from a seed, and so I believe there was life in the seed.) --Choice-based belief requires no evidence -- Believe first; supporting evidence will be found. (I have decided to believe in God. Yesterday, I was humming "Amazing Grace" to myself on my drive to work when it played on the radio! I know that was God acting to confirm my belief in Him!) Perhaps both are valid within their own constructs? I solemnly disagree, Gene.
There is no way that I could ever see any validation for a "Choice-based belief that requires that no evidence --Just Believe it first; then supporting evidence will be found."
People have been doing this for eons & they have not only harmed themselves by their own self-deception but have often harmed many others as well.
PS.
I love to tune to "Amazing Grace" as well as the next person, but the words are without any meaning for me. I love a lot of "religious" music, -but doesn't mean I need words that have no meaning.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 4, 2015 7:52:10 GMT -5
make-be·lieve ˈ The action of pretending or imagining
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Oct 4, 2015 10:33:55 GMT -5
make-be·lieve ˈ The action of pretending or imagining “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ~ Albert Einstein
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 4, 2015 12:30:47 GMT -5
make-be·lieve ˈ The action of pretending or imagining “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” ~ Albert Einstein Imagination, creativity and invention built modernity. Our dreams and imaginations make us human. One of the greatest satisfactions in life is to have a dream, and then have that dream realized. As far as I can tell, apart from serendipity & observation, most new knowledge comes from our imaginations - you have to dream it before it can be made real. Ideas coming from imaginations or make believe, that today can not be made real, are still valued as fiction, story, & myth. The problem I see with make believe is when you conflate the imagined with reality. Sometimes we desire our imaginations to be true so bad that in our own mind they become just as real to us as anything else is real (ie pretending). Yet no amount of wishful thinking can bring some imaginations into reality, as when we are fixed on a false belief that is resistant to reason, or when confronted with actual facts. When that happens we become self deluded. Now for the atheist's favorite imagination song.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Oct 4, 2015 14:35:53 GMT -5
Yet no amount of wishful thinking can bring some imaginations into reality, as when we are fixed on a false belief that is resistant to reason, or when confronted with actual facts. When that happens we become self deluded. I think this is well expressed, and I do agree. I just started watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey When I first heard that this series was being done, I had the thought that it was almost, well, umm… sacrilegious. (Mostly because Carl Sagan is such an icon.) But I like it. Perhaps Neil deGrasse Tyson is a worthy successor to Carl, though I am not yet convinced of this. (Of course, it may have helped that they brought Ann Druyan onboard.) I like his reported view on spirituality: "For me, when I say spiritual, I’m referring to a feeling you would have that connects you to the universe in a way that it may defy simple vocabulary. We think about the universe as an intellectual playground, which it surely is, but the moment you learn something that touches an emotion rather than just something intellectual, I would call that a spiritual encounter with the universe.” I get this. I like that they also started out in the spaceship of the imagination, and that he clearly articulates the principles of real Science: 1) Test ideas by experiment and observation 2) Build on those ideas that pass the test 3) Reject the ones that fail 4) Follow the evidence where it leads 5) Question everything I have no quarrel with facts, and I don’t think there is any other reasonable approach other than using them as the basis of our interactions with other human beings in the organization of a society. But in the end, this leaves the questions: Can this approach eventually provide answers to everything that can be known? Or is there something more? (Does this approach result in, at best, a perceptual experience of the human species?) Any Yes or No response to any of these questions is an article of faith. A belief you choose. If this was an exam question, my answers would be: No, Yes and (Yes). If really pushed into a corner, my response would be “I don’t know”. P.S. I would arm wrestle you over John Lennon’s “Imagine” as being particularly atheistic.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Oct 4, 2015 15:40:02 GMT -5
But I like it. Perhaps Neil deGrasse Tyson is a worthy successor to Carl, though I am not yet convinced of this. (Of course, it may have helped that they brought Ann Druyan onboard.) I like his reported view on spirituality: "For me, when I say spiritual, I’m referring to a feeling you would have that connects you to the universe in a way that it may defy simple vocabulary. We think about the universe as an intellectual playground, which it surely is, but the moment you learn something that touches an emotion rather than just something intellectual, I would call that a spiritual encounter with the universe.” I get this. I see feelings such as; awe, wonder, inspiration, amazement, curiosity & mystery as driving both art and science. Feeling & thoughts are hard to measure but make life rich and enjoyable. I see a lot of what we know lies beyond our natural senses, so we make machines to sense what we alone can not. I would also expect there are objective realities outside our human senses and our machines today. But I see the best way to discover these is by scientific investigation. When a better way of knowing than science is found, we should use it. If mankind continues to progress, in a thousand years much of what we say we are sure of today will probably seem foolish then. That has always been the case, as there seems to be no escaping the pattern of human advancement comes by, standing on the shoulders of the past great ones.
|
|