Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Coyoteman
This is the problem I have with ID. Its not science, its thinly disguised religious belief pretending to be science and pushed by a large PR budget.

I know, but what doesn't pretend to be science these days? I've always found the scientific belief that consciousness is an epiphenomena of matter to be untenable. Stupid even.

They cannot explain something so they marginalize it. But if this were the case, nothing would have any meaning whatsoever. My typing here would not be directed by my mind but is some eddy in the material sea that whirls this way and then next it whirls the other way.

It is like a poster covering a wall but when the poster is removed, there is no wall. So, what was holding the poster up? Well obviously the poster is an epiphenomena of the wall. But there's no wall under the poster. Well, that's because you took the poster down.

Once again it's not a fact that consciousness is an epiphenomena of matter. It's not even a belief. It's just the high priests of science insisting it is so. No real or serious or joyful person could believe such nonsense and yet it is forced on us as something that is real.

I don't see how having a little religion snuck in between the science could hurt things more then science has already hurt itself by trying to pass off stupidity as wisdom.

24 posted on 07/16/2007 8:32:50 PM PDT by Duke Nukum (Well, Harvey has overcome not only time and space, but any objections.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]


To: Duke Nukum
I don't see how having a little religion snuck in between the science could hurt things more then science has already hurt itself by trying to pass off stupidity as wisdom.

Science is self correcting.

It sometimes takes a while, but so far its our best method of keeping back the darkness.

Religion is based on divine revelation; how is one to verify that? And what if my revelation tells me something different from your's? And if our two revelations differ, how is a third person going to differentiate between the two. It really comes down to belief, with facts being discarded when necessary.

At least science has data and facts to fall back on. As new facts are discovered, the theory and explanation can gradually improve. That's the self correcting part of it.

They cannot explain something so they marginalize it. But if this were the case, nothing would have any meaning whatsoever.

Science cannot explain something so you marginalize science?

Perhaps next year, or the year after that an explanation will come along. Look at the huge list of things formerly unexplained which science has explained. Lightning and germs come to mind. Both were satisfactorily explained by science, and removed from the "unexplained/maybe supernatural" category.

Science is doing pretty good, and a lot better than most other realms. Give it a chance.

25 posted on 07/16/2007 8:45:40 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: Duke Nukum

I share your complaint re consciousness. Cf. Schroedinger’s essay, What is Life?, where he references the “bankruptcies of rationalism.” I learned a word from him - “hylozoism”, literally “material animism”, the doctrine that matter itself is endowed with soul. My opinion is that this is the only alternative to dualism, and a necessary consequence of epiphenominalism


27 posted on 07/16/2007 10:15:08 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson