INFORMATION
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.
For further information, see our Privacy Policy.
Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.
We are not accepting any new registrations.
The pre-pubescent wonders of science
- John Jones
- Official Pet Troll
- Posts: 29
- Joined: October 18th, 2010, 7:21 pm
The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Many scientists, and of course Richard Dawkins, implore us to leave the fantasies of religion behind and instead observe the extent and beauty of this awesome universe, a universe that only science can show us.
But ... are we like children, easily impressed by show, and by bigger is better? Aren't we, as adults, tired of needing to be "amazed"?
What stirs me is not this one-sided childish view of nature, but the utter emptiness, the ineffable, that lies behind it. A big sky might reveal this better than my finger, but in both cases it isn't science that brings me this view.
What say you, humanists? Isn't it the ineffable that impresses because of its stillness? and not the noise and fireworks of impressive objects?
But ... are we like children, easily impressed by show, and by bigger is better? Aren't we, as adults, tired of needing to be "amazed"?
What stirs me is not this one-sided childish view of nature, but the utter emptiness, the ineffable, that lies behind it. A big sky might reveal this better than my finger, but in both cases it isn't science that brings me this view.
What say you, humanists? Isn't it the ineffable that impresses because of its stillness? and not the noise and fireworks of impressive objects?
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
What a curious post, but welcome to the forum anyway We have a nice place for introductions.
Hmm... Most humans like to be stimulated to varying degrees... And if you are coming from a christian perspective, did not Jesus tell us to be like children....?John Jones wrote:Many scientists, and of course Richard Dawkins, implore us to leave the fantasies of religion behind and instead observe the extent and beauty of this awesome universe, a universe that only science can show us.
But ... are we like children, easily impressed by show, and by bigger is better? Aren't we, as adults, tired of needing to be "amazed"?
Hmm...Why is it childish? Why is it one-sided? By "it" are you referring to the universe? If so there is nothing "behind it" either physically or causally.What stirs me is not this one-sided childish view of nature, but the utter emptiness, the ineffable, that lies behind it. A big sky might reveal this better than my finger, but in both cases it isn't science that brings me this view.
If the ineffable is stillness, doesn't that make it effable? And from your question are we to deduce you do not consider yourself humanist?What say you, humanists? Isn't it the ineffable that impresses because of its stillness? and not the noise and fireworks of impressive objects?
- Emma Woolgatherer
- Posts: 2976
- Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Hello, John. I'm not sure that I entirely understand your question, but here goes.
Does there have to be a choice between stillness and noise, between the ineffable and the ... ahem ... effable? Surely, most people are impressed by all sorts of things, all sorts of attributes. If something impresses us, it might be because of its vastness or brilliance or intricacy or delicacy or vitality or stillness, or it might be, is more likely to be, a combination of several things. And when I say "people", I mean both adults and children. I think you rather insult children by suggesting that they are impressed only by show and size, and don't value things like stillness and silence and emptiness and smallness. At the same time, I, like plenty of other adults, have not grown tired of being amazed. Perhaps I don't need to be, but I still get a kick out of it, and I'm not ashamed to admit that.
I also don't understand quite what you mean by science "showing" us or "bringing" us a certain view, and I've not heard Richard Dawkins, or anyone else, for that matter, suggesting that science alone can "show" us the beauty of this universe. Dawkins's point, I thought, was that what we learn through science, through observation and experimentation and measurement and formulating hypotheses and testing them, doesn't spoil our appreciation of the universe, and can actually enhance it; that understanding how a rainbow was formed doesn't stop it from being marvellous, doesn't stop us enjoying its beauty, and can give us other things to appreciate about it as well. That doesn't mean that we cannot appreciate the universe, or at least the part of it that is accessible to our senses, just by looking (and listening and smelling and feeling and tasting), and simply letting our emotions respond. And as far as the inaccessible part of the universe is concerned, abandoning religious fantasies does not entail abandoning our imaginations. If anything, it allows us to give our imaginations free rein.
Emma
(cross-posted with Nick)
Does there have to be a choice between stillness and noise, between the ineffable and the ... ahem ... effable? Surely, most people are impressed by all sorts of things, all sorts of attributes. If something impresses us, it might be because of its vastness or brilliance or intricacy or delicacy or vitality or stillness, or it might be, is more likely to be, a combination of several things. And when I say "people", I mean both adults and children. I think you rather insult children by suggesting that they are impressed only by show and size, and don't value things like stillness and silence and emptiness and smallness. At the same time, I, like plenty of other adults, have not grown tired of being amazed. Perhaps I don't need to be, but I still get a kick out of it, and I'm not ashamed to admit that.
I also don't understand quite what you mean by science "showing" us or "bringing" us a certain view, and I've not heard Richard Dawkins, or anyone else, for that matter, suggesting that science alone can "show" us the beauty of this universe. Dawkins's point, I thought, was that what we learn through science, through observation and experimentation and measurement and formulating hypotheses and testing them, doesn't spoil our appreciation of the universe, and can actually enhance it; that understanding how a rainbow was formed doesn't stop it from being marvellous, doesn't stop us enjoying its beauty, and can give us other things to appreciate about it as well. That doesn't mean that we cannot appreciate the universe, or at least the part of it that is accessible to our senses, just by looking (and listening and smelling and feeling and tasting), and simply letting our emotions respond. And as far as the inaccessible part of the universe is concerned, abandoning religious fantasies does not entail abandoning our imaginations. If anything, it allows us to give our imaginations free rein.
Emma
(cross-posted with Nick)
- John Jones
- Official Pet Troll
- Posts: 29
- Joined: October 18th, 2010, 7:21 pm
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Nick wrote:What a curious post, but welcome to the forum anyway We have a nice place for introductions.
Hmm... Most humans like to be stimulated to varying degrees... And if you are coming from a christian perspective, did not Jesus tell us to be like children....?John Jones wrote:Many scientists, and of course Richard Dawkins, implore us to leave the fantasies of religion behind and instead observe the extent and beauty of this awesome universe, a universe that only science can show us.
But ... are we like children, easily impressed by show, and by bigger is better? Aren't we, as adults, tired of needing to be "amazed"?
Hmm...Why is it childish? Why is it one-sided? By "it" are you referring to the universe? If so there is nothing "behind it" either physically or causally.What stirs me is not this one-sided childish view of nature, but the utter emptiness, the ineffable, that lies behind it. A big sky might reveal this better than my finger, but in both cases it isn't science that brings me this view.
If the ineffable is stillness, doesn't that make it effable? And from your question are we to deduce you do not consider yourself humanist?What say you, humanists? Isn't it the ineffable that impresses because of its stillness? and not the noise and fireworks of impressive objects?
Is it charitable, a little worrying, or plain dangerous to react with disbelief toward a direct experience. Why would an experience of stillness have to be interpreted to make sense, but an experience of being amazed at objects not be interpreted? I was worried by this attitude.
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
I am frequently amazed by this universe and things in it. Why would that make me child-like? I am certainly not tired of being amazed. Are you? What was the last thing that amazed you?John Jones wrote:But ... are we like children, easily impressed by show, and by bigger is better? Aren't we, as adults, tired of needing to be "amazed"?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
No.John Jones wrote:Many scientists, and of course Richard Dawkins, implore us to leave the fantasies of religion behind and instead observe the extent and beauty of this awesome universe, a universe that only science can show us.
But ... are we like children, easily impressed by show, and by bigger is better? Aren't we, as adults, tired of needing to be "amazed"?
What stirs me is not this one-sided childish view of nature, but the utter emptiness, the ineffable, that lies behind it. A big sky might reveal this better than my finger, but in both cases it isn't science that brings me this view.
What say you, humanists? Isn't it the ineffable that impresses because of its stillness? and not the noise and fireworks of impressive objects?
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Eff the effable, leave the ineffable to their own (lack of) devices.
- Lifelinking
- Posts: 3248
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Once I ate a banana. Fergus ate one too. It is nice in Greenland at this time of year. The fragrant blossom of the zebra tree sounds like a very wise artechoke.Is it charitable, a little worrying, or plain dangerous to react with disbelief toward a direct experience. Why would an experience of stillness have to be interpreted to make sense, but an experience of being amazed at objects not be interpreted? I was worried by this attitude.
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney
William McIlvanney
- John Jones
- Official Pet Troll
- Posts: 29
- Joined: October 18th, 2010, 7:21 pm
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Emma Woolgatherer wrote:Hello, John. I'm not sure that I entirely understand your question, but here goes.
Does there have to be a choice between stillness and noise, between the ineffable and the ... ahem ... effable? Surely, most people are impressed by all sorts of things, all sorts of attributes. If something impresses us, it might be because of its vastness or brilliance or intricacy or delicacy or vitality or stillness, or it might be, is more likely to be, a combination of several things. And when I say "people", I mean both adults and children. I think you rather insult children by suggesting that they are impressed only by show and size, and don't value things like stillness and silence and emptiness and smallness. At the same time, I, like plenty of other adults, have not grown tired of being amazed. Perhaps I don't need to be, but I still get a kick out of it, and I'm not ashamed to admit that.
I also don't understand quite what you mean by science "showing" us or "bringing" us a certain view, and I've not heard Richard Dawkins, or anyone else, for that matter, suggesting that science alone can "show" us the beauty of this universe. Dawkins's point, I thought, was that what we learn through science, through observation and experimentation and measurement and formulating hypotheses and testing them, doesn't spoil our appreciation of the universe, and can actually enhance it; that understanding how a rainbow was formed doesn't stop it from being marvellous, doesn't stop us enjoying its beauty, and can give us other things to appreciate about it as well. That doesn't mean that we cannot appreciate the universe, or at least the part of it that is accessible to our senses, just by looking (and listening and smelling and feeling and tasting), and simply letting our emotions respond. And as far as the inaccessible part of the universe is concerned, abandoning religious fantasies does not entail abandoning our imaginations. If anything, it allows us to give our imaginations free rein.
Emma
(cross-posted with Nick)
Scientists and Dawkins always use nature as an example of their own work - "look what our science shows you". This is objectionable.
Childish is as we perceive and construct it in todays culture - our gifts are big, colourful, noisy, trashy.
If we curb fantasies because they impoverish us because they aren't materially real, then colours and sounds, ghosts, birth/death experiences, archetypal structures like "mother", are all unreal fantasies.
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Dawkins is a scientist.John Jones wrote:Scientists and Dawkins always use nature as an example of their own work - "look what our science shows you". This is objectionable.
You say scientists "use nature as an example of their own work". What do you mean?
We can see nature without science, but science helps us understand why things are the way they are. Why do you find all this 'objectionable'?"look what our science shows you"
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Fergus is objectionable. Only science can describe the marvellous bloom of the zebra tree. Most zebras like to be stimulated, but Fergus got arrested for doing that. Are we not all amazed? Are we yet tired of being amazed? Especially at the amount of bail demanded for Fergus.
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
'Only science can describe the marvellous bloom of the zebra tree.' ?? What does that mean?
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
jaywhat wrote:'Only science can describe the marvellous bloom of the zebra tree.' ?? What does that mean?
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Think about it logically:jaywhat wrote:'Only science can describe the marvellous bloom of the zebra tree.' ?? What does that mean?
P1: zebra trees are blooming marvellous
P2: science is Richard Dawkins' own work (or so he claims)
P3: Richard Dawkins is sort of like a god to us
C: Therefore only science can describe the marvellous bloom of the zebra tree
Simples.
(As for Fergus, he's just a greedy banana-munching twunt.)
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Simples?
I like it, but is one not a bit old for that lingo?
I like it, but is one not a bit old for that lingo?
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
Oi! Do I make disparaging comments about your wife? Well?jaywhat wrote:Simples?
I like it, but is one not a bit old for that lingo?
Oh.
Alan Henness
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:
1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?
- Lifelinking
- Posts: 3248
- Joined: July 4th, 2007, 11:56 am
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
What are the chances of that happening? (the whole thread I mean - not just the last post.. )
"Who thinks the law has anything to do with justice? It's what we have because we can't have justice."
William McIlvanney
William McIlvanney
Re: The pre-pubescent wonders of science
maybe - still or stir? I think you like to stirJohn Jones wrote:Many scientists, and of course Richard Dawkins, implore us to leave the fantasies of religion behind and instead observe the extent and beauty of this awesome universe, a universe that only science can show us.
But ... are we like children, easily impressed by show, and by bigger is better? Aren't we, as adults, tired of needing to be "amazed"?
What stirs me is not this one-sided childish view of nature, but the utter emptiness, the ineffable, that lies behind it. A big sky might reveal this better than my finger, but in both cases it isn't science that brings me this view.
What say you, humanists? Isn't it the ineffable that impresses because of its stillness? and not the noise and fireworks of impressive objects?