I wish I could live in a defined box, with all answers readily apparent. If I tried to limit how I relate to my wife and daughter to a relationship built on truth as you define it, I would be a shit husband and father. And I was joking before about the pet rock. I have a rabbit's foot that I've relied on since '82. Often corrrect, but not always. Life/truth can't always be explained through intellect and reason. Life/truth are more than a collection of objective facts. If we don't agree on this, that's fine. Medicine would win every time. No question. When have I said otherwise? I'm not some mystic who goes into a trance to find enlightenment. But at the same time, if I were to limit what I find important to what is verifiably true, I'd miss out on a lot of what makes life enjoyable.
Honest question. Who claimed all answers are readily apparent, and when? You are not having a discussion. You are not answering my questions and are instead repeating things nobody claimed. You simply don't address what standards you have for reality and how you define them.
Intellectual impudence. Not when you refine terms at at will. For you insanity is simply disagreeing with YOU. Pay attention, he painted you as narrow minded. Very perceptive of him. Everything is either black or white with you. Resurrection have never been demonstrated, so we can safely assume that it is not a fact. On the other hand a belief in resurrection gives comfort to some people and this statement IS a fact. This is the kind of gray area that you cannot seem to grok.
What are these magical ways of determining facts and reality that I dismiss, that whoever accuses me of being closed minded does not also dismiss? Faith? Cristians dismiss faith from other religions just as much as I do. I am aware the faith gives people comfort. I grok that. I am aware that morons need comfort from bullshit. I understand it well. I am still curious about what are thes techniques I am missing out on? Can nobody mention these or are we gonna repeat vague nonsense? Specifically how are these enlightened folks becoming enlightened?
Lack of empathy, sympathy, sensitivity, and compassion kind of stand out with you. Not to determine absolute truth, but to properly assess reality. Reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.
That has very close to nothing to do with the topic at hand. The question, again, is what sort of techniques exist outside of the realm of science, for accumulating knowledge? The claim is often made that science answers some questions, while religion answers others. How does that work? And which religion? They oppose each other. And how do we know which? Isn't it true that in fact science is the not real way to learn about the universe,manc that everything else is shameful bullshit? If not, then how so? What techniques are people using to find out these things that make them so enlightened that I am closed minded for denying?
Good grief, have you been reading Dawkins again? Who says that only science can determine truth? Did he use the scientific method to determine that? There is no scientific test you could use to prove that this is true. I did not make that claim. Ask whoever does. The most obvious non-scientific "technique" that allows us to determine the truth is logic. Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work. Science cannot prove existential truth. It cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening. (Think of “The Matrix”.) Logic tells us that it is rational to believe that our memories are true and the world is real. Science cannot prove morality. There is no scientific test that can prove that rape is evil. Moral truth carries an “oughtness” (how things should be) about it that goes beyond what merely exists. Science cannot prove historical facts. Science cannot prove that Obama won the 2012 election. There is no scientific test we could perform to prove it. We could have an investigation if we wanted to confirm that he did actually win, but the method for proving historical truths is different from testing scientific truths since historical truths are by nature non-repeatable. Science canot prove experiences. Science cannot prove that your Mama loves you. No scientific test can confirm a lifetime of observation.
me logic is clearly a form of science. of course it can. happiness is the goal. rape creates mental states that make people sad. these are true neurological and measurable states. becase of our brain chemistry, we seek happiness and want to maximize it. rape does not help maximize happiness. this is science. of course it can. the primary useful technique in science is called observation. i think i am using a broader defintion of science than you are. i mean rational empirical inquiry as opposed to ....well whatever it is that nobody wants to mention.
Also your "oughtness" is called normative ethics and is basically advanced applied neuropsychology/ cognitive SCIENCE There are plenty of scientists working right this moment on the neuroscience of morality, which is , of course, a scientific question.
So if everything we do is just a chemical reaction then there is no such thing as good or evil, just chemical reactions. Some of these reactions are desireable and some are not. I reject your argument on that. Thoughts and motives are abstract immaterial things, not rote calculations performed by a machine.
