God versus Science

[shaolin_mike]

The debate about Nietzche earlier in this thread highlights the main issue I have with Western Philosophy in the first place. A lot of discussion...many differing viewpoints...one text which can be agreed with and disagreed with in a thousand different ways... and at the end of it all for what? Knowledge? Wisdom? An interesting debate?

I don't know. Call me a philistine if you will but I'll choose practicing Chi Kung or 'eating ice cream' or going on a date with a beautiful woman over that any day...

[Old-Liu]

The debate about Nietzche earlier in this thread highlights the main issue I have with Western Philosophy in the first place. A lot of discussion...many differing viewpoints...one text which can be agreed with and disagreed with in a thousand different ways... and at the end of it all for what? Knowledge? Wisdom? An interesting debate?

I don't know. Call me a philistine if you will but I'll choose practicing Chi Kung or 'eating ice cream' or going on a date with a beautiful woman over that any day...

Hmm.... you know, eating ice cream and going on a date with someone beautiful are very nice things... but what if it just kept happening? Everytime you asked a question, someone said, 'oh don't worry about that, have another ice cream...'

And every time you raised a concern about things going on around you, or wanted to explore things more deeply, someone said 'hey, don't worry your head about that, go on a date with a beautiful woman...'

I like ice cream, and beautiful women, but I'm not so easily put off when I want to know something.

Tell me, isn't that the whole ethos of our society in a nutshell; 'don't worry about anything, don't think deeply about anything - consume more, focus on sex'.....??

[Old-Liu]

There are plenty of specialists in a field who are highly intelligent and well trained, but that doesn't make them totally right. Western medicine, which is practiced by thousands of specialists, is struggling to find cures for problems which are so easily cured by other systems, such as Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung. Western science, just like medicine, is missing many links.

Here's one I stumbled upon this evening:

Single-Celled Giant Upends Early Evolution

As it's been said, it's not that evolution doesn't exist, one can clearly see the world changing to meet circumstances, but I believe it goes beyond what science is examining, ie. the phenomenal world.

Andrew

Believe me, I understand what you are saying. Of course there is more to the world than can be fitted in to the neat and tidy box of science. And it is also very true that there is a dogmatic 'scientism' and militant atheism which is in many ways a frightening movement in and of itself.

But that doesn't actually negate what I'm saying - it actually is a part of what I'm saying. It is very important to separate spheres of research. 'Science' is king within its own sphere. There's very little room to argue against science as a means of observing those kinds of information that are within the scope of science.

On the other hand, science can't really 'process' conceptual, emotional, percpetual information. It can record aspects of it, but only an aware being can 'have' those experiences. I totally agree and accept that spiritual, artistic, abstract views of the world are perfectly valid. Within their own sphere.

What we should never do is use that to undermine science within its own sphere - only the dogma that can attach itself to science. We should never, ever allow the idea that 'anything could be true therefore if I lie that could be true' which is the ultimate trajectory of being anti-intellectual.

Intellectual means knowledge of the world within specialist spheres. We should respect that, even though we acknowledge the limitation of those spheres.

[Old-Liu]

..............

[Old-Liu]

Gentlemen ,

How ?
1) Do more scientific/palaentological research .
2) Look for someone who might know , and ask her/him.
3) Travel back in time and find out .

The intellect is not bad per se , in fact it is indispensable to function in this phenomenal world . But by thought alone , we cannot fully appreciate Reality . Find another way : until then , everything remains just a working hypothesis . By the way , OldLiu , ( if i read you correctly ) it is not correct to insinuate that there is aready absolute evidence for the hominoid to homo sapien evolution theory : even professional anthropologists and palaentologists do not claim to have completed Nature's jigsaw.However , you are definitely entitled to your stance .

Gamma and x-rays existed even before Roentgen was born ( Nature is bigger then all scientists' conceptions put together ) . Qi existed even before laboratory experiments documented/measured some of it's characteristics . Yet , many highly educated specialist doctors i know dismiss Qi as non existant . I work with xrays at my radiology clinic and with qi during Shaolin practice everyday but i do not have 1 st hand knowlegde of the origins of you and me : so lets work on it and share your experiences if you wish without getting emotional when comfort zones are being nudged .Children may think that electricity comes out of a hole in the wall , but it would be a mistake for adults to assume that the true source of electricity was the main domestic input .

Dogma and expanding consciousness cannot co-exist . Dogma will always decline as understanding increase. In our Shaolin Wahnam School , we aspire to and practise the wholistic cultivation of body , energy and mind (intellect and spirit ).

Best wishes to everyone.

I do understand your point. The problem here, though, in my view, is that we are very used to scientists being able to perform experiments in the here and now, with material that is readily available. For example, a scientist with a theory on gravity has all the gravity he needs to experiment on.

Fossils, naturally, are rarer than gravity or plutonium. They often rely on chance finds. We need to be very careful, in my view as someone who is specifically interested in the sociology of information, how we interpret information. For example, some Creationists disreputably manipulate public perception by ‘blurring’ holes in the fossil record in to an argument that there are therefore holes in the science of evolution.

That isn’t actually the true way of things; naturally, the fossil record is a collection of artefacts, many of which remain buried in the earth. The science of evolution isn’t buried in the earth – the theory isn’t holed simply because the fossil record is holed. The two are very different things, and in my view, we shouldn’t allow our perceptions to be affected by a false ‘blurring’ between the two.

As it happens, the fossil record we have is by far enough to demonstrate the complete truth of evolution via natural selection. If the earth blew up tomorrow, with all fossils on it, Creationists could argue ‘well, where are al the fossils if your theory is true?’ And it would be as false then as it is now.

As for cultivation of spirit and mind, we should never forget, in my view, that many sicnetists and intellectuals equally cultivate those aspects of themselves. The intellect, from the reverse view, should equally not be neglected, or considered inferior, in my view.

[Old-Liu]

There are plenty of specialists in a field who are highly intelligent and well trained, but that doesn't make them totally right. Western medicine, which is practiced by thousands of specialists, is struggling to find cures for problems which are so easily cured by other systems, such as Shaolin Cosmos Chi Kung. Western science, just like medicine, is missing many links.

Here's

I'm not sure that you can truthfully say that many diseases which Western medicine is unable to cure are being easily cured by qi gong. A LOT of research would need to go in to that before it could be said to be proved. I've no doubt holisitc medicine can have many benefits, but we need to be careful about the claims we make for it.

Many pateints may have psychological conditions that are totally over looked by Western doctors, but approached effectively via holistic methods. But actual cures for very serious illnesses? I have an open mind, but there would have to be a minimum standard of proof - like, reputable experiments showing clear disease, followed by solely qi gong, followed by a resulting cure, all shown to be true by doctors.

I know such things do hapen - the world is a strange place, but I'd be interested to hear what kinds of numbers of people and types of disease you're talking about here.

Don't get me wrong- I'm not saying it's not true, I'm open minded. There are many true things in the world I haven't been exposed to.

[Old-Liu]

On a re-read, you say 'problems'not 'diseases' so that's my fault for putting words in your mouth then arguing against myself!

Yes, I'm sure many phyiscial problems can be alleviated or even cured with correct exercise and positive attitude.

[shaolin_mike]

Hmm.... you know, eating ice cream and going on a date with someone beautiful are very nice things... but what if it just kept happening? Everytime you asked a question, someone said, 'oh don't worry about that, have another ice cream...'

And every time you raised a concern about things going on around you, or wanted to explore things more deeply, someone said 'hey, don't worry your head about that, go on a date with a beautiful woman...'

I like ice cream, and beautiful women, but I'm not so easily put off when I want to know something.

Tell me, isn't that the whole ethos of our society in a nutshell; 'don't worry about anything, don't think deeply about anything - consume more, focus on sex'.....??

Dear Old Liu,
Thank you for your reply. When I read it, I realised that I did not express my opinion clearly enough in my post.

I agree that we thirst for knowledge and simply seeking hedonistic pleasure will not satisfy this spiritual need that mankind has. I also like to think about the 'big questions' in life, and I did a lot of it during my philosophy lessons at university.

The thing is what is the result of lots of intellectualizing? I think until we manage to cultivate some wisdom by using some kind of mind training/expansion techniques then using your mind to understand the universe is like trying to use a soapy hand to grab a greasy potato. (Silly analogy I'll admit but I think it gets the point across )

With respect,
Mike

[Mark Blohm]

Near Future, No Excuse

I'm not sure that you can truthfully say that many diseases which Western medicine is unable to cure are being easily cured by qi gong.

Just because a group of doctors hasn't confirmed it, does not make it untrue. If I had dismissed Shaolin Chi Kung because it was unproven by doctors, I would be missing out on a lot. But they will have their proof in the near future.

We DO cure "incurable" illnesses, because from our viewpoint there is only one disease and we know how to rectify the situation. They will have their proof soon. And soon people will have no excuse for being chronically sick.

Mark

[Chiahua]

... in my view as someone who is specifically interested in the sociology of information, how we interpret information.

Old-Liu, are you a sociologist or an informaticist?

I agree that we need to respect the boundaries of respctive disciplines. What frustrates me is the over-simplification that is endemic to scientific journalism. It's not an easy job; making scientific theories understandable to people outside of the field is difficult without losing some of the subtleties of the field. The subtleties are often crucial to proper understanding of these fields. Nowhere is this more true of hotly contested issues such as evolution or stem-cell research.

– the theory isn’t holed simply because the fossil record is holed. The two are very different things, and in my view, we shouldn’t allow our perceptions to be affected by a false ‘blurring’ between the two.

I like this point. The theory of evolution is a theory; one that makes predictions that can be shown to be true or untrue. Much of science will seek to confirm or disconfirm by setting up an experiment. A doctor will make a diagnosis of a patient and have a radiologist perform a study to confirm or disconfirm a possible diagnosis. The nature of paleontology is opportunistic; they take what the can get; based on confirmation or disconfirmation, they they can refine their theories.
In terms of X-Rays, before Roentgen we might say that the X-rays existed or not existed--we have no idea. It wasn't until Roentgen discovered the means of perceiving or recording X-rays that we know one way or the other.

PS this thread might be ripe for splitting

[Darran]

Tell me, isn't that the whole ethos of our society in a nutshell; 'don't worry about anything, don't think deeply about anything - consume more, focus on sex'.....??

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE. Furthermore a 'scholar warrior' should ask questions, should'nt he/she?

[Andy]

Opinions Are you trying to gain some power and domination?

Darran,

I was quoting to provide references for the list of points Id made.

Power (knowledge) is certainly a motivator for my posts on this thread, but not domination.

Thats what separates me from the likes of Nietzsche

I think both you and Old Liu misinterpret my valuing of the philosophy of Neitzsche. I'll quote myself:

I greatly appreciate Nietzsche as a philosopher and thinker, though I do not agree with his philosophy or conclusions.

I greatly appreciate his work and I acknowledge his importance to western culture, especially his reflections on ethics, religion and morality. Everyone can learn from Nietzsche.

However in the final analysis (mine own) his is a philosophy of Self and Other, of superiority/inferiority:

"The object is to attain that enormous energy of greatness which can model the man of the future by means of discipline and also by means of annihilation of millions of the bungled and botched, and which can yet avoid going to ruin at the sight of the suffering created thereby, the like of which has never been seen before." *

- Nietzsche

....that Self>Other is the root of all imperialism, colonialism, war and genocide is something that I consider to be self-evident.

Nietzsche's work is doubly important if we were to consider his formative biographical conditions and to parallel his philosophical work with his physical and mental health. Much would be learned about energy blockage from this exercise.

Im sure we'll have to agree to disagree on Neitzsche or this will end up being a very long thread...thats my summation for the evening - Im off to evolve

* Remind you of anything?

[Andy]

Old Liu,

The purpose of my neo-Spinozan, mytho-poiec, semi-buddhist meanderings on evolution was to demonstrate that the origin of the species through natural selection and random mutation - which you have previously stated as fact - cannot be factual as currently concieved by science.

Equally, a mytho-poeic, semi-Buddhist view of the conscious universe has its place, but it won't build computers or do an organ transplant.

It may design computers though, and also prevent the necessity of organ transplantation

[Old-Liu]

Dear Old Liu,
Thank you for your reply. When I read it, I realised that I did not express my opinion clearly enough in my post.

I agree that we thirst for knowledge and simply seeking hedonistic pleasure will not satisfy this spiritual need that mankind has. I also like to think about the 'big questions' in life, and I did a lot of it during my philosophy lessons at university.

The thing is what is the result of lots of intellectualizing? I think until we manage to cultivate some wisdom by using some kind of mind training/expansion techniques then using your mind to understand the universe is like trying to use a soapy hand to grab a greasy potato. (Silly analogy I'll admit but I think it gets the point across )

With respect,
Mike

Yes, I think there's a lot to be said for that. I think, in fact it seems fairly evident, that sometimes, some people form the rational, Western perspective can be overly dismissive of the validity of other perspectives, viewpoints, techniques of perception, etc. I think that's an entirely valid criticism.

For example, physicist Dr. Kaku is a brilliant scientist, but in my view a poor social philosopher. Following Comte, he sees scientitfic societies, with scientific viewpoints, as superior to other societies. That, obviously, boils down to to the criteria we're using to 'judge' the superiority of a society. There are valuable things that aren't scientific or intellectual.

Also, Dr. Kaku and Richard Dawkins' 'scientistic' philosophy clearly does have some potentially dangerous trajectories - for example it could, in extreme cases, justify forcible elimination of religious belief, which would be a cultural crime.

On the other hand, anti-intellectualism also has dangerous trajectories, such as undermining of - thinking, weighing evidence, education, consideration, repsect for learned discipline.

Most of all we can easily be distracted from the activities of ourpotential masters, simply by focussing us on relationships, sex, money, goods - or gods. Ever see that scene in The Matrix where Morpheus asks Neo 'were you listening to me, or watching the woman in the red dress?' ?

[Old-Liu]

Old-Liu, are you a sociologist or an informaticist?

My degree is in sociology, but I have a wide academic interest, including information theory.

I agree that we need to respect the boundaries of respctive disciplines. What frustrates me is the over-simplification that is endemic to scientific journalism. It's not an easy job; making scientific theories understandable to people outside of the field is difficult without losing some of the subtleties of the field. The subtleties are often crucial to proper understanding of these fields. Nowhere is this more true of hotly contested issues such as evolution or stem-cell research.

I like this point. The theory of evolution is a theory; one that makes predictions that can be shown to be true or untrue. Much of science will seek to confirm or disconfirm by setting up an experiment. A doctor will make a diagnosis of a patient and have a radiologist perform a study to confirm or disconfirm a possible diagnosis. The nature of paleontology is opportunistic; they take what the can get; based on confirmation or disconfirmation, they they can refine their theories.
In terms of X-Rays, before Roentgen we might say that the X-rays existed or not existed--we have no idea. It wasn't until Roentgen discovered the means of perceiving or recording X-rays that we know one way or the other.

PS this thread might be ripe for splitting

Well, it’s tempting to say that they definitely DID exist, regardless of whether we knew of them or not… but I hear Max Planck asking me if I’m sure!

Yes, you’re right of course…. It’s just that your last point leads on to other interesting areas, such as alternative theories, like philosophies that believe nothing is as it seems, or that we make up the seeming reality of the world as we go along.