Again, taking on subject-matter this complex with soundbites is a tall order. When you take a couple of steps away, how different can anything be? I can't believe that there would be a law preventing intervention if the life of the mother was at stake. And what are my views on embryos? Obviously, you're not understanding me. I do all the above and a great deal more. Understanding the flow of information allows one to go beyond "the science" and get to the heart of the matter [where much of the truth (of illness)] resides. And, as an aside, it is often quite beneficial to ignore what medical science advocates/proscribes.
The difference between religious and scientific methodology is dramatic, obviously. One can see that by noting the huge number of disparate religions, with no methodology for reaching conclusions. The 10yo rape victim in the news could die from childbirth. Yet, the state refused to allow abortion. So, the girl was taken to Indiana, where the abortion was legal - BUT, the prosecutors are investigating the doctor, sifting through everything about her on the possibility of finding a way to remove her medical license. As you should know, risk of death isn't binary - 0% or 100%, with nothing in between. Every case involves estimates of risk. Today, you can find cases where doctors have had to consult hospital attorneys, board members, prosecutors and even congressmen to determine whether they are likely to get disbarred for taking the action they and their patient believe is right. So, no, the "risk of death" issue is not NEARLY decisive enough to protect those involved from being subjected to criminal prosecution. Obviously, any individual case has to involve the evaluation made by doctors who know the case and the science around the case. There are enough issues that a scientific analysis is not necessarily going to lead to one single conclusion - there are always going to be many medical science issues involved. BUT, YOU have been advocating ignoring science. And, you have been using the argument that all science changes, and is thus garbage. And, that is not just BS, it is unconscionable.
It appears as if you believe you are an "expert" on religious studies. This is one case and does not represent the entire system. I've been a physician over forty years. How about you? You keep repeating this but it is as if you are having a conversation with yourself. Of course all science changes. This is the first thing students used to learn in the fourth or fifth grade. Again, please give me an example of science that has not changed. And if you wish to continue the conversation, please ratchet down the personal comments. No need for that. Thank you.
What I've said applies to religion in general, not any specific religion. I've given several examples. You can't just write off what the situation is in many states by claiming it was argument by example. You can claim what you want. I've not said anything about that. What I objected to was your implications that the improvements (changes) in knowledge developed by science are evidence that science should be ignored or considered to be of low value.
This is your interpretation of what I said which is a fairly good example of how difficult it is for people to communicate effectively. I have said that science, "is what it is." If you do not like my ideas, that's fine. I see thinking differently than most everybody, but so what? Why does this bother you so? I would believe that it might be interesting for you to converse with another who does not hold your views. After all, preaching to the choir gets old, don't you think. Have a beer or two.
Thanks - Sounds good to me!! It's sunny in the back yard. The kids are on vacation. I'll bet we'd do a lot better in person!
Close! Bay Area. Colder coast. But, I just moved from Seattle. I miss the rain, the night skiing after work, Kayaking in the San Juan Islands, etc. But, it's perpetually warm and dry here! And, the grandkids are here!
Welcome to the People's Republic! I know Seattle is a wonderful area. I am not sure you will have the same opinion after you experience the winter up there. I lived in Sonoma County for a year way back when and I thought it was damn cold! Of course, I am seriously weather challenged! That's great that you are near your grandkids. Unfortunately, mine are back East so I don't get to see them often. Perhaps we should move this conversation to messaging.
Do not mistake this correction, for my taking sides, as I think you make some good points, in this thread, along with some bad ones. But science never "conquered" the Black Plague. The disease just burned itself out, with survivors developing immunity. From Google: [Snip] Plague vaccines ** have been used since the late 19th century, but their effectiveness has never been measured precisely. Field experience indicates that vaccination with plague vaccine reduces the incidence and severity of disease resulting from the bite of infected fleas. [End] It might be taken as ironic evidence of Impermanence's argument, of how little we know, that though he is a doctor, he did not realize that your statement was misinformed. But he did manage some good lines, as well, like: You both, interestingly enough, seem to get "abortion," wrong: The "soul," or spirituality have nothing to do with anything legal. The debate is over when one can legitimately think of the unborn, nevertheless, as meeting the bar, to be considered its own person. Those who feel that is with conception, or any time in the first trimester, are extremists; so are those who feel that third trimester abortions are no big deal. The majority of people see gestation for the formative process, it is, and most would set the point of personhood, to occur sometime in the 2nd trimester (from 13 - 26 weeks). My own view is that the midpoint of gestation, 20 weeks, maximizes a woman's window for action, without treading into the potential "personhood" zone. 13 weeks seems overly restrictive; 26 weeks seems concerningly trespassing, of a life that is, by then, hard to not begin to identify with the rest of us. But there clearly is no one mark, with which all will concur; as long as you are talking about some point in the 2nd trimester as the cutoff point, the person with that view should be considered a reasonable negotiator; willingness of all to accept some compromise, on this issue, is a must. Seems like a dubious contention. Anything to back it up? Oh, I can outdo that, easily: I was recently in the E.R., where the X-ray tech was going to X-ray my foot, while I lay on the hospital exam table. She asked me to bend my knee sharply, pointing upward, so that my foot stood flat, on the film plate. As the tech moved away to irradiate my foot, I stopped her, feeling that my groin was very exposed, in this position, and reminded her that she'd yet to give me a lead shield. She then informed me that there had been some study by Harvard or the like, which had shown that shields actually increase a person's radiation exposure, because the x-rays get into the body but the lead traps & prevents them, as they otherwise would, from passing out of the body again. When I seemed at all concerned, she quickly offered me a lead apron, if I wanted one, right after telling me that this increases my radiation exposure. This new, no-apron thinking is apparently widely embraced, at least by hospitals; maybe less so, by dental practices. The tech mentioned how odd it seemed to her, as well, after it being so consistently stressed, throughout her "training," to always use the lead smock.
You have to pick your battles. I identified myself as such to give a little weight to my argument and to suggest that I am not anti-science. I believe you have greatly simplified this incredibly complex issue. It involves all aspects of society on almost every level which is why I believe most folks might suggest that they are both pro and anti abortion [to some degree]. And when technology allows for the cessation of unplanned pregnancies, abortion will be placed in that category of historical medical procedures viewed as not so wonderful. I believe if you are a student of history, it becomes apparent that no matter how right things seem, they're not even close. And taking it further, if you explore the impermanent nature of all things [knowable], again this becomes even clearer. Taken to its limits, the fact that our minuscule human intellect is incapable of understanding much of anything seals the deal. Thing is, it's not a problem if you learn how to tap into the flow of information. This is as close as we can get to reality.
I don't think I would agree with all your contentions-- I think you take them, in some respects, farther than warranted-- but the particular argument about man's ignorance, relative to all there is to know, being incongruous with the hubris, which is not uncommonly found among scientists (and among humans in general, but perhaps especially among those who are science enthusiasts), is one which I have, myself, long and ardently put forth.
Allow me to preface my comments by stating that everything that everybody states is 99.999...% bs. Believe me, if one of us found "The Truth," everybody would know about it in ten minutes! The human intellect is only capable of so much [and it's not very much]. OTOH, the human mind records everything it perceives. If we can accept that limitation, then is there another way? People have been pondering this for thousands of years. One way has been to tap into the non-intellectual [recorded information] and just allow the flow of information to proceed without comment. It's like how accurate one's first impression often is. It's that which takes place before the thinking mind transforms perceptual reality into personal reality. Something like that.
I thought I was being quite generous to myself! The actually figure is much closer to zero. Whenever I get caught up listening or hearing somebody who has really mastered their field of study, I try to keep in mind that it is only the confidence with which they speak that is compelling. The information itself, although presented with great skill and completely capturing the current thinking of the day], is still utter non-sense. How can it be anything else? Such intellectual infatuation is much like the stunning beauty who swears she will be yours forever [until the next best thing comes along].
There is a bit of a paradox, in what you propose; namely, if one cannot know what is true, it is then impossible to say, for certain, that anything in particular is false. Is this not logical?
Within everything is everything. It's not about true and false as this is simply an intellectual duality. Everything contains both [of equal measure] as they arise and depart in pairs.
I suspect humans can't deal with that kind of certainty. We're never going to have anything that can be considered ultimate truth. Science states that explicitly. Religion tries to have ultimate truth, but the result is very large numbers of ultimate truths - which is also failure. So that should add an element of humility, but it can't be allowed to stop pursuit of knowledge - which requires falsification.
I agree completely with your points, Mr. Readmore, as, I would assume, nearly anyone. The human mind/psychology, requires and seeks out a sense of security, even if that requires lying to oneself. And no one here-- except, perhaps, Impermanence-- is advocating that we, as a race, give up, trying to figure things out. Impermanence had stated that nearly everything that any of us think of as being true, is wrong. I had merely been pointing out the possibility, then, that he was wrong about that. Or, more exactly, I had said if one does not know what the truth is, there is no way to recognize it, if it is heard. Thus, it is impossible for us to say that anything is incorrect, to any greater degree than we, ourselves, know what is correct. Do you follow, this time? IOW, I was offering some push- back, on Impermanence's statement (while playing Devil's advocate), which I would think you would appreciate. Yet, your post, as respectful as is its tone-- which I appreciate, and am honestly trying to reciprocate-- comes across as if you had felt the need to explain something to me, in order to fix some error, in my thought. Am I mistaken in that impression? Please do not take any of this as an intended slight, but I cannot reply, without pointing out, that you had, apparently, utterly misgaged my comments, to Impermanence (which he, BTW, had no trouble understanding). I sincerely find this a very interesting, and important, topic: the way a person's mindset, expectations, beliefs, mental disposition, and so on, have such a drastic effect, on one's perception of things. I have stories of this, in my own life, which I may, at some point, be convinced to share. And when, at those times, I have come to the point of understanding my mistake, it has always led me to something near awe, in absorbing the consequence of this phenomenon, writ large-- as well as, usually, leading me to hysterical laughter, at my own error. So, while this moment is inopportune for my delving more deeply into the subject, I will attempt to continue this reply, as soon as it is practical for me to do so. In the meantime, I would hope you might go back to re-read my comment, & consider your interpretation of it, as compared to the one I have just explained, and which Impermanence also seems to have taken, as self-evident. Cordially, DEFinning
I didn't mean that post as a correction or opposition in any way. I labeled it as my view, intending to bring in the dichotomy of religion and science. I wanted to point out that those who claim their religion holds the ultimate truth are no closer or better able to reason than anyone else. We're all in the same boat. My posting to you doesn't mean I think you're wrong. And, I hope I didn't impede your use of your paradox.
@WillReadmore I actually must correct my full agreement with you, and ask you to further explain something, from your quote: WillReadmore said: ↑ I suspect humans can't deal with that kind of certainty... I had read that last word as uncertainty-- going back to what I said earlier, about what one sees, being related to what one expects (as the famous internet "dress" which people saw as different colors, depending on what type of lighting they were assuming, for the pic, had starkly illustrated for us all). But, to your post, I had written, in my reply-- DEFinning said: ↑ I agree completely with your points, Mr. Readmore, as, I would assume, nearly anyone. The human mind/psychology, requires and seeks out a sense of security, even if that requires lying to oneself... -- and feeling secure, comes from a sense of there being a certainty, and predictability, in life; this is why, for example, religious images of "heaven," hold such great appeal-- they remove the uncertainty, regarding that next stage of our existence. But what did you mean, when you said that we can't handle, "can't deal with, that kind of certainty?"
I just meant that the decisions humans make have to be based on the knowledge we have. We can't be paralyzed by the suspicion that there is more to know that could be useful, or otherwise use the "we don't have ultimate truth" argument to justify ignoring the knowledge we have.
