Creationism

Post Reply New Topic

I can't help but notice, Jookia, that you have stepped around an important question I've asked.

You believe in "right", but you have no way to prove that X or Y is "right" or that "right" even exists at all.

yet you dismiss other things that are similarly hard to prove as being most likely hoaxes or hallucinations.

my point is, if you find these things unworthy of your attention because they cannot be "proven" in a scientific sense, then why do you believe in "right", when the concept of "right" cannot be proven in a scientific sense?

as for Zeus and what not, I'd have to type pages upon pages explaining my thoughts on that, and I was hoping to start several threads on my ideas on the subject later, where they can be the full attention of the threads in question.

but there is much that I need to do before that can be done...

So for now, let's focus on "right".

Science is not math and therefore does not deal in "proofs" at all.
From an empirical standpoint, a concept with not a shred of evidence supporting it is PRECISELY a hallucination.



Um. No. Love is a matter of chemicals as well, as are ALL our emotions. Research oxytocin.

I stepped around it because this isn't related to the topic and I'm not going to keep playing in to questions like that where you can keep deconstructing to the point of questioning if anything exists.

Emotions are emotions, not chemical reactions. Chemical reactions are physical responses to feelings. Without consciousness, a sense of self, or the soul, there is no guiding principle behind which chemical reactions have a guide. Otherwise, emotions are unguided and chaotic. For example, without the human will, "falling in love" simply doesn't happen. Now, I think feelings of attraction can't be avoided unless a person outright avoids people. But the response to attraction is entirely under human control. Hence, we are not victims subject to the whims of attraction or the random releases of chemicals. Further, not all responses are common to all human beings. The same thing that inspires rage in one person evokes indifference in another. We choose beforehand how we will respond to stimuli and act accordingly. The "chemical reactions" are servants to the will, not the other way around.

There are ways of objectively exploring music. Specific combinations of texture, timbre, pitch, and rhythm evoke learned responses in the listener. This is what I like to refer to as a "composer's bag o' tricks." I'm of the opinion that the musical interval known as the "augmented 4th" has become one of the most overused elements of contemporary instrumental music, yet the effect of the augmented 4th in film music is undeniable on the audience. So while the relationships among musical tones evokes subjective, learned responses in audiences, the relationships themselves very much CAN be studied objectively and rationally.

The Golden Mean, or something approximating it, has been used as a way of determining proportion in art and music for centuries. The musical motif (motive) has long been a unifying element in instrumental music. Transformations of the motive result in subjects/counter-subjects, periods ending in cadences, phrases culminating in movement between various tonal centers, varying tonal centers resulting in musical tension/release, and resolution of dominant tonal centers to tonic tonal centers creating larger sections of a single movement. Single movements of varying forms--sonata-allegro, ternary (ABA), dance forms (minuet and trio/scherzo), rondos/theme and variations--combine to yield larger forms such as symphonies and concertos.

Musical dissonances resolve in specific, logical ways. Accidentals written as sharps (#) resolve upward by half-step, and those written as flats (b) resolve downward by half-step. Johann Fux wrote the famous Gradus ad Parnassum textbook on species counterpoint which heavily emphasized these tonal relationships, resulting in a disciplined approach to counterpoint that continues to be influential in musical composition to this day.

Further, an objective study of harmony yields a logical, reasoned understanding of triadic harmonies and their extensions. By understanding the basic construction of harmony, one can also formulate a reasoned approach to harmonic progression. And by understanding harmonic progressions (we say "chord progressions" or "changes"), tonal music becomes logical and predictable. I have the ability to sit in with a band playing in a restaurant or bar playing country music, rock/pop, or blues and even play music I've never heard before all because it's obvious what's coming next. Playing by ear was something that took me a while to learn and put into practice, but understanding these logical progressions--typically circle of 5th progressions--much of the guesswork in playing by ear is eliminated. The thing that is disappointing about that, though, is understanding takes out a lot of the "magic" of music. My grandfather used to say "all that music sounds alike." He was deeply religious coming from a Primitive Baptist background and worked most of his life as a carpenter--not really someone well-versed in the particulars of musical aesthetics or form. So at one time I'd have vehemently denied this charge against popular musical styles, but it's true! But on the other hand, the magician/illusionist Houdini had the ability to demonstrate his techniques to his audience and STILL knock 'em dead. So understanding art and music as something rational and objective doesn't make it less interesting to the audience, though the composer/performer may still be inwardly yawning.

We do not need to to prove that X or Y is right. Do what YOU believe is right.

What I believe is right may coincide with the ten commandments or the teachings of Jesus.
But I don't blindly believe it just because it was told to me by a holy man. 'Holy' men will say/write many things to get what they want.

And no I don't believe that the Bible is the true word of God.

People used the 'word of God' to convince people to follow their rules. Often good and important rules.
People also used the 'word of God' to convince others to blow up the twin towers.

The 'word of God' is a powerful and dangerous thing.

You can't deny that if people didn't take morals from mythological books and religions that Theo van Gogh would still be alive and so would countless others due to governments being based around the Islamic religion and giving the death penalty to anybody who leaves the Islamic religion.

There are a lot of different kinds of reasoning and argument, each with different purposes and goals.

I'm a Christian, and in no way am I opposed to science. It does what it does very well, and we all benefit from it. Even though I'm not a scientist (strictly speaking), I do have a firm grasp on scientific reasoning.

Basically, one thought process behind science is this: If there is no physical evidence for something, it cannot be assumed to exist. In a very general and broad way, such things are ignored by science. Thus science is not responsible for invisible or unseen things. In other words, it cannot account for such things as morality or emotions, even though we know morality and emotions do exist because we can perceive them. We just can't perceive them in such a way to qualify or quantify them scientifically. Science does, however show relationships between morals/emotions and human actions driven by such emotions. You can, for example, take a poll of a selected population comprised of couples who go out on dates, ask them how they feel about each other, and ask if they kissed on a date. If they say they love each other and they kissed, then an observer may conclude that there is some correlation between the emotion (strong feelings of attraction) and the physical reaction (kissing). You could even follow them around and make observations of physical behavior. Now that WOULD be scientific. And if you're really slick, you could measure brain activity to see what parts of the brain are stimulated by attraction, love, and physical contact.

But as far as scientifically measuring the emotion, attraction, or love itself, good luck. You can't pull love out of the freezer, scoop it into a bowl, and give it a taste test. Love itself simply doesn't exist on the physical level. So, according to pure science, it can't be said to exist.

The same reasoning used in science would never hold up in a court of law, however. The reasoning is different in a lot of ways. The words of a witness against an alleged criminal constitute evidence admissible to a jury. Prosecutors have the burden of proof in order to show that the accused really is guilty of a crime. The defense is NOT to "prove" innocence because innocence is assumed from the outset. What a defense does is attempt to show why the evidence should be called into question--that "proof" really isn't proof. If it can be determined, for example, that a key witness for the prosecution is a known liar, a jury will be less compelled to believe that witness.

If you rely purely on scientific reasoning, no person hauled into court for crimes committed several years before, such as in cases of rape and murder where there really is no statute of limitations, can ever be found guilty of any crime committed within a certain time frame. Why is that? Because the human body is in a constant state of decay and regeneration. The central nervous system is about the only thing that stays with you throughout most of your life. So an alleged criminal could honestly make a case for innocence based on the fact that he was physically a completely different person at the time of the alleged crime. Scientifically this would be true. However, this has NEVER been used as a defense, at least not successfully, and it's hardly likely that it will ever be a successful defense!

So according to science, there is no such thing as an "emotion" or "moral value." That's hardly a criticism of science, though. It is what it is, and it works very well.

But science is also predicated on certain assumptions or presuppositions. According to pure science, there's no such thing as "logic" or "reasoning," either. Yet "logic" and "reasoning" must be assumed in order to draw empirical scientific conclusions. So we CAN reason emotions and moral values to exist, predicated on the presupposition of Common Sense.

Please.

A pink unicorn is a concept. It becomes a hallucination when I insist that I see one in my garden.

By your definition, any scientific conjecture is a hallucination until experimental evidence provides a physical referent. From which it would follow that all science is based on hallucinations since the hallucination (conjecture) must always come first.

http://www.project-reason.org/newsfeed/item/moral_confusion_in_the_name_of_science3/

that's a link to a great TED talk by sam harris where he gives an idea of scientific morality. underneath the video is a very long article written by harris that addresses a lot of the concerns people have had about the idea.

but if that's too much information, we can stick to "right." you believe in "right" but you don't understand how someone could differentiate between "right" and "wrong" without using "because -blank- says so?"

How can God create light on the first day if he only created the sun on the forth day?

magic.

How did he create the stars, the sun and the moon all in one day if it took him 3 days to create a small planet?

Where does it say that the sun was the only source of light?

also..... MAGIC.

---

Last edited by Wedge on 08 Oct 2010, 1:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.