Evolution, Science & Religion (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, June 17, 2012, 18:53 (4330 days ago) @ dhw


> TONY: This is a very Western approach to the subject. To understand something implies more than just knowledge of its constituent parts (what/how), it also implies understanding the who, why, and what for, as well as its place in existence. It implies that knowledge at every level. 
> 
> I think there's a misunderstanding here between us. If I want my car to be repaired, I don't go to the doctor. If I have a pain in the chest, I don't go to the mechanic. There is no escaping separation, West or East. To understand life and the universe, I agree that we need to understand the constituent parts AND the whys and the wherefores AND their place in existence. And the overall quest for so-called "truth" does not entail one branch of knowledge excluding others, or even taking precedence over others. But if I want to know how the material universe works, I will turn to science for the answers. This is as close to objectivity as we can get, and sometimes there is even a consensus. If I want to know about whys and wherefores, I will turn to philosophy (including religion), where there is no consensus, no objectivity, but where if I'm lucky I may find whos, whys and wherefores that suit me personally. What you refer to as the onenesss of all the interrelated elements, and as existing in the moment, as part of something larger than yourself, can be experienced by someone totally ignorant of big bangs, evolution and quantum mechanics. Similarly, some people are convinced that there is nothing beyond the material world, and so they see no need for the bible or any other instrument of religion. 
>-This is the point where the conversation could spin off into a hundred different directions, but instead, I will ask a couple of questions and see if we can clear some things up.-Has a separative materialist framework ever produced something that is an improvement on the natural system? (In order to qualify, it must work in harmony with the material world, and cause no adverse side effects)-If we had not previously interfered with the natural order, would you even have a car that needs to be repaired, or a cause to see a heart surgeon? (i.e. Your car and your poor ticker would both constitute poor human design. Your car is actually directly responsible for your poor ticker (ironically). That and your artificial diet which is also poorly designed by humans.)- 
> DHW: You say "there must be overlap and agreement. There must be unity between the various schools of thought, or, by definition, one of them is wrong." It may be that we are talking at cross purposes. In my view, there will never be unity between the schools of thought. There are many forms of understanding ... intuitive, spiritual, purely materialistic, theistic ... and while some may overlap, some cannot possible agree. -If you do not KNOW it from all of those angles then you do not UNDERSTAND it. ->DHW: How, for instance, can the purely materialistic (atheistic) and the theistic ever be unified? Yes indeed, by definition one of them is wrong ... but no-one can ever know for sure which one. That's why the debate is never ending!-You are absolutely correct. When two ideologies are antithetical and mutually exclusive one of them MUST be wrong. In my humble opinion, materialism has proved to be an epic fail. So, why not give the other a shot.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.