Origin of Life (Pt2) (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 31, 2009, 16:26 (5440 days ago) @ dhw

Matt: All scientific data still requires interpretation, and because we don't have direct access to what really happened, science will always be a great blob of uncertainties built upon precious few truths.
> That is what made me tolerant of religion....
> 
> Agreed, as usual. I'm tempted to reverse the idea for religion, and say that it's a great blob of truths built on uncertain foundations. Religions have always been effective because they appeal to the almost universal human desire for explanations, reliable social and moral frameworks, and meaning in life. If you take them all as systems of symbols, they do have a truth of their own, not least because of their similarities. But if you take them as literal truths, their ground becomes very shaky, not least because of their differences. Like you, Matt, I have the deepest respect for those whose religious faith brings them comfort and leads them to help others. People who denigrate religion en bloc sicken me. As with many such prejudices, their arguments have enough truth at their core to make them seem convincing ... I don't think any reasonably objective observer would dispute that religion has done a great deal of harm ... but their lack of balance makes them as irrational as the religious fundamentalists they attack. 
> 
> Matt: Nietzsche once wrote that a man should only try to master one virtue, and the one that I had chosen well before that was truth.
> 
> BBella: I had to finally give up on the pursuit of truth (the big T) not that many years ago and replace it with trust as my one virtue to master.
> 
> Sorry, folks, but I disagree with Nietzsche. I can't imagine for one minute, Matt, that you would slaughter a hundred innocents, and argue that this was justified because you are pursuing truth not human happiness. And dear BBella, while I recognize only too well both your wisdom and your world-weariness concerning the quest for Truth, I can't help feeling that trust requires discernment: I can understand your trusting a UI, messages from the heart, intuition, but not, for instance, politicians, priests, scientists! Zarathiswriter reckons a man and a woman should try to master as many virtues as possible, including kindness, fairness, tolerance, unselfishness, truthfulness, conscientiousness, trustworthiness...need I go on? Mastering one virtue shouldn't detract in the slightest from our attempts to practise others. (Sorry if that sounds sanctimonious.) 
>-Well, I think you take him a little too directly at his meaning. He was writing in response to general Lutheran and Catholic Dogma that gives man a list of hundreds of virtues that "one must master." When you couple that with my Buddhist training, of course I'm going to agree with that. N wasn't saying that we should stop being or doing these other things, but that Man's greatest weakness is in *concentrating* in shallow waters. -A human being is by nature very very bad at multitasking. If there's one virtue for you to be as faithful to as possible, then you will reap much greater rewards. Why is this? Because it forces you to master patience and discipline. The Ascetic nature of religions help people realize things that they do not need. -A common Chinese and Japanese criticism of Western culture, is that no one accepts what they do; a waiter doesn't want to be a waiter. A Banker wants to be a politician, and in general, everyone wants to be or do something or somebody else. If each person spent time being the best waiter they can be, or the best banker--other things will naturally follow. Discipline is the key to all ascetic thought, and I'll always side a little more with stoics than epicureans. (Though Lucretius's philosophy on building and maintaining friends stands the test of time.) -Some of the things you discuss, are all virtues that people exercise, what I'm talking about is the degree. One cannot master both truth and kindness, because sometimes its more kind to tell a lie. Your other question resolves around the pursuit of truth at the expense of others: Truth serves people as ends and not means. Therefore it isn't right to pursue truth at the expense of other people, but one can hardly say that this is a question that a child wouldn't answer in the same way: It's something I do but I'm no master of ethics. -> However, Matt writes: "...when I question aggressively, or seem to act the fool, it is in some way related to trying to get to THAT goal" [i.e. truth]. Oh yes, Matt, I'm with you on all counts, including having a laugh on the way. BBella may well be right that the pursuit of truth eventually wears you down, and her extraordinary experiences provide living proof of the benefits of faith, but I think she has found her truth in her trust and doesn't need to continue the quest. BBella, do correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Happy New Year to one and all.-And Happy New Year to you as well!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"