[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > I would suggest that folks who can never seem to come > up with any spiritual theories other than the ones they > read in books (written by other people) or heard from > spiritual teachers (by definition, "other people") fall > into this category. We never seen them coming up with > any original ideas, only borrowed ones. At least, we don't see them come up with any original ideas as long as we refuse to read their posts. ;-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > Xeno, a lot of Religionists and Spiritualists have > > > misconceptions about Darwin. > > > > > > If you study evolution carefully, you will realise there is > > > a perfect balance between determinism and randomness. It's > > > not entirely deterministic and it's not entirely random > > > either. > > > > > > There is a certain broad set of laws in evolution and within > > > those laws some randomness plays a part. > > > > > > Religionists and Spiritualists confuse Darwin with > > > metaphysics and mystisism. They think Darwin tries to > > > replace it completely. Darwin as a theory only explains the > > > mechanisms how life evolved and adapted. It states nothing > > > about God or Consciousness. > > > > You hope. What it states is that god is uneccessary. > > Consciousness evolved like everything else. All life on > > this planet is descended from one cell, a hybrid between > > two types of bacteria - which is all there was for > > billions of years - there would be no complexity or > > consciousness without that one chance event. That is > > as hard a fact as you'll find, religious types can sit > > around dreaming otherwise till the cows come home. > > When it comes to theories -- either about the "correctness" > of one's cherished ideas or concepts or the degree to > which one "holds the high ground" or "owns" one's opponents > in a discussion about such things, I can think of no better > metaphor than the one I just witnessed on my morning > walk with my dogs. > > Every so often they'll feel the need to stop, lift a leg, > and deposit their version of "Here I make my stand...this > is MY territory, and MY version of The Theory Of Everything" > on a bush or lamppost or bicycle or auto tire. They have > such a pleased expression on their faces as they do this, > similar to the expressions one imagines on the faces of > FFLers as they deposit *their* cherished theories on the > rest of us. One also senses a feeling of "completion," as > if by peeing on that spot they've established their > dominance FOREVER. > > But then I sit on a park bench and watch as other dogs > come by, walking their owners. Each successive dog sniffs > the air, senses a challenge to *their* view of Reality > And How It Works, and then walks over and sniffs the > actual pee-theory, "reading doggie email" as it were. > Nine times out of ten the new dogs *disagree* with the > first pee-theory, or with its claim of dominance, and > insist on presenting their own. So they lift their legs or > squat and present a counter-theory. The looks on their > faces as they do this indicate that they *also* feel as > if the discussion is now OVER, since they have presented > the Ultimate Counter-Argument, and that nothing any other > dog could...uh...express on the subject could possibly > override their deposit of eternal wisdom. > > And so it goes. Each successive presentation of Unified > Pee Theory is presented as if it's the Last Possible > Word On The Subject, and "proves" the canine theory- > holder supreme and unchallengeable. And each proves just > as ephemeral as the last one. Sometimes dogs with Really > Big Egos see other dogs daring to dispute their pee- > theories with an "overspray," and feel compelled to go > back to the same bush to reiterate their points, > literally lifting their legs on those who dare to > challenge them, and trying once more to establish > dominance. > > And none of it lasts any longer than the next rainstorm. And thank God for that. We would't want to think that any ideas, beliefs, assertions, understanding about how anything is or works or exists could possibly be anything other than ephemeral. It is all just pee on the tree stump. And those pee-ers, how dare they deign to piss? Imagine the nerve and all the while thinking this pee of theirs will go down in history as the final say (the reigning territorial marking), the ultimate urination. And how hilarious and satisfying to know it all amounts to, as Barry would say, nada/bumpkis. Yes indeedy, it is all just excrement in the end. And good to know Barry is having so much fun lounging on a park bench laughing his ass off. > > :-) > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > Robin, I just threw that review up there, and here you are with an > > > > essay. The only thing I have read of Nagel's was that essay "What is it > > > > Like to be a Bat?", and that was some 5 or 6 years ago. Philosophers > > > > disagree, so whenever they write something, especially a major work, > > > > you can be sure someone among their peers is going to disagree. For > > > > example, If you recommend something and extol the author, you can be > > > > sure someone will think something is rotten in the sta
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
"When a cow laughs, does milk come out of her nose?" - Source unknown --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > When it comes to theories -- either about the "correctness" > > of one's cherished ideas or concepts or the degree to > > which one "holds the high ground" or "owns" one's opponents > > in a discussion about such things, I can think of no better > > metaphor than the one I just witnessed on my morning > > walk with my dogs. > > > > Every so often they'll feel the need to stop, lift a leg, > > and deposit their version of "Here I make my stand...this > > is MY territory, and MY version of The Theory Of Everything" > > on a bush or lamppost or bicycle or auto tire. They have > > such a pleased expression on their faces as they do this, > > similar to the expressions one imagines on the faces of > > FFLers as they deposit *their* cherished theories on the > > rest of us. One also senses a feeling of "completion," as > > if by peeing on that spot they've established their > > dominance FOREVER. > > > > But then I sit on a park bench and watch as other dogs > > come by, walking their owners. Each successive dog sniffs > > the air, senses a challenge to *their* view of Reality > > And How It Works, and then walks over and sniffs the > > actual pee-theory, "reading doggie email" as it were. > > Nine times out of ten the new dogs *disagree* with the > > first pee-theory, or with its claim of dominance, and > > insist on presenting their own. So they lift their legs or > > squat and present a counter-theory. The looks on their > > faces as they do this indicate that they *also* feel as > > if the discussion is now OVER, since they have presented > > the Ultimate Counter-Argument, and that nothing any other > > dog could...uh...express on the subject could possibly > > override their deposit of eternal wisdom. > > > > And so it goes. Each successive presentation of Unified > > Pee Theory is presented as if it's the Last Possible > > Word On The Subject, and "proves" the canine theory- > > holder supreme and unchallengeable. And each proves just > > as ephemeral as the last one. Sometimes dogs with Really > > Big Egos see other dogs daring to dispute their pee- > > theories with an "overspray," and feel compelled to go > > back to the same bush to reiterate their points, > > literally lifting their legs on those who dare to > > challenge them, and trying once more to establish > > dominance. > > > > And none of it lasts any longer than the next rainstorm. > > > > :-) > > Extending my metaphor even further, to cover the bases > of all the curious leg-lifting we see on Fairfield Life, > I find myself wondering about those whose ideas are so > poverty-stricken that they never present any of their > own. Such people don't seem to be able to form their > own grand theories, and are forced to borrow or steal > them from others, and then present them as if they > were superior to all others. > > I would suggest that folks who can never seem to come > up with any spiritual theories other than the ones they > read in books (written by other people) or heard from > spiritual teachers (by definition, "other people") fall > into this category. We never seen them coming up with > any original ideas, only borrowed ones. > > Given my original doggie-pee metaphor, does that make > them dogs who have to borrow pee from other dogs to > make their points and try to establish their territorial > dominance? :-) > > Can't you just imagine Robin running around on the end > of his leash carrying little bottles of Aquinus pee and > Nagel pee, pouring them on bushes and declaring with a > loud woof, "I rule!" :-) :-) :-) >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > You do realise Barry, that the pee theory is more difficult for us humans to implement as it is much easier to apply it when standing on three legs rather than on one, and especially at our age. :-) > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > Xeno, a lot of Religionists and Spiritualists have > > > > misconceptions about Darwin. > > > > > > > > If you study evolution carefully, you will realise there is > > > > a perfect balance between determinism and randomness. It's > > > > not entirely deterministic and it's not entirely random > > > > either. > > > > > > > > There is a certain broad set of laws in evolution and within > > > > those laws some randomness plays a part. > > > > > > > > Religionists and Spiritualists confuse Darwin with > > > > metaphysics and mystisism. They think Darwin tries to > > > > replace it completely. Darwin as a theory only explains the > > > > mechanisms how life evolved and adapted. It states nothing > > > > about God or Consciousness. > > > > > > You hope. What it states is that god is uneccessary. > > > Consciousness evolved like everything else. All life on > > > this planet is descended from one cell, a hybrid between > > > two types of bacteria - which is all there was for > > > billions of years - there would be no complexity or > > > consciousness without that one chance event. That is > > > as hard a fact as you'll find, religious types can sit > > > around dreaming otherwise till the cows come home. > > > > When it comes to theories -- either about the "correctness" > > of one's cherished ideas or concepts or the degree to > > which one "holds the high ground" or "owns" one's opponents > > in a discussion about such things, I can think of no better > > metaphor than the one I just witnessed on my morning > > walk with my dogs. > > > > Every so often they'll feel the need to stop, lift a leg, > > and deposit their version of "Here I make my stand...this > > is MY territory, and MY version of The Theory Of Everything" > > on a bush or lamppost or bicycle or auto tire. They have > > such a pleased expression on their faces as they do this, > > similar to the expressions one imagines on the faces of > > FFLers as they deposit *their* cherished theories on the > > rest of us. One also senses a feeling of "completion," as > > if by peeing on that spot they've established their > > dominance FOREVER. > > > > But then I sit on a park bench and watch as other dogs > > come by, walking their owners. Each successive dog sniffs > > the air, senses a challenge to *their* view of Reality > > And How It Works, and then walks over and sniffs the > > actual pee-theory, "reading doggie email" as it were. > > Nine times out of ten the new dogs *disagree* with the > > first pee-theory, or with its claim of dominance, and > > insist on presenting their own. So they lift their legs or > > squat and present a counter-theory. The looks on their > > faces as they do this indicate that they *also* feel as > > if the discussion is now OVER, since they have presented > > the Ultimate Counter-Argument, and that nothing any other > > dog could...uh...express on the subject could possibly > > override their deposit of eternal wisdom. > > > > And so it goes. Each successive presentation of Unified > > Pee Theory is presented as if it's the Last Possible > > Word On The Subject, and "proves" the canine theory- > > holder supreme and unchallengeable. And each proves just > > as ephemeral as the last one. Sometimes dogs with Really > > Big Egos see other dogs daring to dispute their pee- > > theories with an "overspray," and feel compelled to go > > back to the same bush to reiterate their points, > > literally lifting their legs on those who dare to > > challenge them, and trying once more to establish > > dominance. > > > > And none of it lasts any longer than the next rainstorm. > > > > :-) > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Robin, I just threw that review up there, and here you are with an essay. The only thing I have read of Nagel's was that essay "What is it Like to be a Bat?", and that was some 5 or 6 years ago. Philosophers disagree, so whenever they write something, especially a major work, you can be sure someone among their peers is going to disagree. For example, If you recommend something and extol the author, you can be sure someone will think something is rotten in the state of Denmark. > > > > > > > > > > I think there is a realisation growing among scientists that scientific theories are what are called 'effective theories'. For example QED, quantum electro dynamics, is such a theory. It provides a workable explanation for certain phenomena at a certain resolution, but cannot explain anything beyo
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > You do realise Barry, that the pee theory is more difficult for us humans to > implement as it is much easier to apply it when standing on three legs rather > than on one, and especially at our age. :-) Well, yes, you have to stop ;-) > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > > > Xeno, a lot of Religionists and Spiritualists have > > > > misconceptions about Darwin. > > > > > > > > If you study evolution carefully, you will realise there is > > > > a perfect balance between determinism and randomness. It's > > > > not entirely deterministic and it's not entirely random > > > > either. > > > > > > > > There is a certain broad set of laws in evolution and within > > > > those laws some randomness plays a part. > > > > > > > > Religionists and Spiritualists confuse Darwin with > > > > metaphysics and mystisism. They think Darwin tries to > > > > replace it completely. Darwin as a theory only explains the > > > > mechanisms how life evolved and adapted. It states nothing > > > > about God or Consciousness. > > > > > > You hope. What it states is that god is uneccessary. > > > Consciousness evolved like everything else. All life on > > > this planet is descended from one cell, a hybrid between > > > two types of bacteria - which is all there was for > > > billions of years - there would be no complexity or > > > consciousness without that one chance event. That is > > > as hard a fact as you'll find, religious types can sit > > > around dreaming otherwise till the cows come home. > > > > When it comes to theories -- either about the "correctness" > > of one's cherished ideas or concepts or the degree to > > which one "holds the high ground" or "owns" one's opponents > > in a discussion about such things, I can think of no better > > metaphor than the one I just witnessed on my morning > > walk with my dogs. > > > > Every so often they'll feel the need to stop, lift a leg, > > and deposit their version of "Here I make my stand...this > > is MY territory, and MY version of The Theory Of Everything" > > on a bush or lamppost or bicycle or auto tire. They have > > such a pleased expression on their faces as they do this, > > similar to the expressions one imagines on the faces of > > FFLers as they deposit *their* cherished theories on the > > rest of us. One also senses a feeling of "completion," as > > if by peeing on that spot they've established their > > dominance FOREVER. > > > > But then I sit on a park bench and watch as other dogs > > come by, walking their owners. Each successive dog sniffs > > the air, senses a challenge to *their* view of Reality > > And How It Works, and then walks over and sniffs the > > actual pee-theory, "reading doggie email" as it were. > > Nine times out of ten the new dogs *disagree* with the > > first pee-theory, or with its claim of dominance, and > > insist on presenting their own. So they lift their legs or > > squat and present a counter-theory. The looks on their > > faces as they do this indicate that they *also* feel as > > if the discussion is now OVER, since they have presented > > the Ultimate Counter-Argument, and that nothing any other > > dog could...uh...express on the subject could possibly > > override their deposit of eternal wisdom. > > > > And so it goes. Each successive presentation of Unified > > Pee Theory is presented as if it's the Last Possible > > Word On The Subject, and "proves" the canine theory- > > holder supreme and unchallengeable. And each proves just > > as ephemeral as the last one. Sometimes dogs with Really > > Big Egos see other dogs daring to dispute their pee- > > theories with an "overspray," and feel compelled to go > > back to the same bush to reiterate their points, > > literally lifting their legs on those who dare to > > challenge them, and trying once more to establish > > dominance. > > > > And none of it lasts any longer than the next rainstorm. > > > > :-) > > > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Robin, I just threw that review up there, and here you are with an > > > > > essay. The only thing I have read of Nagel's was that essay "What is > > > > > it Like to be a Bat?", and that was some 5 or 6 years ago. > > > > > Philosophers disagree, so whenever they write something, especially a > > > > > major work, you can be sure someone among their peers is going to > > > > > disagree. For example, If you recommend something and extol the > > > > > author, you can be sure someone will think something is rotten in the > > > > > state of Denmark. > > > > > > > > > > I think there is a realisation growing among scientists that > > > > > scientific theories are what are called 'effective theories'. Fo
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
You do realise Barry, that the pee theory is more difficult for us humans to implement as it is much easier to apply it when standing on three legs rather than on one, and especially at our age. :-) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > Xeno, a lot of Religionists and Spiritualists have > > > misconceptions about Darwin. > > > > > > If you study evolution carefully, you will realise there is > > > a perfect balance between determinism and randomness. It's > > > not entirely deterministic and it's not entirely random > > > either. > > > > > > There is a certain broad set of laws in evolution and within > > > those laws some randomness plays a part. > > > > > > Religionists and Spiritualists confuse Darwin with > > > metaphysics and mystisism. They think Darwin tries to > > > replace it completely. Darwin as a theory only explains the > > > mechanisms how life evolved and adapted. It states nothing > > > about God or Consciousness. > > > > You hope. What it states is that god is uneccessary. > > Consciousness evolved like everything else. All life on > > this planet is descended from one cell, a hybrid between > > two types of bacteria - which is all there was for > > billions of years - there would be no complexity or > > consciousness without that one chance event. That is > > as hard a fact as you'll find, religious types can sit > > around dreaming otherwise till the cows come home. > > When it comes to theories -- either about the "correctness" > of one's cherished ideas or concepts or the degree to > which one "holds the high ground" or "owns" one's opponents > in a discussion about such things, I can think of no better > metaphor than the one I just witnessed on my morning > walk with my dogs. > > Every so often they'll feel the need to stop, lift a leg, > and deposit their version of "Here I make my stand...this > is MY territory, and MY version of The Theory Of Everything" > on a bush or lamppost or bicycle or auto tire. They have > such a pleased expression on their faces as they do this, > similar to the expressions one imagines on the faces of > FFLers as they deposit *their* cherished theories on the > rest of us. One also senses a feeling of "completion," as > if by peeing on that spot they've established their > dominance FOREVER. > > But then I sit on a park bench and watch as other dogs > come by, walking their owners. Each successive dog sniffs > the air, senses a challenge to *their* view of Reality > And How It Works, and then walks over and sniffs the > actual pee-theory, "reading doggie email" as it were. > Nine times out of ten the new dogs *disagree* with the > first pee-theory, or with its claim of dominance, and > insist on presenting their own. So they lift their legs or > squat and present a counter-theory. The looks on their > faces as they do this indicate that they *also* feel as > if the discussion is now OVER, since they have presented > the Ultimate Counter-Argument, and that nothing any other > dog could...uh...express on the subject could possibly > override their deposit of eternal wisdom. > > And so it goes. Each successive presentation of Unified > Pee Theory is presented as if it's the Last Possible > Word On The Subject, and "proves" the canine theory- > holder supreme and unchallengeable. And each proves just > as ephemeral as the last one. Sometimes dogs with Really > Big Egos see other dogs daring to dispute their pee- > theories with an "overspray," and feel compelled to go > back to the same bush to reiterate their points, > literally lifting their legs on those who dare to > challenge them, and trying once more to establish > dominance. > > And none of it lasts any longer than the next rainstorm. > > :-) > > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > Robin, I just threw that review up there, and here you are with an > > > > essay. The only thing I have read of Nagel's was that essay "What is it > > > > Like to be a Bat?", and that was some 5 or 6 years ago. Philosophers > > > > disagree, so whenever they write something, especially a major work, > > > > you can be sure someone among their peers is going to disagree. For > > > > example, If you recommend something and extol the author, you can be > > > > sure someone will think something is rotten in the state of Denmark. > > > > > > > > I think there is a realisation growing among scientists that scientific > > > > theories are what are called 'effective theories'. For example QED, > > > > quantum electro dynamics, is such a theory. It provides a workable > > > > explanation for certain phenomena at a certain resolution, but cannot > > > > explain anything beyond that level. QED cannot explain the behaviour > > > > observed when protons are smashed together at high velocity, an
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
You are sick Barry - you need some professional, psychiatric help. On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 2:19 AM, turquoiseb wrote: > ** > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > > > When it comes to theories -- either about the "correctness" > > of one's cherished ideas or concepts or the degree to > > which one "holds the high ground" or "owns" one's opponents > > in a discussion about such things, I can think of no better > > metaphor than the one I just witnessed on my morning > > walk with my dogs. > > > > Every so often they'll feel the need to stop, lift a leg, > > and deposit their version of "Here I make my stand...this > > is MY territory, and MY version of The Theory Of Everything" > > on a bush or lamppost or bicycle or auto tire. They have > > such a pleased expression on their faces as they do this, > > similar to the expressions one imagines on the faces of > > FFLers as they deposit *their* cherished theories on the > > rest of us. One also senses a feeling of "completion," as > > if by peeing on that spot they've established their > > dominance FOREVER. > > > > But then I sit on a park bench and watch as other dogs > > come by, walking their owners. Each successive dog sniffs > > the air, senses a challenge to *their* view of Reality > > And How It Works, and then walks over and sniffs the > > actual pee-theory, "reading doggie email" as it were. > > Nine times out of ten the new dogs *disagree* with the > > first pee-theory, or with its claim of dominance, and > > insist on presenting their own. So they lift their legs or > > squat and present a counter-theory. The looks on their > > faces as they do this indicate that they *also* feel as > > if the discussion is now OVER, since they have presented > > the Ultimate Counter-Argument, and that nothing any other > > dog could...uh...express on the subject could possibly > > override their deposit of eternal wisdom. > > > > And so it goes. Each successive presentation of Unified > > Pee Theory is presented as if it's the Last Possible > > Word On The Subject, and "proves" the canine theory- > > holder supreme and unchallengeable. And each proves just > > as ephemeral as the last one. Sometimes dogs with Really > > Big Egos see other dogs daring to dispute their pee- > > theories with an "overspray," and feel compelled to go > > back to the same bush to reiterate their points, > > literally lifting their legs on those who dare to > > challenge them, and trying once more to establish > > dominance. > > > > And none of it lasts any longer than the next rainstorm. > > > > :-) > > Extending my metaphor even further, to cover the bases > of all the curious leg-lifting we see on Fairfield Life, > I find myself wondering about those whose ideas are so > poverty-stricken that they never present any of their > own. Such people don't seem to be able to form their > own grand theories, and are forced to borrow or steal > them from others, and then present them as if they > were superior to all others. > > I would suggest that folks who can never seem to come > up with any spiritual theories other than the ones they > read in books (written by other people) or heard from > spiritual teachers (by definition, "other people") fall > into this category. We never seen them coming up with > any original ideas, only borrowed ones. > > Given my original doggie-pee metaphor, does that make > them dogs who have to borrow pee from other dogs to > make their points and try to establish their territorial > dominance? :-) > > Can't you just imagine Robin running around on the end > of his leash carrying little bottles of Aquinus pee and > Nagel pee, pouring them on bushes and declaring with a > loud woof, "I rule!" :-) :-) :-) > > >
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb wrote: > > When it comes to theories -- either about the "correctness" > of one's cherished ideas or concepts or the degree to > which one "holds the high ground" or "owns" one's opponents > in a discussion about such things, I can think of no better > metaphor than the one I just witnessed on my morning > walk with my dogs. > > Every so often they'll feel the need to stop, lift a leg, > and deposit their version of "Here I make my stand...this > is MY territory, and MY version of The Theory Of Everything" > on a bush or lamppost or bicycle or auto tire. They have > such a pleased expression on their faces as they do this, > similar to the expressions one imagines on the faces of > FFLers as they deposit *their* cherished theories on the > rest of us. One also senses a feeling of "completion," as > if by peeing on that spot they've established their > dominance FOREVER. > > But then I sit on a park bench and watch as other dogs > come by, walking their owners. Each successive dog sniffs > the air, senses a challenge to *their* view of Reality > And How It Works, and then walks over and sniffs the > actual pee-theory, "reading doggie email" as it were. > Nine times out of ten the new dogs *disagree* with the > first pee-theory, or with its claim of dominance, and > insist on presenting their own. So they lift their legs or > squat and present a counter-theory. The looks on their > faces as they do this indicate that they *also* feel as > if the discussion is now OVER, since they have presented > the Ultimate Counter-Argument, and that nothing any other > dog could...uh...express on the subject could possibly > override their deposit of eternal wisdom. > > And so it goes. Each successive presentation of Unified > Pee Theory is presented as if it's the Last Possible > Word On The Subject, and "proves" the canine theory- > holder supreme and unchallengeable. And each proves just > as ephemeral as the last one. Sometimes dogs with Really > Big Egos see other dogs daring to dispute their pee- > theories with an "overspray," and feel compelled to go > back to the same bush to reiterate their points, > literally lifting their legs on those who dare to > challenge them, and trying once more to establish > dominance. > > And none of it lasts any longer than the next rainstorm. > > :-) Extending my metaphor even further, to cover the bases of all the curious leg-lifting we see on Fairfield Life, I find myself wondering about those whose ideas are so poverty-stricken that they never present any of their own. Such people don't seem to be able to form their own grand theories, and are forced to borrow or steal them from others, and then present them as if they were superior to all others. I would suggest that folks who can never seem to come up with any spiritual theories other than the ones they read in books (written by other people) or heard from spiritual teachers (by definition, "other people") fall into this category. We never seen them coming up with any original ideas, only borrowed ones. Given my original doggie-pee metaphor, does that make them dogs who have to borrow pee from other dogs to make their points and try to establish their territorial dominance? :-) Can't you just imagine Robin running around on the end of his leash carrying little bottles of Aquinus pee and Nagel pee, pouring them on bushes and declaring with a loud woof, "I rule!" :-) :-) :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: The Ultimate Religious-Scientific Theory metaphor
> > > > --- "Jason" wrote: > > > > > > Xeno, a lot of Religionists and Spiritualists have > > > misconceptions about Darwin. > > > > > > If you study evolution carefully, you will realise there is > > > a perfect balance between determinism and randomness. It's > > > not entirely deterministic and it's not entirely random > > > either. > > > > > > There is a certain broad set of laws in evolution and within > > > those laws some randomness plays a part. > > > > > > Religionists and Spiritualists confuse Darwin with > > > metaphysics and mystisism. They think Darwin tries to > > > replace it completely. Darwin as a theory only explains the > > > mechanisms how life evolved and adapted. It states nothing > > > about God or Consciousness. > > > > > > > --- "salyavin808" wrote: > > > You hope. What it states is that god is uneccessary. > > Consciousness evolved like everything else. All life on > > this planet is descended from one cell, a hybrid between > > two types of bacteria - which is all there was for > > billions of years - there would be no complexity or > > consciousness without that one chance event. That is > > as hard a fact as you'll find, religious types can sit > > around dreaming otherwise till the cows come home. > > > > --- turquoiseb wrote: > > When it comes to theories -- either about the "correctness" > of one's cherished ideas or concepts or the degree to > which one "holds the high ground" or "owns" one's opponents > in a discussion about such things, I can think of no better > metaphor than the one I just witnessed on my morning > walk with my dogs. > > Every so often they'll feel the need to stop, lift a leg, > and deposit their version of "Here I make my stand...this > is MY territory, and MY version of The Theory Of Everything" > on a bush or lamppost or bicycle or auto tire. They have > such a pleased expression on their faces as they do this, > similar to the expressions one imagines on the faces of > FFLers as they deposit *their* cherished theories on the > rest of us. One also senses a feeling of "completion," as > if by peeing on that spot they've established their > dominance FOREVER. > > But then I sit on a park bench and watch as other dogs > come by, walking their owners. Each successive dog sniffs > the air, senses a challenge to *their* view of Reality > And How It Works, and then walks over and sniffs the > actual pee-theory, "reading doggie email" as it were. > Nine times out of ten the new dogs *disagree* with the > first pee-theory, or with its claim of dominance, and > insist on presenting their own. So they lift their legs or > squat and present a counter-theory. The looks on their > faces as they do this indicate that they *also* feel as > if the discussion is now OVER, since they have presented > the Ultimate Counter-Argument, and that nothing any other > dog could...uh...express on the subject could possibly > override their deposit of eternal wisdom. > > And so it goes. Each successive presentation of Unified > Pee Theory is presented as if it's the Last Possible > Word On The Subject, and "proves" the canine theory- > holder supreme and unchallengeable. And each proves just > as ephemeral as the last one. Sometimes dogs with Really > Big Egos see other dogs daring to dispute their pee- > theories with an "overspray," and feel compelled to go > back to the same bush to reiterate their points, > literally lifting their legs on those who dare to > challenge them, and trying once more to establish > dominance. > > And none of it lasts any longer than the next rainstorm. > > :-) > Heh Heh, for a guy who often claims that "there is no truth but only opinions and all opinons are equally valid", this is a new revelation. I suppose this is *your* version of binary poop that you unloaded on us right now. Too bad Porpoise. You confuse Science which is an objective methodology as another "ism" or "philosophy" It's kinda funny you didn't say any of these things when Bob Price was around and your refusal to deal with Robin directly is puzzling. > > > --- "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" wrote: > > > > > > > > Robin, I just threw that review up there, and here you are with an > > > > essay. The only thing I have read of Nagel's was that essay "What is it > > > > Like to be a Bat?", and that was some 5 or 6 years ago. Philosophers > > > > disagree, so whenever they write something, especially a major work, > > > > you can be sure someone among their peers is going to disagree. For > > > > example, If you recommend something and extol the author, you can be > > > > sure someone will think something is rotten in the state of Denmark. > > > > > > > > I think there is a realisation growing among scientists that scientific > > > > theories are what are called 'effective theories'. For example QED, > > > > quantum electro dynamics, is such a theory. It provides a workable > > > > explanation for certain pheno
