Religion vs. Lifestyle

[Zhadox]

I consider myself a Christian Agnostic because I believe that Jesus is the son of God and I try to follow his teachings though I know he can not be proven to exist I have complete faith he does. Now I see what I believe in as a lifestyle not a religion because what I believe controls my actions in everyday life not just when I'm at church.

I have a high dislike for religions, and the U.S's public school system (Not sure about others) because they are usually narrow minded and don't listen to other ideas other than their own.

Where do you stand on your beliefs?

[Snowy_One]

I am a Christian, and even a creationist, but I also believe in science and many things most people see as being mutually exclusive to creationism. How? I accept that both Science and the people who wrote the Bible can be wrong. We live in a vast and amazing universe. Here. Look at this.

The way I see it; anyone who can look at this and turn it into an argument of science vs. faith is little more than a fanatic. Did God create a vast and expansive universe full of wonderous and amazing things? Did the RNG Goddess create it and evolution happen? I don't know, but what I do know is that there is so much wonder out there that turning it into a stupid argument is wrong.

Science is little more than a method with the things we learn and uncover constantly changing. Most of us can remember a time when the mere concept of something like the Internet was absurd, yet we now live in a time where Facebook is almost required. I can remember back when Neopets was as close to online Pokemon Battles as we thought possible, yet now we have wireless trades and the like going on. The very notion of 3-D printing used to be absurd! Yet it's now REAL! We uncover and learn more with each passing day so to say that evolution MUST be true is as foolish as saying that Laserdisc MUST be better than DvD.

When it comes to reality I remember that Jesus did many things, some peaceful and some violent. He defended the prostitute, came to the jew and gentile, and drove the moneychangers from the temple. He cast demons into pigs and taught that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. The way I see it is that our goal as human beings should be to always seek to become better than we were before, strive towards peace and helping others in good, wholesome, manners while, at the same time, reaching for the stars and embracing science.

Might the Bible be a myth? Maybe. But it's a myth worth believing in and worth keeping around so long as it isn't hijacked by fanatics (but fanatics will hijack anything). There is a vast world out there to explore. Should we seek to deny that we might find something we cannot explain or understand, or should we seek to find it and see the wonder of what we can learn?

[Rapier]

I haven't thought much about religion, God and atheism, to be honest. It doesn't seem much relevant to me, if I can shape my fate by becoming stronger and wiser by my own hands, at least as much as I can, without theism or atheism being interventing factors in my life. If God will send the ones who don't believe in Him to Hell merely because they don't believe, then I know it's inevitable because I won't kneel to beg for mercy. If atheism is true and there is nothing else, then it affects my (post) life even less. Besides, there are philosophical issues with both atheism and faiths that makes me doubt any position is 100% factually correct.

So I just try to follow what seems more reasonable, or what I can perceive as reasonable, and roll with it. If something is reasonable, it's ok. If it isn't, it is not ok. Seems 'simple' enough.

I am a Christian, and even a creationist, but I also believe in science and many things most people see as being mutually exclusive to creationism.

Creationism has nothing to do with science, though. It was not something drawn from observation and experiments. It's something people have faith on merely because it is written in the Bible, so it is not part of science in any way. But evolutionism is fruit of observation and experimentation, so it is scientific.

That doesn't mean science and creationism are mutually exclusive (they can't mix but they can coexist, it's not like matter and antimatter), it just means they're not part of the same branch (creationism is religious, so it comes from the metaphysical branch. Science, however, comes from the epistemological branch. This is why science should not delve in religious matters and religion shouldn't delve in scientific matters: They deal with different subjects and are made for specific knowledges only. But they can coexist!). And creationism doesn't necessarily prove that evolutionism is wrong, since as far as I know the Bible isn't very descriptive of how the world came to be (and to be fair, time perceptions are relative, so 6 days can mean more than we think it does). I don't see how God creating the world contradicts the evolutionary proccess.

Edited June 9, 2015 by Rapier

[Tryhard]

I'm an agnostic theist. There's too many viewpoints and beliefs on what God really is for me to say any one is the right one for me, but I do believe there is a supernatural force to have existed or to still exist, because the creation of life still has many unanswered questions. For me, it's as simple as it gets: living my life the best way I can and trying to be a good person. Sorry, I'm not particularly enlightening.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Tryhard

[Rehab]

Ok, I'll bite.

My parents were some-kinda-Christians (visited Presbyterian, Unitarian, probably-some-others-too churches) who[se families] in large part went to church because that's just how their local communities organized and got together. They could kinda take it or leave it if they didn't like the preacher (and generally the community by extension) enough. Like, when I was in middle school I kinda blurted out "I'm an atheist! (*Ralph Wiggum voice*)" and my mom's reaction wasn't much more surprised or indignant than "that's nice dear"

We didn't go to church for a long enough time that my experiences with religion and religious people growing up were limited, and unfortunately were often enough with the loudest idiots on offer, while my encounters with atheism were mostly with whoever was on hand to make the former look like the biggest possible idiots. (Blacken and company, with all their charms, come to mind)

Something about the far, proudly nihilistic end of "no gods, only random quantum fluctuations, the determinism of the universe's laws and the Cruelty of Man" atheism has had a hard time sitting right with me, though (though it may have had a non-zero impact on at least some level). I guess I've come to some kinda self-satisfied sense of pseudo-"spirituality" that just thinks the (thus-far scientifically verified) circumstances of the universe's and life's and humanity's creations are, like, way too cool, man. Like, that people have gone from subsistence, hyper-local hunter-gatherer lifestyles and looked up at the sky and not known what the fuck, to being able to travel through the air? That's just too cool to not be amazed at, maybe even a little reverent of.

And that for me leads into some (perhaps less than 100% scientifically verified, but anyway) belief, which I guess might be called faith, that at least in a really long view people generally trend towards seeking to improve themselves and each other and their lots, despite new challenges in our environments (many of them self-made) constantly slowing down and burdening our efforts to do so. And that the universe, at least the fraction I've seen (and again put into a really long view) also trends towards progress, maybe even to the extent I could say I believe in a "spirit of (positive) progress," for lack of a better word.

Sorta more recently, I've been learning some more parts and factoids about a few different religions, just for fun (and possibly by way of diffusion/encouragement through Crusader Kings 2). Around the same time, it has occurred to me that for all the upsides of proudly secular/atheist rationalism, I haven't really been exposed to anything like a local community for something like it and wouldn't know what to expect from one or how to find one, at least not immediately. So while experiencing a kind of depression/social isolation that saw a lot of me wandering while rarely ending up actually going anywhere in particular, the thought has occurred to me that "...religious people have, like, their religious place as a place they can go when they don't know where to go, right? Kinda envying that bit in particular right now."

But of course every time I've looked enough at any particular religion's schools of thought, values, philosophy etc and thought they sounded kinda interesting, I've run up against the "correct belief (faith involved) begets correct action," "the father the son and the Holy Ghost this stuff is important seriously," "no queers allowed," "don't eat/drink [edible thing]" orthodoxy type stuff, and generally felt like "Iiiiiii don't know if I'm compatible with this kinda shit." (metaphor or not)

I am a Christian, and even a creationist, but I also believe in science and many things most people see as being mutually exclusive to creationism. How? I accept that both Science and the people who wrote the Bible can be wrong. We live in a vast and amazing universe. Here. Look at this.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1832760/thumbs/o-HUBBLE-UV-900.jpg?3

The way I see it; anyone who can look at this and turn it into an argument of science vs. faith is little more than a fanatic. Did God create a vast and expansive universe full of wonderous and amazing things? Did the RNG Goddess create it and evolution happen? I don't know, but what I do know is that there is so much wonder out there that turning it into a stupid argument is wrong.

Science is little more than a method with the things we learn and uncover constantly changing. Most of us can remember a time when the mere concept of something like the Internet was absurd, yet we now live in a time where Facebook is almost required. I can remember back when Neopets was as close to online Pokemon Battles as we thought possible, yet now we have wireless trades and the like going on. The very notion of 3-D printing used to be absurd! Yet it's now REAL! We uncover and learn more with each passing day so to say that evolution MUST be true is as foolish as saying that Laserdisc MUST be better than DvD.

When it comes to reality I remember that Jesus did many things, some peaceful and some violent. He defended the prostitute, came to the jew and gentile, and drove the moneychangers from the temple. He cast demons into pigs and taught that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. The way I see it is that our goal as human beings should be to always seek to become better than we were before, strive towards peace and helping others in good, wholesome, manners while, at the same time, reaching for the stars and embracing science.

Might the Bible be a myth? Maybe. But it's a myth worth believing in and worth keeping around so long as it isn't hijacked by fanatics (but fanatics will hijack anything). There is a vast world out there to explore. Should we seek to deny that we might find something we cannot explain or understand, or should we seek to find it and see the wonder of what we can learn?

As far as the evolution bit goes, it's just that biology as we know it without evolution kinda... isn't. IIRC.

Not that that's never been a thing science etc has had to deal with, but "best available explanations" and all that.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Rehab

[-Cynthia-]

.

Might the Bible be a myth? Maybe. But it's a myth worth believing in and worth keeping around so long as it isn't hijacked by fanatics (but fanatics will hijack anything). There is a vast world out there to explore. Should we seek to deny that we might find something we cannot explain or understand, or should we seek to find it and see the wonder of what we can learn?

If the goal is to explore what we do not understand and see what we can learn, why cling to the myth of the Bible? Believing it explains the origin of the universe without any evidence supporting that claim had prevented people from seeking out the truth (or approximate variations thereof). Seeking out these scientific truths has had practical applications on people's lives- the theory of evolution helping to advance modern medicine for instance.

I believe that no one knows the origin of the universe (or the meaning of life or all the other unanswered questions). Not me, not you, not your preacher- it's random guesswork at best. People shouldn't claim to know things that they do not and most organized religions do this.

[Snowy_One]

If the goal is to explore what we do not understand and see what we can learn, why cling to the myth of the Bible? Believing it explains the origin of the universe without any evidence supporting that claim had prevented people from seeking out the truth (or approximate variations thereof). Seeking out these scientific truths has had practical applications on people's lives- the theory of evolution helping to advance modern medicine for instance.

I believe that no one knows the origin of the universe (or the meaning of life or all the other unanswered questions). Not me, not you, not your preacher- it's random guesswork at best. People shouldn't claim to know things that they do not and most organized religions do this.

Because some myths are simply worth keeping around and believing in even if they can be proven to be false. Adults know that there isn't a Santa, but Santa's come to represent something more than a fat man in a red and white suit as well. He's come to represent what is, basically, unashamed and unrestrained good will towards everyone regardless of faith, skin, country, beliefs, or anything. Everyone knows he isn't real but they'd rather believe in what he represents than be the annoying person who goes around mocking others for keeping him around in Christmas 'because he isn't real'.

There are many things like this that are known to be myths or at least not explained by science that are still worth believing in. We know Star Trek isn't real but the fantastical world of the future it presented has inspired many people to strive for a better tomorrow. Scientifically we can disprove probably 95% of UFO sightings and there is no way known by modern science for a UFO to realistically arrive on Earth, yet the thought that these things might be actually aliens and that there might be intelligent life somewhere out there instead of barely 'living' microbial mats (which is vastly more likely) has driven people to seek out intelligent life. Ghosts are iffy at best as to if they exist or not yet the mere thought of life after death has had such a profound impact on society that, even if it could, somehow, be proven (how would you even do that? Find a way to stick a probe onto a soul?) that they don't exist the myth might be worth keeping around simply because it represents something more. Namely the knowledge that death isn't the end of necessity.

If we wanted to distill the world down to its most bare and logical conclusions we'd have, well, little more than a boring, uninteresting, world where everything would be basically run by a computer deciding the most 'logical' course of action. We'd have no art, no fantasy, few, if any, new thoughts, little culture, and so much less that it's better to accept and embrace the myth even knowing that it is a myth; because it makes the world that much better of a place. There may be no house up at the north pole, but there should be that jolly red man close to your heart because what he is is something more than a suit and midnight world-wide carpet bombings of presents.

[-Cynthia-]

Because some myths are simply worth keeping around and believing in even if they can be proven to be false. Adults know that there isn't a Santa, but Santa's come to represent something more than a fat man in a red and white suit as well. He's come to represent what is, basically, unashamed and unrestrained good will towards everyone regardless of faith, skin, country, beliefs, or anything. Everyone knows he isn't real but they'd rather believe in what he represents than be the annoying person who goes around mocking others for keeping him around in Christmas 'because he isn't real'.

There are many things like this that are known to be myths or at least not explained by science that are still worth believing in. We know Star Trek isn't real but the fantastical world of the future it presented has inspired many people to strive for a better tomorrow. Scientifically we can disprove probably 95% of UFO sightings and there is no way known by modern science for a UFO to realistically arrive on Earth, yet the thought that these things might be actually aliens and that there might be intelligent life somewhere out there instead of barely 'living' microbial mats (which is vastly more likely) has driven people to seek out intelligent life. Ghosts are iffy at best as to if they exist or not yet the mere thought of life after death has had such a profound impact on society that, even if it could, somehow, be proven (how would you even do that? Find a way to stick a probe onto a soul?) that they don't exist the myth might be worth keeping around simply because it represents something more. Namely the knowledge that death isn't the end of necessity.

If we wanted to distill the world down to its most bare and logical conclusions we'd have, well, little more than a boring, uninteresting, world where everything would be basically run by a computer deciding the most 'logical' course of action. We'd have no art, no fantasy, few, if any, new thoughts, little culture, and so much less that it's better to accept and embrace the myth even knowing that it is a myth; because it makes the world that much better of a place. There may be no house up at the north pole, but there should be that jolly red man close to your heart because what he is is something more than a suit and midnight world-wide carpet bombings of presents.

The difference between things like Star Trek and the Bible is that Star Trek identifies itself as not real, whereas most people who are 'fans' of the Bible believe it to be a factual account of the events of universe and a guide on how to live one's life(to various degrees depending on denomination and individual).

Santa is in a strange in between place where adults know he's not real but lie to their children who believe he is real. I don't have a problem with Santa as a story, but I don't think it's particularly good for parent-child relationships to have needless deception. Why not acknowledge that Santa is a fictional story and the parents actually provide the presents? Fictional stories are a great part of society- but let's not confuse them with the truth.

[Rehab]

I'd say our universe is pretty wondrous and romantic even with just the known explanations we have, though, of the complex depth in simple things and vice versa. Indeed, part of that is attested by how much of a challenge it is to give computers capabilities we take for granted.

I'd never say stories are anything but great, and great to have, but the wonder of History (I was going to say nonfiction, but that sends a more argumentative implication than I intend) isn't hurt when comparing the two, at least for me, for its lacking an easily-derived moral.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Rehab

[dondon151]

If we wanted to distill the world down to its most bare and logical conclusions we'd have, well, little more than a boring, uninteresting, world where everything would be basically run by a computer deciding the most 'logical' course of action. We'd have no art, no fantasy, few, if any, new thoughts, little culture, and so much less that it's better to accept and embrace the myth even knowing that it is a myth; because it makes the world that much better of a place.

you're basically telling me that i'm incapable of art, fantasy, and culture.

[Knight]

you're basically telling me that i'm incapable of art, fantasy, and culture.

That is clearly not what he said.

[dondon151]

reading comprehension time

If we wanted to distill the world down to its most bare and logical conclusions

i.e., (what snowy believes to be) the pursuit of scientific truth. this was in response to -cynthia-'s post, in which she said:

If the goal is to explore what we do not understand and see what we can learn, why cling to the myth of the Bible? ... Seeking out these scientific truths has had practical applications on people's lives- the theory of evolution helping to advance modern medicine for instance.

okay, now that we've established what snowy is talking about:

we'd have, well, little more than a boring, uninteresting, world where everything would be basically run by a computer deciding the most 'logical' course of action. We'd have no art, no fantasy, few, if any, new thoughts, little culture, and so much less that it's better to accept and embrace the myth even knowing that it is a myth; because it makes the world that much better of a place.

so snowy is claiming that the pursuit of scientific truth produces a world that cannot produce art, fantasy, or culture. this is false, and i can easily prove this false by example. science has produced technology that has led to the development of new instruments (theremin, electric ___) and methods to create music (synthesizers). science has produced science fiction, which is obviously fantasy. culture is defined as "the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively," and it's nonsensical to say that intellectual achievement doesn't produce culture (it's in the definition!).

i am personally interested in the pursuit of scientific truth and i reject all religious texts when it comes to claims that they make about the material world. clearly i don't have the inspiration to produce art, imagine fantasy, or exhibit culture.

[Knight]

Nevermind, I'm probably not going to achieve a fair argument anyway...

[Snowy_One]

Nevermind, I'm probably not going to achieve a fair argument anyway...

Don't bother. I put him on ignore and have been a lot happier ever since. From what I can read of your link, though, I can say that, yes, if you focus only on science, logic, and toss aside anything 'unscientific' you do trash those things. Things like art and culture come from the imagination and shared style of life, shared habits, and the willingness to move beyond the self. The Simpsons is fun and has become a touchstone for many, but from a scientific point of view it's completely laughable and would probably be worth even shunning. Lord of the Rings? Unscientific as HECK! Star Trek? Pha! Most fantasy stories at least admit the unscientific stuff is magic instead of claiming it's science! Don't even try to figure out how the holodeck works scientifically.

Take these things, shun them and remove them for not being factual, and you remove, well, art and culture. Lisa Frank pictures? Pretty but unicorns don't exist so you're a fool for even letting the myth of them survive! Square-dancing? No scientific correlation and has roots in fantasy! Kim Kardassian? Now THAT is a REAL piece of culture! What's this about all of us living in a Yellow Submarine? Worthless as it's unscientific!

[feplus]

I am pleased to see that dondon's ironic accusations of poor reading comprehension are not limited to the Fire Emblem subreddit.

so snowy is claiming that the pursuit of scientific truth produces a world that cannot produce art, fantasy, or culture.

Snowy never said that a world of scientific pursuits and a world of aesthetic pursuits were mutually exclusive. He said: "If we wanted to distill the world down to its most bare and logical conclusions we'd have, well, little more than a boring, uninteresting, world where everything would be basically run by a computer deciding the most 'logical' course of action."

Snowy is not referring to science. He is referring to scientism. He is correct to suppose that higher beauty is incompatible with a world where only scientific knowledge is respected. The sublime is qualitative; it cannot be located in the quantitative, metaphysical bean-counting of New Atheism.

[dondon151]

I am pleased to see that dondon's ironic accusations of poor reading comprehension are not limited to the Fire Emblem subreddit.

the pots are everywhere, calling the kettle black

Snowy is not referring to science. He is referring to scientism. He is correct to suppose that higher beauty is incompatible with a world where only scientific knowledge is respected. The sublime is qualitative; it cannot be located in the quantitative, metaphysical bean-counting of New Atheism.

that's not new atheism. you really have no idea what you're talking about, don't you? why isn't that unexpected?

this caricature of a worldview that you call scientism doesn't even follow from the premises of scientism. the distillation of understanding of the natural world into scientific knowledge doesn't prevent people from feeling the emotions commonly evoked by the arts.

Edited June 10, 2015 by dondon151

[Knight]

Okay, abandoning thread. I can't see this discussion going to a pleasant (much less a serious) place anytime soon.

[feplus]

New Atheism is a reductive materialism. My description was accurate.

You misrepresented Snowy, you insulted me twice, and you did not offer any arguments in your defense beyond a juvenile "nu uh." This does not reflect well on your maturity, and I believe it violates this subforum's rules.

I am inclined to agree with Knight. This thread is no longer going in a positive direction. I was enjoying reading through the responses until you interpreted a comment out of context as a personal offense.

Your edit is yet another example of poor reading comprehension. Nowhere in my previous post did I mention "feeling." This is not a strong showing, dondon.

Edited June 10, 2015 by feplus

[-Cynthia-]

Don't bother. I put him on ignore and have been a lot happier ever since. From what I can read of your link, though, I can say that, yes, if you focus only on science, logic, and toss aside anything 'unscientific' you do trash those things. Things like art and culture come from the imagination and shared style of life, shared habits, and the willingness to move beyond the self. The Simpsons is fun and has become a touchstone for many, but from a scientific point of view it's completely laughable and would probably be worth even shunning. Lord of the Rings? Unscientific as HECK! Star Trek? Pha! Most fantasy stories at least admit the unscientific stuff is magic instead of claiming it's science! Don't even try to figure out how the holodeck works scientifically.

Take these things, shun them and remove them for not being factual, and you remove, well, art and culture. Lisa Frank pictures? Pretty but unicorns don't exist so you're a fool for even letting the myth of them survive! Square-dancing? No scientific correlation and has roots in fantasy! Kim Kardassian? Now THAT is a REAL piece of culture! What's this about all of us living in a Yellow Submarine? Worthless as it's unscientific!

Who is suggesting that art be removed for not being 'scientific' or 'factual'? The Bible as a work of literature...all right I don't know who has a problem with it existing, it's the whole 'this is the truth of the universe and the guide by which everyone should live by" bit it shares with other religious texts that tends to be argued or discounted by people.

[dondon151]

New Atheism is a reductive materialism. My description was accurate.

incorrect. your description is not accurate, and you repeatedly claiming it to be so won't make it any more accurate.

You misrepresented Snowy, you insulted me twice, and you did not offer any arguments in your defense beyond a juvenile "nu uh." This does not reflect well on your maturity, and I believe it violates this subforum's rules.

don't accuse me of not providing an argument when you're as guilty of not doing so, lol. you misrepresented new atheism and didn't bother explaining at all how scientism precludes the production and appreciation of art. you simply stated it.

for someone who habitually attempts to annoy people by asking them to be more specific, you seem to be holding yourself to a double standard. unless you can provide evidence of new atheists advocating a worldview where all forms of higher beauty cannot be respected because of the attitude that scientific knowledge can explain everything (or demonstrate how that's a sound argument), then all i can be certain of is that you're talking out of your ass.

the poster children of new atheism, dawkins and harris, have both argued that spirituality is capable of co-existence with whatever you want to label their worldviews as; the spirituality is simply no longer directed at a divine being. that's fine, there's beauty in wondering and speculating what we don't know; that's how science manages to progress anyway.

Your edit is yet another example of poor reading comprehension. Nowhere in my previous post did I mention "feeling." This is not a strong showing, dondon.

this is splitting hairs. you claimed that the sublime is "qualitative." feel free to replace "feeling" with a synonym such as "experiencing" emotions, which as far as i can tell, are qualitative. try a little harder, please, i am barely being amused.

Edited June 10, 2015 by dondon151

[feplus]

Here is a definition for you, dondon.

Reductive materialism: The view that only the material world (matter) is truly real, and that all processes and realities observed in the universe can be explained by reducing them down to their most basic scientific components, e.g., atoms, molecules, and everything else thought to make up what we know as "matter." For example, a reductive materialist would view the miraculous and unexpected healing of a supposedly terminal cancer patient as a random coincidence of solely biological and physiological processes in the person's body. While, on the other hand, some might view the healing as stemming from factors contributing to the biological factors, e.g., prayer or meditation.

This view is avowed by each of the Four Horsemen. It is characteristic of the New Atheist movement. Despite me going through the trouble of pulling this up when I didn't have to, you will not acknowledge your error. This is why many feel that conversing with you is a chore.

Scientism precludes the aesthetic by definition. Beauty is not comprised of atoms and molecules. Sublimity is not measured under a microscope. Aesthetic knowledge is not scientific knowledge and so it is rejected under scientism.

Science has much to say about feelings of beauty. It can describe the chemical reactions involved with love and other strong emotions. But it has nothing to say about the concept of beauty, which is what aesthetics is about. You are struggling with simple definitions I'd expect anyone to be familiar with going into this conversation.

Pointing out an error in your reading comprehension is not "splitting hairs" I'm afraid, particularly (and ironically) when your first post originated in a misreading.

I share Knight's pessimism. There is little more to add. I am not here to amuse you. I am here to educate and correct you. As you aren't open to being educated and corrected, any further posts will be a waste of my time.

[dondon151]

This view is avowed by each of the Four Horsemen. It is characteristic of the New Atheist movement. Despite me going through the trouble of pulling this up when I didn't have to, you will not acknowledge your error. This is why many feel that conversing with you is a chore.

okay. i knew this already. this is the same view of the world that i adhere to. this isn't evidence that scientism leads to the worldview that you describe.

i still listen to kansas and bach and read british and russian literature; unless you mean to tell me that i'm ~doing it wrong~, i don't view the world through the eyes of an automaton that distills all comprehension down to atoms and elementary forces (and i'm inclined to think that a sophisticated enough automaton would view the world similarly to a human, but that's a different topic).

at least two of the four horsemen have argued for the co-existence of scientism and spirituality, and i say at least only because that's what i remember hearing from lectures, books, and interviews.

Scientism precludes the aesthetic by definition. Beauty is not comprised of atoms and molecules. Sublimity is not measured under a microscope. Aesthetic knowledge is not scientific knowledge and so it is rejected under scientism.

Science has much to say about feelings of beauty. It can describe the chemical reactions involved with love and other strong emotions. But it has nothing to say about the concept of beauty, which is what aesthetics is about. You are struggling with simple definitions I'd expect anyone to be familiar with going into this conversation.

false. i dispute the assertion that science has nothing to say about the concept of beauty. there is nothing to suggest that science has nothing to say about it.

Pointing out an error in your reading comprehension is not "splitting hairs" I'm afraid, particularly (and ironically) when your first post originated in a misreading.

it was not a misreading.

I am here to educate and correct you. As you aren't open to being educated and corrected, any further posts will be a waste of my time.

i am open to being educated and corrected, but it does you no good to incessantly claim that you're trying to educate me when you're really doing a very poor job of it. this level of conceit is worse than any supposed childishness on my part.

based on your previous behavior, i strongly suspect that you have no desire to educate anyone; you merely claim to do so because it gives you the impression of authority and frustrates the opponent.

Edited June 10, 2015 by dondon151

[Baldrick]

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

[Shane]

I am not a religious person, and grew up in a mixed household and still am. My dad is an atheist and my mom is a follower of Christ, they get along quite well because we all believe in individual rights. I want to clarify that my dad and I do not hate God, it's just that we are more open to other possibilities! I respect religion, but my answer is I don't know! I don't believe there is a right answer at this point and any speculation and beliefs is fine!

[Shin]

I for one look forward to dondon's next album, I'm sure his poetry's good too.

I'm personally not terribly fussed with personal religion or spirituality, I have more of an interest in what's in front of me than any particular god or deity. Simplistic? Yeah, but that's how I roll.