Continuing Conversation

"Make no assumptions" is a tricky statement -- people use it to disarm, and paint others as dogmatists, even when the "dogmatist" is in the right. "Make no assumptions" is easy to say, and usually comes packed with hidden assumptions of its own; I look at that advice with a leery eye. "Should I really question my assumption that the Earth rotates around the sun? Really?" There is a truth to this statement -- we must always be ready to question our assumptions. But I would not go so far as "make no assumptions." I know no way forward save but by building ideas on ideas. "Be careful about what you let become an assumption" -- might be a better way of saying it. Is it possible that you have let in some inappropriate assumptions? It sure cuts both ways, doesn't it.

You can actually demonstrate your loyalty to skepticism, critical thinking, and so on -- there are ways. I am looking for your demonstration.

"What I am against is the notion that these are separate and superior to faith, inspiration, passion and intuition; the tyranny of an incomplete scientific myth; the impression that it "disproves" God when it's actually all it's ever sought; and ignorance, lethargy, and ethnocentrism, especially when masked as skepticism."

This is your strongest statement, and I am mostly in agreement with you here.

However, there are important distinctions to be made: No amount of faith will discredit the existence of DNA. People lived just fine for millenia not even having the slightest idea about DNA, and yet there the DNA were, cranking away. (Nor do dogs know about DNA, and yet, there the DNA is.)

It is actually true that the person who knows that DNA exists has right knowledge, and the person who says it doesn't, and uses faith to justify themselves, is in the wrong -- and, in fact, is even hurting society, and the efforts of humanity towards Truth, by spreading ignorance. Be careful lest you be among them, and do not mislead the people. You can demonstrate your solidarity with people without testifying, even by implication, to falsehood.

Where we are in agreement: It is wrong to think that the effort to understanding material reality is superior to faith in a brighter future, it is wrong to pooh-pooh inspiration, passion, and intuition. It is wrong to disconnect scientific understanding from the aspirations of humankind, the dreams of the divine being. The mythology people have been led to believe -- of a uncaring universe, "survival of the most brutal," and so on -- is sin.

However, we come to another point of disagreement: Science has indeed dis-proven the existence of God -- at least, the God that a great many people believe in, that floats in space, or comes down to earth as a man to wage battles against other men, or that made the Earth (and all the cosmos) just 6,000 years ago.

In doing so, science points us towards the True God. But talk of "God" is not off the hook, and science does an important service to us in making us question our ignorances about God. If they had not, we would have no way of knowing that Genesis is not literal, and we would still be engulfed in the bad dreams that spread from ignorance. Science, far more so than any religion, has been the great unifier of humankind. People can have disagreements over the names of God, but only the ignorant deny scientific truth.

As for "ignorance, lethargy, and ethnocentrism, especially when masked as skepticism," I don't know what you are talking about, you will need to provide examples. Where there has been social progress, scientists have been there leading the way. Scientists led people from the tyrannies of religion, slavery, racism, and brought about industry. I wish I could say that science has cured us of superstition, but sadly, as you can see, this is still not the case.

You have said that I am criticizing how you are saying what you are saying, rather than what you are actually saying. -- However, I am not so sure: I see you listing, for example Nassim Haramein as reference, and others who are making outlandish claims about science. I see you misinterpreting people, taking their ideas out of context, and imagining them fitting your program. I do not question the purity of your intention -- I know that it is pure. But you are still young, and still have to pack in a lot of knowledge about the different arguments. The "argument" is not won yet; You are just beginning to see the outlines. Do not cry victory yet.

To my view, you have the possibility of, in the future, proclaiming a great truth, but to my view, you also have the possibility of amplifying ignorance. My role in this court is "severity," and I can only be won over by strict adherence to the disciplines of science. Where you deviate from science, by either spoken word or by unspoken word, by direct statement or by implication, I will call "foul," and will not let you hear the end of it. This is my gift to you.

Not only majorities, but minorities have been known to be wrong as well. I would not root for underdogs, only because they are underdogs; I root for those who sincerely seek truth, and thus, are not afraid to discriminate true from false.

Excellent; Arguments -- now we can begin.

1. Argument.

The question is, "Does something exist, if we don't look at it?"

The position you take is generally called "Subjective Idealism," in the style of George Berkeley, which Berkeley (in California) was named after. I recently read something (can't remember what) that indicated that George Berkeley did not actually argue for the position of Subjective Idealism -- and the quotes indicating so were just interpreted out of context -- but no matter.

The problem with the belief that things only exist if we perceive them, is that it is essentially solipsist. Other people, cats, dogs, -- none of them exist, actually. You are left in a universe of your own imagining, and all talk of "love" is just so much self-pleasuring. One cannot ever really connect with an other, because there is no other.

There are other very good arguments against solipsism, but I find that it is the negation of Love that is the most severe.

Another huge problem with subjective idealism is the irreverence towards reality that it produces, and the air of irreality that it aims for. The idea that scientists are creating scientific reality, rather than discovering it -- that DNA popped into existence when Francis Crick and so on were researching it -- that ancient trees produce tree rings as the theory of tree formation is formed -- what of evidence, then? With what are we making our theories? I find it basically childish, and rather than empowering, I find it dis-empowering: We lose our identities, which are made of all the things we have ever discovered.

It is like the people who think we can change the past with our thoughts -- how many people do they slaughter and deny resurrection, with their edits to the Book of Life? Are you real or not? If you are real, be real, and grant others reality. But if you deny others reality, than you undermine your own reality.

You may find some small power at calling all around you illusion, but you will find yourself filled with a negative emptiness by the same token; A people can only celebrate meaninglessness for only so long.

2. Quantum Mechanics

"After all, we are physical bodies, but matter perceives. This is the important insight that I see quantum theory expressing, not fantastic confabulations about exactly how our observation "collapses" reality, but the inescapable fact, under no matter which interpretation, that the electron responds to us too; that this subatomic energy is sensitive, sentient, alive. And if matter does not perceive, then how come we do?"

My own argument, and my own words -- at least, the first and last sentences: "After all, we are physical bodies, but matter perceives... If matter does not perceive, then how come we do?"

I have stated just this, many times over.

However, the center of this argument is completely lacking --

Where, exactly, does Quantum Theory express this? Because what I see, is a lot of statistics, and modeling, and orbital diagrams, and Feynman charts, and so on.

Of course, the electron responds to experimental setup, but so does the billiard ball.

Part from this unsubstantiated idea, -- or at least speak it as speculation. If you have some reason to think it is so, state it. If it is just an assumption of yours, state it as an assumption. There is no shame in that, but there is shame in stating assumption as fact.