I (HEART) science

You know, there's always been one thing that really bothers me. Why can't people accept evolution and natural selection? From the very beginning, the thinking world has been split between Darwinism and The Unexplainable-popping-out-of-the-Earth Theory.

I've began taking sides in my arguments not long ago, because, out of the 30-odd posts I have here and the 50-odd posts in my non online blog(a.k.a. diary), I've come to terms with the fact that fact is factual, as a matter of fact. Science has proven itself time and time again to be the superior tool of learning.

But then all of a sudden, I was faced with a man who I consider to be my spiritual adviser(since I have no knowledge and absolutely detest that field) handing me facts in the form of layman terms. So what I was seeing is, the same principles of physics and chemistry but spoken without using a single scientific term!

It hit me in that instant that science isn't an absolute truth. It is a WAY of explaining the universe using TERMS that humans can relate too. It's good in a way. This way people get a uniform understanding of the universe, without confusing a metre for a foot, and such other problems.

^{A metre is the S.I. unit for length. But what it really is is the distance traveled by light in
an absolute vacuum in
precisely 1}⁄_299,792,458 of a second.

Without humans, there isn't much need for a metre is there? I don't think zebras and leprechauns are going to be measuring that much. But because we're all a little curious and sometimes actually need something measured, we just pull things out of the air and coin terms like 'metre' or 'second'.

Non scientific explanations of the universe on the other hand are vague and often contain hidden messages. Take for instance the creation of the Earth(or was it the universe?) in seven days. When I ask believers of this statement, they say it wasn't meant to the same lenght of time as a day is today. So technically not the '24' day, but the length of time a day used to be before we came along and labelled it '24' hours long. I get it.

But this just makes non-scientific methods of learning vague, and thus all the misinterpretations. To me, that just reaffirms my belief that science is a better tool of learning. You get the facts delivered to you the best, and most standardized way possible. Its a little more difficult than reading a book that explains things in laymans terms, but there won't be much room for misinterpretation.

A lot of people tell me (in an indirect way) that trying to explain the beginnings of the universe and disprove religious beliefs is very bad thing to do. And I might end up in hell if I do. Here is my reply, most parts quoted off Lyell:

Never has there been a dogma so calculated to foster indolence and blunt the sharp edge of curiosity!



Forget it, I'm still booked for Hell ain't I?
After all, God is Great. He'll give you life and joy and all that. All he asks in return is that you follow all his little rules. Otherwise, He'll send you to a place where you'll burn forever. And when the skin is burnt off your bones, a new layer will replace it to be burnt again and again.

But remember, He loves you!
(Special thanks to Gurdave for that bit of knowledge)

Found.

We've been lied to, no hoax.
Maybe for a good reason. But, either way, we've been lied to.

After discussing Illiad and its contents, Socrates and his pals begin questioning the truth behind Homers story.
They came to the conclusion that God is perfectly simple and true both in word and deed, he changes not; he deceives not' either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision.

Homer said something contradictory. Here is a paragraph that Socrates believes contains a false message:

Thetis says that Apollo at her nuptials..
...was celebrating in song her fair progeny whose days were to be long, and to know no sickness. And when he had spoken of my lot as in all things blessed of heaven he raised a note of triumph and cheered my soul. And I thought that the word of Phoebus, being divine and full of prophecy, would not fail. And now he himself who uttered the stain, he who was present at the banquet, and who said this-he it is who has slain my son.

Also, they disagree that Zeus would send a lying dream to Agememnon.


They later agreed that verses that contradict what was established as an inconvenient truth should be abolished. This is especially true in the case of hiding the truth of death from man to improve his worth on the battle field.

Although the aim of Socrates was to make sure the next generation of Greeks come out a little closer to perfection, he intended to make everyone believe that the old truth is a lie. (isn't that what I'm trying to do?)

Here are some verses intended by Socrates to be ignored by future Greeks to remove their fear of death:

I would rather be serf on the land of a poor and portionless man than to rule over all the dead who have come to naught.
-Odyssey

Lest the mansions grim and squalid which the Gods abhor should be seen both of mortals and immortals
-Illiad

O heavens! verily in the house of Hades there is soul and ghostly form but no mind at all!
-Illiad

These verses used to make people believe the after life was bad, thus, people lived in dread.

After the verses were removed, hypothesized Socrates, people would no longer fear death, instead embrace it.

I am a great admirer of Socrates. This piece of text just showed me a little bit more of the social structure man has kept going all these long years.

Now, was Socrates in the wrong for what he intended to do?

If he sat back and do nothing with the knowledge that he had the power to make a generation of Greeks have no fear of death, that would make him a useless git.

If he removed these texts, he'd change Homers original message(s) of the after life and blind an entire generation of Greeks.

Dilemma of dilemmas.

Losing it.

I am a firm believer of secular ethics. I cannot ever say for sure if secular ethics is less fictitious than religion based ethics, but I find it much easier to believe.

It's forgivable that in the old days amazing unbelievable tales were spun with moral values to guide the people. In those days, people didn't know why the sun rose in the East and set in the West. They didn't know the sky was just gas and vapor.

NOW that we do know what these things are, I think it's time to stop believing in fairy tales and face the truth. I'm going to refer to a Star Trek story once again (before, from another blog of mine).

This story is about a space probe, which had only one task : collect information.

After it wore out, humans discarded it into deep space.

Aliens found the probe and decided to repair and reshape it.

This resurrected the probe, this time with a sentient mind.

But it was still a space probe, with the main objective of gathering data.

So, when it stumbled upon the humans traveling through deep space, it began analyzing them.

After a while, the humans realized it was sentient and began talking to it.

When they realized it was an old space probe, they told it that humans created it.

The space probe went mad.

So you see, I think the reason why we'll never find absolute truth is because we're searching for something we think we understand. And maybe we've already found our creator but cannot rationalize because that's not the image of God we have in our minds.

Like if I told you the Hydrogen atom is God. You would never believe me.

But every chemical can trace it's origins back to Hydrogen.

That makes every single thing around you, essentially Hydrogen in different forms.

Or what if I told you energy is God, since it cannot be created or destroyed?

Maybe the number 0 is God, because 0 divided, multiplied, added, subtracted with any number is equal to itself.

If I told you the Universe was God because it is naturally intelligent, like how all animals have adapted naturally.

None of these things may seem like God, because most people picture a great MAN in his place.
Because most say God shaped man in his image.

You have to remember, a man who has never seen God wrote that.

All in all. I think I'm comfortable just trying to understand all versions of everything without being biased.

Everyone thinks I'm a man of science just because I believe in science.

I believe in nothing.

Except secular ethics.

Science is just the best way to explain things.

Because a Hydrogen atom, if humans didn't name it would have no name.

Everything in the Universe, if left unnamed by humans, would have no name.

Carbon, wood, bear.

Everything, nameless before we came about.

Could it be, that we are shaping the Universe in our image?

Are we important? My little social experiment

Now this is an issue to address.
There's two general ways to look at it.

If we were created, we should be significant. Otherwise, our lives would be meaningless and unimportant.

Or

If we are Godless, then we were NOT created, and therefore have no important role in the universe.

Perhaps, out of necessity, we invented, or searched for self importance by inventing Gods. Pardon the un-holiness in this question :

Did we create God, to make it seem like He created us?

We all think there should be a beginning of time, and an end of time.
But when I went about telling people the world is going to end in 2012 as part of my social experiment, everyone thought I was crazy. When I questioned further, most said there was DEFINITELY and an end to all things, but it just isn't gonna be anytime soon.

That's just natural. The ONE thing that all living things share is the need to survive. In nature, there are no martyrs. In movies, in stories, sometimes even from misplaced feelings of self righteousness, there are martyrs. But not in nature. If it wasn't for civilization, martyrs would be non existant.

Back to the main topic.

Humans need to feel significant. Our minds are too complex. We keep trying to understand, to complicate, to bring significance to everything. So when we asked ourselves who we were, we got scared. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? No one knows. I don't know. I wasn't there.

So we wrote books, made stories, dictated laws. Some called these 'holy scriptures' and made them above every other law.
The true essence of these are good. You see, people may or may not have souls. But we undeniably have conscientiousness. Whether the conscientiousness of man came from evolution of the mind, or from the soul is unclear. But, in any case, the conscience is like a canvas that cannot be tainted. No matter what the person encounters or does, the conscience will not be changed. It will always know what the right thing to do is. The pure thing to do.


So, these religious texts were written based on the pure conscience laws. To help people remember a good from a bad decision. I have no love for things like these. Because humans also misinterpret(like me) things. So I'll just sit back.

In any case, we also needed to know why, of all things in nature, WE were chosen to bear the gift(or curse) of knowledge. Why we were the only things that knew how to differentiate 'good' from 'bad'. And so, we just MAY have had invented God, to help ourselves feel important. Which I feel is very selfish. I'd rather be unimportant and honest than important and selfish.

Justice, and the rest

"...then in what sort of partnership is the just man a better partner than the harp-player, as in playing the harp the harp-player is certainly a better partner than the just man?

In a money partnership

Yes, but surely not in the use of money; for you do not want a just man to be your counselor in the purchase or sale of a horse; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not?

Certainly.

And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot would be better?

True

Then what is the joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred?

When you want a deposit to be kept safely.

You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie?

Precisely.

That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless.

That, is the inference."

That conversation was from The Republic I, between Socrates and his friends.

I guess it would have been cool to be Greek. They aren't distracted from trying to define things.
Except when it comes to their Gods and stuff.

Socrates was a genius. In every sense of the word. A lot of the Greeks were smart, but this guy was just, WOW.

Back to the topic of Justice.

From what I understand, justice can be said to be useful when money is useless.
But that's just one point of view.
Since nothing is true, and everything is permitted, I shall try to understand a few other definitions.

If you were told that life is fair, you would most definitely look to the law and justice.
Because, logically speaking, you break the rules, you pay the price.

Let's break down the logic, just as Socrates and his friends did.
Two people, in a setting
person A and person B

Person A is a man of peace. Living his life without harming others. Presumably, person A is pious, and fully believes that life is fair, as in, do good, and good will be done unto you. As they With What Measure Ye Mete, It Shall Be Measured To You.
One day, Person B kills Person A's loved one(presumably unintended murder, Person B just wanted the cash).

Person B needs to be punish on the basis that murder is both a sin, and more importantly, against the law?



True


Person A lost a loved one, even though it was not his fault.

Presumably true. (not considering the butterfly effect,karma relating to past life, etc)

Person A is left without a loved one, and without compensation.

True

Without compensation, especially true, if the law was non-existent.

Also true.

So, in a way, the law serves as a form of compensation to Person A. Because without the law, or JUSTICE, Person A would have no compensation, since it is presumed that Person A would not harm Person B.

True.

1st conclusion, justice is a form of compensation to the powerless law abiding citizens.

That is inferred.

*************************************************************

Previously, I stated that the law was not born of a greater knowledge of what's right and what's wrong, but out of necessity.

That necessity is what we call 'the system'.

Saying the system works, or doesn't work is way too much.

It works because I get to use the internet on a PC(which works in ways I cannot yet understand).

Yet, I can also claim the system doesn't work because parts of Africa can't get a stable government.

The system, in itself is completely necessary, or has made itself so, through the ages of man.

From what I can understand, the system is a complex organization of individuals, groups, and companies that are unaware of how what they do or say effect the nature of man.

In other words, because there are 6 billion humans on the planet, and we're all part of one big society(unlike animals,that are unaware of the presence of their own species on the other side of the earth.), we don't really understand the importance of understanding.

I'm sick of analogies and misinterpreted definitions.

This post was long, and I hope it'll be enough to last whoever reads this crap to last you till my next.

Good bye.

An open mind or a fixed one

"...a human being is most dangerous when he is certain what he knows is the truth"

I don't know if that was the exact words he used, and I don't know why I never thought of those words myself.

Look at it.

Don't we all get a bit hostile when someone questions our beliefs?
We become more...dangerous.
Because of how sure we are that WE are right, and everything else is bullshit.
Meaning, technically, that people fixed in they're beliefs are more hostile.
(I can already feel the hate and and hostility of some of the people reading this)

So, what now?

Have an open mind?
Be unadamant in what you believe in?

"an open mind is like a fortress, with its gates unbarred and unguarded"

It just makes you more corruptable.

And that is why I always say...
"nothing is true and everything is permitted"


Because instead of fixing yourself to an absolute truth or absorbing and accepting everything I read/experience/watch, I learn.

And I learn many takes on life.

I learn why the scientist says God is a myth.
And why the priest says evolution is a myth.
And why the spiritual leader says "peace in all things"

and everything in between yes and no.

I have no belief other than that saying.

But believing in that saying is self contradictory.

Like telling a genie that you wish he would not grant you this wish.

The genie must obey and grant you your wish, but that would mean not granting the wish.

Confusing, I know.

But I am willing to sacrifice any peace of mind.
Willing to believe in nothing.
As long as I keep learning.

None of my posts should influence anyone.
I wish for everyone to just remain fixed in their beliefs.
And they will be.
I am sure of it.

Over-generalising people

We are aren't we?
It's not entirely our fault.

There are 6 billion different minds on this earth.
And because we CAN categorize, we DO categorize.

It's so much easier, isn't it.
To have yes-people and no-people.

Rather than reading through countless opinions,
Some similar to others, but never quite the same.

Stereotyping people is bad.
But necessary.

I mean, I wouldn't want to be in the same category as a grave robber.
But because we both don't believe in eternal damnation, I guess you bundle us up.

I've got to conclude this argument fast because I can't be seen on this PC in 5 minutes.

People shouldn't be over simplified.
Look at yourself, look at how complicated you are, now imagine 6 BILLION other people and their complicated selves, if that doesn't help, count 1 to 1 billion and times that by 6.

Remember, there is no absolute truth.
Not even the truth on this website.
The only truth to be had, is personal truth.
Which we can absorb from Holy scriptures, works of literature, scientific studies, etc.
But that doesn't make it true does it?
Just because evidence from one source can disprove evidence from another.