SCIENCE Is To RELIGION, As HYPOTHESIS Is To FAITH
Oct 15 '03
The Bottom Line Advantages: You get to test-drive the 95% of your brain you've been saving for a rainy day. // Disadvantages: Having to take responsibility for your own beliefs, ideas and actions.
.
**** *** ** WARNING ** *** ****
This op is EXTREMELY long-winded, convoluted, abstract, abstruse, lengthy, unamusing, pompous, arrogantly-communicated, abrasive, preoccupied with mundane subject matter, peppered with obnoxiously multisyllabic wording, offensive to religious people, offensive to scientific people, offensive to rational people, offensive to irrational people, irrational to offensive people, bandwidth-abusive and may even be dangerous to readers who are prone to narcolepsy.
• DO NOT attempt to read, unless located in a well-ventilated area.
• DO NOT attempt to drive or operate heavy machinery for at least 30 minutes after reading.
• DO NOT ingest alcohol, alcoholic beverages, depressants or narcotic medication for at least 1 HOUR prior to reading.
• DO NOT read if you are currently being treated for psychiatric disorders.
• DO NOT read if you are currently 3 or more months pregnant.
SUBJECT: 29TH'S CONSUMERLICIOUS ADVICE ON "CONTRIBUTING TO SCIENCE"
First, oh me Eepsters, what does Eeps mean by "SCIENCE?" I mean, c'mon-- This is a very broad and vaguely-worded topic description. ...Hey! Don't roll your eyes! While it may not inhibit YOU, I live in perpetual, knee-knocking terror of breaching my eepsterly duty of on-topicacity. Why, the mere prospect of unintentionally or accidentally falling from the lofty climes of on-topicacic grace and good-standing causes me to lie awake at night contemplating the significance of the pattern-generated phantasms I perceive in my stucco ceiling.
Providing "Member Advice On Contributing To Science" is actually a 2-step process. You must:
1) Contribute something to Science, and then,
2) Render an opinion on the experience.
Bet you didn't know that. ...Am I bowling you over with my helpfulness, or WHAT! [Go ahead... I don't mind waiting a sec while you copy this info into your Consumer Helpfulosity notebooks for future reference....
...Ready?]
~~~~~ PART I: MY CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE ~~~~~
YOU: "Alright 29th, stop shovelin' the sheep manure and show us the SCADS. What's the damn contribution gonna be already?!"
ME: "Chill, Eepster... Lean back, look forward and take a load off your lips (if to continue to remain on live, thou dost wish.")
AWWWW... POOR SCIENCE HAS LOST ITS WAY
MY CONTRIBUTION TO SCIENCE is to make it useful and beneficial again. I'm going to help Science find its way back home. Science has lost its soul; become disconnected from its spiritual/mystic roots and in the process, become a liability to progress. --Using just one (1) Eeps review, I'm going to put the Cartesian ghost back into the machine. Hmmmm... I notice you're looking a bit confused. Those of you who don't look confused look dubious as to the veracity of my tall claim. Those of you who don't look confused or dubious, look like you feel certain I've gone off my rocker. Allow me to explain a bit further, please...
THE BRAIN AS A MODEL OF THE INTEGRATION OF SCIENCE AND MYSTICISM
I'm going to ask you to kick on your Right Brains for a few minutes. That okay with you? If the answer is "yes," acknowledge by continuing to read.
Awwww... you're the best! ...I'll take that as a "yes."
I'm a logical, analytical (left-brain oriented) person, but I'm even more of an intuitive, artistic (right-brain dominant) person (and an incredibly modest chap, but we won't get into that right now.) These two dominant aspects of my thinking used to have me at odds with myself over which mental direction to go in; which to rely upon, during moments when my logical and intuitive demons provided me with different approaches to the same problems.
CALL ME THE "NEGOTIATOR OF NOW."
At some point, I realized these two helpful demons shouldn't be at odds; that they had a complementary relationship, not an antagonistic one. It took a conscious effort of will on my part to set them straight; divide up their respective "mental" territories so as to strike a harmonic balance between them that uses each of their strengths to compensate each others' weaknesses. My artistic, creative demon (let's call him "RB," for "Right Brain"), being the resident expert on all "visionary," forward-looking matters, would process the Future. "LB" (my logical, analytical demon), the expert on all solid, pre-existing and "5 Senses" quantifiable matters, would process the Past. What about the Present you say? The Present is just a label for the perpetual flux of consciousness that occurs at the point where the Future and the Past overlap (technically, in the frontal lobe, but let's keep it simple.) The temporal fiction we call "Time" (which is really nothin' but a whole bunch of "ever-present now" broken down into digestible portions for your organizing convenience) and Music are the brain-children of RB's and LB's collaborative efforts. The point: When these two antagonistic forces work together in a complementary manner, they yield some very useful, progressive things.
• So What Does All This "Brain" B.S. Have To Do With Science, 29th? •
It's to demonstrate that we process "reality;" that which we perceive as the here and the now, from varying parts empirical or "a posteriori" knowledge (i.e., the knowledge we derive from direct experience [via our 5 physical senses]) and intuitive or "a priori" knowledge (i.e., the knowledge we derive "from within" or independent of sense experience.) Science, though scientists would probably want to brain me for saying so, is the ART of the accumulation and systematization of empirical data. It is as much a product of the mystical, faith-based, "a priori" intuitive knowledge we process in our right brain hemisphere, as it is a product of the empirical, experience-based knowledge we process in our left brain hemisphere.
"SHE BLINDED ME WITH SCIENCE..."
Nonetheless, the modern day Science with which I'm familiar takes an arrogant pride in its purported objectivity and rationality. It bristles at any mention of mysticism or "leaps of faith, yet it depends entirely for its existence ON those very "leaps of faith" at which it scoffs. In fact, the very "Scientific Method" from which it derives its puffed-up aura of objective reliability and infallibility, is based on an initial leap of faith called the "hypothesis." Without the inspired, creative, imaginative, intuitive guess-work of mankind's most intuitively-gifted, educated mystics, Science would not exist. Yet in its ignorant and egotistical attempt to discredit anything that can not be "empirically"-confirmed and "objectively"-verified by the almighty scientific method, Science has become the religion of the spiritually-challenged. Without spirituality, Science is just a gadget-littered shortcut to Armageddon.
The rationality-handicapped people of Science who refuse to acknowledge the possible existence of any phenomena they can't reduce to an equation or synthesize to a formula are as damning an obstacle to mankind's forward progress as the superstition-ruled medicine men and medieval barbers were to the forward progress of their respective eras; their ignorance has merely switched brain hemispheric orientations. The problem is, our latter-day, left brain-oriented "scientific" medieval barbers have much bigger, much more destructive technological toys with which to enforce their ignorance. Their ill-advised attempt to use modern technology as both Science AND Religion has effectively precluded its utility in either capacity.
RENDER THEREFORE UNTO SCIENCE, THE THINGS WHICH ARE SCIENCE'S...
I'm a spiritual person, but not a religious one. I consider myself a rational person too, but I'm not married to my rationality. (Now there's a newsflash, eh?) I don't have any issues with either scientists or religious worshippers; "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s" (Matthew 22:15-22). However, as Jesus demonstrated to the Roman soldiers who had elicited this response from him, it's a very tricky little line. It requires that you look deeper into "who" owns "what" before you attempt to do any "rendering." Extremists on either side of the science/religion dichotomy miss the wisdom of this quote. Scientists who fail to render that aspect of Science which defies rational explanation or empirical proof to the possibility of the existence of something greater than Science; who refuse to recognize the inevitable and ultimate failure of the finite, physical senses to palpate universal truths or to grasp the more abstruse mysteries of existence, have as little claim to enlightenment as the religious extremists and zealots who claim to believe in an infinite God, yet who insist on defining and representing that God in their own finite terms and flawed images.
*** IF OFFENSIVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT RELIGION OFFEND YOU, READ NO FURTHER, PLEASE... *** [Thank you for reading this far. Please help yourself to the coffee and refreshments in the waiting room as you make your way to the exit link. ]
THE BENEFITS OF RECOGNIZING LIMITATIONS: (BEING ABLE TO EXCEED THEM)
Recognizing the limitations of Science helps me to appreciate the likelihood of something greater than myself and the necessity of keeping my mind open to the possibility of phenomena that defies rational explanation. Recognizing the limitations of organized religion helps me to appreciate the necessity of rational, empirical analysis and of maintaining a healthy dose of skepticism for dogmatic institutions. The solutions to life's "insoluble" problems exist at a personal level; in the "subjective" universe between our ears; the one through which we take in the objective universe just beyond them. Discovering those solutions requires the rationality and objectivity of the scientific method, but it also requires a willingness to make leaps of faith and the ability to keep an open mind to the potential viability of phenomena our physical senses and our scientific data seem to assert is silly or impossible, yet which nonetheless, cannot be effectively proved or disproved.
For a person who is unable to believe in the possibility of something greater than him or herself, I can't imagine existence being any more fruitful or rewarding than spending all of one's life trapped on a progressively-slowing, inevitably-stopping treadmill. I've witnessed miracles that (for me) not only confirm the existence of something that exceeds the ability of my 5 senses to perceive, but which I feel certain would have eluded me had I not at least been open to the possibility that they COULD happen. The odd twist is, I believe the rigid, mindless adherence to religious dogma throws out the spiritual baby with the religious bath water just as surely as atheism does. The latter just seems less hypocritical about the way it goes about doing it. When I got booted out of parochial school in 9th grade, after 3/4 of a year of near-violent and violent "debates" with dogmatic clergy-member teachers who were unwilling to even entertain extended "what if?" metaphysical discussions that exceeded the purview of their indoctrinated beliefs, I had a pretty good idea of where spiritual salvation did NOT lie. The Church had all the right answers already, but I was in search of an institution that hadn't yet discovered them. Asking the questions is important-- ...we'll ALL have the answers soon enough.
DOES THE INABILITY TO PROVE SOMETHING RENDER IT INVALID?
If you can't completely disprove something; eliminate every shred of lingering doubt, then logically-speaking, you MUST remain open to the possibility of its viability or existence. Whatever that "it" is, if you have too many pre-judgments or preconceived notions about it, you'll fail to recognize it when it arrives (or if it's already there) because you're too preoccupied with your own misleading preconceptions about it, to see it for whatever it actually is. The Church seems to me to be steeped in too many rigid, intransigent, preconceived notions that stifle its spirituality. I believe having the wrong answer is worse than having no answer at all. The former counters forward progress. It can never hurt to remain open to unknown possibilities. What if God ISN'T some ancient dude in a toga with a long, white beard who gets jealous and has a bad temper? I'm sorry, but I'm reluctant to envision a God who readily tramples on at least two of the "Seven Deadlies" (i.e., "covetousness" and "ire") he proclaims are so deadly. Ultimately, I consider myself a Christian because I'm still willing to make a leap of faith; acknowledge the possibility of a greater force or presence DESPITE the oppressive, anti-religious influence the Church has had on me.
~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ CONCLUSION: ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Whether you worship God, Science, consumer goods or yourself, if you can't disprove some seemingly unlikely phenomenon, it is patently illogical to discount it. Surely the odds of being abducted and turned into a cyborg sex slave by shape-shifting extraterrestrials or of walking through the forest and stumbling upon a Yetti giving birth to Elvis's baby are substantially less astronomical than the odds of the Chicago Cubs advancing to a World Series, yet look what has almost happened this year! I'll bet there are whole neighborhoods of Cubby fans dusting off their Bibles and rediscovering their lost religious faith in anticipation of the "2nd coming" (i.e., of the World Series to Wrigley Field. [Okay, so maybe it's the 3rd or 4th, but how funny would that have been?]) Neither Science nor religion hold all the answers, yet both seem quick to discount the possibility and/or viability of the innumerable examples of unexplained/unexplainable mysteries and potentially-unrevealed truths that fall outside the purview of their jealously-defended rituals and narrowly-construed dogma, or which they perceive as potentially conflicting with their own inflexible set of core beliefs.
• WHAT TO DO? •
So how does one avoid ending up like the helpless Oreo cream-filling wedged between the two monolithic-cookie outer wafers of Religion and Science?
Use Religion and Science as truth-seeking tools to the extent they serve you, but don't allow the dogma espoused by either one to let either become your truth replacements. [Be sure not to mention this strategy to extremists on either side.] Every one of us has it within him/herself to be a universal antenna through which truth flows, but this requires an open, unassuming mind and the faithful realization that the truth, whatever it might be, is never hidden or unattainable. It eludes us only to the extent that we hold some preconceived notion as to what it's "supposed to" look like. In such a case, the truth becomes "invisible in plain sight" because "there are none so blind as those who will not see," if you catch my drift. The only other reason truth eludes people who seek it (as far as I can tell) is because they're afraid they might have to take responsibility for it; for the ugly, potentially burdensome revelations their search might yield. They're interested in discovering the truth, but only to the extent it maintains a pleasant, "no-strings-attached," benevolent appearance. If this describes you, then maybe you're better off clinging to whatever body of dogma you feel most comfortable blaming for failing to provide you with the answers you seek. Maybe you're not seeking any answers at all. Well, more power to you; you're probably much easier to satisfy than I. I guess that's what I get for preferring questions to answers, eh? Would somebody please whack me over the head?
In an infinite universe, numerical odds are meaningless; there's only "impossible" and "possible." If you can't prove something is impossible, it's possible. Is the possibility of the existence of something greater than we are; something that can't be perceived by our physical senses or quantified in scientific terms so far-fetched? What about "the truth?"
~~~ PART II: MY "CONTRIBUTING TO SCIENCE" OPINION & ADVICE ~~~
Having completed my earth-shatteringly consequential "Contribution To Science" (see Part I above), I must, in order to complete this interminable monstrosity of wind tunnel-driven rhetoric, render my opinion of the experience for the benefit of the milling droves of consumers lining up to take their crack at "contributing to Science."
MY "CONTRIBUTING TO SCIENCE" OPINION:
Writing it was tedious. Reading it? Yeeeowww! I feel badly for the poor peops I subject to reading this. I'm afraid to read it over myself because I have too many important errands to run today and I don't have any stimulants around the house stronger than ginseng. I suspect the level of gratification one gains contributing to Science proportionately corresponds to the value and worthiness of the contribution. Bummer. That means my gratification level should fall somewhere between the thrill and high achievement attained by winning a hard-fought thumb-wrestle and the sense of fulfillment one experiences after perfectly centering a postage stamp on an outgoing letter.
MY "CONTRIBUTING TO SCIENCE" ADVICE:
Forget about generating any written contributions to Science. Really. Why not contribute something useful instead? (Too late for me.) It's much less painful donating a spleen or a kidney, or even squeezing out a pint of blood (though I would try extracting it with a hypodermic needle first.) If you're on the squeamish side, loan a scientist your calculator for a day, bang the dust out of his chalkboard erasers or buy him a new pocket pencil-holder. Next time, I'm going to discover what Science can contribute to me. So far, I'm not that impressed.
Truth Be With You...
--The 29th
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
29th_Candidate
|
 - Top 1000 |
|
Member: Jim Scileppi
Location: The 29th Congressional District, CA
Reviews written: 67
Trusted by: 516 members
About Me:
Consume THIS...
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.