[FoRK] Poll: I would rather my daughter married a Muslim than an Atheist

Lion Kimbro <lionkimbro at gmail.com> on Fri Jun 22 11:20:58 PDT 2007

On 6/22/07, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Lion Kimbro wrote:
>
> >  Science is not a rock for finding answers to a lot of the
> >  questions that perplex us.
>
> The scientific method --- or more generally, rationalism --- is the
> only rock for finding answers to any question that has an objective
> answer or requires agreement among individuals.
>
> For all other questions, you're on your own.
>
> jb

  Somewhat agreed:

  Science gives us the best rock solid ground for
  questions that require an objective answer.

  Science gives us the best rock solid ground for
  questions that require agreement amongst individuals?

  I'm not so sure of that--  I watch my daughter choose
  "what to play" with other kids, and it seems to be a pretty
  damn chaotic and creative process.  It could easily go in
  any number of directions.

  Just as people can come up with creative ideas on their own,
  they also come up with creative ideas, together.


  I think there's a big split in how much importance we
  assign to the questions that do not have objective answers.

  This goes back to the "heavy-weight" - "light-weight" distinction.

  The FoRK-mind seems to take comfort in the rigidity, solidity,
  objectiveness of science.  Quite right and proper.  But I think
  y'all get lazy in your thinking, and think that science can answer
  "most everything important."

  Quite the contrary.  While science is definitely something I
  like and support, it does not answer the important or hard
  or meaningful questions of our lives.

  We are, for the most part, "On our own," in that respect.

  That said, I think there's more to it than that.

  I think people get inspired by dreams, imaginations, visions,
  (and I am not talking significantly about super-natural dreams
  and visions here-- the vision of going to space, the vision of
  transhumanist uploading, the vision of living in a cyberspace,
  the vision of living in huts in a forest, the vision of having a
  large family, an architectural vision, and so on) -- and they
  tend to seek out people with similar vision, and so on.  And
  people architect guiding principles ("gods") and systems of
  shortcutting heuristics, and so on, into their works.

  I think that the motions of history are largely the motions of
  the dreams.  While there are perhaps (and I think "likely")
  hard tendencies towards greater technological power and
  so on, how it actually plays out is an exercise in creative
  construction of signs and symbols and things and artifacts
  and so on.

  So, I'm a "heavy-weight," in that respect, and I don't think
  that "just obey science" gives us any real insight into
  behavior and direction.  "Just be rational" isn't going to do
  much of anything.

More information about the FoRK mailing list