h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think that's a sensible way of looking at things. The problem is when we start thinking our beliefs are TRUE instead of just probable.

All seems sensible, guys.

Ain't it nice to see two bad plays-on-words getting along so nicely I mean: "Wile E. Quixote" and "IdleVice" - what excellent nicknames!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

How is 'Idlevice' a play on words? Its an alternate spelling of an anti-hitler youth resistance group (the Eiddelweiss Pirates)...

"Idle-Vice" has delicious overtones of decadence and debauchery , while the edelweiss is a pretty white (= innocence) white flower that grows in the Alps. Maybe it's just me and my mind...?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Thanks pattern-chaser. Any significance behind your name?

Hi Wile E!

Yes, my nickname means more or less what you might think. I ramble on about it on my home page, if you want details.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

What happened to all the debate? I suppose at nearly 7000 posts it's only natural for the conversation to dry up. Is there anyone here who's been around since post 1?

Anyway, moving away from religion, what do you think are the key beliefs in the secular world?

Hello, Wile E.

The debate around here ebbs and flows, more than actually drying up. Several of us regulars, including Pattern-chaser, have been around since well before post #1



Key beliefs in the secular world, eh? Good topic. I see a tension in the secular world between those who believe that there is a Good that is distinct from simple self-interest, and... those who don't. That's only coming at it from one little perspective though; there are a lot of beliefs out there...



GTBacchus

Hi Wile E!

Hi GTB!

Key beliefs in the secular world? Well in 'The West', science is the most visible belief system around. Some even try to live their lives based on it, with only minimal input from other belief systems. I call them 'science-ists', although they have a host of names for themselves, containing words like 'rational', 'logical', and so on.

I have a lot of time for science, which has done a superb job of delivering a detailed and useful map of the real world for us to use. And it works well most of the time. What more could one ask?

Consequently, I'm afraid I'm impatient with those who devalue the amazing achievements of science by trying to use it to 'prove' that there is a real world, and that it has attributes explained or defined by science. The latter is as unknown and unknowable as whether or not God exists ... and as worthwhile to investigate.

I have little time for those 'science-ists' who focus only on science, just as I have little time for religious fundamentalists or holy-book-literalists, and for much the same reasons. It is my belief that dogmatists' beliefs are not wrong, but incomplete.

But now I'm rambling way beyond the frame of your question, Wile E, so I'll stop now.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

You better be careful what you say about science pc - that's heresy! People who BELIEVE in science are often shocked and highly offended when they find themselves compared to religious believers.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think that the lines between these are blurred in many cases. Much of the US’s foreign policy (spreading democracy, freedom etc) can be seen from both viewpoints, although admittedly, self-interest is the dominant force.

Perhaps another way of looking at it is that belief in a grater and separate morality is often used to justify self-interest, and to cast any dissent of this view as immoral.

Hi Wile.E

And welcome to the F4 thread. I am the proof that this is not only the watering hole of rationalists and 'men of science' .

Why are people of science shocked when compared to religious believers. if they examine the evidence rationally they will be forced to admit there are certain similarities.

As a druid, a natural philosopher by trade , I do not see that there has to be a strict divide between those that would say that without rational evidence all is fantasy and those who believe that there is still far more out there than we have the capability to measure or box.

I admit there are quite a few complete nutballs amongst those of a spiritual persuasion, as indeed there are amongst the scientific camp. But hey that's the fun of being imperfect beings.

Blessings,
Matholwch /|\

Hi, Wile E.


You said,"belief in a grater and separate morality is often used to justify self-interest, and to cast any dissent of this view as immoral."

Yeah. I like that you can read that statement as a social one, about how people in power use the language of morality to drum up support; or you could take it as a psychological statement, about how people talk themselves into doing things.


On the other hand, if one really believes that the greatest good to pursue really is self-interest, then all of this looks pretty different.

simulpost! Hi, Math


-GTB, complete nutball of mixed persuasion

Hey everyone. My quote for the day...

Quantum mechanics and relativity, taken together, are extraordinarily restrictive, and they therefore provide us with a great logical machine. We can explore with our minds any number of possible universes consisting of all kinds of mythical particles and interactions, but all except a very few can be rejected on a priori grounds because they are not simultaneously consistent with special relativity and quantum mechanics. Hopefully in the end we will find that only one theory is consistent with both and that theory will determine the nature of our particular universe.

- Steven Weinberg -

I think this quote sums up how I feel as well as any. P-C is right, in that nothing can be *proven*, as such, but I think science just rules certain things out. If some theory contradicts our scientific knowledge, it's probably wrong. The fact that there remains some doubt, is, in my opinion, no reason to take all ideas seriously.

Well, the last sentence of the quote isn't important to the point I was trying to make, but the important bit is that science gives us a good 'map', as P-C said. Maps which are totally different are probably wrong, IMHO, even if we can't prove beyond any doubt *whatsoever* that this is the case.

This seems to me almost like embracing a new interpretation, then framing it so that a return to the status quo is the only obvious option! Your reaction brings to (my) mind the phrase 'damage limitation'.

The main value in the viewpoint I am promoting, IMO, is the possibility of discovering something new and different. And to enable this possibility, all you need to do is to remember that anything which cannot be disproved (i.e. everything! ) MUST be possible (until or unless new evidence turns up). This is not wishful thinking or fairy tales, but a statement of hard, 'scientific', logical fact.

I find it sad that you wish to close down these possible avenues of discovery, P7. We don't have to admit - or event believe - that a bowl of petunias is about to materialise in the upper atmosphere. But it might open our eyes and our minds if we bear in mind that most things are possible, if not likely.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Check out:

Parallel Universes - The Fifth Dimension: A2262412

and

Parallel Universes - The Sixth Dimension: A2266148

They are incredibly interesting and I would love to believe that what they say is true.

<>

That's a pity. It goes quite wrll up until the second paragraph - "The fifth dimension is, of course, parallel existence. This is a widely accepted fact and no one disputes it..at least no one worth mentioning." - wherein the author trips over the fact that he doesn't understand how dimensions work. There may be parallel universes, but they aren't dimensions in this one. Any given dimension is at right angles to, but not parallel with, every other dimension (by definition). On the other hand, within this universe a lot of fun can be had with n-dimensional logical spaces.

Noggin