A few quotes from a smart man

[fd ski]

Originally posted by funkedup


So I think being satisfied with not completely understanding the world is a pragmatic and wise choice.  A better choice than spending one's entire life in a state of dissatisfaction.

I agree. But why drag an "invisible man" into it ?

Nobody. He was always there, always will be. I can't prove it but I can choose to accept it and be satisfied with it.

Well, nobody created a Big Bang. It just was there.  I can't prove it but I can choose to accept it and be satisfied with it.

There are several logical theories according to which a universe could have existed that do not involve beginning or end or starting singularity.

But wouldn't that negate any notion of "god" ?

[funkedup]

I agree. But why drag an "invisible man" into it ?

I didn't.  No invisible man or God needs to be assumed for the statements I made in that post.

Well, nobody created a Big Bang. It just was there. I can't prove it but I can choose to accept it and be satisfied with it.

Not very scientific of you.  And you have contradicted your agreement with:  "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."  In any case you have a Constitutional right to believe whichever creation myth you wish.

There are several logical theories according to which a universe could have existed that do not involve beginning or end or starting singularity.

But wouldn't that negate any notion of "god" ?

No.  I just intended you to see the similarity between those theories and my statement about God.  Me saying the Creator of the Universe "was always there and will be there" is not inconsistent with a scientist saying the Universe "could exist without a beginning or an end".

[mrsid2]

The mistake you're making here is that you confuse intellect with faith. Even the top scientists may be religious simply because religion is a matter of psychology. Rationality plays no role in one's beliefs even if he is a nobel price winner.

We have to remember that there are also scientists who spend a 24/7 vacation in state asylum at the moment. Their wits didn't stop them from flipping out. Actually it's quite the opposite. It's been said that geniosity is half madness.

So it's quite possible that a rocket scientist may be strongly religious while he is trying to solve the big bang at the same time.

That, however, doesn't mean it would be any proof for the creationist people. It's just the faith of the certain scientist - and a proper loophole for him to explain the things he couldn't understand with his current knowledge of physics.

Afterall, we're all just human.

[midnight Target]

So I think being satisfied with not completely understanding the world is a pragmatic and wise choice. A better choice than spending one's entire life in a state of dissatisfaction.

I couldn't disagree more. This gives the impression of being smugly satisfied with your degree of knowledge.
Or maybe you just know there is a limit and you won't feel the need to move past it.

400 Years ago you could have made a strong case for never knowing the speed of light, or the nature of the stars. 100 years ago gravity was all wrapped up by Newton.......woops! The knowledge base of our species has continued to grow precisely because people have been dissatisfied. Dissatisfaction has been the blessing placed on all great contributors to science.

[Dinger]

that's amphibology in the notion of satisfaction.
Being satisfied with not being able to understand fully the universe doesn't mean being content not to investigate one's beliefs about the God and the universe.
Indeed, I'd say the first step towards a healthy critical attitude is to recognize one's fundamental incapacity to know it all.
"smug satisfaction" comes about when someone is under the illusion of being able to know everything.

[mrsid2]

Actually they stated some time in the 19th century that 'everything imaginable has now been invented' and scientists shouldn't waste their resources trying to invent anything new because it's simply not possible..

That was said officially by some administrative power, can't remember in which country and who it was.

LOL.

[midnight Target]

It was President McKinley's director of the Patent Office I believe.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by Dinger
that's amphibology in the notion of satisfaction.
Being satisfied with not being able to understand fully the universe doesn't mean being content not to investigate one's beliefs about the God and the universe.
Indeed, I'd say the first step towards a healthy critical attitude is to recognize one's fundamental incapacity to know it all.
"smug satisfaction" comes about when someone is under the illusion of being able to know everything.

Hmmmmm Amphibology? like:

"That was an example to us all!"

"You never cease to amaze us!!"

Amphibology is a "back handed compliment"

I think smug satisfaction is bad....agreed? What you have defined seems more like incredible conceit. I think smugness is based on thinking you already know, or that the rest is not worhy of your time.

Never be satisfied. I want with all my heart to fully understand the universe. I have a healthy understanding that this is likely impossible, however I will continue to learn. And I hope others will continue to be dissatisfied also and learn.

The envelope must always be pushed and philosophising about the unknowable is only good for exercising the brain muscle to learn more.

[funkedup]

Tah I don't see how you could read this:

Of course I think trying to answer those questions scientifically is a noble and cool thing. And like I said before it will almost certainly have materially useful side effects. So I'm all for it. I'm just not basing my satisfaction on it.

And reply to me like you did.

There is a big difference between realizing I can't know all the answers and not wanting to find those answers which can be known.

From your answers you must either be a scientist or a hypocrite.  

[Dinger]

Amphibology is a fallacy of equivocation, when a statement is made to mean two things.  So yeah, a "back-handed compliment" is an amphibology: it means both a compliment and an insult.  But all amphibologies are not back-handed compliments.  In this case "satisfaction" is taken to mean in one sense "incredible conceit in one's knowledge" (which I fail to see how it differs from what you claim smug satisfaction is) and in another "acknowledgment of one's ultimate incapacity to know everything."
The two senses are not identical, and recognition of this incapacity does not imply resignation.
Heck, the desire to know is so strong (Go ahead, pick up -- or download --a copy of Harry's Metaphysics.  The first line is one of the best in human literature) many Christian theologians (and it's the "party line" of the Catholic Church) posit the end of human existence -- what some call heaven -- to be the union of the human intellect with the divine essence, and the concomitant plenitude of knowledge.  That's right:  Heaven ain't about strumming the harp and endless church potlucks; it's attaining the fullest knowledge possible to a human being.  Far from condemning human inquiry into the world, religion is often its strongest supporter.
Not what you were led to believe, is it?

Dinger
(neither catholic nor a huge fan of dominican theology)