Christian Perspectives on Peak Oil

btu2012 · Last edited by btu2012 on Fri May 16, 2008 1:25 pm; edited 1 time in total

Definitely. I just wanted to point out that the issue of how to validate truth is very subtle and endlessly debated in philosophy.

One reason why "proofs" of God's existence or nonexistence aren't taken seriously by most philosophers.

The accent on the result in practice is another such principle, known as pragmatism (see W. James Smile

Btu
_________________
only the paranoid survive

greenworm · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jan 27, 2006 Posts: 1342

btu2012

But you do agree that this is only your personal conclusion, i.e. you could not prove to anyone that this conclusion is necessary. So from this mass of reported experiences etc one cannot positively conclude either way.

In other words it is an undecided question (not necessarily undecidable, but undecided by the evidence at hand).

If so, it follows that a purely rational person (of pretty much any philosophical orientation) will conclude that the answer is not known (it might be knowable in principle, but that's another question).

Thus someone who draws a conclusion either way does so not out of pure logic but by involving some non-logical element (what works for him, what makes him feel better, what seems more likely to him etc). Two otherwise equally reasonable and intelligent individuals could make different choices of what to believe in this regard, while others will avoid to believe either way.

The result of this process is the famous split theism/agnosticism/atheism into 3 camps who incessantly debate and sometimes fight and insult each other, without having any rational basis for doing so. Smile

In some countries the atheists even killed the theists, see the history of communism.

Btu
_________________
only the paranoid survive

greenworm · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jan 27, 2006 Posts: 1342

threadbear · Expert Joined: Jan 22, 2005 Posts: 7237

Greenhorn, I thought you might enjoy Arthur Young, the inventor of the helicopter:

"But there is another aspect of the quantum of action that confirms its correlation to purpose or intention. That is uncertainty, and it is difficult to conceptualize. It was Werner Heisenberg who, in 1925, 25 years after the quantum of action was discovered, realized that when we try to locate an electron we must throw light on it, and that disturbs either its position or its momentum. If we use short-wave light to get the position accurately, the large energy of the light disturbs the velocity; if we use long-wave light of low energy we get a less accurate estimate of position. The product of these two inaccuracies or errors is a unit of uncertainty, and this unit has the same formulation, MV times L, as Planck's quantum of action.

Take your time to consider this enigma; it took science quite a while to get used to it. But save some time for going the next step: to realize that this uncertainty, which is the inability of the observer to predict what is going to happen, is the freedom of what is observed to initiate a new action. Thus the uncertainty of the quantum of action is, or if you prefer, allows, purpose. It is analogous to the blank line on a check where you write in the amount.

Here we must answer the criticism of biologists and philosophers such as C.H. Waddington and Ernst Cassirer, who have insisted that the amount of energy in the quantum of energy is "too small to lift your little finger." This criticism is a failure to appreciate that all design engineering is based on the use of trigger energy. A machine would be useless if it took as much energy to control as the machine itself provides. That trigger energy can be made arbitrarily small, as in the case of the photoelectric cell that opens the supermarket door.

All living organisms are elaborate hierarchies: muscles controlled by nerves; nerves by chemical bonds; chemical bonds by photons, quanta of action. The principle of trigger energy thus removes the objection that the energy involved in the uncertainty principle is too small to account for free will. As we shall see, the small energy, with its long period, is a necessary condition for the life process to begin."

http://www.arthuryoung.com/sci-spir.html

btu2012 · Last edited by btu2012 on Fri May 16, 2008 1:59 pm; edited 2 times in total

threadbear · Expert Joined: Jan 22, 2005 Posts: 7237

Gandalf_the_White · Intermediate Crude Joined: Nov 21, 2007 Posts: 511

threadbear · Expert Joined: Jan 22, 2005 Posts: 7237

greenworm · Light Sweet Crude Joined: Jan 27, 2006 Posts: 1342

btu2012

So what do you make of the mystic experiences reported by monks of all religions ?

They are not on drugs, you know.

What's your explanation of that ?

Btu
_________________
only the paranoid survive