Hey Paul,

>Thanks for your reply. What I was meaning was that, on my understanding at
least, science, by virtue of coming out of human consciousness, cannot
provide a subjective feeling of meaning to anyone.

Science is a product of human consciousness, that makes some sense, but why
do you then go on to conclude that it cannot provide a subjective feeling of
meaning, science, the method is just that, and therefore, the idea that it
can provide, in itself meaning is to me putting the cart before the horse,
science, the method, is designed to allow a structured way of assimilating
knowledge and therefore meaning by providing a logical, repeatable,
falsifiable framework in which to do so, therefore I would argue that
science provides the BEST way of providing meaning, subjectively from
objective information.

>Science has to be amoral, and present bare facts - humans try to put a
meaning on their understnding, but in itself , no "fact" has a meaning
without becoming part of someone's understanding, which makes an impact upon
our awareness, which becomes subjective.

If I understand correctly you are saying that facts are subjectively
meaningless, however I think this could be a logical error, facts, as you
are say are just that, and we ascertain them (ideally) through the
scientific method.

A fact though can be anything, from gravity to a human thought, so it would
be wrong to assume that facts only exist outside of human consciousness, and
the human experience in general, being human is as much a fact as gravity,
and the mental processes that we have are as much a reality as everything
else (even if we have trouble understanding reality our mental process,
electrochemical impulses etc are very much reality).

You say that science is "amoral" on this I would dispute, science has to be
impartial, but science is by no means amoral, it is science that would
explain what would happen to me if I walked off the edge of a cliff, these
are facts, and facts can be very useful to a continued human existence, at
least for me should I be near any cliffs.

Therefore if facts (arrived through the scientific method or reason) have a
value, then they must have a moral implication, if you define moral as "the
ability to distinguish between right and wrong", after all without facts
determining morality is impossible.

In this I am making no distinction between facts as they exist in
contemporary science and in everyday life assuming rationalism is applied to
both. Therefore I would say that even subjective experience is scientific,
by which I mean it can be potentially understood by science and that to
assume otherwise is to abandon reason.

>>>> I don't think I need a religion to explain myself to me, but others
obviously do, so let them get on with it. I am not an atheist, but I
absolutely refute any idea of God which comes out of anyone else's mind. All
I do is take a few words, like Infinity, Eternity, Consciousness, and
examine what they could mean. Infinity, for example, means very simply,
without boundary or completion. Based upon that, I can at least see what
makes sense to me, and what does not. It is absolutely pointless to look for
answers, if one needs
them, outside of oneself, as for me, I am the answer. If I can understand
myself, then all questions disappear anyway.

So if I get this right you "take a few words..... and examine what they
mean" and then fail to make sense of them so you abandon reason because you
cannot understand the concepts? I think you have hit on an important point
here as to why there are not as many rationalist/atheist/scientist beliefs
in the general population.

I think this is perhaps a logical error that is very common. But this is
why I think that it is a logical error, you are taking 1.Concept, then
2.Attempting to assimilate it into your knowledgebase, 3.Failing to make
sense(understand) the concept, 4.Dismissing the concept as unassailable,
5.Deciding the whole thing is pointless and giving up, 6.Assume a lower
(former) level of understanding(sadly usually a skewed interpretation of
religious indoctrination from early schooling/social experience).

In doing this you are making a logical error, there are many times that I
myself have made it to number 4. then realised my own cognitive limitations,
however, and this is really important, rather than deciding that the whole
thing is pointless, my 5 would be something like "accept that the
information presented, appears to meet the criteria for reasoned scientific
understanding, that the concept has and continues to be debated and examined
in the light of scientific understanding(probably by people a lot more
clever and knowledgable than myself), and that the resultant product will be
(perhaps eventually) a unified theory.

While I may not understand it, I can at least accept it, safe in the
knowledge that while the concept itself may have eclipsed my own abilities,
the process involved by other learned individuals allowed them to formulate
their conclusions with the best application of science and understanding. I
will point out that this is not a reliance on faith, but a reliance on the
scientific method in action.

To give an example of what, this lengthy waffle is trying to communicate I
will give the example of gravity. 1. I examine the concept of gravity 2. I
attempt to understand it, and while I have some understanding of the
theoretical concepts involved, I just cannot accept it given the information
that I have about the theory of gravity. (therefore) 3. I fail to make sense
of the concept of gravity, then 4. I make the assumption that the theory of
gravity is the best that reasoned scientific understanding has to offer at
the present time. (it may seem obvious that gravity exists but the theory of
how it works is a differnt issuse, as with many things we examine)

In this way while I have not managed to fully assimilate the concept into
my cognitive understanding, I have however assimilated knowledge according
to reason, and have moved my understanding from the "having no knowledge of
the theory of gravity" to, "not understanding gravity, but accepting the
rational scientific explanations available to me" therefore, I have made
progress even if it is not as much as I might have liked! But my argument is
that this is better than abandoning the idea of reason to
(subjective)individual theories(particularly my own!!!), that are entirely
unsubstantiated and irrefutable.

>>> I really think I can synthesise my scanty scientific awareness with my
gut instinct of spiritual awareness, and come up with something which, for
now, satisfies me.

Don't take this as offensive, but I would say if this is what you believe
then you are easily satisfied! Personally it takes a lot me to satisfy me!
(intellectually) ;)

>>> Science is based upon the idea of Time and Space.

No, science, is just a methodology.

>>>>> This has led to a certain understanding for those who need that, but
what happens when allof the concepts which implicitly underlie human
understanding are knocked away?

Where have they gone?! why! help, no really, under what circumstances would
we be justified in abandoning scientific reason? I cannot think of any.

>>>> Another type of knowledge is required, or no-one will ever agree with
or understand anyone else.

But we are not there, so I think your getting ahead of yourself, assuming
that science has been abandoned, though providing no justification as to why
it has failed and gone on to create a whole new theory while the existing
one is still the best and most applicable available.

>>> Th arrogance of scientists who say they are getting nearer to
understanding the essence of things takes my breath away.

I presume they are referring to particular understandings in particular
fields, as I know of no one who has understanding of all science, not that
they don't exist, but that person would have to have a LOT of knowledge.
Therefore by essence I am assuming that you mean theories, but the idea of
one unified single reduction is implausible, oh unless your a theist which
would be the most limited understanding available because you only have to
accept one concept, talk about lazyness!.

>>> ITS TOO BIG to understand, not just in terms of size, as the universe,
being infinite, cannot have a size, but in terms of quality.

Yes.

>>>We have to think in terms of size, as that is the way we understand
things, but why do we have to insist that any other type of knowlege is
invalid, simply because it may not fit into the scheme of knowledge we have
invented for ourselves.

I don't know, why would you insist that of yourself? confused!

>>> Are we perfect?

Well I'm close ;). no really, why does that matter?

>>> Can we not admit there could be things we cannot understand, nomatter
how clever we think we are.

Absolutely, (see my example of gravity) but that doesn't mean abandoning
reason to our own personal delusions.

>>>>I could go on for ever, but there is no point. In the end, it boils down
to personal choice what you want to understand, in what ever way you and I
want to understand it. Knowledge and understanding is a choice, only one
among many that are equally valid. Bye for now.

Of course knowledge and understanding are a choice, and there will always
be those who decide that it is not for them, though in reality they probably
have knowledge and understanding of a lot of things including the
understanding to understand that they can indeed make a choice!

As to being equally valid, well, I would say (as a humanist) that it is up
to an individual how they wish to live their life, however there is a
difference between "trying" to stop assimilating knowledge (either through
laziness or exhaustion, if indeed it is possible, which I would argue it
probably isn't)however to abandon knowledge and understanding to another
theory, which is rather what you imply, is something different altogether,
the opposite of rational.

Take care, hope this makes sense!

Jenny




___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com