Carmel wrote: David:
To my mind, the vanity of physicists shines out of everything they say and do (the theoretical chaps at least, probably not the humble lab technicians), and it's tied to their belief that physics is the most fundamental and important of all the sciences, that their work nowadays almost transcends science; that they are, in effect, the new cutting-edge philosophers of our age.
Carmel:
"To my mind" is the key phrase here. This is not my impression of physicists, at all. I often listen to theorectical physicists on the radio and they seem quite humble, rational and down to earth. They don't seem to have any problem proclaiming "We don't know" when posed a question which is beyond the current understanding of the scientific community.
I don't doubt your experience, but it's causing you to miss the point. There are larger issues at play.
To use an analogy, when one analyzes and judges organized religion, one doesn't simply go to the local parish and listen to the words of a humble priest. Not if you want a full and comprehensive picture.
Rather, one studies its history and the impact it has had on society and on individual psychology; one studies the words and actions of its leaders, its movers and shakers - the popes, the dalai lamas, the aquinuses, etc; one looks at the manner in which it promotes or undermines wisdom; and so on. The fact that religion may be populated by many "humble" priests and monks isn't really relevant. If anything, they only serve to make the picture even more disturbing.
Carmel: Also, one could argue that "absolute truth" is a form of local knowledge i.e.that it occurs locally in one's consciousness within the confines of one's gray/white matter encased by a skull...or would you say that consciousness is non-local, and that "Ultimate Reality" exists both within and "out there"?
Consciousness is definitely local, being a product of neural activity. But since Ultimate Reality exists everywhere, both within and out there, and since its nature never changes, our localized consciousness can tap into this nature within its own own confines and fully comprehend it. And in so doing, the fundamental nature of
all things, both within one's own localized consciousness and beyond, is grasped.
That's the beauty of getting involved with logic in this deeper manner. It is like hopping aboard a spaceship-cum-time machine and instantly travelling to all corners of existence and all points in time.
Carmel: My point being that there's nothing wrong with exploring different conceptual models of "reality". One doesn't detract from the other, quite the opposite, from my experience.
David: Agreed. The trouble is, we are living in a world in which science (combined with its limited materialistic/postmodernist outlook) has taken over and philosophy has all but disappeared. No one even hears about the logical path to absolute truth anymore, let alone contemplates whether it is a worthwhile path or not. Science and postmodernism have taken over to such as extent that when people do happen to hear about it, such as on this forum, they automatically dismiss it as being archaic, nebulous, religious, etc.
And then when I stand up for it, place value on it, distinguish it from science, etc, people automatically think that I'm being anti-science. That's how ingrained it has become.
Carmel: point taken.
As I mentioned, my only concern, was that you seemed to be trivializing a well established scientific theory and while I realize that the philosophy of science is not the focus of this forum, I don't think that minimizing the "Big Bang" as a well established theory, does your readership any good. I would almost liken it to a Christian who tries to dismiss the Theory of Evolution as merely a "theory". We all know better than that, I hope... :)
What is more harmful? Trivializing science or trivialing absolute knowledge and wisdom?
I would say both are harmful, but the latter infinitely more so.
Again, my concern is the way scientists and their followers trivialize the higher path to absolute truth and philosophic wisdom. They don't necessarily do this deliberately, as they are invariably unconscious of this path themselves. But it remains a potent instinctual force in modern society nonetheless, one that I have to combat on a daily basis.
What I do is point out the limitations of science and place it in its proper context, thus making room in people's minds for awareness of the philosophic path. As you rightly say, the two don't negate or contradict each other. But at the moment, the dazzle of science is crowding philosophy out (just as the dazzle of religion used to do) and the human race is immeasurably poorer for it.
Carmel wrote:David:
I think you'll find, if you delve deeply into your own psychology, that it's there - subtly, but powerful.
Carmel:
um, no. :-/...As much as I find beauty and awe in the Universe, its powers of destruction negate any "womb like" feeling of security. The idea of being ripped to shreds, atom by atom, by the process known as "spaghettification" by a black hole, is none too comforting!
Well, it's up to you whether you want to unearth this piece of self-knowledge. But if I were you, here are some of the things I would explore:
- Absorbing oneself in detached, intellectual forms of knowledge which are "fascinating" gives one a feeling of control over the environment. It's a way of keeping the chaos and madness of reality at bay. The knowledge resides at the distance of the imagination. Nothing ever really comes too close. No ethical demands are ever made on one's life.
- That it is deemed to be "fascinating" indicates that the knowledge isn't really that threatening in the first place. Being amused implies that one is feeling in control and on top of things. It's akin to enjoying crosswords over the breakfast table, or reading a detective novel in bed.
- Absorbing oneself in science also enables one to feel part of the mainstream, part of the crowd, which is another piece of the womb. Nay, one feels that one is part of a
special crowd, the intelligensia, which further cocoons the ego in sheaths of its own fantasy.
- Even the stress involved in imagining being "spaghettified" by black holes contributes to the womb-construction. It's like going to the cinema to watch a horror movie, so as to experience the pleasures of fear and the associated warm feelings that one is actually safe. A way of revelling in the idea that one is still within the womb and not outside it.
I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.
-