| Subject: An explanation |
Author:
Duane
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 09/18/04 10:58am
In reply to:
Don
's message, "Duane you said something of interest to me here....." on 09/18/04 7:38am
>Duane you said something of interest to me here.....
>
>
>"If our human senses were the limits of our knowledge,
>we'd still be
>living in the dark ages."
>
>This is a very interesting statement to me. Can you
>elaborate on this?
OK. Here goes...
We have a very limited set of stimuli that our senses can detect - we can only smell things whose molecules are a certain shape, we can only hear things within a narrow band of wavelengths, we can only see energy in a very narrow band of wavelengths, etc.
But somehow, we "know" that the spectrum of "visible" light is this tiny sliver of very specific wavelengths in this huge (infinite?) set of energies.
How is that possible? I mean, can we really "know" this if we can never see these other energies with our God-given eyes?
That's because we have another resource to help us understand the universe - our intellect. It's because we can imagine things that we can't see, and because we can create abstract constructs that we think *might* represent the unsensible universe around us, and then imagine what we might do to prove to ourselves, using our limited senses, that these imaginary, abstract things are real, that we know.
Such devices include electron microscopes, particle accelerators, radio telescopes, radar emitters and receivers, etc. These things, given the understanding of a person from the year 900 or so, would seem like insanity, or witchcraft, or magic - but our understanding of the universe has grown past those times.
We've used these creations of our minds to bring the invisible universe into the realm of the visible. We can see atoms now. We can view stars that emit radiation outside of our visible spectrum.
We've built a body of knowledge to support these beliefs. At times, parts of it have proven to be false, so we tore them down and rebuilt them. And the result was and is that our understanding of the universe is built on as sturdy a foundation as possible, given our limited senses, and our less-limited intellect.
But there's always the lingering question, "How can we believe anything we can't see with our own plain, unaided, eyes?" And that's the unfortunate slant some people use when they decide to attack the foundations of science.
They use the fact that so much of science is built, not on our direct senses, but on the abilities of our minds, to try and disparage, not ALL aspects of that knowledge, but ONLY the parts they don't personally believe in.
The argument is, unfortunately, used to great effect, sometimes. But we can recognize it, in whatever form it takes, because there's a sinister undercurrent that's universal for all arguments of that ilk. It's throwing up your hands, and saying, "Well, how can we possibly know THAT? We can't even see/hear/smell it?"
And the second part of that argument is, almost always, "If you believe that, it's only because you're not using your rational mind - you're taking it on FAITH!!! So that means ANYTHING that can be taken on faith is just as valid as what you believe!"
The real tragedy is the second part of the argument. The people who use it might not know consciously what they're doing. Or they might have a nagging feeling that what they're saying is somehow "wrong," but they'll never admit it. The tragedy is in what they're trying to do. Something in this edifice of science we've toiled to construct over the centuries - the very same body of knowledge that allows us to communicate via computers and the internet - the very same body of knowledge that allows us to talk on cell phones, to microwave our food, to fly from one end of the continent to the other, to entertain ourselves with video games and movies, to live comfortably without worrying about our next meal, to wear clothes that keep us warm in sub-zero weather without having to kill a bear to get them - something in that body of knowledge bothers them, and doesn't agree with their worldview.
So they deny... it... all... They tear it all down - they lower our body of knowledge to the same intellectual level as the mysticism of the 8th century. They impgun it, and in the very same breath inhale the artificially cooled and dehumidified air created by their air conditioners, which were created using it.
And they *can* do it, quite convincingly, too. Because all of this stuff, this imaginary world we live in, with "quarks" and "black holes," and "evolution," and "microwaves," is all built on the foundation of the human mind. So it IS disheartening when we see a human mind deny it all, in the name of defending some OTHER construct of the human mind. Except the one they're defending has no basis in reality - none whatsoever. These mystical, magical, feel-good ideas were once considered "cutting-edge science," too.
But once we decided on a reality-based framework for understanding the universe, they fell by the wayside. We realized that "God" could no longer tell us anything about the universe that we couldn't learn for ourselves. But there existed powerful organizations whose power and influence came from these arcane ideas.
These ideas still exist in the minds of men, but most of us relegate them to the realm of the "unknowable," where they belong. It does not detract from the usefulness and beauty of "The Golden Rule," or the "Ten Commandments," or inspirational passages from old religious texts and the inspiring creeds of old mystical faiths. But we KNOW now that they're not the proper tools to use to understand the universe around us.
And it is those who can't or won't put these ideas of magic and myth into their proper place who do them the greatest disservice. Those who insist they can "prove" using philosophy that "God exists," and that we should, therefore all realize that an invisible, unspeaking, unknowable deity really exists, or those who insist they see the "Design" of some "Intelligent Designer," in our cells who put these time-honored, but old and limited ideas into disrepute.
And it is the despicable, dishonest, and disgusting tactic of tearing down all we have built with our minds that caused me to say what I did:
>"If our human senses were the limits of our knowledge,
>we'd still be
>living in the dark ages."
Yes, we've gone beyond believing in just our senses. We believe in our minds and our intellect. And there are those who would have us go back to the days when all we had were our unaided eyes and ears. But the sad thing is that they don't realize what they're TRULY saying - they can't see past the cloud of myth and magic that hangs before their very eyes.
I hope this explains it.
Duane
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 