How should we go about understanding reality

[Darken-Sol]

What does that even mean?Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.

the trait of curiosity for one. we can geuss and test at the reasons we have it. without it we would not have science, religion or philosophy. even if we found a sound scientific explination that describes how we expierience it, it would leave questions about the "why" of it. religion provides an answer. e.g. mankind was created with a flaw and he wil never have enough. this idea covers many other questions, such as greed. it is also supported by the idea of evolution. may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along. on another post you explained this is how science works. some people are only curious to the point of "god says so" and some are only curious back to the "big bang".

 

[JaredJames]

the trait of curiosity for one. we can geuss and test at the reasons we have it. without it we would not have science, religion or philosophy. even if we found a sound scientific explination that describes how we expierience it, it would leave questions about the "why" of it. religion provides an answer.

To ascribe religion to curiosity, that implies it was written purely by humans trying to explain their world and there is nothing divine about it.

So either it's the word of God and is telling us how things are and we should accept it - no curiosity required, or it's created from curiosity in which case, no God required except for our own purposes.

All that aside, what does that have to do with what I responded to?

Would it not also be fair to say that religion initially (and still now in some cases) is against curiosity in so far as it persecuted those who dared to try and explained things without the use of religious texts.

mankind was created with a flaw and he wil never have enough.

I don't like the word "created" there, but I assume you didn't mean it as it reads.

it is also supported by the idea of evolution.

Nothing religious relates to evolution - that's science at its finest.

may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along. on another post you explained this is how science works. some people are only curious to the point of "god says so" and some are only curious back to the "big bang".

"God says so" doesn't answer anything, it raises more questions than it answers. Filling in the blanks with such a concept shows a lack of curiosity and a willingness to just accept the easiest concept you hear.

Another thing, what is it with people insisting there's a "why" to everything? It is meaningless, you don't need a "why" at all.

 

[thorium1010]

mankind was created with a flaw and he will never have enough. this idea covers many other questions, such as greed. it is also supported by the idea of evolution. may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along.

on one stretch you say man is created, any evidence for creation ? generally human beings have a lot of flaws not just one.

 

[computerphys]

What does that even mean?

Probably I have expressed wrongly. I mean the perception/awareness/consciousness of being thinking. That is feeling yourself, not your body, but your mind.

Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

The act of thinking, or even simpler, the creation of a particle from the void. There is no rule for that.

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.

It's been discussed a lot about HUP being interpreted as an inability of current scientific/technological status. HUP is not due to it, but has an absolute meaning about the limited predictability of science.

 

[Darken-Sol]

i know "created" makes some people uncomfortable. caused to exist. my point is you don't need religion. i do. i will never isolate a photon and prove it exists. so for me to take science seriously i have to accept someoneelses experience on the matter. in that case science is just another religion for me. i build houses and probably will till i die. i don't care enough about proving things to alter my way of life to do so. so i sift thru data, formulate opinion, put it to practical use, and reject what doesn't work. until it doesnt, religion works just fine for me. so does science.

 

[Evo]

This discussion has been going in circles since the first page. Closed.