TalkBack: Sai On Philosophy

Add your comment

From:	Matt Geuther	2001-05-04 17:38:00
Subject:	Primative Origins
Comment:	I urge you to watch the short film at http://primativeorigins.com/episode1.html I feel you will find it illuminating. Matt Geuther Primative Origins
From:	Jessie	2001-09-18 21:10:41
Subject:	Beat down
Comment:	Sai really gave science a beat down. It all seems to come down to the assumption that Man and science are grand enough to understand and explain everything. We fail to realize that we ourselves are flawed and therefore everything we do is equally flawed. The truth will NEVER be within our grasp. We are incapable of it. We speak and define the universe with so much confidence (Jim) that it's sickening. Our EGOS (Jim) are writing checks we can't cash. We build science around the so called laws of physics while failing to ponder their origins. Science is flawed at its very core my friend. We accept the most basic laws as TRUTH failing to ONCE AGAIN realize we are incapable of attaining it. Science is built on a foundation of assumptions. As obvious and basic as they may be, it in no way makes them TRUTH. Hey Jim, what on earth would you do if some crazy device was invented tomorrow that proved Souls and God are real? Not that I believe they are but take your answer as a testament to how open your mind really is and how flawed we all really are.
From:	Wu Li	2003-02-22 12:21:47
Subject:	Context
Comment:	Both of you are so busy arguing the absolutes of 'truth' and 'pragmatism' that you miss the big picture. The big picture is context rather than content. Truth, practicality, and pragmatism only have meaning in the proper context, just as love and hate, useful and useless, can only have meaning given the proper context. Oh, the truth and practicality might still exist independent of context, but who cares? Is the ultimate truth that we don't really exist? Is the idea we don't really exist the ultimate pragmatic stance to take? Who cares, such contexts are without meaning. We are the belief makers, we make it all as if it matters. But even then we do so within the context of our existence and existence is paradoxical.
From:	Brian Teter	2004-07-19 22:14:28
Subject:	Either way is a search for meaning
Comment:	It is often said that science and religion are irreconcilable opponents. I think this due chiefly to the human tendency on both halves of the court to be biased, judgmental and self serving. However, both science and religion stem from a profound faith in that there is meaning to existence. This feeling comes both from the other human tendencies to be concerned and interested for our fellow humans and our belief that everyone should have a chance to experience happiness. Our views on how to achieve this happiness vary broadly and are often subject to cultural values and traditions, which are often set up by our historical religious beliefs. I agree with Einstein that religions were created to answer the fears and uncertainties of early human development. In those days the forces of nature were entirely inexplicable and could only be attributed to the wills divine beings. These gods were made in man’s image to simplify comprehension of such beings. Being like men they could be influenced in favor or out of favor according to the deeds and ceremonies of men.
From:	Brian Teter	2004-07-19 22:15:45
Subject:	Either way is a search for meaning
Comment:	As man develops intellectually and philosophically, he necessarily grows spiritually. The more that is revealed about the causal effects of nature, the less anthropomorphic God becomes. This is a natural threat to the priestly caste because it becomes less necessary to have a mediator between humanity and God. However, as the nature of nature becomes known to humanity, so does the omnipotence and omnipresence of God. The orderly and systematic conduct required for life to continue and “grow” only confirms the existence of purpose and meaning. Good and evil exists in the relativity of human experience and perception so that the war between the two is waged in the human consciousness. This is where religion steps in. It is not the job of the various religious institutions to evaluate and judge human moral conduct, only to express it. In other words, it is already understood what is right and what is wrong, it is up to the religions to explain why it is healthy to do right, and unhealthy to do wrong. It is here that the circles of scientific and religious understanding can truly unite to help individual souls overcome their various hells. There is in fact causal components to which human behaviors can be ascribed, however, there are too many factors in operation to make it predictable, and therefore repairable based on our current understanding.