--- In [email protected], "PaliGap" <compost1uk@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> wrote: > > > > If you want to have a go at convincing us go ahead. Start wherever > > you like on the diagram. > > There are many things I don't believe in. Maybe I "don't > believe" in more than you (take "Scientism" for a start).
Scientism? Ah yes, that weird sickness creationists like to accuse the rational of suffering from. > It's not my point that any of those things are true, or > justifiable. But I'm inclined to think that the "they're > all bollocks" reaction is, well, just a little bit > ...I don't know, perhaps "crass" is the word I'm looking > for. It's basically just a joke dude. But someone has thought about it long enough to want to pick a fight with the more credulous. I found it on Richard Dawkin's facebook page, I bet you love him ;-) > Reincarnation was on the BOLLOCKS list. Avert your eyes: > > "Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting: The soul that > rises with us, our life's star, Hath had elsewhere its > setting, And Cometh from afar." > > What a load of bollocks THAT was! Jeez - who writes this > crap? Any in-depth study of New Scientist or Scientific > American shows there is just no bit of the brain that > gets reincarnated. Quod Erat Demonstrandum! Erm, do poems constitute proof for you then? I see why you struggle so. > Or take astrology. You would probably be inclined to mock > the idea of stars "influencing" our lives. Or deploy your > big guns viz. that the astronomy astrology is predicated > on is false and/or incomplete. > > If so you would fail to appreciate the metaphysical subtlety > of (some) believers: > > "Astrology is based on the principle of synchronicity. > The 'influence of the stars' does not exist in a causal > sense. There is no causal influence at all. Astrology > "works" - if this is the right word - in the way inscribed > on the tabula smaragdina: > > What is below is like what is above. > And what is above is like what is below, > so that the miracle of the One may be accomplished." > http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_pa_synchro_e.htm > > This is a metaphysics that can co-exist quite peacefully > with any aspect of modern science I would have thought. > It just posits the idea of reality as a "totality". Except for the fact that it's complete bollocks it fits in with modern science just fine. I think for astrology to "fit in" it would have to be have a demonstrable ability to predict and explain. And it doesn't. I can't think of a single way it makes sense. If it was cast- iron dependable and could tell me something about my future I couldn't predict then we'd have to accept it regardless of its lack of an explainable mechanism. The fact that it can't is why it remains on the bollocks list. Or maybe I've got Mars in Sagittarius, bound to make me a bit sceptical wouldn't you say? It would only be metaphysics if it didn't contradict our experience. It can't exist in fairy land, obeying it's own rules and conveniently being unavailable for testing when we look to see if it's there, AND be part of our explanation of the world. Unless there's something *seriously* weird going on... > I'm not saying I believe in it myself. I'm not sure what > I believe in. Or that it has any practical value (I called > it a metaphysics after all). > > I'm just suggesting "Respect", man... I respect people right to believe whatever bollocks they want. I demand a bit of evidence for something to elevate itself from the world of hopes and dreams into the world of 'that's the way it is' you can't keep something as a maybe *just* because there are nice things said about it. Though I do like the nice things too.
