Certainly our imaginations are at some level inspired by things that are real. But without empirical evidence, they are nothing more than ideas.
Which is more irrational?
- Thread starter IncogNegro
- Start date
Certainly our imaginations are at some level inspired by things that are real. But without empirical evidence, they are nothing more than ideas.
empiric (adj.)
c.1600, from Latin empiricus "a physician guided by experience," from Greek empeirikos "experienced," from empeiria "experience," from empeiros "skilled," from en "in" (see en- (2)) + peira "trial, experiment," from PIE *per- "to try, risk." Originally a school of ancient physicians who based their practice on experience rather than theory. Earlier as a noun (1540s) in reference to the sect, and earliest (1520s) in a sense "quack doctor" which was in frequent use 16c.-19c.
So how does one experience their imagination in reality?
http://etymonline.com/
c.1600, from Latin empiricus "a physician guided by experience," from Greek empeirikos "experienced," from empeiria "experience," from empeiros "skilled," from en "in" (see en- (2)) + peira "trial, experiment," from PIE *per- "to try, risk." Originally a school of ancient physicians who based their practice on experience rather than theory. Earlier as a noun (1540s) in reference to the sect, and earliest (1520s) in a sense "quack doctor" which was in frequent use 16c.-19c.
So how does one experience their imagination in reality?
http://etymonline.com/
Make it real. Build something you had an idea about. Paint a painting, draw a picture.
Now is that feeling of creation God or something irrational? 
Now is that feeling of creation God or something irrational?
Is making something the same as making everything? Not even close.
I'm talking about the feeling here. Is the "Feeling of creation" yours? Can you empirically study, observe, touch that feeling? Are you the only conscious being able to conduct that feeling in history all the way back to before matter existed? Do you see where I am going here my friend?
The techniques to study feelings depend on trust that the person is reporting the feeling honestly. To some degree we can observe how feelings affect the brain. But I don't know where you are going with this.
Feeling is the only way we use to interpret our surroundings and formulate logical reason, yet it is the most illogical source because we ourselves can not ascribe its "origin". Does this make it any less real? Or more real just for the very fact its origin is unknown. Can we trust the effects of feeling?
Before you answer know this. The mind does not feel. It processes feeling. If someone were to poke your brain with a Q-tip you would not feel a thing. The body itself feels. The body itself does not contain imagination, only a physical form with no consciousness, yet it "feels". So which is More rational the thought of the body feeling rational or the thought of the mind being IRrational?
Before you answer know this. The mind does not feel. It processes feeling. If someone were to poke your brain with a Q-tip you would not feel a thing. The body itself feels. The body itself does not contain imagination, only a physical form with no consciousness, yet it "feels". So which is More rational the thought of the body feeling rational or the thought of the mind being IRrational?
Reason and logic are not products of feelings.
Touche....
Neither is God a product of logic or reason.
Neither is God a product of logic or reason.
If providing a "scientific explanation" was sufficient for validity, science fiction would no doubt enjoy a more prestigious position in the academic world ....
incorrect.
More than one physicist has run away from the field of biology with their tail between their legs
Calling something a "theory" doesn't make it any less "magical"
:shrug:
Smashingdols
Registered Member
The OP asked for a comparison between a theistic belief to a scientific conclusion---you can't cut science out of the equation. Either way you want to analyze this though either:
(1) The debate is "Discuss the rationalization behind our origin in terms of evolution and/or the big bang."---which clearly falls under the category of cosmology
or
(2) The debate is "Discuss the rationalization (or lack thereof) behind creationism." ---in which case you can't have any form of logical discussion because the entire concept of theism is based on the assumption of a lack of logical analysis (aka faith).
You're either debating this using science/logic, or there's nothing to debate.
Once again, calling something a "theory" doesn't somehow render it less "magical" ... despite all this so-called plausibility, the complete lack of evidence is what lends breadth to the lack of consensus on how, where, when and what happened in the name of abiogenesis.
To cut to the chase, all you are really talking about here in the name of so-called "rationality" is how an idea falls in line with an established value system (or "feeling").
IOW the very moment you use the word "naturalism" is the moment you invoke the parameters of ideas that it can and cannot entertain in order to remain buoyant. This buoyancy is not, as you allude, one of "evidence" or "facts", but one of remaining theoretically consistent.
IOW despite your apparent abhorrence of postulating about abstraction in the name of defining reality, that is all you can muster anyway ...
The problem is that there is (epistemologically speaking) a gulf of difference between cosmology and cosmogony
I mean I am not talking about a bunch of religious people denying evolution or something.
I am talking about the rank and file of individuals held as being accountable to the said discipline of knowledge.
IOW unlike you, I am not trying to contextualize one value system on the merits of an opposing one.
I'm not "cutting it out" - I am explaining how it is poorly equipped to deal with the question and that it certainly doesn't provide the leverage to oust an opposing value system
No
you are talking about cosmogony
Once again, you are making the repeated mistake of bringing your so-called tools of rationalism to the discussion while simultaneously trying to obscure the values you have already laid on the table.
IOW you are not talking about what is rational and what is irrational.
You are simply talking about what value systems underpin your ideas on reality.
Naturalism has so far proven to be the case. Nothing has so far been shown to happen in any way other than naturalistic causes, which just means physical causes in line with the known forces of physics. A theory about how something happens may very well not dispel the wonder of the thing, but it does enable one to look behind the scenes and see how the trick is done. This is in contrast to magical reasons which don't really explain anything, but wall the explanation off from rational inquiry.
At some point the etymology or "origin" of all words rational and magical converge.
Smashingdols
Registered Member
Cosmogony seems to be just a subcategory of cosmology, if this is incorrect can you clarify before going further? As this website won't let me post links...see quote below
"In strict usage, cosmology refers to the study of the universe as it is now (or at least as it can be observed now); cosmogony refers to the study of the origins of the universe. Cosmic Chemistry explains this difference in more detail. However, in current usage, cosmology is often used as a general term, with cosmogony referring to a particular topic within cosmology."---madsci org
i found an awesome cosmogenic research presentation from nasa, google "cosmic origins program analysis group status report" and it's the first link
Tis true study of origin differs very much from the current study.