Quote:
|
In physical sciences "theory" is just a "mind - game" until it is corroborated by empirical facts. A well developed theory not only points to to the "observables" that will corroborate it, but also states (explicitly or implicitly) the conditions under which it can be "falsified". No religion allows for its falsification. Science and religion therefore don't mix. Using principles of the former to consolidate a view within the context of the latter (or vica versa) can lead to only one of two things: poetry or bulls**t. In this case choose your words carefully and hope/pray you're a poet...
|
Even a theory corroborated by empirical findings, remains to be that: a theory. You nprobably have heasred of what is just called "the black swan" nowadays: that one has never seen a black swan, does neithe rmean that all swasn are white and that no black swans exist. An empirically folunded theory, btw, is just natural - if it is not emporically founded, it more is a hypotheis than a theory. A theory can be a well-founded one, a dominant one, it can be a theory that can explain things more completely or more elegant ("easier"), maybe it even becomes a theoryso influential due to these factors that it lasts for long time and becomes a paradigm that influences how future theories are being formed or searched for.
But still it is a theory, and it never is more than this. So-called nature's laws also are a form of theories only, wereason that these theories have a general validity in all nature. But it still is all our mental construction, our way to arrange observations in a way that it makes sense to us.
The real essence of things is hidden behind the veil of Maya. It is like mistaking matter with something "solid" although matter for the most, if not all, is just empty space, like a fast moving propeller gives the visual illusions of being a solid, transparent disc like made of grey glass. We do not discover a final, a real, a one-and-only reality - we invent it by the way we add meaning to it and by the way we approach it and by the way we add our system of ordering phenomenons to it. It is systemtical how we do it, yes. But it still is - our invention. Pragmatic in value and allowing us remarkable technical magic tricks - but still our own mindgame indeed.
Coincidence: today, this interview with a German cosmologist was published, in German. In what he says, the man could be me:
http://www.focus.de/wissen/wissensch...id_548936.html
Quote:
|
Nope, Atheism is a belief, not a religion. As an atheist you do belief something (namely that there are no gods), but atheism can't be a religion because it has no god.
|
Atheism is no belief in that being atheistic is the natural state in which we humans, and probbaly all anaimals, are being born. We humans then get fed with an artifical thought, that is describging the ecistence of somethging that before we have not heared of: a deity for example. This then is a belief. That does not make not sharing that belief, another belief. It is the absence of belief, and the returning to or the remaining in a natural state. We also are born naked. And if we do not wear clothes later on, our nakedness by that dpoes not become juist another form of dressing. It remains to be what it is: a natural state, a lack of dressing, an absence of clothes. Nudity is no special form of cloathes. It simply is what it is: nudity.
"Die Realität wird weniger von uns gefunden als vielmehr von uns erfunden." (Paul Watzlawick).
"What we see, never is nature, but only nature that is exposed to our way of asking questions about it." (Werner Heisenberg).