Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rick Julian who wrote (27413)	12/29/1998 8:40:00 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

I do not think science operates only on the material plane- there are, after all, philosophies of science. In fact debates sometimes rage in academia over which philosophy should be dominant. Further there is much concern with the subset of scientific philosophy known as scientific ethics. I took medical ethics in college and we tackled many problems dealing with general scientific ethics. I saw Koyanisqatsi-and I own it in my video library. It is a powerful movie but does not address the question raised by its moving visuals which is "If not this way, than what way?" Not many people in the west want to give up their lifestyles for a simpler and more eco-friendly one. I cannot be too critical of others (unless I wanted to be an outrageous hypocrite) because I love my large single family home, my minivan, my microwave, my heater [it has been VERY chilly here] my TV, my deep freezer in the garage where I worship all the foods I buy in mass quantities at Costco...in short I love everything about my lifestyle except what I know it is doing to the planet. I even had more kids than I should (3) but I CAN rationalize this- however I won't bore you with the details. Anyway, my reaction to Koyanisqatsi in short was pleasure, sadness and guilt.

To: Rick Julian who wrote (27413)	12/29/1998 9:34:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Rick, I don't really understand why many people feel that science and spirituality are mutually exclusive, or that attention paid to one must diminish attention paid to the other. They both spring from the same impulse - a desire to understand the universe around us. Primitive individuals turned to the spiritual to explain certain phenomena they did not understand. As understanding increased, this became less and less necessary. Increased understanding also brought with it a steadily increasing quality of life - if you doubt it, try living for a few months in the bush, with aboriginals. We rely on science more than spirituality because we have found that it solves problems. We can cure sick children, instead of praying over them as they die. We can predict storms and prepare for them, instead of imploring deities to send them elsewhere. And on, and on. Granted, science hasn't solved all our problems, but we often take for granted the solutions that it has provided. The search for meaning is, of course, important, but I don't see any real search for meaning in the conventional religions that masquerade as spirituality. If we want to find meaning we must look for it inside ourselves and each other, and we must look with full freedom of inquiry. I don't believe that meaning can be spoonfed, or found in a book, or a sermon. Many people who consider themselves spiritual distrust science because it provides physical explanations for phenomena which they are accustomed to explaining spiritually (the evolution/creation debate is a classic example). But how can any search for meaning be enhanced by denying or ignoring the evidence provided by the world around us? Steve