Communication Breakdown (ritual, moral, tradition, choices, choice)

[doppelgänger]

I found this old exchange between Sunstone and I (one of my first at RF, edited slightly) and thought it might make for an interesting discussion topic:

Originally Posted by Sunstone

Why are so many people obsessed with reading into the Theory Of Evolution more meaning than is actually there?

I think sometimes an adherent to the literality of her respective religion perceives that people who approach the world with a "scientific" world view also adopt a vision of personal morality that competes with the "traditional" morality of religion for space in individuals' identities, i.e., it allows people to make "moral" choices not based upon the authority of the traditional religion and its leadership. That's a real threat to someone whose personal identity is wrapped up with their feelings of obligation to be obedient to the moral rules of a particular religious tradition.

Also, the "scientific" world view is often perceived as not having a place in its template for experiences that cannot be rationally shared by reference to objective (external) experiences (i.e. measurable experimentation and repeatability). Thus, adherents to a "scientific" world view tend to exclude the possibility that spiritual "things" - things that are experienced as real by a believer, are possibly indication of real experiences. And they assert this absence of place in their world view to believers to whom such experiences are quite real. This is emblematic of a total breakdown in communication between the two people, because scientific method can neither prove nor disprove the reality of purely subjective experiences.

Moreover, because the subjective experiences of the believer tend to be encapsulated for her in symbolic language (which does have an association with the believer's subjective experience), if the believer cannot separate the experience itself from the symbols used to denote the experience, it is very difficult to facilitate a communication about the nature of that subjective experience to a person who does not associate anything meaningful in their own experience with the symbolic language being used by the believer. This is also emblematic of a total breakdown in communication since conveying symbolic language to someone is not the same as sharing a subjective experience unless the other person already associates a similar subjective experience with those same symbols.

_________________________

[Bishadi]

great post......

now watch this;

the dichotomy of all time..... religions are ooosaully creation style. Christianity is the most recognized that try and argue many of the points of scientific descriptions.

SO a Christian scientist shared that for evolution to exist, a system must have a non-local input in order for the form to progress; evolution to exists. Meaning how could a duck bill evolve if there was no input from 'other' to make the change. So in a mathemetical form for 1+1=3 to exist, that 'other' input had to come from a supernatural input versus random chance. Thereby (here is the kicker) in order for evolution to exist, the 2nd law of thermodynamics must be incorrect.

The creationist share that evolution cannot work because of the 2nd law (mathematically) and science pretty much has described evolution by a change caused by the 'environment' but no math to back it up.

To me that is just funny.

What combines them into reality, is to change how Planck describes energy.

ya see, planck's constant is governed by the 2nd law and why there is no method of describing or better still including the environment in a 2 system calculation. Meaning the same, that 2 people can lift more than the sum of what the 2 can lift separately. 1+1=3.

It's all over nature but todays math will never see it until the shift is paradigm.. giggle giggle