Mohammad Nur Syamsu
Well-Known Member
Modern atheism really is nothing more than the head winning the head vs heart struggle, helped by science. Like the Sheldon character in the sitcom Big Bang theory. Materialism, naturalism, etc. they all provide no accommodation for subjectivity. So having no recourse to subjectivity, then what Sheldon does is he makes good and evil into a matter of fact issue, and casually denotes the "facts" of which women are better looking than others, straight to their face.
I am sure most scientists regard themselves as being sophisticated mature adults who have learned how to deal with the head vs heart struggle, and overcome it. But when you look into the details of it, it is more shown that they have become very sophisticated at fooling themselves that they accept subjectivity is valid, while they do not accept it.
In the details of it, subjectivity operates by choosing. It is equally valid to say the painting is beautiful, as it is to say the painting is ugly. The logical validity of an opinion just depends on that it is chosen. Expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing. The second detail is that all subjectivity is about agency of a decision. Saying the painting is beautiful, means to have a love for the way the painting looks. The love is agency of a decision. The existence of this love is then a matter of opinion as well. That means just as it is equally valid to say the the painting is ugly, as it is to say it is beautiful, it is also equally valid to say the love for the way the painting looks is real, as it is to say it is not real (or true love, or not true love).
Scientists have basically outlawed any theory about how anything is chosen in the universe. Because of science intelligent design theory is forbidden to be taught in public schools in the USA. What more is intelligent design than a sophisticated way of choosing something?
So did scientists do away with intelligent design theory because it is unscientific, or did they do away with it because choosing is integral to subjectivity and the head fights the heart?
The answer to this question lays in how scientists view people's choices. If it is shown that they are also against knowledge about how people choose, then it would be more reasonable to say that scientists did away with intelligent design theory in order to do away with subjectivity.
When you look at the work of professional scientists such as neurologists, biologists, artificial intelligence professors, sociologists, then they generally all use the same definition for human choices. The definition of choosing that scientists use goes something like: choosing is to sort out the best option from the available alternatives.
They use a sorting algorithm to denote choosing. The thing about sorting algorithms is, that the result of it depends on the data to sort, and the sorting criteria. That is to say, the result is forced given the initial variables, it cannot turn out any other way. It is basically the logic of a chesscomputer calculating a move, and the computer cannot do any other than what move it calculates as having the highest chance for the highest score. That use of the word choosing, while certainly very useful, is really just a metaphore of it. It is not real choosing which can turn out different ways in the event, which is the sort of choosing required for subjectivity.
That should settle it that the scientific community really has not matured to overcome the simple head vs heart struggle. But if you still do not buy it that grown learned men and women could be so immature, and a great majority of the scientific community at that, then try to watch for it, if it is true or not.
You will surely notice the overriding devotion to fact as "truth" which they will go on and on and on about. Certainly that somebody is beautiful is not a fact, yet it is truth. Ask yourself if the scientist whose words you are reading, or whom you hear speaking, if they really also provide room for opinion as truth in their ideas about things.
They may very well say they do lots of times. But then you must get into the details of it, and see if they really mean the same subjectivity that operates based on freedom. For they not just have redefined the word "choosing", they have also redefined the words "subjectivity", "love", "freedom", and any other term you can think of associated to what I consider real subjectivity.
When a scientist says the word "love", it may very well be that he or she means an electrochemical process in the brain, and not love as agency of a decision. For a scientist to say "the painting is beautiful", he or she may very well conceive of that as a statement of fact about the electrochemistry in their brain, and not as opinion.
I am sure most scientists regard themselves as being sophisticated mature adults who have learned how to deal with the head vs heart struggle, and overcome it. But when you look into the details of it, it is more shown that they have become very sophisticated at fooling themselves that they accept subjectivity is valid, while they do not accept it.
In the details of it, subjectivity operates by choosing. It is equally valid to say the painting is beautiful, as it is to say the painting is ugly. The logical validity of an opinion just depends on that it is chosen. Expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing. The second detail is that all subjectivity is about agency of a decision. Saying the painting is beautiful, means to have a love for the way the painting looks. The love is agency of a decision. The existence of this love is then a matter of opinion as well. That means just as it is equally valid to say the the painting is ugly, as it is to say it is beautiful, it is also equally valid to say the love for the way the painting looks is real, as it is to say it is not real (or true love, or not true love).
Scientists have basically outlawed any theory about how anything is chosen in the universe. Because of science intelligent design theory is forbidden to be taught in public schools in the USA. What more is intelligent design than a sophisticated way of choosing something?
So did scientists do away with intelligent design theory because it is unscientific, or did they do away with it because choosing is integral to subjectivity and the head fights the heart?
The answer to this question lays in how scientists view people's choices. If it is shown that they are also against knowledge about how people choose, then it would be more reasonable to say that scientists did away with intelligent design theory in order to do away with subjectivity.
When you look at the work of professional scientists such as neurologists, biologists, artificial intelligence professors, sociologists, then they generally all use the same definition for human choices. The definition of choosing that scientists use goes something like: choosing is to sort out the best option from the available alternatives.
They use a sorting algorithm to denote choosing. The thing about sorting algorithms is, that the result of it depends on the data to sort, and the sorting criteria. That is to say, the result is forced given the initial variables, it cannot turn out any other way. It is basically the logic of a chesscomputer calculating a move, and the computer cannot do any other than what move it calculates as having the highest chance for the highest score. That use of the word choosing, while certainly very useful, is really just a metaphore of it. It is not real choosing which can turn out different ways in the event, which is the sort of choosing required for subjectivity.
That should settle it that the scientific community really has not matured to overcome the simple head vs heart struggle. But if you still do not buy it that grown learned men and women could be so immature, and a great majority of the scientific community at that, then try to watch for it, if it is true or not.
You will surely notice the overriding devotion to fact as "truth" which they will go on and on and on about. Certainly that somebody is beautiful is not a fact, yet it is truth. Ask yourself if the scientist whose words you are reading, or whom you hear speaking, if they really also provide room for opinion as truth in their ideas about things.
They may very well say they do lots of times. But then you must get into the details of it, and see if they really mean the same subjectivity that operates based on freedom. For they not just have redefined the word "choosing", they have also redefined the words "subjectivity", "love", "freedom", and any other term you can think of associated to what I consider real subjectivity.
When a scientist says the word "love", it may very well be that he or she means an electrochemical process in the brain, and not love as agency of a decision. For a scientist to say "the painting is beautiful", he or she may very well conceive of that as a statement of fact about the electrochemistry in their brain, and not as opinion.
