[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by jsam

May I toss in my 2 cents? (might be all this is worth!)

Always feel free to jump in.

Originally Posted by jsam

Science is now moving toward a less atheistic concept of our world.

I don't keep up on the latest science of our day, admittedly, but I find this statement less than credible. Perhaps commentators are cheerfully moving towards a less atheistic interpretation of scientific discoveries, but that makes science no less and no more atheistic.

To call it atheistic is fallacious to the extreme. Science is a method, a form by which a question is asked and answered. It does not believe; it is.

Originally Posted by jsam

It can only be experienced when the intellect shuts down, and the person is prepared. It is better to keep our minds open

How do you keep your mind open, when you aren't using it?

Originally Posted by jsam

the energy that is eternal and infinite, (according to E=MC squared)

e=mc^2 does not state that energy is infinite or eternal. If it does, I haven't seen it. The equation is a very specific comparison between matter and energy. With very specific units. Mass is counted in grams; energy is numbered off in joules; and the speed of light is meters per second.

While Einstein was being fanciful when he wrote the equation down at the end of his paper, he was not fanciful about coming up with it. It means something very specific, and the quantity of energy in the universe was not part of that.

Originally Posted by jsam

As far as morality, I believe it is a guide that we humans create, and continually change. The less self centered we become, the more refined and universal our morality will be, until it is no longer needed as commandments.

That's a reasonable enough claim. I can agree with it.

Originally Posted by jsam

Atheism is the belief that there is no individual, personal god, who mind-reads billions of people at the same time, and plays favorites according to how well his ego is flattered by praise and worship. It does not rule out an indescribable divine presence . See
"The god delusion" by Richard Dawkins, a very compassionate atheist.

Just because Dawkins said it was so, doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by jsam

And, Nietsche was proclaiming the death of the god created by human imagination. Which has not happened yet, and looks like a long time off.

This is probable. But not certain.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

If educators would like to make math interesting again, they would teach it in the way that it was discovered and/or utilized. For example, my math education ended with trig. Here we have people flipping around numbers related to a triangle for no apparent reason. Years later, I read about how trigonometry was used by sailors to determine distance based on the stars. If someone had started with that basis, I would probably be a mathematician.

I mostly agree with this: the gist, with a healthy helping of my own bias and experience, if not the specific details. I'd disagree with your last statement, though; you'd probably be a sailor.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Math educators treat people like they are computers. Here is said data in textbook, manually enter data, test for integrity and feedback. People don't learn that way. The people who discovered the various branches of mathematics didn't discover it that way.

There are plenty of problems with the educational system, and its inability to communicate in a human way is very close to its core.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Considering your first post begs the Socratic method, this is an interesting counter to your own assertion that religion will not replace science. If it were not for those "cults", we wouldn't have mathematics.

I'm not sure I understand your first sentence, but I agree with the second. All of human knowledge is derived ultimately from cultish practice. That doesn't validate cultish practice, but it's worth acknowledging it as a matter of historical fact.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

How about in economics? We have these specific numbers arbitrarily assigned to determine who gets a bmw and who starves to death. Is that any more fanciful than numerology? You're right: it is amazing what hoops we jump through when people believe in numbers.

Economics isn't arbitrary. It's one of the best predictors we have regarding human motivation, precisely because it uses numbers. It's essentially abstract psychology.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

In regards to the real topic of this thread, I was considering how all branches of knowledge are an extension of our basic human faculties.

Human knowledge, as joecooool was once fond of pointing out, is derived from our senses. We learn through our hands, and then from ourselves, but first through our hands, eyes, ears, nose, tongue, skin.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

The hard sciences are an extension of our ability to reason. Soft science appeals to our investigative nature.

The distinction you make between hard and soft sciences appears to me to be unnecessary. Chemistry, a hard science, comes from alchemy and the mad quest of medieval men with a nose for investigation and a vision of immortality. Most of physics was discovered by people who could not bear now to understand this detail or that.

Science, as a whole, is an extension of our ability to reason. It is a manifestation of it. It is reasonable to equate reality with objectivity and repeatability.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

Theology and philosophy are an extension of our intuition and methods to reveal the mystery to ourselves. In any one of these branches, we use all of these faculties.

What is "the mystery"? All mysteries? How does that differ from an "appeal to our investigative nature"? It strikes me as a true loss how little people seem to know about either theology or philosophy. As a former theologian and present philosopher, I would put forward that both are "extension[s] to our ability to reason" as well.

Philosophy, I would submit, is the art of understanding. The art of it, not the act of it. The sublime expression of having grokked.

Theology is the rational inquiry of what God there might be. It is a philosophical exercise. Mysticism is the contemplation of God as a revelation.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

We are not insects.

I like your choice of reference, and agree wholeheartedly.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I think religion or spirituality will not go away because we need to make assumptions and trust our feelings before we can come up with a reasonable understanding of something.

And yet, there is no need for religion or spirituality in order for us to make assumptions or trust our feelings. People jump to conclusions and act impulsively all the time without God's help.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

We feel/experience first and then come up with a logical explanation afterward.

That is the scientific method in its most essential form. Observe, hypothesize, experiment, analyze, conclude.

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

What is called magic in one age is technology in the next.

Now your reference is mistaken in its application. Magic does not become technology; it begins as technology. Think about how your computer works.