Re: Re: Science, God and the ego.

Some interesting points and counterpoints.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• science
• myth
• technology
• meaning

[riverran67]

aren't theories fillings of the gaps?

[rrawwbb]

I agree, but these fillings are only partial albeit substantial, still leaving many questions to those well versed in that field. This is why religious leaders, theologians, philosophers, and mystics often will latch on so strongly to an unexplained nuance of a sound (though not perfect) scientific theory. These gaps keep getting smaller and smaller, at least from a clunky human perspective. And so far there is no perfect theory, only approximations.

[0ThouArtThat0]

Science can objectively verify facts, but facts are meaningless until a theory puts them together. Theories are mythological in nature, they fill in the gaps between facts with imaginative narratives.

[rrawwbb]

Intersting, ok, so a fact finds it's relative meaning within a theory which find it's relative meaning within a larger mythology - granted. But it is the very quality of "objective verifiability" that distinguishes a theory tied to facts, from a theory tied to myth, from a theory tied to nothing at all.

[rrawwbb]

Perhaps our global mental perspective is already sufficient to turn back the doomsday clock, only needing time to play itself out. One might say it'd better be, since I think we both agree things aren't about to spontaneously change.