I don’t think Science says they are not true. I think Science simply says the evidence is not there. I’m sure that when/if the evidence is found Science will gladly say it’s true.
[/quote]
Some folks apparently have not figured out that science and scientism are two different things.
Science will certainly gladly say it’s true. Scientism-ists will not.
Many of you are in the latter camp.[/quote]
The same thing can be said for any religious person. Some choose to believe based only on faith. Others believe because they “know” its true.
[/quote]
Bingo. Faith is inherently required at the fundamental level regardless of your world view.
Also remember, you can really “know” Nothing.[/quote]
You are failing to distinguish between a paradigm’s ability to describe, to explain, or to predict. Science ( and the theory of evolution in particular) is able to fulfill all of these functions.
[/quote]
You have missed the distinction that I was making. Science cannot answer the most fundamental and important of all questions: why are we here? What is the purpose of life?
[quote]
In the philosophical sense, the physical and life sciences are more empirical than they are rational.
I fail to see how national mythologies relate to what I posted above. The do not describe reality, not do they possess explanatory or predictive power.[/quote]
Who says they don’t describe reality. I already told you that all we have is a few thousand years of corroborated nihilism - nihilism in the sense of a universe that is indifferent to man. Myths are expressions of primordial truths about the nature of man, God and the meaning of life.
You are failing to distinguish between a paradigm’s ability to describe, to explain, or to predict. Science ( and the theory of evolution in particular) is able to fulfill all of these functions.
[/quote]
You have missed the distinction that I was making. Science cannot answer the most fundamental and important of all questions: why are we here? What is the purpose of life?
[quote]
In the philosophical sense, the physical and life sciences are more empirical than they are rational.
I fail to see how national mythologies relate to what I posted above. The do not describe reality, not do they possess explanatory or predictive power.[/quote]
Who says they don’t describe reality. I already told you that all we have is a few thousand years of corroborated nihilism - nihilism in the sense of a universe that is indifferent to man. Myths are expressions of primordial truths about the nature of man, God and the meaning of life.[/quote]
You don’t seem to be willing to admit that they could also be false.
You are failing to distinguish between a paradigm’s ability to describe, to explain, or to predict. Science ( and the theory of evolution in particular) is able to fulfill all of these functions.
[/quote]
You have missed the distinction that I was making. Science cannot answer the most fundamental and important of all questions: why are we here? What is the purpose of life?
No, that’s not correct. I am willing to consider that and have done so. Also, given the abstract and symbolic nature of myths “true” is not really an appropriate word anyway.
I don’t think Science says they are not true. I think Science simply says the evidence is not there. I’m sure that when/if the evidence is found Science will gladly say it’s true.
[/quote]
Some folks apparently have not figured out that science and scientism are two different things.
Science will certainly gladly say it’s true. Scientism-ists will not.
Many of you are in the latter camp.[/quote]
The same thing can be said for any religious person. Some choose to believe based only on faith. Others believe because they “know” its true.
[/quote]
Bingo. Faith is inherently required at the fundamental level regardless of your world view.
Also remember, you can really “know” Nothing.[/quote]
You can know deductively certain propositions. They just happen to be few and far between. There is very little you can ‘know’, but you can know somethings. The list is something you can count on your fingers, if those even exist
You are failing to distinguish between a paradigm’s ability to describe, to explain, or to predict. Science ( and the theory of evolution in particular) is able to fulfill all of these functions. In the philosophical sense, the physical and life sciences are more empirical than they are rational.
I fail to see how national mythologies relate to what I posted above. The do not describe reality, not do they possess explanatory or predictive power.[/quote]
One could argue that empiricism is inherently rational, but not totally explanatory. Empiricism does more than observe, it observes relationships from which correlational, predictive models can be derived. What it does not do is deal with essence. Science does not have that capability inherent to it.
But to Push’s point that it is a lot to do with faith is correct. You are putting faith in a lot of people who make a lot of claims, most of which may be true, but most people cannot verify with any kind of real certainty. In other words we’re really hoping scientists are not lying to us, because in order to build on their knowledge we have to assume their conclusions are true. In order to move forward, you cannot go back and redo every experiment ever done to verify the veracity of the claims. We go with it on the assumption that the science we are studying was done with integrity and that the reports on it are true. We are putting faith in our fellow man.
Do I think evolution is true? Yes, but it is a belief in my fellow man putting together a scientific theory based on what they were able to observe and relate. I haven’t seen, myself personally, evolution at work. I am putting my faith in scientists to be honest and forthright with their conclusions based on the work they have done.
That being said, macro evolution is still a huge problem for evolutionary theory. It makes sense on paper, there is just simply not enough evidence to corroborate it on a large scale. Perhaps that will come, or perhaps evolution is only part of the story. We don’t know, but I look forward to the future works to close the gap.
“According to modern scholars, the figures found in myths and legends are merely abstract sublimations of historical figures, which have eventually replaced the latter and become myths and fantastic tales. On the contrary, the opposite is true: there are realities of a superior, archetypal order, which are shadowed in various ways by symbols and myths [?] Here myth constitutes the primary element and should be regarded as the starting point, while the historical figure or datum is only one of the various contingent and conditioned expressions of the superior order of things.” - Julius Evola, The Mystery of the Grail
Not sure if it was this thread but, what was your problem with “Humanism”?
Just curious[/quote]
Humanism is a metaphysical system that aims to meet the material needs and wants of man. It is devoid of a higher meaning or purpose. Humanism is a manifestation of modernity; an age of nihilism, hedonism and decline. A higher meaning and purpose is preserved in tradition and traditional societies and can be seen in the aristocratic warrior culture of bushido, the European concept of chivalry and the Roman concept of virtus.
That there Nature has done a lot to support evolution, I’ll give you that, but all its peer-reviewed papers and studies can’t hold a candle to the groundbreaking work done by Michelangelo et al.
That there Nature has done a lot to support evolution, I’ll give you that, but all its peer-reviewed papers and studies can’t hold a candle to the groundbreaking work done by Michelangelo et al.[/quote]
That there Nature has done a lot to support evolution, I’ll give you that, but all its peer-reviewed papers and studies can’t hold a candle to the groundbreaking work done by Michelangelo et al.[/quote]
That there Nature has done a lot to support evolution, I’ll give you that, but all its peer-reviewed papers and studies can’t hold a candle to the groundbreaking work done by Michelangelo et al.[/quote]
The renaissance was the apogee of European civilisation but contained within it the seeds of its own demise. It was the last flowering of the old spiritual civilisation of the Middle Ages. The competing forces of monarchs and the Papacy led to schism/subjectivism and the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire. Alongside ran rationalism and empiricism and the destruction of the old societies by various metaphysical revolutions in the form of schism(Reformation) and organised revolutionary nihilism(American and French Revolutions).
The Enlightenment unleashed humanism as an ethical framework to replace divine law; Kant’s categorical imperative, the utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill, Marxism, classical liberalism etc - they’re all systems to secularise divine law. And they all attempt to materialise man by quantifying his well being in terms of his material wants and needs without reference to anything higher; anything that transcends his appetite.
Every political system that emerged from the Enlightenment was a destructive blueprint to tear apart the traditional, hierarchical social order of peasants, burghers, priests, aristocrats, religious military orders(warriors, aesthetes, philosophers etc) and His representative(the King).
The old right(the authentic right) is against modernity and opposes the loss of the spiritual order of the civil society that occurred in the transition from agrarianism to industrialisation. It opposes “capitalism” in the sense of capitalism as the organising principle of the state. “Capitalism” as the organising principle of the state is a nihilistic organised deviancy aimed at satisfying the material appetite of man, meeting all his material wants and needs and encouraging ever increasing levels of consumption. It(capitalism) is an expression of nihilism. That doesn’t mean that the economic principles of the free market can’t be put towards some end - eg, mercantilism - but without a society with a spiritual hierarchy and functioning aristocracy with all members of society looking up and towards a higher power and purpose - a spiritual society - without that underlying the civil society “Capitalism” as such, is just another expression of nihilism.
The old right - the authentic right- is opposed to the radical sovereign individualism that emerged in the American revolution, the radical collectivist thought that emerged from the French Revolution and the utilitarianism and laissez faire of the classical liberals. All of it constitutes modernity and nihilism. All of the political systems that emerged amongst European societies since the 18th Century have all been organised nihilism of one form or another.
