Re: virus:Logic

Sodom (
Thu, 09 Oct 1997 20:34:36 -0400

Marie Foster wrote:
> Sodom wrote:
> >
> > Marie, I can't agree about religion, though I admire the attempt to
> > qualify religion as an attempt to explain the existence of the energy we
> > seem to agree exists. I see no reason, either currently or historically
> > to believe that religion is interested in explaining what is happening
> > in the universe around us. It is more interested in molding our thoughts
> > to what they would like reality to be. In my opinion this is done in an
> > attempt to dominate and control others. Religion is about power over the
> > ignorant. When religion was the dominating philosophical force on the
> > planet , advancement for the people on all fronts (violence, equality,
> > life span etc...) was at a near standstill. In the short time that
> > science has been gaining ground (the last 400 years say) We have become
> > quite advanced. No one in this forum would even be able to communicate
> > without the advancements in science we have made in just the last couple
> > of decades. People use the atomic bomb as an example of the evils of
> > science - well, what is evil about the bomb? there have only been two
> > used, and a small number of deaths associated with them (Auto accidents
> > in the US outstrip the bomb in only four or five years when it comes to
> > fatalities) Though the potential of the bomb is serious, the
> > advancements gleaned from this knowledge have led to a huge improvements
> > in the way we live, and have insured security for our country and many
> > others that could not be achieved otherwise. I am a pacifist and despise
> > weapons of mass destruction, but understand that my like or dislike is
> > irrelevant - does anyone really believe the US has to be concerned about
> > an invasion? Of course not, no nuclear power worries about invasion.
> > (except perhaps Israel which is a religious state surrounded by
> > religious states)
> > I don't see that religion offers ANY insights not obtainable through
> > common sense alone. I was raised an Atheist from the start and in
> > general find myself of stronger moral character than most religious
> > people I know. I cannot kill, because death is final and complete, there
> > is no "heaven" to send people to. I cannot harm another without a
> > logical reason such as self continuation or defense of anther's
> > continuation. I started studying religion in my early teens, and to this
> > day am sickened by all religions I have discovered. This is due to one
> > thread of thought in religion, and that is "divinely inspired infallible
> > truth" positioned by all major religions and many minor religions.
> > Science, on the other hand, is nothing like religion. Science has a
> > single purpose - learn what is learn able. My opinions change every time
> > a better scientific theory comes about. I cannot afford to let my
> > personal tastes dominate over logic, though they try mightily. Before I
> > discovered the Church of Virus, I had already determined that the three
> > major necessities were Life, Love and Logic - not too dissimilar from
> > Reason - Empathy and Vision.
> >
> > Life: This is so valuable because unlike most other things, we each only
> > get one, and it is finite. Logically, because of it's scarcity, it is
> > extremely valuable.
> >
> > Love: I consider this to be "Empathy" in the Virian Virtues.
> >
> > Logic: So far the best tool we have to guarantee growth and
> > understanding.
> >
> > Now that I know the Virian Virtues, I must admit that I like "Vision"
> > quite a bit too, but that seems to me to be the natural condition of a
> > healthy mind.
> >
> > Answer to your question: Universe is NOT infinite, it is a closed
> > system that so far obeys the laws of physics as we understand them. As
> > this understanding grows every day, our Universe becomes a little
> > smaller and our physics becomes a little more accurate.
> >
> > I must agree with some things you say though, I love poetry, literature,
> > art and the like. I am a musician and am very pleased with the
> > electro-chemical reactions that happen in my brain when I am releasing
> > "creative energy". But nothing about these tastes argue against science,
> > I will agree that science however has yet to explain precisely the
> > nature of creativity. In fact, as you say, there are still mysteries -
> > more mysteries than answers. I think that without these mysteries to
> > pursue, existence for me would be without "value".
> >
> > I would like to see a "Religious insight" that depends upon religion for
> > it's conception. Can someone demonstrate this?
> >
> >
> >
> > Marie Foster wrote:
> >
> > > I am going to risk it and sling in my thoughts about science -
> > > religion. It seems to me that both are attempts to explain the
> > > existence of the energy we seem to agree exists. How well or poorly
> > > either does this has to do more with the power structure that uses (
> > > or
> > > misuses) the insights gained. Scientific knowledge leads to atomic
> > > bombs as well as MRI machines. Luddites on the web bemoan the very
> > > technology that brings us all together in this arena. As a scientist
> > > I
> > > still read poetry. And I am glad that there are still mysteries left
> > > to
> > > be solved.
> > >
> > > And now a question. If the universe is infinite, are we not all the
> > > center of it?
> > >
> > > poetically,
> > >
> > > Marie
> I agree with you about how man has (mis)used religion. Not a good
> thing. I also approve of science.
> I like the concept of empathy = love. Do you believe in love and or
> empathy? If so, how would you prove them scientifically? Do you think
> we can find a love quanta? (Would be nice don't you think?)
> Sounds like you are on a good path
> Have you heard the joke about the little boy in New York City who after
> watching an old man come out every day and sit on the stoop with a rifle
> on his knees finally gets the courage to ask him why he does this?
> His response is, "I am keeping the elephants away"
> Little boy, "Mr. - there are no elephants in New York City!"
> Old man, "See... it works."
> I remain non delusional -
> Marie

Yes, all emotions are electro-chemical reactions. We know the basic
neurotransmitters responsible for a whole host of emotions. I don't mean
to imply that we understand them completely, I hope that I never do as i
enjoy my unpredictable humanity, but I would like to see science gain a
full understanding of the subject.

loved your story

I have seen the light, but I can't read by it.