Athiest-Theist Summit Takes Surprising Turn... more on this story
In a recent much hyped summit between atheists and theists, new ground was reached. Towards the end of what seemed to be a continuous conference with a no agenda, there was both consensus and deconsensus achieved in a manner that seemed to be strangely scripted. While the atheists hijacked almost the entire conference without even looking at the agenda first demanding the burden of proof be rightly weighed, leaving the other attendees and the moderator baffled at their lack of decorum, there were also wars in between groups on both sides of the argument. There seemed to be an equal raising and hushing of voices. It was noted that there was, over all, much to hide from, for at least a part of the group, or at least so it seemed.
While each group went about their mini-battles in the broad light of their open opposition, which is a first (the people that hide and are insidious usually do it really well enough not to shame their own cause), there also seemed to be a sense of camaraderie between fringe groups on either side that found solace in the fact that people actually had some amount of openmindedness, to anything for that matter - more for something as important as this. In this strange cocktail of turnouts at a conference that generally never gets to a conference hall because it ends up being fought on Youtube, Facebook, online forums, on the street and sometimes even in science class, you could feel the change in the air which felt like it was for the better. There are similarly cultured forums where these discussions happen but those are on higher stages between two sides (mostly one person per side), have limited prospect of proper question asking and other such features that seem to be, all-in-all, largely contrived towards.
Science trumps all, they say, and, as is expected, the needed assumptions are necessary. We cannot know what we can't find out (duh!!!) and we won't know it, therefore - but what we need to know, we will find out with the assumptions necessary to the experiment. They, however, don't specify on a tested universal paradigm of reason and logic that must be used. They hold on to what they already know before that (much like how we wallow in mud because of unfamiliarity (or familiarity that we refuse to even try to embrace) of something outside the mud that we needn't wallow in at all). The contention against the principle is that if we needed to find out something we don't know, and seemingly need to know, it would not be within our present sphere of knowledge. Therefore, reasonably and logically, we need to test, expand and experiment with our present paradigm because, as you can see, we've outdone it and have gone as far as the eye can see, ear can hear and fundamentals remain to innovate with. A refusal to expand only locks one into their own beliefs, of science or otherwise.
The conference hasn't yet signalled consensus on Truth, by any means whatsoever. It merely opened the argument for what it was worth and, lo and behold, the argument itself opened up. More than just opening up, it blew up in the face of everybody, like a nuclear bomb replete with big huge smoky mushroom cloud effect.While the hearts of men were torn apart by notions that their notions- within their own belief and outside of it - were clearly limited, it seemed that revelations started to appear. The opening up of hearts dawned upon men and women that they were seeking for as many answers from that which answers won't be found! The only thing that could scientifically give them this notion is either something that has the answers (and therefore shines some light on the situation and gives them a feeling of hope) and not just something that drowns them in their own doom that they distract themselves from it, by deriving theories around it. They were, indeed, wallowing in their own ideas. The slush of the mud stuck them down in their own highhandedness of what one knows and what one doesn't, what is and what isn't, what is indeed true and what indeed isn't.
More on this story as it develops...
While each group went about their mini-battles in the broad light of their open opposition, which is a first (the people that hide and are insidious usually do it really well enough not to shame their own cause), there also seemed to be a sense of camaraderie between fringe groups on either side that found solace in the fact that people actually had some amount of openmindedness, to anything for that matter - more for something as important as this. In this strange cocktail of turnouts at a conference that generally never gets to a conference hall because it ends up being fought on Youtube, Facebook, online forums, on the street and sometimes even in science class, you could feel the change in the air which felt like it was for the better. There are similarly cultured forums where these discussions happen but those are on higher stages between two sides (mostly one person per side), have limited prospect of proper question asking and other such features that seem to be, all-in-all, largely contrived towards.
Science trumps all, they say, and, as is expected, the needed assumptions are necessary. We cannot know what we can't find out (duh!!!) and we won't know it, therefore - but what we need to know, we will find out with the assumptions necessary to the experiment. They, however, don't specify on a tested universal paradigm of reason and logic that must be used. They hold on to what they already know before that (much like how we wallow in mud because of unfamiliarity (or familiarity that we refuse to even try to embrace) of something outside the mud that we needn't wallow in at all). The contention against the principle is that if we needed to find out something we don't know, and seemingly need to know, it would not be within our present sphere of knowledge. Therefore, reasonably and logically, we need to test, expand and experiment with our present paradigm because, as you can see, we've outdone it and have gone as far as the eye can see, ear can hear and fundamentals remain to innovate with. A refusal to expand only locks one into their own beliefs, of science or otherwise.
The conference hasn't yet signalled consensus on Truth, by any means whatsoever. It merely opened the argument for what it was worth and, lo and behold, the argument itself opened up. More than just opening up, it blew up in the face of everybody, like a nuclear bomb replete with big huge smoky mushroom cloud effect.While the hearts of men were torn apart by notions that their notions- within their own belief and outside of it - were clearly limited, it seemed that revelations started to appear. The opening up of hearts dawned upon men and women that they were seeking for as many answers from that which answers won't be found! The only thing that could scientifically give them this notion is either something that has the answers (and therefore shines some light on the situation and gives them a feeling of hope) and not just something that drowns them in their own doom that they distract themselves from it, by deriving theories around it. They were, indeed, wallowing in their own ideas. The slush of the mud stuck them down in their own highhandedness of what one knows and what one doesn't, what is and what isn't, what is indeed true and what indeed isn't.
More on this story as it develops...
Comments
Post a Comment