Saturday, December 27, 2008

Poetry and Reason

Between the Democratic sweep in November, the continuing politics/religion debate, and the Christmas season, there are some disturbing developments. The kick-off for the current round seems to have been the passage of prop. 8 in California. In spite of that state's overwhelming Democratic majority, and gay people being mostly a Democratic constituency, the right, or privilege, to marry still lost. And yet, rather than have an inter-party debate as to why that happened, Democrats prefer to blame it on the Christian Right; specifically, the Mormons. The atheistic scientific rationalists are joining in the chorus now as well.

There is a trail of logic that leads to the idea of a created universe, whether the scientific rationalists want to admit it or not. Science can answer many things, but it is not equipped to answer everything. The scientific method, by definition, is limited. Beauty, love, romance...

Dear Sweetheart,
The chemical reactions and electrical impulses within my skull are causing me to ask you to be my Valentine.

Your collection of atoms,
Ron


I once saw a documentary about a group of scientists who were trying to figure out why songbirds sing. They found that it was neither territorial nor mating calls. There was no rational explanation for it. They concluded that song birds sing because they apparently enjoy singing. I don't know if that's really the case, but I do know that when scientists can't find a rational answer, they guess, just like the rest of us.

I choose to believe that Thomas Hardy summed it up best with The Darkling Thrush...

At once a voice arose among
The bleak twigs overhead
In a full-hearted evensong
Of joy illimited;
An aged thrush, frail, gaunt, and small
In blast-beruffled plume,
Had chosen thus to fling his soul
Upon the growing gloom.

So little cause for carolings
Of such ecstatic sound
Was written on terrestrial things
Afar or nigh around,
That I could think there trembled through
His happy good-night air
Some blessed Hope, whereof he knew
And I was unaware.


When atheistic Darwinian logic can explain poets, birds, and why I gain pleasure from both, I may rethink my spiritual sentiments. Until then, the universe just isn't rational.

9 comments:

http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/ said...

Umm....actually Darwin wasn't athiestic at all. Like his father, he was studying for the seminary when he accidentally got involved in ornothology and then biology. After he made his trip on the Beagle he waited 25 years to publish the "Origin of Species" while he was wrestling with his empirical observations v. his inner spirituality. It was the Church of England which originally put his findings as aethiestic much like the Church which put Galileo as aethiestic.

Although still not recognized by theists, evolution is one of God's greatest miracles given us for the betterment of humanity.

Local So-and-so said...

I didn't mean to imply that Darwin himself was an atheist, only that he gets lumped in with the anti-religious attacks. There are many holes in Darwin's Theory, yet rationalists like to claim logic and reason, and site Darwin as their example.

http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/ said...

Apologies for the wrong inference gathered.

"There are many holes in Darwin's Theory,.." Now this interests me. Just what are the many holes in "Darwin's Theory" and just which of his - and the tens of thousands which have evolved from Darwin - are you speaking of?

This is just gotta hear...

Local So-and-so said...

OK, just to keep things simple, let's start with the origin of life itself. Please remember that the scientific method requires proof in order to move from theory to fact. Proof requires physical evidence, and that evidence will need to be reproducible. I eagerly await the volumes of peer reviewed data.

http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/ said...

Creating life? Oooo...that's way too easy. Do a Google Search on "creating life in a test tube" and you'll get 459,000 hits. Is that enough? As far as "peer review" goes, how about the combined sciences of botany, biology, and zoology in every (credible) seat of learning in the world as sufficient review and acceptance of Darwinianism - John MacArthur excepted, of course.

However, "creating" life was never something Darwin was much interested in. Darwin was interested in how species changed through time. Moreover, he was interested in the extinction of species (devolution) and why they did so. To make it even easier to grasp, Darwin was interested in evolution and devolution especially as it applied to humankind.

And btw, the subjects of "logic and reason" are way, way across campus in the Philosophy and Theosophy departments. There you can doodle in the air all you want and not have to worry about empiricism, scientific methods including "peer review", and rigid stuff like that.

And if you want to study something with absolutely no peer review, no credible theories, and totally without substantiation, try the Economics department. It seems everything they espouse has recently gone in the toilet. I'd sure hate to put money into what those guys say.

BtwII, if something does ever get from the "theory" bracket into a higher one, it becomes "law" which there are almost none of. E.g., gravity - like evolution - is still just a mere "theory". But only fools dare deny it.

Meanwhile....Darwin keeps on going like the EverReady bunny. heh heh heh...

http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/ said...

BtwIII, if you'd like to "create life" you can actually do right there at home with just a few basic chemicals and some ordinary lab equipment. It's called the Miller-Urey Experiment which you can easily find in a google search. Or just follow this Link.

After you've obtained the goo, just let it set for a few days and you'll have your very own Dick Cheney! heh heh heh....

Local So-and-so said...

Once again you wander off the subject. The life and times of Charles Darwin are only of passing interest here. The use of "Darwinism" by atheistic rationalists as their example of superior knowledge of the workings of nature, as compared to the poet, was the issue.

As for the test tube crowd, anyone can "create" life with pre-mixed ingredients. Google "babies". Darwinism suggests a naturally occurring spontaneous combustion. In order for that to be proven by scientific method, it would first need to be observed. The idea that it may or may not have happened once, long ago, is not quite proof by the scientist’s own standard.

And as you yourself admit...

'...the subjects of "logic and reason" are way, way across campus in the Philosophy and
Theosophy departments...'

Agreed, logic and reason have no place in science. All the more reason for rationalists to forgo Darwinism in their examples.

Thanks for the link. Upon careful reading I find only

“...an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions present on the early Earth...”

and later,

“...The molecules produced were simple organic molecules, far from a complete living biochemical system...”

Nice try Doctor. As for the "theory" of gravity, Newton's apple provides the naturally occurring phenomenon. Google Skylab and you will find physical evidence that is reproducible.

http://texex-xpress.blogspot.com/ said...

Mmm.. I believe the subject was if "Darwin's Theory" had holes in it. All Newton accomplished was being able to quantify gravity - not prove it existed. And things have not progressed much from there despite Einstein and Hawkings.

Again I repeat Darwin was not very interesed in the origins of life; only on their evolution and devolution.

And what's so erroneous about "hypothetical" conditions? Wasn't the Bible written by hypothesizers? They sure didn't observe the creation of the Earth and the Universe. Ergo, they had to start with a set of hypothetical conditions and create, er..., rationalize a story from there.

But we are agreeing on something here anyway. The 'rationalists" are quite limited in their knowledge if their epistemological experiences is all they have to fall back on. And it shows!

Local So-and-so said...

If scientists are unable to prove their theory using their own method, why would that be a problem for either poets or religionists? The burden of proof is on the scientists. And no, I’ve never heard of the bible being written by hypothesizers.