Religion? Phoo-ey: Society has been hurt far more by philosophy

Define 'time'. Reality changes in the Universe. Things are not static. I am not sure what part of time Kant called illusory.

It's the horribly simple definition.

Matter is convertable into energy, and relativity proves that time is no absolute in any sense. Recent advances also indicate that the speed of light is not an abxolute, and that particles in two different places can be linked by means for which we have no understanding yet.

E=MC2 involves the speed of light, which is the equivalent of a measure of time. Why should the illusory elements of the universe be tied to one that is not to produce their illusions?

Beyond that, given that all you know of the universe is illusory, how would you know it changes all the time? Don't forget the relativity issues.

I found the most interesting part to be the support given to Calvin by Kant, not to mention Darwin. Calvin, of course, was a bit too simplistic, but the key attributes of his denial of free will are there, provided one allows for the existence of a creator, and Kant does.

Scientific "facts" are not absolute as a result.

There was a time when nuclear fission could not even have been dreamed of. Science had to make an awful lot of progress before the concept was even possible, much less any attempt to determine if the concept was valid.

We know today that nuclear fission is not only possible, but can be put to practical use, and in fact is generating the electricity powering this computer I am writing this on.

Though once never guessed, and later greatly doubted, we now know it is a fact, nuclear fission is possible.

This is an absolute fact. It is not suddenly going to become untrue, it is no true only on certain days, it is not true only if someone believes hard enough. It is ABSOLUTELY TRUE, whether anyone believes it or not.

Now I have no idea why you want so badly to believe we cannot know the truth, not only about scientific matters, but many others as well, but that wish is not going to be fulfilled. Maybe you really cannot know anything for sure, but I assure you, the rest of us can.

blind faith in science has every bit of potential as has blind religious faith to cause harm.

I agree that blind faith in anything is dangerous. It is not the object of the faith that is the problem, however. It is credulity itself. Quackery, junk-science, and almost every scam and con going passes itself off as "science" or "philosohy" or "medicine." It is not legitimate science or philsophy or medicine that is the problem, it is people's superstitious "faith" in those things they believe they have no need to understand.

Hank

We know what we know about nuclear fission AT THIS POINT IN TIME. We will most likely know more later. Sometimes what we "know" in science is later found to be in error. But more often, our knowledge is not "untrue" it is simply incomplete.

That is the nature of science and one of many reasons why we should not make science our new "god". I stole that from Einstein .... "We should take care not to make the intellect our god

Einstein wrote often of faith, spirituality and the importance of mystery. Here are some more:

"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenatrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men." ___ A. Einstein

I have deep faith that the principle of the universe will be beautiful and simple. ___ A.Einstein

The process of scientific discovery is, in effect, a continual flight from wonder." ___ A. Einstein

Einstein wrote often of faith...

Nobody's perfect.

The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion.

Einstein was brilliant, in a very narrow way, but in some areas he was just another crackpot. What a, "mystic emotion," might be, I cannot imagine. (There is no such thing.)

Let's do this. If you name me one disease that has been cured or relieved by mysticism, I will name you ten that have been cured by the science of medicine. You name me one advance in agriculture or food production that mysticism has provided and I will name you a hundred that science has provided. You name me one form of electronic device that mysticism has provided and I will name you a thousand that science has provided. Name me one principle of mathematics, logic, or economics that mysticism has provided, and I will name the geniuses in these fields that have provided all we know about them.

What mystic teacher or teaching has made a single contribution to human betterment or knowldge in any field? None!

Mysticism has never (and never will) provide one useful truth, or any knowledge of any kind. Why do you pursue it so?

Hank

He was not talking about mysticism. He was talking about the ability to open oneself up to the greatness of possibilities, to free one's self of intellectual restraint. To be open to the wonder and mystery of the universe (and not to fear what is not known or that something might even be "unknowable") give the truly great mind the freedom to explore the possibilities.

You missed entirely what he was saying. He is not talking about mysticism in the form of magic, but rather in the form of having a healthy respect for the unknown and for the possibility that there are some things we cannot ken.

It is unlikely that the truly earthbound in their intellect have ever thought of one useful thing.

He was not talking about mysticism. He was talking about the ability to open oneself up to the greatness of possibilities, to free one's self of intellectual restraint.

I consider "too open oneself up to the greatness of possibilities, to free one's self of intellectual restraint," both mysticism and grossly immoral. To live for the truth and to live morally requires self-restraint and ruthless intellectual intergrity.

Hank

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.