A Rant I Indulged in Today...

[ferchrissakes]

Upon reading the following section of an anti-science email I received today, went off a bit on a rant which will prolly only serve to push my religious friend away from me further... but I cannot help myself when I see people thinking so irrationally:

The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of his own. 'Professor, is

Comments

Re: I would say that some religions are reconcilable with science

[ferchrissakes]

Sorry to disappoint, but no, I do not think that luck is a thing can be generated, created, or possessed. I think that circumstance and negative result simply sometimes happen within the life one person or another... and sometimes those negative or positive results happen more often to some people than others... according to the rules of averages and the like, this is well within limits of randomness and circumstance. I am also, certain that many people who THINK they are unlucky often times brings their "bad luck" upon themselves by dishing out an abundance of negativity (whether it be in the form of cheating, lying, stealing, violence, betrayal or the like)... or alternatively some people are simply unwilling to function in society in the capacity that is expected of them, which more often than not, leads to them leading seemingly unlucky lives because they have little money and run into greater and greater problems. So, no, to be frank, I think that "luck" is a concept that is most often left to those who are self-centered, self-righteous, paranoid, or unwilling to take responsibility for their actions. So, yeah, I think Ganesh is a load of hoo-haw from a scientific perspective.

As far as the existence of Nirvana goes, sure, it is possible that it is in fact an idea of the multiverse or alternate dimensions or the like... and yes, the translation of the word shows good meaning, but ultimately... there is simply insufficient evidence to state one thing or the other about it (as fact, that is) at this point. Theoretical science might open the possibility that what you claim is true, but that doesn't mean that that possibility should be taken as gospel... or taken as truth/fact. Based on the fact that it is unprovable/unkowable in the current state of our perception and ability... I guess I would have to concede that it is possible to reconcile the two, but neither likely nor knowable as fact, due to a lack of demonstrable evidence.

Re: I would say that some religions are reconcilable with science

[intertubes]

sorry to disappoint, but I didn't mean to have you think that luck can be generated... actually, that is what makes luck so interesting, because it is out of your control and is the closest thing to "god" that you will ever see... if you disagree with that, I don't know what to tell you. I am also rather disappointed in your newfound preachy nature in the last few years. my "luck" can be seen in not getting killed in certain circumstances where I could have been killed, if you meant any of that as some kind of personal attack, I have no idea, because it seems it didn't have anything to do with the information I posted... in fact, you were harping on negative luck I think, so I'm uncertain where all that came from, as I was talking about Ganesh. you really went off on some kind of weird tangent it would seem to me. if you're saying that I think that I am unlucky, quite the contrary. I think I am very lucky as mindblowing as that may sound. I am assuming, actually, that you were talking about someone else, though I'm not sure who... what makes a man, lebowski? I don't know, a pair of testicles? to be more exact, the definition of luck I was thinking of is this: a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person. so that is pretty irrefutable. I think that you are just coming from a very opinionated angle on this. to reiterate, I never said that luck is generated by a person. I'd like for you to re-read what I posted and respond to that. or perhaps, should I mention that some major major scientists were religious? that is what confuses me, at least to some small extent.

I wasn't really claiming it was true, I was just looking up stuff on the internet, to back up an argument, although I have not made any decisions regarding truth, other than truth should be looked at on a sliding scale, such as how true or false is something... I was far from taking anything for gospel, fwiw. so yeah, I should have worded it that some religions are possibly reconcilable with science. for further inquiry, read that Tao of Physics, it is quite convincing, and brings forth talking points on Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhuism that I think that you would find very interesting, being an open minded individual?

Re: I would say that some religions are reconcilable with science

[intertubes]

although I should apologize for changing the subject slightly from your original post, and for possibly misinterpreting the intent of your most recent reply... it just seemed from out of left field. I just find this stuff very interesting, and think that there's always a chance factor in most things, to some varying degree. read: feynman's theory of uncertainty. I rarely get to converse on such topics, so I get a little worked up about them.

Re: I would say that some religions are reconcilable with science

[ferchrissakes]

It's fine, sorry you see me as preachy... I just feel that debate is healthy... the problem is that in this society discussions like we're having are less and less common. I attribute it to the "Bradbury Effect", i.e. information becomes transmitted in increasingly simpler terms and is processed by the audience in a less and less detailed fashion. Ideas become simpler, more cut and dry... with fewer and fewer grey areas. Not sure why you thought I may have been personally attacking you... As far as I am concerned, this discussion has never about you or me directly... moreso about the subject at hand and subordinately about how you and I view the world. As far as you thinking that I was off topic there by discussing luck for a long period, I was simply explaining my stance on "luck" because of the nature Ganesh relating to luck and the fact that you made the following statement:

Ganesh is the Remover of Obstacles (I would hope to think that you at least think that luck is real), or the Lord of Beginnings (such as someone who transforms their life through a new beginning, or fresh start, what many Americans are going through right now).

More specifically, the bit about hoping that I still believe in luck... that, seemed like what I would describe as a statement that was rooted in antipathy and affected in a manner that felt disapproving in some way. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter to me (not that I don't care about your opinion) whether you are disappointed by my opinions and points of view, seeing as they are intrinsic to my perception. Although, I would rather you not be so judgmental as to be disappointed by what you seem to consider "preachiness"... especially considering that, when first off, I am not out to "convert" anyone. I am simply out to point out where I think people's logic may be flawed or where people's rationalizations seem dubious is all. Take it or leave it, it isn't going anywhere.

FYI - Not trying to be inflammatory or harsh here, just telling the straight up truth. ;o)

* edited to correct spelling errors.

Re: I would say that some religions are reconcilable with science

[intertubes]

as usual, we are misinterpreting each others posts. it cannot be denied, however, that certain people are luckier than others, is all I'm really saying. I was using the idea of Ganesh to state that these things do happen, but I do not think that someone can alter their luck, except by what you're saying, to fit in better in society, since we are a social species. there are however, forces such as randomness and chance in the world, and to get more mysterious, forces that we cannot perceive. time will tell what and how these things should be interpreted. I think these types of conversations are marginalized because a) they are not productive at places such as work, social events (especially if drinking is involved, although personally I would enjoy it), or family functions (well, maybe not so much our family as others). I think I took issue with your initiation of your post, "sorry to disappoint" which totally sets the tone for said post, making it slightly patronizing is all.

all this can be broken down into physics and correlated to certain aspects of religions and ethos such as buddhism, hinduism and especially taoism, which is itself a social code. I urge you to read the books the Tao of Physics, the Perennial Philosophy, and mostly, The Science of Good and Evil, a book on behavioral sciences, since you seem to be enamored of science as of late.