Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
yes it's true-- but look at this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13brooks.html
that man you see is an utter twat. but still-- the implications of the science are ready to kill the soul--socially that is. oh yeah. i couldn't be happier myself. why people need scientific proof of the obvious i don't know, but there! |
The problem with that sort of article is that you get into this epistemic loop that's pretty pointless, as pointless as religions antagonists claim religion to be - assuming that any notions of 'faith' or 'religion' are 'false' constructs, and any belief in those is a consequence of empirical chemistry/ physics, how can the brain trangress beyond its own (empirically defined) limits? This might seem pessimistic, but if it produces endorphins in some people to intuit ('falsely') the existence of God, religion [etc], then does that make the notion 'false', the 'outside' of God 'false', or does it make God true
within the empirically defined parameters of the brain? And ultimately, does science propose to make people's lives any
different (positively or negatively) or does it propose to merely
observe?
See? It's a big loop of pointless cock.