Good, Good.

"He's saying we should trust in science and myth equally. Even though they contradict one another at every turn, and even though myths are bunk."

Yep. We had myths to explain the movement of the sun. They are obviously not cosmologically true. However, when a human looks at something we do so in a human reality. Hence, it is symbolic to attach a daimon to this observation. Science is also based on observation, only it makes utility of the cerebral cortex. Hence, scientific truths have less impact than mythical ones. My dilemma is when people attach mythical proportions to science. They deliberately attach emotions to a practice that should not inspire these feelings ... hence, evolution is tricky, like heliocentricity because it removes the diamon from our awareness. This is when we start to abuse our nature because it clearly is not human ... hence void of ethics.

When the last person dies, the universe will cease to exist. This is much like the reality of the falling tree in an unheard forest. Nothing to hear it, therefore their is no noise. The fact that hertz described waves is superficial to the HUMAN EXPERIENCE.

We are dealing with the reptilian brain. Do you believe in God? It makes us feel at odds because or minds were taught myth at childhood. These physiological and tonal differences are the realm of myth.

I asked an atheist is God real? He answered no. That is fine because God is not real. However, on the question of belief, his voice changed, his body squirmed and the reaction as nayooo. Humans have a part of their brain that believes in an ordered universe. It helped us out of the cave, it guides us in court, it even devloped the atomic theory. God is simply a human construct that enables this.


My argument is that we need to reflect on it once in a while, if not, more often. Sure, its not logical, it is not real, but these stories are fascinating. Moreso than the excitation state of a quark or the gluons that induce attraction.


"I don't know much about biological science, but I find this to be dubious to say the least."

Yep. I work at the School of Pharm and applied science ... this is afct we don't want you to know. But ... 75% of all drugs developed come directly from precursor molecules derived from plants. Scientists still go into the forest thieving off natives in hope of a panacea. lol

Benzodiazepines were discovered serendipitously, much like the popular penicillin - gee it's the last time I clean my glassware!

note: we have even removed the magical (luck, inspired) realm from science to make it more business-like.

"The promotion of mysticism, apparently. It doesn't have a point insofar as mysticism is a bunch of nonsense, almost by definition. Honestly I think responding to this seriously may be giving it more credit than it deserves. But I hate to see this kind of thing spread around unchallenged."

Perhaps for a rationalist, but this is much like extolling the chair, whilst denying the floor of a house. You accept the techniques and definitions of your science, but fail to converge the traditions of past. Much like walking the plank of a pirate ship. You might stumble upon new land, but chances are you will end up in the ocean.