demagogue on 12/2/2015 at 07:56
I'm not a specialist anyway, but for the record, I was definitely oversimplifying for cheap rhetorical purposes.
I remember reading about legacy genetic code that either works in a different context (which is why you always have to talk about homologues across species, since the "equivalent" mechanism is usually manifested quite differently, and doesn't even use the same code in the same way), or has its purpose taken over by another mechanism and it gets repurposed, or it even gets its raison d'etre pulled out from under it altogether but it continues on anyway because there's no particular selective mechanism to get rid of it either, or the spandrel case of side-effects to adaptations, and a thousand shades of grey in between these kinds of cases.
It's another reason why the actual technicalities of biology make for terrible conspiracy or mysticism fodder, since nothing is so clear cut to add up to a sensible reason anything happens. To be honest, pretty much most if not all of social practice is just as complex, so some idea as clear cut as "capitalism exploits the vulnerable" or "religion promotes violence" is a non-starter to begin with as an actual causal explanation for anything. But people do like their conspiracy theories.
faetal on 12/2/2015 at 08:54
Mysticism is an interesting one, since it basically amounts to a bell curve overlay of reality which gets created over time by speculation, eventually averaging out to whatever is deemed canon. The only requirement is that it loosely fits observations and is made up largely of ideas which are non-falsifiable e.g. "You can't prove god/Vishnu/Loki/Unicorns/Santa/Russell's teapot/etc don't exist".
demagogue on 12/2/2015 at 09:21
Well pure mysticism (in my naive understanding) doesn't change a thing about the natural world, so is entirely consistent with a universe of nothing more than physical entities and forces, but everything is behind the scenes that only consciousness has some kind of special access to, which I read as probably equivalent to admitting it's all really just in your own consciousness. But whereas a lot of people take that as a bad thing, I personally think it's a cool worldview, since it means exploring the hidden parts of the world are actually exploring the hidden parts of your mind, or whatever "deeper reality" you want to call whatever it's tapping into in manifesting experiences, and those are probably the mind's most interesting parts. I couldn't call myself atheist in the literal sense of the term "God" not having a referent in the world, because I think when many religious folks speak of God, they do have a clear reference to something they find in their experience, which I think is something they really find there, it's a real experience, and the search for it is worthwhile. And the mystic's path to it, to look for the hidden meanings behind perceptions, is as good a path as any.
So I always thought the religious mystics as the most believable and realistic brand of religion, because nothing in the natural world has to change & you still get everything (whereas a lot of free minded folks I think want to say is the least believable or realist brand of religion, I guess because they're thinking mystics are always looking behind reality, whereas the creationists are at least "realist" in the sense they talk about God physically building the universe brick by brick).
faetal on 12/2/2015 at 09:53
I'm totally accepting of the idea of god as a manifestation in people's consciousness. You don't evolve the level of self-awareness we have without throwing up a few coping mechanisms to soothe the existential angst. Pre-enlightenment existence without some form of belief that everything had a meaning and was created somehow (an extrapolated cosmic father figure seems as logical a choice as any) would have been very hard to deal with psychologically. I actually find studying biology very soothing because it puts so much into a place where it makes sense. Learning about evolution and (through my own reading) theories and hypotheses of bio- and abiogenesis has allowed me an understanding of the world around me and my place in it which I wouldn't have dreamed possible. I guess this is why I have a diminished view of supernatural or even overly personalised relationships with reality. Compared with having a mechanistic understanding, it all just seems so vague and hand-wavy. Obviously that's just my personal view on it - I'm sure there are plenty of scientists who are into mysticism.
Tony_Tarantula on 12/2/2015 at 20:11
Good way of putting it. While I'm open minded to the existence of the supernatural(or phenomona which are functionally supernatural), I'm very skeptical of the personalized take on religion a lot of modern sects have.
faetal on 12/2/2015 at 22:50
Stop the internet everyone for a minute. I've not got anything lined up for when we agree on stuff.
Tony_Tarantula on 12/2/2015 at 23:53
I wouldn't call it agreeing, you've made it pretty clear that you find the existence of the supernatural to be completely illogical.
faetal on 12/2/2015 at 23:59
I think it's a misnomer. If something exists within the universe, it's natural. If there's no explanation for it, then it's an unknown aspect of nature. Some humans deciding that they don't like the unknown can paint a face on it if they like, but that doesn't confer "supernatural" properties on the unknown. I'm OK with us not having all of the answers. The ones we have and rate at which we find new ones is more than any one person can hope to learn in ten lifetimes.
I think religion has a logical function as a personal existential analgesic. I'm not sure it has much relevance to the nature of the universe though.
Tony_Tarantula on 13/2/2015 at 00:51
I find even that a bit narrowminded. For starters, we aren't even sure that this is the only universe.
