Closed b4 I could respond.
Loved all your comments, especially the last one, "If 'god' is just short for "nature", then he's a she."

I agree, which is why nature goes by "Mother Nature", which is the, Great Spirit, god of many Native Americans. And the "Logos" God of the Stoics, or the Tao.
My god.
The god of Einstein, only a god that plays dice, but the dice are loaded in favor of life existing, the dice hit strings that play the cosmic music of the spheres, resonating through the multiple dimensions of hyperspace.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2019 09:13PM by schrodingerscat.

The dice... Always with the dice.

Maybe all the gods are slaves to the Bell-Shaped Curve? Maybe the Bell-Shaped curve does need any help at all?

And I'll say it, cuz what the hell, I'm old! The dog thread was wonderful, in part because you never showed up to comment.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The dice... Always with the dice.
>
> Maybe all the gods are slaves to the Bell-Shaped
> Curve? Maybe the Bell-Shaped curve does need any
> help at all?
>
> And I'll say it, cuz what the hell, I'm old! The
> dog thread was wonderful, in part because you
> never showed up to comment.
I did comment.
You are rude AF.

At least I occasionally move on to other topics, other thoughts; churlish of course, as is my nature, but different.

Hey, are you preaching Logos, et al. to us?

But at least it's better than getting hit up-side the head by Min's appendage! Remember when you used to wave it around, day after day...?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least I occasionally move on to other topics,
> other thoughts; churlish of course, as is my
> nature, but different.
>
> Hey, are you preaching Logos, et al. to us?
>
> But at least it's better than getting hit up-side
> the head by Min's appendage! Remember when you
> used to wave it around, day after day...?
I talk about a broad range of topics, from physics to genetics and everything in between and beyond, dark matter/energy, God Particle, the Great Attractor, viruses, sacred geometry, philosophy, psychology, sociology, spirituality, wisdom, all of which make up a broad world view that is meaningful to me.
I hope others find meaning in similar wide ranging existential topics.
Not many do, which is why I read a lot of books.
nihilists like you are deaf to the music of the spheres.

"I talk about a broad range of topics, from physics to genetics and everything in between and beyond, dark matter/energy, God Particle, the Great Attractor, viruses, sacred geometry, philosophy, psychology, sociology, spirituality, wisdom, all of which make up a broad world view that is meaningful to me. I hope others find meaning in similar wide ranging existential topics. Not many do, which is why I read a lot of books."

COMMENT: The problem is that whatever it is you are reading, you never seem to be able to articulate a coherent point of view, with logical argument, on any subject. This leaves the impression that you are constantly floundering between science and the mystical, without much understanding of either. You throw out idea after idea, as if in a vacuum, without either an explanation, or a clear connection to any particular point or argument. And it goes on and on. This is not only frustrating for readers, it leaves the impression that at bottom you have no idea what you are talking about.

Try this: State a question, problem, idea or theory in clear and concise language, along with your views as to how the question, problem, idea, or theory should be resolved, or viewed; or how such an idea has specifically influenced your world view. And present some rational arguments that support such conclusions.

On a positive note, you *do* at times suggest interesting topics that I think if coherently expressed would generate interesting discussion, and perhaps more positive feedback (Or at least silence) That is why I am giving you this advice!

But when you make statements like:

"The god of Einstein, only a god that plays dice, but the dice are loaded in favor of life existing, the dice hit strings that play the cosmic music of the spheres, resonating through the multiple dimensions of hyperspace,"

you are offering nothing but a worthless hodgepodge of metaphorical clichés.

> nihilists like you are deaf to the music of the
> spheres.

What?

What exactly is "the music of the spheres" that some are def to?

Songs like.....

Great balls of fire? Big Balls? Wabash Cannon Ball? Red Rubber Ball? Wrecking Ball?

And how is the music created? When they rub together or get kicked?

I'm a musician, I want to know what this spherical music I'm missing is all about!

“Always with the dice.”

You don’t have fuzzy dice hanging from your rear view mirror? Or did they clash with the dashboard carpet?

Tuck & Roll Tide!

I'm OK with fuzzy dice in vehicles, but I'll pass on Truck Nuts.

I feel like I've read this before, but I just can't pin down where...

Nature calls again and again and again till I'm dead. God isn't dead. He is just in the big restroom in the sky.

I'm reminded of a quote by Winston Churchill (though I do not know whether he rolled any dice): "A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject."

Our temporal bodies are from the earth. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. What is spirit matter is all that transcends this life when we die.

Since God created more than nature, as in all Creation, he filled a Cosmos of empty space with dark matter, light energy and star dust. Our bodies are made from mostly water and star dust as its primal composition. But the spirit energy matter, the *soul,* that is ethereal.

So if we are created in the image of God, wouldn't he (or she) also be ethereal matter first and foremost ? Transcendent, luminescent, and having an aura of light energy connecting us with our eternal source.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2019 11:18AM by Amyjo.

"Ethereal Matter" was first discovered by researchers at the alma mater of Rocky & Bullwinkle, Whatsamatta U.

Would I lie?

"When evidence is non-existent, the descriptions of the subject get very flowery as compensation. Big words and famous people make excellent substitutes for facts." I got that from Natasha at Whatsamatta U. Great school. Boris' class was even better.

I take it you don't hear the Music of the Spheres?

Maybe God is just short-- of one brick for a full load.

What if...

Maybe the ghawd of this world is working without a license? He's both unlicensed and unbonded and has no insurance!

We might have a scam artist ghawd! And you can't say there are no indicators!

" . . . you can't say there are no indicators!"

No. I cannot. God is all over the place like an unset Jello.

Maybe it's the Cosmic Police Force who are after the delinquent Elohim and in his cleverness, Elohim, has convinced Earthlings that he is god and the cop on his tail is the real Satan, Master of Evil, and to steer clear of this adversary and NEVER believe him. Very clever.

I've got to run and make a presentation to Marvel now . . .

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What if...

> We might have a scam artist ghawd!

Elohim is a con and Joseph is His prophet!

Hear me out here.

What if, and remember this is just a thought, what if you were to post about moose turds instead of god?

Think about it.

Aldous Huxley made this point, I think in ISLAND:

That God is co-existent in [excrement], and this is equally true of any other of God's manifestations.

[The fictional character "speaking" this opinion was a native of, and a total lifetime resident of, a fictional analog of Sri Lanka, and her words were spoken to a visiting foreign man, who had come from Anglo-oriented, Western culture.]



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2019 08:55PM by Tevai.

Ghawd is up yer butt and the Devil is in the details.

No, three female demons inhabit your colon. No gods needed.

It is still, in my opinion, an important point in this kind of discussion.

Here a simple example that blows up the bell curve idea from EOD, (and I aint even educated in the hard sciences) ... Explosions have different
different power and speed and momentum when they detonate. When a gun goes off the bullet flies really fast but at a different speed that when a
hammer hits a cheese burger. The particles of an exploding bomb are more dangerous and fast than a rock hitting a pinyada.

What's the likelihood that the big bang explosion without a creationist created the necessary speed of departure of all the particles in all directions to create the necessary
environment that could sustain or even create an environment for life to begin? If the bomb was too fast then the particles are still in chaos, if the bomb
was too slow it would supposedly implode.

Creationism is the only thing that makes any sense mathematically. But please explain if I'm wrong. :)

Yet your creationist is exempt from even more complicated criteria needed to create it?

Stick to the big bang. Trying to explain the existence of something even more complicated just digs you into the hole of speculation deeper.

Was your creator wearing goggles when the particles went in all directions? Maybe he blew himself up since God is all that is?

Also, it doesn't make sense mathematically that someone is likely to win the lottery. Yet someone does. All it takes is once that beats the odds.

"Yet your creationist is exempt from even more complicated criteria needed to create it?"

COMMENT: This is not a good anti-creationist argument.(IMHO) Why? Because the person making it legitimizes metaphysical explanations; in fact invites them. It is not hard for a theist to postulate an infinite being, or whatever, existing outside of space and time, that always existed as an uncreated foundational existence of the Universe, or some which thing. Then you are left with a stalemate, unless you then demand a scientific answer, which now begs the question. Do you really want to go there? I suggest not.
____________________________________

Also, it doesn't make sense mathematically that someone is likely to win the lottery. Yet someone does. All it takes is once that beats the odds.

COMMENT: The fine-tuning of the universe is not analogous to a lottery, where the probabilities are fixed by randomness. The question is not about what results might follow from the laws of the universe, and the probability of any such result. The result of such laws is what it is; i.e. the universe we now see and understand, fixed laws and all.

The anthropic question has to do with the existence of laws themselves, and why such laws are such as to point to a specific result, i.e. life. It is not like you have a million possibilities for the laws of the universe, and we got lucky that the laws we got happen to produce life. In accordance with scientific principles, the laws of the universe are more or less fixed! If you want your argument to hold you need a multiverse where the laws of each universe can vary. But that gets you back to metaphysics.

Henry Bemis Wrote:

> ...legitimizes metaphysical explanations; in fact
> invites them.

I disagree. I do not consider making up metaphysical whimsical explanations legitimate.


> The anthropic question has to do with the
> existence of laws themselves, and why such laws
> are such as to point to a specific result, i.e.
> life. It is not like you have a million
> possibilities for the laws of the universe, and we
> got lucky that the laws we got happen to produce
> life. In accordance with scientific principles,
> the laws of the universe are more or less fixed!


I see yours point, but considering contingency and combination/interaction of these laws resulting in us humans (to my knowledge it is not all that common to find aliens like us), all it would take is one opportunity that took, kind of like winning the cosmic lottery. I don't think it leads to metaphysical anything. We simply don't know the factors leading to the big bang.

> ...legitimizes metaphysical explanations; in fact
> invites them.

I disagree. I do not consider making up metaphysical whimsical explanations legitimate.

COMMENT: My point was not to legitimize metaphysical explanation, but simply to point out that when a scientist responds to a creationist by invoking his or her own brand of speculative metaphysics (e.g. an infinite multiverse), they are paying the same game as the creationist. The fact that the creationist metaphysics involves an intelligent designer God, and the scientists' does not is beside the point--unless the scientists then says, "But I am doing science and you are doing religion," which, of course begs the question. Metaphysics is metaphysics, whoever is doing it!
_________________________________________

I see yours point, but considering contingency and combination/interaction of these laws resulting in us humans (to my knowledge it is not all that common to find aliens like us), all it would take is one opportunity that took, kind of like winning the cosmic lottery. I don't think it leads to metaphysical anything. We simply don't know the factors leading to the big bang.

COMMENT: That works fine as an explanation for life *on earth.* Your lottery analogy works in that context. However, it becomes problematic when you make this argument about the universe because then, as I said, it is the laws themselves that become the focal point of explanation, and not lucky combination/interaction of such laws--as fixed and acknowledged--creating life on earth.

Of the infinite number of universes less “lucky” than ours, we live in the one where life exists. The fact that we’re here to see it goes with having a Universe that facilitates being here.

What interests me is that life has been on Earth for a quarter of the time since the Big Bang. That’s curiously old. Could the Universe have been “created” just for us?

Not a chance.

We are just detritus, and mucking up the works is what we're best at.

Maybe the monkeys were supposed to get out of control. It’s what monkeys do.

COMMENT: First, the properties and conditions at the time of, and immediately after, the big bang, including its underlying quantum mathematics, are assessed based upon what scientists understand about the *current* properties of the universe. Such current knowledge and information is what lends substantial credence to the assumption that such a "big bang" occurred. The properties, including the mass and momentum (speed) of the subatomic particles emanating from the big bang are also part of this knowledge. In short, "it is what it is," so to speak.

What conditions existed at the big bang, including what, if anything, "caused" it to occur is a metaphysical question, and not part of science proper. But on the face of it there is no reason to assume that it was the product of some creative act, rather than a natural consequence of some preexisting condition; e.g. of the quantum vacuum. If you have an explosion that blows up in your house, you might have all sorts or hypotheses to explain it, some might involve intentional conduct, but others might be natural (it was a gas leak in the water heater), but the explosion *of itself* does not imply or favor any particular explanation, until the underlying conditions and facts are established. (Generally speaking)

Finally, regarding your Anthropic assumption; i.e. that the properties associated with the big bang and its aftermath, whatever they were, and the environment produced thereby, were uniquely suitable for life, suggesting a creator, I personally think that this is a legitimate point. Why, one might ask, do the laws of nature strongly *appear* to be "fine-tuned" to support life? However one wants to answer that question, for example by invoking a creator or multiple universes, it is a good and valid empirical question. All one can argue is that one or the other is the best explanation.

Note, however, that since we don't know what constraints existed to fix the conditions of the big bang, we cannot assign a probability function to the anthropic results. After all, perhaps such constraints dictated, or determined, the nature of reality that would follow--all by some set of natural laws governing such things.

The big bang itself was not an explosion, but an expansion of space. Matter came after in nucleosythensis. So your premise doesn't apply

However you characterize the big bang (And by a wide margin most scientists have characterized it as an "explosion," as suggested by the term itself!), such characterization has nothing to do with macaRomney's point here, which was about the speed and momentum of particles emanating from the big bang and the environment created thereby.

If you by fiat dismissed all scientific discussion that characterized the big bang as an "explosion" some great scientists would be excluded. For example consider this statement by Noble laureate, Steven Weinberg, in his famous book, The First Three Minutes:

"In the beginning there was an explosion. Not an explosion like those familiar on earth . . . but an explosion which occurred simultaneously everywhere, filing all space from the beginning, with every particle of matter rushing apart from every other particle." (page 5)

Yes, but the quotation you just presented indicates that the Big Bang "explosion" was different from the everyday understanding of that term and from everything envisioned by macaRomney.

The word is like "God" and any number of others employed in Kori's threads: useful in a metaphorical sense but misleading if taken at face value. So I think dogblogger's point is apt. It doesn't make sense to compare the Big Bang with the explosion of a bomb or the ignition of gunpowder in a weapon.

The processes are fundamentally incomparable.

Yes, but the quotation you just presented indicates that the Big Bang "explosion" was different from the everyday understanding of that term and from everything envisioned by macaRomney.

COMMENT: Of course they are different, but the question is whether the difference has anything to do with macRomney's fundamental point, which referenced the speed of particles projecting from the big bang, and the environment created by the big bang. The fact that it was not literally an explosion is completely irrelevant to that point. However you characterize the big bang, it *does* involve particles "flying" out in all directions. To argue that since macRomney got the nature of the big bang wrong by comparing it to an actual explosion, or that his analogy was misleading is entirely secondary to his point. And, if scientists thought they could not explain the big bang with the idea of an "explosion" without misleading people they would not use the term. So, let's dump on macRomney for making this comparison, the same one that virtually every scientist makes; after all he is a creationist!

What DB (apparently with your blessing) was looking to do was interject a quick putdown of a creationist, which was completely bogus and unfair! Surely, you two can address macRomney's point and arguments substantively; AS I DID!

_________________________________________________

The word is like "God" and any number of others employed in Kori's threads: useful in a metaphorical sense but misleading if taken at face value.

COMMENT: If a concept is misleading, it is hardly useful! Was Leon Lederman's use of the term "the God Particle" useful in your view? Einstein used the term God to express his transcendent view of nature and its laws, very clearly pointing out numerous times that he was not talking about a personal God. Was such a reference misleading? Only if for (anti-)religious reasons you object to the word "God."
__________________________________________

So I think dogblogger's point is apt. It doesn't make sense to compare the Big Bang with the explosion of a bomb or the ignition of gunpowder in a weapon.

COMMENT: This comparison is made all the time by reputable scientists. I gave you one example, how many more do you need? Obviously, they are not concerned about such a reference being misleading; its explanatory power being more useful that any such fears.
__________________________________________________

The processes are fundamentally incomparable.

COMMENT: Tell that to Steven Weinberg! I am sure he will apologize.

Henry, people use metaphor to describe things all the time. How many times have people, scientists or others, described airplanes as "flying like a bird?"

Do they mean that literally? Of course not. They mean it as a convenient way to convey a certain level of knowledge to a certain audience. And the shorthand is useful in that context. But if pushed, those scientists dispense with the metaphor and move to more precise language.

Do I mind Einstein's use of God to convey a sense of majesty and wonder? No, but I understand his usage because he stated explicitly that he did not believe in the conventional notion of God. Do I begrudge Lederman's use of the term "Goddamn Particle?" Not at all. But I understand that he did not really think God had damned the Higgs Boson. These people did not intend for these terms to be taken literally, and it would be silly of you to insist that they did.

What does this have to do with the Creationist perspective? Nothing. My observation that the word "explosion" is not a sufficient discussion of the Big Bang has nothing to do with God's existence, about which I remain agnostic.

Henry, people use metaphor to describe things all the time. How many times have people, scientists or others, described airplanes as "flying like a bird?"

COMMENT: Yes. And sometimes it is easy to see when a term or explanation is intended as metaphor and sometimes it is not so easy. For example, Stephen Hawkins use of the word "God" was not intended to commit him to any transcendental reality; but Einstein's use of "God" certainty did involve such an intention.
__________________________________________

Do they mean that literally? Of course not. They mean it as a convenient way to convey a certain level of knowledge to a certain audience. And the shorthand is useful in that context. But if pushed, those scientists dispense with the metaphor and move to more precise language.

COMMENT: With respect to the use of the word "God", it is not that easy. Some scientists vacillate between "God" as simply a reference to the cold, hard (but remarkable) facts of nature, one the one hand, and a transcendent reality behind such natural laws on the other. In some cases, I can't figure out just what they believe--if they even know.
____________________________________________

Do I mind Einstein's use of God to convey a sense of majesty and wonder? No, but I understand his usage because he stated explicitly that he did not believe in the conventional notion of God.

Do you mind that Einstein's use of "God" encompassed a commitment to some metaphysical, transcendent reality underlying the laws of physics? Although he clearly did not believe in a personal God, he was, as he himself stated, quite "religious" with respect to this view.

________________________________________________

Do I begrudge Lederman's use of the term "Goddamn Particle?" Not at all. But I understand that he did not really think God had damned the Higgs Boson. These people did not intend for these terms to be taken literally, and it would be silly of you to insist that they did.

COMMENT: His use was "The God Particle" not the "Goddamn Particle," which was only an afterthought after controversy erupted. (But let's not get into that again.) His use of "God" was clearly purely metaphorical, as you say.
______________________________________

What does this have to do with the Creationist perspective? Nothing. My observation that the word "explosion" is not a sufficient discussion of the Big Bang has nothing to do with God's existence, about which I remain agnostic.

COMMENT: O.K. But, all I was suggesting was that *if* that is the case, why split hairs with a creationist who rather inartfully uses the "explosion" metaphor, when scientists do the same thing (usually more artfully).

I'm surprised by this.

Einstein was very clear about his views on God. He was a theist when he was in elementary school but as an adult he never was; he stated this clearly on many occasions.

Lederman's use of "Goddamn Particle" was not after-the-fact. He was clear about this in his 1993 book, and his colleagues told the stories contemporaneously and after the fact. "Let's not get into this again" doesn't work when the record is contrary to that assertion.

Even if it did, you can't seriously ask us to believe that Lederman thought the particle was "God." Is that really what you are claiming here?

As for my "splitting hairs" about macaRomney's use of the word explosion, I am again surprised. I am all for metaphor, but when a metaphor proves misleading the moment it is used--like the origins of the universe--then pointing that out is the first step in getting to a more substantial conversation. But if you seriously think Einstein believed in God or that Lederman sincerely intended the phrase "Goddamn Particle," or after the editor's intervention "God Particle," then maybe constructive discussion is impossible.

I really don't know why you are so adamant in this instance. The appropriate use of metaphor has nothing to do with whether God exists. It's only a question of whether particular images should be perpetuated after they have lost their capacity to enlighten a particular subject.

If you want science to help you understand God, humans and everything else try this: https://www.humancondition.com/beyond-the-story-of-adam-stork/

This also provides a science reason to think life has meaning and value. Bull shit main line science says its all random and meaningless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mYg-hLVcbM

We can't actually do it, but I can imagine an outside observer stumbling open the Earth, who then watches us, unobserved, thinking to himself the whole time, "'Ere now, wot's all this about then?!"

Many people act out the part they think they have in the play, hoping that it gives life meaning and purpose. Can't say it doesn't work because I haven't tried it. I am writing my own play and so are many of you. You know who you are...

Life has meaning because somebody pulled God’s finger.

Maybe god is just short for "you're making all this shit up".

Gives a whole new meaning to "thoughts and prayers."

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe god is just short for "you're making all
> this shit up".
If I am making all this shit up, then so was Einstein, Sagan, Hawking and Kaku, not to mention Epicurous and Lao Tzu, because I agree with all of them, when it comes to the big questions.
But yeah, if the wisest men who ever lived were just making all that shit up then I am in good company.

Cite one line from Laozi that indicates agreement with Einstein.

Just one line.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cite one line from Laozi that indicates agreement
> with Einstein.
>
> Just one line.


Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------
>
> Just one line,

My favorite line of his,

"Embracing Tao, you become embraced.
Supple, breathing gently, you become reborn.
Clearing your vision, you become clear.
Nurturing your beloved, you become impartial.
Opening your heart, you become accepted.
Accepting the World, you embrace Tao.
Bearing and nurturing,
Creating but not owning,
Giving without demanding,
Controlling without authority,
This is love."

Is a lot like my favorite Einstein quote,

"A human being is a part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feeling as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty"
Albert Einstein

I agree there are similarities in that worldview. The problem is that Taoism was opposed to science and even education, so there is no way Laozi and Einstein would have seen their views as consonant.

The other problem is that the word "God" does not appear in the Daodejing either literally or metaphorically. In fact, that classic was atheistic. So you can't reasonably cite it as evidence for the proposition that Einstein and Laozi shared a vision of God--unless you mean that in the sense that both were atheists.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree there are similarities in that worldview.
> The problem is that Taoism was opposed to science
> and even education, so there is no way Laozi and
> Einstein would have seen their views as consonant.
>
>
> The other problem is that the word "God" does not
> appear in the Daodejing either literally or
> metaphorically. In fact, that classic was
> atheistic. So you can't reasonably cite it as
> evidence for the proposition that Einstein and
> Laozi shared a vision of God--unless you mean that
> in the sense that both were atheists.

I agree, the idea of a personal "God" was a foriegn concept to Laozi, and it was a naive concept to Einstein.
Therein lies the similarity.
Lao Tzu believed the Cosmos flowed from the Tao.
Einstein believed the Cosmos flowed from the laws of nature.
Tao=the way of nature.
They were both describing the same thing, the source, from different perspectives.
Singularity=Tao
Super symetry = Yin/Yang, Matter/anti-matter,
Dark Energy/Dark Matter,

The problem is that the two systems of thought have virtually nothing in common.

> Lao Tzu believed the Cosmos flowed from the Tao.
> Einstein believed the Cosmos flowed from the laws
> of nature.

Laozi had no concept of the "cosmos" beyond "heaven" and "earth."


-------------
> Tao=the way of nature.

Maybe. But the focus is on the human heart and the praxis that led to enlightenment and inner peace was eschewing education and knowledge and living as one's internal impulses dictate. There was also breathing techniques and meditation, so the parallel is closer to Hinduism/Buddhism and hostile to education.

Laozi's reaction to Einstein's physics would have been like Oppenheimer's quotation from the Gita: "I have become destroyer of worlds," which in that context is a condemnation of science.


---------------------
> Singularity=Tao
> Super symetry = Yin/Yang, Matter/anti-matter,
> Dark Energy/Dark Matter,

Except that Laozi knew nothing about singularities, supersymmetry, and dark energy or matter. He rejected science and technology and education.

The Tao was a rejection of education and science in the belief that those things drove humans away from the "way" that was in their hearts. Again, science represented destruction both overall and in a person's life. Pursuing it brought pain and destruction.

That's why the comparison is problematic. Laozi would have hated everything Einstein stood for.

“The problem is that Taoism was opposed to science and even education”

I thought science started with Descartes in the 17th century. Or at least our idea of what science is. Science and education have brought us a world with nuclear weapons pointed at each other. I tend to question the wisdom in that.

That is exactly what Laozi would have said. Science and education distort human character and lead to pain and suffering.

Confucians taught that education was the key to better social organization. The Taoists rejected that view and argued against the artificial training of the natural human impulse.

There is a big difference between being highly intelligent and being wise.

Aligning yourself with those who are perceived to be highly intelligent isn't always a wise move.

Done & Done Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is a big difference between being highly
> intelligent and being wise.
>
> Aligning yourself with those who are perceived to
> be highly intelligent isn't always a wise move.

So reconciling your world view with the wisdom of wise men/women, past and present, isn't wise why?

Just because an idea is tenacious doesnt mean that it is worthy.