@ Travis: I don't control what the lot of you believe--I've said it more than once, believe what you will. I can't change it, nor do I want to. There are a lot of unpredictable things in the world--The Weather Channel proves this constantly. However, you're confusing irrational beliefs with unpredictable events. The nature of beliefs and events are very different--one exists only in the mind, whereas the other manifests itself in an objective and universal reality. An example of an irrational belief: someone who believes himself to be the Queen of England--this is obviously true only in that person's mind, and all others would render him insane. He requires no proof to hold on to this belief--despite the fact that he lives in a cardboard box, or even in a mental asylum, in his mind he's in a castle eating crumpets.
An unpredictable event, on the other hand, is universally applicable. For example, weather is not entirely predictable--say, The Weather Channel tells us it's going to be sunny all day in Toronto, Canada. However, in the middle of the afternoon in that very place, it starts to rain. Although unpredictable, this event is occurring on a universal scale. Whether you're in Illinois, Tokyo, Dresden, or Toronto--the fact remains, it rained in Toronto that afternoon. Unpredictable, however, universal. Everyone in Toronto felt the rain--not "special" people who could feel rain--no, everyone saw it, felt it, smelled it, heard it, tasted it (ew). One would be mental to state it
didn't rain, when all evidence points to the fact that it did.
As you can see, there is a difference between personal beliefs and unpredictable events. Science does not seek to predict the world--it seeks to understand it. If anyone seeks to predict things, it'd be the believers--have any of them died yet? No. Yet, they believe they can predict what happens after death, whether through the utterances of some cult leader or something written in the pages of some text.
One does not
believe in science, Travis. Believing is, by its very definition, blind faith--the pinnacle of its manifestation being outlandish belief statements such as the one in the title of the infamous R. Kelly song, "I Believe I Can Fly." Let's take the song as example--he can believe all he wants, but the fact remains that if he throws himself from the top of a particularly tall building, he will fall to his death, despite the power of his belief. Were he to understand the physical impossibility of flight (pertaining to the unaided human body), he would have never attempted such a foolish thing to begin with.
The reason one does not believe in science is because of the scientific method.
Unlike the believer, the scientist, once he finds evidence proving his initial hypothesis to be erroneous/false, does not cover his ears and yell "la la la la la I can't hear you!" or otherwise close up to rational explanation in an attempt to protect his ego. Unlike beliefs, hypotheses are impersonal in nature and understood to be experimental. Beliefs, on the other hand, are deeply personal (it takes a lot of faith to embrace something so wholeheartedly with little or no proof whatsoever to back it up). When they are trumped, the self suffers a blow (how could
I, a reasonably intelligent person, put my lot with such a ridiculous thing? In order to avoid this blow to the ego, the believer simply denies the offensive evidence in an effort to avoid pain and shame(i.e. Fundie Christians claiming there's some sort of science conspiracy against the "facts" stated by religious authorities, the bible, etc.) Rage is also common--as the believer perceives the facts to the contrary to be an explicit attack against his person (he is so rooted in his beliefs he cannot distinguish between himself and his stances) and reacts accordingly.
As for your statement regarding me being unable to accept that one may never find the answers--I'm unsure as to where you gathered this idea from. I was the first to say that, where evidence cannot be found, the best stance is no stance at all. Having no conclusive answers or explanations is not a free pass to make things up. The rational thing to do would be to research further, or else give up on the thing entirely and arrive at no conclusions. How would an irrational conclusion be "accepting" that there isn't an answer to everything? If anything, irrational people are the ones most obsessed with finding answers to things--subjective, flimsy answers. When scientists don't know for certain, they research, investigate, etc. to find the answer, and until that moment comes, things remain unknown. With irrational beliefs, however, when an answer to how something works cannot be found, a made up one is put in its place to "solve" the mystery (see=practically any religion, myth, legend, etc.) If not everything has an answer, why put so much effort into sticking up for an irrational belief? Why not just accept that it's a mystery and either attempt to decode it in a universal level, or else leave it at that?
As for theories, the posts I've provided cite outside sources and research findings--they are not my "theories," but scientific facts. I don't recall anyone else on here putting forth so much outside information. I've only been called cold, clinical, or else I've been accused of not "allowing" others to believe as they want, as if I held such power. Debate is not equivalent to confrontation--in a forum setting, discussion is allowed, ideally, encouraged. If one's view is challenged, as it should be expected in a forum where people of all sorts congregate, one can defend his stance through argument--citing facts, appealing to logic outside one's own mind, etc.
As for missing the big picture, couldn't I say the same of your stance? If life is so changing and unpredictable, then no answer ought to suffice, as you've pointed out--once you've figured out the answer, regardless of the means used or conclusion reached, life changes the question. Therefore, using that logic, nobody's stance on anything at all would hold--including yours. However, using that logic, things like gravity, laws of physics, etc. would not hold, as things would have to be constantly changing at a universal level, ever out of reach, etc.
P.S. I'm not the one who claimed things were predictable--if I recall rightly, Pace was the one who believed in natural order.
Michael: You can also quote me--I clearly said I wasn't accusing you of doing such a thing. However, someone else had already told me something along the lines of what I put in quotations, without clear reason to do so, since we weren't talking about Michael. I answered your question about the perception of "love" already--how could I deny them the perception of love? I can't deny them that any more or less than I could deny someone who thought himself to be Napoleon Bonaparte that perception. People believe what they will in the end, evidently.
Threatening: I wasn't claiming anybody was being threatening. We were discussing perception of physical/non-physical reality as a general concept. Drugs change people's perception of their surroundings, so I cited them as an example of this. The threatening object statement was an example of how someone finding himself under the influence of drugs could erroneously perceive himself to be in danger, or could see objects turning into frightening/threatening things. I was very clearly not talking about you. Some side effects of drugs include paranoia--would the object he sees as dangerous be such a thing on a non-physical level, or is he obviously on something and not thinking clearly? Scientifically, we know the answer to that question, but using your approach on personal perception, how could we possibly tell him his perception is flawed?
Mental Illness: I never implied you, or anyone else who holds on to beliefs without the use of reason, had a mental illness. The trait is too common to attribute it to that, and part of what fuels irrational belief is human nature to find solace in an uncertain and ever-changing world, to go back to the safety net of parental love, or else to deny our own mortality. However, your argument about personal perception and people being able to observe things in a non-physical/subjective reality would have to apply across all boards, which would include those who abuse drugs and are considered mentally ill, as they too claim to see/hear/feel things which are not universally present. My question was, using your perception argument, how would we distinguish between someone who thinks they can see/talk to the dead from a schizophrenic who believes he can talk to squirrels? Whose perception would be correct, with neither having anything of substance to support it? How could we call one suitable and the other completely nuts? How would we justify our choice--as choosing one person's perception over the other's would be downright negating/going against your subjective perceptive reality outlook.
As you can clearly see, I am neither claiming to hold the answers, nor degrading you for believing what you do. I'm just prompting you to think about the questions I ask--the questions your outlook begs to be asked of it. Beliefs work well enough on a personal scale, but on a universal level, they quickly crumble to pieces, as it is impossible to have something subjective apply on an objective level--alas, the difference between fact and belief.
