Imposing their views

[Gordon]

Vlad

Poetry, thoughts and feelings a subset of Biology....an interesting thesis which I think you should expand on given the explanatory gaps

What explanatory gaps?

People, some of whom seem to find poetry and awe in the fact we are atoms and yet when we examine those same atoms scientifically, we do not find poetry.  And some don't find poetry or awe in atoms. That is no basis for a scientific theory of poetry I would have thought. Use science to find poetry or awe in, well anything.

Feelings of awe or profundity about anything at all are just feelings, Vlad: just biological activity.

If there were no people, would atoms still be found to be poetic?

Doubt it, there being no people to find anything, and anyway you are still stuck in the fallacy of division - individual atoms aren't poetic, and I'm surprised that you even entertain such silliness.
  .

If a copy of Burns is still floating about in a universe where humans are extinct, is it still poetry?

It would be an example of what was once termed poetry, but no longer appreciated by humans. Some advice from the great man that you would do well to heed.

"O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
And ev’n Devotion!"

I must lay my cards on the table. Stuff like poetry, that is unencompassable by scientific explanation, can be described as spiritual and, if you like, Woo, and there is thus plenty of it floating around in humanism and scientism.

Strangely enough I don't think that many are seeking a scientific explanation for poetry - they just enjoy and appreciate it as an art form that some people have an ability to produce such as, say, whenever I re-read Mid-Term Break by Seamus Heaney.

So enjoy the poetry, enjoy the feelings of awe and profundity that your brain may produce in response to some poetry, admire that talent that these poets exhibit - and when doing so don't get distracted by thinking about atoms. 

[Free Willy]

Vlad

What explanatory gaps?

Feelings of awe or profundity about anything at all are just feelings, Vlad: just biological activity.

Doubt it, there being no people to find anything, and anyway you are still stuck in the fallacy of division - individual atoms aren't poetic, and I'm surprised that you even entertain such silliness.
  .
It would be an example of what was once termed poetry, but no longer appreciated by humans. Some advice from the great man that you would do well to heed.

"O wad some Pow’r the giftie gie us
To see oursels as others see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An’ foolish notion:
What airs in dress an’ gait wad lea’e us,
And ev’n Devotion!"

Strangely enough I don't think that many are seeking a scientific explanation for poetry - they just enjoy and appreciate it as an art form that some people have an ability to produce such as, say, whenever I re-read Mid-Term Break by Seamus Heaney.

So enjoy the poetry, enjoy the feelings of awe and profundity that your brain may produce in response to some poetry, admire that talent that these poets exhibit - and when doing so don't get distracted by thinking about atoms.

You have been going on about how poetry comes about and of course only managed to produce the nebulous "Biologydidit"
You have not addressed a full scientific description of poetry. That is the explanatory gap. But more importantly you have not been able to delineate between the poetry around humanism concerning nature or that used by scientists to evoke awe and wonder for science and any other use of poetry.

Waxing lyrical about how the cosmos is and our "connection with it "Imagine that, we are starstuff" looks strongly religious.

[Gordon]

You have been going on about how poetry comes about and of course only managed to produce the nebulous "Biologydidit"
You have not addressed a full scientific description of poetry. That is the explanatory gap. But more importantly you have not been able to delineate between the poetry around humanism concerning nature or that used by scientists to evoke awe and wonder for science and any other use of poetry.

Waxing lyrical about how the cosmos is and our "connection with it "Imagine that, we are starstuff" looks strongly religious.

Don't be silly: you'll be headhunted by Blue Circle at this rate.

Just enjoy the poetry, Vlad - and don't overthink it: just appreciate it.

Also, I never mentioned the 'cosmos' or 'starstuff' - you did, so please stop misrepresenting what I did say.

[Enki]

If you feel that poetry has a source other than whatever comprises the human mind please free to cite some

As I have no evidence presently that there is any other source than the human mind, and as it seems entirely rational that it is the source, then I happily accept that it is.

Spot on - so why does poetry not emerge from any source other than the human mind?
And why is poetry not perceived any where else but in the human mind?

Glad we agree. It seems the complex functionality of the human mind includes the propensity that can produce what we often loosely define as poetry.

The power of the human soul

As there is no evidence for such a thing as a human soul(except in metaphorical terms) and as the human mind is entirely capable of producing poetry, such a statement as you make here has no foundation apart from your own personal belief.

[jeremyp]

Good we are getting somewhere. So you think spirituality is part of reality now?

So you don't think human spirituality is real.

Next you'll be admitting God is not real.

[ProfessorDavey]

Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant.

But that is exactly what religions down the ages have done - used their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma.

So what exactly were christian religions doing when they declared those saying (correctly) that the earth went around the sun. Or trying to get legislation to ban teaching that (correctly) that the species we see today evolved from earlier forms. Sounds exactly like not just promoting ignorance but actively persecuting people for telling the truth. And I don't mean 'truth' as in opinion or belief, but actual truth - you know the stuff demonstrated by objective evidence.

[Nearly Sane]

But that is exactly what religions down the ages have done - used their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma.

So what exactly were christian religions doing when they declared those saying (correctly) that the earth went around the sun. Or trying to get legislation to ban teaching that (correctly) that the species we see today evolved from earlier forms. Sounds exactly like not just promoting ignorance but actively persecuting people for telling the truth. And I don't mean 'truth' as in opinion or belief, but actual truth - you know the stuff demonstrated by objective evidence.

Wholly simplistic analysis, Prof D.

[Free Willy]

But that is exactly what religions down the ages have done - used their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma.

So what exactly were christian religions doing when they declared those saying (correctly) that the earth went around the sun. Or trying to get legislation to ban teaching that (correctly) that the species we see today evolved from earlier forms. Sounds exactly like not just promoting ignorance but actively persecuting people for telling the truth. And I don't mean 'truth' as in opinion or belief, but actual truth - you know the stuff demonstrated by objective evidence.

Early scientists included the religious in their number.
This is Religion as a failed science tosh and the phony war between science and religion. IMHO.

Yes there have been fundamentalists seeking to legislate a literalist view of the cosmos’s, But one’s grasp of history tends to ignore those churchmen who were not only happy with the science but were the one’s postulating it in the first place.

[ProfessorDavey]

Wholly simplistic analysis, Prof D.

Would you care to elaborate NS.

[ProfessorDavey]

Early scientists included the religious in their number.

I said 'religions', not religious people Vlad so your point is moot. And of course were you to go back centuries most people were (at least nominally) religious. And of course back then religions tended to control the very organisations where an individual might have the opportunity for scientific endeavour - so to be in a position of that kind you'd have to at least pay lip service to being religious.

This is Religion as a failed science tosh and the phony war between science and religion. IMHO.

Nope - my argument isn't that religion is a failed science (although we could have a different discussion about this). My argument is that over the centuries there have been examples where scientific evidence has arisen to support a particular view of how the world is which contradicted religious dogma and orthodoxy and that those religions have used their power to try to suppress the truth.

Yes there have been fundamentalists seeking to legislate a literalist view of the cosmos’s,

Which suggests you are agreeing with me - I never said all religions, all the time did this, but that there are examples of religions having done this over the centuries. This was to counter your claim that "Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant". That is exactly what the hierarchy of the catholic church were doing when they declared heliocentrism to be heretical and tried Galileo effectively for telling the truth.

But one’s grasp of history tends to ignore those churchmen who were not only happy with the science but were the one’s postulating it in the first place.

I'm not - see above. But you seem to be ignoring the inconvenient truth that over the centuries there have been cases where religions have used their powers to try to prevent correct explanations of the world, based on evidence, from being heard on the basis that it might contradict dogma.

[Nearly Sane]

Would you care to elaborate NS.

Copernicus was religious, indeed a canon. The Anglican Church was in general initially accepting of Darwin. To look upon the religious as a monolith is fatuous and simplistic.

[jeremyp]

Would you care to elaborate NS.

The situation around both heliocentrism and evolution is much more nuanced than "Christianity was against it".

[jeremyp]

Copernicus was religious, indeed a canon. The Anglican Church was in general initially accepting of Darwin. To look upon the religious as a monolith is fatuous and simplistic.

Copernicus is an interesting case. The problem with Copernicus is that his model didn't work as well as the, then current, Ptolemaic model which was geocentric. People could hardly be blamed for not accepting it.

It was only when Kepler discovered that planets move in ellipses rather than perfect circles that heliocentric became better than the geocentric models at predicting planetary motion.

[Nearly Sane]

Copernicus is an interesting case. The problem with Copernicus is that his model didn't work as well as the, then current, Ptolemaic model which was geocentric. People could hardly be blamed for not accepting it.

It was only when Kepler discovered that planets move in ellipses rather than perfect circles that heliocentric became better than the geocentric models at predicting planetary motion.

I think the idea of 'current' needs to be qualified. The geocentric model didn't work at all and had had many complex, and contradictory,  adjustments put in to cope. On a basic theoretic model, the Copernican system worked much better.

[jeremyp]

I think the idea of 'current' needs to be qualified. The geocentric model didn't work at all and had had many complex, and contradictory,  adjustments put in to cope.

No. It did work up to a point. However, Copernicus' model was even worse. It had more complex and contradictory hacks in it and it didn't predict the paths of the planets particularly well.

On a basic theoretic model, the Copernican system worked much better.

Its main advantage was that it provided a base on which Kepler could construct a really good model.

[ProfessorDavey]

To look upon the religious as a monolith is fatuous and simplistic.

I agree - which is why I never did this.

I was countering Vlad's view that "Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant" - the counter to Nobody is somebody, not everybody. And it it apparent that there are examples of religions down the centuries using their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma. I never said that all religions did it, all the time - that would be simplistic. But it would also be naive to argue that religions have never done this.

[Nearly Sane]

No. It did work up to a point. However, Copernicus' model was even worse. It had more complex and contradictory hacks in it and it didn't predict the paths of the planets particularly well.

Its main advantage was that it provided a base on which Kepler could construct a really good model.

i think you are confused between the much adapted and therefore contradictory model and the basic model.

[jeremyp]

i think you are confused between the much adapted and therefore contradictory model and the basic model.

Nope.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree - which is why I never did this.

I was countering Vlad's view that "Nobody is arguing against it being wrong to remain ignorant" - the counter to Nobody is somebody, not everybody. And it it apparent that there are examples of religions down the centuries using their power to suppress knowledge, understanding and the truth where that fails to match their dogma. I never said that all religions did it, all the time - that would be simplistic. But it would also be naive to argue that religions have never done this.

Except you talked about 'religions' as a monolith, presenting them as external to people.

[Nearly Sane]

Nope.

OK, so leaving aside epicycles which contradict the basic model of geocentrism, outline how it worked better.

[ProfessorDavey]

Copernicus is an interesting case. The problem with Copernicus is that his model didn't work as well as the, then current, Ptolemaic model which was geocentric. People could hardly be blamed for not accepting it.

It was only when Kepler discovered that planets move in ellipses rather than perfect circles that heliocentric became better than the geocentric models at predicting planetary motion.

But the catholic church didn't disagree with the developing heliocentric model because they felt it was wrong or inadequate on a scientific level - nope they disagreed with it as it contradicted religious doctrine. These quotes from the judgement from Galileo's trial:

Heliocentricity is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"

and Galileo was ordered:

"... to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."

The church also banned books by both Copernicus and Kepler describing heliocentricity as "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture". Again not banned because wrong or incomplete, but because it contradicted religious doctrine.

[ProfessorDavey]

Except you talked about 'religions' as a monolith, presenting them as external to people.

I certainly have created a division being religion as organisations with powers and religious people - that is perfectly reasonable.

I have never claimed that all religions, or even specific religions all the time have acted in this manner. Indeed I made this point very clearly in reply 184:

"My argument is that over the centuries there have been examples where scientific evidence has arisen to support a particular view of how the world is which contradicted religious dogma and orthodoxy and that those religions have used their power to try to suppress the truth."

and

"I never said all religions, all the time did this, but that there are examples of religions having done this over the centuries."

It is non-sense to suggest that religions have never acted in this manner.

[Nearly Sane]

But the catholic church didn't disagree with the developing heliocentric model because they felt it was wrong on a scientific level - nope they disagreed with it as it contradicted religious doctrine. These quotes from the judgement from Galileo's trial:

Heliocentricity is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture"

and Galileo was ordered:

"... to abstain completely from teaching or defending this doctrine and opinion or from discussing it... to abandon completely... the opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing."

The church also banned books by both Copernicus and Kepler describing heliocentricity as "the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to Holy Scripture". Again not banned because wrong or incomplete, but because it contradicted religious doctrine.

Weirdly the Catholic Church was following Aristotle more than any religious doctrine here in part because of Aquinas's deification of the old Greek bugger.


Initially the Papes were ok with Copernicus, the nascent Prods not so much - looking at you Melanchthon!

Doesn't stop your ignorant idea of religion and the religious being a monolith being ignorant

[Nearly Sane]

I certainly have created a division being religion as organisations with powers and religious people - that is perfectly reasonable.

I have never claimed that all religions, or even specific religions all the time have acted in this manner. Indeed I made this point very clearly in reply 184:

"My argument is that over the centuries there have been examples where scientific evidence has arisen to support a particular view of how the world is which contradicted religious dogma and orthodoxy and that those religions have used their power to try to suppress the truth."

and

"I never said all religions, all the time did this, but that there are examples of religions having done this over the centuries."

It is non-sense to suggest that religions have never acted in this manner.

Religions don't act. People do.

[ProfessorDavey]

Religions don't act. People do.

Non-sense. Religions are organised structures with rules, processes etc etc. Sure there will be people implementing those rules and processes etc but the rules and processes themselves are part of, and 'owned' by the religious organisation not individual people. Indeed for religions (unlike many other organisations) there is a view that those rules, processes etc are divinely inspired so not even derived from people at all.

You might as well claim that:

Governments don't act. People do.
Courts don't act. People do.

etc