Quote:
Originally Posted by netwolf
Even Einstien once made a Blunder (expanding universe), so shall we not learn to be humble in the search for knowledge. Or are we so self asured that the cup of knowledge is now full?
I recall at a Macuqarie uni Astronomy night they had a lecuture about the Universe. I dont recall the name of the gentelmen who prsented. However I recall soemthing he said. Science is about understanding the function of things, how they work and it is not for the understanding of purpose.
We quarel so much in the world about what is the purpose and intent of others. We can not even know the purpose behind our childrens action nor our parents, unless they tell us.
Science and Religion have there place. One gives Function the other provides purpose. What you chose to setup as your purpose in life is your religion, it determines how you will behave. Yet only via something called Trust can we come to know the purpose of another human being. While we may think we can mesure there actions and determine there fucntion we can not know what is there purpose. That is one human to another. Even with all our knowledge of the mind we still do not comprehend its purpose through Science. How then do we preseume to understand something much much more complicated.
Knowing how it works does not give us answers to why its here.
|
Perhaps there is no purpose?
I was once challenged to demonstrate "Purpose", silently, (no language or visuals), with only a bunch of pins and paperclips. I took about an hour or so, to convince judges that I'd succeeded.
I was then challenged to demonstrate "demonstrate" ... That took hours !
One of the many points learned via the experience was that "purpose" is given meaning, only by humans. And humans rarely agree on the meanings we associate with the demonstration of "purpose".
Demonstrations are for an audience .. demonstrations are only done by humans because they are only defined by human observations. And almost never do humans agree on the meanings they associate with demonstrations.
I'd say that separates Nature from our interpretation of it.
Cheers