WHO WROTE THIS
Why God never Received a PhD
1. He had only one major publication.
2. It was in Hebrew.
3. It had no references.
4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal.
5. Some even doubt he wrote it by himself.
6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then?
7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited.
8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results.
9. He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects.
10. When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by drowning his subjects.
11. When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample.
12. He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book.
13. Some say he had his son teach the class.
14. He expelled his first two students for learning.
15. Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his tests.
16. His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountain top.
17. No record of working well with colleagues.
About me: Tullio Regge, one of the most important Italian physicist, in his last publication (2004) affirmed: "If science would reach the Absolute Truth, the same science would be complete and would have no more reason of existing". I want to change this and ask:" Why not? Why we shouldn't reach it?", it's a question, as the same Regge admits, of "personal methaphysics".
In my opinion "Good reasons" for such a "promethean" research could be the same conception expressed also from Regge that nature is not always a benevolent Mother, or referring to Schopenauer, the illusion of an infinite variety which should characterize the human's experience; or referring to Indian philosophy, the question of the human suffering.
Somebody could judge this analysis as a result of a simple misanthropy, cosmic pessimism. So I ask: is there another possibility? Have we to trust in a linear and infinite progress of knowledge, though these features of linearity and infiniteness were just contested by thinkers like Thomas Kuhn, Feyerabend, etc. Sure, it's always welcome a technological progress that improves our lives and avoid ppl's suffering, but at the end: "Who am I, Who are We and Why we are here?"
Science should take definitely in a more visible way the place of the old religions in inquiring this, that's simply "The Question of all the Questions" and the main reason of all the human acting and thinking.
So Go Science over the old religions and Go for the Absolute Truth.
Okay, Waiting for your comments.
Thank u. Bye Bye.
PHD DRAFT PROPOSAL (still not approved, lol)
1) research topic - reasoning and objectives -
Tullio Regge, an Italian physicist, in one of his publication (2004) stated: "If science would reach the Absolute Truth, the same science would be complete and would have no more reason of existing", but later he also states that this is only a "personal metaphysics". The term metaphysics was introduced by Andronicus of Rhodes and the prefix meta- ("after") simply meant the chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the chapter "physics". Aristotle called them "first philosophy". After Andronicus of Rhodes the meaning of "meta" has shifted to mean "beyond, over, transcending", assuming the metaphysics as the study transcending physics. This operation of setting apart physics and metaphysics in two parallel levels instead of interrelating them in a consequent way was completed by René Descartes' dualism which considers everything is "matter" as deterministic and natural, and so belonging to the domain of natural philosophy, while everything considered "mind" as volitional and non-natural and falling outside the domain of philosophy of nature. Only recently thinkers like Popper and Lakatos revaluated the concept of metaphysics rescuing it from this “theological cage”. To the concept of Truth have been attributed all the features of objectivity, subjectivity, relativity, absolute, so can we speak about an Absolute Truth? In my opinion an Absolute Truth (not necessarily a theomorphic one but considered as primary cause) is desirable for the cognitive and epistemological need of not handling several Truths and obtaining possibly the simplest explanation according to the principle of the Ockham’s Razor. And simply for the Promethean need of knowledge. Other "good reasons" for such a "promethean" research could be the same one exposed by Regge that nature is not always a Benevolent Mother, or referring to Schopenhauer, the illusion of an infinite variety which should characterize the humans’ experience. Somebody could judge this analysis as a result of a simple misanthropy, cosmic pessimism, so I ask: is there another possibility? Have we to trust a linear and infinite progress of knowledge, though these features of linearity and infiniteness were contested by thinkers like Kuhn, Feyerabend? I think Science should take definitely and in a more visible way the place of the old religions in inquiring this, that's simply "The Question of all the Questions" and the main reason of all the human thinking and acting.
And regarding the limitations of science and who says that though extremely powerful as system for the discovery of several truths and for the development of the technology, Science is not able to achieve a complete or balanced “Theory/Explanation of All”, maybe it’s because the mankind does not still possess reliable techniques for gaining that. Better methods of truth-determination are (or should be) an ongoing project for the current epistemology.
The objectives of my research would be
• discussing the epistemological and practical reasons (illustrated above) of such research and maybe finding new ones.
• discussing the possibilities of the existence of (The) (an) Absolute Truth and the possible features of it considering the recent scientific developments. For example can it exist according to the concordance and correspondence theories or is it only socially constructed? Is it necessarily incomplete and uncertain according to the incompleteness theorems and to the fallibilism theory? is it linear, cumulative, puzzle-shaped or randomly reachable? Is there a possibility of infiniteness? In which way we can formalise it?
• considering the possibility of a theomorphic or anthropomorphic prejudice in such investigation.
• considering the possibility of ending the “monopoly” of the Absolute Truth owned by religions with the conception of dogma and its philosophical, social and political implications, looking also on the recent developments and facts regarding the relationships between scientific thought and religious believes (i.e. Bioethics and the New Geography of the Research, Creationists versus Secular Movements, La Sapienza Affair, etc.)
Who I'd like to meet: "My cause" coz i just know my "bad effects".
You're welcome, and I'm glad you agree. I delve into that argument for a different purpose in my book, namely to show just how unoriginal the fictional character of Jesus really is. I mean come on! A child of a god and a mortal woman? It just doesn't get any more pagan than that!
Many thanks.. I enjoy playing guitar; mainly Blues and Latin Rock, (a la Carlos Santana)..
Religion is all about an agreement to not think beyond a certain point.. A key subtlety is all logic is thus destroyed.. Truth is an exacting discipline and many seem incapable of it.. Of course, I've also discerned those demanding I have faith are those same individuals demanding power over my being.. My response is uniformly 'NO'!
Hello over there!! I miss corresponding w/ your blogs :) the bad economy over here is keeping me busier than ever. It sucks: work harder, make less money. oh well, what are you going to do.
hi, thanks for adding me ! do you like my music ? hope you do and i invite you to keep an eye on my bulletins and on my blog... and to drop me a line whenever you like !
check out our italian website (click on the banner below):
"Shine" in radio in Italia: richiedila! Clicca QUI per vedere la lista delle radio con i contatti.
Ordina adesso il CD in edizione limitata! (5 euro + sp.) - Manda un messaggio per info. THE BIG EYE di The Mirrors/Hinkel Clicca sulla copertina per maggiori info sullo split EP: Copertina di Andy dei Bluvertigo Scaricalo da iTunes: clicca qui!
I am an atheist, but the growing movement of militant atheism has disappointed me with its negativism and its lack of positive values. Yes, religion has been used to justify hatred, violence, and greed, but it also contains some of the strongest statements against those same evils, and too few atheists are repeating those statements. ¶ It's not enough for us simply to say that we don't believe in an invisible man in the sky with magic powers. We need to lead by example; we need to say what we DO believe in. I would recommend believing in humanism, peace, equality, kindness, love, stuff like that; those things are a lot more important than what stories you believe or disbelieve about where life, the universe, and everything came from. ¶ When I say "believe in" love, I don't mean "accept as objective fact," but rather "choose as an ethical system to live by." Logic can be used to find the consequences of one's assumptions, but it can't be used to choose the assumptions. I know this better than most — I'm the author of a textbook on mathematical logic — but, alas, it's only about math; it doesn't mention love or the reasons *why* we might do math. ¶ I like what Michael Lerner, the author of THE LEFT HAND OF GOD, says about this: People want meaning in their lives; they accepted the malicious message of the religious right only because no one else offered any meaning at all. Surely we can do better than that. Existentialism says choose your own meaning, but it makes no particular recommendations, so it comes across as cold and unfeeling. Lerner does make recommendations, and so do the humanists, and the Worldwide Progressive Movement described on my web page. Please take a look at it. Love, Eric
there are so many ways to see the world, so many possibilities, so many stories, yet we are reduced to so few choices, dare to want something different and the power will crush you
but all advances is society came from deviance, from dreams and views, that where different
these days we are protected, but this protection is more often a cage, in which we can live life safe, but without wild experiences
I see people crushed by hopelessness, trapped in webs of lies, desperately hiding their innermost being ---- as it is deviant, I am one of them
but how can humanity grow when not all possible worlds are explored? how complete can our view of the world be, as long as so many stories remain untold?
we need the right to be different, the right to be an individual, living to be what only an individual can, unique, adding a story, a world...
Online Now!
..
..
