Carol service in prod church review.

[Sir C]

No. Good science does not acknowledge ‘mystery’ - simply stuff science hasn’t yet understood. ‘Mystery’ is - again - a religious concept.

Semantic, with all due respect, bóllocks.

[Burney]

I use 'spiritual' to describe the exploration of one's own mind. In other words, following the evidence in a wholly scientific way. You paint the two as mutually incompatible, but they are so compatible that any exploration of one's own mind that doesn't rely on science is likely to lead you to one place and one place only: religion.

Religion happens when you don't follow the evidence.

But that idea is inherently solipsistic. It relies on the idea that ‘you’ are some unique entity. You aren’t. Science tells us that we are actually all boringly alike. ‘Your’ mind has no particular mystery. You are not a unique snowflake. You just wantbto be special because you lack the humility to accept that there’s nothing particularly interesting about you.

[Monty92]

Anyone exploring your mind would want to be wearing an NBC suit.

And that's just the stored images of your mum.

[Monty92]

But that idea is inherently solipsistic. It relies on the idea that ‘you’ are some unique entity. You aren’t. Science tells us that we are actually all boringly alike. ‘Your’ mind has no particular mystery. You are not a unique snowflake. You just wantbto be special because you lack the humility to accept that there’s nothing particularly interesting about you.

No, not at all, actually. I do not think there is anything uniquely interesting about my mind. I believe that the most stupid person in the world has just as much potential as Einstein to discover untapped truths about the nature of consciousness. Not their consciousness - consciousness in general.

[World's End Stella]

No. Good science does not acknowledge ‘mystery’ - simply stuff science hasn’t yet understood. ‘Mystery’ is - again - a religious concept.

The assumption being that science (and therefore man) is capable of understanding everything.

I disagree, or at least I disagree with the idea that we should assume that is true. Man is product of evolution, the engine of evolution is arbitrary genetic change. I find it unlikely that something that has evolved as a result of arbitrary genetic change should attain such a degree of sophistication that they could understand absolutely everything.

It strikes me as superficially arrogant. No wonder Monty supports this view.

[Burney]

Semantic, with all due respect, bóllocks.

But the semantics do matter. Our thought is still hugely shaped by a language given to us by thousands of years of monotheism and I think it's important to bear that in mind.

[Burney]

No, not at all, actually. I do not think there is anything uniquely interesting about my mind. I believe that the most stupid person in the world has just as much potential as Einstein to discover untapped truths about the nature of consciousness. Not their consciousness - consciousness in general.

But you want mystery, don't you? You don't want everything explained, you want stuff to be just out of reach because that suggests there is more than the grindingly physical. You may want to explore it, but you don't truly want to understand it. Not really.

What I'm trying to explain is that that instinct - that inherently insatiable desire for the ineffable - is what I'm talking about.

[Burney]

The assumption being that science (and therefore man) is capable of understanding everything.

I disagree, or at least I disagree with the idea that we should assume that is true. Man is product of evolution, the engine of evolution is arbitrary genetic change. I find it unlikely that something that has evolved as a result of arbitrary genetic change should attain such a degree of sophistication that they could understand absolutely everything.

It strikes me as superficially arrogant. No wonder Monty supports this view.

Why should we not be? We are by some distance the most intelligent creatures to have appeared that we know of. Why should any aspect of nature be closed off to us?

[Luis Anaconda]

But the semantics do matter. Our thought is still hugely shaped by a language given to us by thousands of years of monotheism and I think it's important to bear that in mind.

Them semantics are just as bad them Musrealites though, b. Throw 'em out

[Monty92]

But you want mystery, don't you? You don't want everything explained, you want stuff to be just out of reach because that suggests there is more than the grindingly physical. You may want to explore it, but you don't truly want to understand it. Not really.

What I'm trying to explain is that that instinct - that inherently insatiable desire for the ineffable - is what I'm talking about.

Thanks for mansplaining my own brain