Quote:
Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent
naturally they have practical value, because they allow us, as an individual organism, to adapt to our environment so that we can better sustain ourselves in it. the crux of the scientific reality is, however, to see the individual organism as separate from the environment, which is always an arbitrary boundary. the religious truth which i am hinting at is the collapse of that boundary, which renders science effectively futile. however, operating in the realm of sensuous experience, science is a very useful tool that allows us to play a variety of games which together consitute the experience known as 'life.' the problem is when rather than using science to adapt to our envionrment, we use science to disfigure our environment into reflections of ourselves, because we try to use scientific and logical understanding to pinpoint our own identity, which is futile since it operates on a schism in our identity. again, i'm sorry for being so abstract, i can't really help it, at this point i'm talking about things like mass entertainment and communications and increasing global corporate control, which i feel harbor self-destructive tendencies and convince people to want only what they can't have. as such, though there is an obvious divide between religion and science, science without any sort of aim or direction is probably the biggest threat imaginable to humanity.
|
Unless I'm mistaken, it seems to me you're talking about something like the disintegration of the "me" and subsequent fusion with "everything" (God?). It seems that this is something we should strive for and when attained, we don't need science .. I guess that would mean elimination of all "me"-related personal goals etc., so perhaps that makes sense.
The only problem about your argument is that without extensive doses of psychoactive drugs or some intense religious experience or something else out of the ordinary, what you're talking about here is basically incomprehensible. Since people don't experience such things or live lives in this state, there doesn't seem to be a practical value to the religious truth you're hinting at.
The other stuff about how we can't use science to identify us with science, well, not even a scientist would exclusively define him or herself with science. I identify myself with opinions, enjoyments, dislikes etc. that I think have little to do with science.