Evolution: Science or Philosophy

[TomOfSweden]

'The God Part of the Brain' is another (I forget the author's name) takes a very interesting view that 'God exists' in a physiological sense in the same way that 'music exists'. Both are ubiquitous and universal across cultures and epochs, and neuroscience can now actually pinpoint the regions in the brain that are stimulated by both. More interestingly, the parts of the brain that are stimulated by music and spirituality are the 'pleasure zones' (for wont of the proper scientific name) -- the very same receptors that respond to eating and sex or, in other words, the receptors that are responsible for survival of species.

Thanks for the book tips. I'm always on the look out for books on the subject. Belief in an ubiquitous physical god I thought was called pantheism? Extremly interesting anyway.

It should also be noted that the current academic zietgeist is one of a post-modernist making. Words like 'universals' and 'truth' are regarded by many these days as meaningless. This is interesting because truth, for example, exists on a truth - fallacy continuum. If there is no truth then, by extension, lies can't exist. "There were no weapons of mass destruction." The statement is meaningless unless truth exists.

I fucking hate social relativists. Of the simple reason that most people seem to missunderstand it. It has to do with cognitive truth and not with the actual truth. If two people stand in the rain, the truth is that they'll get wet no matter how much they might disagree on the details about definitions of weather or degrees of wetness.

Post modernist philosophers tend to get grossly miss-quoted in the press further adding to the confusion.

And then you've got smart-asses who use the term, (erroneously) because they're too damn lazy to engage their brains and just claim everything is relative. Right now it poisons the Swedish philosophical debates. I don't know how it is over there, but here it's rediculous. You might get some post-modernist feminist talking about axioms. I mean, that's not what her thing is. It's talking about ethics. Yes, there is a truth. The problem may be that nobody sees it, but that's a completely different matter.

[anonymouse]

I fucking hate social relativists. Of the simple reason that most people seem to missunderstand it. It has to do with cognitive truth and not with the actual truth. If two people stand in the rain, the truth is that they'll get wet no matter how much they might disagree on the details about definitions of weather or degrees of wetness.

Language/linguistics is largely at fault here. To ask the question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" denies the possibility that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 'Truth' here is so bound up in semantics it ignores context.

Apologies for the short reply ... it's been a long day

anonymouse

[TomOfSweden]

Language/linguistics is largely at fault here. To ask the question, "Is the glass half full or half empty?" denies the possibility that the glass is twice as big as it needs to be. 'Truth' here is so bound up in semantics it ignores context.

Apologies for the short reply ... it's been a long day

anonymouse

I totaly understand what relativism is all about. But as you say; it's largely about linguistics and not about truth at all.

I read "gods debris". I like Scott Adams. Thanks for the tip, he's fun. I'm guessing it's the result of taking a beginners course in philosophy because it usually covers just the problems he poses in the book. Even though none of it is very profound or new it was still a good read.