Comments on: Science historian cracks the 2000 year old ‘Plato code’

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 25 Jul 2010 17:41:05 +0000

From Archaic animism to theistic premodernity is the Fall when the sacred is limited and commodified by rulers. In its turn, the premodern monotheistic makes way for the modern atheistic. God dies; the sacred is denied. Romanticism and the New Age, crazy and absurd, bring back the totality of the sacred – postmodern pantheism. When belief is personal and individual, proof has no relevance. All beliefs but mine are wrong. To believe otherwise is cultural suicide. No wonder modernity is crashing around our ears. People are equal; the rule of law fundamental. But your beliefs? Rubbish! Mine? Fantastic! Pluralism yes. Multicultural relativism no thanksl.

By: @zenpyramid

@zenpyramid — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:30:16 +0000

…i’ve had raging arguments with religionists from all faiths for too many years, but my only ‘faith’ is that at some point i’m gonna crack the nut(s) wide open, and rediscover this purported middle ground where mythos and logos can exist in perfect harmony, bit like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sssqBjaTzOU

Then i’m gonna sort out the old Grand Unified Theory malarkey, and if i’m still on a roll, the British electoral system (*sigh)…

…or maybe i’m just an eternal optimist. Breaking it down, Plato style, i know nothing except that i know nothing. Does science need to prove that there is ‘no god’, any more than religion needs science to prove that there ‘is god’? Faith’s about accepting as fact that which has no proof, creationism’s a blasphemy, ‘cos it stresses proof, etc..

By: AllanW

AllanW — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 12:19:23 +0000

zenpyramid; I understand your comment a lot better now. Thanks. Am I up for finding a middle ground? No thanks. I’ll stick with the scientific method and leave the justification for extraordinary claims to those who make them; while knowing that we don’t know everything yet, I am convinced more by a process where I can examine the ‘workings-out’ than by one that relies for it’s explanation on ‘magic happens here’. Exactly as the host of this site does.

By: @zenpyramid

@zenpyramid — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 11:12:05 +0000

AllaW, at no point do i make a claim for the existence of this ‘Truth’, that’s just plain silly, and you know’s it! Should have put ‘…but a set of currently unfalsifIED hypothesis…’, not unfalsifiable, you’re right, my burbling makes it look like religious dogma. But my point is that those who are less critical of how they form reality are prone to accept this idea as dogma, even to the extent that they ‘believe’ in certain aspects of these scientists philosophies without any ‘proof’ (smells like faith to me). And Dawkins and all don’t exactly try to explain themselves, they act like they’re on a crusade. Not that you can blame ‘em, there’s some powerful PR at work behind the creationists et al, and finding a middle ground where dialogue is possible is a tricky. But i’m up for it, r u?

By: AllanW

AllanW — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 09:10:15 +0000

zenpyramid burbled; ‘scientists sometimes forget they don’t have the ‘Truth’ either (i’m looking at YOU, Dawkins), but a set of currently unfalsifiable hypotheses…’

Let’s ignore your ignorance of the falsifiable nature of scientific enquiry (or it wouldn’t be science) for a moment (have you ever heard of Popper?), we’re all agog to learn about this ‘Truth’ you claim exists; please explain. Anything at all about it. Anything. A definition, where it might be found, how you ‘know’ it from something else, what it is. Anything. Please.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:59:50 +0000

Plato is seriously cool, though. Hope the code is real.
So easy to find ‘fake’ codes, a la Bible Code and a thousand other examples of such things.
Like Mr Wiseman says, or should say if he hasn’t already, ‘Humans are hard-wired to see patterns in random or complex information arrays such as books or pictures’.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:55:41 +0000

Both science and religion are attempts to describe the ‘truth’ as we perceive it in a way that can be contained in our tiny little minds. The difference is in the approach.
Science says: ‘I want answers, I will keep asking questions and refining my understanding’.
Religion says ‘I have answers, why ask questions?’.
With certain obvious exceptions.
I think that an intellect far greater than ours would see both bodies of knowledge (sci and rel) as being very crude approximations, clumsy and unwieldy, only suited for our single-track minds.
Even physics: what ACTUALLY is energy? an approximation of the movements of billions of particles. Not a real thing, but the behaviour of a system, like traffic or bubbles.
God is like energy – an approximation. Definitely not a man with a beard.

By: JayKay

JayKay — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 08:53:34 +0000

This is terrible! I can’t wait a generation to have the codes interpreted? Hurry up!

Thanks for this post. Excellent. I shall look for more info.

By: szafy metalowe

szafy metalowe — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 06:56:00 +0000

good article….

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 22:22:40 +0000

As a scientist I can say that we don’t forget the laws of Nature are not unequivocal truths. There is a fundamental understanding amongst physicists that is any law can only be disproved. The weight of evidence supporting a theory can of course be overwhelming but it takes but one contradictory piece of evidence to bring the edifice crashing down.

People’s understanding of how science, particularly physics, works however is flakey…