This whole feeling of connection and flow idea isn't anything original. All it is is a way of looking at the universe. An abstraction of the reality. It has nothing to do with faith.

As for occam's razor, it isn't that the simplest explanation is the right one, it's that it is most probably the right one. Simple statistics at play there. Are you assuming that my suggestion that there is no god is an application of occam's razor or something? All I've really said is that what I see before me and experience is what I take to be real and I find no need to resort to imaginary beings as it doesn't add anything useful.

I didn't lay any claim to originality. :-)

I'm just saying that "it doesn't add anything useful" is an application of Occam's Razor. You're saying it complicates the theory of reality beyond need, that the best theory is one that includes only what we currently see as useful.

You are misunderstanding what I mean by "useful". By "useful" I mean that it can interact or have any effect what so ever, regardless of whether we are aware of that effect or not. If something cannot be touched or seen or sensed or effect anything that can be touched or seen or sensed or felt or heard or anything, then what is it?

Well, "can't be perceived in any way" is a long way from what science can prove, so far, isn't it?

All we can say, so far, is "hasn't been perceived in any way."

YOU ARE SO MISSING MY POINT!!!

I said nothing about whether science has or hasn't proven certain things. I'm talking more philosophically here (you keep assuming I'm stuck like glue to only what science has currently discovered--the whole deal with science is that it is a refinement of philosophy adn it is an ongoing process that is continually discovering and continually being improved. It isn't necessarily ideal, but it is the best we currently have for advancing out understanding and ability to maniuplate reality). I meant what I said--can't be percieved in any way. Whether we have noticed the connection yet or not.

I probably am. :-)

There's a reason I didn't do a philosophy degree. You should talk to 'finding'; she did. :-)

Is it worth me trying again? I'm not sure. Am I distracting you or pissing you off?

I think you are basing everything you are saying off of what you assume I think without actually reading what I write and trying to understand what I actually think. I know I'm a nerd and have a math degree, but that doesn't mean I've never had a philosophical thought or looked past the end of my own nose or thought about anything on a deeper level ever. On the contrary, I've done this plenty. I've even studied a fair amount of philosophy.

Well, I can say that I read what you wrote, but I can't claim that I understood it fully, since you as the author still believe I haven't. But I do realize that that's probably my deficiency; in fact, I think I just said that, above.

There seems to be this assumption that goes along with being an atheist or a sciency person or what not. And you are heavily applying this assumption here. It is that you assume my focus is narrow or that I miss the beauty of things or am blind and limited somehow.

Here's a quote from Richard Feynman:

"I have a friend who’s an artist and he’s some times taken a view which I don’t agree with very well. He’ll hold up a flower and say, "look how beautiful it is," and I’ll agree, I think. And he says, "you see, I as an artist can see how beautiful this is, but you as a scientist, oh, take this all apart and it becomes a dull thing." And I think he’s kind of nutty.

First of all, the beauty that he sees is available to other people and to me, too, I believe, although I might not be quite as refined aesthetically as he is. But I can appreciate the beauty of a flower.

At the same time, I see much more about the flower that he sees. I could imagine the cells in there, the complicated actions inside which also have a beauty. I mean, it’s not just beauty at this dimension of one centimeter: there is also beauty at a smaller dimension, the inner structure…also the processes.

The fact that the colors in the flower are evolved in order to attract insects to pollinate it is interesting – it means that insects can see the color.

It adds a question – does this aesthetic sense also exist in the lower forms that are…why is it aesthetic, all kinds of interesting questions which a science knowledge only adds to the excitement and mystery and the awe of a flower.

It only adds. I don’t understand how it subtracts."

I'm not trying to say you're "less" than me, Z.

I'm sorry if it sounded that way.

Dear Ralph,

I hope you have thoroughly enjoyed this episode of the Mark and Zach show. Tune in next week for more.

*soft shoe, exit stage left ...*

FWIW I have a BA in philosophy. Since Sartre was mentioned I hasten to add that I am partial to realism over existentialism, although Camus' novels The Stranger and The Plague both had a profound effect on me.

Today we do have more sophistry (language games) going on than actual philosophy although much of what would have been philosophy a while ago has morphed into other fields such as economics and computer science.

I think science has just as deep an appreciation for nature's elegance as art does, if not more. It is a shame that an artist would find it dull, when there is so much to learn from nature. Every once in a while science uncovers a means to reduce human suffering. Surely this is not dull.