Caught between two infinities

[Icarus]

Man is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness. When he looks at the small he sees himself as great. When he compares himself to the vastness of the universe he becomes insignificant.

In the same token, man is capable of both great acts and atrocities. To what end can science account for this duality in man?

[micatala]

I'm not sure if science can say much of anything about this, as I think the reasons for the atrocities and the 'great acts' are moral in nature, even spiritual. If evolution eventually explains how morality came about, then we might get somewhere, but I think this is a long ways away (perhaps infinitely far away )

[McCulloch]

Man is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness. When he looks at the small he sees himself as great. When he compares himself to the vastness of the universe he becomes insignificant.

In the same token, man is capable of both great acts and atrocities. To what end can science account for this duality in man?

Since this is the "Science and Religion" forum and not the "Philosophy" forum, I feel justified in nit picking a little bit. By infinite smallness you must mean Planck length. The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And while there is no universal agreement on the size of the universe, most physicists do not believe it is infinite.

[ST88]

Man is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness. When he looks at the small he sees himself as great. When he compares himself to the vastness of the universe he becomes insignificant.

In the same token, man is capable of both great acts and atrocities. To what end can science account for this duality in man?

You seem to be asking why we can appear "great" and "insignificant" at the same time. I believe the science that deals with these ideas is called "psychology". You are asking a question that deals with the pejoritive definitions of smallness and largeness, which strikes me as an unnecessarily anthropomorphic view of the universe. That man has the capability to do great things and do horrible things would seem to validate the scientific finding that the brain is a complex object, capable of more variation than there has already been human brains on the history of this earth. We are a product of our environment, and we have a good number of contradictory and confounding motivations which drive us -- some are stronger than others at certain times based on primal drives that we may not fully understand because we are no longer cavemen who have to struggle for physical survival on a daily basis.

[Icarus]

McCulloch,
If we lived in a vacuum, I'd understand being nit picky, however since we don't live in a vacuum... natural science (or rather scientists) says that everything can be explained by natural means. Therefore it must account for all aspects of life, not just the ones it wants to. It must answer this [infinities] question as well.

ST88,
I am not suggesting that we "appear" to be both great and insignificant at the same time, I am saying it outright. And like my statement to McCulloch, we don't live in a vacuum, science practices like psychology must be a cohesive unit with all the other sciences to be a true claim.

The falsehood that all the varied sciences don't have to work together is a deception of the will to not see the big picture.

If I take your overall statement correctly you are saying in effect "evolution is still evolving us"?

[Lotan]

Man is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness.

A mosquito is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness.
An electron is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness.
Spongebob Squarepants is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness.
Everything that isn't infinitely small or infinitely large is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness.
So what?

[Curious]

Man is caught between infinite smallness and infinite largeness. When he looks at the small he sees himself as great. When he compares himself to the vastness of the universe he becomes insignificant.

In the same token, man is capable of both great acts and atrocities. To what end can science account for this duality in man?

As an individual, it is necessary for survival to sometimes act selfishly, for example, when there is imminent danger, individual survival is more likely when all one has to think about is oneself. In the case of social animals though, survival can also be more likely when the group acts as a unit. For society to gain benefit from numbers, it must have some benefit to the individual which outweighs the disadvantages. Such a group would not gain any overall advantage unless the benefits of being within the group outweighed the danger posed by other members of the group. The most obvious example here would be the risk of being killed by forces external to the group measured against the risk of being killed by members of the group. Those individuals that killed within the group would be unlikely to be allowed to remain within the group and be either killed (due to self defence or preservation by other members) or banished from the group and therefore be less likely to survive individually, both of which occur in other primate as well as other animal groups.
It may therefore be reasonable to suggest that both selfishness and unselfishness might confer some advantage on both individual and group survival. Atrocities are, as a rule, perpetrated out of selfishness while acts of compassion emanate from unselfishness (which itself might ultimately be considered selfish in respect to survival). Perhaps the evil doer has a proclivity towards self service while those who do good have a greater leaning towards group service or morality.

[ST88]

ST88,
I am not suggesting that we "appear" to be both great and insignificant at the same time, I am saying it outright. And like my statement to McCulloch, we don't live in a vacuum, science practices like psychology must be a cohesive unit with all the other sciences to be a true claim.

Not to be rude, but it really doesn't matter whether you intended to suggest that we "are" or "appear to be" either great or insignificant. The fact that we can conceive of ourselves as between two infinities is due to our psychology, which, btw, is based on both self-reporting and neuropsychological study, which itself is based in chemistry and physics.

As Lotan points out, everything between two infinite opposites can also make this claim, so the only thing that sets us apart is our particular vantage point.

[Curious]

I think the main question in this thread was not concerning the infinities but rather concerning the dual nature of man.

[Lotan]

I think the main question in this thread was not concerning the infinities but rather concerning the dual nature of man.

What "dual nature"?
Do you mean why some men are hairy and others bald?
Do you mean why some men write with their right hand but play hockey left-handed?
OR could it be that Icarus expects science to somehow measure and account for his own subjective notions about what is 'great' and what is an 'atrocity'?
The "Philosophy" forum is the next one beneath this one.