the value of religion

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:49 am 1. Religions are set dogmas. The scientific method is a dogmatic system given it is have set rules. Not all religion can be negated.
Don't you have any sense of shame and embarrassment in resorting to such a obvious case of the fallacy of hasty generalization and also ignorance.
I won't bother to explain, you find out 'why' yourself.
2. There is not set moral system which exists outside a religion. Buddhism, with reincarnation and beliefs in lesser gods, heaven/hell realms is a religion. To have a general morality is to build it off of a religion.
Ignorance again.
Hedonism, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Deontology, etc., are moral system that are not related specifically to religion.
It is also intellectual shameful that you make conclusion about Buddhism-proper without understanding its core principles thoroughly.
3. If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.
I have stated what are scientific facts are merely 'polished' conjectures.
But scientific facts are the most truthful and reliable knowledge we have which is useful to humanity.
What other source of knowledge is more reliable than scientific knowledge?

Note what you are proposing as 'knowledge' is merely from la la land.
see:
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341
1. Religion is dogma, science is a dogma, thus science is a religion.

2. Buddhism believes in gods and heaven/hell realms...read the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

3. Science's dependence upon relative truths necessitates all truth values are eventually false or subject to change. A morality based upon science is subject to change.
You are very lost in the loops of ignorance.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the value of religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=485257 time=1608222074 user_id=14533]
1. Religion is dogma, science is a dogma, thus science is a religion.

3. Science's dependence upon relative truths necessitates all truth values are eventually false or subject to change. A morality based upon science is subject to change.
[/quote]

1. Science is rigor. Dogma is belief regardless of evidence. They couldn't be further from each other.

3. All information is relative in some sense. The purpose of science is to be at sure as you can be up to and including the point of sufficiency for some task. Exhaustive certainty has never been an appropriate benchmark for anything. Morality based on science changes as evidence changes, which is the only way a morality should change.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 9:58 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:21 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:32 am
Don't you have any sense of shame and embarrassment in resorting to such a obvious case of the fallacy of hasty generalization and also ignorance.
I won't bother to explain, you find out 'why' yourself.


Ignorance again.
Hedonism, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Deontology, etc., are moral system that are not related specifically to religion.
It is also intellectual shameful that you make conclusion about Buddhism-proper without understanding its core principles thoroughly.


I have stated what are scientific facts are merely 'polished' conjectures.
But scientific facts are the most truthful and reliable knowledge we have which is useful to humanity.
What other source of knowledge is more reliable than scientific knowledge?

Note what you are proposing as 'knowledge' is merely from la la land.
see:
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341
1. Religion is dogma, science is a dogma, thus science is a religion.

2. Buddhism believes in gods and heaven/hell realms...read the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

3. Science's dependence upon relative truths necessitates all truth values are eventually false or subject to change. A morality based upon science is subject to change.
You are very lost in the loops of ignorance.
False.

1. Dogma is a set of rules which are assumed.

2. Buddhism does believe in God's and heaven/hell realms thus is a religion.

3. Scientific truths change, for example at one point egg yolks where viewed as healthy then they where viewed as unhealthy. A morality based upon science is subject to change. One may be considered moral one day may be considered immoral another day.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:12 pm 1. Religion is dogma, science is a dogma, thus science is a religion.
I have to say the above is a stupid [literally lack intelligence] statement.
Science is not a dogma [absolutely-absolute truth] in the same sense like dogmatic religions because scientific conclusions are merely 'polished conjectures' which are open to further polishing or abandonment.
2. Buddhism believes in gods and heaven/hell realms...read the Tibetan Book of the Dead.
Do further research on Buddhism-proper and its core principles.
3. Scientific truths change, for example at one point egg yolks where viewed as healthy then they where viewed as unhealthy. A morality based upon science is subject to change. One may be considered moral one day may be considered immoral another day.
Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

The other day I learned a new term which is applicable to you;

Ultracrepidarian. Definition: one who is presumptuous and offers advice or opinions beyond one's sphere of knowledge.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:12 pm 1. Religion is dogma, science is a dogma, thus science is a religion.
I have to say the above is a stupid [literally lack intelligence] statement.
Science is not a dogma [absolutely-absolute truth] in the same sense like dogmatic religions because scientific conclusions are merely 'polished conjectures' which are open to further polishing or abandonment.

It is absolutely absolute as a conjecture. All scientific truths as conjectures necessitates an underlying element of belief given they are probabilistic. The mathematics of probabilities must be absolutely true otherwise science has no groundings which are not chance.


2. Buddhism believes in gods and heaven/hell realms...read the Tibetan Book of the Dead.
Do further research on Buddhism-proper and its core principles.

Yes, negating the cycles of reincarnation is a core belief.
3. Scientific truths change, for example at one point egg yolks where viewed as healthy then they where viewed as unhealthy. A morality based upon science is subject to change. One may be considered moral one day may be considered immoral another day.
Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

Using the egg example again, shows a changing understanding of how the biological system works when introduced to new variables.

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

The other day I learned a new term which is applicable to you;

Ultracrepidarian. Definition: one who is presumptuous and offers advice or opinions beyond one's sphere of knowledge.

Again with the ad hominums showing how weak your argument actually is.

You keep talking about a moral framework yet do not state what this framework is. It is an abstraction which uses the word science as a justification without realizing the changing truths of science as conjecture makes morality as a conjecture.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:00 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 18, 2020 5:12 pm 1. Religion is dogma, science is a dogma, thus science is a religion.
I have to say the above is a stupid [literally lack intelligence] statement.
Science is not a dogma [absolutely-absolute truth] in the same sense like dogmatic religions because scientific conclusions are merely 'polished conjectures' which are open to further polishing or abandonment.

It is absolutely absolute as a conjecture. All scientific truths as conjectures necessitates an underlying element of belief given they are probabilistic. The mathematics of probabilities must be absolutely true otherwise science has no groundings which are not chance.

2. Buddhism believes in gods and heaven/hell realms...read the Tibetan Book of the Dead.
Do further research on Buddhism-proper and its core principles.

Yes, negating the cycles of reincarnation is a core belief.
3. Scientific truths change, for example at one point egg yolks where viewed as healthy then they where viewed as unhealthy. A morality based upon science is subject to change. One may be considered moral one day may be considered immoral another day.
Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

Using the egg example again, shows a changing understanding of how the biological system works when introduced to new variables.

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

The other day I learned a new term which is applicable to you;

Ultracrepidarian. Definition: one who is presumptuous and offers advice or opinions beyond one's sphere of knowledge.

Again with the ad hominums showing how weak your argument actually is.

You keep talking about a moral framework yet do not state what this framework is. It is an abstraction which uses the word science as a justification without realizing the changing truths of science as conjecture makes morality as a conjecture.
" It is absolutely absolute as a conjecture. All scientific truths as conjectures necessitates an underlying element of belief given they are probabilistic. The mathematics of probabilities must be absolutely true otherwise science has no groundings which are not chance. "

Science is not ashamed that scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.

Science don't give a damn of the grounds you specifically demand of it.

The ground of Science is the reliability of the performance and credibility of its scientific framework, system and methods.

The demand of science is, if you or anyone perform the same tests within the imperative requirements of the scientific framework you will get the same results all the time -albeit within a refinely polished conjecture.

Your point on Buddhism above is based on ignorance of Buddhism. If you have not read >500 books & articles covering the whole range of Buddhism, your views on Buddhism are not credible.

You don't understand what is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
Note all knowledge and view of reality has their specific Framework and System to ground the truth of is claims of reality [of which humans are co-creators] reducible to some sort of 'constitution' [explicit or implied].

Thus morality [as defined] has its own specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Consequentialism, Deontology, theistic morality has their own respective FSK.
In my case, what I am proposing is a universal and generic human-based moral FSK which is a generic as a human digestive system and all core human organs.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the value of religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=485613 time=1608440653 user_id=7896]
[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=485589 time=1608423249 user_id=14533]
[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=485490 time=1608361243 user_id=7896]

I have to say the above is a stupid [literally lack intelligence] statement.
Science is not a dogma [absolutely-absolute truth] in the same sense like dogmatic religions because scientific conclusions are merely 'polished conjectures' which are open to further polishing or abandonment.

[color=#FF0000]It is absolutely absolute as a conjecture. All scientific truths as conjectures necessitates an underlying element of belief given they are probabilistic. The mathematics of probabilities must be absolutely true otherwise science has no groundings which are not chance.
[/color]


Do further research on Buddhism-proper and its core principles.

[color=#FF0000]Yes, negating the cycles of reincarnation is a core belief.[/color]


Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

[color=#FF0000]Using the egg example again, shows a changing understanding of how the biological system works when introduced to new variables.[/color]

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

The other day I learned a new term which is applicable to you;

[b]Ultracrepidarian[/b]. Definition: one who is presumptuous and offers advice or opinions beyond one's sphere of knowledge.

[color=#FF0000]Again with the ad hominums showing how weak your argument actually is.

You keep talking about a moral framework yet do not state what this framework is. It is an abstraction which uses the word science as a justification without realizing the changing truths of science as conjecture makes morality as a conjecture.[/color]
[/quote]
[/quote]
[color=#FF0000]" It is absolutely absolute as a conjecture. All scientific truths as conjectures necessitates an underlying element of belief given they are probabilistic. The mathematics of probabilities must be absolutely true otherwise science has no groundings which are not chance. "
[/color]
[b]Science[/b] is not ashamed that scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.

Science don't give a damn of the grounds you specifically demand of it.

The [b]ground[/b] of Science is the reliability of the performance and credibility of its scientific framework, system and methods.

The demand of science is, if you or anyone perform the same tests within the imperative requirements of the scientific framework you will get the same results all the time -albeit within a refinely polished conjecture.

Your point on [b]Buddhism[/b] above is based on ignorance of Buddhism. If you have not read >500 books & articles covering the whole range of Buddhism, your views on Buddhism are not credible.

You don't understand what is a [b]Framework and System of Knowledge[/b]?
Note all knowledge and view of reality has their specific Framework and System to ground the truth of is claims of reality [of which humans are co-creators] reducible to some sort of 'constitution' [explicit or implied].

Thus morality [as defined] has its own specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Consequentialism, Deontology, theistic morality has their own respective FSK.
In my case, what I am proposing is a universal and generic human-based moral FSK which is a generic as a human digestive system and all core human organs.
[/quote]

"Framework and system of knowledge" is simply an answer. An answer is a framework for understanding while a solution is a bespoke action plan. The answer to ethics, as best i can tell, is to account for salience, perspective, and priority, without which you'll be tilting at windmills. Both deontology and consequentialism are insufficient. Duty ethics is an abdication of your morality. Consequentialism fails to account for intent. Virtue ethics is also insufficient by not accounting for consequences. Theistic anything need not be discussed in relation to ethics because it is ultimately arbitrary.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:14 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 19, 2020 8:00 am
I have to say the above is a stupid [literally lack intelligence] statement.
Science is not a dogma [absolutely-absolute truth] in the same sense like dogmatic religions because scientific conclusions are merely 'polished conjectures' which are open to further polishing or abandonment.

It is absolutely absolute as a conjecture. All scientific truths as conjectures necessitates an underlying element of belief given they are probabilistic. The mathematics of probabilities must be absolutely true otherwise science has no groundings which are not chance.



Do further research on Buddhism-proper and its core principles.

Yes, negating the cycles of reincarnation is a core belief.


Scientific truths by default are open for change upon new evidences.

Moral facts with reliance upon scientific facts do not change easily.
Moral facts just like the biological facts, e.g. the fact of the human digestive system do not change easily.

Using the egg example again, shows a changing understanding of how the biological system works when introduced to new variables.

What you are referring to above are personal or group moral opinions and beliefs [change subjectively] which are not verified or justified within a moral framework and system.
Again you are ignorant of what is morality-proper.

The other day I learned a new term which is applicable to you;

Ultracrepidarian. Definition: one who is presumptuous and offers advice or opinions beyond one's sphere of knowledge.

Again with the ad hominums showing how weak your argument actually is.

You keep talking about a moral framework yet do not state what this framework is. It is an abstraction which uses the word science as a justification without realizing the changing truths of science as conjecture makes morality as a conjecture.
" It is absolutely absolute as a conjecture. All scientific truths as conjectures necessitates an underlying element of belief given they are probabilistic. The mathematics of probabilities must be absolutely true otherwise science has no groundings which are not chance. "

Science is not ashamed that scientific facts are at best 'polished conjectures'.

Then what constitutes a scientific fact may eventually be proven false given a long enough timeline. A morality based upon changing truth values eventually will result in changing moral standards.

Science don't give a damn of the grounds you specifically demand of it.

The ground of Science is the reliability of the performance and credibility of its scientific framework, system and methods.


The demand of science is, if you or anyone perform the same tests within the imperative requirements of the scientific framework you will get the same results all the time -albeit within a refinely polished conjecture.

A test is merely an interpretation of a phenomenon given specific variables.
Facts, and the tests which come with them, are interpretations.


Your point on Buddhism above is based on ignorance of Buddhism. If you have not read >500 books & articles covering the whole range of Buddhism, your views on Buddhism are not credible.

So buddhism does not believe in reincarnation or heaven and hell realms? Lol...so much for your reading.

You don't understand what is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
Note all knowledge and view of reality has their specific Framework and System to ground the truth of is claims of reality [of which humans are co-creators] reducible to some sort of 'constitution' [explicit or implied].

Yet this constitution is only relative and not a thing in itself thus dependent upon something beyond it which is not proven. The emptiness of the framework and system of knowledge always makes it dependent upon something beyond it which is not proven.

Thus morality [as defined] has its own specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Consequentialism, Deontology, theistic morality has their own respective FSK.
In my case, what I am proposing is a universal and generic human-based moral FSK which is a generic as a human digestive system and all core human organs.

Yet this is premised upon facts which are just conjectures. Morality is thus a conjecture according to your stance.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12235
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:04 am You don't understand what is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
Note all knowledge and view of reality has their specific Framework and System to ground the truth of is claims of reality [of which humans are co-creators] reducible to some sort of 'constitution' [explicit or implied].
Yet this constitution is only relative and not a thing in itself thus dependent upon something beyond it which is not proven. The emptiness of the framework and system of knowledge always makes it dependent upon something beyond it which is not proven.
Thus morality [as defined] has its own specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Consequentialism, Deontology, theistic morality has their own respective FSK.
In my case, what I am proposing is a universal and generic human-based moral FSK which is a generic as a human digestive system and all core human organs.
Yet this is premised upon facts which are just conjectures. Morality is thus a conjecture according to your stance.
Yes, moral facts from a moral FSK are polished conjecture just as scientific facts from a scientific FSK are polished conjectures.

Do you believe scientific facts are credible?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 7:22 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Dec 25, 2020 2:02 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Dec 20, 2020 6:04 am You don't understand what is a Framework and System of Knowledge?
Note all knowledge and view of reality has their specific Framework and System to ground the truth of is claims of reality [of which humans are co-creators] reducible to some sort of 'constitution' [explicit or implied].
Yet this constitution is only relative and not a thing in itself thus dependent upon something beyond it which is not proven. The emptiness of the framework and system of knowledge always makes it dependent upon something beyond it which is not proven.
Thus morality [as defined] has its own specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK].
Consequentialism, Deontology, theistic morality has their own respective FSK.
In my case, what I am proposing is a universal and generic human-based moral FSK which is a generic as a human digestive system and all core human organs.
Yet this is premised upon facts which are just conjectures. Morality is thus a conjecture according to your stance.
Yes, moral facts from a moral FSK are polished conjecture just as scientific facts from a scientific FSK are polished conjectures.

Do you believe scientific facts are credible?
Does morality equate to a belief then if scientific credibility is dependent upon belief?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the value of religion

Post by Advocate »

Religion is a first, earliest attempt at making sense of the universe. To say it is desirable is to say that the beginning of the journey was better just because it was easier, without considering the destination of the journey. It's a regressive impulse. The purpose of religion has been Entirely subsumed by philosophy, science, and psychology. There's nothing good in religion because literally every good thing it provided in the past is now available in other ways without the inherent bullshit component. It's not good to choose the easy path which has proven itself not to lead to your goal.

But if your goal is personal comfort rather than universal understanding, consider choosing an alternative less harmful to others.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by popeye1945 »

Someone said a morality based upon science is subject to change, that really depends upon the subject of the science. At present the theistic religious morality is a hodgepodge collection of myths, irrationality, and hit-and-miss common sense. Moral relativism is due to the geographical isolation of differing cultures, a hodgepodge hit and miss monstrosity. Morality should be based on the well-being of organisms, read biology, for the world over there is but one biology and morality to be morality must have the well being of all life forms at its center. If one's morality depends upon the belief in a magic man in the sky and the absurdity of miracles which describes all the desert religions it could only spell Kaos in the modern world, read nutty conflicts over who's imaginary friend is the one and only real god. Life/biology and its well-being is the only sane center focus of morality.

Advocate, Put nicely in perspective!
Post Reply