more science v religion

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
User avatar
MagsJ
Posts: 318
Joined: Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:23 pm
Location: Suryaloka / LDN Town

Re: more science v religion

Post by MagsJ »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Religion is conceptual; Science is factual.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by popeye1945 »

MagsJ wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 8:31 am
Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Religion is conceptual; Science is factual.
Religion is mythical, science is wonder and critical thinking, as well as self-correcting.
Dimebag
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:12 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Dimebag »

Religion is the attempt to mass produce an individual’s spiritual experience, their experience of themselves in relation to the universe, and some transcendent being which may or may not be deemed apart from them.

Unfortunately, because each individual has their own internal nuances, the success rate of religion tends to be not so great, and most end up either believing in something for which they have no experiential backing, or they become skeptics and harbour a mistrust and hatred of all religion and religious thinking.

But, even for the hardened skeptical atheist, there can be times in one’s life which call into question their assumption that all religious experience is delusion. It turns out that there may be an actual source of all religious doctrine, but once it becomes boxed, it also loses its essence and touch with the truth of it.

One can stumble upon these experiences, and when one does, they realise the nature of their own experiential reality is not what they had taken it to be. There were many assumptions about the nature of experience, the nature of the observed world, and the nature of the self, which turned out to be real oversights, oversights which science attempt to grapple with, but which also has built in blind spots towards.

So, I have found through experience, that one can be humbled, by experience, by what might be called luck or chance or maybe the unfolding of being. It seems at a certain point in one’s life, there can be an inward turning of consciousness, which can bring about these experiences.

I believe this could even be studied scientifically, IF science could remove its prejudice towards religion, which, though justifiable based on the history of certain religions and their fear of certain Authority figures of control being dethroned due to scientific discoveries about the nature of the world and its seeming mechanical nature.

As far as I see it, there is organised religion, as distinct from “religious” experience.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by RCSaunders »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Science and all other rational disciplines are the objective study of reality based on evidence.

Religion and all other superstitions are irrational credulity in fictions, and other machinations of demented minds in defiance of all evidence.

It is the difference between a map of the world and a map of Alice's land behind the looking glass.
Dubious
Posts: 3987
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Dubious »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Religion validates from the inside-out based on whatever validation you choose to accept, there being no limits; Science validates from the outside-in by having to explain what is objectively observed, eliminating whatever subjective prejudices may intervene...a mind conflation with what is factually observed compared to what is imagined or wished for.
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by popeye1945 »

Religion is belief without knowledge those who practice it abandon reason and critical thinking. Religion as Nietzsche stated is Nihilistic in its outlook devaluing this life for the life of an imagined one.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by godelian »

Religion consists of two parts: spirituality and a moral theory.

The transcendental part, i.e. spirituality, is about liturgy and prayer. It is about establishing a connection with the transcendental world in which the believer believes.

Spirituality does not have the same purpose as science, i.e. detecting stable patterns in the physical universe that are resistant to scrutiny by experimental testing. Comparing spirituality to science makes as little sense as, for example, comparing music to science.

Concerning the moral theory, science does not even seek to answer the question whether a particular human behavior is moral or not.

Furthermore, science is almost never about human behavior, to the extent that patterns in human behavior are pretty much never resistant to scrutiny by experimental testing.
jayjacobus
Posts: 1273
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by jayjacobus »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Religion is about faith and worship. Science is about the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Religion has an abstract foundation about existence. Science has a foundation from what exists.

Religions are about trust in God. Science doesn't address trust.

Theologians purport to be agents of God. Scientists purport to be agents of facts.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Sculptor »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Deduction verses Induction.

Religion has all the answers and tries to squeeze the world in to those answer.
Science examines the world and tries to find the answers from the world.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Sculptor »

MagsJ wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 8:31 am
Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Religion is conceptual; Science is factual.
Religion is conceptual; Science is factual, and conceptual.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8477
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Sculptor »

godelian wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 2:08 am Religion consists of two parts: spirituality and a moral theory.

The transcendental part, i.e. spirituality, is about liturgy and prayer. It is about establishing a connection with the transcendental world in which the believer believes.
What transcendental world?

Spirituality does not have the same purpose as science, i.e. detecting stable patterns in the physical universe that are resistant to scrutiny by experimental testing. Comparing spirituality to science makes as little sense as, for example, comparing music to science.
Spirituality is a void.

Concerning the moral theory, science does not even seek to answer the question whether a particular human behavior is moral or not.

Furthermore, science is almost never about human behavior, to the extent that patterns in human behavior are pretty much never resistant to scrutiny by experimental testing.
I think when the word "behaviour" is used, it is usually something to do with a scientific viewpoint.
godelian
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed May 04, 2022 4:21 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by godelian »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 1:32 pm What transcendental world?
The one in which the believer believes. This belief only needs to suit the believer. Other people may believe something else. Every religion has its own beliefs about the transcendental world it believes in.
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 1:32 pm Spirituality is a void.
It is obvious that it may not work depending on the person involved. It does, however, work for quite a few people.
I personally enjoy liturgy and prayer quite a bit. However, I do not expect that everybody else does too. But then again, that last bit is not even needed for me to enjoy it. It is like when I enjoy a particular piece of music. Does it even matter if other people like it too? I think it doesn't.
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 1:32 pm I think when the word "behaviour" is used, it is usually something to do with a scientific viewpoint.
Experimentally testing human behavior very much suffers from the lack of reproducibility. In general, experimental testing works best in natural sciences, such as physics and chemistry, where no human behavior is involved. Experimental testing may or may not work in fields like biology or medicine, because living things are not always predictable. It is quite problematic in fields like psychology or sociology.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Um...

No.

Some do, some don't.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 01, 2022 1:29 pm
Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Deduction verses Induction.
All empirical science is inductive.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing...but it's the reality.

Check it out, by definition of "induction" or "scientific method."
Post Reply