more science v religion

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20196
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:23 pm Atto,

Einstein believed in Spinoza's god he was in awe of the unperceived totality of the mystery. As to traditional religions its all quotations of mythical entities at least Einstein and Hawkins were real.
Just so 'you' become AWARE, what are classed as 'mythical entities', by some, may well be just a MISINTERPRETATION or MISUNDERSTANDING of what thee ACTUAL 'entity' IS, EXACTLY.

But if one BELIEVES that 'that entity' is just a 'myth', just like if one BELIEVES that 'misinterpreted or misunderstood entity' EXISTS and IS REAL, then BOTH, and ALL, of 'these people' will NOT 'grow up' and come-to-SEE what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth REALLY IS. They will NOT SEE, because they are AFRAID to become Truly OPEN. BELIEFS are ONLY for those who are afraid of the dark.

As for the STORIES about 'talking snakes' and 'the devil making 'you' do things', when one STOPS HIDING BEHIND their BELIEFS, then what they Truly represent and mean can ALSO come-to-LIGHT, and thus BE SEEN, as well.
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:23 pm You seem to believe in some esoteric spiritual vision, this is not what the general population is into.
The 'general population' was also NOT INTO the idea that the earth revolved around the sun too. But, OBVIOUSLY, we ALREADY KNOW that the 'general population' is NOT always Right. So, WHY mention that as though that matters?

What "attofishpi" is LEADING TO is ABSOLUTELY and ACTUALLY, IRREFUTABLY True, Right, AND Correct.

The 'general population', in the days when this was being written, were just NOT YET AWARE of this Fact.
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:23 pm To my way of thinking any spiritual tradition needs to be fully open to the wonder.
And the ONLY WAY that this can be done FULLY is by getting RID OF ALL BELIEFS, and STOPPING ANY further ones from ARISING.
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:23 pm The mind is an open system and when one embraces an anthropomorphic god one closes one's self off from the mystery.
VERY, VERY True.

And when one has ANY ASSUMPTION or BELIEF that they KNOW what is true, right, or correct, BEFORE they have the ACTUAL PROOF for 'it', then they have, LITERALLY, CLOSED "them self" OFF and FROM this Truly (ALWAYS) OPEN Mind.

Which, coincidently, IS just what the ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE IS, EXACTLY, behind the makeup of what we perceive as reality, which "attofishpi" talks about and goes on about here.
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:23 pm The most obvious realization is that we are part of something larger than ourselves this realization has morphed in the absurdity of all three of the desert religions.
You speak here like, 'we' are SMART, and NOTHING like what "others" WERE/ARE.

With EACH and EVERY NEW INSIGHT into what is ACTUALLY and IRREFUTABLY True, comes a REALIZATION of just how ABSURD human beings 'thinking' WAS, and sometimes STILL IS. HOWEVER, when FULL INSIGHT IS OBTAINED, then what was PERCEIVED as BEING ABSURDITY by "others" is sometimes FOUND and SEEN to be Truly AWE-INSPIRING INSIGHT that they ACTUALLY HAD.

And that it WAS the DELIVER, MISINTERPRETATION, and/or MISCOMMUNICATION of THAT INSIGHT, which is what WAS Truly ABSURD.
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:23 pm These desert religions are a source of conflict and division in the modern world and rely upon ignorance and anti-intellectualism to maintain their emotional frenzy.
The words and term 'desert religion' covers a WHOLE range of DIFFERENT 'things'. Until you provide specific examples of what parts, EXACTLY, of 'desert religions' that you do NOT AGREE WITH, then do NOT be to surprised if 'we' have absolutely NO IDEA AT ALL what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, that you are talking about and referring to here.

Also, let us NOT forget that there IS 'conflict' AND 'division' AMONG "scientists", "politicians", "religious people", and ALL 'groups of peoples', and even WITHIN their OWN SMALLER and VERY SPECIFIC groups or fields, WITHIN those groups.

Furthermore, is it NOT 'ignorance' and/or 'being CLOSED', which is what ACTUALLY maintains the 'emotional frenzy' among ALL of 'you', adult human beings, no matter what specific group 'you' put "yourselves" INTO?
Age
Posts: 20196
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 10:40 pm Sculptor,

As to the statement about quotes, I was accused of appealing to authority, whilst religion appeals to the authority of mythical entities.
But 'religion', itself, does NOT appeal to the authority of 'mythical entities', for two reasons:

1. 'religion' does NOT appeal to ANY thing. And,

2. If 'religion' did, then it would, OBVIOUSLY, NOT be to a 'mythical entity'.

What ACTUALLY happens and occurs instead is; some human beings have 'religious BELIEFS', and it is these 'people' WHO appeal to the 'authority' of what they BELIEVE is true. Which, OBVIOUSLY, would NOT be to a 'mythical entity'.

That 'you' BELIEVE that what 'those people' appeal to IS a 'mythical entity' is just as much a 'religious BELIEF' as 'they' HAVE. 'your' 'religion', however, is just the faith or BELIEF in a DIFFERENT 'particular system'. Which just happens to BELIEVE (in) the EXACT OPPOSITE as 'they' DO.
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:23 pm My own sense is that Atto is inferring some personal esoteric system, my problem is just with anthropomorphic gods.
ANY 'human being' who is LOOKED AT or CLASSED AS a 'god' or a 'God', or ANY 'god' or 'God' who is 'anthropomorphized' is just ABSOLUTE FOOLISHINESS and STUPIDITY at its best.

Also, while we are 'here', let us NOT FORGET that when one of 'you', human beings, is LOOKED UPON as being a so-called "great thinker" and so lifted up the ladder to superiordom, and/or god-like, then it is BOTH SIDES of the 'religious' who 'try to' USE that 'person' as being on THEIR SIDE. Which Truly IS an amazing thing to WATCH, and OBSERVE, happen and take place.
popeye1945 wrote: Thu Jun 16, 2022 5:23 pm I acknowledge only that there is a great mystery.
Is there a difference between 'a great mystery', and, just 'a mystery'?

If yes, then what is 'that difference', EXACTLY?

Also, what is 'a mystery' to 'you', human beings, when this was being written, BECOMES WELL KNOWN, and just plain old COMMON, KNOWLEDGE, soon enough.
Age
Posts: 20196
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

MagsJ wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:55 am
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:08 pm Mythology is the other man's religion. Religions' foundation is emotional and requires of its adherence an element of anti-intellectualism for an embracing of the irrational.
Modern religions, yes.. or the concept of what we think religion is, which is so far removed from what it originally was.
What do 'you' think 'religion' is, and what 'was' 'religion', originally, to you?
MagsJ wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:55 am I don’t see why we can’t abide by both [science and religion] as one guides Us logically, the other.. spiritually/morally.
Religious AND scientific texts BOTH have backed up and supported EACH OTHER. 'you', human beings, had just NOT YET EVOLVED ENOUGH to be ABLE TO SEE and UNDERSTAND 'this', hitherto when this was being written.
MagsJ wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:55 am I don’t think we can get moral values from Science alone.. the unethical practices documented over time, are testament of that.
ALL 'knowledge', 'values', and 'guidance' comes from WITHIN, and NOT from ANY other source.

The 'knowledge', from WITHIN, is just able to be WRITTEN DOWN and TOLD, and thus SHARED, and it is through the SHARING of 'knowledge' WHERE and HOW thee Truth is FOUND and UNCOVERED. SHARING 'knowledge' is ALSO how 'the mystery' is continually getting SMALLER and SMALLER, until ALL of the MEANINGFUL 'mystery' BECOMES KNOWN.
Age
Posts: 20196
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:01 pm
MagsJ wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 12:01 pmDoes not Science have to become factual at some point, to be deemed Scientific?
Defining 'science' is like nailing jelly to wall, but a useful guideline is that science starts from facts; things like 'Rocks fall to the ground' or 'People get headaches'.
The reason WHY 'you' think or BELIEVE, "defining 'science' is like nailing jelly to a wall" is because of this NOTION 'you' HAVE of what 'science' IS, EXACTLY.

Defining the word 'science' is and WAS just as SIMPLE and as EASY as just giving that word a definition, and then putting that definition in a dictionary. Which, OBVIOUSLY, makes it MUCH SIMPLER and EASIER for "others" who are WONDERING what 'science' IS, EXACTLY, to just go and LOOK IN 'a dictionary'.

Defining 'science' can be as SIMPLE as; just SAYING 'science' is a particular system that, literally, 'studies things'. Which, more or less, just means or refers to; 'people studying how 'things' work'.

By the way, if 'science' supposedly starts from 'facts', then considering the Fact that 'people' can NOT get headaches, then 'you' have just REFUTED your OWN CLAIM here. That there are what are called "headaches" happening and occuring within human heads, is a Fact. But 'people' "themselves" can NOT and so do NOT get headaches.

So, 'science' does NOT ALWAYS 'start with facts', and this Fact can be CLEARLY SEEN, MANY TIMES, in what is referred to and called "scientific literature'. One great example is the continual use of the words, "In the early Universe, ...". Which is, OBVIOUSLY, NOT YET a fact AT ALL, but which is ONLY a PRESUMPTION that is STRONLY HELD, and BELIEVED true, by some in the "scientific community".

It is also a Fact that this UNSUPPORTED "fact", ASSUMPTION, or BELIEF is WHY some in the "scientific community" have continually SORT OUT what CAUSED 'the beginning' of the Universe. Which is what has led to some of the MORE OUTRAGEOUS "facts", CLAIMS, and ASSERTIONS like, for example, the Universe IS EXPANDING, which then led to making up names like "dark energy" or "dark matter" of some completely UNKNOWN 'thing' that is SUPPOSEDLY EXPANDING the WHOLE Universe, Itself.

A WHOLE field of 'science' can become so completely TWISTED and DISTORTED solely because of just 'one' ASSUMPTION or BELIEF in a False, Wrong or Incorrect, IMAGINED, "fact", from the outset, or, in the beginning.

So, I will say it AGAIN, human beings who are doing 'science', CORRECTLY, do NOT deal with ACTUAL 'Facts' AT ALL. That is; if these people just studied 'things', UNTIL they ARRIVE AT and ACTUAL IRREFUTABLE Fact, THEN there is NOTHING MORE to LOOK AT nor STUDY here. So, then they just LEAVE 'that' AND MOVE ALONG.

If human beings who are 'studying things', or just doing 'science' BELIEVED that there were STARTING from 'facts', then they WOULD MAKE the MISTAKE, as exampled above, where because they ASSUME or BELIEVE they HAD the 'facts' from the OUTSET, then they would NEVER SEE WHERE, EXACTLY, they were going Wrong, and which has led them to the Wrong CONCLUSIONS, which so-called "scientists" have been CONTINUALLY ARRIVING AT.
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:01 pm A scientist tries to work out why, with a view to doing something about it, whereas a philosopher sees the answer as an end in itself.
Some SAY and CLAIM "scientists" try to work out HOW, and NOT WHY. Some SAY and CLAIM that working out WHY is for "philosophers" and NOT "scientists". So, which one/s of 'you' are Right, here?
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:01 pmA theory is scientific if by applying it you can make some demonstrable difference i.e if you can generate new facts from it. So for example, you might have a theory that taking aspirin will speed up recovery from headache. You can do a study, which could in principle give results that are statistically meaningful; so the study is scientific, even if the theory turns out not to be significant.
So, the THEORY that the Universe BEGAN, and IS EXPANDING, is NT scientific, that is; according to this definition of 'yours' here, correct "uwot"?
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:01 pmLikewise a theory that belief in prayer can cure headaches can be measured, and is therefore scientific. However, a theory that it is the intervention of the god you happen to pray to that cures the headache is not scientific, because there is no way to distinguish between one's belief about the god and the existence of that god. Gods are funny like that.
They are ONLY 'funny like that" IF, and WHEN, one BELIEVES that NONE EXIST.

Also, the THEORY that there is NO God, is ALSO NOT scientific, hey "uwot"?

Oh, and by the way, what can be NOTICED and RECOGNIZED here, we have ANOTHER GREAT EXAMPLE of one who will go to lengths to 'try to' "find" and SAY words that they HOPE and/or think or BELIEVE will back up and support what they ALREADY CURRENTLY BELIEVE is the truth of things. As can be CLEARLY SEEN here, instead of just ANSWERING the CLARIFYING QUESTION posed, this one, like so MANY "others", in the days when this was being written, spend so much time just 'trying to' SAY just about ANY thing they could to get "others" to SEE and BELIEVE what they "themselves" BELIEVED was true.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Sculptor »

MagsJ wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 12:01 pm
Sculptor wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:13 pm
MagsJ wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 2:14 pm
Does not Science have to become factual at some point, to be deemed Scientific? otherwise it’s just a notion or a theory, but not a fact.. until tested, and verified, and proven, as true.
Yes, I do say it is factual. It's all about facts. But it cannot avoid concepts else it would not be able to communicate the ideas.
True.. the formation of the theory/the idea, materialising into the real/the concrete, and so becoming fact.

It’s a process..
Indeed. Whereas religion thinks it has all the acts and answers ready made.
Science can and does modify itself with new investigations and seeks them out.
Religion when it does change is somewhat reluctant.
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by FlashDangerpants »

Age wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:35 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:01 pm
MagsJ wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 12:01 pmDoes not Science have to become factual at some point, to be deemed Scientific?
Defining 'science' is like nailing jelly to wall, but a useful guideline is that science starts from facts; things like 'Rocks fall to the ground' or 'People get headaches'.
The reason WHY 'you' think or BELIEVE, "defining 'science' is like nailing jelly to a wall" is because of this NOTION 'you' HAVE of what 'science' IS, EXACTLY.

Defining the word 'science' is and WAS just as SIMPLE and as EASY as just giving that word a definition, and then putting that definition in a dictionary. Which, OBVIOUSLY, makes it MUCH SIMPLER and EASIER for "others" who are WONDERING what 'science' IS, EXACTLY, to just go and LOOK IN 'a dictionary'.

Defining 'science' can be as SIMPLE as; just SAYING 'science' is a particular system that, literally, 'studies things'. Which, more or less, just means or refers to; 'people studying how 'things' work'.
Unless you are in a position to show that only sciences 'study things', that would be a poor definition for lack of specificity*. It's a tough sell to tell uwot that you have an adequate definition of science if it includes a child watching over his dad's shoulder when the dad does DIY engine maintenance on his car. But if uwot does accept it, there are many reputable journals that would reject if still, this is becuase science is a very difficult thing to define adequately.


* Specificity incidentally being an important concept within those science things, in fact only a few days ago I got a small lecture on specificity versus something else from one of the science guys at work. I'm fucked if I can remember what the other thing was.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Phil8659 »

Wow, what wonderful bull shit.

Now, give me another trite piece of bull shit and answer me this.

Is it possible, for the same system of grammar, which by grammatical fact, must be based on standards of behavior, which is another name for definition, or again. [Especially when no one has had the wit to standardize them.]

Produce results, which are computations in that very same grammar, which are contradictory? Is it possible, for any correct system of grammar, to produce a difference between itself.

Is it possible to divide grammar by the doctrines people claim it produces, or is it not a fact, that grammatical products are the results of one's level of literacy?
Only a complete fool babbles nonsense about competing doctrines and theories because they are too stupid to know how to proof their words. A grammatical output is either true or false, and it is independent of the fact that we can use both literal and metaphorical, i.e. arithmetic and algebraic, identities to do it.

Tell me how, you can claim algebra is either true or false, yet the very same method of computation, expressed in common grammar called metaphor, is not? How can you claim to be able to proof Algebra, but not common grammar, and claim it is the fault of the grammar?

Does Epistemology really mean, everybody can run around pissing on each other because both are obviously illiterate.
So, while you ponder and try to trump up more bull shit, enjoy your golden shower. It really is gold, you know.

Why Huck, if dey be men, why don't they talk like men?\

Does your inability to proof words, really mean you run off and glue your own together so you can say Ma! look, aint this more pretty!
And you can you claim that is even sane discourse?
Last edited by Phil8659 on Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8534
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by Sculptor »

Phil8659 wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:10 pm Wow, what wonderful bull shit.

Now, give me another trite piece of bull shit and answer me this.

Is it possible, for the same system of grammar, which by grammatical fact, must be based on standards of behavior, which is another name for definition, or again. [Especially when no one has had the wit to standardize them.]

Produce results, which are computations in that very same grammar, which are contradictory? Is it possible, for any correct system of grammar, to produce a difference between itself.
When making a point about grammar it is usually a great idea to be grammatical to avoid risibility.
Oh- and you might want to try some coherence too. :lol:

Is it possible to divide grammar by the doctrines people claim it produces, or is it not a fact, that grammatical products are the results of one's level of literacy?
DO you want a bandage for that massive whole in your foot?
Only a complete fool babbles nonsense about competing doctrines and theories because they are too stupid to know how to proof their words. A grammatical output is either true or false, and it is independent of the fact that we can use both literal and metaphorical, i.e. arithmetic and algebraic, identities to do it.

Tell me how, you can claim algebra is either true or false, yet the very same method of computation, expressed in common grammar called metaphor, is not? How can you claim to be able to proof Algebra, but not common grammar, and claim it is the fault of the grammar?
The answer to that is obvious.
Algebra is wholly self referral, whereas metaphor relies on your interlocutors' knowledge of the objects of the metaphor, including what they connote and denote.
Thus.
A=A is true
Whereas "Dog=canine" may or may not be true. I can explain further if you do not see the point.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Phil8659 »

Sculptor
love the emoticons. I gotta get some, just to have a closer walk with thee.

Not so much your dribble. Maybe you can find someone help you understand what I said, and maybe help to show that grammars cannot possibly contradict themselves, nor the operations in one are not valid in the other cause they be alive, operations are the same, independent of the system of grammar used, fact.

I love that bit about religions think. I really do. Now point me to one so I got someone to talk to.
Age
Posts: 20196
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Age »

FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:44 pm
Age wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 3:35 pm
uwot wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 2:01 pm Defining 'science' is like nailing jelly to wall, but a useful guideline is that science starts from facts; things like 'Rocks fall to the ground' or 'People get headaches'.
The reason WHY 'you' think or BELIEVE, "defining 'science' is like nailing jelly to a wall" is because of this NOTION 'you' HAVE of what 'science' IS, EXACTLY.

Defining the word 'science' is and WAS just as SIMPLE and as EASY as just giving that word a definition, and then putting that definition in a dictionary. Which, OBVIOUSLY, makes it MUCH SIMPLER and EASIER for "others" who are WONDERING what 'science' IS, EXACTLY, to just go and LOOK IN 'a dictionary'.

Defining 'science' can be as SIMPLE as; just SAYING 'science' is a particular system that, literally, 'studies things'. Which, more or less, just means or refers to; 'people studying how 'things' work'.
Unless you are in a position to show that only sciences 'study things', that would be a poor definition for lack of specificity*.
If, when 'things' are being 'studied', there is another name, other than the 'science' word, for this 'particular system' or way of doing, or working, here, then what other names exist?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:44 pm a tough sell to tell uwot that you have an adequate definition of science
But I NEVER told "uwot", NOR ANY one else, that I have an 'adequate' definition of 'science'. As can be CLEARLY SEEN and PROVED True in MY WORDS above. So, this is a moot point of yours here.

As I SAID, 'Defining 'science' CAN BE as SIMPLE as; just SAYING, 'science' is ... '. (I could have added many things here).
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:44 pm if it includes a child watching over his dad's shoulder when the dad does DIY engine maintenance on his car.
Does the word 'studying' include a child watching over his, or her, dad's shoulder when the dad does do-it-yourself engine maintenance on a car?

If that child is NOT 'studying', then what are they 'doing', EXACTLY?

But if, to you, the child is 'studying', then if that could NOT be included or classed as 'science', to you, what would you class or included 'as', EXACTLY?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:44 pm But if uwot does accept it, there are many reputable journals that would reject if still, this is becuase science is a very difficult thing to define adequately.
WHY are you SO SURE that they WOULD reject 'it'?

By the way, the way I WROTE what I DID, 'it' was NOT to be 'accepted', and it could also be NOTICED that what I WROTE could NOT be 'rejected', NOR also 'refuted' either.

By the way, the word "adequately' here is also very relative.
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:44 pm * Specificity incidentally being an important concept within those science things,
What 'science things' are you talking about and referring to here?
FlashDangerpants wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 12:44 pm in fact only a few days ago I got a small lecture on specificity versus something else from one of the science guys at work. I'm fucked if I can remember what the other thing was.
Are you suggesting that that so-called "science guy", at work, did NOT specify what the 'some thing' ELSE was, ENOUGH, or EXACTLY, and this is WHY you can NOT remember what the 'other thing' WAS here?

Or are you 'trying to' SPECIFY some 'thing' ELSE here, EXACTLY?
User avatar
FlashDangerpants
Posts: 6268
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: more science v religion

Post by FlashDangerpants »

I sort of miss those sanity trousers you worse for a couple of days back there to impress that girl. The above post contains no sort of point really.
popeye1945
Posts: 2130
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by popeye1945 »

MagsJ wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 11:55 am
popeye1945 wrote: Wed Jun 15, 2022 6:08 pm Mythology is the other man's religion. Religions' foundation is emotional and requires of its adherence an element of anti-intellectualism for an embracing of the irrational.
Modern religions, yes.. or the concept of what we think religion is, which is so far removed from what it originally was.

I don’t see why we can’t abide by both [science and religion] as one guides Us logically, the other.. spiritually/morally.

I don’t think we can get moral values from Science alone.. the unethical practices documented over time, are testament of that.
MagsJ,
Christianity has had over two thousand years to work its magic obviously it is more than wanting. The modern desert religions today do not provide the means for the realization of ones spiritual nature. One needs something of a personal nature about being and being in the world not just to be a good boy and a good citizen. Spirituality is to do with one's nature and nature in general. The modern western religions are more divisive in group and out group situations and require one to leave reason outside the door of the church, temple or mosque. They all seem to require belief in the absurd and I believe science in a different manifestation could do a better job of it. The cosmos revealed, is to big for all these little gods.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
I don't think either of them "validates" anything at all, but for different reasons. Both seek to reach what they understand as 'truth'...
Advocate
Posts: 3470
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: more science v religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=Pattern-chaser post_id=594144 time=1662300807 user_id=22925]
[quote=Advocate post_id=568123 time=1650001015 user_id=15238]
Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
[/quote]

I don't think either of them "validates" anything at all, but for different reasons. Both seek to reach [i]what they understand as[/i] 'truth'...
[/quote]

They each make truth claims purported to be supported.
Pattern-chaser
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2022 11:58 am

Re: more science v religion

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Advocate wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 6:36 am Religion validates from the inside out; Science validates from the outside in.
Pattern-chaser wrote: Sun Sep 04, 2022 3:13 pm I don't think either of them "validates" anything at all, but for different reasons. Both seek to reach what they understand as 'truth'...
Advocate wrote: Mon Sep 05, 2022 6:16 pm They each make truth claims purported to be supported.
Yes, they do, but each of them uses a different meaning of 'truth', and each of them weights and values 'evidence' quite differently too. There is spiritual 'truth' and there is scientific 'truth'. They aren't referring to the same thing, even though they use the same word. And the "support" they claim is quite different, too.

The worst of them — scientists and believers alike — deliberately exploit these differences to introduce confusion, and make one sort of truth claim resemble another, when it doesn't. Scientists may treat a spiritual claim as a scientific one, just so that they can seem to debunk that 'truth'. The opposite is sometimes the case too. Such straw man attacks are best ignored, IMO.
Post Reply