Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And I've had just three hours of sleep so I hope this isn't incoherent.
It isn't but is a mixture of semantic details and rather poor logic. I'll respond soonest but let's just do this one as it is quite important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas R.
There is no "answer" science is going to bring on justice, equality, virtue, ultimate truth, the number of extraterrestrial species out there, or lost books unless it has a time machine or access to some noosphere of all knowledge.
You are saying a lot more than you know. And you are rather reducing science to a man in a white coat fiddling with a test - tube. I am talking about the application of the scientific method and logic too. Science, once it understands the basis of where our ideas on society and morality come from (and you cannot say from your position of not knowing that it can't be understood by science), then that is the basis for the application of logical reasoning which is what we have been doing all the time - except where the sheer rather brutal instinct is upheld by religious authority. Whatever the inadequacies of science, it has to be better than that - since the doctrine of God given morality has been pretty much demolished here on the boards.
As to getting lost books It occurred to me last night that the principle of indeterminacy is evidence that there is a world where WWI never happened, Elgar never lost his faith and he actually wrote his 3rd religious oratorio. Who is to say that it is impossible to dip into the other universe and return with the lost work? Some of what you deem impossible may become possible.
Quote:
Sometimes I think you get a tad slippery and confuse the position. Agnosticism would be to neither believe nor disbelieve. You're not really doing that here, you do seem to be making the distinction, but just in case.
Point taken. But don't theists often say 'believe or not?'. If one doesn't believe, then one disbelieves. There seems no middle ground. Perhaps the problem is that you confuse disbelief with the state of knowing that something isn't so. If it isn't given a decent amount of reason to believe something one should logically not believe.
Quote:
Yes logic and empiricism alone is inadequate, thank you
And faith based on inadequate evidence is worse than inadequate.
Quote:
This is essentially an object of faith, not of science. I don't think science is actually saying that it will have answers on any of these.
In a way, yes. I can see the way forward clearly, but I could be wrong. In fact science has said a lot of this but it hasn't come together as a whole rational investigation of love, hate and the rest because each is doing its own bit and I am looking to the future. The point is not whether I turn out to be a prophet or not but that science (if and when it does do this) has every right to try and irrelevant protests that it will never have all the answers are actually more blinkered than my speculations that it could find more than you'd think, and any suggestions that it shouldn't even be allowed to try are totally unacceptable.
Quote:
I believe you indicated genocide is as well. And even if it's not rape and murder would certainly seemed to be a universally existing traits as we see it in all cultures.
How do you determine which evolved instincts are good or bad? Particularly when our own brain is merely a product of evolution.
Since good and bad are also purely products of our own evolved brain, that seems totally appropriate. I should say again that the science can, through investigation, find out the biological reasons why we do these things and why we think in that way and I don't doubt that survival is the driving force. Seems obvious. If so, understanding this clears away a lot of irrational clutter about good and bad and thus morality, law and the rest will be approached purely on a logical basis, if the scientific method can't assist.
I know it probably appalls you to think that good and bad is a matter of human convenience rather than some invisible judge handing the dictat down to us, but really that myth hasn't done too well and I reckon we've been trying to do it pragmatically and logically for a long time now and the god - given moral compass idea has just confused the issue.
The consensus again and again comes down to the Golden Rule. Now I suppose there will be a rummaging around for a series of tricky judgements which I must resolve or be denounced as discredited. Save yourself the trouble. I'm not a lawmaker. I just see that applying logic as well as compassion to the moral codes is the way it ought to done.
And I'd better stop here as I'm rambling a bit myself. I'll have a crack at the other stuff later.
Etymology is interesting and informative in many ways, but in this case you are simply using it to confuse yourself. The term 'science' as used in modern language refers to a method for acquiring knowledge about the natural world by gathering and analyzing data. An important part of the modern method is the process of peer review and open rational debate. Some roots of data-gathering and hypothesis-testing can be found in ancient and medieval times, but without a context of peer review there are no reality checks on the quality of the data or logical coherence of the analysis. Faith and intuition can run rampant. Certainly science can still get things wrong, but at least the method serves as a mechanism whereby the errors can eventually be revealed. Without a framework of science, why would anyone have ever bothered to contradict the church's earth-centered view of the universe? When someone believes that faith/intuition have already found the answers, there is no motivation to look further.
It is YOU (and many others on this board) doing the "confusing".
"Science" is simply "knowledge"...as opposed to ignorance or misunderstanding. To ever say "science" refers only to "a method"...is to say there was no "science" before that "method".
If your last sentence held water...Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître would have never "looked further" than his faith...and endeavored to figure out the "Big Bang".
"Faith and intuition can run rampant. Certainly science can still get things wrong"....actually supports my position that NOTHING is infallible, so you always need a dose of "belief" that what you think is true, actually is.
This holds no matter how you acquired the information...intuition, perception, the scientific method, or another imparting it.
Truth is truth...science or no science. And what isn't true, isn't true...science or no science.
As I'm sure you can see...most of the hang-up on this board is the "assigned attributes of" and "beliefs about" God that are found in ancient writings. Most are stuck sooooooo deep in The Bible and Biblegod rut, they are spinning their wheels on/in that version of "God did it"...and can't conceive of "GOD" on any other level. They take all the evidence that proves the existence of God (as a "God Entity" would be defined)...assign it to some other "handle" like "the Universe", "all that exists", "Nature", etc...then claim "God doesn't exist". Of course...if God doesn't exist...God couldn't/can't "do" anything. Most of the Atheist posts are Biblegod/Scripture slams, and key off of that to claim there is no God. They go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about the "myths and fairytales", "Skydaddy", "Hey Zeus", "Buy Bull" and waste time inventing mock Deities like The Flying Spaghetti Monster...some of them have devoted THOUSANDS of hours to this...and from THAT platform claim, "Science has much better answers than God did it".
And when I note that I find it strange that supposedly "intelligent" people would burn up thousands of hours of their precious life doing this...LOOK OUT! Invariably one or more will get all mentally irregular and say I'm "delusional", "ignorant", I "don't deserve respect", they are going to administer "smack downs", and all kind of other assorted spew. Of course...I then do it all the more, for the entertainment value.
BOTTOM LINE: The basic premise of the OP, is that, "truth" is "much better" gained through "science". I submit...THAT is NOT TRUE.
If your last sentence held water...Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître would have never "looked further" than his faith...and endeavored to figure out the "Big Bang".
You pick an interesting example. Lemaître was a professor of physics and astronomy. There is no problem with someone being both a Christian and a scientist, so long as their scientific work is in agreement with the best data available, and they submit their findings for peer review. Notice that when he proposed his theory of the "primordial atom" (which later became known as the Big Bang) he did not offer it as scientific "proof of God" - even though I suspect that he saw his theory as pointing to the moment of God's creation.
Believing in the existence of God does not conflict with being motivated to understand how the natural world works - so long as your concept of God is liberal enough to handle whatever the data leads you to. I happen to believe in a "Goddess" (a non-scientific, qualitative variation on Lemaître's notion of the primordial atom), but I have no holy book, nor any supposed divine revelation leading me to think "I have to believe X, no matter what the data or rational argument tell me." THIS is specifically what I find problematic about so many forms of religious belief.
So long someone doesn't put their religious beliefs on a pedestal over reason and empirical evidence, I have no argument with their religion. And even then I wouldn't care, so long as they didn't try to pass their beliefs off as "science" and get text books changed to accommodate their beliefs.
Riiight. Because religion has done so much to advance "truth".
If we search the net we can always find stuff that supports our view.
Try this: The Origin of Science
Sometimes it's truth...sometimes it isn't.
Furthermore, equating a "good world", or a "better world", to if we EVER "explore the galaxy", or any technological advancement for that matter...does not necessarily have any basis in "truth".
If we search the net we can always find stuff that supports our view.
Try this: The Origin of Science
Sometimes it's truth...sometimes it isn't.
Furthermore, equating a "good world", or a "better world", to if we EVER "explore the galaxy", or any technological advancement for that matter...does not necessarily have any basis in "truth".
You pick an interesting example. Lemaître was a professor of physics and astronomy. There is no problem with someone being both a Christian and a scientist, so long as their scientific work is in agreement with the best data available, and they submit their findings for peer review. Notice that when he proposed his theory of the "primordial atom" (which later became known as the Big Bang) he did not offer it as scientific "proof of God" - even though I suspect that he saw his theory as pointing to the moment of God's creation.
Believing in the existence of God does not conflict with being motivated to understand how the natural world works - so long as your concept of God is liberal enough to handle whatever the data leads you to. I happen to believe in a "Goddess" (a non-scientific, qualitative variation on Lemaître's notion of the primordial atom), but I have no holy book, nor any supposed divine revelation leading me to think "I have to believe X, no matter what the data or rational argument tell me." THIS is specifically what I find problematic about so many forms of religious belief.
So long someone doesn't put their religious beliefs on a pedestal over reason and empirical evidence, I have no argument with their religion. And even then I wouldn't care, so long as they didn't try to pass their beliefs off as "science" and get text books changed to accommodate their beliefs.
AGAIN...you debate something other than the "base point" I was making.
In this case...that you said, "When someone believes that faith/intuition have already found the answers, there is no motivation to look further." So I cited a Priest...that, on the basis of that position certainly would have had a "faith/intuition" through which he had already "found answers"...yet, that wasn't the impediment you claimed it would be in your proclamation of "no motivation to look further".
MOF...you essentially supported my contention that the bolded summation crux of your post, wasn't necessarily true...and you did it better than I did.
So...I agree with you about Lemaître. And as an extention...that's proof it is NOT TRUE that "religion/faith/intuition" is necessarily the impediment to "science" some are claiming it is.
It is YOU (and many others on this board) doing the "confusing".
"Science" is simply "knowledge"...as opposed to ignorance or misunderstanding. To ever say "science" refers only to "a method"...is to say there was no "science" before that "method".
Ummm, No. You're wrong on this one. I can't just walk into the lab, observe a phenomenon, and call it science. That's not how it works. Now, science certainly includes knowledge, observations, and hypothesizing, but it also includes a host of other components. And peer review is a big one. Convincing colleagues is probably one of the biggest challenges in scientific inquiry (IME), hence the scientific method.
Ummm, No. You're wrong on this one. I can't just walk into the lab, observe a phenomenon, and call it science. That's not how it works. Now, science certainly includes knowledge, observations, and hypothesizing, but it also includes a host of other components. And peer review is a big one. Convincing colleagues is probably one of the biggest challenges in scientific inquiry (IME), hence the scientific method.
So...let me get this straight: You are contesting my contention that "science" has ALWAYS existed...even before the invention of "The Scientific Method"?
IOW...you are saying, "Science, does not and cannot exist, exclusive of The Scientific Method (especially the "peer review" part). Or, simplistically..."Science = The Scientific Method".
Correct me if I'm not understanding what you meant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It occurred to me last night that the principle of indeterminacy is evidence that there is a world where WWI never happened, Elgar never lost his faith and he actually wrote his 3rd religious oratorio. Who is to say that it is impossible to dip into the other universe and return with the lost work? Some of what you deem impossible may become possible. 
I should say again that the science can, through investigation, find out the biological reasons why we do these things and why we think in that way and I don't doubt that survival is the driving force. Seems obvious. If so, understanding this clears away a lot of irrational clutter about good and bad and thus morality, law and the rest will be approached purely on a logical basis, if the scientific method can't assist. 
