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.
Not sure how many times this sort of thing needs to be explained, but it's always refreshing to see reminders about what is the truth and what is something else altogether. Another reminder is that the truth, universal truth that is the same for all of us, does not depend on anything or anyone. It is there for those to ascertain or perhaps not.
We who are interested in knowing the truth of these matters regardless of anyone's emotions, egos or bias along these lines, are always going to be inclined toward those methods of discovery that can be applied to properly separate or distinguish the truth from what is not the truth. This is how, I think, we are better able to avoid the sorts of mistakes and hardships, even violence, that alternative ways of thinking have imposed on mankind going back to the beginning.
The successful pursuit of truth should be nothing to fear. It's what man does with the truth that matters. All too often discarding the truth for way too much nonsense. For all the many reasons that make us the humans that we are...
There is so much that is believed about religion(s) that comes down to "cuz I said so". It's so obvious.
Except that those are not testable hypotheses. The difference between examining the natural world and the supernatural world is that one is available to assess and other is simply asserted. No one has disproven Nirvana because no one could. Like most religious ideas, it is deliberately constructed to be untestable because it is invisible and outside of nature.
By contrast, no one has disproven evolution because it has stood up to every sort of attempt at sceientific falsification that people have been able to throw at it, for approaching two centuries now. That is why it is accepted as a highly accurate representation of reality.
Science is a methodology that does not address anything but the natural world. The supernatural world not being addressed by science isn't wise deference, it simply isn't interested in anything it can't assess. It's outside its purpose and indeed outside any proposed expansion of purpose, because there's nothing there for the scientific method to even engage with.
As for what you term people's "internal world", that gets into the gray area of psychology but some empirical data points can be teased out from it because you can observe reactions, pathologies, note people's description of their own experiences, and so forth. My stepson is on the autism spectrum and has ADHD and social anxiety and some short term memory deficits and these can be quite well documented and studied, though, alas, not all that well treated. Its main value is to substantiate his disability and get work and school accommodations for him, and some therapy to improve his coping skills, etc.
So I would not say that science has nothing to offer the world of mind. It is just that particular frontier is in its infancy relative to other sub disciplines. If we can understand the workings of the mind well enough, at some point we start to understand consciousness itself as a phenomenon. But it is early days, and some underestimate the difficulties faced. Indeed, some in our generation insist on repeating the mistake of generations before us in assuming that we know most of what there is to know, and imagine that we are but tidying up a few loose ends. The truth is that we do not know what we do not know, and in what passes for the great scheme of things, we are but infants.
The question is of course whether we will make things up to fill these gaps in our understanding or instead will just admit that we don't know, and refrain from wild speculation until such time as we do.
Ah, it is so good to have this kind of intelligent discourse. You have been missed, mordant, no matter how much we disagree. There is no supernatural, just what is as yet unknown and the "wild speculation" you decry. Unfortunately, there are legitimate scientific hypotheses and extrapolations from extant knowledge that cross into the unknown which are unwarrantedly considered wild speculation. My own views fall into that category because few here have the depth of knowledge of science on the fringes to see the plausibility.
I tried not to laugh, because he was dead serious...
Laughing at people when they are telling you something they believe "with all their heart" doesn't usually go too well. They feel insulted, but that said, I can't say I haven't seen many a similar LOL in this forum, and I'm no angel when it comes to that sort of thing here either. Sometimes people express opinions and beliefs in this forum that are no less ridiculous than to argue the earth is flat. Hard not to laugh at that sort of thing.
Never really too sure whether to laugh or cry sometimes...
I feel the same which is why my approach is that opinions, claims, and beliefs are neither right nor wrong. Laughing would certainly give away my position. So would crying. And then there would be hurt feelings.
I feel the same which is why my approach is that opinions, claims, and beliefs are neither right nor wrong. Laughing would certainly give away my position. So would crying. And then there would be hurt feelings.
Why does feeling the same way mean that opinions, claims and beliefs are neither right nor wrong?
Seems we feel the same way, but I can't arrive at that conclusion like you do. Might even suggest your opinion that opinions, claims and beliefs are neither right nor wrong is wrong. Might hurt your feelings. I sure hope not, but recognizing right from wrong is ultimately not about feelings.
Why does feeling the same way mean that opinions, claims and beliefs are neither right nor wrong?
Seems we feel the same way, but I can't arrive at that conclusion like you do. Might even suggest your opinion that opinions, claims and beliefs are neither right nor wrong is wrong. Might hurt your feelings. I sure hope not, but recognizing right from wrong is ultimately not about feelings.
I think my approach is more of a solution to a social problem of people getting their feelings hurt rather than some ultimate truth about beliefs, opinions, and claims.
I don't get my feelings hurt that easily. I can't say the same for others but not meaning you specifically, Learnme.
Why does feeling the same way mean that opinions, claims and beliefs are neither right nor wrong?
Seems we feel the same way, but I can't arrive at that conclusion like you do. Might even suggest your opinion that opinions, claims, and beliefs are neither right nor wrong is wrong. Might hurt your feelings. I sure hope not, but recognizing right from wrong is ultimately not about feelings.
I suspect elyn02 is referring to opinions and beliefs about what is currently unknown. That is a distinction too many atheists fail to make by their demand that science actually validate something first. The only valid right and wrong are about what science has already validated, NOT what is as yet unknown.
I suspect elyn02 is referring to opinions and beliefs about what is currently unknown. That is a distinction too many atheists fail to make by their demand that science actually validate something first. The only valid right and wrong are about what science has already validated, NOT what is as yet unknown.
but you also do that, you do the very same thing. That is EXACTLY what you do, as you plainly and clearly state here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Obviously, I agree that science is not the only source. The amount of unknown is still great despite the many advances in science leaving room for other ways to discover the truth. But I reject the idea that anything we discover experientially can EVER violate what we DO KNOW from science. You and CB along with the other "wooists" seem not to have any such constraints.
you admit that your own beliefs are utterly and wholly constrained by, confined to, restricted and circumscribed by the limits of science.
but you also do that, you do the very same thing. That is EXACTLY what you do, as you plainly and clearly state here:
you admit that your own beliefs are utterly and wholly constrained by, confined to, restricted and circumscribed by the limits of science.
Absolutely not!. You make no distinction between what science does not know and what science does know. Your pretense that what science knows is an illusion is irrational. I do not limit what I accept by what science knows. I just reject anything that VIOLATES or CONTRADICTS what science knows. That is very different. You reject the existence of objective reality and pretend it is all subjective. That is a bridge too far into solipsism.
Absolutely not!. You make no distinction between what science does not know and what science does know. Your pretense that what science knows is an illusion is irrational. I do not limit what I accept by what science knows. I just reject anything that VIOLATES or CONTRADICTS what science knows. That is very different. You reject the existence of objective reality and pretend it is all subjective. That is a bridge too far into solipsism.
two sentences in bold are saying the same thing.
if a person rejects anything that violates or contradicts what sciences knows,
then yes it is the same as limiting what they they accept to what science knows.
nothing to do with theology. nothing to do with what is unknown.
simple logic.
if a person rejects anything that violates or contradicts what sciences knows,
then yes it is the same as limiting what they they accept to what science knows.
nothing to do with theology. nothing to do with what is unknown.
simple logic.
Rejecting contradictions of what is KNOWN to be true is NOT the same as accepting ONLY things that science knows to be true because there is a great deal that science does NOT know. Your pretense that there is NOTHING science actually knows is irrational.
Reality is NOT totally subjective. My hypotheses and extrapolations from science indicate that I accept far more than what science currently knows. Your solipsism is irrational.
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.
