I think it's a bit different. At least, when judging people, we'd certainly distinguish.
Still, work with me ...
Still, work with me ...
Ask a Christian
- Thread starter puglover
- Start date
I wouldn't. I mean, if there was a Flood exactly as described, given the human population at that time (not too many generations after Adam and Eve) then the death toll would probably be less than what it will be in Myanmar, and it didn't wipe the whole human race out then, either.
You don't distinguish between cause and allow when thinking of God?
The strength of the scientific method is that it can build upon small observations to identify larger truths. Its weakness is that without small observations of physical events, it cannot function. The truths you want that "we" believe in are all explanations of the physical world and those are best found through science.Ahh, I see you couldn't come up with any examples
Would you agree then, that all the things we know to be true have been deduced using logical means?
If you don't, you must have a counterexample in mind.
I do not have any to offer. But you knew that already and it is to be expected because understanding the 'hows' of the physical universe is what science does. And as long as you assume that the physical universe is all that exists, you can justify that reason is all powerful. But as we both know, science just ignores the questions it cannot answer, those that fall outside of observation and measurement, and declares them unanswerable and “not true” until proven through science. But then it goes one step further and says because such questions cannot be answered through science, no other approach to answering them is valid. Where science fails is in its “blinkered” thinking that all knowledge and truth can only come through science. Science wants to break the universe down into smaller and smaller pieces in the belief that is the only way to truth. The irrational approach of accepting experience as a source of truth tries to organize existence in larger pieces built on an individual’s interaction with life. It is not science. To ignore the experiential and the irrational and declare them inferior to reason as a source of knowledge flies in the face of reality where irrationality and experience dominates our lives and actions. They clash because each side wants to be exclusively right and show the other to be wrong. They fear that if the other side is right they must be wrong, but it does not have to be a win-lose situation. The question should be: “How can both be right?” What would existence look like if it supported both views? Can there be a true “theory of everything” that encompasses more than science? Or are our egos too invested in being “right” and stamping out what does not fit?
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
Birdjaquar i am interested at what leads you at considering science or the scientific method as something to not be used regarding the pursuit of Religion , God or any other thing. That is a genuine question.
I suppose I could . . .
I am not opposed to people trying to do so, I just think that it is the wrong tool and therefore doomed to failure. I believe that the physical universe is not all there is and that there is "more" to exisitence than can be measured. Science and logic and reason are the best tools to understand the universe, but lousy at stepping outside of it. And based on my experience, "experience" is the best tool we currently have to learn about the things science cannot measure.
The intellectual process can study religion and how it affects people, but such an outsider's view cannot grasp the experience. Scientists can measure the brainwaves of monks and dervishes, but they cannot record the "experience" without diminishing it to the electro chemical process only and the goal of doing so is usually to "prove" tht the experience is nothing more than an electro chemical process. The scientific process cannot allow the unmeasureable or unobservable. The "experience" must be the electro chemical process or science fails.
scy12
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,181
Why can't logic be used on "experience" ?
BirdJaguar: I think you're seriously underestimating neuroscience, brutally so. You seem to have assumptions that are just, well, not true.
It can, but to do so is similar to an anthropologist studying a primitive tribe. They can only see it from outside and write down what they see. If they join the tribe and "experience" being a tribal member, they have lost their objectivity and any use of logic is now tainted.
Similarly, the experience of being a mother makes it almost impossible for a woman to be objective and logical about her children. A man can study motherhood, but can never understand what it really is like to be a mother.
Powerful experiences trump logic and reason easily, every day. The more powerful the experince the harder it is to see it logically and why would one want to? Powerful expereinces change perople permanently and in an instant.
I might very well be, but I think that you are underestimating people, life and the nature of existence. Brutally so.
Which of my assumptions are not true? I thought that the very nature of "assumptions" is that they are assumed and unproven other wise they would not be assumptions. You assume that logic reason and science is the only way to find the truth. Can you prove it?
My assumptions are not true from your pov and I cannot prove them through science. You choose to limit yourself to one source of truth and one path to knowledge. I do not. You cannot prove the correctness of your view any more than I can prove it for mine.
Do you wince when someone else gets hit in the crotch? I do. It's sympathetic pain. We're mentally wired to experience sympathetic pain. It's not magic, it's neural arrangements. And the more we understand about the person's crotch-hit, the more accurately we're able to experience the sympathetic pain.
You can watch someone get hit, and wince. You can read about someone getting hit, and wince. A neuroscientist can watch the fMRI of the victim, and wince. You can, with enough intelligence, experience their experience. It doesn't matter how the experience is translated to you (vision, words, formulas): if you understand it, you can sympathetically experience it.
We're also limited by biology in our ability to experience truth. You can never experience what it feels like to strike a solid surface. Ever. Because you're never actually striking a solid surface. When you imagined (just now) striking a solid surface, your senses were lying to you about reality. You can't experience it, but you can certainly imagine experiencing it.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Well, one conclusion I can come to is that all that we know about the 'how' of the world was arrived at using the scientific method & logical thinking.
As for things that lie outside of the realm of science - we simply do not know that this exists. It might or it might not. Nobody really knows.
Always use the more precise tool, when it's science use science,when it's the existence of a soul use philosophy. I have no problem with either but as my signature clearly shows mixing science and religion is a bad idea.
Philosophy is a good idea, but unlikely to produce any definitive answers. Until then use the scalpel rather than the blunt hatchet whichever tool that happens to be and in whichever box it contains, be that theology, philosophy or science. Just don't put your tools in the wrong box that's a waste of everyone's time.
Sounds pragmatic no? Well nothing will get answered by saying that anything is beyond the realms of the physical in any practical sense, just as nothing will be answered by saying the soul or good and evil are under the remit of science. What you need is surgeons not axemen and never the twain should mix until they can speak about tools either can wield.
Philosophy is a good idea, but unlikely to produce any definitive answers. Until then use the scalpel rather than the blunt hatchet whichever tool that happens to be and in whichever box it contains, be that theology, philosophy or science. Just don't put your tools in the wrong box that's a waste of everyone's time.
Sounds pragmatic no? Well nothing will get answered by saying that anything is beyond the realms of the physical in any practical sense, just as nothing will be answered by saying the soul or good and evil are under the remit of science. What you need is surgeons not axemen and never the twain should mix until they can speak about tools either can wield.
Yes the 'hows' of the world come from science. Can it do any more than that?
The "nobody knows" is only true within the context of what you believe about knowledge and how one gets it. The Sufi poet Rumi would disagree. He "knew" some truths:
There are others in this world who claim to "know" truths that cannot be proven. You are just unwilling to accept what they say unless they can package it like you want.
How can you package something that has nothing tangible? Except to make poetry? I mean that's nice but what question is it going to answer except one that speaks to a soul that may or may not exist? It's useless, isn't it, you could spend hours discussing what is beyond the empirical, and have a lot of fun, but at the end of the day who's going to benefit in the real world, except some incorrigible poets. That's not to say that's a bad thing it just is something to muse over whilst the reality of the world gets things done, a sort of baggage that opens the mind but not the tool box. And don't get me wrong it's not like scientists don't wax lyrical or poetic or even muse, but it serves no practical purpose other than to open their minds, rather than their practical work.
I mean in the past when science was philosophy it was a hell of a lot more valuable to muse, but now it's something you read, digest and then discard, unless it actually has any use to you in practical terms. Hell use it to think and to think beyond tragically usual thought, but to think about the physical, well it becomes a tool that is better left in the other box most often. It has some use, if not a lot of use to some. But it does not explain the world. It cannot gift science with anything tangible. It's like a second skill that opens the mind, as philosophy doesn't explain the reality it only broadens the mind, might as well use it as a sort of secondary tool.
It's useless, isn't it, you could spend hours discussing what is beyond the empirical, and have a lot of fun, but at the end of the day who's going to benefit in the real world, except some incorrigible poets. That's not to say that's a bad thing it just is something to muse over whilst the reality of the world gets things done, a sort of baggage that opens the mind but not the tool box. And don't get me wrong it's not like scientists don't wax lyrical or poetic or even muse, but it serves no practical purpose other than to open their minds, rather than their practical work.I mean in the past when science was philosophy it was a hell of a lot more valuable to muse, but now it's something you read, digest and then discard, unless it actually has any use to you in practical terms. Hell use it to think and to think beyond tragically usual thought, but to think about the physical, well it becomes a tool that is better left in the other box most often. It has some use, if not a lot of use to some. But it does not explain the world. It cannot gift science with anything tangible. It's like a second skill that opens the mind, as philosophy doesn't explain the reality it only broadens the mind, might as well use it as a sort of secondary tool.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
BirdJaguar, a tool can only do what it was designed to do.. unless you're MacGyver.
That was my entire initial point when I responded to you, though: everything that we know to be true about the 'how' of the Universe was derived through science & logical deduction.
I just wanted to see if you agree or if you disagree. Apparently you agree.. at that, I am a bit surprised!
For the most part I accept what science has shown to be accurate. Science is a great tool when used appropriately.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
I also think that science was not meant to tackle some subjects.. such as questions that philosophy was designed to answer.
The 'how' questions though, those are entirely in the realm of science, though.
The 'how' questions though, those are entirely in the realm of science, though.
You grasp it pretty well. Rumi has tried to capture the intangible, the unquantifiable, the unmeasureable. For some it may be useless and a waste of time. Does the a view of the world that Rumi presents have any value? It may not make your car use less gasoline, but some people do find it of value. You doubt the existence of souls or non tangible existence, so there is no reason for you to see value in such thniking beyond idle amusement.How can you package something that has nothing tangible? Except to make poetry? I mean that's nice but what question is it going to answer except one that speaks to a soul that may or may not exist?
If practical application is your goal, then you will find little of interest in mysticism and should probably stay away from it. The experiencees that lead people to believe in existence byeond the universe are not intellectual ones and cannot be understood through a rational approach. For some mystical experiences do translate into everyday use and are very practical. Ask any christian here whether or not accepting Jesus as lord and savior has affected their behavior.
Similar threads
