I dug through some old threads here!

[jonatas]

To say "actual" things presumes that things we perceive are real.

You keep speaking as though there already is a distinction between Science and religion. As such, you will continue to find them as two separate entitites.

Well, I don't make much of a distinction between religion and philosophy, either. And no, religion is not Science. Science is a religion. Just because Science is concerned with what typically refer to as the "physical" world (and that's not really completely true) doesn't mean it isn't religious. Again, you presume that to be a religion, it must be concerned with things outside the physical world. As far as I'm concerned, there's no more reality to my house than there is to heaven.

i think i'm too much a child of the West to cross over into your realm or argue with you if we want to take everything to the absolute extreme, language itself is impossible and one person can never really communicate to another person... while i think i understand why people can say this is true, sometimes i feel it can be taken to an extreme and render potentially productive discussion meaningless... i think language by definition is a barrier, but there are ways to get around it also and really communicate...
well, maybe i'm becoming too obtuse and talking about nothing

i do think there is something which distinguishes Science from being a religion, especially in our western society... yes Science tries to explain the universe, which is what Religion has tried to do, especially in the past.... but i think things have diverged... i certainly would not characterize Science as a religion, but i suppose that also depends on how you define Religion, and even then i still probably wouldn't do it.. i guess i'm living in a world of illusion i think i can understand alot of the points you're making though

 

[punkbass2000]

Nah, it isn’t.

See, when I said that science is too realistic to be religion, I didn’t mean that it’s the scientific overview that is the correct expression of reality – and hence, I didn’t commit the appointed sin of an aprioristic believe in the structure of science.

What I did, quite differently, was to state that whatever idea science upholds, right or wrong as it may be, is based on a principle of observation of the attestable reality, what pretty much allows me to classify such method as realistic (what certainly does not guarantee that the conclusions we take from it are always correct).

Religion, on the other hand, does not bother with such boundaries, and can admit as the foundation of their structure concepts which does not necessarily correlates with any sort of objective experience. Quite the contrary, I must add, it takes a great deal of pride of not being “constricted to the poor limits of human excrutination”. Go figure…

Hence, science is a realistic method, and religion is not. Granted, in principle, nothing prevents that the conclusions derived from fact witnessing are wrong, and that the “inspiration” of subjective experiences are right. Only that this does not seen to stand to analysis.

Well, I suppose this is the critical difference. There is no objective experience, unless you accept on faith that other people exist.

Not at all. My definition of science is, again, derived from observation of how science works, not of a conventional concept of it. I qualify experience as a separator here, something that it seems you dismiss. I think, quite simply, that I do not concede to philosophical lucubration the same reigning nature that you seen to.

Nevertheless, We can go through the path you settled. Yes, some scientists are dogmatic, and yes, real science differ from ideal science, just like real religion differs from ideal religion. Only that “ideal religion”, unlike ideal science, does not necessarily sets itself apart from dogmatism. An ideal overview of religion may very well accommodate “chosen people”, “irrefutable truth” and “unreacheable knowledge”.

When such differences is perceivable even when we play with a utopical built of the concept, the principiological differences between the two constructs shows evidently.

Well, I suppose this is another point to make issue of. We need to define what makes something a religion. I find myself doubting that a workable definition that would include all traditional religions while excluding Science could be made. Prove me wrong .

Hehehehe. I guess that in your book everything, as empirical as it may be, is down to “personal experience”. Are we in the matrix by any chance?

Well, if you want to allude to banal, mainstream renditions of complex philosophies, then yes, but I wouldn't really say that's the case

This is our main issue and crucial point of contemption, but, quite simply, I disagree that the coefficients of knowledge I perceive from my senses, and the memory such experience gives me, are matters of “faith”, except in a very broad and ultimately useless definition of the word.

Well then you do take them on faith, whether you like it or not. That you consider "useless" is irreleant. There is no "empirical" proof that your senses are reliable. Do you accept testimony from people on LSD as objective truths? I doubt it. You would argue, I suspect, that their senses have been altered and are not reliable. Yet you have no means of knowing that the same is not true for you. Someone on LSD might claim lucidity with as much conviction as you, perhaps more so. Why should I take your word and not their's?

The discussion of the fallibility of our senses is a very clever one, this I agree entirely, but I think Kant narrowed it down beautifully when he said that the best balance of excrutination is subjectivism tempered by objectivism. We are free to guess, and I do guess about the nature of things (hence I’m not limited to think that paint over paper is mere paint over paper; I’m free to perceived beautiful pictures through my ability to imagine), but the freedom in question is limited by footing on empiricism (and I’ll not see beautiful pictures in any amount f paint, but only in those who have at least some order to it).

Hence, as I said, under a realistic overview, men cannot conclude without an anchor of the one tool he has to prevent our sense of wonder from becoming lunacy – experience. Discrediting our senses is a bad idea, and the lack of limits here equal the lack of focus. It’s a negative utility, in the end, being boundless like that.

Whether or not it is a bad idea is irrelevant. I'm not saying we shouldn't put faith in our senses, just that we do, if we're adherents of Science.

Indeed, but, as I said, this is better understood in the context of the thread where I originally wrote it, where people were supporting the idea that scientific overview was replacing religion in the western (and largely Christian, where my statement would apply) society.

OK.

I’m afraid you are entirely mistaken here, my friend.

First of all, I do not condition that science is correct because my life is saved by a surgery. My (or anyone’s) life may very be lost in such surgery, and still, the presuppositions of the scientific method and the research behind it will have the same validity. My point on that argument was exclusively to state that, unlike religions, science does not count on conformity to support its validity. The strength of its claims is from an altogether different source.

How is it not conformity? Only if you take on faith that your senses, the existence of other people and their experiences are all true, can you say it is more valid. I would bet more people can claim to hae spoken to god throughout history than can claim to have actually had experience manipulating atoms and quarks. Why are the former dismissed as religious lunacy while the latter are accepted "facts"?

As for Taoism, well, I disagree as well. Proposers of it can feel very free to display a broad conceptualization that encompass the disagreement of it as part of it as well. It’s their prerogative to do so. It does not alter the subjective (and hence largely subject to gross error) of it. In all, your statement just demonstrate how alike religions in general end up being (perhaps to the saving grave of my own “broad brush”), as my “following of Tao whether I like it or not” does not differ one bit from the more usual preaching I hear that “I am a son of God whether I like it or not”. But in the end, I feel like Isaac Asimov did about mystical philosophy of the orient: It sounds profound exactly because it means nothing.

And your claim that I must follow the laws of Science whether I like it or not is equally specious. As for the quote, that is most definitely painting Eastern religion with a very broad brush indeed. That modern Westerners like to find reasons for everything certainly appears evident. They seem to want answers for eevrything, and not just any answers, one's that can clearly be articulated. I suggest that the universe simply does not operate that way and there's no reason to think it should, unless you're a devout Scientist

Being broad enough to encompass even those who don’t care about your idea, however, have no similarity with the universal quality of science that I’m describing here, because the universality of scientific principles are not conventions that suit the convenience of the proposals of the idea, but derivations from an external experience. It isn’t so just because the scientists told that, and if proponents of science wanted it to be different, they’d be in for a surprise. Their desire and their likings is a marginal factor of the equation, a boundary that Taoism, just as any other religion, lacks altogether.

What gives external experience more validity than internal?

Nah, again I disagree. My qualification of being lucky to live in this era is altogether objective. We have advances that allow us more comfort and longer lives than our ancestors did. Granted, many possibly would feel more confortable living in the middle ages (what the sttrugle they constantly do to get us back there shows, but than again, you doubt that experience may lead to conclusions, so who knows what you think?), but still, while we have plenty evidences of material improvement, we have no evidence whatsoever that the subjective happiness of man in other eras was at any time or by any standard superior to what happens today.

While I disagree with your general claim to "objectivity", I feel I've argued that enough, and certainly must say that the end of your paragraph makes my point. There is no reason to suppose life is quantifiably better today. In this respect, Science has done nothing at all.

I didn’t presume anything, my friend. I stated aspects of conflict between the two approaches. The manner in which Islam and Christianity clash are altogether different than the manner in which Science and Religion clashes. The first two are both subjective with different axioms. The other two are one objective the other subjective, this being the qualifier that sustained my stance.

They must be pretty sensible if they think exposing fallibilities in their methodology means smacking them. I certainly don’t fell smacked when someone exposes fallibilities of the scientific method, (though perhaps this has much to do with my comment right below). I in fact thank whoever proves me wrong (or at least makes a decent case about the possibility of me being wrong) as a real help in my struggle to be right, as truth, whatever it may be, is the only thing I am committed in my little philosophy of live.

Sorry, I believe you've misunderstood my idiom. "Smacks of" means that it is indicative of something. For example, I could say that some new band "smacks of" the Beatles, indicating that they sound much like the Beatles (and possibly implying that they've ripped them off, though that connotation has little application here). In any case, what I mean is that it seems like you're primarily arguing that Science is dissimilar to Western religions. But I'm sure you'll agree that there are many more religions than that.

Well, first and foremost, for given reasons, I don’t qualify anyone as “follower of science”. I’m yet to see someone praying for Einstein, or making promises for the theory of gravity. In all, seens to me that some people agree with science, what is an altogether different (and, oh dear, totally un-dogmatic) stand.

Is prayer a requirement for religion? If so, how do you define prayer?

 

[punkbass2000]

My "parts" approach is one that is best applied to organized religions or world views which could be considered religions. Science does fit and so does communism. "Disagreement" could be part of the ritual or dogma of a science religion. The point is to show that the structure of religions can be applied to other world views that usually aren't classified as religions, but function in the same way for adherents. Most people think that to be a religion, you have to have "god" or its equivalent. No god no religion. With that perameter, Science does not qualify, even lthough it does fulfill the same purpose as religion for many people. I do not have access to the OED on line, so I couldn't look up what it said about religion. But, if you start with a definition of religion that includes a diety, you will only have the traditional religions in your list. I am willing to accept a wider view based on how people use such constructs to answer the life's "big" questions.

As individuals we all have answer to the "parts" questions. Those views may be not coherent, consistent, or even fully recognized, but they are there and if asked, most people will fill in the blanks with something. Religions just organize those parts for people and try to present a consistent and logical collection of those parts. When people accept a guru they may be just accepting a "lifestyle" that fits with some world view they already believe in, or they could be accepting a change in their world view and beginning a transition to a new way of looking at the world. Certainly those people are religious. If god alone is and life is all about "discovering" the truth about reality, then there is no separation into "religious" and "non religious". We are all seekers and there is no single path (and in truth, no journey at all).

If you are a devotee of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (meditation), Ram Das or A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (Krishna chanting), you are certainly part of a religion that has answers to all the parts questions. As a follower you may or may not accept all those answers, like some catholics may not accept particular beliefs within catholicism, but still consider themselves catholics. The three I mentioned are basically Hinduism. If you were a catholic who embraced the meditation of MMY, then you would still be a catholic who adopted a "foreign" practice into your daily routine. If in the practice and study of other MMY teachings, you accepted reincarnation as a tenant, that would take you out of tradtional catholicism and into some kind of transition or hybrid of your own creation. In any case, if I asked you to tell me what you believed about those "parts" you would probably still have something to say.

BirdJaguar makes my case far better and more eloquently than I ever could. I think you hit on a key issue. I would bet jonatas' struggle with whether or not Taoism is a philosophy or a relgion has the fact that it has no ostensible deity as a major point. Is the Tao a god? If it is, I could certainly say the quark is too.

 

[jonatas]

I would bet jonatas' struggle with whether or not Taoism is a philosophy or a relgion has the fact that it has no ostensible deity as a major point.

not only that... it's also because of the accompanying "parts" which usually make up a religion in the Western world... i know "Taoism" exists as a religion, though admittedly i don't know anything about it... i'm quite sure as an Eastern religion, it fulfills any comprehensive definition of religion.... but many people, especially westerners who like talking about the "Tao" , approach it more like a philosophy then a religion... at least that's my impression.... and i think alot of famous individuals in the history of Taoism were kind of like crazy wise men, maybe something like some of the pre-socratics, which lends to its philosophical approach... it's not so much a philosphical or logical question about the Tao that i have, it's just that it seems fairly adaptable as a mode of thought, so much so that it can break the definition of a set "religion" and can enter the realm of philosophy, especially as it is approached by the West

 

[punkbass2000]

i think i'm too much a child of the West to cross over into your realm or argue with you

It;s not your fault And we're not arguing, just discussing

if we want to take everything to the absolute extreme, language itself is impossible and one person can never really communicate to another person... while i think i understand why people can say this is true, sometimes i feel it can be taken to an extreme and render potentially productive discussion meaningless... i think language by definition is a barrier, but there are ways to get around it also and really communicate...
well, maybe i'm becoming too obtuse and talking about nothing

Well, I do find that to be a truth that most people claim to find self-evident but don't seem to actually accept. Words are highly limited, and I would suggest no one really knows what any else is talking about. IT's kind of like Plato's ideals, except I think he drew poor conclusions. There is no ideal "chairness", quite the opposite. "Chair" is just an approximation, a convenient label. Does a table become a chair if I sit on it? Of course not. Humans are, IME, categorizational machines. It may be evolutionary, it can cetainly be a very useful trait from a surviavl point of view. As I one psychologiust terms it, it is the phemonena of "click, whrrrrrr". After a few (or perhaps several, depending on your "intelligence" as it is usually referred to) encounters, things tend become rote. This can cause may problems and arguably most ethical issues today stem from it, but by and large it is a huge time saver. Can you ecen imagine stopping and consciously focusing on every decission? You's ultimately be paralyzed, I would think. Rather, you work automatically on things that you've deemed trivial, and reserve your intellectual "true self" for "higher" purposes, like talking to me A child has few of these autoamtic trivialities by comparison to an adult and must struggle to become comfortable with things we call "simple". Without this acclimation, we would be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, to take liberty with a phrase.

i do think there is something which distinguishes Science from being a religion, especially in our western society... yes Science tries to explain the universe, which is what Religion has tried to do, especially in the past.... but i think things have diverged... i certainly would not characterize Science as a religion, but i suppose that also depends on how you define Religion, and even then i still probably wouldn't do it.. i guess i'm living in a world of illusion i think i can understand alot of the points you're making though

Indeed. As FredLC might say, you're recognization that you live in an illusion is useless, and I tend to agree. But then, it depends on what you consider to be useless. The recognition of the illusion that is time, space and reality in general can be very limiting. When I was clinically depressed, I argued that everything was transient and thus trying to accomplish anything is pointless, and I was right. And yet, today, more than a year later, I make nearly the same argument, ewxcept I conclude that since everything is meaningless, there's no reaon not to enjoy it. Most people hate work. Though I can't claim to be far enough along to have absolutely no mental connection between "leisure" and "work", I certainly enjoy myself at work much more than I used to and seem to have far fewer frustrations and annoyances from it than other people that I encounter. In a way, the realization that you control how you see events is very freeing. You can realize that nothing makes you happy. You make yourself happy. When you say someone or something makes you happy, you put dependence upon it, and may, in fact, feel you need need it to be happy. Instead, you can hae just about anything make you happy. To borrow from Zen, "If you don't get it from yourself, where will you go to get it?"

 

[punkbass2000]

not only that... it's also because of the accompanying "parts" which usually make up a religion in the Western world... i know "Taoism" exists as a religion, though admittedly i don't know anything about it... i'm quite sure as an Eastern religion, it fulfills any comprehensive definition of religion.... but many people, especially westerners who like talking about the "Tao" , approach it more like a philosophy then a religion... at least that's my impression.... and i think alot of famous individuals in the history of Taoism were kind of like crazy wise men, maybe something like some of the pre-socratics, which lends to its philosophical approach... it's not so much a philosphical or logical question about the Tao that i have, it's just that it seems fairly adaptable as a mode of thought, so much so that it can break the definition of a set "religion" and can enter the realm of philosophy, especially as it is approached by the West

Indeed, I am a big fan of the pre-socratics, and not a fan of Socrates. I believe he set us down the wrong path, and many still revere him today. But the main thing, I think, is that many of the ancient philosophers came across the "right" ideas, they just drew the "wrong" conclusions, like my example with Plato. They seemed to want to define eerything and have absolutes. Even the sophists, who recognized relativity, still seemed to think rhetoric was valuable as a tool. They would advertise that they could teach you to successfully argue that black was white. To me, this is on the verge of an abuse of power. Rather than use the wisdom for spiritual emlightenment, they seemed more focused on using it to manipulate social, political and economic affairs.

 

[Birdjaguar]

i certainly would not characterize Science as a religion, but i suppose that also depends on how you define Religion, and even then i still probably wouldn't do it..

Yes, if you start with your definitions, it helps clear up many misuderstandings. If you define it one way, science will certainly not be included, I define it rather broadly and can easily bring science into the mix. So we are actually deciding ahead of time what your outcome will be.

i guess i'm living in a world of illusion

So are we all.

 

[Birdjaguar]

@Punkbass: Whoa... a years worth of words in a single day! And a good read too! And thanks for the complement.

 

[jonatas]

Indeed, I am a big fan of the pre-socratics, and not a fan of Socrates. I believe he set us down the wrong path, and many still revere him today. But the main thing, I think, is that many of the ancient philosophers came across the "right" ideas, they just drew the "wrong" conclusions, like my example with Plato. They seemed to want to define eerything and have absolutes. Even the sophists, who recognized relativity, still seemed to think rhetoric was valuable as a tool. They would advertise that they could teach you to successfully argue that black was white. To me, this is on the verge of an abuse of power. Rather than use the wisdom for spiritual emlightenment, they seemed more focused on using it to manipulate social, political and economic affairs.

oh i like Plato.. he himself was a "sophist" too imo, however this term has an automatic negative connotation in English which perhaps obscures what was going in Athens at the time.... Plato certainly knew all the sophist's tricks and could beat them at their own games, but he tried to be ethical too.... at least that's how it was in his Dialogues however i entirely defend Plato's desire for the absolutes, you know at least he tried the impossible... my kind of guy

 

[punkbass2000]

It's my day off, and I wanted to come back to this thread to respond And I'm always happy to compliment you. If I were more poetic, I could easily come up with that year's worth of words devoted to your enlightenment

 

[Birdjaguar]

Spend the time with your girlfriend instead.

 

[stormbind]

It doesn't look like I contributed to those threads.

 

[punkbass2000]

Spend the time with your girlfriend instead.

Well, I wasn't proposing I would actually do that!

 

[FredLC]

Why should empirical evidence be the be all and end all of Truth?

Oh, it isn’t. There is knowledge that is ulterior to any form of empiricism., “a priori” knowledge that is just conceptual, not derived from our senses in any sense. However, to enter these realms, you’ll please allow me to evoke concepts of transcendental aesthetics from the work of Immanuel Kant.

According to him, matter is the crude essence of things, the natural reality that is outside and independent from our senses, and that constitutes the things that are, independently of our capacity to perceive and/or or perform analysis on it. It evokes the quintessence of the object.

From the matter, two consequences derives. One is the phenomena, that is what our senses are capable to retrieve from the “matter”, or the “perceivable reality” if we can call it that way, that sets the parameters for our capacity to represent the reality either to ourselves or others. This capacity of representation of the phenomena is called sensibility, and it offers us intuitions of the reality “per se

From that, we get that “empiricism” is our capacity to, through sensibility, partially decipher the “phenomena”, and represent the “matter” in the form of “knowledge”, for whatever useful applications we see fit.

This knowledge, however, as ultimately derived from an indirect relation between senses (through sensibility) and matter – since we have the phenomena as intermediary – is a “a posteriori” form of knowledge, and even our vague conceptualizations and abstractions are hopelessly constricted by boundaries of sensitivity which bombard our minds from even before we are able of coherent thinking.

Therefore, there are only two forms of transcendental or “a priori” knowledge: time and space, which, being dimensions, not “matter”, cannot be “felt” in any way (and yet cannot be ever dismissed, for we can imagine timer and/or space without any phenomena, but we can’t imagine phenomena without boundaries of time and space), even though you can relate with it by perceiving the consequences of it’s passage.

As so, I accept perfectly knowledge which is not “empirical” – time and space, there is – and therefore, I do not qualify empiricism as the epitome of all and every knowledge. However, when we get down from “dimensions” into the realm of “matter” (not to be reduced to “physical objects”, by the way; “matter” here is a very conglobing concept, involving anything that can be “experienced” – including “subject experiences” as the ones argued by those who advocate religions), we are necessarily talking about “ulterior evidence” or “a posteriori” knowledge.

Given that, we have to take in account the very subjective that is central in your arguments: every human being have a singular mind, that theoretically can perceive phenomena in its own unique way. Nevertheless, sensibility of the objective manner guards coherency, uniformity and similarity, even after filtered by our free interpretation of sensibility.

The same can not be said about sensibility achieved in the subjective manner, which by its very nature is unique and irreproducible.

Therefore, the similarity and repetition, even when there is no psychological reason for it, allow us to conclude that there is an element in the knowledge derived of this technique of evaluation of phenomena that impervious to our sense’s tendency of lacking reliability. We can, than, expect that from the repetition of conditions will follow the repetition of the result, an idea that from now on I’ll refer to as “induction”.

Given that, the reason why empirical evidence is the superior manner to relate with “matter” is because it is the most dependable and trustworthy form of achieving knowledge ever *devised* by man, counting with a system of checks (induction and predictability) to prevent the growth of the hiatus between the “matter” and the “knowledge” to any extent further than what is absolutely unavoidable – a mechanism of correction that “subjective experience” lacks altogether.

OK, but now you're really arguing something different altogether. Sure, we can use Science and it is arguably more useful, depending on what you think is useful, but it still has a base element of faith, as you seem to admit.

As I hope to have demonstrated, my argument was not different at all, for the induction is not only a toll useful for the scientific method, but a superior guideline (at least superior to the alternatives) in the very perception of the external reality.

Regards .

 

[FredLC]

Well, I suppose this is the critical difference. There is no objective experience, unless you accept on faith that other people exist.

Again, my main issue on the statement you pose is conceptual. You use a very, very broad concept of faith, and from that you reach a very, very broad concept of religion. Should I accept your definitions, not only science, but everything, would be religion.

To make good use of examples, we could say that the language English is a form of religion, because we accept *on faith* that the words written will mean to the other the same thing they mean to me. Or, worse, we accept on faith that we are able to reproduce comprehensible icons, both written and vocal, that will reach the other party, completing the process.

But I shall go on in the paragraph immediately below.

Well, I suppose this is another point to make issue of. We need to define what makes something a religion. I find myself doubting that a workable definition that would include all traditional religions while excluding Science could be made. Prove me wrong .

The issue here, IMHO, is that you are simply limiting the reach of your definition to an early moment, when the monumental conceptual differences are inapplicable yet. For, you see, religion and science, as humane constructs, do have common grounds. They just do not deserve the same classification.

Rigorously speaking, the common ground they have is that both rely on axioms (but then again, what human knowledge do not?). Only that the manner through which they reach their respective axioms, the way they cherished them and how they deal and preserved them are altogether different, and to a great extent they explain the roles these disciplines have both in modern society and through out history.

For me, your claim that they are the same because in the early conceptualization of their respective methods there is one aspect of similarity makes just as much sense as arguing that swimming is the same as flying because, down to their crudest nature, both are forms of motion.

As for your claim, here it goes – religion is a method of knowledge that accepts as a fundament the existence of a superior *knowledge of reality*, achieved by icons and conceded to the common man, knowledge such that is not bounded by the human capability of perceiving the surroundings.

Well, if you want to allude to banal, mainstream renditions of complex philosophies, then yes, but I wouldn't really say that's the case

Oh, I’m a people’s person.

Seriously, though, what is the element in your worldview that makes the matrix something less than credible?

Well then you do take them on faith, whether you like it or not. That you consider "useless" is irreleant. There is no "empirical" proof that your senses are reliable. Do you accept testimony from people on LSD as objective truths? I doubt it. You would argue, I suspect, that their senses have been altered and are not reliable. Yet you have no means of knowing that the same is not true for you. Someone on LSD might claim lucidity with as much conviction as you, perhaps more so. Why should I take your word and not their's?

But, in this stance, you are disqualifying much of what I said. Psychotropic drugs have the effect of blurring the senses. Such blur…

[attested by human experience and accepted through induction (that is, by the repeated and constant observation of the fact that people under the effects of these substances tended to see things such as Pink Unicorns singing La Traviata where every others would see nothing, added with the fact that two of them together would likely see different and contradictory things)]

… is a qualifier that allows me to disavow their opinions as inconsistent, because, unlike what happened with senses functioning in the expected manner, experience (oh, the dread empiricism) have attested that the information they achieved was not derived from matter, or to keep my language coherent, that there was no corresponding phenomena behind their knowledge.

Whether or not it is a bad idea is irrelevant. I'm not saying we shouldn't put faith in our senses, just that we do, if we're adherents of Science.

Again, the issue here is conceptual. I disagree with your definition of faith. Faith for me is something that does not need to regard the limits presented by average usage of senses. This approach is not adopted by anything that is even slightest scientific.

OK.

Moving on…

How is it not conformity? Only if you take on faith that your senses, the existence of other people and their experiences are all true, can you say it is more valid. I would bet more people can claim to hae spoken to god throughout history than can claim to have actually had experience manipulating atoms and quarks. Why are the former dismissed as religious lunacy while the latter are accepted "facts"?

Because, my friend, unlike the “talk to god” experience, the “moving quarks” experience can be repeated by anyone with similar results. There is no room for arbitrarity, and certainly the movement of atoms will happen even before the incredulous of their existence.

Simply put, I can make the atom experiment work either I am willing to accept atoms or not. Prayer and visions do not have the same privilege. This is what qualifies the first as something universal, and denies to the second the same reliability.

And your claim that I must follow the laws of Science whether I like it or not is equally specious. As for the quote, that is most definitely painting Eastern religion with a very broad brush indeed. That modern Westerners like to find reasons for everything certainly appears evident. They seem to want answers for eevrything, and not just any answers, one's that can clearly be articulated. I suggest that the universe simply does not operate that way and there's no reason to think it should, unless you're a devout Scientist

Not at all. You are very free to consider yourself outside the laws of science. Good lucky when you try, though. I strongly suggest you do not start by demonstrating that gravity does not apply to you, because the fall will likely be nasty. Walking through a wall, however, will be harmless, even if painful and unsuccessful.

Seriously, now, as I said before, the problem is not that the concepts are conglobing, the problem is that they are arbitrary. Great man of religion once said “God is the father of us all”, and for no other reason except their saying so, they decided that this applied to everyone. Great man of science, however, observed things and noticed that all things tended to fall to the ground. The knowledge withstanding, they named it, and that’s all they did.

The rules of nature are “rules” just in name, without the constricting connotation that it implies. It’s an inaccurate term, in fact, when one stops to ponder about it.

As for the quote, I think that it mentioned the Eastern religion specifically (though it didn’t say religion, it said mysticism, hence focusing on the surreal aspects of it, not in the clear philosophy that also composed it) just as a reply to the new age tendency to glorify it as supreme wisdom. He, too many kung-fu gurus in Hollywood these last decades.

I think it definitively apply to all “vague knowledge”, regardless of which direction it came from.

What gives external experience more validity than internal?

That I answered in my previous post.

While I disagree with your general claim to "objectivity", I feel I've argued that enough, and certainly must say that the end of your paragraph makes my point. There is no reason to suppose life is quantifiably better today. In this respect, Science has done nothing at all.

It is quantifiably better. It’s not necessarily “subjectively” better. More years with better shelter, food and resources… how is that “not quantifiable”?

Besides, it’s ironic to discuss over the internet about how science have done nothing at all (what applies since you disregarded quantifiable improvements, presumably even in communication).

Nevertheless, since there is no way that we can measure humane happiness over the history, we would have to settle that nothing has ever generated any improvement at all. Not science, not economy, not philosophy, not religion. Yet, I’m still to meet a single human being who isn’t keen on at least one of these things.

I’m afraid to say that the manner you perceive the issue sounds a bit nihilistic to my ears.

Sorry, I believe you've misunderstood my idiom. "Smacks of" means that it is indicative of something. For example, I could say that some new band "smacks of" the Beatles, indicating that they sound much like the Beatles (and possibly implying that they've ripped them off, though that connotation has little application here). In any case, what I mean is that it seems like you're primarily arguing that Science is dissimilar to Western religions. But I'm sure you'll agree that there are many more religions than that.

It’s quite possible, I admit.

Nevertheless, my primary issue with religions per se is very fundamental, and goes to the point where they all have common ground – the lack of necessity to observe “phenomena” (what ends up equating to the inexistence of limits and boundaries) in the building of their axioms, therefore lacking tools to contain the tendency of creativity of becoming lunacy.

Though in specific aspects my critique of religion certainly fits better to the western religions (as those are the ones I know better), still, down to the fundamentals it applies for all.

Is prayer a requirement for religion? If so, how do you define prayer?

Hehehehe. You took what I wrote too literally. Nevertheless, in an aspect, yes, prayer is a fundamental aspect of religions, and adopted by all.

Prayer is a manner of obtaining a subjective bliss, dissociating from the iniquities of the word in order to "feel the divine". In western, they do this by saying the Hail-Mary. In East, it’s by “meditation”. However, taking away the rituals that involves both, it all gets down to “emptying your mind from conscientious thinking and enjoying the ride”.

Emptying one’s mind, however, is not the scope of scientific thinking, that while does take advantage of contemplating, does not aim at deliberately halting the thinking processes.

Regards .

 

[Birdjaguar]

Nevertheless, my primary issue with religions per se is very fundamental, and goes to the point where they all have common ground – the lack of necessity to observe “phenomena” (what ends up equating to the inexistence of limits and boundaries) in the building of their axioms, therefore lacking tools to contain the tendency of creativity of becoming lunacy.

It is quite clear, your issue with religion is that it is not science.

 

[punkbass2000]

Oh, it isn’t. There is knowledge that is ulterior to any form of empiricism., “a priori” knowledge that is just conceptual, not derived from our senses in any sense. However, to enter these realms, you’ll please allow me to evoke concepts of transcendental aesthetics from the work of Immanuel Kant.

According to him, matter is the crude essence of things, the natural reality that is outside and independent from our senses, and that constitutes the things that are, independently of our capacity to perceive and/or or perform analysis on it. It evokes the quintessence of the object.

From the matter, two consequences derives. One is the phenomena, that is what our senses are capable to retrieve from the “matter”, or the “perceivable reality” if we can call it that way, that sets the parameters for our capacity to represent the reality either to ourselves or others. This capacity of representation of the phenomena is called sensibility, and it offers us intuitions of the reality “per se

From that, we get that “empiricism” is our capacity to, through sensibility, partially decipher the “phenomena”, and represent the “matter” in the form of “knowledge”, for whatever useful applications we see fit.

This knowledge, however, as ultimately derived from an indirect relation between senses (through sensibility) and matter – since we have the phenomena as intermediary – is a “a posteriori” form of knowledge, and even our vague conceptualizations and abstractions are hopelessly constricted by boundaries of sensitivity which bombard our minds from even before we are able of coherent thinking.

Therefore, there are only two forms of transcendental or “a priori” knowledge: time and space, which, being dimensions, not “matter”, cannot be “felt” in any way (and yet cannot be ever dismissed, for we can imagine timer and/or space without any phenomena, but we can’t imagine phenomena without boundaries of time and space), even though you can relate with it by perceiving the consequences of it’s passage.

As so, I accept perfectly knowledge which is not “empirical” – time and space, there is – and therefore, I do not qualify empiricism as the epitome of all and every knowledge. However, when we get down from “dimensions” into the realm of “matter” (not to be reduced to “physical objects”, by the way; “matter” here is a very conglobing concept, involving anything that can be “experienced” – including “subject experiences” as the ones argued by those who advocate religions), we are necessarily talking about “ulterior evidence” or “[/i]a posteriori[/i]” knowledge.

Given that, we have to take in account the very subjective that is central in your arguments: every human being have a singular mind, that theoretically can perceive phenomena in its own unique way. Nevertheless, sensibility of the objective manner guards coherency, uniformity and similarity, even after filtered by our free interpretation of sensibility.

The same can not be said about sensibility achieved in the subjective manner, which by its very nature is unique and irreproducible.

Therefore, the similarity and repetition, even when there is no psychological reason for it, allow us to conclude that there is an element in the knowledge derived of this technique of evaluation of phenomena that impervious to our sense’s tendency of lacking reliability. We can, than, expect that from the repetition of conditions will follow the repetition of the result, an idea that from now on I’ll refer to as “induction”.

Given that, the reason why empirical evidence is the superior manner to relate with “matter” is because it is the most dependable and trustworthy form of achieving knowledge ever *devised* by man, counting with a system of checks (induction and predictability) to prevent the growth of the hiatus between the “matter” and the “knowledge” to any extent further than what is absolutely unavoidable – a mechanism of correction that “subjective experience” lacks altogether.

But if you're going to accept knowledge that is not empirical, then how can you justify Science as opposed to religion by saying that it is empirical? If empirical evidence does not constitute all that is knowledge, then why claim Science to be more realistic based on that fact?

As I hope to have demonstrated, my argument was not different at all, for the induction is not only a toll useful for the scientific method, but a superior guideline (at least superior to the alternatives) in the very perception of the external reality.

Regards .

Again, calling Science "superior" to religion is meaningless when the argument is concerning whether or not Science is a religion.

 

[FredLC]

It is quite clear, your issue with religion is that it is not science.

In a sense, yes. But I'd not bother with it in the slithest if it didn't occupy such important and ruling place in our society.

In all, it bothers me because I think it has a degree of influence that it does not deserve nor it can satisfactorily play the role it has, and it affects my life irrevocably, even though I don't want it to.

The day religion is confined to their temples and out of world politics is the day it'll not bother me at all.

Regards .

EDIT: Oh, how can I have missed this. So you, at least, agree that science and religion aren't the same?

 

[FredLC]

But if you're going to accept knowledge that is not empirical, then how can you justify Science as opposed to religion by saying that it is empirical? If empirical evidence does not constitute all that is knowledge, then why claim Science to be more realistic based on that fact?

Because science speak of the a posteriori, not the a priori knowledge.

Anyway, there is one thing that you are missing in my argument; I'm not exactly opposing science and religion, I'm just saying that they aren't the same thing. If I say that a platypus is not an eletric toaster, will I be "opposing them"?

Again, calling Science "superior" to religion is meaningless when the argument is concerning whether or not Science is a religion.

Maybe, but than again, it's not like I have dodged that question.

Regards .

 

[Birdjaguar]

EDIT: Oh, how can I have missed this. So you, at least, agree that science and religion aren't the same?

They are entirely different and use very different assumptions, but for many people they serve the same function in organizing how they look at the world.