punkbass2000 said:
That is really a meaningless statement. What makes something realistic? To even declare it realistic implies some underlying knowledge of inhereent realities. This is already a priori belief system structuring.
Nah, it isnt.
See, when I said that science is too realistic to be religion, I didnt mean that its the scientific overview that is the correct expression of reality and hence, I didnt 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.
punkbass2000 said:
This part I more or less agree with, and is similar in nature to what betazed has had to say. My only real poinmt is that I wouldn't say those that understand this are more intelligent and that there are those who simply cannot understand it.
That excerpt from my text is more completely understood in the context of the original thread in which I wrote, where I challenged the idea that science was taking over the hearts of people (though I certainly believe it would be better if that were true). Nevertheless, I have made pretty clear that there is no inherent correlation between faith or lack of it with intelligence or lack of it; I just mentioned that, currently, a certain degree of intelligence and education is required for a sincere atheism/agnosticism, for these are prerequisites to challenge the
status quo of society, particularly when we are dealing with a highly unpopular ideology that lacks icons and never really had any political influence.
punkbass2000 said:
Again, I see a similar argument to betazed's. You are defining Science as something which does not give into dogmatism. Yet this statement is dogmatic in and of itself. Beyond that, I think you too will agree that Scientists tend to be dogmatic. You can argue that Scientists are not inherently representative of Science itself, but aside from the Platonic difficulties of trying to separate "ideal Scienceness" from Science itself, I could also argue that religions are not represented by their believers. IOW, if Science is not dogmatic, then neither are religions.
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.
punkbass2000 said:
Still a priori beliefs, putting faith in senses and memory, among other things.
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?
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.
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 Im not limited to think that paint over paper is mere paint over paper; Im free to perceived beautiful pictures through my ability to imagine), but the freedom in question is limited by footing on empiricism (and Ill 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. Its a negative utility, in the end, being boundless like that.
punkbass2000 said:
Now you are just painting religion with a broad brush. Some religions operate in this sense, but not all. Certainly Buddhism does not preach that life is nherantly good.
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.
punkbass2000 said:
I could certainly say the same for Taoism. You follow the Tao whether you like it or not. Struggling against merely tends to cause discord. Taoism will not save your life, but then again to argue that your life is saved by surgery presupposes that Science is correct. When a JW is physical body is saved by a blood transfusion, if Science is right, then you're argument is right. If they're belief is right, then their soul is forever tarnished and they have not been saved at all.
Im 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 anyones) 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.
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. Its 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.
Being broad enough to encompass even those who dont care about your idea, however, have no similarity with the universal quality of science that Im 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 isnt so just because the scientists told that, and if proponents of science wanted it to be different, theyd 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.
punkbass2000 said:
This certainly a faith-based argument. Is life "better" now? Quantifiably, where Science rules, it certainly is. Are we happier or otherwise better off in qualitative senses? Arguable at best. To say we are lucky to now be living in a Scientific society would be no different than a 12th century priest saying that we are blessed to be living in a moral, Christian society.
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.
Ive seen many times people saying that in the modern world, we have tools to talk to anyone at any time, and yet, people feel more empty and cut apart than in any other age. I think these claims are utter crap, I have no idea of census of subjective happiness in the ancient eras of mankind. Simply put, we dont know.
Hence, the subject aspect of happiness is not measurable but there is no credible reason to state that it lost terrain. The objective aspect, however, undoubtedly improved. Under that light, I stand my ground, and sustain that we are damn lucky to live in this age
though probably not as lucky as someone who gets to live in 50 years time will be.
punkbass2000 said:
You could say that Christiantiy conflicts with Islam or any other religion in the same way if you didn't presume that Science and religion were diametrically opposed.
I didnt 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.
punkbass2000 said:
Quite frankly, your whole post smacks of the Western religions and, what's more their followers.
They must be pretty sensible if they think exposing fallibilities in their methodology means smacking them. I certainly dont 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.
punkbass2000 said:
Here, you criticize religion for changing with the times, yet previously you have praised Science for the same. You criticize religion for its followers, yet absolve Science of the same.
Well, first and foremost, for given reasons, I dont qualify anyone as follower of science. Im 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.
Anyway, never in my post I criticized religion for its followers. Quite the contrary, I said that therein lies its force, and the reason why its so important in society, even though its loosing room. At the same time, I never linked the force of science with the number of people that follows (to indulge your wording) it, quite the contrary, I stated
ipsis literis that people believing in it is something meaningless (even though its number of followers is steadily growing).
On the other hand, my problem with the changes of religion that does not apply to science is simple and easy to get. Science changes only to incorporate new and superior data. If that data does not come, than it takes the heat of the old idea, regardless of how impopular it may be to one, or many, groups (again evolution being the prime example). Religion is more adaptable (in the bad sense of the term), for it changes not to surrender a misconception under the light of a new knowledge, but only to survive the changes of human society. While being such a chameleon is a marvelous surviving tool, it also says a lot of the nature of the
connaissance therein contained.
punkbass2000 said:
Just because Science better explains your ideas of reality does not mean there will be some Truth that all will know now that they were ultimately denying previously.
Youre too judgemental of me, my good friend. My siding with science has little to do with the indulgement of my linkings. If it were for me, Id love that there were a God. It would be great to know that after death somebody would be there to explain the meaning of life (as monthy pythons attempt really didnt crack the puzzle). Quite enlightening this would be.
I am simply standing by the notion that has the logical edge. No affirmation of my preferences noted in here.
Regards
.
