No, on repeatability. I've told you before not to paint me with your assumptions
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"I believe in science, I don't believe in God"
- Thread starter BilliardsBall
- Start date
No, on repeatability. I've told you before not to paint me with your assumptions
Wrong, science is evidence based and repeatable. Sure ideas may begin as ideas but unless the ideas can be accurately repeated then you don't have science but ideas
Please provide the names of any scientists who says otherwise
And those functional theories extend your life by a factor of 3 or 4, they also allow you to make posts decrying science that are visible worldwide within fractions of a second. Is medical science scientism? Is a global internet based on quantum mechanics scientism?
PureX
Veteran Member
You can't know this to be so, as you cannot define existence beyond the ignorance and bias within which we all live. You THINK you can define existence as the state of physicality (because you are a philosophical materialist), and because you so fully believe in your own belief that it feels undeniable and unquestionable to you. Right? (Think about it.) But in fact none of us knows the true nature or limits of existence. And if we are going to try and be honest in our understanding of it, we should bear this in mind, always.
The fact that we can perceive, question, and contemplate the physical realm from which we came, by definition, makes that ability a 'metaphysical' phenomenon.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's not true at all. Science is factual. A scientist can guess what will happen and then experiment to find out if that particular guess is factual or not.
All theories have a factual basis but might not have all the information.
It's why gravity is factual yet a theory at the same time. It dosent mean gravity and what we know about it so far is a guess.
It's also why Pluto was declassified as a planet and reclassified as a dwarf planet due to new discovery and information none of it being a guess whatsoever.
PureX
Veteran Member
Facts are just experiential data. Nothing more. You're making them out to be some sort of truth criteria. And they are not. We mislead ourselves with 'the facts' all the time. And we do so through science, religion, and philosophy alike.
Key points from what you quoted are highlighted:
The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due to the small sample size, the methods used, as well as the fact only one of the six subjects met the hypothesis.[1] The case has been cited as an example of selective reporting. Despite its rejection within the scientific community,
So the actual takeaway is that for the majority of cases in that study, there was no measurable difference from before death to after?
(Either that or that 5 out of 6 people don't have souls)
And....? What can you "know" about whatever you mean by "metaphysical phenomenon?" Absolutely nothing, it seems to me. Sure, you may take some wild stabs and conclude its God, or gods, or fairies or creators of a simulation or what-have-you -- but you don't actually know anything at all.
I lean towards the idea that it's not so much that we need a "metaphysics" (which simply means "before physics") at all, but rather that we just do not yet know everything there is to know about physics. To me, that is an immensely simpler supposition than to suppose some entity/force/mind/spirit/whatever with an interest in creating crazy worlds like ours.
And though we may not know everything about physics, at least we can keep on learning, as we are trying to do. I have no idea how you go about "learning" metaphysics.
PureX
Veteran Member
It seeks the repeatability of a functional theory. But when gets it, it never presumes that theory has become fact (or truth), as those who have fallen into the cult of "scientism" assume.
So changing your tune from "guesswork" to "it seeks repeatability"... Perhaps we are getting somewhere
Perhaps if you understood how that "functional theory" was derived you would not be so negative about science despite reaping its benefits
You are using the word scientism as abusive,. Please identify anyone on RF who has "fallen into the cult of "scientism" " and why do you consider it constructive to label anyone you don't agree with in derogatory terms?
Yazata
Active Member
I've never been a theist. That hasn't changed much over the course of my life. That being said, I've always felt that reality around me is profoundly mysterious. That's what's motivated my lifelong interest in philosophy.
But my attitude towards science has been gradually changing. I've come to realize that science doesn't really address the kind of questions that most interest me. Science assumes that some things exist and others don't. But it doesn't tell us a whole lot about what 'exist' means or why existence exists at all. It's just sort of assumed. Science places great confidence in mathematics. But it doesn't tell us a whole lot about what mathematical objects are, what kind of existence they supposedly have, or how human beings even know about them. Again, it's kind of assumed.
I'm profoundly put off by how science has been politicized over the last 20 years or so. I used to love science. (My undergraduate major was biological science, before I did a second bachelors and a masters in philosophy.) But today, science is increasingly presented to laypeople as a source of theological-style authority. If something is presented in the name of science, then it must be believed, on pain of being denounced as a "denier", today's equivalent of "heretic" or "kafir". It definitely communicates that those who fail to believe are excluded from the community of the faithful ones.
I'm a skeptic about the very existence of any single "scientific method" that marks science off as separate from and superior to all other human cognitive activities. Scientists have entire tool kits of methods that they use as situations warrant (from spectroscopy to mathematical modeling). Creativity in science often consists of using established methods in new ways or even inventing new methods. But beyond that, all we seem to have is common-sense epistemological stuff such as trial and error, along with various efforts to ensure objectivity such as repeatability and confirmation by others. But these latter practices aren't unique to science. (Just think cooking or musical performance.)
People are often huge hypocrites on that score. They go on and on about how there is supposedly no evidence for 'God'. Yet these same people are often the loudest and most militant moralists in our day and age, calling out all sorts of social evils, real or imagined. So let's see them produce a kilogram of 'injustice'. Lets see them synthesize pure elemental 'good' in a scientific laboratory. They can't and they know it. Actually their morality is founded on their shared intuition, which isn't really any different than the religious beliefs that they battle so fiercely.
I don't believe in the actual literal existence of human souls. But I get your point. If we push the kind of skepticism that so many use against religion too hard, then we are apt to sweep away love, beauty and good as well.
I don't share your Christian faith, Billiard Ball. But that doesn't bother me at all. I think that we are in agreement about most of the issues you raised.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Since so many of you atheists are so intent on eliminating the idea of 'metaphysics' from the conversation, let's take a close look at what the term would actually mean.
Etymology
The prefix comes from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετα-), from μετά,[3] which meant "after", "beside", "with", "among" (with respect to the preposition, some of these meanings were distinguished by case marking). Other meanings include "beyond", "adjacent" and "self", and it is also used in the form μητα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels.
Epistemology
In epistemology, and often in common use, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). In a database, metadata are also data about data stored in a data dictionary and describe information (data) about database tables such as the table name, table owner, details about columns, – essentially describing the table.
On higher level of abstraction
Any subject can be said to have a metatheory: a theoretical consideration of its properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility, on a higher level of abstraction. In linguistics, a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).
Early use in English
The Oxford English Dictionary cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917. However, these formations are parallel to the original "metaphysics" and "metaphysical", that is, as a prefix to general nouns (fields of study) or adjectives. Going by the OED citations, it began being used with specific nouns in connection with mathematical logic sometime before 1929.
So, clearly, according to this info on wiki, the prefix, "meta" refers to an abstracted framework of understanding apart from, but adjacent to that which is being understood. In the case of gravity, for example; there is 'gravity' as a physical phenomenon, and there is 'gravity' as the cognitive experience/understanding of that phenomenon; i.e., a phenomenological abstraction existing apart from but adjacent to the physical phenomenon, itself. And although the former can exist without the latter, it's existence would be unrecognized, unrecognizable, and therefor of no possible value without the latter. To raise the physical phenomenon of gravity above the metaphysical recognition of the phenomenon in level of import and/of origin is logically incoherent, as the act of valuation itself is 'metaphysical'.
It is therefor an argument that negates it's own premise.
Etymology
The prefix comes from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετα-), from μετά,[3] which meant "after", "beside", "with", "among" (with respect to the preposition, some of these meanings were distinguished by case marking). Other meanings include "beyond", "adjacent" and "self", and it is also used in the form μητα- as a prefix in Greek, with variants μετ- before vowels and μεθ- "meth-" before aspirated vowels.
Epistemology
In epistemology, and often in common use, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced them, when, what format the data are in and so on). In a database, metadata are also data about data stored in a data dictionary and describe information (data) about database tables such as the table name, table owner, details about columns, – essentially describing the table.
On higher level of abstraction
Any subject can be said to have a metatheory: a theoretical consideration of its properties, such as its foundations, methods, form and utility, on a higher level of abstraction. In linguistics, a grammar is considered as being expressed in a metalanguage, language operating on a higher level to describe properties of the plain language (and not itself).
Early use in English
The Oxford English Dictionary cites uses of the meta- prefix as "beyond, about" (such as meta-economics and meta-philosophy) going back to 1917. However, these formations are parallel to the original "metaphysics" and "metaphysical", that is, as a prefix to general nouns (fields of study) or adjectives. Going by the OED citations, it began being used with specific nouns in connection with mathematical logic sometime before 1929.
So, clearly, according to this info on wiki, the prefix, "meta" refers to an abstracted framework of understanding apart from, but adjacent to that which is being understood. In the case of gravity, for example; there is 'gravity' as a physical phenomenon, and there is 'gravity' as the cognitive experience/understanding of that phenomenon; i.e., a phenomenological abstraction existing apart from but adjacent to the physical phenomenon, itself. And although the former can exist without the latter, it's existence would be unrecognized, unrecognizable, and therefor of no possible value without the latter. To raise the physical phenomenon of gravity above the metaphysical recognition of the phenomenon in level of import and/of origin is logically incoherent, as the act of valuation itself is 'metaphysical'.
It is therefor an argument that negates it's own premise.
Last edited:
And?
PureX
Veteran Member
Excellent post!
I was a sculptor living in Chicago for many years and used to find myself engaging with some of the scientists from nearby Firmilab at various art openings and gatherings, as they seemed to have a keen interest in the arts. And many of my artist friends and I liked to attend their lectures on theoretical physics, in turn, because we were, ourselves, profoundly interested in the fundamental nature of physics, and of our perceptions of 'reality'. And interestingly enough, religion really never entered into these conversations, even though I am sure there were some folks in both camps who considered themselves to be adherents of religion. In fact, I don't recall much talk in the form of 'debate' at all. Mostly, each group was seriously interested in what the other group were doing and thinking about, because they all had that shared interest and curiosity about the 'nature of being'. And each group had a very different set of methodologies for exploring that mystery.
It's unfortunate that the theists and atheists, here, don't share that common interest and respect for each other's chosen means of dealing with those big existential questions. But it seems that on here, theism becomes 'religion', while atheism becomes 'scientism', and nowhere can the two overlap.
Your soul is so amazingly non physical. Shame that it seems to lose all that amazing spiritual awe towards love, the starry sky and all those wonderful things… after 20+ shots of very physical vodka.
ciao
- viole
PureX
Veteran Member
I think that as you are clearly floating in the formaldehyde of 'scientism', yourself, that your view from within the jar it is being warped and impeded, of what's without.
I think that as you are clearly floating in the formaldehyde of 'scientism', yourself, that your view from within the jar it is being warped and impeded, of what's without.
I would refer you to rule 1 of RF rules anf guidelines, consider your post and delete it before the world gets to see ... I won't finish because i respect rule 1
Jeremiah Ames
Well-Known Member
i was very appreciative of Polymath257’s comments
He is a very good educator.