If No One Believed In God...

[Heyo]

Religions are models of the divine reality just as theories of science are models of physical reality. For both you can have different models with greater or lesser accuracy but they refer to an underlying truth.

I'm OK with that if you agree that "divine reality" is distinct from physical reality. (NOMa) I.e. religion can't tell us anything about physical reality and science can't tell us anything about "divine reality".
(I put "divine reality" in quotes because it isn't.)

 

[sayak83]

Claiming it, doesn't make it so



The difference being that the models of science are derived from studying reality, while "models" of religion are the result of "dreams" and "visions" and "revelation" - aka, bare claims, hearsay and unverifiable anecdotes.[\quote]
Why would visions and revelations be unverifiable? The religious practitioners can and do verify them regularly during the course of practice. This is simply your predetermined bias speaking here.

Furthermore, scientific models make testable predictions and are therefor falsifiable.
Religious "models" are not, which is why "faith" is required.

Some religious models are not good models, just like some scientific models are not good. A good religious model is one whose understanding of the divinity can be verified directly through praxis of that path and hence is testable. These exist.

And "faith" is not a pathway to truth. Independently verifiable evidence however, is.

I agree. If a religion says you have to always rely on scriptures and the claims cannot be verified by you through practicing it, it may not be a good one to follow.

Science is demonstrable.

So is the experience and knowledge of the divine through religious practice. Many practices demonstrably generate the corresponding experience and the associated knowledge.

Religion is indistinguishable from sheer fantasy.

Thus refuted.

 

[sayak83]

I'm OK with that if you agree that "divine reality" is distinct from physical reality. (NOMa) I.e. religion can't tell us anything about physical reality and science can't tell us anything about "divine reality".
(I put "divine reality" in quotes because it isn't.)

I will make a lesser claim.
There is only one reality. But science is a tool that is much better suited to the physical dimensions of reality while other fields are more better tools to investigate other aspects.

 

[Heyo]

I will make a lesser claim.
There is only one reality.

We agree on that, only that I see reality as that what is measurable. But I don't want to argue semantics. Let's say there is one reality as you define it.

But science is a tool that is much better suited to the physical dimensions of reality

So we agree that "the physical dimensions of reality" (everything that is measurable) is distinct from the "other aspects"?
And that science deals with "the physical dimensions of reality" and religion doesn't;
while religions deal with (a subset of) the "other aspects" and science doesn't?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will make a lesser claim.
There is only one reality. But science is a tool that is much better suited to the physical dimensions of reality while other fields are more better tools to investigate other aspects.

What "other" aspects?

 

[sayak83]

What "other" aspects?

Philosophy, arts, humanities, economics, spirituality, mathematics, logic, politics, law.....................................

 

[sayak83]

We agree on that, only that I see reality as that what is measurable. But I don't want to argue semantics. Let's say there is one reality as you define it.

So we agree that "the physical dimensions of reality" (everything that is measurable) is distinct from the "other aspects"?
And that science deals with "the physical dimensions of reality" and religion doesn't;
while religions deal with (a subset of) the "other aspects" and science doesn't?

Arts and aesthetics is real but is not measurable. So is ethics. The realm of emotions and thoughts is also not measurable but is real. I do not see how you can say reality is only that which is measurable.
Mathematics is not physical but is clearly about measures. Economics is not a science but is about measuring the social construct of wealth. Science primarily deals with describing and explaining the patterns that underlie the physical state of a system and how it changes. The physical state of a system is defined by the position and time (or velocity) coordinates of all the components of that system. So anything that directly influences the change or evolution of space and velocity components of a system (like forces) or is derivable from the space and velocity components (like energy, temperature, chemical potential etc.) can be considered a part of the scientific domain. The system may have other aspects that are not part of the space and velocity based definitions of a physical state and these will have to be handled by other tools.

 

[Heyo]

Arts and aesthetics is real but is not measurable. So is ethics. The realm of emotions and thoughts is also not measurable but is real. I do not see how you can say reality is only that which is measurable.

5 Planes of Existence

Mathematics is not physical but is clearly about measures. Economics is not a science but is about measuring the social construct of wealth. Science primarily deals with describing and explaining the patterns that underlie the physical state of a system and how it changes. The physical state of a system is defined by the position and time (or velocity) coordinates of all the components of that system. So anything that directly influences the change or evolution of space and velocity components of a system (like forces) or is derivable from the space and velocity components (like energy, temperature, chemical potential etc.) can be considered a part of the scientific domain. The system may have other aspects that are not part of the space and velocity based definitions of a physical state and these will have to be handled by other tools.

I'm not sure if you agree or if you try to obscure your disagreement. Can you simply answer my questions?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Philosophy, arts, humanities, economics, spirituality, mathematics, logic, politics, law.....................................

So... things that only exist between the ears of humans then?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Arts and aesthetics is real but is not measurable. So is ethics.

These things aren't "real" in the same way that a tree is "real" or the earth is "real" or how gravity is "real".

These things are in fact just concepts / abstractions that only "exist" insofar as there are humans to dream them up.

The realm of emotions and thoughts is also not measurable but is real

That's not really true. Emotions and thoughts have physical underpinnings in the form of brain activity, which is very measurable. To the point even that today there are already rudimentary prototypes of "mind reading devices", which literally are able to interpret brainwaves to figure out what a person is thinking about.

I do not see how you can say reality is only that which is measurable.

Reality in terms of "independent of humans".

So things that objectively exist.

"Art" doesn't "objectively" exist.

 

[sayak83]

These things aren't "real" in the same way that a tree is "real" or the earth is "real" or how gravity is "real".

These things are in fact just concepts / abstractions that only "exist" insofar as there are humans to dream them up.



That's not really true. Emotions and thoughts have physical underpinnings in the form of brain activity, which is very measurable. To the point even that today there are already rudimentary prototypes of "mind reading devices", which literally are able to interpret brainwaves to figure out what a person is thinking about.




Reality in terms of "independent of humans".

So things that objectively exist.

"Art" doesn't "objectively" exist.

I am on the opposite end. Experiences, feelings, emotions and the conscience field of awareness are the only things that are primarily real. Everything else are indirect inferences from this real, and hence their reality is secondary, dependent on the primary reality of this conscious field. And these indirect inferences regarding this secondary "physical" reality are only instrumentally real, in that these models are real because and only in so far as they are useful (I mean useful in a wide sense here) in improving the quality of our experiential conscious lived primary reality. That is why these models change again and again as new models deliver better usefulness.

 

[sayak83]

5 Planes of Existence

I'm not sure if you agree or if you try to obscure your disagreement. Can you simply answer my questions?

I am giving you a more sharper definition of physical sciences. Also my analysis of what is real differes from your. See my other post just made before this.

 

[sayak83]

So... things that only exist between the ears of humans then?

Having a body with ears is also a secondary reality I accept as true model because it's useful for me to believe that in terms of the quality of my experiences.

 

[Heyo]

I am giving you a more sharper definition of physical sciences. Also my analysis of what is real differes from your. See my other post just made before this.

Do I understand you right that you argue non-realism? Something like the concept of Maya in Hinduism?

 

[sayak83]

Do I understand you right that you argue non-realism? Something like the concept of Maya in Hinduism?

No. I argue that one must accord primary reality to conscious experiences based on which we infer everything else. It seems fundamemtally illogical to accord more reality to objects we infer indirectly from conscious experiences than the experiences themselves.
In terms of epistemology, I follow pragmatism.

 

[Heyo]

No. I argue that one must accord primary reality to conscious experiences based on which we infer everything else.

That sounds more like solipsism.

It seems fundamemtally illogical to accord more reality to objects we infer indirectly from conscious experiences than the experiences themselves.
In terms of epistemology, I follow pragmatism.

Solipsism is the least pragmatic world view as it is not falsifiable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Having a body with ears is also a secondary reality I accept as true model because it's useful for me to believe that in terms of the quality of my experiences.

I can't make sense of this at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am on the opposite end. Experiences, feelings, emotions and the conscience field of awareness are the only things that are primarily real. Everything else are indirect inferences from this real, and hence their reality is secondary, dependent on the primary reality of this conscious field. And these indirect inferences regarding this secondary "physical" reality are only instrumentally real, in that these models are real because and only in so far as they are useful (I mean useful in a wide sense here) in improving the quality of our experiential conscious lived primary reality. That is why these models change again and again as new models deliver better usefulness.

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of this either.

Sounds to me that you are overcomplicating things so much to the point where it stops making any sense to me.

Let's just try taking a step back here....

In a world where humans exist, trees are real and art is a thing.
In a world where no humans exist, trees are still real. Art isn't a thing however.

"art" is something that humans do and it's subjective to boot (what one person considers "art" is just a meaningless splash of paint to another).
No humans = no art.

Trees, however, exist regardless of humans.

Do you agree?

 

[sayak83]

Sorry, but I can't make any sense of this either.

Sounds to me that you are overcomplicating things so much to the point where it stops making any sense to me.

Let's just try taking a step back here....

In a world where humans exist, trees are real and art is a thing.
In a world where no humans exist, trees are still real. Art isn't a thing however.

"art" is something that humans do and it's subjective to boot (what one person considers "art" is just a meaningless splash of paint to another).
No humans = no art.

Trees, however, exist regardless of humans.

Do you agree?

I agree that it's an useful model to believe in based on our experiences.

 

[sayak83]

I can't make sense of this at all.

What is there so difficult about.
Do you deny that the only thing that constitutes the raw substratum of your reality are your conscious experiences and feelings and thoughts? That every other thing are inferences from this raw experienced reality? These inferences are made in order to make sense out of the multifaceted content of these sensed and felt experiences? Hence what are these inferred objects but a secondary reality? Models that are useful to make sense of that which are your directly sensed and felt experiences?
So which is more real? The conscious experience field or the models one infer from this field?
Simple.