• 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!

Is philosophy a science?

paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Native said:
Maybe we should distinguish between “Philosophy” and “Natural Philosophy”?

Philosophy - Wikipedia - Natural philosophy - Wikipedia

Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural science.

Then again: “The precursor of natural science” was/is the empirical and mytho-cosmological knowledge which was told and illustrated symbolically in most ancient cultures, especially in their cultural Stories of Creation, which is very similar all over the world, even though different symbols sometimes were used for the same cosmological issue.

The big question is if we can decipher the ancient telling and connect this and the connected symbols in a way that provides a scientific explanation. If taking the ancient Stories of Creation, these sometimes confirms the modern science and sometimes they contradicts these.

The ancient telling’s don´t speak of a creation of the entire Universe, but “just” of the ancient known part of the Universe, namely our Milky Way galaxy. The Universe and everything in it was considered to be eternal and everything is forming and dissolving eternally. That is: No idea of a Big Bang in the ancient tellings.

The formation of our Solar System and everything else is created in the Milky Way center and it participates in a spherical electromagnetic circuit. This ancient telling is cosmologically more precise than the modern scientific explanation of the Solar System.

Read more of this Mytho-Cosmological site where the Stories of Creation is connected to the Milky Way Mythology, the empirical and spiritual knowledge of the ancient cultures - Ancient Science. The Ancient and native Way of Knowledge
Click to expand...
"This ancient telling is cosmologically more precise than the modern scientific explanation of the Solar System."

Informative.
Thanks and regards
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
paarsurrey said:
It may be the grandmother of science while in itself it is not science proper.Right? Please

If yes, how is it covered by the scientific method? Please

Regards
Click to expand...
Think Carl Sagon Paarsurrey. It provides a good light in view of him being a philosoper, and a scientist. Mutually exclusive, yet contemplatry.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Nowhere Man said:
Think Carl Sagon Paarsurrey. It provides a good light in view of him being a philosoper, and a scientist. Mutually exclusive, yet contemplatry.
Click to expand...
There is no exculisiveness in philosohy and science. Right?
Science only sifts true from the untrue in physical and material realms, it is a method of philosophy in these realms. Please
Regards
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
paarsurrey said:
There is no exculisiveness in philosohy and science. Right?
Science only sifts true from the untrue in physical and material realms, it is a method of philosophy in these realms. Please
Regards
Click to expand...

Philosophy and science are two distinct areas. Science in basic terms is the study and exploration of what's around and within us and discovering how things work.

Philosophy is, in my view, study of thought and perspectives that motivates thinking in an unconventional way. Abstract views that stimulates approach and motivates. I like to think of philosophy as color commentary that arises from discovery. It complements both science and religion in that regard, but falls short of being a scientific discipline in itself. It's academic in nature.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
Q. Is philosophy a science?

A. Define "philosophy" and define "science," and I'll tell you.

.
 
Equilibrium

Equilibrium

Priest of his own Order
No, it isn't a science.It's merely a study of ideas about knowledge, the truth, etc. It has no scientific methods.
 
Satans_Serrated_Edge

Satans_Serrated_Edge

Deicidal
paarsurrey said:
Science has not solved questions related to religion, it does not claim to have done so.
Regards
Click to expand...
Sure it has. Or are archeologists not scientists? Or anthropologists?

Those guys have uncovered all sorts of information vis a vis religion.

Not to mention biologists. With out them the idea of starting life as a blood clot as per your particular book wouldn't have been conclusively disproven.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
Science has not solved questions related to religion, it does not claim to have done so.
Regards
Click to expand...

That is simply because religions tend to not have any testable claims. This is why they can be summarily dismissed. They are merely ways to get believers to feel good about themselves without actually requiring any thinking.
 
Sapiens

Sapiens

Polymathematician
paarsurrey said:
The period when Genesis was written, please quote from a book of science written in that period as to how creation took place, then make the comparison. Please
Regards
Click to expand...
The Greeks are a tad later, but close enough:

Anaximander said that life originated in water and that simple forms preceded complex forms.

Democritus thought that the simplest forms of life arose from a kind of primordial ooze.

Aristotle: has a non-teleological and quasi-evolutionary view of nature, and then tries to refute it:
Why should not nature work, not for the sake of something, nor because it is better so, but just as the sky rains, not in order to make the corn grow, but of necessity? What is drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water and descend, the result of this being that the corn grows. Similarly if a man’s crop is spoiled on the threshing-floor, the rain did not fall for the sake of this-in order that the crop might be spoiled-but that result just followed. Why then should it not be the same with the parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity-the front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for grinding down the food-since they did not arise for this end, but it was merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which we suppose that there is purpose? Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish, as Empedocles says his ‘man-faced ox-progeny’ did. Such are the arguments (and others of the kind) which may cause difficulty on this point. Yet it is impossible that this should be the true view. For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe to chance or mere coincidence the frequency of rain in winter, but frequent rain in summer we do; nor heat in the dog-days, but only if we have it in winter. If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end; and that such things are all due to nature even the champions of the theory which is before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is present in things which come to be and are by nature. (Physics, II, 8)
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Sapiens said:
The Greeks are a tad later, but close enough:

Anaximander said that life originated in water and that simple forms preceded complex forms.

Democritus thought that the simplest forms of life arose from a kind of primordial ooze.

Aristotle: has a non-teleological and quasi-evolutionary view of nature, and then tries to refute it:
Why should not nature work, not for the sake of something, nor because it is better so, but just as the sky rains, not in order to make the corn grow, but of necessity? What is drawn up must cool, and what has been cooled must become water and descend, the result of this being that the corn grows. Similarly if a man’s crop is spoiled on the threshing-floor, the rain did not fall for the sake of this-in order that the crop might be spoiled-but that result just followed. Why then should it not be the same with the parts in nature, e.g. that our teeth should come up of necessity-the front teeth sharp, fitted for tearing, the molars broad and useful for grinding down the food-since they did not arise for this end, but it was merely a coincident result; and so with all other parts in which we suppose that there is purpose? Wherever then all the parts came about just what they would have been if they had come be for an end, such things survived, being organized spontaneously in a fitting way; whereas those which grew otherwise perished and continue to perish, as Empedocles says his ‘man-faced ox-progeny’ did. Such are the arguments (and others of the kind) which may cause difficulty on this point. Yet it is impossible that this should be the true view. For teeth and all other natural things either invariably or normally come about in a given way; but of not one of the results of chance or spontaneity is this true. We do not ascribe to chance or mere coincidence the frequency of rain in winter, but frequent rain in summer we do; nor heat in the dog-days, but only if we have it in winter. If then, it is agreed that things are either the result of coincidence or for an end, and these cannot be the result of coincidence or spontaneity, it follows that they must be for an end; and that such things are all due to nature even the champions of the theory which is before us would agree. Therefore action for an end is present in things which come to be and are by nature. (Physics, II, 8)
Click to expand...

Moses
Moses with the Ten Commandments by Philippe de Champaigne.
Born c. 1400 BCE
Goshen, Lower Egypt, New Kingdom of Egypt
Died c. 1200 BCE
Mount Nebo, Moab
Moses - Wikipedia

Anaximander was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher who lived in Miletus, a city of Ionia. He belonged to the Milesian school and learned the teachings of his master Thales. Wikipedia
Born: 610 BC
Died: 546 BC, Miletus, Turkey
Google

Not the same period. Please quote from a science book pertaining to the period at least of Died c. 1200 BCE. Right? Please
Regards
 
Sapiens

Sapiens

Polymathematician
That is are far back as I can push modern evolutionary thinking. What is your point?

There is no evidence that Moses ever existed or that the Exodus occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top