• 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 Science Necessary...

PureX

Veteran Member
Results? What exactly? I don't understand.
Science investigates the mechanisms of physicality by setting up experiments that test the various possibilities as we conceive of them. These tests produce results, which then guide our exploration of the new possibilities that those results made us aware of. We don't really get any 'answers', we just keep exploring the possibilities as they keep presenting themselves to us. Science doesn't provide us with any 'answers', it provides us with a better understanding of the physical possibilities. It's gift to us is increased functionality, not increased truth.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
"What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?"

- Dr. Steven Novella
I posted about "SCIENTISM", not science. I have no complaints about science. It's a useful method of investigating physical functionality. The problem, of course, is that increased functionality in the hands of idiots ends up being a very dangerous thing. So science may not be doing us the big favor everyone thinks it is. As it's not doing a thing to curtail our idiocy.
 

syo

Well-Known Member
Science investigates the mechanisms of physicality by setting up experiments that test the various possibilities as we conceive of them. These tests produce results, which then guide our exploration of the new possibilities that those results made us aware of. We don't really get any 'answers', we just keep exploring the possibilities as they keep presenting themselves to us. Science doesn't provide us with any 'answers', it provides us with a better understanding of the physical possibilities. It's gift to us is increased functionality, not increased truth.
I see. Thank you.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I posted about "SCIENTISM", not science.
I know.

I have no complaints about science.
But you do. That's the whole point of complaining about "scientism": you're complaining about too much science.

... unless you mean something different by the term than the normal definition:

Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

Do you?

Assuming you don't, think about Dr. Novella's quote again and tell me which part you think is "excessive."

Do you think people are being too thorough? Using too-careful observation? Being too systematic? Or using too-consistent logic?"

Edit: or is it that you think there are times that call for us to be not thorough, not careful, not systematic, and inconsistent?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I know.


But you do. That's the whole point of complaining about "scientism": you're complaining about too much science.
Scientism isn't science. So there's no "too much" science or "too little" science to it. Scientism is an absurdly grandiose misunderstanding of what science is, and what it is not. Scientism is not science and it's not even "scientific". It's pop mythology.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Scientism isn't science. So there's no "too much" science or "too little" science. Scientism is an absurdly grandiose misunderstanding of what science is, and what it is not. Scientism is not science and it's not even "scientific". It's pop mythology.
So you're complaining about something that doesn't actually happen that often. Gotcha.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Do you think a no-religious, non-spiritual person can have ethics?
If so, how do you think they go about supporting their ethics?
Absolutely. Some of the atheists I've known have been extremely moral people. But they don't get their ethics from science. They learn them from a culture that includes religion, even if they themselves reject the religious elements.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Does religion apply to ethics?

And by ethics, I don't mean lists of things that a deity has purportedly commanded people to do or not do, but actual ethics: examining the principles and factors that make actions right or wrong.
Although ethics can be taught and learned apart from religion, it belongs in the religious domaine.

I have yet to hear an atheist give adequate justification for the Nuremburg trials. They insist that morals are relative, but they don't want to accept that if morals are relative, no person or group has any innate right to force their morality on another person or group.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I hope you will point this out in real time sometime.
Identify it as " scientism" if thats what you think it is.

Until then I will disagree with your assertion.

Could you for present purposes say what you
mean by " non material"?
If you mean something about spirits I will
say now that such are unworthy of consideration- though taking them seriously
has huge consequence.
It might help if he (PureX) explains what on earth "non-material considerations" are, that he thinks others are "not considering"? It sounds suitably vague to me.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Although ethics can be taught and learned apart from religion, it belongs in the religious domaine.
... even though religion is largely silent on the issue of ethics?

I have yet to hear an atheist give adequate justification for the Nuremburg trials. They insist that morals are relative, but they don't want to accept that if morals are relative, no person or group has any innate right to force their morality on another person or group.
Who is this "they" you're talking about? Your description certainly doesn't reflect my views.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Major part of the Canyon was formed fast. All current layer of the canyon seems to have eroded in similar time, that is why I believe the most of it was eroded fast after flood/during the flood.

Well done you just completely ignored the geological evidence, which demonstrates that it could not have formed in such a short period.

It is interesting how anyone can think something else than the sudden flood event could have caused those. But maybe the problem is that people don’t really understand how the flood happened.

Ah, so you're going with denying the scientific evidence again, well that's rather predictable.

By what the Bible tells,

I don't care what the bible claims, anymore than I care what Harry Potter novels say about wizardry.


Tectonic plates and fault Ines have nothing to do with biblical myths. They certainly don't remotely evidence the Noah flood myth.

All this water going back and worth explains the best way what we can now observe. I don’t think there is any other credible theory for to explain those findings.

The scientific evidence directly refutes your claims.

Time of the supposed flood? What makes you believe they have it correct?

There was no global flood, the time used is derived from your superstition's theological assertions. :rolleyes:
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Well, many SAY they do, and even believe what they're saying, but then in discussion, it becomes apparent that some do not. Instead, what they believe is that non-material considerations have no import or meaningful consequence.

You are just saying things, making them
up as surely as if you were a creationist
talking flood geology.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Sorry, I have no good reason to believe that, especially if we understand all that happened during the flood event and what was the starting conditions of earth before the flood.

By what the Bible tells, there was only one continent before the flood. And apparently when the flood came, it happened when the original continent was broken and collapsed and the waters beneath it, flooded. Water level was different then, because land had not been compressed as much as nowadays. Today it looks like we would need more water, because the ocean floors have gone down making it look like mountains are rising, which doesn't really happen.
have you no concern at all about what is true or real?
 
Top