Isn't the exclusivity of Scientific Verification accepted on faith?

[Buddha Dharma]

"an arbitrary division between scientific data and religious experiences on the part of materialists."

Right, and the reason I am claiming it is the following: whenever I point out religions have repeatable results in certain areas, those valuing empiricism only cry that isn't good enough. On what do they base that view? Better yet- on what do they base the idea that science is the only valid verification method? All I've gotten so far is what I knew I'd likely get- that science's merits is based on the rules of science itself.

Talking about empirical validation is an appeal to science's rules. It doesn't actually prove science alone is valid.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Anything that may be tested by science can as easily by tested by anyone else. What you are measuring, when engaged in scientific testing, is independent data -- independent of the tester, which is why it is repeatable.

I believe I've responded to this statement. Several times in fact. All this repeating is enough to wear anyone down...

 

[sandy whitelinger]

the idea was that one cannot

"prove something with science that is Scriptural."

But-

Who knows that that is supposed to actually mean?

Of course one cannot prove anything with science, so
it is an odd thing to be talking about, unless
"science that is scriptual" has some arcane meaning
that only he knows about.

I have no tolerance for arcane meanings.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Since everyone's 'dream life' is individual and purely subjective, it makes no sense to suggest that empirical evidence could ever lead to 'truths' about a 'dream life'. And of course that doesn't change the fact that the scientific method remans the best method we've ever come up with for determining the truth about non-subjective reality in 'waking life'. Until we come up with a method for determining the truths about the reality of 'dream life', all any of us can do is continue to use the scientific method to try and determine the truths about out 'waking lives'. If anyone can offer a BETTER method, I'll start using it immediately.

The "dream life" you speak of exists at the boundry of what "science and reason" describe. Science and "mysticism" are the duality of one existence.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Do you know @sandy whitelinger what eastern thinkers typically mean they liken this to a dream world? I don't mind going into it in this thread, since it does relate to science and empiricism in it's own way. It could raise another interesting point about science's limitations. Would you like to discuss it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see now. You're right. I was wrong.

I renounce my faith and will now turn my attention to dirt. Soil. Humus. Mud (I can talk dirty with the best of them).

How could I have been so deluded?

No need. Merely try to approach your faith with a rational mind. There are Christians that can think rationally and still believe.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No need. Merely try to approach your faith with a rational mind. There are Christians that can think rationally and still believe.

Rationality is my mental (I mean middle) name. Fred Rationality Sanford.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Do you know @sandy whitelinger what eastern thinkers typically mean they liken this to a dream world? I don't mind going into it in this thread, since it does relate to science and empiricism in it's own way. It could raise another interesting point about science's limitations. Would you like to discuss it?

I think I have a sense of it. Only I try to achieve it while awake and meditating.

Do educate me though.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Essentially, easterners don't put the faith in human language that westerners do. It seems that once westerners have fashioned a word in their languages and starting attaching the definitions- they treat language as entirely truthful at face value.

Easterners like Master Dogen and Laozi have always more appreciated things for what language cannot say. We can talk about a mountain, says Dogen- or we can see the mountain from a distance, where we can see the trees and everything on the mountain visible to the eye.

Compared with the real thing, the word mountain seems insignificant.

Now how this ties in with science, is that science functions on the same hard-lined treatment of language that western ideologies tend toward. There is no appreciation for beyond language and concepts.

Taoism expresses it very well about the eastern view of language as useful only. Master Laozi says concepts are handles by which we attempt to grab hold of the Tao. That is all they are. The handles are fashioned on and can be broken off and discarded.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

No need. Merely try to approach your faith with a rational mind. There are Christians that can think rationally and still believe.

What I believe, which I found out had a name afterwards, Non-competing Magisteria, is that both the natural world and the Biblical (some would say spiritual, but I am after all a narrow-minded Biblist.) are true.

It's a conundrum. I think people are best served if they contemplate conundrums on occasion. It broadens one's spiritual and natural horizons.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Essentially, easterners don't put the faith in human language that westerners do. It seems that once westerners have fashioned a word in their languages and starting attaching the definitions- they treat language as entirely truthful at face value.

Easterners like Master Dogen and Laozi have always more appreciated things for what language cannot say. We can talk about a mountain, says Dogen- or we can see the mountain from a distance, where we can see the trees and everything on the mountain visible to the eye.

Compared with the real thing, the word mountain seems insignificant.

Now how this ties in with science, is that science functions on the same hard-lined treatment of language that western ideologies tend toward. There is no appreciation for beyond language and concepts.

One of my tenets is that language is tricky.

A friend of mine once put it, "Comunication has little to do with a pair of lips flapping at each other."

 

[Buddha Dharma]

One of my tenets is that language is tricky.

A friend of mine once put it, "Comunication has little to do with a pair of lips flapping at each other."

Would you like to expound the thought a little more?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Would you like to expound the thought a little more?

Words, on a personal level, are only a representation of our reality. To truly understand another person, they must be reached on another level other than words. Perceptions must be trusted.

 

[dianaiad]

Yet we have religious folks refusing to accept the benefits of medical science preferring to rely on God, prayers to miraculously heal the sick.

Still it is a matter of trust, medical science can be wrong or improperly applied but is in general more successful than not. Versus relying on a God who may not exist or may not care.

I wasn't attempting to claim that religion is 'better' than science. I'm only saying that science isn't the only way to ascertain 'truth.' In fact, there are areas where science has no business TRYING to ascertain truth.

........and vice versa, of course. I wouldn't go against my doctor's advice either, in terms of medical stuff. But then, my religion doesn't ask me to do that, either.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Words, on a personal level, are only a representation of our reality. To truly understand another person, they must be reached on another level other than words. Perceptions must be trusted.

I think I agree with you

 

[dianaiad]

Sorry you are wrong on both counts. It was factual, not snarky, and in regards to faith you are guilty of an equivocation fallacy.

Then you don't understand what 'faith' is.

"Faith" is the willingness to act as if what you believe to be true IS true.
"Faith" is exactly equal to 'trust.' Look it up.

If you believe in something, and act on that belief, you have faith. It doesn't matter what the belief is, or what evidence supports it. "Faith" isn't about what anybody ELSE thinks about the validity of something. It's what YOU think it is.

My sister has a phobia about bridges. She won't cross them. Period. She would rather use a more dangerous ferry, go miles out of her way, or simply not go--wherever--than cross one. Her husband is a metal fatigue expert; a scientist in the stresses of wind and other elements on metal structures. He can give her more evidence that a bridge is safe than any of the rest of us can access.....and she'll even believe him.

But she won't cross the bridge because she has no faith.

Religious faith isn't any different from any other sort of faith, except that non-believers make fun of it. (shrug) They could even be correct about how little evidence there is for the beliefs involved. It DOES NOT MATTER. Faith is about what the believer does, NOT what you think he should do.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I think I agree with you

Is this area of "perception" your dream world?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Religious faith isn't any different from any other sort of faith, except that non-believers make fun of it.

What's interesting is that even Sam Harris has to concede this about holding beliefs in 'The End of Faith'. He simply states that atheists are more selective about their beliefs. Odd though some deny having beliefs, isn't it?

 

[dianaiad]

What makes you think that those doctors were scientists? And do you know where the idea of no washing your hands came from?

They claimed to be and were accepted as such, and they certainly ganged up on Semmelweiss and others when they showed how washing hands would help.

As for not washing hands....why would they wash their hands when they had no clue about germ theory and what transmitted disease?

What is this, a 'no true scientist' ploy?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Is this area of "perception" your dream world?

My dream world? Now that's a dream.