Religion Vs Science: Which is more reliable?

[osgart]

Religion isn't reliable in its current form. Religion reaches out to an unknowable mystery and fills in answers that cannot be verified objectively nor subjectively.

Spirituality is the pursuit of wisdom. Its way better than religion.

Science pursues physical facts. Science is more reliable than religion. It's goals are set in attainability.

They have nothing to do with each other.

Yet religion keeps making claims to answers beyond verification. And when religion falls under verification it fails.

It's best to be spiritual about wisdom and scientific about physical reality.

 

[paarsurrey]

Religion isn't reliable in its current form. Religion reaches out to an unknowable mystery and fills in answers that cannot be verified objectively nor subjectively.

Spirituality is the pursuit of wisdom. Its way better than religion.

Science pursues physical facts. Science is more reliable than religion. It's goals are set in attainability.

They have nothing to do with each other.

Yet religion keeps making claims to answers beyond verification. And when religion falls under verification it fails.

It's best to be spiritual about wisdom and scientific about physical reality.

" Science pursues physical facts."

Please name/enumerate the physical facts, please? Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

As with humans, much of their behavior is learned, and we know this because primatologists have seen changes in behavior with some that was not found in others, plus they've shown an ability to think creatively.

Here's one case in point: Washoe (chimpanzee) - Wikipedia

How one would then differentiate between artificial and natural, please?

Regards

 

[ppp]

How one would then differentiate between artificial and natural, please?

Artificial things are natural. Artificial is the subset of natural that refers to artifacts created by an self-aware intelligence. What style and capacity of intelligence is up for debate.

 

[osgart]

" Science pursues physical facts."

Please name/enumerate the physical facts, please? Right, please?

Regards

Gravity.
Mass.
Energy.
Space-time.
General relativity.
Quantum mechanics.
Big Bang Theory.
Newtonian physics.
Photosynthesis.
DNA.
Elliptical orbit of Earth.



What's the point of this?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I agree.
Science has no business with morality, strictly speaking. Right, please?

Regards
___________________
Science and Morality
Science doesn’t give us a script for what to value or believe in, but it helps us write that script.
Science and Morality

Correct. And religion has no business with science.

 

[metis]

How one would then differentiate between artificial and natural, please?

Regards

The difference between being programmed by their genes or through training, versus the animal making decisions based on reason.

Did you read the article on Washoe because the latter point becomes quite clear?

 

[paarsurrey]

The difference between being programmed by their genes or through training, versus the animal making decisions based on reason.

Did you read the article on Washoe because the latter point becomes quite clear?

I read about Washoe an article of Wikipedia, primates can learn things , I understand.
My point is different, please.
Artificial, we understand, is something made by man, contrived by human skill and labor. Natural, we understand, is something not made by man, not contrived by human skill and or labor. Right, please?
If primates make something by their skill and or labor, will it will be artificial or natural, please?

Regards

 

[metis]

I read about Washoe an article of Wikipedia, primates can learn things , I understand.
My point is different, please.
Artificial, we understand, is something made by man, contrived by human skill and labor. Natural, we understand, is something not made by man, not contrived by human skill and or labor. Right, please?
If primates make something by their skill and or labor, will it will be artificial or natural, please?

Regards

Natural unless the behavior is genetic. There's no other way I can put it.

 

[sojourner]

A religion isn't a "source of knowledge"

I disagree. Meaning-making is a form of knowledge.

 

[ppp]

I disagree. Meaning-making is a form of knowledge.

Even meaning making were a form of knowledge, religion doesn't create meaning. Only individuals do.

 

[sayak83]

Speaking generally between the two which is the more reliable source of knowledge? Please explain.

Religion is a worldview while science is not. A religious worldview can incorporate scientific understanding of the world into itself as well just as a secular worldview can. So it's difficult to answer this question.

 

[sojourner]

Even meaning making were a form of knowledge, religion doesn't create meaning. Only individuals do.

Of course it does, through the tools of metaphor, myth, and ceremony. That’s why individuals are drawn to religions.

 

[ppp]

Of course it does, through the tools of metaphor, myth, and ceremony. That’s why individuals are drawn to religions.

Religion has no independent existence. Religion is the label we put on a given set of metaphor, myth and ceremony that was created by individuals. If thinking beings were to disappear today, there would be no religion.

 

[sojourner]

Religion has no independent existence. Religion is the label we put on a given set of metaphor, myth and ceremony that was created by individuals. If thinking beings were to disappear today, there would be no religion.

Doesn’t matter. The metaphors, imagery, ceremony and myth all make meaning — regardless of what we call them. That they are communal images, rather than individually-generated, merely give them more power.

 

[ppp]

Doesn’t matter. The metaphors, imagery, ceremony and myth all make meaning — regardless of what we call them. That they are communal images, rather than individually-generated, merely give them more power.

Of course it matters, Those things do not create meaning. They are the expression and communication of meaning from people that create them. You are confusing the vehicle for communicating meaning with the source. This is like claiming the the book creates meaning, when it reality the only things that create meaning are the author and the reader.

If the ceremony itself, generated meaning, then you could plop anyone down in any ceremony and they would get the same meaning. When the truth is that they may not get any meaning from it at all.

Thinking beings generate meaning. Metaphors, imagery, ceremony and myth are just the artistic media thru which that meaning is communicated to others.

 

[sojourner]

Of course it matters, Those things do not create meaning. They are the expression and communication of meaning from people that create them. You are confusing the vehicle for communicating meaning with the source. This is like claiming the the book creates meaning, when it reality the only things that create meaning are the author and the reader.

If the ceremony itself, generated meaning, then you could plop anyone down in any ceremony and they would get the same meaning. When the truth is that they may not get any meaning from it at all.

Thinking beings generate meaning. Metaphors, imagery, ceremony and myth are just the artistic media thru which that meaning is communicated to others.

I disagree. Uniformity of meaning is irrelevant. The generation of meaning — or “inspiration” — comes from the thing itself. It’s like saying that a fine work of art does not inspire — only the artist inspires. But that’s not what the discipline of aesthetics teaches.

a ceremony (like a work of art, or a poem, or a piece of music) inspires meaning that will be interpreted differently by different people. In fact, the sheer diversity of meaning engendered by the ceremony (and the diversity of interpretations of that meaning) simply make the meaning multi-dimensional, instead of flat. I bet you’d tell me that the Bible can have only one “correct” interpretation, too. No, I’m afraid you’re conflating “meaning-making” with “interpretation.”

In fact, it is the interaction of participants with the art form that really make the meaning, just as it is the interaction of sender and receiver that make sound.

 

[ppp]

I disagree. Uniformity of meaning is irrelevant. The generation of meaning — or “inspiration” — comes from the thing itself. It’s like saying that a fine work of art does not inspire — only the artist inspires. But that’s not what the discipline of aesthetics teaches.

1. Uniformity of meaning is relevant when you are claiming that mindless processes are generating meaning.
2. Meaning is not inspiration. If you are really trying to use those two words interchangeably, then you are using you own personal definitions. No, thank you. I am not interested in bait and switches.

 

[sojourner]

1. Uniformity of meaning is relevant when you are claiming that mindless processes are generating meaning

Who says that the processes of myth, metaphor, and ceremony are “mindless?” In fact, they are not, by their very. Nature. The creation of these things is highly intentional, and that indicates mindfulness.

2. Meaning is not inspiration. If you are really trying to use those two words interchangeably, then you are using you own personal definitions. No, thank you. I am not interested in bait and switches.

I misspoke. Inspiration does go hand-in-hand with meaning, however. These things are intentionally designed to inspire — and they are created to carry meaning. The way in which one interprets that intended meaning may vary from person to person — and that’s ok. It does not diminish the meaning that’s made in any way. And the meaning that is formed and carried informs the participant of the meaning that is made. So, religion does bring knowledge to bear.

 

[ppp]

Who says that the processes of myth, metaphor, and ceremony are “mindless?” In fact, they are not, by their very. Nature. The creation of these things is highly intentional, and that indicates mindfulness.

I just created the word 'elcadomat' with highly intentional meaning. I see no evidence that the word 'elcadomat' has a mind.

I misspoke.

i appreciate that.

Inspiration does go hand-in-hand with meaning, however.

Only sometimes.

These things are intentionally designed to inspire — and they are created to carry meaning.

By these things I assume you mean myth, metaphor, and ceremony. Sure.

he way in which one interprets that intended meaning may vary from person to person — and that’s ok.

One does not interpret intended meaning. One interprets the actions and words, and then infers the intended meaning from those actions and words. And that's okay.

It does not diminish the meaning that’s made in any way.

The ceremony does not make meaning. It only conveys meaning between people who have a pre-existing understanding of the symbology.

And the meaning that is formed and carried informs the participant of the meaning that is made.

As I said before, one does not interpret intended meaning. One interprets the actions and words, and then infers the intended meaning from those actions and words. And that's okay.