Science and Religion: Allies Not Enemies

[lewisnotmiller]

You use all different defintions for choosing, freedom, subjectivity, objectivity, etc. That is the confusion.

Basically I define my conceptual scheme around the principle that in choosing there are several options available, any of which can be chosen. With this conceptual scheme, and words defined along these lines to be consistent with that principle, you are regarding what is good and evil as fact.

Wait, let me get this straight.
1) Use of different definitions for related concepts is too confusing.
2) Define your own scheme, and include in it self-serving definitions misrepresenting the other 'side'
3) Use said definitions in conversation and expect said people to understand them, agree with them, and realise they are borderline evil.

Amazing!
By this logic, I hereby declare God is a potato.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Wait, let me get this straight.
1) Use of different definitions for related concepts is too confusing.
2) Define your own scheme, and include in it self-serving definitions misrepresenting the other 'side'
3) Use said definitions in conversation and expect said people to understand them, agree with them, and realise they are borderline evil.

Amazing!
By this logic, I hereby declare God is a potato.

The standard definition of choosing was for the spirit or soul do the act of making a possibility, which is in the future, the present. It is not something I made up, you and evolutionists, atheists, materialists generally make up stuff about how choosing works, if at all you consider the issue, because mostly you just ignore choosing all together.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The standard definition of choosing was for the spirit or soul do the act of making a possibility, which is in the future, the present. It is not something I made up, you and evolutionists, atheists, materialists generally make up stuff about how choosing works, if at all you consider the issue, because mostly you just ignore choosing all together.

Interesting.

So by 'standard' you mean theological? Or pre-evolutionist or something?
I'd be interested in any sources you have for that.

The point is that all definitions are agreements between people, as indeed all language is.
Any belief that word meanings are timeless, or that definition drives fact are just...well, backwards, frankly. The words are labels for the concepts, not the other way around.

I know you won't listen to me, but a lot of the issues you have here in terms of meaningful discussion come down to how you constantly conflate terms with different meanings and treat them as if they are the same. This simply makes your pronouncements impossible to follow in any meaningful way, since you will interchange terms like evolutionist, scientist, scientism, materialism, and talk about free will versus determinism as if a single humans thoughts on this have any impact on the actuality of it.

Even more strangely, you want to draw boundaries around all these concepts, and make sure the evolutionists are on the other side of the fence from you, so you get this weird outcome where all evolutionists are hard determinists. And whenever someone tries to point out the fallacy of this, you simply go on the attack, telling them they're wrong, that they don't understand, whilst offering little meaningful discussion. More like a proscription that a conversation. There appears little nuance or deep understanding in any of it, frankly, and hence the single method of 'engagement'.

Don't worry, I'm not under any illusions you will try to respond to this in any meaningful way.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

See, where else you said "sadness" is subjective, and love is subjective, you still just measure love and sadness objectively in the brain.

You can not objectively measure something subjective; so what you are saying that I do is something that I know I can't do. How interesting is that ...

When you say subjective you don't mean reaching the conclusion by choosing it, you mean something like an observation related to the uniqueness of the observer, or whatever.

"Observation related to the uniqueness of the observer" is a pretty good definition of "subjective". I don't know what word to put to "reaching the conclusion by choosing it" because that makes no sense to me whatsoever. I reach a given conclusion based on evidence, opinions, my own subjective biases and previous conclusions, and a whole lot of other options. To say that I "choose" a conclusion sounds like I list out the possible conclusions and go "eenie meenie miny moe". Well, I don't. The conclusions I reach, the decisions I make, are based off which conclusion or decision makes the most sense. You do the same thing; you just, for some reason, pretend that you don't.

 

[Thief]

Actually, there have been several recent science documentary types programs...aimed at God.

guess some participants missed the show...

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Interesting.

So by 'standard' you mean theological? Or pre-evolutionist or something?
I'd be interested in any sources you have for that.

The point is that all definitions are agreements between people, as indeed all language is.
Any belief that word meanings are timeless, or that definition drives fact are just...well, backwards, frankly. The words are labels for the concepts, not the other way around.

I know you won't listen to me, but a lot of the issues you have here in terms of meaningful discussion come down to how you constantly conflate terms with different meanings and treat them as if they are the same. This simply makes your pronouncements impossible to follow in any meaningful way, since you will interchange terms like evolutionist, scientist, scientism, materialism, and talk about free will versus determinism as if a single humans thoughts on this have any impact on the actuality of it.

Even more strangely, you want to draw boundaries around all these concepts, and make sure the evolutionists are on the other side of the fence from you, so you get this weird outcome where all evolutionists are hard determinists. And whenever someone tries to point out the fallacy of this, you simply go on the attack, telling them they're wrong, that they don't understand, whilst offering little meaningful discussion. More like a proscription that a conversation. There appears little nuance or deep understanding in any of it, frankly, and hence the single method of 'engagement'.

Don't worry, I'm not under any illusions you will try to respond to this in any meaningful way.

That just shows you are all about how things seem, and come across, and don't have any grasp of the issues involved. There is no meanigful discusiion because the position of evolutionists, materialists, atheists, which are all interchangeable, is solely based on the habit of making good and evil a fact. They all define choosing as sorting out the best result, which means every time they make a decision then by the definition of the word decision that they use, they did the best. There is no rationality whatsoever in atheist, materialist, evolutionist discourse, it is only just wanting to protect this ego-tripping that they do.

You have no idea about freedom in the universe, how things can turn out several different ways, how things are chosen. And you will never have any knowledge about it, because it means you will have to give up the definition of choosing as meaning to sort out the best result. It is simply a fact that you have no knowledge about how any choosing works on an intellectual level in this sense where there are alternative courses of action available. That is why no meaningful discussion is ever possible with you about subjectivity, forming an opinion, expressing emotion, the spirit, and how good and evil are matters of opinion.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

You can not objectively measure something subjective; so what you are saying that I do is something that I know I can't do. How interesting is that ...

But you just said that finding out what emotions somebody has works by: "substantiating" and "evidence", and investigating "parts of the brain" and the "brain function", and that then you arrive at "fact".

So here is how objectivity works according to you: evidence forces to a conclusion resulting in a fact
And here is how subjectivity works according to you: evidence forces to a conclusion resulting in a fact.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That just shows you are all about how things seem, and come across, and don't have any grasp of the issues involved. There is no meanigful discusiion because the position of evolutionists, materialists, atheists, which are all interchangeable, is solely based on the habit of making good and evil a fact. They all define choosing as sorting out the best result, which means every time they make a decision then by the definition of the word decision that they use, they did the best. There is no rationality whatsoever in atheist, materialist, evolutionist discourse, it is only just wanting to protect this ego-tripping that they do.

You have no idea about freedom in the universe, how things can turn out several different ways, how things are chosen. And you will never have any knowledge about it, because it means you will have to give up the definition of choosing as meaning to sort out the best result. It is simply a fact that you have no knowledge about how any choosing works on an intellectual level in this sense where there are alternative courses of action available. That is why no meaningful discussion is ever possible with you about subjectivity, forming an opinion, expressing emotion, the spirit, and how good and evil are matters of opinion.

Way to prove my point, big fella.

 

[Thief]

So we have decided....science and theology can be happy with each other?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So we have decided....science and theology can be happy with each other?

If theologists would stop making scientific claims based on religious texts AND scientists stop making claims about deities, which it can neither prove nor disprove; then yes.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

If theologists would stop making scientific claims based on religious texts AND scientists stop making claims about deities, which it can neither prove nor disprove; then yes.

The only way science and religion can be at peace is by science accepting creationism. Because only creationism accepts subjectivity and objectivity as distinct fundamental categories in one integrated conceptual scheme. Otherwise science will always be encroaching on religion, wrongly trying to make matters of opinion into matters of fact. And the role of science in the holocaust should be the reason the scientific community accepts creationism, as the fact which establishes that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The only way science and religion can be at peace is by science accepting creationism. Because only creationism accepts subjectivity and objectivity as distinct fundamental categories in one integrated conceptual scheme. Otherwise science will always be encroaching on religion, wrongly trying to make matters of opinion into matters of fact. And the role of science in the holocaust should be the reason the scientific community accepts creationism, as the fact which establishes that freedom is real and relevant in the universe.

'...the role of science in the holocaust...'

Is this where you conflate sciencism, social Darwinism, evolution and...what were the others...oh, materialism and determinism together?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

'...the role of science in the holocaust...'

Is this where you conflate sciencism, social Darwinism, evolution and...what were the others...oh, materialism and determinism together?

All one and the same, an expression of people's common sin to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The idea that freedom is not real get's entirely more attention than is warranted based on the available evidence. It is ideology, a natural prejudice to view things as being forced, based on this temptation to regard good and evil as fact. And in the future they will say everybody in the 20th century was bonkers for not acknowledging freedom is real.

 

[crymer]

There's definitely a point to be made in that something divine could in fact be behind the universe's perfections (and imperfections). There's an interesting debate on this topic that I think some of you may be interested in. It's a discussion about whether science should prove the existence of God. Hope it's useful!

 

[Thief]

If theologists would stop making scientific claims based on religious texts AND scientists stop making claims about deities, which it can neither prove nor disprove; then yes.

and everyone knows....when it comes to spirit....there will never be any proof.
and everyone knows...science will continue to search how and why....corrections continually pending.

all comes together as we stand before God and heaven.
I think so anyway....

 

[paarsurrey]

They are not the enemies of each other. Each plays a part in society, and one should not be seen better then the other. They play, in fact, a complimentary role to each other, in a way one hand washes the other.

I agree with you.
Regards