• 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!

Science IS religion

D

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
mikkel_the_dane said:
How subjective of you. You don't like that I challenge what ever it is you believe in.
Click to expand...

If you were challenging my beliefs i'd be telling you all about it. But i'm actually saying that you aren't challenging anything.

Solipsism is neither unique or new.

I think it's your ego speaking.

If we are to talk about objective reality, we need to agree on what that is and how that connects to evidence.
Click to expand...

No we don't. It's been decided for us. You cannot see this because you don't believe in objective evidence.

But to use the scientific method, you must necessarily make the assumption of methodological naturalism.

Science is a philosophy distinct from your philosophy. Muddying the waters does nothing. For you to be able to argue another, opposing view point, you must first understand your own and the relation of each.

You are trying to combine your philosophical views with methodological naturalism. It's not working due to the definitions of both philosophies.

Solipsism simply isn't compatible with naturalism. And it's not an insult. Your own description of reality paints you as a solipsist. A "valid" viewpoint. That happens to have nothing to do with science.

So what is science:
Click to expand...

Methodological naturalism.

So we don't talk about evidence and if it has limits. And we don't mention this about science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Or indeed not this about reason and truth and what ever.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3
Click to expand...

Of course it has limits as per methodological naturalism; It's opposite of solipsism which also has limits. You use solipsism to make claims of reality. Methodological naturalism doesn't concern with what's real, or reality, but what is evidenced. And that's it.

Metaphysics tries to concern itself with what's real. Your attempt at seeing science as the same thing really doesn't work. Because of limits and decisions concluded earlier as per consensus.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Darkstorn said:
...


No we don't. It's been decided for us. You cannot see this because you don't believe in objective evidence.

...
Click to expand...

I do believe in objective evidence. It just has a limit.
So not everything is decided for us with the use of objective evidence, because you can't decide on everything only using objective evidence.

BTW If I can get away with not believing in objective evidence, then it is not deiced by objective evidence alone.
 
D

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
mikkel_the_dane said:
I do believe in objective evidence. It just has a limit.
So not everything is decided for us with the use of objective evidence, because you can't decide on everything only using objective evidence.
Click to expand...

That's a limit of your understanding. People are perfectly capable of having a different world view which is the main point of my argument:

You are pitting a (limited) view against another, (limited) view. You aren't in a higher position to decide about reality, you're competing.

But methodological naturalists can and do decide everything based on objective evidence. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

Your ego is at fault, making you think you're a teacher when you're a student.

BTW If I can get away with not believing in objective evidence, then it is not deiced by objective evidence alone.
Click to expand...

But it also makes the opposite view equal. This is what you're being blinded to.

You have decided that your view is better than others.

But you not believing in objective ecidence alone does hinder you from being able to convince anyone in a scientific debate: You know, a debate based on the premises of a philosophical view opposite of yourself.

The standards of science ARE decided for you. You aren't equipped to challenge that. You don't understand what you're challenging.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Darkstorn said:
...
You are pitting a (limited) view against another, (limited) view. You aren't in a higher position to decide about reality, you're competing.

But methodological naturalists can and do decide everything based on objective evidence. Who are you to tell them otherwise?

...
Click to expand...

It can't be both.
And they can't decide everything based on objective evidence. There is e.g. no scientific/natural theory/law of morality and there is no objective evidence possible for how to act morally or do ethics.
So that is what I tell them. And I will shut up when they give objective evidence for everything. But so for they haven't been able to do that.
 
D

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
mikkel_the_dane said:
It can't be both.
Click to expand...

It can. If you make statements of certainty, you have to show it. Otherwise you've reached a conclusion prematurely.

And they can't decide everything based on objective evidence. There is e.g. no scientific/natural theory/law of morality and there is no objective evidence possible for how to act morally or do ethics.
Click to expand...

Wrong on all counts. Morality and ethics are inventions. I can base my morality and ethics on the phases of Venus if I want to.

You cannot stop me. There are limits but the limits you attempt to impose are disappointingly incredulous.

So that is what I tell them. And I will shut up when they give objective evidence for everything. But so for they haven't been able to do that.
Click to expand...

Didn't take you for a bigot. You haven't actually given any reason for people to consider you as anything but a joke. Your lack of effort and egotistical nature is laughable.

A student who thinks he's a teacher. :D

One more time: You are pitting a philosophical view against another, without understanding the view you're trying to argue against. Or even really your own. You didn't even know what solipsism was before making definite claims about it.

You are not correct, and you definitely are not equipped to handle a scientific discussion. Because science implies methodological naturalism, which you don't understand.

Please stop attacking other views, and try to explain yours in a way that is convincing. All this avoidance and bluster is really tiresome.
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
dad said:
No. If you claim no one killed the bird, and cooked the meal, or made the refrigerator then you would have beliefs. If you offered your claim of the origin of the food as science you would be engaged in pseudo science!

So if science says the chicken is a dino that came from a worm..etc...well, then we need some evidence.
Click to expand...
You are dodging (or don't understand) that I am simply using your definition of belief. You said anything that is a belief is a religion, therefore if I believe there is fried chicken in the refrigerator, that is a religion. Yes, it sounds stupid....but it is your definition, not mine.You said very clearly that a belief is a religion.
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
mikkel_the_dane said:
It can't be both.
And they can't decide everything based on objective evidence. There is e.g. no scientific/natural theory/law of morality and there is no objective evidence possible for how to act morally or do ethics.
So that is what I tell them. And I will shut up when they give objective evidence for everything. But so for they haven't been able to do that.
Click to expand...

Morals are based upon objective standards agreed upon by a society. They are subjective in nature until such objective standards are adopted. The question of whether they are scientifically derived is a red herring, since science deals with naturalism and not philosophical constructs.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Milton Platt said:
Morals are based upon objective standards agreed upon by a society. They are subjective in nature until such objective standards are adopted. The question of whether they are scientifically derived is a red herring, since science deals with naturalism and not philosophical constructs.
Click to expand...

And now we play with words:
Objective:
  • of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers
  • expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
Definition of OBJECTIVE

So philosophy is not a part of the natural world?
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Milton Platt said:
Morals are based upon objective standards agreed upon by a society. They are subjective in nature until such objective standards are adopted. The question of whether they are scientifically derived is a red herring, since science deals with naturalism and not philosophical constructs.
Click to expand...
I think that he wants to debate against a claim that no one is making. But with a tendency to ignore his errors I really do not care to directly respond to him.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Darkstorn said:
That's gibberish.

But even so, you'll only get me by actually addressing my posts, not ignoring most of what I say.
Click to expand...

You stated that there is objective evidence for everything, expect morality because that is an invention, yet morality is a part of everything, but has no objective evidence.
 
D

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
mikkel_the_dane said:
You stated that there is objective evidence for everything, expect morality because that is an invention, yet morality is a part of everything, but has no objective evidence.
Click to expand...

That's a lie. I never said anything like that. I never said there's objective evidence for everything. I said people can decide everything any way they want, including objective evidence.

I could base my morality on how many times a second a neutron star rotates if I chose to. This would make it entirely alien to you, but it'd be equally valid as any other reason.

But I can base them also on objective evidence alone if I choose to.
 
mikkel_the_dane

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Milton Platt said:
Perhaps I am confusing you with the original poster???

He said : Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion.

That is what I am addressing.
Click to expand...

:) It is a tangent about the limits of evidence.
If you want to I can argue that science is a religion, though not a supernatural one. It is a natural one with the belief that reality is natural.
Then there are the limits to evidence, reason and logic within the everyday world.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top