Science IS religion

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't have to: the explanation is right there. If you want to understand methodological naturalism, maybe you should read about it. Try wikipedia.

Evasion noted.

Methodological Naturalism

Philosophical naturalism:
Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Google:
Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, scientific materialism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

The limit of methodological naturalism:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernaturalentities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

Wikipedia:

Steven Schafersman states that methodological naturalism is "the adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within the scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it ... science is not metaphysical and does not depend on the ultimate truth of any metaphysics for its success, but methodological naturalism must be adopted as a strategy or working hypothesis for science to succeed. We may therefore be agnostic about the ultimate truth of naturalism, but must nevertheless adopt it and investigate nature as if nature is all that there is."

 

[Darkstorn]

Evasion noted.

What evasion? I said people can decide their morality based on just about anything and you thought that means "there is evidence for everything." I was talking about people's decisions. Not there being objective evidence of everything.

There is obviously NO objective evidence for unfalsifiable concepts, like solipsism.

Methodological Naturalism

Philosophical naturalism:
Naturalism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Google:
Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism, philosophical naturalism, scientific materialism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements, principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.

The limit of methodological naturalism:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do


Wikipedia:

Problem: You are not a metaphysical naturalist. They cannot by definition believe in the supernatural, or deities. I made a mistake categorizing you.

You're a solipsist : person who sees the reality as NOT being independent of the mind.

You made this claim yourself.

 

[Darkstorn]

Oh and regarding evasion, you still haven't answered to over 90% of the content in my posts.

In effect, until you do account for everything, like i've done with you, you are evading. And dodging.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
You're a solipsist : person who sees the reality as NOT being independent of reality.

You made this claim yourself.

Yes, I am not independent of reality and nor are you. I believe we both exist as parts of reality.
Google: Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

I don't even know that I exist. I am skeptic and don't believe in knowledge like most people.
I believe in knowledge, but that is a belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh and regarding evasion, you still haven't answered to over 90% of the content in my posts.

In effect, until you do account for everything, like i've done with you, you are evading. And dodging.

I don't have to answer everything you write. You don't control me.

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes, I am not independent of reality and nor are you. I believe we both exist as parts of reality.

I meant to say solipsism: Idea that reality is NOT independent of the mind.

Google: Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

Look at the other definitions too. It also refers to people who hold reality to be interdependent of the mind. Methodological naturalism makes the opposite claim.

I don't even know that I exist. I am skeptic and don't believe in knowledge like most people.
I believe in knowledge, but that is a belief.

But yet you made definite claims of the objective and subjective earlier.

So it leads me to believe that you aren't realising your hypocrisy. I'll give you a hint: You just reduced your claims and arguments to a belief.

Which is what I was trying to do. So now we're at the point I wanted you in.

Good, NOW you understand my entire argument : It's that your claims of reality are beliefs and opinions.

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't have to answer everything you write. You don't control me.

I do control your reactions. My post made you type that.

But yeah, you don't have to. But then i'd expect consistency for your arguments and you not calling me an evader when you aren't willing to discuss everything I write...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I meant to say solipsism: Idea that reality is NOT independent of the mind.

I don't believe in this version of independent. The mind is a part of reality.

...

But yet you made definite claims of the objective and subjective earlier.

So it leads me to believe that you aren't realising your hypocrisy. I'll give you a hint: You just reduced your claims and arguments to a belief.

Which is what I was trying to do. So now we're at the point I wanted you in.

Good, NOW you understand my entire argument : It's that your claims of reality are beliefs and opinions.

Yes, we are debating different worldviews and they all end up as different beliefs.
Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

• The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

I use different accepted precepts than you. I use different rules(beliefs) than you for some aspects of reality.
Now they seem to work, because apparently we are communicating. Truth is to me, what appears to work. I don't believe in empiricism alone, rationalism alone nor foundationalism alone. I am in effect pragmatic when it comes to truth, reason, logic, evidence and what not.

Now you can't control me, because I can behave differently that you want me to. Including limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism. I don't have to be like you one to one to be a part of reality and you don't have to be like me.

Good, that you get me. I am a believer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I do control your reactions. My post made you type that.

But yeah, you don't have to. But then i'd expect consistency for your arguments and you not calling me an evader when you aren't willing to discuss everything I write...

I don't have to discuss everything you write.
Now the part about objective evidence for everything I might get back to.

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't believe in this version of independent. The mind is a part of reality.

NOT independent. We have a language problem. Next time read before you respond.



...

Now they seem to work, because apparently we are communicating. Truth is to me, what appears to work.

You keep misreading and ignoring what I say. I say we're communicating very poorly.

And it seems our definition of "appears to work" are different because you aren't understanding what i'm saying.

How is that communicating?

I don't believe in empiricism alone, rationalism alone nor foundationalism alone. I am in effect pragmatic when it comes to truth, reason, logic, evidence and what not.

Now you can't control me, because I can behave differently that you want me to. Including limited cognitive, moral and cultural relativism. I don't have to be like you one to one to be a part of reality and you don't have to be like me.

Good, that you get me. I am a believer.

You can believe in whatever. But the way you were using your beliefs in a debate really wasn't working. Case in point:Yout beliefs seem to be inconsistent and you don't even understand half the concepts you're trying to argue.

You say you're not a solipsist. But you STILL don't know what it means.

 

[Darkstorn]

I don't have to discuss everything you write.
Now the part about objective evidence for everything I might get back to.

True. But you called me an evader, yet you are evading half of what I say at least. You didn't even understand the part about objective evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

You can believe in whatever. But the way you were using your beliefs in a debate really wasn't working. Case in point: Your beliefs seem to be inconsistent and you don't even understand half the concepts you're trying to argue.
...

Doesn't work for you. That is the point. Reality is not just about you nor me. So I just show you that I do it differently and that you don't like.
Solipsism:

Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds
Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that "I am the only mind which exists," or "My mental states are the only mental states."

https://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

I don't believe that and I do believe you have a mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

True. But you called me an evader, yet you are evading half of what I day at least. You didn't even understand the pet about objective evidence.

It is late in the state of Denmark. Good night. More later.

 

[Darkstorn]

Doesn't work for you. That is the point.

You said we were communicating. It involves more than one person.

So clearly you aren't very good at making points.

Reality is not just about you nor me. So I just show you that I do it differently and that you don't like.

But you're the one who came into a thread to challenge what others mean with evidence. You.

You don't get to cry when I do it to you.

Also the only reason i'm doing this is because I enjoy it. Your philosophy has failed, now you're only arguing tangential excuses and nothing more.

You have failed to address even half the content of my posts. Maybe you don't like it?

Egotistical novice.

Solipsism:

https://www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

I don't believe that and I do believe you have a mind.

There are multiple definitions. You're ignoring mine and cherry picking. It refers to a philosophical view AND a mental health issue. But they aren't the same thing. Similar result though.

It also refers to people who are claiming that reality is NOT independent of the mind. You simply don't understand what i'm saying.

 

[Darkstorn]

It is late in the state of Denmark. Good night. More later.

Then you'll have time to reply to the stuff you evaded and ignored. If you won't, give me one reason not to think of you as a joke.

Here's a little info dump on solipsism. Specifically, the form you seem to adhere to:

Methodological solipsism - Wikipedia

1. Methodological solipsism is the epistemological thesis that the individual self and its states are the sole possible or proper starting point for philosophical construction (Wood, 295). A skeptical turn along these lines is Cartesian skepticism.
2. Methodological solipsism is the thesis that the mental properties or mental states of an organism can be individuated exclusively on the basis of that state or property's relations with other internal states of the organism itself, without any reference to the society or the physical world in which the organism is embedded.

And from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

There are varying degrees of solipsism that parallel the varying degrees of skepticism:

Metaphysical solipsism
Main article: Metaphysical solipsism
Metaphysical solipsism is a variety of solipsism. Based on a philosophy of subjective idealism, metaphysical solipsists maintain that the self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence.[citation needed] There are several versions of metaphysical solipsism, such as Caspar Hare's egocentric presentism (or perspectival realism), in which other people are conscious, but their experiences are simply not present.[citation needed]

Epistemological solipsism
Further information: Epistemological solipsism
Epistemological solipsism is the variety of idealism according to which only the directly accessible mental contents of the solipsistic philosopher can be known. The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question rather than actually false.[2] Further, one cannot also be certain as to what extent the external world exists independently of one's mind. For instance, it may be that a God-like being controls the sensations received by one's brain, making it appear as if there is an external world when most of it (excluding the God-like being and oneself) is false. However, the point remains that epistemological solipsists consider this an "unresolvable" question.[2]

Methodological solipsism
Main article: Methodological solipsism
Methodological solipsism is an agnostic variant of solipsism.[citation needed] It exists in opposition to the strict epistemological requirements for "knowledge" (e.g. the requirement that knowledge must be certain). It still entertains the points that any induction is fallible. Methodological solipsism sometimes goes even further to say that even what we perceive as the brain is actually part of the external world, for it is only through our senses that we can see or feel the mind. Only the existence of thoughts is known for certain.

Importantly, methodological solipsists do not intend to conclude that the stronger forms of solipsism are actually true. They simply emphasize that justifications of an external world must be founded on indisputable facts about their own consciousness. The methodological solipsist believes that subjective impressions (empiricism) or innate knowledge (rationalism) are the sole possible or proper starting point for philosophical construction.[3] Often methodological solipsism is not held as a belief system, but rather used as a thought experiment to assist skepticism (e.g. Descartes' Cartesian skepticism).

TLDR: Solipsism is a real philosophical view, and there are varying degrees of skepticism in them, and varying degrees of rationality. They are valid in the context of trying to answer reality.

But combining it with methodological naturalism is... Pointless. Forms of solipsism argue that nothing can truly be known independent of your own thoughts, and even then it might be suspect: Which means any argument for any kind of anything ever is *pointless on a practical level*. I.E If you mix that with science, you get:

"Why bother with science? We can't really know anything, except our own thoughts, and even then it's suspect."

It's incompatible with science, which assumes methodological naturalism instead of solipsism. You cannot combine them and argue about the SAME thing. They are addressing different issues.

Methodological naturalism concerns itself with what is evidenced, while solipsism is a way to try and answer "what is reality." Naturalism tends not to make THAT kind of a definite claim to begin with.

 

[dad]

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.

Not really 'anything' Some people hold mild beliefs that are seldom thought of. The doctrines of evolution are beliefs that are religiously enforced in education, and fanatically defended, and reverenced ritually, as well as worshiped as responsible for life on earth!

 

[dad]

If you want to I can argue that science is a religion, though not a supernatural one.

Far as most know, this is the case. However I might argue that that religion has a spiritual origin and inspiration.

 

[Darkstorn]

Far as most know, this is the case. However I might argue that that religion has a spiritual origin and inspiration.

I know i'll regret this, asking a serious question from a last thursdayist, but here goes:

What kind of a spiritual origin and inspiration does science have?

Not really 'anything' Some people hold mild beliefs that are seldom thought of. The doctrines of evolution are beliefs that are religiously enforced in education, and fanatically defended, and reverenced ritually, as well as worshiped as responsible for life on earth!

When you rave like this, i'm tempted to say you're being fanatical. And a wee bit delusional too. You obviously have lots of opinions of schooling and science... But no experience.

Your language usage is word-for-word analogous to a witch hunter.

 

[gnostic]

You don't seem to get the basic concept of time itself being different. In our time and space time exists in a certain way.

Whoa, dad.

Before you go on, first off.

When you say time were different in the past, then you need to present when time have change, like the date of when this transition occurred.

Was it 4500 years ago? 6000 years ago? 10,000? A million years ago? A billion years?

When, dad?

Once you have done that, given a date of when time used in modern era were different from time you believe to be different, then you need to present evidences that what you have claimed to be true.

Because you are the one who think and believe that time were different to the time we are currently using now, then the burden of proof falls on you.

Otherwise, your claim about times being different, are just your baseless personal opinions.

You have never presented any evidence for such transitions to time working differently. All you have done is make a claim, argue with anyone disagree with you, but when others have persistently ask you for evidences, you merely evade and run away. And worse still, you will make the same claims again later on in the thread, and still refusing to present a single evidence.

And it is the same with argument with Truly Enlightened about forces being different to forces of today:

All matter here on earth and the area of the solar system is affected by the current forces of nature, yes. Of course. The issue is NOT whether forces that exist affect matter, but what forces used to exist!

Naturally the laws of nature are synced. That does not mean they are eternal.

Like with “time”, you need to present a date of when that changes to forces have happened, and then you need explain the forces are different in the past, and lastly show evidences that back up your claims.

Without the evidences to back your claims that forces were different (eg when and how), then your claims are nothing more than your personal opinions.

But your track records showed that you were never able to present any evidence. All you have done in the past, make claims that things were different, shift the burden upon who disagree with you, thereby presenting no evidences, and then run away, and start again elsewhere in the thread, repeating the same pointless dance.

 

[dad]

What kind of a spiritual origin and inspiration does science have?

If one believes in spirits, and if one accepts the bible, there are only two choices. The Good Guy or the bad guy. So we ask, does it agree with Genesis and the rest of the bible on creation? The answer is, no, of course not it is diametrically opposed.

That should tell us what influence of a spiritual nature origins- pseudo sciences get inspiration from.


From a biblical perspective, we are told that in the end of man's time ruling the earth, such doctrines would abound.

"1Ti 4:1 -Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

Breaking it down more precisely for meaning, seducing means this in Greek.

"wandering, roving

1. misleading, leading into error
   1. a vagabond, "tramp", imposter
   2. corrupter, deceiver"

And doctrines means this

"teaching, instruction

1. teaching
   1. that which is taught, doctrine
   2. teachings, precepts"