And you don't think those who view science as the ultimate arbiter of truth are guilty of trespassing into the domain of religion
Religion doesn't generate truth as I use the word. To call an idea true, correct, factual, actual, real, knowledge - any of that - there needs to be a demonstration that the idea is any of those, and that is done by predicting outcomes. Religion doesn't do that, and when it tries (prophecy), it fails.
You say that you have an accurate science of eclipses? If it never successfully predicts one, it's just astrology, and can only be believed by faith. That's the test, and religions don't pass it.
Think of it like the body/mind distinction. While it's useful to speak of these as separate domains, in reality they do in fact not only overlap, but they interpenetrate each other. These are artificial distinctions for discussion's sake, but not actualites. Same thing with science and religion.
Disagree, Science informs (Abrahamic) religion, but religion has no impact on the scientific method or its output. You obviously find value in religion, but many do not, even after reading such unevidenced, unargued claims about the value of religion to scientific thought. It's simply no part of science.
I hate to break this to you but most of your beliefs were learned on your parents' knees and has never been tested.
You're wrong. Why do you think you know that about me? Because it's true with many others? That's not reason enough. Because you think it's true for all people? It's not. The critical thinker's belief set is self-examined. It's essential to critical thought. Yes, once my head was filled with faith-based abstract beliefs, some true, some not, but I acquired them all passively from a trusted source and believed them uncritically at first.
Then, I learned a new way of thinking, and eventually reexamined those beliefs, discarding those lacking evidentiary support. One was that if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain. Sounds pithy until you evaluate it and recognize that there is no reason to accept that judgment, that it was received passively and believed uncritically, and so I no longer believe that.
I still believe religion is derived from natural science.
OK. I don't. The god of Abraham was the culmination of a process that transformed animal pantheons into human pantheons then one god. I understand that to represents man coming to realize that he was greater than the beasts he had once revered for their strength or speed or wings or whatever he admired and envied about them. He had intelligence, which trumped all of that, but that concept didn't always exist. That may be as close as these religions brush with nature or empiriicism. "Oh, we're more powerful than they are."
It appears that religion begins with an attempt to control nature through propitiation to animal gods initially, and then unseen gods. Thunder was understood as anger in the heavens. Epidemics were seen as demonic attacks. That's the grassroots aspect of religion. Then come the priests, the top-down aspect. Religion is a great way to control people and a great gig for the priest, who avoids the hot sun and manual labor. People come to him with money, so you can see where that's going to take off.
So what role does natural science play in this? Or maybe you consider this science.
I heard some say science is about making correlations. If true, why is anything treated as dogma
There is no dogma in science. You're confusing it with religion. Dogma comprises ideas offered as indisputable truth without sufficient evidentiary support. Science explicitly rejects such thinking. Nothing there is believed beyond what evidence supports, and always with a degree of tentativity and an amenability to modify scientific narratives when new discoveries require i
These areas of religion did not come from science, but had to come from another place. These studies are more concerned with the mind and consciousness; human nature. In this case, what they study are the neural landscapes of consciousness; below and beyond human.
It's my opinion that this "study" is sterile. Where are the valuable conclusions generated by any of this? You can offer none, right? I trust you will if you can but understand that if you can't, you won't be able to meet that challenge.
Science uses consciousness to do science. Consciousness is the most important tool of science. It is how we sense, perceived and extrapolate. How does science teach scientists to calibrate this important science tool, called consciousness.
These words don't have meaning for me. More specific language would be helpful. Exactly what are you talking about by calibrating consciousness? How does one go about that? What changes during this calibration, and what is used as a standard to do that? When I "calibrate" (tune) my guitar, what happens is that I twist mechanisms that tighten and loosen guitar strings. My standard is the digital equivalent of a tuning fork. A is 440 hertz. You've applied this language to some process that is vague to me, and I can't see how it applies. Can you clarify similarly, or is that just poetry or metaphor, like a wrinkle in time?
If someone wanted to do falsification studies, in terms of climate change science and theory, you are not welcome to do so
Sure they are. Nobody's stopping them.
This argument of exclusion is common with creationists, who envision a conspiratorial enclave of evolutionary scientists protecting their turf and their journals from challengers. You're not going there as well, are you? Science is open to everybody. If you need funding, then you'll need to convince others to provide that, but they're free to do that and you're free to do whatever studies you think need doing.
You may need to go to a place that can help you calibrate, such as a Temple, Church, Synagog, etc. Or maybe a medicine man who can tweak you mind.
I leave all of that to others who can find value there. My answers don't come from such sources. They have no answers as I mean the word. If your life is in upheaval and you can't mitigate that yourself, go see some kind of advisor. And if you have the resources - critical thinking skills - you can find them yourself. I have. Every belief I have has passed my test for belief. And do you know what? This method works. Along with the intuitions of conscience, this method has informed my life choices and given me a life I wouldn't trade for any other I could have lived instead. What advice to you have to offer such a person?
