Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!

[Windwalker]

OK. I do. You continually tell me that you disagree with me, but your reasons don't convince. They're usually unevidenced.

Name anything I say that I haven't offered support for? Unevidenced, my butt. I provide you supporting links, you don't appear to look at them, in that you never specifically challenge anything from them, or offer evidence that you actually understand my position (that to me is very much unevidenced on your part), or you "skim" over them without truly digging into the meat of what I am saying.

I always support my position, but if those supports are just skimmed over or ignored, and then I hear you say "They're usually unevidenced", I cry a major foul. It becomes pointless for me, honestly. It's not really a discussion.

Then we agree. Foe me, the measure of a correct idea is its ability to accurately predict outcomes. Another is the inability of others to rebut it successfully.

Once again, I offer what I have many times before to demonstrate how "truth" is a hell of a lot more complex and nuanced and far reaching a topic than your narrowly defined idea of it, which happens to neatly support your beliefs. But that comes at the expense of ignoring all this.

Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

If you wish to have a discussion about this, then by all means dig into the supporting material I'm offering.

I skimmed over it and saw nothing eye-catching or useful appearing there. If you disagree, what?

The entire idea of "naive realism", for starters. That is the position I have always taken, and that our ideas of "truth" are in most ways self-referential because of the way language works, and the way our modes of thinking frame the actual questions themselves. Point being, "truth" or "reality" is a hell of a lot more messy that these neat little boxes we wish to reduce it down into for our puny minds to feel secure we have an actual grasp on reality in the big scheme of things.

When you begin to understand how language shapes the way we see the world, forms the types of questions we ask, filters out what doesn't fit into it, only sees what it can attempt to rationally understand and discards the rest, then the ego congratulates itself in its "truth claims", you might begin to see how I can recognize that in its own right, it's all a type of theology anyway.

But it's hard to get there when we filtered out any of the material I am sharing with all my supporting links and references, offering evidence to everything I am saying. Name it, I'll support it. Try me.

There is no religious truth as I use the word.

And that of course is the problem. As you limit the possible to how you want to define it. Read my new signature lines:

"The limits of my language means the limits of my world"

Can you explain me how that statement above is or is not true to you? Do you understand the meaning and where it is coming from and the basis for saying it?

I wrote, "religion has no impact on the scientific method or its output." Your words don't rebut that. Mere dissent accompanied by a noncontradictory statement isn't dialectic.

It's not mere discent. I explained in detail how it has an impact on our sciences. Did you understand the meaning of my saying that culture is the atmosphere "in which we live and move and have our being"? Can you explain to me the meaning I was trying to communicate with that, to show that you are comprehending what I am offering as evidence support of my arguments? Can you explain it back to me?

What you wrote could be true and I could be correct at the same time. Religion has impacted me, but still might have had any discernible impact on the scientific method or its output. You have given me no reason to change my position.

I have, but I don't think you understand the reasoning.

Once again, we don't use that word in the same way. "A piece of the truth" isn't meaningful to me.

Well, that is a problem. Do you not understand the idea of how multiple perspectives offer a more complete picture of the whole, when no one view can really say?

 

[YmirGF]

it’s sad that he had to bring up something that are pseudoscience.

other than on the OP, he have no new examples to show how science proves the accuracy of religions.

I think you and I got our fill of this sort with thing in the "Miracles in the Qur'an" threads of yesteryear. At least our Muslim friends presented an interesting case instead of garden variety hubris.

 

[YmirGF]

"The limits of my language means the limits of my world"

Can you explain me how that statement above is or is not true to you? Do you understand the meaning and where it is coming from and the basis for saying it?

I, for one, would love to hear more of this idea.

Well, that is a problem. Do you not understand the idea of how multiple perspectives offer a more complete picture of the whole, when no one view can really say?

It's like in my groups, I am a part of. I get different perspectives from many different people and that is helpful in dealing with situations. It doesn't make me smarter, but it does give me different ways to look at events I would not normally consider -- which does expand my thinking. As a small bonus, this also adds to problem-solving given that I have more options. If that is not what you are meaning, I'll just shut up.

 

[gnostic]

While I too find the OP's claims to be wildly overstated, I'll play devil's advocate here on a few points. To say religious philosophies are well ahead of science may be not entirely untrue. Science isn't about philosophy, while religion clearly is. So it's not inappropriate to say that the insights of religion, say into the human condition, or the nature of living a happier and fuller life might well be ahead of what science, which typically is narrowly focused on the components of how things work and cannot see big picture views and offer practical guidance of living.

Science does not really offer an holistic view of life, let alone offer a cohesive system that touches all areas of life. Religion is something that societies and cultures evolved that naturally addresses life in this way, not flawlessly, but at least is "ahead" of science in doing that. Science being viewed as offering this first place, is a bit of a misunderstanding of what science is and does.

It is true that Natural Sciences and Physical Sciences used Falsifiability and Scientific Method to test their models (explanatory models, predictive models, mathematical models within hypotheses and existing theories) using observations (experiments & evidence plus data) to verify or refute the models.

But these types of sciences only focused on natural and physical realities, not on human nature (such as human behaviours, human cultures, human politic, etc). Physical Sciences included physics and chemistry and the roles they they played in Earth science and astronomy, as well as anything relating to technology (eg computers). Natural Sciences also included physics, chemistry, Earth science and astronomy as physical sciences do, minus the technology side, but including Life Sciences (anything biology-related).

The studies of human social interactions (including human nature) are under the umbrella of Social Sciences (eg psychology, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, political science, economics, ethics, and whole lot more), and to the non-scientific studies of Humanities (eg languages, literature, art, musics, history, morals, etc).

of course there are some overlap between Physical & Natural, or Natural & Social, etc.

For instance, archaeology may fall under Social Science, but a great deal of archaeology involved translating texts, so the Humanities’ languages, like philology. And when you are dating ancient objects, like with radiometric dating method like radiocarbon, you would require some knowledge of nuclear physics (radioactive isotopes) that is found in physics of physical & natural sciences. Likewise, there are overlaps between that of behavioural and emotional (social) and neuroscience (biology, therefore natural sciences) and medical treatment for those who have some sorts of disorders ( biochemistry, therefore physical & natural sciences).

The points that if you want to study human societies and cultures, you would go through sciences in social sciences (eg anthropology or sociology), not in sciences that fall under natural sciences.

It all depends upon what you study.

@AnthonyGiarrusso have image of shark, which would come under zoology that only focusing on shark biology, hence that would fall under the natural sciences category.

However, Anthony had also bring up “ghost science“ in the OP plus image of the ouija board. None of that falls into any science whatsoever, not even in Social Sciences category, let alone in Natural Sciences.

Natural Sciences only focuses on what exist in nature, and not on anything “supernatural”, which would include spirits and ghosts. Natural Sciences don’t focus on anything that are not falsifiable and testable.

In the past, they did try to set up studies into the paranormal with “parapsychology“, which covered apparitions (eg ghosts) among others (the various woo-woo “psychic powers”), but most people now consider parapsychology as pseudoscience.

if you want to side with Anthony on ghost science, be my guest. Everyone are entitled to their beliefs, but there are no such thing as ghost science. If ouija board is the best Anthony’s “science” can come up then this thread has fallen into the rabbit hole.

 

[Windwalker]

I, for one, would love to hear more of this idea.

There is a ton to unpack in that statement, "The limits of my language means the limits of my world". We start with the basic understanding that all understandings of reality are a mediated affair. Everything we conceive about reality, and our experience of reality, is filtered through both our senses and translated through our mental maps and models of what it is. Those mental maps, or conceptual framework, are constructed of the symbols of our language.

A "tree" is a word we call an experience of an object in the world in how it appears to us. It becomes a tree to us, and is a tree and nothing but a tree once we understand it by that word, or name. By naming it, we place a boundary around it. We place a limitation upon it. We reduce that object to our mental model of it. And, therefore the actual reality of it, which may well go beyond our understanding of the word "tree" itself, becomes unseen, limited, and filtered out.

All of our experience of all of reality is affected like this. What we call things in our world, become those things to us. We replace their actualities with our mental representations of them. In so doing, we don't see them as they are, we see them as they appear to us through these mental constructs. We aren't seeing them in reality. We are seeing our ideas of them. We are interfacing with them, through the mediator, or filters of our own mind and it's mental maps and models. And we do all this completely unaware of this. We simply assume what we are seeing and thinking about it, is what it really is.

Now, it's obvious to see how that can become quite limiting. If our ideas about something are narrow or tightly constrained, and in concrete literal terms, then reality to us is experienced as narrow and tightly constrained and in concrete, black and white ways. If our recognition of these structures becomes more recognized as simply constructs to be held lightly and more porous and subtle and nuanced in nature,then our experience of reality itself becomes more porous, fluid, dynamic, and open like that.

What keeps coming to mind here is a quote from the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.​

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.​

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.​

The named is the mother of ten thousand things.​

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.​

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.​

Why is it when one practices meditation and quiets this discursive, active, thinking, naming mind, that awareness of reality increases to us? Simply because we are deactivating that linguist, naming filters of the mind that we constantly see and experience reality through and as.

The more we practice this, "being present in the moment", which means to get out of that naming and labeling linguistic mind, the wider, deeper, expansive, and truer our connection and realization of reality beyond what we thought we knew inside of "thought world", becomes. Ultimately, this leads to Enlightenment itself.

It's like in my groups, I am a part of. I get different perspectives from many different people and that is helpful in dealing with situations. It doesn't make me smarter, but it does give me different ways to look at events I would not normally consider -- which does expand my thinking.

Absolutely, and this is why. First, by recognizing that your thoughts and ideas and perceptions of reality are not factually true, and all the accompanying evidences you seek to find to support this belief are largely to justify the ego's beliefs in its positionalities, results in the first taste of humility, or laying down the energy of the ego which seeks to defends its position of rightness at all costs. Humility is the key that unlocks that door of willingness to consider other perceptions than our own. And once we do that, we begin to expand our awareness.

Now consider that as layers of an onion. That's the first layer. Then we keep pulling back layer after layer after layer of obstructions of the mind, that while useful for discerning a functional system we have to navigate in order to survive in a social world, had become calcified and hardened, fixed, structures that replace that innate innocence or openness of consciousness itself, with a projection of our own egos, and ends up limiting us in our experience of reality. "The limits of my language means the limits of my world".

That is the world of illusion that the mystics talk about, that when you have that Awakening experience, becomes readily apparent. What we thought was reality, what was reality to us, what we were sure about was reality because that's how we saw it, turned out to be nothing but an illusion of the mind.

Now comes the 2nd quote from my signature line, "Our intelligence has fallen under the bewitchment of language and we have deceived ourselves into thinking we know what we are talking about." Sometimes we can become so sophisticated in our maps and models, or confidence in our science and rationality, that that egoic mind becomes even more entrenched in self-assurance its ideas are right, given all of its evidences it can lay claim to.

While these may be truly useful, they can also have the effect of calcifying or hardening this illusion of the mind. "I know my thoughts are reality itself, because I have science!". Beware the ego and it's weapons of self-preservation.

As a small bonus, this also adds to problem-solving given that I have more options. If that is not what you are meaning, I'll just shut up.

It definitely does help with problem solving. The more we do this, the greater the inclusiveness of our perceptions, the more we can draw from in navigating life with less effort and greater freedom. Less energy spent in conflict, means greater joy in the moment. Simple really, but it takes a great deal to patient dedication to crack the shell of that coconut to get to the juicy meat inside.

BTW, this post here contains a link and some brief snippets that talk about about this in my discussion about "naive realism" in the context of the philosophy of science. It fully applies to what I said above. Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!

 

[cladking]

There is a ton to unpack in that statement, "The limits of my language means the limits of my world". We start with the basic understanding that all understandings of reality are a mediated affair. Everything we conceive about reality, and our experience of reality, is filtered through both our senses and translated through our mental maps and models of what it is. Those mental maps, or conceptual framework, are constructed of the symbols of our language.

A "tree" is a word we call an experience of an object in the world in how it appears to us. It becomes a tree to us, and is a tree and nothing but a tree once we understand it by that word, or name. By naming it, we place a boundary around it. We place a limitation upon it. We reduce that object to our mental model of it. And, therefore the actual reality of it, which may well go beyond our understanding of the word "tree" itself, becomes unseen, limited, and filtered out.

All of our experience of all of reality is affected like this. What we call things in our world, become those things to us. We replace their actualities with our mental representations of them. In so doing, we don't see them as they are, we see them as they appear to us through these mental constructs. We aren't seeing them in reality. We are seeing our ideas of them. We are interfacing with them, through the mediator, or filters of our own mind and it's mental maps and models. And we do all this completely unaware of this. We simply assume what we are seeing and thinking about it, is what it really is.

Now, it's obvious to see how that can become quite limiting. If our ideas about something are narrow or tightly constrained, and in concrete literal terms, then reality to us is experienced as narrow and tightly constrained and in concrete, black and white ways. If our recognition of these structures becomes more recognized as simply constructs to be held lightly and more porous and subtle and nuanced in nature,then our experience of reality itself becomes more porous, fluid, dynamic, and open like that.

What keeps coming to mind here is a quote from the first chapter of the Tao Te Ching.

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.​

The name that can be named is not the eternal name.​

The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.​

The named is the mother of ten thousand things.​

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.​

Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.​

Why is it when one practices meditation and quiets this discursive, active, thinking, naming mind, that awareness of reality increases to us? Simply because we are deactivating that linguist, naming filters of the mind that we constantly see and experience reality through and as.

The more we practice this, "being present in the moment", which means to get out of that naming and labeling linguistic mind, the wider, deeper, expansive, and truer our connection and realization of reality beyond what we thought we knew inside of "thought world", becomes. Ultimately, this leads to Enlightenment itself.

Absolutely, and this is why. First, by recognizing that your thoughts and ideas and perceptions of reality are not factually true, and all the accompanying evidences you seek to find to support this belief are largely to justify the ego's beliefs in its positionalities, results in the first taste of humility, or laying down the energy of the ego which seeks to defends its position of rightness at all costs. Humility is the key that unlocks that door of willingness to consider other perceptions than our own. And once we do that, we begin to expand our awareness.

Now consider that as layers of an onion. That's the first layer. Then we keep pulling back layer after layer after layer of obstructions of the mind, that while useful for discerning a functional system we have to navigate in order to survive in a social world, had become calcified and hardened, fixed, structures that replace that innate innocence or openness of consciousness itself, with a projection of our own egos, and ends up limiting us in our experience of reality. "The limits of my language means the limits of my world".

That is the world of illusion that the mystics talk about, that when you have that Awakening experience, becomes readily apparent. What we thought was reality, what was reality to us, what we were sure about was reality because that's how we saw it, turned out to be nothing but an illusion of the mind.

Now comes the 2nd quote from my signature line, "Our intelligence has fallen under the bewitchment of language and we have deceived ourselves into thinking we know what we are talking about." Sometimes we can become so sophisticated in our maps and models, or confidence in our science and rationality, that that egoic mind becomes even more entrenched in self-assurance its ideas are right, given all of its evidences it can lay claim to.

While these may be truly useful, they can also have the effect of calcifying or hardening this illusion of the mind. "I know my thoughts are reality itself, because I have science!". Beware the ego and it's weapons of self-preservation.


It definitely does help with problem solving. The more we do this, the greater the inclusiveness of our perceptions, the more we can draw from in navigating life with less effort and greater freedom. Less energy spent in conflict, means greater joy in the moment. Simple really, but it takes a great deal to patient dedication to crack the shell of that coconut to get to the juicy meat inside.

BTW, this post here contains a link and some brief snippets that talk about about this in my discussion about "naive realism" in the context of the philosophy of science. It fully applies to what I said above. Science Proves Religions of the World To Be Accurate!

Most remarkable post. And highly apropos since all of its vast truth is wholly invisible to any belief at all and especially to belief in science.

It is impossible to see reality at all except in bits and fragments of experiment if one uses nothing but a scientific perspective. Even theory requires the construction of a paradigm to frame it.

It's not really religion that has discovered all these truths but rather a religious perspective of all theory and knowledge. One doesn't necessarily need a religious perspective but one must have humility and a philosophy. "Humility" is something found lacking in virtually all homo omnisciencis. And THAT is exactly why I refer to us as homo omnisciencis. We are NOTHING if not "all-knowing".

Thanks.

 

[Valjean]

And you don't think those who view science as the ultimate arbiter of truth are guilty of trespassing into the domain of religion, and make assertions of faith out to be assertions of facts?

The scientific method isthe gold standard of investigative modalities. It generally stays in its lane. The issues legitimately addressed by religion don't have the testable, factual base that science relies on for its investigative methods. Even if it wanted to, science could not measure or test the abstractions in religion's bailiwick.

It's religion that makes factual assertions about objective truth, trespassing into science's realm. Its assertions are not based on investigation or observation, but on faith in revelation.
They become annoyed when this is pointed out, and accuse science and secularists of persecuting them, since they have no rational or logical rebuttal.

As I said, I really don't believe there is such a thing as non-overlapping magisteria, because the overlap in the humans beings who are looking into both of them.

Empirical fact and and abstract values and principles seem different, to me.

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. It's useful to make a distinction, but in reality, in practice, because we are human beings, both are integrated into us. They overlap in us. It's inescapable.

Just because both are part of life doesn't make both the same thing.

 

[Valjean]

Primitive man believed that infectious diseases were caused by spirits: invisible entities that invaded the body and caused harm.

We're much smarter now. Now we know that infectious diseases are caused by microbes (invisible entities that invade the body and cause harm).

We're not "smarter." We're more informed -- by facts discovered by science; discoveries vigorously resisted, initially, by the faithful for a long time.

 

[Quagmire]

We're not "smarter." We're more informed -- by facts discovered by science; discoveries vigorously resisted, initially, by the faithful for a long time.

Yay us.

(Will try to respond to this when I have more time).

 

[cladking]

The scientific method isthe gold standard of investigative modalities.

Yes. We have no choice but to use science and reason to seek truth. But every single truth discovered by science is fragmentary. Religion is not.

 

[cladking]

...by facts discovered by science; discoveries vigorously resisted, initially, by the faithful for a long time.

Indeed! Science changes one funeral at a time. Religion "evolves" based on reason and science.

 

[Windwalker]

The scientific method isthe gold standard of investigative modalities. It generally stays in its lane.

Who doesn't stay in that lane is those who elevate science as the answer for everything. That was what and who I was referring to when I said, "And you don't think those who view science as the ultimate arbiter of truth are guilty of trespassing into the domain of religion, and make assertions of faith out to be assertions of facts?"

I wasn't pointing a finger at science, per se. I was, as I most always am, very deliberate and specific in my word choices. "Those who view science as...."

Now as far as science being the "gold standard for investigative modalities", is that actually true? Care to explain how science helps you interpret Shakespeare? Care to explain how science helps you investigate ultimate meaning and purpose to life? I'd argue that science is the dullest tool in the box when it comes to anything beyond studying the material world.

The issues legitimately addressed by religion don't have the testable, factual base that science relies on for its investigative methods.

And why exactly does that matter? Who's asking science to tell us what religion is supposed to? I know atheists seem to think it is more capable, and that it does in fact do a better job of it. Hence, why I said what I did above. "And you don't think those who view science as the ultimate arbiter of truth are guilty of trespassing into the domain of religion, and make assertions of faith out to be assertions of facts?"

Even if it wanted to, science could not measure or test the abstractions in religion's bailiwick.

Then why are atheists constantly asking theists to provide material evidences, as if religion is doing science, and science is doing religion?

It's religion that makes factual assertions about objective truth, trespassing into science's realm.

Confused fundamentalist do this. And confused atheists who see religion as nothing but bad science. In both cases, this is bad religion and bad science.

Its assertions are not based on investigation or observation, but on faith in revelation.

Not true. Buddhism most certainly is based upon investigation and observation and experimentation as well. It is not a "revelation" religion. Only the Abrahamic religions look to divine "revelation". But even then, those who have actual mystical practices, don't rely on revelation. Their faith is replaced by experience.

That's honestly where I come from. Not revelation, nor faith, but experience - or "empirical evidence" of what I experience.

They become annoyed when this is pointed out, and accuse science and secularists of persecuting them, since they have no rational or logical rebuttal.

Well, the problem is this. When they atheist can point out how that these fundamentalists are doing bad science, the atheist then congratulates himself that they have disproven faith in God. That's where they have just confused the difference between what religion does and what science does. They have "trespassed", and erred in confusing religion as just immature science.

Empirical fact and and abstract values and principles seem different, to me.

That doesn't mean the two don't commingle in your thought processes.

Just because both are part of life doesn't make both the same thing.

Never said they were the same thing. I was again, clear and purposeful in my word choices: "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."

Nowhere in what I said can you construe I meant they are the same thing. They are domains or areas or influence or function, but they are not separate from each other in actual reality. The mind affects the body, and the body affects the mind. They are not separated by impenetrable walls.

Hence why this idea of "non-overlapping magisteria", is a great idea on paper, but in reality, because we are humans and both exist in us, they do and will overlap, interpenetrate, and inform one another. This is reality.

 

[Valjean]

Every other species is programmed by nature itself. This didn't work for homo sapiens because the programming is metaphysical in nature and it became far too complex for individuals to understand.

No, it's genetic/biochemical in nature, programmed by natural selection.

It did work for hominins.

It does. Our tribalism is manifest, but it's overlain by culture, which is learned, and enables us to function in large, diverse groups. Unfortunately, it's a very thin veneer

Well, yes. When you narrowly define a word to mean only what you allow it to mean, then of course your perspective will always be right. However, I don't see your definitions of words like truth, religion, faith, and so forth to match reality in the complex seascape of human realities.

By "truth" I mean ontological truth, which is semantically appropriate to serious discussions.
Truth does not mean opinion, belief, or probability.
Religion -- Very abstract and polyguous. It does need clarification when context generates ambiguity or straw men. If my meaning is unclear, just ask for clarification.
Faith. -- As used both in both secular parlance and philosophy, it refers to unjustified or poorly evidenced belief, as semantic analysis would show. Subsitute "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" for "faith" in almost any written exemplar and the sentence would make no sense.

According to you. I disagree. Truth is largely measured by utility. Does it provide useful direction? Is it a useable map? Then it conveys truth.

How does utility have anything to do with truth? Is a useful device more true than a useless one? Truth is congruence with ontological reality.
This is not to say that facts may not be used for practical purposes.

I'm not sure if you'll take the time to read this, but this goes to the heart of my arguments against these narrow views of reality as only scientific facts are truth.

Noõne claims this. Truth just is. Science endeavors to discover it.
When science makes a claim, it's an empirically evidenced claim of factual truth, open to modification as new evidence comes to light.

It's in the context of the use and language of metaphors in science, but it touches on what I mean to say that all of it is metaphors. We create maps with the language of science, just as we create maps with the language of myth and religious symbolism. They each are speaking truths.

Unless you understand the meaning of this discussion you can follow in the article, then you'll never understand why I am saying what I am in all of my posts consistently. Science is based in metaphor | Andrew Reynolds

I like the article, and understand that scientists use metaphors and idioms in speech. I also understand that language can paint a Whorfian picture of reality. But that's what the scientific method seeks to overcome, with testing, peer review and mathematial reduction. Within its magesterium, science is the best common and communicable investigational modality we have.https://iai.tv/articles/all-science-is-based-in-metaphor-auid-1809

Religion doesn't speak scientific truths. Nor does science speak religious truths. It is just as much of an error to say because religion doesn't do science, it's not true, then it is for someone to say because science doesn't speak to religious truths it isn't true or speaks truths either. Such black and white perspectives don't measure up with reality.

Science speaks to religious truths inasmuch as these truths are claims of objective fact or reality -- science's domain.
Q: What "reality" are you speaking of? What perspectives represent it accurately?

Untrue. Religion has had an impact on every human being who has been part of a culture defined by a religious ethos. Because humans are part of that, and those same humans do the science, it most certainly has influenced how they do everything. Culture. In it, "we live and move and have our being". It shapes the very corneas of our eyes we see through, influencing our thought, how we see, how we focus, the ways in which we imagine and think, and so forth.

I understand the role of culture, and I understand that religion is an important and influential part of it.
Science is a formal investigational modality of abstract reality reflected in concrete mechanisms and forms.
If you want to know how or what, go to science.

Natural science is real science. It is based on Observation > Logic and works because all other species are logical.

Before man became illogical he had logic as well and used this to invent agriculture and cities. But we forgot and Ancient Language can't be understood by us because we parse it. we must parse it because this is how our language works.

Before man became illogical? Other species are logical? We can't parse ancient language?
Not following. How are you defining 'logical," and "parse?"

Homo omnisciencis is wholly and utterly incapable of natural science because we are wholly and utterly illogical. We use a confused language that we learned on our parents' knees. We're not "all better" now but rather we are far worse because we think we know infinitely more than we really do.

Please explain H. omnisciencis.

Reason is a good way to lead one's life, science is the worst way to lead one's life.

You've lost me.
Isn't science based on reason? How is science a way to lead one's life?

Right! There's no dogma but it is still theory that there is global warming and that survival of the fittest drives evolution. There is nothing unknown and a theory for almost everything.

????? -- Where you come up with this stuff?

No!!! Not only will rich people not fund or publish your findings but you will be ostracized and never get published again.

Balderdash! Scientific publications publish legitimate research, whether owners, employees or investors like it or not.
Please give some evidence of this massive conspiracy.

This gave rise to abstract,, symbolic, and analog languages which are wholly illogical yet used to think. This illogic hides consciousness from us. We see consciousness through a kaleidoscope of beliefs. A fox knows what it means to be a fox and has some understanding of the formatting for what it would mean to be a rabbit.

There are 8 billion different beliefs about what it means to be a human and they are each wrong.

Don't get hung up on the consciousness of simple life forms. The type and degree of consciousness in oak trees and germs is much different and limited. But every individual still has northing but consciousness to drive it and only this drives change in species and every niche.

Please explain this consciousness claim. Is this some sort of universal, Brahmanic consciousness we all tap into?

Well, yes. When you narrowly define a word to mean only what you allow it to mean, then of course your perspective will always be right. However, I don't see your definitions of words like truth, religion, faith, and so forth to match reality in the complex seascape of human realities.

According to you. I disagree. Truth is largely measured by utility. Does it provide useful direction? Is it a useable map? Then it conveys truth.

I'm not sure if you'll take the time to read this, but this goes to the heart of my arguments against these narrow views of reality as only scientific facts are truth. It's in the context of the use and language of metaphors in science, but it touches on what I mean to say that all of it is metaphors. We create maps with the language of science, just as we create maps with the language of myth and religious symbolism. They each are speaking truths.

Unless you understand the meaning of this discussion you can follow in the article, then you'll never understand why I am saying what I am in all of my posts consistently. Science is based in metaphor | Andrew Reynolds


Religion doesn't speak scientific truths. Nor does science speak religious truths. It is just as much of an error to say because religion doesn't do science, it's not true, then it is for someone to say because science doesn't speak to religious truths it isn't true or speaks truths either. Such black and white perspectives don't measure up with reality.

Untrue. Religion has had an impact on every human being who has been part of a culture defined by a religious ethos. Because humans are part of that, and those same humans do the science, it most certainly has influenced how they do everything. Culture. In it, "we live and move and have our being". It shapes the very corneas of our eyes we see through, influencing our thought, how we see, how we focus, the ways in which we imagine and think, and so forth.

To imagine you or anyone is immune to this, is pure fiction. The article I linked to above, which I sincerely hope you take the time to read, touches on that truth, or rather that fact.

I'm not a religious person, actually. I don't practice any religion. That said however, I am informed by it and respect its insights and wisdom, which when it matches my empirical evidence, aka, my personal experience, it contributes to my understanding and broadens my perspective. Of course I approach it entirely differently from what you imagine religion to be, which is nothing more than blind believing whatever dogma is shoved at you by uneducated preachers and then call that "faith".

I approach all of these things with a simple philosophy. "Everyone has a piece of the truth", or to put it another way, "No one is so stupid as to be wrong 100% of the time". I find cynicism boring. It's too simple, and doesn't match a larger picture of reality.

 

[Valjean]

This point stands. Only people who believe in science try to live their lives by science.

At least if you try to live your life by religion you'll probably do less harm to yourself and the commonweal.

"Live my life by....?" Explain.
Hasn't religion stifled medical science for hundreds of years? Hasn't religion generated countless wars and excused all manner of exploitation and injustice? Is this not harm?

 

[Valjean]

Indeed! Science changes one funeral at a time. Religion "evolves" based on reason and science.

You'll have to explain this. What do reason or science have to do with religion?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ha e you seen the little scale model whoever made and "proved" the ark was sea worthy by floating it around in little box with slightly unstilled waters?

Actually I did see those videos when I was a Christian and swallowed it hook line and sinker!

Fortunately I later reviewed commentary by real shipbuilding experts and engineers who stated that it, much less a real full scale wooden ship of such dimensions, would have buckled and likely break in half under the stresses of a turbulent worldwide ocean alone.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Actually I did see those videos when I was a Christian and swallowed it hook line and sinker!

As did I.

Fortunately I later reviewed commentary by real shipbuilding experts and engineers who stated that it, much less a real full scale wooden ship of such dimensions, would have buckled and likely break in half under the stresses of a turbulent worldwide ocean alone.

I didn't have any of that available. It was actually many years after I left and here where I saw all that actually explaned for the first time.

 

[Valjean]

Who doesn't stay in that lane is those who elevate science as the answer for everything. That was what and who I was referring to when I said, "And you don't think those who view science as the ultimate arbiter of truth are guilty of trespassing into the domain of religion, and make assertions of faith out to be assertions of facts?"

Who thinks science is the answer to everything? The idea sounds absurd. I've never met such persons.
Maybe you're referring to rational persons, who incorporate critical analysis of objective facts into their decision making. I do see why such behavior would be threatening to the religious and the conventionalists; used to just going with the flow and accepting, unexamined, the status quo.

I wasn't pointing a finger at science, per se. I was, as I most always am, very deliberate and specific in my word choices. "Those who view science as...."

Now as far as science being the "gold standard for investigative modalities", is that actually true? Care to explain how science helps you interpret Shakespeare?

Science doesn't claim to interpret Shakespeare.
You keep doing this; accusing science of trespassing into non-scientific areas. It doesn't. It's religion that trespasses into questions of objective fact.

Care to explain how science helps you investigate ultimate meaning and purpose to life? I'd argue that science is the dullest tool in the box when it comes to anything beyond studying the material world.

Again, science makes no such claim. It doesn't do this. Why do you keep insisting it does?
Do you even understand what science is?

And why exactly does that matter? Who's asking science to tell us what religion is supposed to?

Huh?
Noõne. Their respective domains seem pretty clear: concrete facts vs interpretations of value, meaning and purposes.
Why is this so complicated?

I know atheists seem to think it is more capable, and that it does in fact do a better job of it. Hence, why I said what I did above.

More capable? What does that mean?

"And you don't think those who view science as the ultimate arbiter of truth are guilty of trespassing into the domain of religion, and make assertions of faith out to be assertions of facts?"

But where are these persons? You're making them up. You're seeing boogymen under the bed!
An assertion of faith is, by definition, not factually based.

Then why are atheists constantly asking theists to provide material evidences, as if religion is doing science, and science is doing religion?

Because religion is "doing science." It makes claims about floods, exoduses and miracles; questions of fact. It makes laws and mandates of propriety. It justifies these not with reference to fact, but to a book easily shown to be factually deficient.
Religion is a bully, and is projecting.

Confused fundamentalist do this. And confused atheists who see religion as nothing but bad science. In both cases, this is bad religion and bad science.

So stay in your lanes. Use the tool appropriate to the job. Science does. Religion does not.

Not true. Buddhism most certainly is based upon investigation and observation and experimentation as well. It is not a "revelation" religion. Only the Abrahamic religions look to divine "revelation". But even then, those who have actual mystical practices, don't rely on revelation. Their faith is replaced by experience.

Buddhism is, essentially, a psychotherapeutic modality that frequently incorporates local religious conventions.
This discussion contrasts Abrahamic religious culture with Science. That's where I'm coming from. We can expand this into other areas if you wish.

"Other mystical practices?" I've seen hints of this throughout your posts. Are you mixing realities?
The Mystical Experience is a whole different subject, and a whole different reality. I've been speaking solely from within a 3rd-state reality. If you're mixing precepts of an expanded, more comprehensive reality with material, waking-state reality, you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. We'll never see eye-to-eye.
Stick to one reality at a time, or make it clear what level you're speaking from.

That's honestly where I come from. Not revelation, nor faith, but experience - or "empirical evidence" of what I experience.

Well, the problem is this. When they atheist can point out how that these fundamentalists are doing bad science, the atheist then congratulates himself that they have disproven faith in God.

You're projecting. Few atheists claim to disprove God. Why would we need to? Atheism really is the default, despite your dislike of the designation.?
All we claim there is, as yet, insufficient evidence to support a belief in God. The burden of proof, since the theists are making the claim, is on them. Atheism stands as the rational position till theism rationally supports itself.

That's where they have just confused the difference between what religion does and what science does. They have "trespassed", and erred in confusing religion as just immature science.

That doesn't mean the two don't commingle in your thought processes.

Never said they were the same thing. I was again, clear and purposeful in my word choices: "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."

In everyday activities, this mingling is harmless, but in serious discussion or decisions, it's pernicious,

Nowhere in what I said can you construe I meant they are the same thing. They are domains or areas or influence or function, but they are not separate from each other in actual reality. The mind affects the body, and the body affects the mind. They are not separated by impenetrable walls.

Perhaps my actual reality is more intellectual. I keep questions of preference and value seperate from questions of fact.

Hence why this idea of "non-overlapping magisteria", is a great idea on paper, but in reality, because we are humans and both exist in us, they do and will overlap, interpenetrate, and inform one another. This is reality.

Just make sure they don't overlap where significant decisions are made, or in questions of objective fact.

 

[Valjean]

I, for one, would love to hear more of this idea.

Linguistic relativity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Valjean]

Yes. We have no choice but to use science and reason to seek truth. But every single truth discovered by science is fragmentary. Religion is not.

You have to assemble the puzzle pieces to see the big picture.
Religion has been an abysmal failure. Thousands of years, and it never figured out the nature of the solar system, the cause of diseases, how weather works, or the internal combustion engine.