Science, religion and the truth

[sealchan]

It *is* relevant to a discussion of what each believes to be the truth. It isn't relevant to what is the truth. In fact, one way to distinguish the truth is that it holds even if nobody believes in it. So, the Earth rotated even before people believed it rotated. Diseases were caused by bacteria before anyone knew bacteria exist. Belief isn't relevant for the truth.

Now, beliefs *are* relevant to how people act. They *are* relevant to what they will accept (whether truthful or not). They *are* relevant for a conversation about beliefs. They may even be relevant to whether we can ever know any truths. They just aren't relevant to what is and is not true.

That's Monday morning quarterbacking...still you are reaching outside the sphere of possible human consciousness by claiming territory in the name of objectivity through the advantage of looking back in time.

Truth is not something that exists outside of human consciousness. That is the myth of our age to think otherwise. It may seem an incredulous thing to say but a myth is always "obvious" to those who live within it. Similarly "free will" is obvious to most of us who see ourselves as responsible members of a democracy.

So before anyone knew bacteria existed, they didn't in human consciousness and as such were not a truth. As we know of bacteria today we think of them as of the order of the simplest forms of life whose actions show both the beauty of the nature of evolution and life but also the fact that we are a world to these microscopic organisms and sometimes, without malice, they may do us harm. We have some knowledge and now even agency about whether or not bacteria do us harm and so we have, to some degree, moved away from a primary reaction of fear and disapproval. After all, they are the hero of the story The War of the Worlds.

That is a fuller picture of what "bacteria" are to the moderately educated person of today. What you are wanting to do in your argument, however, is claim that in today's view there are bacteria of sorts that we don't know about but that we should somehow take some accounting for. Certainly within the practice of the methodology of science this is the case. But outside of that sphere there is little to no actionable value is such a statement. It is of no practical value. It is more a place-holder of possibility than it is a truth in any specified way. It is like saying, "I could be wrong", without adding anything of substance to the discussion and then claiming a victory of some sort.

The subjective-objective dualist--one who doesn't automatically take sides--recognizes this problem and how we are all required to subjectively validate in some way any claims to objective truth. The science minded may forget this as they take sides with science's obvious credibility in so many areas. But it is important and implicit in even science, as I know you would agree, to recognize the limitations of even the most "obvious" scientific truths as "a best estimate". This implicitly recognizes that any scientific understanding is still subject to the subjectivity of the scientists and the community in which they work and share knowledge no matter how superior that subjectivity may be.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it's not an absolute vacuum that's correct. But anytime atmospheric pressure is reduced below the normal barometric
pressure, the condition of vacuum results. "Vacuum" is negative pressure.
Then the the normal atmospheric pressure surrounding the low pressure 'rushes' in to fill the "void", being drawn in ( not pushed )

If you could understand better the two fundamental eternal principles of 'reality', it would help you to learn more about "science".
"Male" and "Female"

In this context, pressure is measured against 'normal barometric' pressure. That only applies on the surface of the Earth and is not a general thing.

So, if you have two containers, one at 10 times atmospheric pressure and the other at 20 times atmospheric pressure and allow the gas to freely flow between them, the gas will flow from the higher pressure to the lower pressure.

Similarly, if you have two containers, one at 1/10 of atmospheric pressure and the other at 1/20, then the air will move from the higher pressure container to the lower pressure one *even though both are vacuums by your definition*.

It is the *difference* in pressure that is relevant, not the absolute pressure. And the gas will move from the higher pressure container to the lower pressure one.

In an absolute vacuum, the gas will expand because there is nothing to prevent it from expanding. If there is just a lower pressure (as opposed to a complete vacuum), the gas will diffuse into the lower pressure areas, but less quickly than it would into a complete vacuum.

 

[Polymath257]

Example: Were there bacteria before humans knew of them? Yes and no, they were there but they were unknown to humans. You can't know something which is unknown, so bacteria were not real to humans. The effects of them were real, but understood differently.

So, yes, there were bacteria before there were humans. Whether there were humans to know about that is irrelevant to whether they existed.

This is the difference between ontology 'what exists' and epistemology 'what we can know'.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I find it very astonishing and even sad to read and follow an OP of "Science, Religion and the Truth" in which no one seems to agree on much anything else but to discuss the meaning of words and concepts.

It seems to me that we live in a time of general confusion because of the loss of natural perceptions and natural sense which is provided by observations of Nature itself. On and above the Earth.

When studying Comparative Religion; Comparative Mythology and cultural Stories of Creation, it is remarkable that thousands of years ancient cultures have a large amount of agreement in their stories of creation. And, even there are some local social differences of symbolism and moral codex, the very basics and essence are much the same.

To many modern persons, the concept of "creation" gives all kinds of unbelievable religious associations, mostly because of an Abrahamic religious heritage in where the natural meaning is lost and the mythical telling of creation is dogmatized into a personalized description of a creative One-God force.

In fact, all religious stories of creation is generally based on natural observations of the cosmos in where we all live. This is of course the essence in all religious and mythical stories of creation.

In this sense "natural observations" means both physical and spiritual observations working as complement of how to perceive both nearby earthly phenomena as well as to discover extra terrestrial realms and motions.

- It was/is an indogenius tribal tradition to isolate their young individuals in caves in order for them to get spiritual visions which should lead the youngsters into their right individual path in the tribes. In this way "Mother Earth" and "Father Sky". i.e. both nature on and above the Earth provided the correct path to the youngsters according to their individual and collective path of development.

Forgive me, but today it seems to me that blind professors leads their not yet seeing pupils into a one way directional road of confusion.

So I suppose the microscopes and the telescopes we rely on now to inform us of actual reality were totally unnecessary in the days when religions developed. After all they just had to imagine it all. And you seem to be rather tolerant as to the agreements, if just on creation myths, when we have no gods, one God, multiple gods, spirits in everything, and virtually every combination of such to form such agreement. I think science is doing all the true natural observations these days.

 

[Native]

And given that these sciences work by empiricism and induction, none of their conclusions is final or absolute ─ nothing protects them from a counterexample we may find tomorrow, or may never find, or may not exist.
So truth is not an absolute concept in this sphere of thought.

You almost could have fooled me there Try to convince hard core believers that their Big Bang theory is just that and not the truth.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the oldest continuous religion is arguable the set of aboriginal Australian dreamtime stories where the creator of everything is often the Rainbow Serpent (with various other names and of either sex). I'm not aware of any parallel to that in other cultures; perhaps you are?

Even in the bible you have a Serpent in the story of creation. In Norse Mythology you have the Midgaard Serpent which encircle the entire Earth in the Sky and this Serpent/Snake is mentioned in several other cultures as well.

As I understand it, the Dreamtime stories are back-formations ─ how did that mountain get that way, how did those stars get that way, how did the emu get that way, and so on.

I´m aware of this popular interpretation but in fact even the Emu has a celestial significance as an image in the Milky Way contours. It seems to walk along as the imagery in the night Sky seemingly revolves.

Sorry to get back to definitions again but do you think 'spiritual' is a subset of 'emotional'?

No to me "spiritual" is a genius set of pure intuition..

Personally I find a more objective test for 'truth' preferable to a less objective one; so I'm with the 'correspondence' definition.
I'm not sure whether you're arguing against definitions generally or not. So I'll ask: what definition of 'truth' do you use?

I´m not against definitions at all. I just need substantial described examples and ideas in order to work with questions regarding science and religion.

"Truth" is not a concept to me in itself. It is a collective experience where all individuals observes the same natural phenomenon.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

In this context, pressure is measured against 'normal barometric' pressure. That only applies on the surface of the Earth and is not a general thing.

So, if you have two containers, one at 10 times atmospheric pressure and the other at 20 times atmospheric pressure and allow the gas to freely flow between them, the gas will flow from the higher pressure to the lower pressure.

Similarly, if you have two containers, one at 1/10 of atmospheric pressure and the other at 1/20, then the air will move from the higher pressure container to the lower pressure one *even though both are vacuums by your definition*.

It is the *difference* in pressure that is relevant, not the absolute pressure. And the gas will move from the higher pressure container to the lower pressure one.

In an absolute vacuum, the gas will expand because there is nothing to prevent it from expanding. If there is just a lower pressure (as opposed to a complete vacuum), the gas will diffuse into the lower pressure areas, but less quickly than it would into a complete vacuum.

That's right, and "vacuum" is the condition that results from a loss of pressure. Whether it's small or large.
Vacuum is negative pressure. The condition that results from subtracting pressure.
And is why the surrounding air pressure ONLY MOVES from higher to lower. ( and not the opposite ).
Low pressure systems rotate counter-clockwise, high pressure systems rotate clock-wise ( both above the equator )

Without positive (male), and negative (female) forces....NOTHING moves.

 

[Native]

So I suppose the microscopes and the telescopes we rely on now to inform us of actual reality were totally unnecessary in the days when religions developed.

In fact yes.

After all they just had to imagine it all.

Not quite so. Ancient cultures of course noticed the motions of the Sun, Moon and the ancient known 5 planets in the changing seasons. When it came to the descriptions of star constellations and the contours of the Milky Way they all used different images from the Earth as celestial symbols.

And you seem to be rather tolerant as to the agreements, if just on creation myths, when we have no gods, one God, multiple gods, spirits in everything, and virtually every combination of such to form such agreement.

This is all dependent on how specific the different religions described their perception of the creation. The Abrahamic tradition threw all deities but their One God out with the bathing waters, inclusive their former Ashera Goddess. Other religions have specific deities for different creative forces and elements, right from the description of the precondition of creation and onwards, as for instants in the Egyptian story of creation.

I think science is doing all the true natural observations these days.

One cannot hardly disagree in this. But when it come to the concept of "true" and the scientific interpretation of their cosmological observations, I´m not at all directly overwhelmed as several of the ancient described an eternal Universe in where everything undergoes and eternal change of creation, dissolution and re-creation - and thus NO strange modern Big Bang speculations.

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

In fact yes.

Not quite so. Ancient cultures of course noticed the motions of the Sun, Moon and the ancient known 5 planets in the changing seasons. When it came to the descriptions of star constellations and the contours of the Milky Way they all used different images from the Earth as celestial symbols.

This is all dependent on how specific the different religions described their perception of the creation. The Abrahamic tradition threw all deities but their One God out with the bathing waters, inclusive their former Ashera Goddess. Other religions have specific deities for different creative forces and elements, right from the description of the precondition of creation and onwards, as for instants in the Egyptian story of creation.

One cannot hardly disagree in this. But when it come to the concept of "true" and the scientific interpretation of their cosmological observations, I´m not at all directly overwhelmed as several of the ancient described an eternal Universe in where everything undergoes and eternal change of creation, dissolution and re-creation - and thus NO strange modern Big Bang speculations.

Can you explain the "ouroboros" to me, your understanding I mean ?

 

[blü 2]

You almost could have fooled me there Try to convince hard core believers that their Big Bang theory is just that and not the truth.

There's a sense in which the Big Bang theory is true as to its basic outline. That is, it's the best expert opinion available to us in March 2020. Truth isn't absolute but it's retrospective. So in biblical times the earth was flat, the heavenly bodies went round it, and anyone who doubted that was plainly stupid or blind. It was true in the 19th century that light propagated in the lumeniferous ether; but after Michelson-Morley it wasn't true. It was true that the earth's crust was unitary and solid till the ─ ah ─ 1950s? and then tectonic theory became generally accepted and is now true. That's just a corollary of truth never being absolute.

Even in the bible you have a Serpent in the story of creation. In Norse Mythology you have the Midgaard Serpent which encircle the entire Earth in the Sky and this Serpent/Snake is mentioned in several other cultures as well.

But if you compare creation myths, how many have the world and its critters created by a snake in the dreamtime?

No to me "spiritual" is a genius set of pure intuition.

Your link makes it clear how amorphous that idea is. I can't get past the idea that intuitions are evolved aspects of mentation, the sort of thing newborns hit the ground running with ─ like knowing how to breathe, suck, exercise the limbs, seek out faces and eyes, and shortly after, to listen to and watch the carer so as to acquire language and with it concepts of the world. It's marvelously convenient for survival, but there's nothing mystical about it, is there?

"Truth" is not a concept to me in itself. It is a collective experience where all individuals observes the same natural phenomenon.

But weren't you just commenting that eg the Big Bang theory was NOT true? How could you say that without some concept of truth in your mind?

 

[sealchan]

Sorry, but relativity isn't about subjective vs. objective viewpoints. Each frame of reference is objective. And it is possible to directly calculate what one frame will detect given what another frame measures. Further, there are invariants that don't depend on the frame (Einstein originally wanted to call his theory the 'theory of invariants'). Those invariants are an *objective* that *all* frames agree upon.

But you are making the objectivist's error of thinking that subjectivity has no objective qualities...subjectivity does not go away when you recognize a common ground underlying it. You do not, thereby, gain all the ground on the side of objectivity. You definitely do gain ground.

What you have to be cognizant of is that objectivity never gains all the ground. There is also, always still subjectivity. The problem recognizing this is due to a tendency we all have to devolve to mono-modal truth. We want, for the sake of "total victory", to forget that truths always reside in multiple contexts no matter how often we are reminded of the fact. In part this comes about as a sort of necessity. If every truth were taught with the notion of its limitations it would create a lot of unnecessary effort. Even in mathematics we may teach children that 2 + 2 = 4 but not want to trouble them with the formal context in which this truth resides and is, in part, related to the quantity of fingers our species happens to have.

Objectivists are largely drawn into the intuition of unity behind diversity which is a strong quality of intuitive thinking and feeling. Intuition is the complement to sensation and has the job of second guessing sensory appearances for the sake of recognizing pattern that isn't implicit in simple, practical experience. Intuition works where it uses the brain in a way that others also have a natural tendency for. That is the brain is able to recognize patterns across modalities and even concepts that transcend sensory-based differentiations. Mathematics carries this sense to its greatest heights. But this sense, when it claims superiority in a general way, becomes a myth. We then have a sort of invisible, unknown which we wait patiently for truth from even as we work hard to earn those future revelations by seeking out those truths with our effort. Sort of like the paradox of faith by saving grace vs faith by actions/effort.

Now the trick here, I recognize, is that the subjectivist often cannot easily explain the practical value of making this sort of distinction. The answer to this question is actually fairly simple: the recognition of the subjectivity inherent in all truths gives us humility and compassion for those whose subjectivity looks to be the source of issues and misunderstandings that they are experiencing. Also, the recognition of the pervasiveness of subjectivity allows us to see in others the possibility for sincere and useful perspectives which we were not aware of personally (subjectively). Neither of these qualities are strange to the science-appreciator but they may get lost in the overwhelming spectacle of scientific knowledge whose transcendence of one's own experience is both elegant and consistent like some all-knowing God whose wisdom us mere mortals should question at their own peril.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So, yes, there were bacteria before there were humans. Whether there were humans to know about that is irrelevant to whether they existed.
This is the difference between ontology 'what exists' and epistemology 'what we can know'.

No, because you are doing dualism in effect. To say the idea of "what exists" requires someone to be able to have the idea of "what exists" and check through "what we can know". You can't separate the 2.
"I know something" requires 3 parts and you can't remove 1 or 2 of them and just focus on one.
You are overdoing the reduction of what reality is, into a form of dualism "something" is separate from "I know", but you can't speak of the one without the other.
This idea of a difference that has only one part makes no sense. If there is a difference, then it is between something and something else. It is an interconnected duality, not a separate duality.
The map and the landscape are connected. If you go for a strong ontology of what exists in itself, it becomes empty in effect, because it is in itself.

Now try this: The dog is black. I.e. properties of experience. Now what is the property of existence?!! Well, there is no property of existence, because it has none. It is an nominal idea.
You are from STEM. Okay, but don't go into philosophy without checking the ideas and what problems there are with some of categories in philosophy. Metaphysics and ontology are, when you check, how they work in effect apparently nothing but in the mind. You get lost in thinking and you are doing nothing but think about thinking. That is a great idea to train that, but it is nothing but you playing with your own thoughts. You can use it to learn to do meta-cognition and you need that to do philosophy because it teaches you to catch and hold your thoughts and examine them, but that is it in practice.

Reality in practice as with you in it is an interconnect duality of you and the rest. You can't separate them in practice, because to explain what is going on, you need to account for both parts as interconnected.
This idea of reducing reality into parts has a limit, because if you disconnect the parts and their relationship it ends up being to over-reductive. If you have A and B, you can't separate them and you didn't.
So now look at the sentence you wrote: "This is the difference between ontology 'what exists' and epistemology 'what we can know'."
Are in effect "what exists" and "what we know" separate in that sentence? No, because the sentence is a case of "I know something". You are in effect doing, what you claim, you are not doing.

Polymath257, I will be honest with you. To do philosophy requires practice like anything else. I have been doing it for over 25+ years now and I know the limits of philosophy. Metaphysics and ontology are in practice nothing but a mind game.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[WhyIsThatSo]

No, because you are doing dualism in effect. To say the idea of "what exists" requires someone to be able to have the idea of "what exists" and check through "what we can know". You can't separate the 2.
"I know something" requires 3 parts and you can't remove 1 or 2 of them and just focus on one.
You are overdoing the reduction of what reality is, into a form of dualism "something" is separate from "I know", but you can't speak of the one without the other.
This idea of a difference that has only one part makes no sense. If there is a difference, then it is between something and something else. It is an interconnected duality, not a separate duality.
The map and the landscape are connected. If you go for a strong ontology of what exists in itself, it becomes empty in effect, because it is in itself.

Now try this: The dog is black. I.e. properties of experience. Now what is the property of existence?!! Well, there is no property of existence, because it has none. It is an nominal idea.
You are from STEM. Okay, but don't go into philosophy without checking the ideas and what problems there are with some of categories in philosophy. Metaphysics and ontology are, when you check, how they work in effect apparently nothing but in the mind. You get lost in thinking and you are doing nothing but think about thinking. That is a great idea to train that, but it is nothing but you playing with your own thoughts. You can use it to learn to do meta-cognition and you need that to do philosophy because it teaches you to catch and hold your thoughts and examine them, but that is it in practice.

Reality in practice as with you in it is an interconnect duality of you and the rest. You can't separate them in practice, because to explain what is going on, you need to account for both parts as interconnected.
This idea of reducing reality into parts has a limit, because if you disconnect the parts and their relationship it ends up being to over-reductive. If you have A and B, you can't separate them and you didn't.
So now look at the sentence you wrote: "This is the difference between ontology 'what exists' and epistemology 'what we can know'."
Are in effect "what exists" and "what we know" separate in that sentence? No, because the sentence is a case of "I know something". You are in effect doing, what you claim, you are not doing.

Polymath257, I will be honest with you. To do philosophy requires practice like anything else. I have been doing it for over 25+ years now and I know the limits of philosophy. Metaphysics and ontology are in practice nothing but a mind game.

Regards
Mikkel

We don't "do philosophy", and it surely has nothing to do with "practice" either.
We either "love wisdom" or we don't.

 

[Native]

In an absolute vacuum, the gas will expand because there is nothing to prevent it from expanding.

Well then, doesn´t your gravity work in an absolute vacuum?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We don't "do philosophy", and it surely has nothing to do with "practice" either.
We either "love wisdom" or we don't.

We are not a "we". You do reality differently than me and so in reverse.
You are you and not me and so in reverse.
I accept that you do it differently than me and that you think you can speak of a "we", but I will still do it differently than you.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Native]

Can you explain the "ouroboros" to me, your understanding I mean ?

Yes I can. It resembles the very contours of the Milky Way when described as a celestial Serpent which encircle the entire night Sky above the Earth on both hemispheres.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So I suppose the microscopes and the telescopes we rely on now to inform us of actual reality were totally unnecessary in the days when religions developed.

In fact yes.

After all they just had to imagine it all.

Not quite so. Ancient cultures of course noticed the motions of the Sun, Moon and the ancient known 5 planets in the changing seasons. When it came to the descriptions of star constellations and the contours of the Milky Way they all used different images from the Earth as celestial symbols.

And you seem to be rather tolerant as to the agreements, if just on creation myths, when we have no gods, one God, multiple gods, spirits in everything, and virtually every combination of such to form such agreement.

This is all dependent on how specific the different religions described their perception of the creation. The Abrahamic tradition threw all deities but their One God out with the bathing waters, inclusive their former Ashera Goddess. Other religions have specific deities for different creative forces and elements, right from the description of the precondition of creation and onwards, as for instants in the Egyptian story of creation.

I think science is doing all the true natural observations these days.

One cannot hardly disagree in this. But when it come to the concept of "true" and the scientific interpretation of their cosmological observations, I´m not at all directly overwhelmed as several of the ancient described an eternal Universe in where everything undergoes and eternal change of creation, dissolution and re-creation - and thus NO strange modern Big Bang speculations.

I still don't understand why so much value is placed in such beliefs, especially as I have pointed out, their knowledge was mainly just guesswork and hardly based in facts. They might have seen the extent of our galaxy, what with no light pollution to interfere with such, but they wouldn't have known the real extent of the universe. And they didn't do much correct guessing in other areas, such as why we caught diseases or became ill or about the proper functioning of our bodies - not until much later. Guesses that coincide with reality might be useful but they are just that - coincidences.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I still don't understand why so much value is placed in such beliefs, especially as I have pointed out, their knowledge was mainly just guesswork and hardly based in facts. They might have seen the extent of our galaxy, what with no light pollution to interfere with such, but they wouldn't have known the real extent of the universe. And they didn't do much correct guessing in other areas, such as why we caught diseases or became ill or about the proper functioning of our bodies - not until much later. Guesses that coincide with reality might be useful but they are just that - coincidences.

If you can come up with an truly really real system of values about being human using only science I will listen to you.
But as long as you start first person singular with subjectivity as in:
"I still don't understand why so much value is placed in such beliefs..."
You are not doing science there. You are doing your subjective value system and I accept that you are doing than as you. I even accept that the rest of us are not doing it is the correct manner as it is according to you subjectively and as you do it, but I am still going to do it differently than you, because I can.
You are not doing science in your start sentence and I am serious about it. If you want to claim science, then show how to measure this kind of value using science.
As long as you in effect don't notice when you are not doing science, I will point it out.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you can come up with an truly really real system of values about being human using only science I will listen to you.
But as long as you start first person singular with subjectivity as in:
"I still don't understand why so much value is placed in such beliefs..."
You are not doing science there. You are doing your subjective value system and I accept that you are doing than as you. I even accept that the rest of us are not doing it is the correct manner as it is according to you subjectively and as you do it, but I am still going to do it differently than you, because I can.
You are not doing science in your start sentence and I am serious about it. If you want to claim science, then show how to measure this kind of value using science.
As long as you in effect don't notice when you are not doing science, I will point it out.

Regards
Mikkel

I didn't mention science (only in passing in the earlier post). I was pointing out what people tend to believe when they perhaps should put such into perspective. That is, some things being a lot more useful to us - disease origins and such - rather than myths concerning our origins, but apparently the originators of such myths weren't contacted and given this valuable information.

 

[sealchan]

We are not a "we". You do reality differently than me and so in reverse.
You are you and not me and so in reverse.
I accept that you do it differently than me and that you think you can speak of a "we", but I will still do it differently than you.

Regards
Mikkel

That is the essence, I think, of the recognition of the ubiquity and necessity of subjectivity.

It is, of course, not the case that we are perfectly other...in fact, we are more alike than different. But in a well tuned linguistic and democratic culture of individuals in cooperation and competition, we find and accentuate our differences as a value rather than a problem. Or at least we have always the issue of finding the opportunity amidst the conflict. This is the fundamental dichotomy of one-way vs diversity attitudes.

We do not also want to claim equal rights for all subjective perspectives and claim that no one can judge anyone else. After all we are more alike than different. But as a democracy we value those differences and, to our frequent regret, encounter them in conflict. Still we want to acknowledge our distinction.

But there is always a "we" in the background of our conflicts I think. It, perhaps, takes more commonality than distinction to be in conflict.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, here is what dogma is in everyday language relevant to science:

Perhaps instead of flipping out on a word again and introducing an irrelevant context and definition for it with as only purpose going of on yet another irrelevant tangent, you for once use the context and meaning in which the word was used in the actual conversation you butted into.

Just a suggestion.