Science VS. Religion

[Storm]

Why not? Why does religion get a free pass on truth?

Of course not. However, one's standards have to be reasonable, and that includes taking possibility into account.

No, I disagree.

Do you believe murder is wrong?

I can provide repeatable, verifiable, independently derived evidence that is entirely consistent with the idea that my family and friends care about me. I can collect an enormous amount of data on that very subject. All I have to do is define what "caring" is, identify a suite of behaviors that are consistent with the concept, and see if those people exhibit those behaviors towards me.

Can you do so without an opinion on what "caring" is? As I said: reasoned, informed opinion is opinion nonetheless.

Now, could it be that everyone is just pretending? Sure, but that takes us down the path of Solipsism, where everything is just an illusion. And if that's the case, then none of this matters anyways because you don't exist and I'm just talking to myself.

I needn't lead to solipsism, just reasonable acknowledgment. For some things, proof is impossible.

 

[Mr Cheese]

So, in your world "models must be mathematically sound" = "mathematically sound = gravitons exist"?

Are you that dishonest, intellectually lazy, or incapable?

you said that one of the "proofs" of gravitons existing is the mathematically sound equations.....

:sarcastic

:sad:

 

[Jose Fly]

Of course not. However, one's standards have to be reasonable, and that includes taking possibility into account.

I don't understand what you mean.

Do you believe murder is wrong?

"Murder" is a very specific legal term, and is different than "killing another person". Given that, yes, murder is indeed "wrong".

Can you do so without an opinion on what "caring" is? As I said: reasoned, informed opinion is opinion nonetheless.

Definitions of words are not opinions where one is just as valid as the next. It is the basis for our language, so if you're going down that path, we might as well not be talking to each other.

I needn't lead to solipsism, just reasonable acknowledgment. For some things, proof is impossible.

There's a difference between "proof", which applies to axiomatic systems and law, and "supporting evidence".

 

[Jose Fly]

you said that one of the "proofs" of gravitons existing is the mathematically sound equations.....

:sarcastic

:sad:

No I didn't. Show me exactly where I said "one of the proofs of gravitons is mathematically sound equations".

 

[Mr Cheese]

Logical fallacy: Equivocation EDIT: and false analogy

The concept of gravitons is certainly speculative, but it does have an empirical basis (e.g. quantum field theory and the relation between other forces and similar particles) and is being empirically pursued. Depending on mathematical models and the like, gravitons may or may not be confirmed.

This is hardly the same as "Before humans existed, God and Satan had a big falling out". If you think they are equivalent, well, that speaks for itself.

ok you said this and some other stuff...I guess I owe you a cookie...

Although you even use the words mathematical models...

then get upset when I state they are models....

:sarcastic you know we can go round and round if you like...

it doesnt change the fact you dismiss a view that does not rely solely on that which is labelled "evidence"..............

 

[AxisMundi]

How about the moon....

not really... you are making a false connection between "level of civilization" and religious expression. Your pattern is not reflective of reality.

wa:do

Deer oh deer.

Look, it's quite a simple concept, and well exampled throughout history.

Earliest man was Shamanic.

Egyptians, Celts, Hindus have gods with animal-like physical characteristics.

Greco-Roman gods are compeltely human.

A very simple progression. As man evolved, so did the gods born later.

 

[AxisMundi]

you asked for an example of an ancient culture...
I mentioned one....

I'll take that as a "I stand corrected" from you.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Deer oh deer.

Look, it's quite a simple concept, and well exampled throughout history.

Earliest man was Shamanic.

Egyptians, Celts, Hindus have gods with animal-like physical characteristics.

Greco-Roman gods are compeltely human.

A very simple progression. As man evolved, so did the gods born later.

well of course technically the word shamqan only applies to Russians....

but you are sayingt he first instances of deity were animals? link please.....

The fact that rivers, the wind, mountains, the sun and stars could not have been "worshipped" first huh...is neither here nor there?

:sarcastic I thought "shamans" worshipped the earth below their feet also...

 

[Mr Cheese]

I'll take that as a "I stand corrected" from you.

um no, you wanted an example of a culture where the divine was not divorced from its "activities", I gave one....

I gave metalurgy as one example within said culture...

I still stand by the assertion that ancient cultures by and large were less divorced from the divine than we are now, especially regardign science.....

being as this is abotu science and religion, and you were claiming that science is ancient, which I actually agree with, however modern science, which this thread is about... is wholly divorced from religion, compared to ancient science

hence the modern applicationa dn distinction oft he term "Modern Science"

 

[Jose Fly]

ok you said this and some other stuff...I guess I owe you a cookie...

Although you even use the words mathematical models...

then get upset when I state they are models....

:sarcastic you know we can go round and round if you like...

it doesnt change the fact you dismiss a view that does not rely solely on that which is labelled "evidence"..............

Sheesh...."ok, you were right.....but you're still a poopy-head!!"

What are you, 10 years old?

 

[AxisMundi]

well of course technically the word shamqan only applies to Russians....

but you are sayingt he first instances of deity were animals? link please.....

The fact that rivers, the wind, mountains, the sun and stars could not have been "worshipped" first huh...is neither here nor there?

:sarcastic I thought "shamans" worshipped the earth below their feet also...

If you're going to comment on something, please bother to research it.

While the term borrowed by sociologist to describe the religion is indeed a Turkic term, "saman", it describes any and all such beliefs regardless of geographical location.

Secondly, Shamanic peoples are Animistic, worshiping the Spirits of animals and the Earth, not animals themselves.

 

[AxisMundi]

um no, you wanted an example of a culture where the divine was not divorced from its "activities", I gave one....

I gave metalurgy as one example within said culture...

I still stand by the assertion that ancient cultures by and large were less divorced from the divine than we are now, especially regardign science.....

being as this is abotu science and religion, and you were claiming that science is ancient, which I actually agree with, however modern science, which this thread is about... is wholly divorced from religion, compared to ancient science

hence the modern applicationa dn distinction oft he term "Modern Science"

Wow, your intellectual dishonesty is so glaring it nearly blinds me.

I asked "WHICH ancient cultures, WHO says so, under WHAT conditions was this tool making considered a divine interaction, and how is this "many", a majority, arrived at?" (Post #89) to which you replied with your failed Katana example.

My response in quotations above made in response to your exact comment of "however...many ancient cultures viewed tool making as an act of interaction with the divine.... I am sure there were ancient atheists, but the divine was far more inherantly inseprabel from a persons life...in every aspect, than it is now" (post #76)

To remind you, you are attempting to argue against science in the ancient world.

 

[Mr Cheese]

If you're going to comment on something, please bother to research it.

While the term borrowed by sociologist to describe the religion is indeed a Turkic term, "saman", it describes any and all such beliefs regardless of geographical location.

Secondly, Shamanic peoples are Animistic, worshiping the Spirits of animals and the Earth, not animals themselves.

so the siberian use is incorrect?

I am well aware of what "shamanic people were and are"....

my argument is that you were stating that animals or the thigns that animals represented...
certain fishies beign wise amongst the celts for example... were the first types of shamanic worship
how do we know this? I would propose the land and the sky itself came first.....


I grew up in and around Glastonbury England, given that your "path" is of celtic reconstruction.....you may have heard of it...and may understand, that, well, I've sipped the cup..from the well..so to speak...

 

[Mr Cheese]

To remind you, you are attempting to argue against science in the ancient world.

once again, there is a reason why modern science is labelled modern science...

you can dance around it all you like

ancient science was not as divorced from "religion" as it is now...

Modern science as such is only a few centuries old.

I am well aware of ancient science....

 

[Mr Cheese]

Sheesh...."ok, you were right.....but you're still a poopy-head!!"

What are you, 10 years old?

uh...

no, it means we can go off on many tangents...
yet still the underlyign fact is, you dismiss any view that does not have some form of that which is labelled evidence. Using the example of Heisenberg, I was hinting that said evidence is problematic due to the underlying nature of the perceiver upon the perceived...

as such rendering any ideas that an idea with "evidence" is superior to one without....to be piffle

But I understand that those that rely on ideas and concepts that have "evidence" deny the evidence that states that said evidence is questionable, unreliable and may well not be worth the bar chart or mathmatical equation it was constructed from.

Now you may call me a poopy head

 

[Storm]

I don't understand what you mean.

I mean that it's not reasonable to hold philosophy or religion to the same standards as science.

"Murder" is a very specific legal term, and is different than "killing another person". Given that, yes, murder is indeed "wrong".

"Wrong" is a value judgment, and subjective.

Definitions of words are not opinions where one is just as valid as the next. It is the basis for our language, so if you're going down that path, we might as well not be talking to each other.

Strawman. I wasn't calling into question the definition of "caring," only your standards of evidence.

There's a difference between "proof", which applies to axiomatic systems and law, and "supporting evidence".

Yes, there is. And supporting evidence is all any philosophy can hope for. It will never have proof, it CAN never have proof, so demanding proof is not reasonable.

 

[Jose Fly]

I mean that it's not reasonable to hold philosophy or religion to the same standards as science.

But again, "distinguishable from fiction" is not a standard limited to science; it's a standard we hold just about everything to...except apparently, religion.

"Wrong" is a value judgment, and subjective.

Sure.

Strawman. I wasn't calling into question the definition of "caring," only your standards of evidence

What other standards would you suggest?

Yes, there is. And supporting evidence is all any philosophy can hope for. It will never have proof, it CAN never have proof, so demanding proof is not reasonable.

First, I never demanded "proof" for religion of philosophy. Second, if something has a body of supporting evidence, then it is indeed distinguishable from fiction. But earlier I though you agreed that much of religion and philosophy is indistinguishable from fiction.

 

[Storm]

But again, "distinguishable from fiction" is not a standard limited to science; it's a standard we hold just about everything to...except apparently, religion.

Sure.

What other standards would you suggest?

First, I never demanded "proof" for religion of philosophy. Second, if something has a body of supporting evidence, then it is indeed distinguishable from fiction. But earlier I though you agreed that much of religion and philosophy is indistinguishable from fiction.

I'm beginning to suspect we're just talking past each other, but I'll give it another try.

You're the one claiming that religion and philosophy are not valid. I'm saying that they're all we have, and everybody uses them. Do you object to that?

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm beginning to suspect we're just talking past each other, but I'll give it another try.

You're probably right.

You're the one claiming that religion and philosophy are not valid.

I'm saying that since neither have produced unified, consistent answers to the questions they attempt to answer, and since for the most part, their answers are indistinguishable from fiction, I see no reason to accept them as valid methods to answer questions.

I'm saying that they're all we have, and everybody uses them. Do you object to that?

Logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity

"Everyone does it" is hardly a compelling argument.

 

[Storm]

You're probably right.


I'm saying that since neither have produced unified, consistent answers to the questions they attempt to answer, and since for the most part, their answers are indistinguishable from fiction, I see no reason to accept them as valid methods to answer questions.


Logical fallacy: Appeal to popularity

"Everyone does it" is hardly a compelling argument.

No, that wasn't my argument at all. One last try....

I'm saying that we're incapable of not using philosophy. Your position that it's invalid may or may not be correct, but it's moot. It's like insisting that we should have thumbs on our feet. Maybe we should, but we don't, so why complain?