The wisest man in the world is the one who realizes he knows nothing.

[atanu]

Wow someone does not seem to understand grade school biology.

I think aoji suggested that understanding of scientific concept may not automatically lead to improvement of self. How is that wrong?

OTOH, your frequent reference to low education level of others seem to ......

Your alive right now not because of some god, but because of some hard working scientist who uses evolution to stay one step ahead of a global pandemic.

Ignoring the absurdity of such sweeping assertion, should you not at least write "You are alive right now....."?

 

[outhouse]

"You are alive right now....."?

Yes my grammar sucks in that department. I can admit my errors

I think aoji suggested that understanding of scientific concept may not automatically lead to improvement of self. How is that wrong?

Because self would be dead without scientific advancement. Science keeps disease in check in this overpopulated world.


Nature has a way of fixing overpopulation, and science keep nature at bay.


Of course you could continue to ignore medical advancements all together, and pick on my grammar.

 

[outhouse]

How contradictory.

Could you please explain how so?

You do understand evolution is fact?

 

[Robert Landbeck]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths. But, isn’t that a bad thing? Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves. In accepting scripture as fact, one forfeits their search for understanding. Is there any kind of honor or value in doing this? Is faith based on subjective, unverified experience more dangerous than its worth?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future. I feel that is what the scientific method and science in general sticks to. Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable. The best opponents have to offer is pointing out holes in the theory that seem to get smaller and smaller by the day. And, they fail to present an alternative theory based on verifiable evidence rather than just jumping to the conclusion of God. I am in no way claiming that the scientific method is the only source of information/knowledge, but it does seem to be by far the most reliable and prudent.

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence? What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us. Some say that science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, but why is that a problem? Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?

I have always wondered if that famous quote attributed to Socrates didn't have a context we are not aware of? And while the 'golden age' of easy scientific discovery which gave science much of it's reputation has ended, that only reflects a reality that the search for practical, knowledge is becoming so much more difficult and expensive. And this is happening at a time when the demands for new primary insight are growing, even becoming desperate in some fields, antibiotics for example. And if science is groaning under the constraints of it's own limitations, faith traditions are also being forced to confront the corruptions of their own thinking, whether pedophile priests, the tyranny of occupation or ISIS. The view of ourselves as a species, that 'we' have created, is looking like the emperors new clothes. So long as both the scientific and moral insights that would make for peace and sustainability are missing, one might say, with a ear to Socrates, all is just chasing after wind!

 

[leibowde84]

settle for a declaration?.....you don't know yet....
take stance in position of ignorance and then say?....you're better off

I think you just undid yourself.

Can you explain what you mean by this? Seems incoherent.

 

[leibowde84]

I think that an even wiser man would realize and understand it is nature revealing itself to mankind simultaneously with mankind discovering nature and it's mankind that develops, creates, and changes... not science and not religion.

Also, I think that an even wiser man would realize that a lot of knowledge of the past really doesn't matter. Mankind has an over compulsion for curiosity and knowledge of many things that are irrelevant, and that they'll never know when just being, living, experiencing, accepting that everyone else is different from one another yet a human being is the best test and evidence.

I'd say we gain freedom of mind, without being dictated and conformed to what everyone else wants us to think, know, have knowledge of and that we gain freedom to directly experience reality rather than having knowledge of what everyone else tells us reality is. We can experience a wide array of life as opposed to being confined to just science and/or just religion. Reality is everything, physically and the abstract.

I think that the human sells themselves short by placing science and/or religion on a pedestal when it's mankind collectively that does the experiencing of reality, the discovering, the creating, the changing. . both the physical and non-physical of nature.

OK. But, do you think that withholding belief is the best option until sufficient evidence (whatever that might come from) is found?

 

[leibowde84]

Who, other than those creating a strawman to attack, make the claim of something from nothing?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure. It certainly is not a scientific position.

 

[Thief]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths. But, isn’t that a bad thing? Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves. In accepting scripture as fact, one forfeits their search for understanding. Is there any kind of honor or value in doing this? Is faith based on subjective, unverified experience more dangerous than its worth?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future. I feel that is what the scientific method and science in general sticks to. Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable. The best opponents have to offer is pointing out holes in the theory that seem to get smaller and smaller by the day. And, they fail to present an alternative theory based on verifiable evidence rather than just jumping to the conclusion of God. I am in no way claiming that the scientific method is the only source of information/knowledge, but it does seem to be by far the most reliable and prudent.

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence? What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us. Some say that science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, but why is that a problem? Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?

the incoherent is yours^

 

[leibowde84]

There is a conundrum in belief vs knowledge in that to make progress in knowledge you sometimes have to make an assumption first.
For example, when you get up in the morning, you might as well believe that you will live through the day even though there is no way to know for certain that you will.
Every scientific experiment starts with a hypothesis. Should you try things in life and not be sincere?
You cannot know, but to act as if you don't believe is just another way of believing.
The question isn't whether or not you believe. The question is: what do you believe?

"Supporting Evidence" is a fancy phrase but it can mean so many things.
I believe it because I saw it.
I believe it because my neighbor said so.
I believe it because I had a dream last night.
None of these things is as certain as we may think them to be.

If you wish to do nothing or perhaps to pass from this world into nirvana, then perhaps you can dispense with the believing of things. I don't know.
But if you want to get up and walk out your door and do something, then maybe you need to start by believing you can. Is that better? Who knows? Do you believe it's better? How can we make the world a better place if we don't even believe we can?

Sufficient evidence is not the same as absolute proof or knowledge, which is unattainable in my opinion. The OP is asking whether belief should be held until verifiable evidence can support it. It isn't asking whether we should wait for absolute certainty or proof.

 

[leibowde84]

How contradictory.

Until an alternative backed up with verifiable/independent evidence can be found, the ToE is indisputable. Attempting to poke holes in the theory doesn't really do any good unless you have an alternative theory that is supported better by the available evidence.

Not sure why you quoted the third comment, as it was in response to someone claiming that scientific discoveries had not done any good in the treatment of cancer. It IS actually indisputable that science has made monumental impacts in the treatment of cancer.

 

[leibowde84]

I have always wondered if that famous quote attributed to Socrates didn't have a context we are not aware of? And while the 'golden age' of easy scientific discovery which gave science much of it's reputation has ended, that only reflects a reality that the search for practical, knowledge is becoming so much more difficult and expensive. And this is happening at a time when the demands for new primary insight are growing, even becoming desperate in some fields, antibiotics for example. And if science is groaning under the constraints of it's own limitations, faith traditions are also being forced to confront the corruptions of their own thinking, whether pedophile priests, the tyranny of occupation or ISIS. The view of ourselves as a species, that 'we' have created, is looking like the emperors new clothes. So long as both the scientific and moral insights that would make for peace and sustainability are missing, one might say, with a ear to Socrates, all is just chasing after wind!

There is a huge difference between accepting a scientific theory as being the best explanation for something we have so far and a religious belief being the ONLY acceptable explanation for something which cannot be improved upon or changed.

 

[leibowde84]

the incoherent is yours^

Well, everyone else seems to understand it. Can you point out what part you are having trouble understanding specifically? And, can you be a bit more clear with your comments. I understand you try to be poetic, but it just makes your message extremely difficult to understand.

 

[SuzyL]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths. But, isn’t that a bad thing? Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves. In accepting scripture as fact, one forfeits their search for understanding. Is there any kind of honor or value in doing this? Is faith based on subjective, unverified experience more dangerous than its worth?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future. I feel that is what the scientific method and science in general sticks to. Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable. The best opponents have to offer is pointing out holes in the theory that seem to get smaller and smaller by the day. And, they fail to present an alternative theory based on verifiable evidence rather than just jumping to the conclusion of God. I am in no way claiming that the scientific method is the only source of information/knowledge, but it does seem to be by far the most reliable and prudent.

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence? What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us. Some say that science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, but why is that a problem? Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?

I think you statement alone says it all. If it is science, by definition it simply must continue to always be questioned...it seems to me. And you should "believe" in something scientific, at least not in the same way that you BELIEVE in your religion. For me, when I use the word "belief" it means that I can't prove it to myself or anyone else. But if something is scientific...then you keep on testing it and the test results tell you one thing or another. For example, in my business, we sample for contaminants in water and soil. Each sample often gives us a different result because we are testing for very small amounts of things - in ppb or "parts per billion." Each sample will give you a different result. But you can be pretty sure that if you get low numbers consistently that all is well. But my profound belief in a loving God...I can only state that I know there is a God and I know that he loves me. But it is part of my belief system and I can not prove it by testing for validity.

 

[Town Heretic]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths. But, isn’t that a bad thing? Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves. In accepting scripture as fact, one forfeits their search for understanding. Is there any kind of honor or value in doing this? Is faith based on subjective, unverified experience more dangerous than its worth?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future. I feel that is what the scientific method and science in general sticks to. Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable. The best opponents have to offer is pointing out holes in the theory that seem to get smaller and smaller by the day. And, they fail to present an alternative theory based on verifiable evidence rather than just jumping to the conclusion of God. I am in no way claiming that the scientific method is the only source of information/knowledge, but it does seem to be by far the most reliable and prudent.

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence? What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us. Some say that science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, but why is that a problem? Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?

A very interesting post with a great deal in it to consider. I'd like to take a moment to focus on the last of your questions.

"What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing evidence to direct us?"

To my mind, the larger point underneath the inquiry is contextual. That is, we will make moral decisions. They're inescapable. Those decisions will be founded in something, serve some particular idea. So we can't live out our existence, outside of the contemplative, in any real sense as moral agnostics. Agnosticism fails the moment we make those moral choices. We cease to be outside of the question then and become agents. So faith, as I see it, is about acknowledging our agency and choosing the path of our conviction.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths.

which one acknowledges personal faith?

and which one claims indisputable facts?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future.
..
Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable

so which is it?!

 

[mahasn ebn sawresho]

one might say, with a ear to Socrates, all is just chasing after wind!

This is called a desperate
Or defeat
Or confusion
When looking at the flag with your mind, science has certain limits
Also looking at religions and the answers remain unable to persuade you
Take this position
This position is to repeat the experience of Gilgamesh humanity before more than 1000 years BC
Human repeats itself these ideas
I was looking for immortality Gilgamesh
And he had the means of knowing primitive
That was between him and one of the priests Khmpapa Babylonians dialogue
Man seeks to know why he was on the ground
Are you talking animal
Is it the finest objects
Is there another life after death
Scientific, religious, scientific, and the answers are not enough to satiate your desire you too and I
That is why our focus is on the best words, which is that God is love
Look for teaching guides you to love
My greetings to you

 

[Thief]

Well, everyone else seems to understand it. Can you point out what part you are having trouble understanding specifically? And, can you be a bit more clear with your comments. I understand you try to be poetic, but it just makes your message extremely difficult to understand.

others understand my retort to you
I'm not surprised you are coming up short

 

[atanu]

which one acknowledges personal faith?
and which one claims indisputable facts?
so which is it?!

Right ho.

 

[leibowde84]

But my profound belief in a loving God...I can only state that I know there is a God and I know that he loves me. But it is part of my belief system and I can not prove it by testing for validity.

I appreciate your comment, as it is very well-written and informative of your way of thinking. But, can you explain how you "know" something that cannot be verified through evidence?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

which one acknowledges personal faith?
and which one claims indisputable facts?

Religion often manages to do both, which is quite odd really.