Go for it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You can't have perfect knowledge through science
- Thread starter I-Ching
- Start date
Go for it.
Right. It is true for you two who agree. There may be others!
Discernment will provide path for those who are attracted to your version of "rational."
Are you using science right now to back up this claim?
Same question, though I'm thinking you feel you are answering it. I observe you attempting to provide an added or alternative definition of science. Perhaps not, and perhaps you can use science to back up this claim.
Agreed existence is a decent assumption. God's existence seems decent to me. As does pink unicorns, dark matter, justice, leprechauns, Thor, and about 18 quintillion other ideas that I'll have to get back to you on. Some of these (okay overwhelming majority) are for me an appeal to a lower authority, and at least one is an appeal to a higher authority. All exist as assumptions. Some can be further substantiated via other assumptions that mask themselves as 'reasonable conclusions.'
No math backs up claims of science and vise versa.
No science by definition is a method. What your asking is illogical. I think the results speak for themselves of whether any method is any good.
I don't mean existence as in what you can imagine. I mean existence as the world and universe around us. We can see it and it is there and that is what science is based on. If it is a false reality I don't think it matters much at least not to me anyway.
I never said god doesn't speak to you. I said god does not speak to everyone or allow everyone to experience God. I myself have never experienced God. God has no say in my life how much authority does God have.
What I said we had nothing better, not that science was unbiased. It is only a lie to you because your beliefs are different. I would never call you a liar based on your beliefs but unfortunately I expect it from those that claim to believe.
A - Then use math to back up claims I raised earlier. You don't have to, but that was me noting how science is limited. It can't even back up itself (aka scientific materialism).
B - I often think without math, I don't know if science would hold much water. And without science, math, I think will do just fine. One absolutely needs the other, the other is 'willing' to lend a hand, but is very much self sufficient. Also weird how "math" isn't front and center when "method" comes up, but instead "observations" are. In reading of this thread, I read at least twice (seems like 5 times) that science is based entirely on observations. Nope. Do not believe the hype. It may be initiated by observations that are (heavily) biased, but the science that is deemed credible ain't based on observations.
If science is a method (which I do understand it to be), then a) it ought not to rule out, or really even downplay personal experience and b) perhaps it could use said method to back up axiom/assumptions of "physical world exists." Or the other claims I posted earlier, about or from scientific materialism.
Which is precisely imagined when you go through the legwork of semantics, philosophy and actual Reason.
With what can we see it? Careful, circular reasoning alert.
Math, and really Reason, is what science is based on (in terms of credibility). Your other claim of what science is based on is precisely what I am asking you to use said method to validate, in an objective way.
Speaks volumes.
And for me, the way I read this (really really) is akin to: I myself have never experienced Life. Life has no say in my existence, how much authority does Life have.
I really do read it that way. I find it non credible when you make such an assertion, and yet you did. Just like me. I have never experienced what everyone else calls Life, therefore Life doesn't exist. If you think it does, perhaps you are delusional?
"Better" to me, is prideful. Very okay to express this way, I do it to. But I think we have alternatives, and honestly I'd go with science, as one, but the kind that isn't married to 'scientific materialism' as fact. Art to me is alternative to understanding self, reality, existence. At times, I feel it is undeniably better than "next alternative." Theosophy would be another. And so on.
I didn't call you or anyone 'a liar.' At least not in last 3 posts. I might have called someone a liar somewhere in life. In fact, I'm sure I have.
It does back up itself and math just solidifies it. Science even backs up what we are actually seeing and that color is just different wavelengths of light.
I don't agree. Math is great by itself but without observation backing it up it is just speculation at best or just logic test with nothing subsantial coming from it. Observing IS the method. Science is deemed credible because it has given proven results.
I agree it shouldn't discount experience as experience are our own personal observations. The problem is that personal observations are bias and others need to be able to have these same "observations" given the same circumstances. If these observations happen everywhere then there is a logical explanation which science will provide. For example when people go into religious trances science has shown what the brain is actually doing and we can observe that something is actually going on and it is explainable phenomenon and no particular to one religion or certain prayers.
It might be imagined but better if it is observed.
Yeah we use eyes to see and machines to see what can't be seen with the naked eye. The eye isn't flawed it is just one method of percieving. There are many ways of percieving and maybe even ways that we are not fully aware of. It doesn't make the few ways of percieving faulty it just makes it one piece of the puzzle.
It is based on observations as people have said.
Well you can argue that this might not really be reality but what does that accomplish?
Otherright
Otherright
I disagree. Science does not back itself to the point that is can be taken as fact. You have to take a measure of faith with the person's observation, hoping that they are making the best, hoping that their method is sound.
If scientists were dead on in their observations, there would never be need for revision. Take DNA for instance. It was thought in the early fifties that DNA was too small to hold complex information, so hereditary traits were known to come from protein. Well, this is wrong. It required more observation, as the initial observation was wrong.
I'll give you a current example: the distance of stars. The distance of stars is still greatly debated, yet every time you read something about astronomy, there it is, "... a star 7,000 light-years away."
Do you know the most common method for measuring distances. Its called parallax, and it isn't that accurate, especially the further away you get, because you are measuring how far you think you observe something in motion. The cross point of a distant star in parallax is ridiculous. How are you going to find an accurate parallax for a star when you don't initially know the distance to the reference point?
I can see we are not getting anywhere. You are saying it backs itself up. Well, that is about as circular as anything religion puts forth. I cited claims either that I've heard numerous times or that are right here in this thread by others. Back those up with science (or math).
Nothing substantial coming from it, is about as far as I could go in agreement. The rest is an opinion that I challenge or not sure if I agree with. Math simply does not need science to do math. Science needs math to do science, or at least to be credible / substantial. Observing is not the method. At best, at very best, it is part of method that has somewhere between 3 to 7 steps, and as I said earlier, it is rather incidental to credibility. Admittedly, I am downplaying observation in the method, but I truly believe it needs downplaying and a factual readjustment to how intrinsic it is to credibility of science.
Yeah, this is what I mean by limiting observation. If we do this same sort of observation with brain activity with people doing scientific method, would we have explainable phenomenon and no particular to one philosophy or process / method? As if we could make science, something that is not outside the mind, but instead an observable brain function, where what is "actually going on" is akin to following recipe to bake bread?
Hence these so called observation have inherent bias. Go in to mind without need for physical eyes. It is plausible and happens to many a lot of the time. There, you won't find something that is judging (against) science, like presumptuous science does with religion / spiritual thought.
If relying on body's eyes for seeing, it is imagined. Or is stemming from imagination. If you go within, imagination may be stimulated, but then again, it may not. There are 'ways around' these 'things.'
The eye is not that which is perceiving. Admittedly, this gets tricky a bit because reliance on physical self (of which I feel I am demonstrating in this moment) will swear or have trust that they eyes are that which are doing the perceiving, the bringing in of information to visual cortex.
Faulty may or may not be accurate way of putting it. But if someone comes to me and says, "physical eyes are only way we have to see," I categorize that somewhere in range of insane and ignorant. Said in a persistent way and it magically becomes arrogant.
Others have said this. None have validated this (in any objective way).
Mind opening to alternative way of seeing self (most importantly) and world.
Yes we are constantly trying to find the best way to observe but it doesn't make observing a bad thing.
Yes it requires many observations and I'm aware of how theories develop. We are all well aware that we don't always have all the data so we deal with what we have. If science could always be the hero in court cases it would be awesome but it sure is one of the best tools we have which beats eye witness testimony any time of the day.
They have several methods of determining distance and it verifies itself when those different methods give relatively the same answer. Same goes for dating methods of rocks.
What your saying is akin to saying that science is faulty because it can't see with spiritual eyes. Your the one with the bias at that point with the assumption that there is more than a materialistic world. Science makes no assumption of such a thing and wouldn't care if it was corrected in the near future but you have to be able to prove it. Admittedly there may be other ways of percieving that we are not aware of but what you are saying that a spiritual person is "percieving" isn't really outside the mind and is observed not to be until we find these spiritual lenses your looking for. If science found spiritual lenses it would just add it to the arsenal of various ways of percieving in a natural world.
We know that what we observe is a mere reflection of things and this is based on what we know of science. That is why we use other perceptions like hearing, and feeling, sonar, infrared etc. We just get a bigger picture the more ways we are able to percieve the same object.
Well, that is not what I've said. I've asked for said method to substantiate popular claims, thought to be 'basis of science.'
I am not denying my bias. I am asking scientific materialists to back claims in that domain with science. Pretty simple really. So far, I am being met with, how you say, "epic fail."
While science doesn't have to prove claims along lines of, well just about all things I cited before? But things that would deny introspection, intuition, insight are to be understood as 'proper bias?'
Another, rational way of putting what I've said, is non-physical lenses. Mind, Reason, intuition, insight, math, all non physical means / constructs for determining validity, substantiating conclusions, experimenting and testing hypothesis.
Not if scientific materialists have any say.
I know you didn't say it but thats what I'm getting out of it. It substantiates itself like that saying goes. "the proof is in the pudding"
Your funny. Science is able to observe things of a "spiritual" nature but that is when we go into psuedo science but it isn't that we don't know anything about it. It's just sciencr calls it electromagnetism instead or whatever phenomenon better explains it.
Can you put that in the form of a question, lol.
Non-physical should not mean unnatural. We should be able to observe anything in the natural universe. If we can "intuitivly" percieve it then it should be a observable by other means just like any object we observe.
LOL! What is non-material supposed to be? It's observable only through our imaginations?
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
Like who? What scripture defines an evil God?
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
The fact the people were being cured of small pox by Ayurveda in 1500 BC shows that we don't need your junk medicine.
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
A Guru and Sadhu are by definition empowered by God and therefore not subject to these defects. God is perfect and he has the power to make his representatives perfect. But if someone is fake then you can detect them via the three point check system.
God is by definition benevolent and therefore makes these arrangements so that we can attain Transcendence. This is the purpose of the human form of life, therefore God ensures that there is always a way to Transcendence for those that are sincere. We would not have free will if we could not choose such a path.
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
A Guru is by definition empowered by God and therefore not subject to the defects of ordinary human beings.
I-Ching
Aspiring to Transcendence
Another analogy:
There was a frog who was trapped in a well. Dr Frog. One day another frog jumped into his well. This frog was from the ocean. Dr Frog was an expert in his well, so asked the new frog how big is the ocean is it 10x the size of my well 20x, 30x. In this way Dr Frog could never really understand what is the size of the ocean.
In the same way we are trapped in our well of perception and we try to understand Reality in relation to our limited perception. The only way we can really understand Reality is to hear from Higher Authority.
There was a frog who was trapped in a well. Dr Frog. One day another frog jumped into his well. This frog was from the ocean. Dr Frog was an expert in his well, so asked the new frog how big is the ocean is it 10x the size of my well 20x, 30x. In this way Dr Frog could never really understand what is the size of the ocean.
In the same way we are trapped in our well of perception and we try to understand Reality in relation to our limited perception. The only way we can really understand Reality is to hear from Higher Authority.