You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[PolyHedral]

If the Guru is human then they are limited by the same senses the rest of us humans are limited to.

And if the guru is not human you've got bigger problems on your hands.

 

[idav]

And if the guru is not human you've got bigger problems on your hands.

According to mister I-Ching, us regular mortals just lack the proper training. What he doesn't know is that I've graduated long ago from Padawan to full Jedi. :yes:

 

[I-Ching]

Baloney.

You get told (i.e. hear through your ears) or read (i.e. see through your idea) about religious ideas. You then think about them and decide whether to accept them or not. Later on, you think about them more and come up with inferences by which you apply the concepts you were taught to things beyond the immediate subject matter.

This is how all learning works, including religious learning.

And it's got the same problems that you identified in the OP:

- our senses our limited and imperfect, but we're dependent on them to learn things, including religious things.

- we have to rationalize and make intelligent inferences in order to apply what we've learned, but we sometimes do this improperly... even for religious beliefs.

- even if we do all of the above flawlessly, our beliefs are still dependent on their source: maybe the person who taught us was lying. Maybe our teacher was honestly mistaken.

If your teacher is qualified and you are a good student then the process works. Which is better to learn to drive a car by having accidents or to get a driving teacher?

Just like you hear from your mother who is your father.

My mother is not my father. Regardless, I have mis-heard both my mother and my father on different occasions.

You obviously didn't understand the analogy in my OP. If you don't know who your father is then the best way to find out is to ask your mother.

 

[I-Ching]

If the Guru is human then they are limited by the same senses the rest of us humans are limited to.

You clearly don't understand what a Guru is. Why can't God empower a someone?

 

[idav]

You clearly don't understand what a Guru is. Why can't God empower a someone?

I believe people can be empowered but I believe we empower ourselves. You can believe that god empowered a mom to lift a car off her kid and scientists can say it was due to a surge of adrenaline. Either way we can agree humans have great potential.

 

[I-Ching]

I believe people can be empowered but I believe we empower ourselves. You can believe that god empowered a mom to lift a car off her kid and scientists can say it was due to a surge of adrenaline. Either way we can agree humans have great potential.

Unless a human takes shelter of God their potential is wasted.

 

[idav]

Unless a human takes shelter of God their potential is wasted.

It's not god it's called the force.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If your teacher is qualified and you are a good student then the process works.

Okay... but the corollary to this is that until you ascertain the qualifications of your teacher, you can't be sure that the process will work. But any method of inquiry that you could use to do this is subject to the same problems you've identified with science: you could be mistaken. You could rely on someone else who is mistaken. You could be outright lied to.

Which is better to learn to drive a car by having accidents or to get a driving teacher?

Do you think that anyone who's gone to a driving teacher will know how to drive flawlessly? That's the real relevant question.

You obviously didn't understand the analogy in my OP. If you don't know who your father is then the best way to find out is to ask your mother.

If you think that a woman is always the best judge of who the father of her child is, then I can tell you've never watched Jerry Springer or Maury Povich.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You clearly don't understand what a Guru is. Why can't God empower a someone?

You might want to ask yourself that question. Your argument implies that God never, ever "empowers" scientists.

 

[I-Ching]

Okay... but the corollary to this is that until you ascertain the qualifications of your teacher, you can't be sure that the process will work. But any method of inquiry that you could use to do this is subject to the same problems you've identified with science: you could be mistaken. You could rely on someone else who is mistaken. You could be outright lied to.

You could be cheated if you are in ignorance but if you educate yourself from sastra then will be able to discriminate a bonafida teacher. If you are a good student then you will inquire till your understanding is correct. Of course there is space for human error but at least the knowledge itself is perfect, whereas through science the knowledge itself is fundamentally imperfect and can never become perfect. The deductive process will always be superior to the inductive process.

Do you think that anyone who's gone to a driving teacher will know how to drive flawlessly? That's the real relevant question.

Learning from a teacher is a superior process, that is my point, you can't deny it.

 

[I-Ching]

You might want to ask yourself that question. Your argument implies that God never, ever "empowers" scientists.

He might empower a scientist that is trying to give evidence that He exists.

 

[Revoltingest]

So God only empowers those who agree with you.
Convenient.

 

[Acim]

Yes we are constantly trying to find the best way to observe but it doesn't make observing a bad thing.

This is response to ( Otherright): 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.

Apparently, taking science as (or with) a measure of faith is a "bad thing." Rather than, "factual thing."

Moreover, "constantly trying to find best way to observe" is another one of those claims that I'd like to see if / how science is backing that up. Like saying, objectively speaking, religion is finding the best way to understand the universe, via the many descriptions we have from (or for) God. No faith there, just an axiom that shall be paid no attention. Important thing is to keep searching with God for that is best answer to understanding the universe. We have nothing else.

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.

This is response to ( Otherright): 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.

If it is a known that "it requires many or more observations" than wherever we are now with theories, how can it be said that the basis (of scientific materialism) is best, of what's around. I mean, I know it can be said as mere opinion. But not anything that is (truly) objective. And is akin to saying, "intuition is the best way we have of understanding everything. Sure more inner observations are required, especially by the less initiated, to establish certain understandings. And that is why it is required. (Do it now!) But it is to be understood by one and all that it is the best method. How do I objectively substantiate this claim? I don't need to, "best of what is around" proves itself. Therefore intuition proves itself to be most reasonable means of finding evidence, trusting evidence, and making conclusions about self and world."

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.

There are several methods for determining connection to God and each method verifies itself.

Wow, this objectivity thing is awesome!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You could be cheated if you are in ignorance but if you educate yourself from sastra then will be able to discriminate a bonafida teacher.

Wait... so to discern a bona fide teacher, you need to be properly educated in the shastras...

... but to be properly educated in the shastras, you need a bona fide teacher...

... but to discern a bona fide teacher, you need to be properly educated in the shastras...

Do you see any problem with this arrangement?

If you are a good student then you will inquire till your understanding is correct.

How could you ever know when this happens? Your determination of whether your understanding is correct, but if your understanding isn't correct, it could allow you to come to a faulty conclusion (e.g. that your understanding is correct when it really isn't).

Of course there is space for human error but at least the knowledge itself is perfect, whereas through science the knowledge itself is fundamentally imperfect and can never become perfect. The deductive process will always be superior to the inductive process.

But deductive reasoning can never be any more valid than its initial premises, so in any system where you can't test those premises, you can never be sure if they're valid or not.

And testing the premises of deductive reasoning is a matter of inductive reasoning, so really, it still comes back to the things you say are faulty.

Learning from a teacher is a superior process, that is my point, you can't deny it.

Depends on the teacher.

But your argument implies that learning from a teacher is not only superior, but that it's a flawless process. That's what I disagree with.

 

[idav]

There are several methods for determining connection to God and each method verifies itself.

Wow, this objectivity thing is awesome!

That might mean something if you could define or show what God is without all the ambiguity involved. God is love and love is verified therefore god exists!!! BS and highly illogical.

I don't need faith to believe what I see. Feelings are deceptive.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses.

This is neither new nor particularily profound.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method.

And what 'Truth' is that?

In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority.

There is no reason to think that this 'higher authority' exists.
I also highly doubt the existence of 'perfect knowledge'.

 

[Acim]

I 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.

From scientific materialist perspective, "spiritual" anything is psuedo science and is evidence of "bias at work." From dogmatic spiritualist, "material" anything is psuedo science, and is evidence of "bias at work."

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.

Disagree, and is where the bias of materialism is clearly being exposed for what it is - faith. Akin to saying, if ToE is accurate, we should be able to confirm that with God.

The reality, and what this thread is about, is the non-physical way of seeing, understanding, verifying, reasoning, (etc.) allows for, understands, knows what "physicality means." It isn't 'ruling it out' in terms of 'what might we share with each other, what might we teach, what might we learn.' It is uber tolerant when understanding a thing or two about a thing or two. Those who come from perspective of, "physicality is all we have, is independent of the mind, is what science and scientific observation is based on," are very visibly dogmatic, to the degree of not mincing words around, "do not share your delusions with me, keep that crap away from my kids / all kids, your subjective learnings are completely your own imagination and belong in a mental ward, not in or anywhere near the public court of Reason and Teaching. In fact, if you so much as hint of anything in that direction, you are psuedo scientist who simply doesn't get it. And please don't ask me to back my crap up for scientific materialism, cause I'll just conclude with nonsense like, 'proof is in the pudding,' and 'best of what's around.' IOW, pay no attention to the man over there behind the curtain."

One allows for, permits and even gives senses of knowledge to the other (hence it is the higher authority)

The other outright dismisses or ignores the alternative as based on imagination only and deems all who follow in that path strictly delusional. Not realizing, its own framework is based on imagination that when adhered to is, strictly speaking, delusional (hence it is the lower authority)

Both carry with them a strong conviction, enough to move the mind into state where version of reality is manifested all around and as Self (or self).

 

[Acim]

That might mean something if you could define or show what God is without all the ambiguity involved. God is love and love is verified therefore god exists!!! BS and highly illogical.

Right back atcha. Define the basis for seeing in the physical without using ambiguous or self-serving terms. Since you and every proponent of scientific materialism is yet to do that in this thread (or anywhere), it comes off to Reasonable persons as BS and highly illogical, or more in vein of self serving, insane logic.

I don't need faith to believe what I see. Feelings are deceptive.

When you can substantiate the claim of "you don't need faith to see in the material world," I'll be right here waiting for that proof / evidence. Otherwise, yeah, your deception on these matters is duly noted.

 

[PolyHedral]

Define the basis for seeing in the physical without using ambiguous or self-serving terms.

The world is that which is presented to my senses.

 

[Acim]

My senses aren't perfectly accurate, but I still listen to them most of the time.

My biblical god isn't perfectly accurate, but I still listen to him most of the time.

(Nope, nothing irrational there)