You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[McBell]

You clearly haven't understood what I have been saying.
Scripture by definition doesn't come from humans. If I was quoting Dr Cheater then you could say I was a hypocrite.

Clearly you are not hearing what is being said to you.
I said WRITTEN by humans...
Now unless it is your argument that god himself wrote down to paper (or parchment or whatever) my point stands.

I have to wonder if you are the same way when reading Scripture...

 

[zemelo.franky]

I have to wonder if you are the same way when reading Scripture...

Are you taking bets?

 

[Acim]

No there is a major difference. Religious faith is like having faith Catholics or mormons are true and is much different from secular reasoning using things that are seen. Spiritual and Religious are the same only spiritual is less rigid but is all has to do with things unseen. Secular as to do with things that are seen and not really debateable when everyone see it.

Secular has to do with future events. That is not seen.

Secular also has to do with the past. That is not seen

And if you've listened to me previously about physical reality not being objectively proven, then I will say (with conviction) that physical reality is not seen. It is perceived. There's a world of difference there, just like you think there is world of difference between secular faith and spiritual faith. I stand by idea that they are very similar.

I honestly think secular faith, especially in way this discourse is going, is the most rigid kind of faith around. It hardly allows for free thinking and instead is entirely dogmatic on what is deemed accepted for "sight" and "reason."

 

[Acim]

The difference is I've seen proof that doctors know magic but I've never been to physics lab so I have to go by what I read.

And what does this have to do with trust? You are saying you have personal experience with the doctor, and don't have that with the physicist.

We go to universities to learn the knowledge of people over the ages just as you go to monks to learn spirituality.

How did we get on this tangent?

The major diffence between a spiritual book and secular book is the difference between seen and unseen despite what we experience inside which would be more personal. When one book says "what goes up must come down" and another book says "god is inside of us" there is a huge difference in the trust factor in that the book talking about god requires faith and "believing" in gravity requires none.

It does and you are using a rather poor example. Choose an actual scientific theory, experiment, article about recent discovery. Don't just mention it in sound bite form, provide either link to the science that was done or article that attempts to adequately describe that.. I'll admit there is chance that it won't show the faith being used, and will just assume reader(s) are accepting of basic premises. Well guess what, that same thing happens with spiritual and religious study. But you come up with scientific study, and I'll bring to the table spiritual one that isn't in sound bite form you gave, and we can compare notes to see where faith is being utilized, and where you think something other than faith is showing up. To be clear, I will be looking for premises, not what follows after hypothesis. I'll grant that 'rational thinking / methods' will likely result. But that is as true with spiritual study / practice as it is for scientific. The premise of the spiritual (or religious) is what is in question, and so be sure when bringing scientific study to the table, that is noted. If not, I think my response will be rather predictable. But maybe not.

 

[Acim]

A scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method to demonstrate something.

Feel free to use scientific method to provide objective evidence for the physical. Which is what your quote was in direct response to.

A christian is an individual who has faith that something that he believes is the truth.

A Christian also utilizes Reason to facilitate study and practices according to their spiritual search, and exploration of knowledge.

Of course we can criticize the scientific method because it has it's weak spots, but that doesn't mean it is little trustworthy.

What are these weak spots you are referring to?

I am not making the claim there is little trustworthiness to scientific method. I am saying the basis of science is faith.

The things demonstrated by this method are supported by evidence (that is, by it's own meaning, objective) and are true, because everything you can't demonstrate is not "scientificly demonstrated" - is just an hypothesis.

Be interested in how you back this claim up. Evidence is not (inherently) objective. I've already presented why this is so. Think of the Christian version of evidence that amounts to, "how do we know God wrote the bible, because the bible says so." That passes for evidence. It doesn't pass for objective evidence. Proof of the physical, that I am thus far aware of, doesn't pass for objective evidence. It does pass for evidence. I'll grant that. I believe there is a physical existence. I have no objective evidence for it.

 

[idav]

Secular has to do with future events. That is not seen.

Secular also has to do with the past. That is not seen

And if you've listened to me previously about physical reality not being objectively proven, then I will say (with conviction) that physical reality is not seen. It is perceived. There's a world of difference there, just like you think there is world of difference between secular faith and spiritual faith. I stand by idea that they are very similar.

I honestly think secular faith, especially in way this discourse is going, is the most rigid kind of faith around. It hardly allows for free thinking and instead is entirely dogmatic on what is deemed accepted for "sight" and "reason."

I'm sure you should have seen me say that objectivity is about others being able to verify that they see what you see. This can't be done in a spiritual sense a person would have to try and describe that they have the same feelings and there is a world of difference there. You try and ask somebody what a dog looks like and you take a picture and just show it to them. You ask someone what love is and just try and get the same answer.

 

[idav]

Feel free to use scientific method to provide objective evidence for the physical. Which is what your quote was in direct response to.

Feel free to learn what objective means.

adj.

• Of or having to do with a material object.
• Having actual existence or reality.
• 1. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1.
  2. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.

Read more: objective: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com​

​

 

[otokage007]

A Christian also utilizes Reason to facilitate study and practices according to their spiritual search, and exploration of knowledge.

I am not making the claim there is little trustworthiness to scientific method. I am saying the basis of science is faith.

Be interested in how you back this claim up. Evidence is not (inherently) objective. I've already presented why this is so. Think of the Christian version of evidence that amounts to, "how do we know God wrote the bible, because the bible says so." That passes for evidence. It doesn't pass for objective evidence. Proof of the physical, that I am thus far aware of, doesn't pass for objective evidence. It does pass for evidence. I'll grant that. I believe there is a physical existence. I have no objective evidence for it.

Christians as a whole do not use reason, that's just your personal opinion of what a christian is or should be. The only thing that all christians share, concerning to their religion, is faith - and if they have not faith then they are not christians.

The basis of science is not faith, because faith is not scientific at all. It has nothing to do with science in any posible way. At the maximum, you can "have faith" that your scientific experiments will success, or something like that, which has nothing to do with the religious faith.

In regards to the "evidence" devate, I must apologize, because I call "evidence" to what you call "objective evidence". The other "evidence" that you mention is not called like that by me.

 

[religion99]

According to Jainism , Gods are Omniscients not Omnipotent. This solves most of the issues associated with Abrahamic God.

 

[Oneatatime]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

So...if humans are so useless how can we reliably learn from a higher authority without the knowledge being corrupted by the same things which apparantly make science flawed?

Personally I'm going to stick with science because I know that when it comes to providing the human race with an evolving understanding of the universe nothing else comes close to being as effective as it is.

 

[Paroxys]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses. Unfortunately all human beings are subject to four defects:
1) Our senses are limited and imperfect
2) We make mistakes
3) We are in illusion
4) We cheat.

Due these defects we can not know the Truth through this method. In order to have perfect knowledge you must hear from higher authority. Just like if you want to know your father you have to ask your mother. You can't go to every man and test them.

Doesn't this mean that knowledge that we receive from a "higher being" is also subject to the same four defects. And hence can't know truth from any method? If our senses are limited and imperfect how can you say that we are perceiving God's wisdom correctly? Even If we assume God's wisdom is perfect, does this necessarily mean that that the way this "wisdom" is communicated is also perfect too?

 

[Acim]

Christians as a whole do not use reason, that's just your personal opinion of what a christian is or should be.

If you are attempting to claim it is an isolated opinion, I would disagree. I was saying (and still am) that Reason is utilized in religious or spiritual belief systems. I briefly explained in what way in previous post.

The only thing that all christians share, concerning to their religion, is faith - and if they have not faith then they are not christians.

And this would be where your opinion is exposed.

The basis of science is not faith, because faith is not scientific at all.

At the foundation it absolutely is.

It has nothing to do with science in any posible way.

At almost every step of 'method' it is found, but I am saying at most fundamental level of 'method' it is entirely resting on faith. This is said to start with observation(s), and yet 'what' is doing the observing rests entirely on faith. The observer is utilizing faith in a consciously directed way, though admittedly may not self identify the occurrence as faith-based. IMO, this has everything to do with taking observation for granted, and almost an unwillingness in self analysis to see observation for what it literally is. Looking on a physical world as a physical entity using physical sight. The only thing is that which is doing the seeing / understanding is non-physical being. Even if 'non-physical' is not fully agreed upon (even though I stand by that), it is not the physical eyes that are doing the seeing, and in what is I think at least most acceptable to bias of materialism, it is brain doing the seeing. It is the brain (as personhood) trusting the physical eyes to deliver information that is accurate, even while it is brain that is trusting own self for 'accurate interpretation.' This fundamental trust is faith.

At the maximum, you can "have faith" that your scientific experiments will success, or something like that, which has nothing to do with the religious faith.

Fine, if you wish to say faith is only religious faith, but those of us who are spiritual, gnostic, understanding of esoteric wisdom (and facts) aren't married to your pre-conceived notions of what 'religious faith' must mean and how 'good Christians have good faith' or such fallacious understandings as these.

Faith is synonymous with trust, or plausibly with confidence. This will almost always precede Reason within (conscious) awareness. Both are derived from knowledge. Both can lead to 'greater understanding' where presumption is that (current) knowledge is incomplete.

 

[darkendless]

Faith is synonymous with trust, or plausibly with confidence. This will almost always precede Reason within (conscious) awareness. Both are derived from knowledge. Both can lead to 'greater understanding' where presumption is that (current) knowledge is incomplete.

Nice way to put a positive spin on blind superstition. Faith is what I would call working within boundaries. Faith set science back hundreds of years. Geology has always been hindered by the bible due to scientists in former times trying to fit their findings into a biblical timeline and thus, twisting theories to support facts instead of facts to support theories.

The problem with faith based knowledge is that you are making an unprovable assumption. What good does that do?

 

[otokage007]

And this would be where your opinion is exposed.

At the foundation it absolutely is.

Faith in the Lord is the only thing a christian needs to be a christian. That's a fact not my opinions.

According to the dictionary, there's a definition of faith which refers exclusively to religion. That's the faith I'm talking about.

Faith: belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion. <- Of course science has nothing to do with that.

The faith I said you could find in science, is this:
Faith: belief that is not based on proof - He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. <- Even if both words are called "faith" and are related to each other, they don't mean the same thing, so you can't say "both science and religion require faith" because with this you are stating such a ridiculous thing as:

Matematicians and doctors both perform operations. (surgery and calculations, the word sounds the same, but they are not the same thing.)

Common faith and religous faith, are so much diferent, that the second can make you explode yourself like kamikaze. Also, common faith is easy to overcome, when religous faith is almost impossible.

 

[Looncall]

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.

Let's see:

God is defined as benevolent. There is terible suffering in the natural world that has nothing to do with considerations such as morality. Therefore, god does not exist.

Right?

 

[Acim]

Faith in the Lord is the only thing a christian needs to be a christian. That's a fact not my opinions.

That is opinion. You may find a denomination of Christianity that supports this. In fact, I believe you can find many denominations who support this. I think many of those will say there is more to being Christian than this, but I do think you could back it up with other OPINIONS.

I would say awareness of Christ (within) is what makes one self identify as Christian. It can work in way where person(s) think awareness of Christ as Lord through Jesus is what makes for Christian, but if not identifying that within, I would have intellectual doubts that this is Christianity at work. In fact, intellectually speaking, if that were the version put forth (with strong denial that Christ is within), then I would say that sort of understanding is, factually speaking, work of the 'devil.'

According to the dictionary, there's a definition of faith which refers exclusively to religion. That's the faith I'm talking about.

Fine, I am talking to other version of faith that is still faith, and isn't married to religion. I saw your definition, now you can realize the one I'm working from says this:

faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something < - Of course science is fundamentally based on this.

The faith I said you could find in science, is this:
Faith: belief that is not based on proof - He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. <- Even if both words are called "faith" and are related to each other, they don't mean the same thing, so you can't say "both science and religion require faith"

Again, you're about 3 steps behind me. Faith is having confidence in observations as looking at 'reality.' Faith that the interpreter is interpreting (accurately) reality. Faith that the observer can be independently objective within the paradigm when clearly the observer IS the paradigm.

because with this you are stating such a ridiculous thing as:

Matematicians and doctors both perform operations. (surgery and calculations, the word sounds the same, but they are not the same thing.)

Common faith and religous faith, are so much diferent, that the second can make you explode yourself like kamikaze. Also, common faith is easy to overcome, when religous faith is almost impossible.

Common faith is I would say almost impossible to overcome. Variations on religious faith are not so challenging as you may think. With sound bite logic or persons with little patience, it may be not worth time and effort to overcome what is being put forth. Nor is it all that important to overcome the religious faith unless it is at place where the instruction is, others need to be made to believe this. Which is where scientific faith has essentially gotten to, and is where I am all too glad to challenge the (faulty) logic being put forth.

No one reading this is yet to provide proof of objectivity to me, while I am able to understand how well consensual understanding in scientific disciplines can work. I honor the consensus and appreciate it to fairly large degree in my beliefs of physical existence. I challenge it when it is argued that this is 'only version of sanity' we can obtain and it is 'all that is reasonable.' It is faith based and I'm unlikely to budge from this just cause you and others have preconceived hang-ups with religious faith.

 

[otokage007]

Back to the topic. You can't have perfect knowledge through science, but science is the biggest source of knowledge nowadays.

 

[Me Myself]

I agree you can´t have perfect knowledge through science, and I agree with the reasons listed as to why it is limited, but all our experience is limited by our senses, and so is all our knowledge. Not just science

 

[Tristesse]

I agree you can´t have perfect knowledge through science, and I agree with the reasons listed as to why it is limited, but all our experience is limited by our senses, and so is all our knowledge. Not just science

Is there another method that has been proven as reliable and test-worthy as science?

 

[Me Myself]

Is there another method that has been proven as reliable and test-worthy as science?

As I said, every method is limited to the 5 senses.

Only methods that aren´t are only valuable for he who has directly experienced them, because when he tells it to others, then he becomes sound that can be misheard, and words that can be wrongfully interpreted.