-
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
Me Myself
Back to my username
According to them, yes.
This has resulted pragmatically acceptable so far.
Good.
Doubt should have a reason beyond mere speculation. Watching the matrix isn't reason enough to doubt, at least for some. Just take the blue pill and be done with it.Idk, I think doubt is a reason in itself
Me Myself
Back to my username
Doubt should have a reason beyond mere speculation. Watching the matrix isn't reason enough to doubt, at least for some. Just take the blue pill and be done with it.
For as long as it isn´t damaging, I see no reason not to doubt. All in all it makes me more de-attached at times, and so more happy at times and more relaxed.
But to each his own.
otokage007
Well-Known Member
Guys I think you spend too much time discussing about your different conceptions of words and their meanings, me included. Semantic discussions can lead you far from the topic.
Also, you debate philosophical and very personal concepts that are unique to the person itself and can never be objective or totally true, and it is pointless to try to convince others about this views, as they are so subjective, no one rather than yourself would agree on them at a 100%.
I think what the OP stated: "You can't have perfect knowledge through science" is obviously true, as I think we all agree that science doesn't know everything, even if it may know everything in the future. However, I don't think our limited senses are a problem at all, as is science itself which have taught us that our senses aren't a reliable source of information. X-rays, UV rays, infrared, etc, are invisible to human eye and with science we still can see them. Schizophrenia can make us see illusions, and science can treat it.
However, maybe the intention of the OP was saying that, as you can't have perfect knowledge through science, then you must turn to religion to find it. This is, in my opinion, a dangerous error for a person to commit, as it is impossible to find knowledge in religion because Gods will never turn to you to satisfy your questions. Spending time on trying to hear or find God to seek truth, rather to start seeking knowledge by yourself, can make you be an ignorant till you die.
I know in some religions there's a book (for example the Bible) where God has put his teachings. But again, to rely only on a book to explain everything in life, is a very ignorant position.
Also, you debate philosophical and very personal concepts that are unique to the person itself and can never be objective or totally true, and it is pointless to try to convince others about this views, as they are so subjective, no one rather than yourself would agree on them at a 100%.
I think what the OP stated: "You can't have perfect knowledge through science" is obviously true, as I think we all agree that science doesn't know everything, even if it may know everything in the future. However, I don't think our limited senses are a problem at all, as is science itself which have taught us that our senses aren't a reliable source of information. X-rays, UV rays, infrared, etc, are invisible to human eye and with science we still can see them. Schizophrenia can make us see illusions, and science can treat it.
However, maybe the intention of the OP was saying that, as you can't have perfect knowledge through science, then you must turn to religion to find it. This is, in my opinion, a dangerous error for a person to commit, as it is impossible to find knowledge in religion because Gods will never turn to you to satisfy your questions. Spending time on trying to hear or find God to seek truth, rather to start seeking knowledge by yourself, can make you be an ignorant till you die.
I know in some religions there's a book (for example the Bible) where God has put his teachings. But again, to rely only on a book to explain everything in life, is a very ignorant position.
Last edited:
Sure you can doubt all you want but it doesn't discredit simple observation.For as long as it isn´t damaging, I see no reason not to doubt. All in all it makes me more de-attached at times, and so more happy at times and more relaxed.
But to each his own.
Me Myself
Back to my username
I agree with most of this. I would add that ultimately, you must decide if the book or religion is teaching you stuff that sounds reasonable to you on your limited state of awareness. If no religion or book seems reasonable then you keep on looking on your own.
But to assume some text is 100% right for fear of imperfect knowledge is simply uneducational to anyone.
Spirituality.
Science allows for a whole universe full of leeway in many of its assertions and theories.
Science as method that is neutral (I mean actually neutral) can fit in with spirituality, or actually does. But when science is met with bias of, "gotta use physical means to explore physical world, to reach physical conclusions, since this is always what science has been about" is, how you say, stacking the deck in a biased way. Grossly bias. As in, how could you who claim free thinking intelligence miss that in wake of objectivity and neutral approach to self exploration?
So, if reliance is on world around us, and only to be detected through physical means as if they are 'very reliable' (or can be made so with triple testing notions), then the question has to become, at some point, what is this for? And there isn't, I don't think, 'wrong' answer to that, but there are responses in specific teaching situations where external / physical reality will be long about way to getting at what spiritual can get at far quicker, less effort, higher efficiency.
Like someone has grudge against you and/or you have grudge against another. Well, we could wait another 100 years until brain science, and behavioral science depict just how that looks as physical process, ya know, so we can have 'reliable' understanding of what is really going on. Might not tell us anything about solution other than if we could somehow manipulate this part of the physical mind with this physical chemical to work with that brain chemical, maybe the grudge will magically disappear. Who knows? Worth a shot, aint it?
Or one could take all of say 90 days to understand how grudges / grievances are really working within consciousness, as if it is really all found within rather than something out there in that circumstance, with those events, leading to that chemical thing and did the synapse firing thing and later it triggered a left hemisphere event. I dunno, perhaps reasonable, intelligent, hopefully free thinking individuals could find another way to understand grievances and receive healing or resolution that works for all involved, perhaps in way that isn't readily visible in physical way, nor does it need to be.
Grievances are but one part of seemingly large puzzle. Spiritual understandings, when allowed open, free thinking can be seen to apply to whole bunch of rationale problems perceived as having no cures / solutions at present time. All pretty much based on one solution that for the uninitiated is not so readily grasped, and intellectually is incredibly easy to mock. But give yourself 90 days of earnest seeking, understanding, and determining what works for you (from within you) and perhaps the question of, "any method as reliable as science" will be understood as, stacked question that isn't necessarily met with yes or no. Instead relies on answers to questions of "what is this for" and "am I truly willing to be open to other ways of seeing my self and world around me?" In ongoing way.
Chances you'll have to give up on science are,
hold on let me calculate this,
just one moment,
okay,
are nil.
Without bias from within a perceived framework. Frameworks could have a whole bunch of meanings / hair splitting, but feel free to ask me if you come up with something that you wish to ask me if I consider it a framework. Chances are I'll say yes, but very small chance I may say no.
I would have degree of confidence in my experience, and as I recently posted in paranormal part of this site, I would remain very open, I think to other ways of interpreting / understanding the experience. It is rare I make my mind up on something that is perceived as event 'outside of me.'
I think that's the point I'm making.
From within the framework of the physical, knowing the means we have pretty much set up as 'only way we can determine validity in physical,' I can't think of way around things. It is a logical paradox we have put ourselves into. We want a spiritual being to use physical magic, that everyone can see, and use that as proof of spiritual being, when if we sat back and thought about that for all of 8 seconds, we would realize that doesn't prove spiritual beings exist, but just that some hocus pocus event occurred, and maybe over next umpteen years we can describe the elaborate manipulation that we all (around at that time) witnessed to.
Yet, there is world within that while it has illusion (or preconception) of being, "that's entirely on you, no one else can share that with you, it is only personal experience," - I think that is misrepresentation. While the 'signs' that are encountered along the way in the 'journey within' - I truly believe, have studied, and am very open to ongoing analysis that indicates the experience is very similar, based on Reason, and detected via discernment. That 'journey within' may sound like (I think it does) some voyage that took me a whole night, many hours and I saw lots things. Akin to describing some dream, or vision. While it can be that, it can also be as simple as momentary check and conclusion between two or more that says something akin to, "my insight matches yours, I say we proceed in this manner for now. If another fork presents itself in this road, we will pause again for introspection and perhaps other signs around us. The clues are really plentiful if we allow our seeking / exploration to go in both 'directions' of self understanding and knowledge."
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
As someone paying half an ear's attention to the work on the theory of everything, I have to ask: really?
Does God have anything to do with the following? According to a 2009 Harris Poll of 2,303 adult Americans, when people are asked to Please indicate for each one if you believe in it, or not, the following results were revealing:
- 82% believe in God
- 76% believe in miracles
- 75% believe in Heaven
- 73% believe in Jesus is God or the Son of God
- 72% believe in angels
- 71% believe in survival of the soul after death
- 70% believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ
- 61% believe in hell
- 61% believe in the virgin birth (of Jesus)
- 60% believe in the devil
- 45% believe in Darwins Theory of Evolution
- 42% believe in ghosts
- 40% believe in creationism
- 32% believe in UFOs
- 26% believe in astrology
- 23% believe in witches
- 20% believe in reincarnation
otokage007
Well-Known Member
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
Polling for "belief" in something is a bit misleading, though. Belief in something can have many meanings and take many forms. What this functionally means is not fully transparent. Also, we may want to be careful to not be overly judgmental.
averageJOE
zombie
Alas, it's a pole of "2,303 American Adults". Nowadays it's not hard to find 2000 morons. Also, 2000 people is a very small percentage of the total American adult population.Thats a frightening pole. I knew America was in trouble, just not that much trouble
Having done research involving survey methodology, I'd like to point out that this is not a a small sample size. When surveys like this are done properly - and I can't attest to the source of these data specifically - they are taken in such a manner as to be representational of the larger population. In this way, you can extrapolate to non-surveyed members of a population. There will always be errors, such as non-response bias, coverage error, and the like, but their report should also feature an analysis of this as well.
In short, I would assume they followed proper research methodology and the results are not due to a bad sample frame. I get you were perhaps making a joke, but I felt the need to point this out anyway.
Shades-o-Blue
Member
I'm a little baffled by #3. Can you elaborate?
Shades-o-Blue
Member
It would be interesting to see how the same percentage of each state would poll.