What if science worked like religion?

[Marin]

I mean that use your own definition (aka the philosophical view) and then answer.

I don't think that's what knee-jerking means. Feel free to drop a definition (from a dictionary).

I see it as a key factor if you say that there is evidence for flying spaghetti monster. 'Cause it brings me to the point of how ridiculous it is to debate on matters purely on philosophical point of view as everything's basically possible.
I don't see a point in that kind of discussion. And I certainly don't think it would count as a reasonable argument that earth is the evidence for flying spaghetti monster.

So it's a yes then. Ok, this is wrong on many levels.

First of all, the fundamentals of philosophy don't lie on empirical evidence as it is merely one possible way of justifying a claim or belief (ie giving evidence for it).

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion."

In philosophy arguments serve as evidence in matters that are out of empirism's reach.

Wether a diety exists or not is a matter out of empirism's reach.

Thus, arguments serve as evidence in determining wether a diety exists or not.

Second, one of the most important works in the history of philosophy is Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. In it he argues against relying solely on empirical evidence (sensation). This work has helped shape the future of logic and philosophy and gives guidelines on how to debate in what Kant calls "transcendant matters".

I suggest reading it.

Third, for a claim to be justified, if in doubt, it can be defended by using logical deduction (as opposed to emirical evidence, or rather lack of it).

Logically deductive arguments, if valid, justify a claim. Now, for a deductive argument to be valid, it's premises must be true and it's conclusion must be in synch with the premises from wich it stems.

So if logically deductive arguments in support of a claim are valid, they are valid evidence for that claim.

To say only empirical evidence matters is to completely disregard the basics of philosophy and logic.

That said, if valid arguments are presented for the existence of a diety then to claim it's existence is justified.

I have thus pointed out why demanding solely empirical evidence in matters wich transcend it is wrong, as well as how arguments serve as evidence in these matters.

 

[Hawker]

I don't think that's what knee-jerking means. Feel free to drop a definition (from a dictionary).



So it's a yes then. Ok, this is wrong on many levels.

First of all, the fundamentals of philosophy don't lie on empirical evidence as it is merely one possible way of justifying a claim or belief (ie giving evidence for it).

"Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion."

In philosophy arguments serve as evidence in matters that are out of empirism's reach.

Wether a diety exists or not is a matter out of empirism's reach.

Thus, arguments serve as evidence in determining wether a diety exists or not.

Second, one of the most important works in the history of philosophy is Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. In it he argues against relying solely on empirical evidence (sensation). This work has helped shape the future of logic and philosophy and gives guidelines on how to debate in what Kant calls "transcendant matters".

I suggest reading it.

Third, for a claim to be justified, if in doubt, it can be defended by using logical deduction (as opposed to emirical evidence, or rather lack of it).

Logically deductive arguments, if valid, justify a claim. Now, for a deductive argument to be valid, it's premises must be true and it's conclusion must be in synch with the premises from wich it stems.

So if logically deductive arguments in support of a claim are valid, they are valid evidence for that claim.

To say only empirical evidence matters is to completely disregard the basics of philosophy and logic.

That said, if valid arguments are presented for the existence of a diety then to claim it's existence is justified.

I have thus pointed out why demanding solely empirical evidence in matters wich transcend it is wrong, as well as how arguments serve as evidence in these matters.

Yeah yeah while I appreciate the effort on that explanation, I was taught in high school what deduction and induction means. Granted I only took one course of philosophy, but nevertheless you don't have to explain the basics of philosophy to me. And I didn't say fundamentals of philosphy lie on empirical evidence. I never said that. I was saying that it's rather pointless BECAUSE it doesn't have to have empirical evidence. Therefore arguing about something purely on the point of view of philosophy can just mean it's all in your head. It's basically just speculation that in the case of god doesn't lead anywhere.

Okay I will keep that in mind. I appreaciate Kant.

Thirdly, I get the logic. I really do. You don't have to explain it. What I don't still get is how you think an argument for your claim is logical if your premise is that everything has a cause and a beginning. And therefore your conclusion is that universum has a cause -- > that cause is deity which does not have a cause. How is it a valid argument if one part of it is outside of it's logic?

Also can you please finally answer to me if there is (philosophically speaking) evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 

[deadp00l]

Good thing that it does not.

 

[Marin]

Yeah yeah while I appreciate the effort on that explanation, I was taught in high school what deduction and induction means. Granted I only took one course of philosophy, but nevertheless you don't have to explain the basics of philosophy to me. And I didn't say fundamentals of philosphy lie on empirical evidence. I never said that.

I never claimed you said that fundamentals of philosophy lie in empirical evidence. Rather, I said that claiming empirical evidence to be a key factor in matters that are out of it's reach is against the fundamentals of philosophy.
This is the contradiction in your statements.

I was saying that it's rather pointless BECAUSE it doesn't have to have empirical evidence. Therefore arguing about something purely on the point of view of philosophy can just mean it's all in your head. It's basically just speculation that in the case of god doesn't lead anywhere.

Right here you are again going against the basics of philosophy. If something is out of empirism's reach, then empirical evidence cannot be used. Instead, we need to justify the claims by using logical deduction or rely on our reason on its own.

To say that it's meaningless to discuss something because there is no empirical evidence for it disregards the very point Kant was trying to get across - you don't need empirical evidence to determine validity of a claim or a belief. And ofcourse there is a possibility of something being simply "in your head". This is the case for every form of evaluation including empirical methods as there is always a possibility of something being wrong. Nothing is a 100% certain.

This goes for universally accepted things such as evolution or even our very existence. But that's not stopping us from debating on these matters.

Topics beyond empirical evidence aren't exclusive to that rule as they have evidence for them, evidence in the form of logically valid arguments.

Thirdly, I get the logic. I really do. You don't have to explain it. What I don't still get is how you think an argument for your claim is logical if your premise is that everything has a cause and a beginning. And therefore your conclusion is that universum has a cause -- > that cause is deity which does not have a cause. How is it a valid argument if one part of it is outside of it's logic?

I don't remember formulating my argument in such a way. Show me where I made such a claim.

Also can you please finally answer to me if there is (philosophically speaking) evidence for Flying Spaghetti Monster?

I already have. If there are valid arguments for it's existence then those arguments present evidence for it's existence.

"That said, if valid arguments are presented for the existence of a diety then to claim it's existence is justified."

I don't see how someone who acknowledges that empirical evidence isn't the only way to justify a claim can say that if something can't be justified by empirical evidence then there is no point to debating the validity of that certain claim.

 

[ComplexCity]

Yup .

I don't know enough about Islam except for what the extremist do, I'm not gonna judge Islam based off extremist

 

[Lightbringer]

Science can't be a religion because it deals with Facts, Causes and reason.

Religion is based on feelings and faith on the superstitious.

Tell that to the people who believe in the multiversal theory or the theory of the robotic apocalypse without hardly any evidence. Stephen Hawking is among them.

 

[Son of God]

I don't know enough about Islam except for what the extremist do, I'm not gonna judge Islam based off extremist

How are you sure they're extremists?

 

[Kuzuri]

Science is just another religion

 

[YowYan]

Science is just another religion

There is a huge difference between the two.

 

[Kuzuri]

No they are just the different sides of the same coin.
Many spiritual things can be explained by science and the other way around. Even all different religions actually in the base are one and the same.

But we tend to look for the differences, rather than to be open for things we can't comprehend yet.
I have great interest in both Science and Spirituality. The more I discover, the more I see that everything is one.

Believing the things scientists tell is faith too as long as you haven't done the experiments yourself.
And we know so little of the universe that even the things we know "for sure" could very well not be right at all.


That's my experience tho.

 

[Umari Senju]

No they are just the different sides of the same coin.
Many spiritual things can be explained by science and the other way around. Even all different religions actually in the base are one and the same.

But we tend to look for the differences, rather than to be open for things we can't comprehend yet.
I have great interest in both Science and Spirituality. The more I discover, the more I see that everything is one.

Believing the things scientists tell is faith too as long as you haven't done the experiments yourself.
And we know so little of the universe that even the things we know "for sure" could very well not be right at all.


That's my experience tho.

Like the theory of gravity. Yes it is still a theory. We know it exists but scientists still can't prove its existence without a shadow of a doubt. Then as someone mentioned, the robotic apocalypse or the gray matter matter theory that would end the world...sounds an awful lot like Armeggedon, Ragnarok, etc. you are so correct. Poeple are so hung up on the details of their differences that they completely overlook the similarities science and religion hold.

 

[Excālibur1]

Science exists to explain something which has been proven to exist, and looks forward to discover more things. It's basically curiosity which drives a man to discover more things. However, we cannot compare both science and religion, they are two separate paths and it's upto the people to which they are going to follow in their lives. Who knows, religion may be right too?

 

[Honord Sage]

Scientologist treat Science as a religion.

 

[Multiply]

Science is just another religion

This statement is 100% true if you don't understand science.

No they are just the different sides of the same coin.
Many spiritual things can be explained by science and the other way around. Even all different religions actually in the base are one and the same.

What are you talking about.

But we tend to look for the differences, rather than to be open for things we can't comprehend yet.
I have great interest in both Science and Spirituality. The more I discover, the more I see that everything is one.

Spirituality and religion aren't even the same thing. Again, what are you talking about.

Believing the things scientists tell is faith too as long as you haven't done the experiments yourself.

You're reaching.

And we know so little of the universe that even the things we know "for sure" could very well not be right at all.

That's why there are these little things called theory.

That's my experience tho.

Learn more about science. I'm not making fun of you or anything, but it seems you don't quite grasp what science is yet.

 

[xIGOLD FlAsHIx]

I don't often post here and to be honest, I don't really care where this thread goes next but here's my 2-pence.

Religion is what it is, everything is dualistic, both good and bad. In our case, religion is used for the worst possible reasons, wars, control etc.

However, just because religion is used for bad, doesn't reflect at all on the possibility of God, indeed neither does science, in fact, some areas of Physics particularly contain small pieces of evidence supporting a higher creative force.

Before I say this, I want to put it out there that I support Science, Spirituality and Religion as 3 co-operative ideas that can be used to explain each other in some way.

Now, Scientists that work with the Large Hadron Super Collider in Geneva have been looking conducting particle accelerations for years now and among the things they have discovered are the Higgs Boson, which assigns all particles (matter) their mass, they have also discovered the Pentaquark and more recently quarks gluon plasma. If memory serves me well, these are all considered Dark Matter (ie. States of matter that cannot be observed through readily available means, hence the creation of the LHC itself).

The reason I bring this up is simple. In Hermetic writings, such as the Kybalion by the three intimates, it states that God is indefinable and therefore unknowable but does that therefore mean that we can't observe the processes in which God operates, I've been trying to figure this out for a while.

I don't have a lot of time lately so I haven't been able to research as much as I'd like but here's what I've managed to theorise over the last couple years.

God is unseeable, indefinable and unknowable, the same has been said for Dark Matter, Stephen Hawkings himself has admitted that the Higgs Boson particle is unpredictable (see where I'm going with this?) and if they lose control of it, the Higgs Boson has the potential to wipe out not only the Solar System but the entire universe (need I remind anyone that they call it the "God particle"). I wonder, would the grand architect of this universe be able to destroy a universe it created? I'd say so.

Where was I? Ah yes, Dark Matter. I think here, I will begin to talk about Quark Gluon Plasma. Anybody who is interested in Physics will have looked at what Cern are doing and would also possibly have already read into this but for those who haven't, Quark Gluon Plasma is a state of matter that existed for mere milliseconds after the big bang, which any Scientist would agree, is when the universe was created. This is because Dark Matter is the invisible building blocks that make up all forms of physical matter that we can see, including light if I recall rightly, although dark matter itself provides no light. It is quite a complicated subject for someone with such a limited intelligence such as I.

However, I believe that Dark Matter is the tools, or perhaps even the processes in which God operates, however, I don't believe it is limited to just Dark Matter.

In the Bible, God operated using various things, such as using Air, Earth, Fire and Water to create man and life. He would show visions to men forcing them into deep sleep (I don't know a lot about this particular illness but Narcolepsy is a thing). To this extent, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that God exists. Hell, even some of the scientists at fern are starting to get increasingly religious according to some articles I've seen. Although I admit, a lot of articles on the internet are sketchy to say the least.

Well, that's my 2-pence, to understand the idea in which I'm putting forth, people will need a working knowledge of Religion and Spirituality and will need some understanding of Physics. I myself don't fully understand these subjects myself, in fact, I have a very limited understanding, but, the more research I do on these 3 subjects, the more that seems to line up.

As a final note, man has tried for millennia to understand the nature of God that very idea is what has made religion such a sour topic, but like it said in the bible, man will try to make himself like unto God. I urge anybody who has interest in what I have said here to look into these topics, do some in-depth research and feel free to chip in any findings or criticisms, all will be graciously accepted

Sorry for the long text haha

 

[~Ethereal~]

Impossible.

 

[Kuzuri]

Trust me I do know what Science is. I'm way kinda lazy or not caring enough to type it out all the way, sorry 'bout that.

But to give one example to the "what are you talking about"s...

Sometimes you have a gut feeling and am 100% sure of an outcome that you not only hope for, but really believe in.
Something you somehow just know will go a certain way.
There are many different spiritual explanations for that. Some of them origin of what we call Religion.
And if you read about this, watch it closely in your life, you'll find that a lot of it does work as it is written.

Science can explain this phenomenon with multiple theories too, for example the Theory of ten dimensions.


As I write this I don't think it matters much what I think though. People will believe what they want and that's fine right...
All I don't believe in is when Religion or Science is motivating people to kill and hate.

Oh yeah, I did honostly wonder if you have checked (also tested) Spirituality in your life Multiply?
english is not my main-language btw

 

[Multiply]

Oh yeah, I did honostly wonder if you have checked (also tested) Spirituality in your life Multiply?
english is not my main-language btw

Have I checked spirituality in my life? Yes. I don't follow a religion, dogma, or a God. Some of my thoughts come from a spiritual point of view. It often just goes over heads.

 

[xIGOLD FlAsHIx]

Have I checked spirituality in my life? Yes. I don't follow a religion, dogma, or a God. Some of my thoughts come from a spiritual point of view. It often just goes over heads.

Spirituality is great, I love some of the ideas it poses and it is a great tool for improving ones quality of life. I also know about source as a deity within spirituality as a concept. However, Spirituality doesn't seem to explain the origin of humans, how we came into being. Unless of course there's something I'm missing (which is more than likely).

To stay a little closer to the topic at hand, Spirituality is very similar to Religion but also separate, much like Science. In fact, Science, Spirituality and Religion are all pieces of the same puzzle. You just gotta use the tools at hand to reconcile the differences between them.

 

[unknownvillain1254]

Yet science still unable to solved Human problem completely tho that still linger around the world from societal problem to inequality(soft world).

Glorified science is same as glorified material achievements above moral and social achievements. That what I saw currently.

Even ISIS that used Islam as the base for their motives also unable to provide/teach anything about morality, Thats tells you there was no moral aspect they carried with from Islamic teaching actually. But they(ISIS) actually are worst than someone that glorified science only as motto/guidance of life in this world.

U can't solve social issues with science because it social