Irony of religion

[Anahita]

Re: Irony of religion

That is a good attempt at trying to be philosophically adept. I am to guess that you are also one of the people that believe evolution is not faith based, eh?

However, you missed my point, which was that everything, at its core, is a metaphysical assumption.

I understand your point. I was being facetious. Without some logical assumptions (like you actually DO exist independent of my metaphysical belief in your existence), what would be the point of discussion?

In order for me to answer your question about evolution, you'd need to explain what you mean. Do you mean a change in gene frequency through time in a population? That isn't a theory based on faith, but very much a demonstrable fact.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Irony of religion

I understand your point. I was being facetious. Without some logical assumptions (like you actually DO exist independent of my metaphysical belief in your existence), what would be the point of discussion?

In order for me to answer your question about evolution, you'd need to explain what you mean. Do you mean a change in gene frequency through time in a population? That isn't a theory based on faith, but very much a demonstrable fact.

I suggest the reader look into the various evolution threads that have been made and read it.

[Anahita]

Re: Irony of religion

I suggest the reader look into the various evolution threads that have been made and read it.

I am aware of many debates concerning 'evolution.' Search for 'evolution' here, alone, and you'll get pages of thread titles, alone. My question (regarding your question to me) was what do you mean by the word evolution.

[Sip]

Re: Irony of religion

I am personally more in favor of the scientific methods. It is true that science is based on a set of fundamental axioms (Anonymouse wants to call it "faith" which is fine) which cannot really be proven. But then everything else is proved based on those. However, the difference between scientific methods and religion can be summarized as this:

Religion assumes all its suppositions are true and goes on from there.

Science says IF its aximos are assumed to be true, THEN we have a method in place to go on and build knowledge from there.

I don't think a scientist will argue absolute truths like what a typical religious person might do. For the religious, the Truth is The Truth and no doubts about it. For the scientist, there is no such things as "Truth". There is only truth in presence of a set of assumed basic principles.

Needless to say, obviously I prefer the latter.

[Anahita]

Re: Irony of religion

I am personally more in favor of the scientific methods. It is true that science is based on a set of fundamental axioms (Anonymouse wants to call it "faith" which is fine) which cannot really be proven. But then everything else is proved based on those. However, the difference between scientific methods and religion can be summarized as this:

Religion assumes all its suppositions are true and goes on from there.

Science says IF its aximos are assumed to be true, THEN we have a method in place to go on and build knowledge from there.

I don't think a scientist will argue absolute truths like what a typical religious person might do. For the religious, the Truth is The Truth and no doubts about it. For the scientist, there is no such things as "Truth". There is only truth in presence of a set of assumed basic principles.

Needless to say, obviously I prefer the latter.

I prefer the scientific method, as well. Though I do have some qualms with the way modern science is conducted. That isn't a flaw in the scientific method, but rather, the practice of science. Scientists (if not true to what science is about) can become fundamentalist, as well.

Science isn't objective, but AT LEAST tries to be. If I do a scientific experiment, I choose the hypothesis. I choose the relevant variables. I calibrate. One can do lots with calibration, alone.

I think this is a brilliant observation (This might give bell-the-cat, ever-collecting-more-data, a cheshire grin :

“Science usually settles issues by testing an idea against observations of a material system. This approach to problem solving has a history of working so well that another class of solution is often overlooked. Instead of focusing on how to limit or control the problem space in order to achieve predictability, hierarchy theory is useful in finding ways of framing a question. In many problematic situations, the challenge is to fins a new perspective that works rather than to acquire more data within an old framework. In such cases, a solution cannot be found by making more observations, because the contradiction, disagreement, or uncertainty does not reside in some unresolved aspect of the material system. Looking agian or more closely will not help. There is not an insufficiency of data but rather some internal conflict in the way one or more observers have chosen to look at the world. In these cases, the heart of the problem resides in an inadequate question.”
_Hierarchy Theory. _ Allen.

(I typed quick, so there might be major typos...)

[Anonymouse]

Re: Irony of religion

I am aware of many debates concerning 'evolution.' Search for 'evolution' here, alone, and you'll get pages of thread titles, alone. My question (regarding your question to me) was what do you mean by the word evolution.

As I said, if you read the actual threads in which the title specifically deals with evolution, you will see my position. I just don't want to deflect this thread any more than it already is.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Irony of religion

I am personally more in favor of the scientific methods. It is true that science is based on a set of fundamental axioms (Anonymouse wants to call it "faith" which is fine) which cannot really be proven. But then everything else is proved based on those. However, the difference between scientific methods and religion can be summarized as this:

Religion assumes all its suppositions are true and goes on from there.

Science says IF its aximos are assumed to be true, THEN we have a method in place to go on and build knowledge from there.

I don't think a scientist will argue absolute truths like what a typical religious person might do. For the religious, the Truth is The Truth and no doubts about it. For the scientist, there is no such things as "Truth". There is only truth in presence of a set of assumed basic principles.

Needless to say, obviously I prefer the latter.

That is my point though, that underneath everything there is that essential metaphysical assumption.

The scientific method is the best method to gain knowledge of the physical world. As such it is extremely limited in its application, what it can do, and what sort of knowledge we gain.

Religion, religions, and spirituality are more concerned with the why's, and the world beyond mere physical empiricism.

[Anahita]

Re: Irony of religion

That is my point though, that underneath everything there is that essential metaphysical assumption.

The scientific method is the best method to gain knowledge of the physical world. As such it is extremely limited in its application, what it can do, and what sort of knowledge we gain.

Religion, religions, and spirituality are more concerned with the why's, and the world beyond mere physical empiricism.

And this is where I think quantum physics/'new' physics has something to offer to bridge material science and ‘spirituality.’ (Nothing that is that ‘new’ to ‘native science’ though.) New physics for science might be something like the tablet that permitted translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics to modern language.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Irony of religion

And this is where I think quantum physics and 'new' physics has something to offer to bridge material science and ‘spirituality.’ (Nothing that is that ‘new’ to ‘native science’ though.) New physics for science might be something like the tablet that permitted translation of Egyptian hieroglyphics to modern language.

And this is where I would call 'science' but another name for 'religion'.

[Anahita]

Re: Irony of religion

And this is where I would call 'science' but another name for 'religion'.

Oh, those chaotic butterfly wings...

http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/

"The rapidly accelerating discoveries of Chaos are overtaking our worldview. They teach us that Newton, and indeed almost all of the pre-chaos scientists, were dead wrong in their basic view of the Universe. They thought that there was a predictable cause and effect for everything, and that everything happened according to fixed physical laws. They believed in certainties, not probabilities. Their fundamental image of the Universe was a big clock."

http://www.fractalwisdom.com/FractalWisdom/index.html

--CLOCKS, Coldplay
Lights go out and I can't be saved
Tides that I've tried to swim against,
You've put me down upon my knees
Oh I beg, I beg and plead, singing

Come out of things unsaid
Shoot an apple off my head

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton