Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

Starting to wonder if I'm being deliberately trolled here.

Do as you will, people. You don't need my permission. Just be prepared to live with the consequences.

[Vector]

Exactly what I'm speaking about. Why would free will matter? Who is the omniscient being who could predict us?
Nothing we do matter? but if life is all we have, what we do and what we are is all that matter!
A slave to your wants and desire? When you've pushed yourself so much to achieve what you really want?

That version of materialism is stupid : it negate whole parts of the worlds while pretending superiority over philosophies that invent some. Applying my mind to purely rational though process without negating the aspects of the world that are wonderful or that I don't understand is my objective.

God doesn't necessarily have to be omniscient =)  The experience of the divine need not be Christian, you know.

And yes, that's good.  But then, how can science be better than religion/spirituality?  They walk hand in hand.

[Phmcw]

Starting to wonder if I'm being deliberately trolled here.

Do as you will, people. You don't need my permission. Just be prepared to live with the consequences.

Not really, you're just giving a VERY one sided approach at what would happen based on one single piece of our psyche.
Pavlov conditioning is a real thing, but it's hardly the only mechanism that make our thought process, and well,... your approach is overly simple. And when I say it's overly simple is the psychological equivalent of saying that since a processor run faster when it's clock is fast, all you need to do to have a super fast computer is to cadence it at 10GHZ in the bios.

But then, how can science be better than religion/spirituality?  They walk hand in hand.

Religion is the opposite of Science. Religion is based on faith, and faith poison Science.
In the same process science is based on rationality, and rationality destroy religion.
You can do both in the same time, but you'll always be in conflict with yourself. You'll struggle with your faith as rationality take is toll and refuse evidence because it contradict your faith.

[Vester]

Religion is the opposite of Science. Religion is based on faith, and faith poison Science.
In the same process science is based on rationality, and rationality destroy religion.

I do both at the same time, and I'm perfectly fine.

You're making strong statements here that, ironically, don't really seem to be logical. You could make a case for empiricism destroying religion, but that doesn't actually do it either.

Might be a language barrier factor.

[Vector]

Science can poison faith, too, by the way >____>  But that's irrelevant.

I enjoy lying in bed, listening to the rain, and thinking about how things are going to grow, and how wonderful that is.  There'll be little shoots of green grass coming up, as though to echo the Talmud, which writes: "Every blade of grass has an angel, which whispers to it 'Grow.'"  And thinking about water, I think about the waves, the ponds, the pools, and all of the life they support.  The magic of coming across a waterfall, when looking down one could almost think one had arrived at the end of the world.

I don't really think science will somehow be able to destroy that feeling.  "God is not scientifically verifiable" does not mean some higher power is non-extant.  Faith does not require blindness.  It means being open to what is there.

Faith is certainly not the opposite of science.  One must have faith that the scientific method will bring the correct answers, after all.

Refusing evidence because it contradicts faith sounds like a lot of bad scientists who fix results, by the way.  The edifice isn't exactly unshakeable.  It's a flawed, imperfect tool, like many others.

Might be a language barrier factor.

I think all three of us may have different native languages (I don't know if Tagalog is your first or not), but so far it seems that we're still having an argument based on ideas, not misunderstood words.

[Vester]

Faith is certainly not the opposite of science.  One must have faith that the scientific method will bring the correct answers, after all.

Oh, I'd forgotten about that. The fundamental basis of science is the idea that the questions you ask can be answered. Which my physics professor once said is basically an article of faith, without which everything would collapse.

Might be a language barrier factor.

I think all three of us may have different native languages (I don't know if Tagalog is your first or not), but so far it seems that we're still having an argument based on ideas, not misunderstood words.

It is, but I have a fair grasp of English.

[Vector]

Hehe.  As I may or may not have successfully implied, you speak naturally enough that I'd easily mistake you for a native.

Hopefully we'll be able to continue discussing pleasantly for now.

[G-Flex]

Faith is certainly not the opposite of science.  One must have faith that the scientific method will bring the correct answers, after all.

I don't know that I agree. I (attempt to) use scientific and empirical reasoning not because I think it'll bring me any closer to some unattainable absolute truth, but because it has a good track record for providing results. Is that circular, though, to say that I use empirical methods because it succeeds by empirical standards? Now my head hurts.

I'd say the distinction should be between claims of absolute truth/knowledge and claims of functioning yet potentially flawed systems of knowledge. There's the difference between "I have faith that this is true" and "This seems to be a valid predictive tool, judging by past experience".

[Leafsnail]

I don't really think science will somehow be able to destroy that feeling.  "God is not scientifically verifiable" does not mean some higher power is non-extant.  Faith does not require blindness.  It means being open to what is there.

I am seriously struggling with that definition.

Faith is certainly not the opposite of science.  One must have faith that the scientific method will bring the correct answers, after all.

Not really, especially with your previous definition of fate.  You can look at how well the scientific method has worked in providing working theories in the past, for instance.

Refusing evidence because it contradicts faith sounds like a lot of bad scientists who fix results, by the way.  The edifice isn't exactly unshakeable.  It's a flawed, imperfect tool, like many others.

This seems to be ad hominem.  The fact that some scientists do unethical things is irrelevant to the strength of science as a process.

Oh, I'd forgotten about that. The fundamental basis of science is the idea that the questions you ask can be answered. Which my physics professor once said is basically an article of faith, without which everything would collapse.

...Uh, what kind of questions would you mean by ones which can't be answered?  I mean, religion certainly doesn't tend to deal with them since they're mostly about providing answers.

[Vector]

Is that circular, though, to say that I use empirical methods because it succeeds by empirical standards?

Yes


Leafsnail, I'm thinking on your questions.  I'll try to get back to you eventually, but I've realized I've probably misspoken.  In any case, I didn't intend any ad hominem attacks.

[KaelGotDwarves]

No Faith isn't the exact opposite of Reason, or Science.

In fact, on the fundamental levels of Ontology, the two are both on the same exact end of the spectrum, which are Objectivists. They both see the universe in terms of absolutes: True/false, on/off, 0/1, and typically I'm right/you're wrong.

The opposite of both would be Subjectivism, in which reality is defined by your perspective or how you look at things. That truth cannot ever truly be known, because it's all shades of grey depending on how you approach reality.

Most people fall into varying degrees of these spectrums, and construct their worldviews according to their experiences and methodologies.

EDIT: But yes, get a bunch of religious/scientific objectivists in an online discussion and they'll pick each other to pieces for ages.

[Vester]

Oh, I'd forgotten about that. The fundamental basis of science is the idea that the questions you ask can be answered. Which my physics professor once said is basically an article of faith, without which everything would collapse.

...Uh, what kind of questions would you mean by ones which can't be answered?  I mean, religion certainly doesn't tend to deal with them since they're mostly about providing answers.

My bad. Let me amend that to can be answered empirically. All questions can be answered.

[Vector]

Kael, the assumption both make is that truth must be univalent, eternal, and present itself in the same way to everyone, and so on.  People can experience Truth in different ways (just think about the blind men and the elephant story), all partaking of the same entity, without it being false.

[kaijyuu]

As a side note, stuff like the Matrix wouldn't be at all compelling if empiricism didn't have holes. We can only experience the world, empirically, through our 5 senses; what's to say nothing is beyond that?


Weird tangent to go on, considering the original topic.

[Leafsnail]

As a side note, stuff like the Matrix wouldn't be at all compelling if empiricism didn't have holes. We can only experience the world, empirically, through our 5 senses; what's to say nothing is beyond that?

Certainly not mainstream science, which is currently looking into particles that you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste (such as neutrinos).