User Tag List

First 233132333435 Last

Results 321 to 330 of 352

  1. #321
    Minister of Propagandhi ajblaise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    7,917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    It cannot determine metaphysical truths, which is the realm of religion and philosophy.
    That assumes universalism if fact. However the more we learn about the world, the more relativism makes sense, instead.

  2. #322
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Science is a tool, based upon empirical observation and experimentation. It cannot determine metaphysical truths, which is the realm of religion and philosophy. The notion that science is the ultimate source of truth is called Scientism, which in the end is still a philosophical perspective about science.
    Honestly, do you think that religion can determine metaphysical truths either?
    Do you seriously BELIEVE that?

    Religion can't be shown but to be someone's best guess and best opinion. It can only conjecture and propose and assert... but it cannot determine anything. That is because its assertions cannot be tested, and as soon as you are able to test/falsify something, you have moved from the realm of religion to science.

    Empirical study and religious revealation are not necessarily opposites.
    Religious revelation can drive the desire for empirical study, just as it drove the Renaissance scientists who believed there must be an inherent pattern within nature because the God they believed in was a God of order.

    But above, you did just say this: "It cannot determine metaphysical truths, which is the realm of religion and philosophy."

    So no, science really has nothing to do with religion. Religion as you describe it is just piggybacking on science, trying to use its results to justify its own claims... which as you said, can't really be done because religious truths are metaphysical ones and part of its OWN domain, not science's domain.

    At best, you can show a potential correlation... but at this point, it is not science aligning with religion but religion aligning with science.

    After all, the natural world is a creation of God - so the study of it can help us understand further the nature of God's work. This was certainly the perspective of many of the Medieval Scholastics, and according to scholars like Lynn White this theological perspective actually helped give birth to theoretical science altogether - since it involved smashed the old pagan conceptions of animism and demythologising the natural world.
    Yup. Above.

    You clearly misunderstand Bradley's point.
    Well, clearly I misunderstand your understanding of Bradley's point. If you'd like to clarify so that my ignorance can be rectified, please feel free.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #323
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Science is a tool, based upon empirical observation and experimentation. It cannot determine metaphysical truths, which is the realm of religion and philosophy. The notion that science is the ultimate source of truth is called Scientism, which in the end is still a philosophical perspective about science.

    Empirical study and religious revealation are not necessarily opposites. After all, the natural world is a creation of God - so the study of it can help us understand further the nature of God's work. This was certainly the perspective of many of the Medieval Scholastics, and according to scholars like Lynn White this theological perspective actually helped give birth to theoretical science altogether - since it involved smashing the old pagan conceptions of animism and demythologising the natural world.

    This also leads into issues concerning Occasionalism, which I touched upon briefly earlier in the thread; namely that it's not advanced much within Christian circles.
    Assuming the existence of a god, which is a big assumption.

    The scientific method is more than just a tool - it's a way of defining one's relationship with the universe. To me, this is the biggest blow against the separate magisteria argument - both science and religion are means of looking at the world, and at heart attempts to explain little-understood phenomena. Where the separate magisteria argument often comes from is the separation of the "mythological" aspect of religion from the "mystical" aspect, but then, if there is a scientific explanation for mysticism in humans, they are no longer separate, are they?

  4. #324
    Sniffles
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Honestly, do you think that religion can determine metaphysical truths either?
    Do you seriously BELIEVE that?
    Yes actually I do.


    Religion can't be shown but to be someone's best guess and best opinion. It can only conjecture and propose and assert... but it cannot determine anything. That is because its assertions cannot be tested, and as soon as you are able to test/falsify something, you have moved from the realm of religion to science.
    This again is based upon the false assumption that empirical evidence is the only legitimate form of determining truth. Even within logic, there's the concept of an axiom - where an assertion is believed true without evidence. In fact in order to believe empirical evidence is truth you already have to operate on the axiom that is true.

    How does one empirically prove the laws of Logic true? You can't. You place trust in their truths to begin with.


    So no, science really has nothing to do with religion.
    Actually it does. If I may cite Nietzsche:

    "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science without presuppositionsa faith must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method a right to existIt is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."

    Science is a means to an end, and operates according to certain presuppositions. Those presuppositions are provided by philosophy and religion. The belief that science has nothing to do with religion is itself based off a philosophical presupposition - namely that of metaphysical naturalism.

    I'll point out that Methodical Naturalism and Metaphysical Naturalism are not the same thing.

  5. #325
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    What's to say that it's impossible? Hell, traveling to the moon was impossible 75 years ago - and people were only barely beginning to understand that it was workable. Why set these limits for yourself?
    You think acknowledging that we don't know something amounts to "setting a limit"?

    Look at it this way... You don't even know that the sum total of knowledge in the universe is finite. You don't even know if it's theoretically possible to know it all.

    Talking about it happening is an inherently metaphysical exercise.

  6. #326
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    This again is based upon the false assumption that empirical evidence is the only legitimate form of determining truth. Even within logic, there's the concept of an axiom - where an assertion is believed true without evidence. In fact in order to believe empirical evidence is truth you already have to operate on the axiom that is true.

    How does one empirically prove the laws of Logic true? You can't. You place trust in their truths to begin with.
    Sigh. I don't feel like I am being heard.

    My point was that there is no basis for convincing someone of truth with religion. It makes this whole discussion a waste of energy.

    Religion cannot DETERMINE truth, nor can it even NEGOTIATE truth except by using science or logic or some other more tangible method as an intermediary -- it can only ACCEPT truth and ASSERT truth, and if the other person has a different metaphysical understanding of truth, then there is no agreement possible.

    Everything you are saying is in your head.
    If you were to die in a moment, I would lose the ability to hear what was in your head.
    Those ideas would be gone.

    The sort of evidence I am describing (as more the purview of science) is a body of evidence that exists outside of the human mind. If I die in a moment, others can perceive exactly what I was perceiving and come to similar conclusions.

    In fact, EXACTLY the same.
    A degree is still a degree.
    A millimeter is still a millimeter.
    An 800Hz note is still an 800Hz note.

    This is not the case with your beliefs.
    Your beliefs might or might not be accepted and matched by another person.
    They live in your head.

    Beliefs -- religious perception -- lives inside everyone's heads separately.
    Sometimes beliefs can coincide, but it's hard to tell how much of that is originating inside the person and how much is true on its own, especially when people communicate said truths to each other. It's all necessarily personal and subjective.

    Actually it does.
    I love how I was just taking your words and basically showing you an inherent contraction in how YOU stated things... regardless of whether your statement was rationally correct or not, it really didn't matter to me which it was, I was just critiquing the mistake you made in how you said things... and you just deny it.

    "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science without presuppositionsa faith must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method a right to existIt is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."
    Sure. It's the same "faith" that leads me to think I can sit on a chair without it collapsing -- it's tried and experienced and tested.

    This sort of "faith" is a far cry from any "faith" that you seem to be laying claim to, because as I stated a number of times, the faith you believe is a faith that cannot and does not hinge primarily on proof of any sort. It involves no replicable testing. It involves nothing related to life experience that can be observed by multiple people at once. It must either be accepted or declined.

    You're in essence playing word games with the term "faith" here, to obfuscate the discussion. And then appealing to a non-authority (Nietzche, nonetheless!) to support your claim.

    Science is a means to an end, and operates according to certain presuppositions. Those presuppositions are provided by philosophy and religion. The belief that science has nothing to do with religion is itself based off a philosophical presupposition - namely that of metaphysical naturalism.
    Nice -- now you claim that science is owned by philosophy and religion, so that you can take ownership of the term and the process.

    When you want to actually show, in a way that actually can be agreed upon via mutually acceptable evidence, that religion owns science, let me know.

    The problem is that you can't.
    It's an ASSERTION...
    ...that must either be ACCEPTED or REJECTED.

    You either agree or you don't.
    I don't agree, and I reject your ASSERTION
    since you can't offer any third-party evidence to show me why your way of seeing is more accurate than mine.

    So the conversation is done, logically, right?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #327
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Yes actually I do...

    ... If I may cite Nietzsche:

    "Strictly speaking, there is no such thing as science without presuppositionsa faith must always be there first of all, so that science can acquire from it a direction, a meaning, a limit, a method a right to existIt is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science."
    To finish your selected quote...

    " But what if this belief is becoming more and more unbelievable, if nothing turns out to be divine any longer unless it be error, blindness, liesif God himself turns out to be our longest lie?"

    The Gay Science (section 344)

  8. #328
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    You think acknowledging that we don't know something amounts to "setting a limit"?

    Look at it this way... You don't even know that the sum total of knowledge in the universe is finite. You don't even know if it's theoretically possible to know it all.

    Talking about it happening is an inherently metaphysical exercise.
    So if it's not possible, why even try? Of course, that's the death of the pursuit of knowledge.

    The only way the sum total of knowledge in the universe would be infinite would be if the universe itself were infinite. We know that not to be the case. Therefore, it is completely within the realm of physical possibility to understand every piece of data, a we know there is a finite quantity of energy and matter in the universe.

    The only way you descend into the metaphysical is if you propose that something exists outside the universe as we know it - and that's not what I'm talking about in the least bit.

  9. #329
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    What I find.. dissettling.. about religious "truths" is how fluid they are. Youths show strong coorelation with what they are taught to believe rather than what they themselves discover. People can convert faiths, ignore aspects of their faith, stress aspects of their faith, invent new aspects of their faith.

    As such, I can only reject these truths as opinions. An opinion does have a perfectly good place in society. Pretty much anything related to ethics, behavior, or politics is a matter of opinion. You can't "prove" that which is ethically wrong, or right, or kind, or cruel, as each person has their own perspective of these bounds. It is no coincidence that faith attempts to codify these intangibles to a more concrete set of rules.

    The truths of science however do not carry this interpretation. A 1lb brick is a 1lb brick, no matter how much you may wish it to be otherwise. It doesn't matter where you were born, or what you think about bricks, there is a brick there and it weighs one pound.

    I suppose that one could argue that when a social group agrees on an opinion that, for them, it essentially becomes a truth as far as they are concerned, but that's a longer debate regarding self-supported assertions (eg. the bible is true because it's the bible).

  10. #330
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    So if it's not possible, why even try? Of course, that's the death of the pursuit of knowledge.

    The only way the sum total of knowledge in the universe would be infinite would be if the universe itself were infinite. We know that not to be the case. Therefore, it is completely within the realm of physical possibility to understand every piece of data, a we know there is a finite quantity of energy and matter in the universe.

    The only way you descend into the metaphysical is if you propose that something exists outside the universe as we know it - and that's not what I'm talking about in the least bit.
    Physicalism, materialism, etc., are metaphysical claims.

    How do you know there is any matter at all in "the universe as we know it"?

Similar Threads

  1. Quotes to Motivate You to *Get To Work*
    By Usehername in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 09-21-2014, 12:36 PM
  2. If You Had to Pick, What Are Your Top Two Needs Out of This List?
    By Evolving Transparency in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 04-21-2014, 04:41 PM
  3. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 05-28-2010, 03:22 PM
  4. [NT] NTs, if you had to pick...
    By Zarathustra in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 02:35 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO