User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 97

  1. #61
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Well, by that definition they are not similar, then.

    Religion does not use the scientific method of analysis to justify faith. Religion does not conduct experiments to offer theory. Religion is not independently verifiable. It does not strive for objectivity in perspective, nor detachment in analysis.

    They do not use the same methodology. Period.

    Just to reiterate:

    - Confirm/disprove the existence of God/s (the fundamental religious question) using the scientific method of analysis, Xander.

    - Confirm which religion is closest to objective truth.

    - Using testable religious variables, offer educated speculation on what happens in the afterlife. Please show clinical precedent.


    Sound foolish? It's because the methodologies that justify religion and science don't wash. Not now, not ever.

    It's just not happening.
    But all of this happens within one larger system, ie the universe. As such at some level both operate within the same parameters, are restricted by the same ceilings and so forth or one is disproven (or both, or neither). It's false wisdom to declare two things so separate that neither can be related to the other. That's not to say you can't do it, only that I would and do object to such thinking as divergent from trying to become more enlightened. As such you could say I was engaging in my own religion but as I've hinted at many times, there are NO non religious people... it's just some actually choose a religion to follow, others a philosophy or science or whatever.

    You see what I CAN show you is that the entire realm of science is based upon founding principles which we estimate are correct but have no real hard means of testing if they work outside of our own paradigm. I mean who's to say that this gravity being you all allude to is omnipresent? What proof is there that on a remote planet it doesn't exist at all? of course we have no evidence to make us believe that but also we have no perfect refutation of the concept either. Something which scifi plays on quite a bit.

    I think it was a kind of Popper idea wasn't it that if something isn't refutable then it's not true or not useful or something wasn't it? Well you can't test the foundations of our beautiful construction which is science without stepping outside of it. How is it not so for religion? I mean this self affirming ideas are quite prevalent but to assume that no one can try to affirm or deny them from outside of that system is basically walling off certain avenues of inquiry for no good reason. If someone said to me that they wanted to see if the MBTI applied to fish then I may think them odd and may well ignore most of what they say but if they came up with some kind of result which threw light onto the MBTI as it pertains to humans then I would listen intently (note I wouldn't necessarily agree or take it on board but I would consider their thoughts). To do otherwise is both arrogant and unwise [note that statement is made specifically in context of the story and is NOT meant as a statement about you or anyone else... no seriously].

    So yes you may well say that to analyse religion from the point of view of science is a high road to no where and you may well be proven correct but by failing it reveals something previously not known. In fact regardless of the pursuit it reveals things.

    Unless you already know all there is to know then you cannot know what is not known yet without it being known and therefore invalid. Ergo you cannot predict how the unknown will become known. Thus you cannot rule out any form of inquiry into any subject no matter how seemingly unrelated less you state categorically that you have some kind of foreknowledge of the unknown.

    [Follow that one (See "Yes, Prime Minister" if you don't see the kind of gauntlet I just cracked on your nose ]
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #62
    Priestess Of Syrinx Katsuni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    3w4?
    Posts
    1,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MaybeLogic View Post
    I have that same desire, are you Catholic too??
    Thou shalt not kill.

    Also, priests only use maces, D&D told me so ^.~

  3. #63
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    You're obfuscating, Xander. And I like gauntlets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    But all of this happens within one larger system, ie the universe. As such at some level both operate within the same parameters, are restricted by the same ceilings and so forth or one is disproven (or both, or neither). It's false wisdom to declare two things so separate that neither can be related to the other. That's not to say you can't do it, only that I would and do object to such thinking as divergent from trying to become more enlightened. As such you could say I was engaging in my own religion but as I've hinted at many times, there are NO non religious people... it's just some actually choose a religion to follow, others a philosophy or science or whatever.
    From a vague universal perspective, sure: they're related. As I mentioned earlier, when you dilute intensity of traits, everything shares relations.

    From a taxonomical standpoint, lumping large slices of creation into fuzzy intellectual blobs doesn't really impress me. There's no real connection, only formless, subjective links. It's why Biology has the Kingdom-Phlyum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species classification model - to increase simplicity in bridgework and accuracy in analysis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    You see what I CAN show you is that the entire realm of science is based upon founding principles which we estimate are correct but have no real hard means of testing if they work outside of our own paradigm. I mean who's to say that this gravity being you all allude to is omnipresent? What proof is there that on a remote planet it doesn't exist at all? of course we have no evidence to make us believe that but also we have no perfect refutation of the concept either. Something which scifi plays on quite a bit.
    Falsifiable, Xander. Falsifiable. Here, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

    Falsi`fi`a`ble
    a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
    2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.


    Gravity could be omnipresent, sure. Yet, omnipresence isn't falsifiable. It is therefore outside the context of our discussion. Neither here nor there.

    Science is a best guess. It is open to falsifiable (there's that word, again) variables, should revision be necessary. Short of that and you have junk science.

    Again - Science is falsifiable. It doesn't matter if gravity is omnipresent. If we can't falsify our hypothesis, we don't anything to go off of.


    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I think it was a kind of Popper idea wasn't it that if something isn't refutable then it's not true or not useful or something wasn't it? Well you can't test the foundations of our beautiful construction which is science without stepping outside of it. How is it not so for religion? I mean this self affirming ideas are quite prevalent but to assume that no one can try to affirm or deny them from outside of that system is basically walling off certain avenues of inquiry for no good reason. If someone said to me that they wanted to see if the MBTI applied to fish then I may think them odd and may well ignore most of what they say but if they came up with some kind of result which threw light onto the MBTI as it pertains to humans then I would listen intently (note I wouldn't necessarily agree or take it on board but I would consider their thoughts). To do otherwise is both arrogant and unwise [note that statement is made specifically in context of the story and is NOT meant as a statement about you or anyone else... no seriously].

    I don't disagree that religion is problematic.

    Using MBTI to test fish is still using falsifiable text - albeit in an intellectually dim manner. MBTI has some (fringe) clinical support. Again - using empirical data to assign fish MBTI has more scientific merit than using the scientific method of analysis to ascertain religious verity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Unless you already know all there is to know then you cannot know what is not known yet without it being known and therefore invalid. Ergo you cannot predict how the unknown will become known. Thus you cannot rule out any form of inquiry into any subject no matter how seemingly unrelated less you state categorically that you have some kind of foreknowledge of the unknown.
    Sure. I also can't logically rule out that gravity flows from the undercarriage of Gordon Brown. It's not plausible, but I can't impossibly rule it out.

    Oh, and science is falsifiable -- not sure if I hit on that, yet. If the material doesn't correspond to this provided premise, it is scientifically irrelevant.

  4. #64
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    You're obfuscating, Xander. And I like gauntlets.
    Who's obfuscating? I'm brain dumping. If you can't see the kitchen then you've probably been wimping out of the heat
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    From a vague universal perspective, sure: they're related. As I mentioned earlier, when you dilute intensity of traits, everything shares relations.

    From a taxonomical standpoint, lumping large slices of creation into fuzzy intellectual blobs doesn't really impress me. There's no real connection, only formless, subjective links. It's why Biology has the Kingdom-Phlyum-Class-Order-Family-Genus-Species classification model - to increase simplicity in bridgework and accuracy in analysis.
    There is an innate problem with frameworks of understanding, they are by their nature exclusive as you are aptly showing by saying that a scientific approach cannot be applied to religious viewpoints.

    As for the whole "prove the existence of God" type effort at some scientific inquiry, it's bunk. There is no scientific ground upon which the presence or absence of a God makes one whit of difference. The question has no basis in science and neither does it in religion either. Of all the religions I have looked at it is formulated upon the premise that you accept the existence of a divine entity not prove or question it. Ergo religion is making no effort to ascertain an answer and is in fact in terms of development still using a textbook which is that old even public schools would have updated it!

    So in terms of analysis neither science nor religion is capable of questioning religion because it's basis is grounded in acceptance. However science has equal claim to this as well as it is driven to try to build a framework which models reality convincingly however it is also built upon the presumption that the universe cares about systems and conforms to them. Now I wouldn't argue that the scientific approach has more credibility when considered objectively but then again I'm of the mind that the human brain isn't the be all and end all of creation and so I don't suffer the illusion that I can possibly understand life the universe and everything (to use it's proper and full title ). Having said that I also wouldn't argue that religion has been around for quite a while in one form or another... though the cynical side of me would point out that the only consistent presence in all of this is actually the human and not necessarily any divine being.

    [and you thought that last post was strewn with mental ditches!]

    Anyhow, all that waffle should hopefully point you in the direction of the idea that both systems are based on an acceptance of authority. The person preceding you said this was right, now build upon it and don't undermine it. Another similarity. Both systems are also built upon certain proofs though no overarcing proofs are given (such as does God exist, is light a particle or a wave... etc etc). Both sides wrestle with their inconsistencies but also both state that the system is sound despite not having an answer for their inconsistencies. So can you not apply a scientific approach within a religious system? Of course you can. The scientific method relies on things being falsifiable and yes the big questions duck that approach but they do in science too so let's not get flippant (okay... more flippant). What a scientific approach would do is show up trends and basis for trends allowing people to see where their religion comes from rather than trying to sell it as a complete package frozen in time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Falsifiable, Xander. Falsifiable. Here, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

    Falsi`fi`a`ble
    a. 1. Capable of being falsified, counterfeited, or corrupted.
    2. able to be proven false, and therefore testable; as, most religious beliefs are not falsifiable, and are therefor outside the scope of experimental science.
    Now that's just simply inefficient. How is this an authority? How is it applicable in any terms other than to underline the common interpretation of the word and how people expect it to be used?
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Gravity could be omnipresent, sure. Yet, omnipresence isn't falsifiable. It is therefore outside the context of our discussion. Neither here nor there.
    That's an excuse to avoid the "prove there is a God" type questions, something you aim to deny me the pleasure of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Science is a best guess. It is open to falsifiable (there's that word, again) variables, should revision be necessary. Short of that and you have junk science.
    I believe it was words said in jest but religion could most definitely do with this kind of thinking.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dogma
    Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the shit that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.
    Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?
    Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.
    And yes, that is my dogma.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Again - Science is falsifiable. It doesn't matter if gravity is omnipresent. If we can't falsify our hypothesis, we don't anything to go off of.
    Que?
    (Sorry I'm not trying to highlight brain fade... I'd have most of my posts in bold if someone did that to me... just trying to ascertain the meaning)
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    I don't disagree that religion is problematic.

    Using MBTI to test fish is still using falsifiable text - albeit in an intellectually dim manner. MBTI has some (fringe) clinical support. Again - using empirical data to assign fish MBTI has more scientific merit than using the scientific method of analysis to ascertain religious verity.
    So using MBTI on fish is quite okay but questioning whether some tenant of religion is valid in the context of it's own framework is lunacy?

    We must meet. The children would be like a pox to the current draft of sheep thinkers...
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Sure. I also can't logically rule out that gravity flows from the undercarriage of Gordon Brown. It's not plausible, but I can't impossibly rule it out.
    You're going with the mass produces it idea? Fairly sure that one's been debunked.
    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Oh, and science is falsifiable -- not sure if I hit on that, yet. If the material doesn't correspond to this provided premise, it is scientifically irrelevant.
    It is irrelevant to science, yes, that does not mean that using scientific philosophy on it will garner no decent results.


    The first declares how scientists are the second would be a work of assumption unless tried in which case you've already done it, proving my point

    So chose now Neo. Is it the blue pill that you've never done it and therefore are presuming it won't work or is it the red pill where you've tried it, found it didn't go anywhere which you considered useful and are now arguing from the point of view of you've done it already and know how it all turns out?

    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #65
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Oh, Xander.

    Whatever will we do with you?

    You're debunking points I haven't made. It's likely you think I'm doing the same to you.


    (You are wrong about Gordon Brown, though. Take that one to the bank!)

  6. #66
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    ...by saying that a scientific approach cannot be applied to religious viewpoints.
    In Hancock Library there is a whole library of books of mathematics.

    And in this whole mathematics library there is not one equation that contains the variable God.

    If God created everything, you would think that God would be mentioned in many equations. But God is not mentioned even in one equation out of the millions of equations here.

    We are told metaphorically that mathematics is the language of God. But it is a language that knows not God.

  7. #67
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Listen to Victor, Xander.

  8. #68
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Oh, Xander.

    Whatever will we do with you?

    You're debunking points I haven't made. It's likely you think I'm doing the same to you.


    (You are wrong about Gordon Brown, though. Take that one to the bank.)
    I thought we'd drawn battle lines? It's no good unless you stick to your guns you know. I feel like a nerd just running over the field with nothing going on the other end... most disturbing..

    Anyhoo, I figured you were of the camp that science does not allow for religion and therefore it's thinking can shed no light upon religion. I convincingly kicked ass in the respect that such is wrong and proven false

    To rewind to the beginning, the foundation of science is not falsifiable without using science, right? Well that's self affirming in the same way that religion is. You either get on the bus and go with it or people poke you with pointed sticks until you get off. Neither one is truly grounded because both have produced religions around ideas. Both ideas are fine and upstanding as simply that, ideas but both build in weaknesses when they try to claim to be the be all and end all.

    Anyhow what's wrong with getting rid of arbitrary defined boundaries if they have no real definable reason to exist except to separate what people approve of from what they don't on a grand scale?
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  9. #69
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Night View Post
    Listen to Victor, Xander.
    We should all listen to Victor - particularly Victor.

  10. #70
    Boring old fossil Night's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5/8
    Socionics
    ENTp None
    Posts
    4,754

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    I thought we'd drawn battle lines? It's no good unless you stick to your guns you know. I feel like a nerd just running over the field with nothing going on the other end... most disturbing..

    Anyhoo, I figured you were of the camp that science does not allow for religion and therefore it's thinking can shed no light upon religion. I convincingly kicked ass in the respect that such is wrong and proven false
    No. I'm off the camp that religion and science exist in exclusive intellectual spheres and are therefore of negligible consequence to the former.

    Oh, and I do not concede that you made that point. As the point was not contextually available to make, you cannot offer it, post cogito.

    There. Eat Latin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    To rewind to the beginning, the foundation of science is not falsifiable without using science, right? Well that's self affirming in the same way that religion is. You either get on the bus and go with it or people poke you with pointed sticks until you get off. Neither one is truly grounded because both have produced religions around ideas. Both ideas are fine and upstanding as simply that, ideas but both build in weaknesses when they try to claim to be the be all and end all.
    Sure. They all begin from the same primordial goo, but take distinct pathways along the way. It's the road they take - not their birthright - that defines them as individual philosophies.

    Haven't you ever heard of black sheep?

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Anyhow what's wrong with getting rid of arbitrary defined boundaries if they have no real definable reason to exist except to separate what people approve of from what they don't on a grand scale?
    Because they allow for progress. And your scale is wonky. There are degrees of accuracy you're (conveniently) glossing over to assert your point.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Quote Thread: Express your feelings or thoughts with a quote
    By Sparrow in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 412
    Last Post: 12-03-2017, 12:20 AM
  2. What is Your Spiritual Belief System?
    By lightsun in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 09-29-2017, 09:59 AM
  3. Famous/INfamous people you wish didn't share your type
    By Sahara in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 04-06-2012, 12:43 PM
  4. Share your spiritual beliefs
    By Night in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 120
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 12:53 AM
  5. Knowing Me, Knowing God: Exploring Your Spirituality with Myers-Briggs
    By Usehername in forum Typology and Psychology Book Reviews
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 03:32 PM

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