User Tag List

First 123412 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 126

  1. #11
    Senior Member King sns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEE
    Posts
    6,748

    Default

    06/13 10:51:03 five sounds: you!!!
    06/13 10:51:08 shortnsweet: no you!!
    06/13 10:51:12 shortnsweet: go do your things and my things too!
    06/13 10:51:23 five sounds: oh hell naw
    06/13 10:51:55 shortnsweet: !!!!
    06/13 10:51:57 shortnsweet: (cries)
    06/13 10:52:19 RiftsWRX: You two are like furbies stuck in a shoe box

    My Nohari
    My Johari
    by sns.

  2. #12
    garbage
    Guest

    Default

    'course, most sciences started off as offshoots of philosophy way back in the day (first math, then physics, then the other physical sciences). And, of course, religion is also most definitely connected to philosophy.

    Perhaps science and religion are cousins.

    If we focus on the definition of a religion as "a worldview," then one could very much bend the definition of science to "a worldview wherein we believe in piecing our worldview together via scientific methods." But that's a huge stretch and pretty much devoid of meaning.

  3. #13
    Infinite Bubble
    Guest

    Default

    Religion began as simply a primitive form of deriving the 'truth' about how and why the universe works. What could be said to separate religion and science is the methods on which its conclusions are derived. Religion, on a fundamental level, began on a set of assumptions based on human imagination and intuition. Science from empirical evidence based around model-dependent realism.

    But reality is counter-intuitive. The 'truth' is not tailored for our perception. The world looks flat; it has to be flat in reality - the stars and planets appear to revolve around the earth; we're at the centre of the universe. Now add something that was simply to complex for humans at that stage. How did it all begin? We are life, we have the power to create; so only another being could have possibly created the universe.

    Thus it could be said that religion (along it's connection with philosophy) was a primitive science. They both started from humans natural curiosity and need to understand. That of course being a being a natural advantage for the progression of the species. But since religions methods are no longer needed, it's unfortunate that it is used in the way it is today. I think it is perfectly fine to be used as a way of life (in fact it's probably very healthy to), but to disregard science is plain ignorant- or in denial. But no, as it stands today, science is not religion. Although their initial motives are from the same source.

  4. #14
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    tend to have a broad-to-the-point-of-meaningless definition of "religion" as "anything with explanatory force that anyone believes for any reason whatsoever." If this is the definition we're using, then fine, science is a "religion".

    But it's still the only religion that requires its practitioners to back their claims with repeatable, falsifiable demonstrations of empirical evidence. And that's good enough for me.
    No, when people make this claim they are using a very different definition. Religion describes a relationship of people to what they hold as sacred. Many people hold science to the same standards of sanctity that others give to deities and other religious items. They even go so far as to have a kind of "faith" in it at times, and their passion is shown in their spirited belief. They become upset when their passionately held beliefs and allegiances to sources are questioned, and uncomfortable when their methods and the accuracy of the facts are questioned. Where this is most evident is when more mystical sorts suggest that the scientific method and body of knowledge is incomplete at arriving at truth, and that there are other methods of attaining accurate and useful understanding of the world.

    This is actually directly relevant to the article I'm reading for my epistemology class. There is both propositional knowledge (that of belief and facts) and nonpropositional knowledge (that of understanding, interaction, familiarity, visual representation, etc.). Two corresponding emphases in epistemology have alternately dominated philosophy throughout history, those of certainty and understanding, with different relations to skepticism.

  5. #15
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    It doesn't matter particularly if it is. What matters is the degree to which acts of faith are required for the system to persist.

    Or, to put it another way, the degree to which acts of inquiry are required for the system to persist.

  6. #16
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    No, when people make this claim they are using a very different definition. Religion describes a relationship of people to what they hold as sacred. Many people hold science to the same standards of sanctity that others give to deities and other religious items. They even go so far as to have a kind of "faith" in it at times, and their passion is shown in their spirited belief. They become upset when their passionately held beliefs and allegiances to sources are questioned, and uncomfortable when their methods and the accuracy of the facts are questioned. Where this is most evident is when more mystical sorts suggest that the scientific method and body of knowledge is incomplete at arriving at truth, and that there are other methods of attaining accurate and useful understanding of the world.

    This is actually directly relevant to the article I'm reading for my epistemology class. There is both propositional knowledge (that of belief and facts) and nonpropositional knowledge (that of understanding, interaction, familiarity, visual representation, etc.). Two corresponding emphases in epistemology have alternately dominated philosophy throughout history, those of certainty and understanding, with different relations to skepticism.
    People latch on to the emotional content: This here "scientist" believes things with conviction! This priest does as well! Therefore, they are both equally wrong / correct.

    If one person believes fervently that if he releases a stone from his hand it will rocket off into the heavens and another believes with equal fervor it will drop to the ground in accordance with Newtonian physics, seeing as there's a tremendous body of data to support that position, should we all just get along and declare them both correct? Or maybe they should compromise: the rock will hover in stasis. Then again, it's only on the basis of empirical evidence that we've come to believe stones drop to the ground when released, and we really can't trust the senses, now can we? So let's all just believe whatever we want on whatever basis we choose.

    Please. Anything proposed without verifiable data is conjecture, plain and simple.

    (I apologize if it sounds like I'm attacking you, personally, because I'm not. I've just come to be extremely annoyed by this fallacy on account of its prevalence.)
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  7. #17
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mycroft View Post
    People latch on to the emotional content: This here "scientist" believes things with conviction! This priest does as well! Therefore, they are both equally wrong / correct.

    If one person believes fervently that if he releases a stone from his hand it will rocket off into the heavens and another believes with equal fervor it will drop to the ground in accordance with Newtonian physics, seeing as there's a tremendous body of data to support that position, should we all just get along and declare them both correct? Or maybe they should compromise: the rock will hover in stasis. Then again, it's only on the basis of empirical evidence that we've come to believe stones drop to the ground when released, and we really can't trust the senses, now can we? So let's all just believe whatever we want on whatever basis we choose.

    Please. Anything proposed without verifiable data is conjecture, plain and simple.

    (I apologize if it sounds like I'm attacking you, personally, because I'm not. I've just come to be extremely annoyed by this fallacy on account of its prevalence.)
    I don't believe we should give equal truth value to things to be politically correct; we should give them equal consideration. That is, form our own epistemically justified beliefs about things free from bias. A scientific bias can be just as incorrect in certain areas as a religious bias.

    (For the record, I occupy a position where the scientific and the spiritual are in balance and don't contradict each other.)

  8. #18
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    I don't see how you can have a "scientific bias". What would this entail? From what I've seen, when people say someone has a "scientific bias", they mean that he doesn't softheadedly entertain every vacuous piece of conjecture and sophistry he encounters.
    Dost thou love Life? Then do not squander Time; for that's the Stuff Life is made of.

    -- Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, June 1746 --

  9. #19
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,905

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by greenfairy View Post
    I don't believe we should give equal truth value to things to be politically correct; we should give them equal consideration. That is, form our own epistemically justified beliefs about things free from bias. A scientific bias can be just as incorrect in certain areas as a religious bias.

    (For the record, I occupy a position where the scientific and the spiritual are in balance and don't contradict each other.)
    I believe in giving things equal consideration, but there seems to be a hang up I've noticed. People seem to forget that giving everything equal consideration does not require me to give consideration to something that is founded on something else I have considered in the past and found to be false. It's like they want me to give deep, lengthy consideration to each and every individual proposal with no regard for what it's based on and what has come before it.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  10. #20
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    I believe in giving things equal consideration, but there seems to be a hang up I've noticed. People seem to forget that giving everything equal consideration does not require me to give consideration to something that is founded on something else I have considered in the past and found to be false. It's like they want me to give deep, lengthy consideration to each and every individual proposal with no regard for what it's based on and what has come before it.
    Of course you have to integrate things into your belief system, and reject things which don't fit. Only be open to new information and the possibility that your system needs to be modified (i.e. don't let Ti suppress Ne).

Similar Threads

  1. Why Science is so Hard to Believe
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  2. [Other] What is your favorite quote...
    By jck221 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 05:43 PM
  3. Is religion a science?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 11:27 PM
  4. Science is nothing more than magic that actually works.
    By onemoretime in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-06-2012, 09:20 AM
  5. Is your Religion your Race?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 04:43 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