User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 126

  1. #41
    Filthy Apes! Kalach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    4,318

    Default

    Damn hippies coasting on the success of science. How about this: "religion is a science". Such a claim surely misses nothing of importance to the experience and nature of belief, right?

    QED

  2. #42
    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
    Well if you've got a definition for what it entails to "exist" that allows for thoughts to fall under the umbrella of the term, it must be an extremely idiosyncratic one.
    No, I don't believe they "exist" in the material* sense either (as in like objects); I think they are energy, like everything is. It might be possible to read a person's thoughts as electrical patterns or something. I don't know. But the fact is that no one really knows how it works.

    *No one is sure what "material" means. Roughly speaking, having temporality and spaciality and operating within the laws of nature. Thoughts could possibly exist this way if they are energy or electricity.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    @greenfairy if we could read the radiation of your life force energy, you would be immediately transformed by the self-realization of your inner Ni divine light! You would transcend all things mundane and conquer the rules by which this game operates, focusing the flow of this electric system to hack the secret codes.

    That was wordy, but the point is, the science of your mind would give reveal your ultimate religious purpose in our world cosmology.

  4. #44
    philosopher wood nymph greenfairy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    MBTI
    iNfj
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RaptorWizard View Post
    @greenfairy if we could read the radiation of your life force energy, you would be immediately transformed by the self-realization of your inner Ni divine light! You would transcend all things mundane and conquer the rules by which this game operates, focusing the flow of this electric system to hack the secret codes.

    That was wordy, but the point is, the science of your mind would give reveal your ultimate religious purpose in our world cosmology.
    Lol. You flatter me outrageously. It's true though, I'm going to save the world using only the power of my own mind and my chakras.

    Don't worry, I still have my Ni. It's just probably not where I thought it was.

  5. #45
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    Will
    Posts
    5,927

    Default

    I like to blow things up to be bigger than they initially begin as, so don't make too much out of it. In actuality, my world cosmology will be the prime cause for transforming the globe and advancing the human condition.

    This will give way to eternal life, world peace, universal enlightenment, ultimate power, unified love, and incredulous wonderment as never before.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Two kinds of scientists:

    1. This scientist believes that science can answer all questions about reality and provide all truth given enough time. They will not look for ways that science can be limited in gaining knowledge about the world, nor will they accept notions on how science can be limited. For this person, they believe all knowledge not gained through science is illogical or inconclusive. Paradoxically, they believe that science can prove itself; and ironically, they believe subjective meaning can be understood through objective means or measures. This scientist is religious because they hold self-evident claims about what science can accomplish.

    2. This scientist admits science has its own ontological limitations as to what it can know, but reasons that it is better or very accurate at conceptualizing and interpreting certain aspects of the world than non-scientific methods. If the scientific method ends up being inconclusive about certain aspects of reality, such a scientist is willing to listen to and understand why. This scientist is not religious because they let the evidence speak for itself without having to hold onto self-evident claims about what science can accomplish.

    *Science can be used as a religion. Is it then a religion? For some scientists, it is.

  7. #47
    The elder Holmes Mycroft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sp
    Posts
    1,080

    Default

    Okay, so we have these rigid religio-scientific types who dogmatically demand demonstrable evidence, and the Enlightened who think anything that wafts up from the subconscious is magical and truthful?

    That's what I'm getting here.

    Little Sticks:

    You misinterpret. The premises (in a nutshell) are thus:

    1.) We can only ever "know" things in degrees. I.e., we can only ever be certain that a theory to describe observed phenomenon is true to the extent that it accounts for the observed phenomenon in a way that makes sense (even if it is un-intuitive), and the evidence has mounted through varied and repeated demonstration.

    2.) The only manner of demonstrating a thing is through empirical demonstration. Which is to say, "I feel very strongly A is true, therefore A is true", or "I have a hunch A is true, therefore A is true" are not valid arguments.

    It's true that science is a tool for describing reality as we experience it. However, it's a tautology that we can only experience reality as we are able to experience it. To turn this on its head, our "reality" is defined as "that which we are able to experience". In Kant's terminology, we can never know things-in-themselves. At all. In any way.

    if we define truth as "fidelity to reality", which I feel is the only fruitful definition of truth, we of course mean "fidelity to reality as it is perceived by conscious species", and the only manner of determining a theory's fidelity to reality is on the basis of sound evidence.

    Please tell me how any of that is religious.

    RW: I like you and I'm beginning to worry there's something in your drinking water.
    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 --

  8. #48
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,536
    Religion gives us Truth with a capital T, while science gives us truth with a small t.

    So religion gives us certainty, while science gives us scepticism.

  9. #49
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    I think you misunderstood me. I never claimed science as a methodology is religious in itself; it is not. But religions are formed on the basis of beliefs; and anyone who claims beliefs about what the methodology of science can teach us about the world is religious.

    For example, believing that all meaning to the world can be explained in objective measures of science is a belief about science and one that it can't wholly prove or disprove because even working with the idea of subjective meaning automatically creates a realm of knowledge it doesn't deal with. Such a scientist that believes this and uses it to devalue the subjective meaning of other people in favor of objective meaning is not only dehumanizing them, but using science to subject them to their beliefs. For this person, they use science as a religious device; but science in itself is just a methodology for understanding and interpreting the objective world. That however, does not somehow make the subjective world any less real or meaningful to reality, as a religious scientist might believe.

  10. #50
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    Religion gives us Truth with a capital T, while science gives us truth with a small t.

    So religion gives us certainty, while science gives us scepticism.
    So if someone uses science religiously, they get certainty and skepticism? I can't think of anything more convenient than playing Devil's Advocate while pushing one's own agenda...

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