Which approach do you prefer: philosophy or science?

[Lark]

Science is just a methodology.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

It would be foolish for a creationist to make scientific predictions within a creationist framework as it is not a scientific model. On the other hand, I know plenty of scientists who accept scientific models of creation, while attributing the driving force behind all of it to God. Science thus explains how the universe works, while religion explains larger questions of purpose which science cannot address.

What is foolishness?

As I understand, science is based on an ever changing system of conjecture and educated guesses, which I may choose to accept by faith. The Bible is an unchanging historical account, as told by God, which I may choose to accept by faith. I find both useful in forming a "whole".

At best, I get a hundred years to contemplate the mysteries of the universe in a world I experience for myself.

 

[Agent Washington]

.

 

[Typh0n]

I suppose it's an issue of language then. Regardless, in the world of science model almost always does refer to things as Coriolis explained. I'm a organic chemist and we use models all the time. An illustrative example in my field is the Si-Re model for Sharpless epoxidation of allylic alcohols. The purpose of the model is to explain and predict the outcome of the reaction before you actually do it. However, the model does not explain exactly what happens. What actually happens is far more complex. However, we are able to reduce the mechanism to a simple model as it has proven to be highly predictable and reliable. It's not accurate in a literal sense, but it is scientifically accurate and a useful model. Further, the model itself can be explained in accurate scientific terms. It came from sound science. It had to in order to be developed.

This sort of process wouldn't work for religion or spiritual topics. The reason is is the base upon which it sits is faith-based and has no scientific or emperical basis to it. It becomes circular logic the second it is applied to the real world. In order to make scientific predictions, you have to start at a scientific root. There is none in religion or spirituality, so it can not be used that way.

I disagree.

You can certainly have models like you describe pertaining to philosophy or spirituality. Models that are scrapped and disregared when they are no longer useful. (That being said, this isn't really what most religons do, most religions would have you accept their mythology as the only model. But religion, spirituality, and philosophy are three different things, I wouldn't be so quick to lump them all together and oppose them to science...)

Also, philosophy, with the exception of theology, is not based on faith. Neither is spirituality, at least not necessarily. I could find a waterfall beautiful have a numinous experience and there is no faith involved here. Simply wonder.

What is based in faith is belief, we believe something to be true on certain premises accepted on faith. Even science is based on faith in reason and in scientific method. And there are things like quantum mechanics which have no satisfactory explanation but which work for us nonethless. The nature of belief lies in accepting certain premises which rely on other premises, or on nothing at all. If we reason, we can trace any form of reasoning to other forms of reasoning.

To get back to the idea of models: certainly, most people confuse the map and the territory, they simply want to believe in something being true or false. Its very hard not to do so, most people are not able to discern between map and territory, or rather I should say they choose not to because its easier to use binary thinking for everything (true/false etc).

 

[Typh0n]

Science is just a methodology.

I agree, though I think for many people it is methodology they have faith in.

 

[Luigi]

I agree, though I think for many people it is methodology they have faith in.

You're right. You can only accept anything if you have decided that it is acceptable.

 

[Warrior]

I prefer a blend of philosophy and science, based on the teachings of Turkish religious scholar Said Nursi, who was persecuted by the Kemalist (Pro-Ataturk, or Pro-Mustafa Kemal Ataturk) authorities for his religious beliefs. He taught that spiritual sciences should be taught in scientific classes, and the scientific method should be applied to sprituality. The later scholar Muhammed Fethullah Gulen expanded on this and his followers built schools all around the world which produce some of the best results from students. They even operate over a hundred charter schools in the US, and many in Europe, (but those don't teach islamic studies, obviously), and the thinking is this: science without a deep meaning, whether it be through the lens of the liberal arts, through philosophy, through religion etc. leads to boredom and detachment from humanity and the human condition, and teaching all religion or philosophy without science, leads to dogmatism or detachment from reality, respectively. My father was an advocate of students in college getting a liberal arts associate's degree, in addition to their core classes and major, so that they can make good money but have a connection with the human condition.

 

[Coriolis]

What is foolishness?

As I understand, science is based on an ever changing system of conjecture and educated guesses, which I may choose to accept by faith. The Bible is an unchanging historical account, as told by God, which I may choose to accept by faith. I find both useful in forming a "whole".

At best, I get a hundred years to contemplate the mysteries of the universe in a world I experience for myself.

Here, foolishness is using the wrong tool for the job. I suggest you read up on the nature of science. Science is a method of learning about the world that tests hypotheses and rejects those that are not supported by the evidence. Conclusions are thus rooted in experimentation and observation, and must be broadly reproducible to be accepted as an explanation for something in the world around us. As such, science can answer only those questions that lend themselves to this approach. It cannot tell us whether God exists, or why we are here, or what is our role in the universe. Religion similarly cannot tell us how old the earth is, or what the early universe was like, or how humans, or frogs, or marigolds came to have the physical attributes they do.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you accept science on faith, you are doing both yourself and science a disservice. Likewise, if you expect religious beliefs to stand up to scientific standards of evidence, you are doing true faith a disservice. IME we do, indeed, need both to understand the totality of our experience in the universe, just not quite as you describe.

I agree, though I think for many people it is methodology they have faith in.

It has been shown to be reliable over time. Faith is acceptance of something in the absence of evidence.

You're right. You can only accept anything if you have decided that it is acceptable.

But why do we accept something? It can be because that something has been shown repeatedly to produce correct results or predictions; or because internally it makes some sort of subjective sense to us based on our values and personal experience. The first is characteristic of accepting scientific methods and results, while the second is characteristic of accepting a religious or spiritual belief system.

 

[Warrior]

The difference is fundamental Christianity is a very small part of Christianity, in fact all major sects of Christianity accept Natural Selection as a scientific fact. But Islam as a whole rejects Natural Selection as against the teaching of the Koran.

This is the argument from moral equivalence, first used in the cold war to justify the crimes of the Soviet Union, and today the argument from moral equivalence is used to justify the crimes and discrimination of Islam.

This is not surprising as the Soviet Union was governed by a totalitarian ideology called International Communism, just as Islam is governed by a totalitarian ideology called Wahhabi Islam.

To understand the Soviet Union it is necessary to read Das Capital by Karl Marx, and to understand Wahhabi Islam it is necessary to read Milestones by Sayyid Qutb.

Actually I recall a Salafi website of a Salafi mosque near me (salafism and wahhabism are very, very close in ideology) condemning "qutbism" in gaza, and I don't believe the teachings of Sayyid Qutb had anything to do with wahhabism. however, it might aid in understanding the evolution of wahhabism as a fringe group to a large, Islamist phenomenon. but most islamists aren't wahhabi. the founder of wahhabism is Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, and Wahhabis consider the term "wahhabi" derogatory, and i personally do, despite disagreeing with their methodology and considering them extreme. the reason being the name of the man. it translates to "Muhammad SON OF Abdul-Wahhab. Abdul-Wahhab is a name which implies serving God, as it says "servant of the bestower" with "the bestower" being on of God's 99 names (excluding Allah which is just the Arabic word for God, which even arab christians used at the time). also, many muslims actually do believe in evolution, however, they are still the minority.

 

[stoic]

Well, this is how I see it...

Philosophy: Nothing can explain everything.
Science: Logic can explain everything.
Religion: Spirituality can explain everything.

I choose to believe that either, nothing means anything or consciousness means everything. In that regard, I believe in philosophy. I don't think anything can be known for certain, we can only deduct with perceptual reasoning.

 

[Luigi]

Well, this is how I see it...

Philosophy: Nothing can explain everything.
Science: Logic can explain everything.
Religion: Spirituality can explain everything.

I choose to believe that either, nothing means anything or consciousness means everything. In that regard, I believe in philosophy. I don't think anything can be known for certain, we can only deduct with perceptual reasoning.

Well, judging from that, I'm a combination of all three xD

 

[Forever]

Philosophy.

Science is a branch of philosophy.

Hrm. I've heard somewhere that science stemmed from philosophy?


I mean, generally speaking for both, you're making an assumption about how the way the world works, then you see if that assumption makes sense.


Or something like that.

Maybe from my deeper discussions in discord?

Where do people think physics come from? Metaphysics.

the pre-socratic philosophers were the first to question why/what/how was the world made?

It then more later came to Aristotle, who took more of an "empirical" approach than Plato did which is sort of an early formulation of the scientific method... then you got a combination (yes I am missing many) of Leibniz, Bacon, Kant, Hume who really had metaphysical theories themselves... don't get me started on Berkeley LOL.

And psychology is more of a later child of philosophy.


I think this question might equate philosophy to existentialism which is more of the philosophy of consciousness/experience. (which is a fun one itself haha)

So do you prefer existentialism or a specialized branch of metaphysics?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Pragmatism. What happens in the real world.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

Here, foolishness is using the wrong tool for the job. I suggest you read up on the nature of science. Science is a method of learning about the world that tests hypotheses and rejects those that are not supported by the evidence. Conclusions are thus rooted in experimentation and observation, and must be broadly reproducible to be accepted as an explanation for something in the world around us. As such, science can answer only those questions that lend themselves to this approach. It cannot tell us whether God exists, or why we are here, or what is our role in the universe. Religion similarly cannot tell us how old the earth is, or what the early universe was like, or how humans, or frogs, or marigolds came to have the physical attributes they do.

You are free to believe whatever you like, but if you accept science on faith, you are doing both yourself and science a disservice. Likewise, if you expect religious beliefs to stand up to scientific standards of evidence, you are doing true faith a disservice. IME we do, indeed, need both to understand the totality of our experience in the universe, just not quite as you describe.

I feel like I understand you very well, but I don't feel like you're understanding me. You're taking what I'm saying out of context.

Continuing to debate is foolishness.

 

[Mole]

I feel like I understand you very well, but I don't feel like you're understanding me. You're taking what I'm saying out of context.

Continuing to debate is foolishness.

Pray, let me to continue to be foolish. If a particular God exists, in the same way you and I exist, or a banana or a parrot exists, then we could conceivably apply the scientific method to this particular God.

The problem is that some of us believe this particular God exists and some of us don't.

 

[Mole]

Actually I recall a Salafi website of a Salafi mosque near me (salafism and wahhabism are very, very close in ideology) condemning "qutbism" in gaza, and I don't believe the teachings of Sayyid Qutb had anything to do with wahhabism. however, it might aid in understanding the evolution of wahhabism as a fringe group to a large, Islamist phenomenon. but most islamists aren't wahhabi. the founder of wahhabism is Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, and Wahhabis consider the term "wahhabi" derogatory, and i personally do, despite disagreeing with their methodology and considering them extreme. the reason being the name of the man. it translates to "Muhammad SON OF Abdul-Wahhab. Abdul-Wahhab is a name which implies serving God, as it says "servant of the bestower" with "the bestower" being on of God's 99 names (excluding Allah which is just the Arabic word for God, which even arab christians used at the time). also, many muslims actually do believe in evolution, however, they are still the minority.

Thank you for making this clearer. And it seems to me that a problem is that in Islamic schools I know of, Creationism is taught. They say they teach both Creationism and Natural Selection, and let the students make up their own minds, but oddly enough it seems all the Islamic students come down on the side of Creationism.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Science may explain how things happen, and help fortify your belief in certain tangibles.

But, I can't live my life with science being at the center of it. I tried, and it was dumb. It gave my life no meaning. No purpose.

Philosophy does give my life meaning, and purpose. Science is a useful tool.

The problem with the scientism is that if a particular result is reached in science that contradicts some tenets of scientism, the controversial science is now deemed a heresy.

In the end, scientism becomes the very thing they dislike: Religion.

This science v. philosophy debate is just as dumb as the people arguing it.

 

[Coriolis]

Science may explain how things happen, and help fortify your belief in certain tangibles.

But, I can't live my life with science being at the center of it. I tried, and it was dumb. It gave my life no meaning. No purpose.

Philosophy does give my life meaning, and purpose. Science is a useful tool.

The problem with the scientism is that if a particular result is reached in science that contradicts some tenets of scientism, the controversial science is now deemed a heresy.

In the end, scientism becomes the very thing they dislike: Religion.

This science v. philosophy debate is just as dumb as the people arguing it.

I cannot speak for "scientism", as I don't know what you mean by that. I can speak for science, though, and in the process of scientific inquiry, repeatable results that contradict an established theory lead to reexamination of that theory so it can be revised, or scrapped altogether if disproven by the new results.

Not everyone will have science as a central focus of their lives. For those of us who do, though, it hardly excludes other interests and considerations, but in fact often reinforces them. Science is the only means of predicting the future that has a sound enough track record to merit any reliance on it. That is good enough for me.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

 

[Typh0n]

This science v. philosophy debate is just as dumb as the people arguing it.

Why is it dumb? Though I liked what you had to say in that post (the rest of it), this part doesn't seem to fit in. Are you saying this thread is dumb, and that I'm dumb for starting it?