Righto. I think the postulate applies to our brane, but we can only observe where we can observe.
[/quote]
I think there are two meanings of why here. We could say the KT boundary asteroid hit because a black hole passed by - that is one version of why. (I’m not contending that - just an example.) The religious version of why would be in order to kill off the dinosaurs, help the mammals, and lead to us. That why science does not address.
You said a religion, not a faith. Which is slightly wronger. Science is a process for discovery and evaluation. Maybe you could argue that you need to believe the world is knowable and observable, but I’m not sure… either way that’s not even close to a religion.
Well, gee, I was expecting spiritual poetry and I get mundane astronomy! Atheists like Carl Sagan said over and over how the real universe is awe inspiring. If your definition of spiritual encompasses only the wonder of the real world, I’m going to have to plead guilty to being spiritual. Believing in only the material does not dampen one’s sense of wonder at all.
Why don’t you define religion so we can judge the validity of this statement based on that. For all I know you define religion as accepting things unseen, and as radio waves are unseen all scientists are religious.
I would say that what is most readily defined as “spiritual” is information. All information is spiritual. Whereas the actual material effect of that information is material. Thought, for instance would be spiritual.
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
So everything within the realm of imagination is spiritual, whereas everything in the realm of the tangible is material. I think trying to narrowly define “reality” is going to get us nowhere, as all are parts of reality.
I think studies such as Quantum Mechanics, String Theory, and Relativity touch on the area where Spiritual and Material meet.
Erek
What cause or system of beliefs comprises science?
In any case it appears you’re using definitions that bear no resemblance to the way most people use these words, which makes this kind of a pointless exercise.
When I was an undergrad my lab was in the same corridor as Claude Shannon’s (the inventor of information theory, AI, digital logic, and a damn fine juggler too) office. I think he would have laughed like hell at this statement. Information can be measured, and obeys laws. I don’t remember spirituality being mentioned once in the Information Theory course I took in grad school.
Science does not involve faith. Trust me on this. And thought is perfectly material, just like a running computer program or a factory process. Not being able to hold it in your hand doesn’t make it spiritual, not in any meaningful sense of the word. Is electricity spiritual?
And, IAMNAQM, but I believe those who are hate it when people justify mysticism by QM. And relativity ain’t even close.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with spirituality. If you see Venus, and I can see Venus after looking where you told me to look, then we’ve scientifically agreed on reality. If you then point up and say “Look, there’s Planet 10,” and I say “that’s ridiculous,” why did I say that? Did Planet 10 make me say that, or did your foolishness make me say it?
But we perceive these celestial bodies because of their physical properties, not the other way around.
Spirituality simply cannot describe rules that affect us all the same way. That is the job of science. Individually, they have their own place. Spirituality is not ridiculous until it claims to describe rules that affect everyone the same way. It does not and never has. If it ever is demonstrated to have this behavior, then it won’t be spirituality anymore, it will be science. But it is simple foolishness to sit there and essentially try to prove that your god has any power over me.
NattoGuy: Narrowly defining spirituality so that it can be negated is not scientific in any way.
I would like to retract what I said earlier about Science being a religion.
Science is not a religion, even if many people treat it as such.
I believe that many within this thread are on the “treat it as such” side.
My belief affects you because it dictates my actions.
My comment about Venus was in reference to a comment about the planets having very little physical influence over us, something I don’t agree with. The position of the planets determines our position in the solar system.
I think it is dishonest to say that Science requires no faith. If someone can show me another way of seeing it, I will listen, but I have heard many arguments, and they all struck me as dishonest. They require a very narrow definition of something in order to put it outside of the realm of science. This is doublespeak, nothing more.
The definition that seems to be proposed for Spirituality includes “Not science” in it somewhere, I do not agree that spirituality is by definition “not science”.
The idea that science and spirituality were seperate is a rather new idea, and is purely political, it has not basis in either spirituality or science. Pythagoras, Newton, Euclid, Einstein, all had a spiritual basis for their pursuit of science. The dogma of modern education has some cognitive dissonance that doesn’t realize that the pillars of science were oftentimes very religious. Darwin was himself a Deist.
If you do not agree with my definition of words, that is fine, but please don’t pretend that your definition is in any way the universal definition of these terms, because it is not. That is my problem with people who are dogmatic about science. They speak their opinions as though they are facts. I think this is a problem with teaching science to laypeople as though it is somehow a replacement for religion, and would be willing to bet that this is the crux of the creation/evolution debate in modern education.
People complain when people like myself say science is a religion, but if it is not a religion, how can there be any conflict whatsoever between it and any religion? If they aren’t measured by the same scale, then how can there be any conflict?
Science requires belief, and if you cannot be honest about that then we have nothing to discuss. I think it is this root dishonesty that is the cause of my issue here in this debate. If you believe in science, admit as such, but do not claim that it does not require belief, and belief according to the dictionary, is a synonym of faith.
If you also cannot accept that I do not think there is any true seperation between spiritual and material, that it is merely a cognitive tool we use to allow for definition, “I am - I am not” then we cannot carry on any meaningful discussion on this topic. Trying to say that Venus has no spiritual properties is trying to enforce YOUR definition of spirituality on me, and I do not hold to such a narrow definition.
A meter is a meter, you can’t make a ruler that is 995 centimeters, and then claim that if a meter does not match up to your “meter long” ruler that it is not a meter long.
Erek
A good example of this arrogance, are the people that will point out a debunked psychic and use that as evidence that psychic powers do not exist. Just because one person was lying about having psychic powers does not mean that they do not exist.
If you truly believe in skepticism, then you wouldn’t claim that something is untrue just because it hasn’t been proven true.
Erek
This made me chuckle.
You’re blurring two things which are not related: you’re correct about ancient scientists believing in a connection with the spiritual, but wrong about modern ones as far as I can tell. Einstein and Darwin both believed in god as far as I know, but their work did not have a ‘spiritual basis’ as far as I know.
When you use a word to mean something different from what most people use it to mean, you’re going to have these problems. It’s not everybody else’s fault for using one definition of religion when you use another. You’re still wrong either way.
Theories derived by scientific inquiry contradict some specific teachings of various religions, that’s why there’s a conflict. Many people are not satisfied by your idea that science describes the world; they feel religious texts describe it exactly.
:rolleyes: Oh, the ever-popular ‘you either agree with me or you’re a liar.’ Weak.
That’s arrogant? It’s common sense, and it’s not exactly a leap in logic since psychics generally use the same couple of tricks. Find me one that doesn’t.
I think common sense indicates that it probably isn’t true. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that, for example, psychics are for real. I think a lot of people who believe in the supernatural are very offended by this idea that science does not accept their beliefs just because they believe them, that they have to meet a standard of proof.
I had a feeling you would.
I do not. If you’ll go back and read what I’ve said, I have not discussed my own religious inclinations whatsoever. You’re jumpting to conclusions based on the fact that I’m defending academia. You shouldn’t make personal judgements about people based on such little evidence.
All I have said is that religion has very little place in academia. I stand by that. I also think sumo wrestling has very little place in cardiology. That does not mean I am anti-sumo. In fact, I love sumo and watch it every time it’s on TV. However, it’s irrelevant to the study and treatment of the human heart.
Likewise, students in an astronomy class are there to learn the position of the stars, their composition and other facts, not to spend time wondering aloud why they’re there. The why will not be on the test. That is a question best suited to a quiet evening with friends and a bottle of chianti.
It’s merely a question of appropriateness. In the midst of a discussion about the Civil War, I should not suddenly blurt out a statement about the PBS documentary I recently watched about whales. Likewise, a statement about religious beliefs is equally irrelevant in a discussion of academic matters.
As I have said, some people have a hostility toward academia for its very nature. I don’t feel that this prejudice is the fault of academia. Academia is not opposed to religion-- it is merely seperate from it. Yes, there are those who cannot seperate their faith from the practical aspects of life-- but they’ll tend to have problems wherever they go, not just in academia.
There are rules to be followed in academia. Instead of insisting that all people follow the rules, you are asking that the rules be bent for certain people. Isn’t that unfair to others? Should a flat-earther be accorded special consideration in geology classes because of his beliefs?
Desire is irrelevant. Academia cannot change to embrace the ephemeral nature of religious beliefs as relevant to academic discussion and still retain its integrity. There can be no “compromise” of academic standards or principles.
Would you like a doctor to preform surgery on you if you knew that because of his religious beliefs, he believed that all of the organs in the body were in different places than they actually are? Should he have been accorded special consideration in his medical classes because his faith told him differently than the text book?
I did not.
I did not. I made no value judgements on religion whatsoever.
I did say that scientific research was more worthwhile than philosphic debate, but it was not a judgement on religion as a whole.
No, I didn’t.
Yes, it is.
What matters is the law and the Constitution, and despite recent protests to the contrary, courts do not make judgements based on opinion polls.
But it was a nice thought, though. Same to ya.
I suppose you could say, then, that it’s the most unique religion in the world: one which seeks to disprove itself. It’s the only one which invites skepticism-- the only one which embraces disbelief and abhors blind faith. I don’t think there’s a collection plate, either.
You’re so cute.
I hate to point out the obvious here, but the ability to negate something is one of the very** foundations ** of science. That is the fundamental way to determine whether a conclusion is scientific or not. If there is no way to prove an idea false, then by definition the idea has no scientific validity at this point in time. That doesn’t mean it can never be true. Someday we might find a way to prove it false. But until that time, we have no basis to claim that the phenomenon governs behavior in anyone or anything but the observer.
Of course if you don’t agree that this is the definition of science, there does not exist sufficient common language between us to continue the discussion.
Yes, but can’t you see that we are only reacting to you? Were the twin towers destroyed because Allah willed it, or because some people believed that Allah willed it? Try to separate cause from effect here.
At this point I’m pretty sure you are confusing the terms “science” and “technology.” And that’s OK, but understand that they are different things. If you decide that your personal word for “chicken” is “encyclopedia”, it doesn’t mean your ideas are incorrect. But it does mean we’re going to have big problems deciding where to have dinner.
Anyway, if there is no universal definition of words, how can you feel so confident in saying this:
Alrighty then. If words do have definitions after all, understand that science is science, just like a meter is a meter. We all have to agree on the definition of a meter in order for it to be useful, and likewise science is useless unless we all agree on the definition. You cannot make up a definition of science that says “includes ideas that cannot be proven incorrect” because that isn’t science anymore.
Nobody is asking you to change your spiritual ideas, but if you pay close attention to this thread, you could learn things that will explain why you’ve gotten the reactions you have gotten in the past.
NattoGuy and Lissa: My issue isn’t that you are defending academia or science. What I truly believe is that neither of you is actually on the side of academia and science. I feel that you have both presented your opinions as facts.
In Lissa’s case, you have applied your bias to specific religions to me. I do not share the beliefs taht inform many of your examples.
In NattoGuy’s case, I disagree that your definition of the terms used is in any way correct.
I do actually think that terms have an objective meaning, it’s just that all of us have to approach them subjectively, so none of us has it 100% correct. It’s something of an averaging out if you will.
I am not anti-science in any way. I am not saying science cannot answer my questions. What I am saying is that certain people portray their bias as though it is objective, when it is as far from objective as possible.
It’s like the difference between binary and analog. Binary assumes that something is either/or, whereas analog sees a consistent curve between one and zero.
My problem is that you are assuming because I am taking a stance in defense of religion that I am opposed to science. What I am saying is that there is no such division between religion and science, yet you are still measuring me upon your belief that there is such a seperation. So for further discussion to bear fruit, I must accept that you believe there is some seperation, and you must accept that I do not believe that they are at odds in any way. If a certain religion believes something that is scientifically untrue, then IMO it has been debunked, or else the people observing it fell into a trap of a game that applied rules that don’t apply to the effect. If I think that psychic phenomena work a certain way, and science proves that psychic phenomena do not work that way, that does not mean psychic phenomena do not exist, it merely means that I was wrong about the way that they work. If a person was lying about being capable of psychic power, that does not mean psychic power does not exist, if it is proved that they were lying. If person A was lying, that does not mean that person B is incapable of psychic powers. That is where my problem lies, because it is not scientific to assume that A would have anything to do with B. If I told you I can fly with my wings, and you proved that I cannot, that does not mean that a bird cannot fly with it’s wings.
My problem isn’t with science, it is with people who claim to represent science when they in fact, do not.
Erek
OK, I’ll bite. What is wrong with my definition of science, and what do you propose is a more correct one?
This makes no sense. Objectivity and subjectivity are opposites by their very definition.
Whether you choose to believe in science is a subjective matter and a personal bias. But the definition of science is really not up for debate. If it is, you’ll need to take a position and try to defend it, and not just sit there saying that everyone else is wrong.
It’s like, definitions are fixed and reliable when **you ** want to make an analogy, but then they’re suddenly subjective and fluid whenever I try to make a point. You argue about the constancy of terms like “meter” and “binary” and fail to understand that “science” is also a man-made construct and very clearly defined. Of course the “how” of science is wide open to debate, but not the “what.” I still think you are completely confusing the terms “science” and “technology.”
No, not at all. Your religion, or lack thereof, is of no consequence to me or to science. I am arguing that you are attacking a strawman. You create a definition of science that nobody except you agrees to, and then you proceed to point out that it’s flawed. You have to be able to get out of your own head to discuss this.
Well, this is one part that you’ve got right. It is possible to prove the existence of a thing, but it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. However, we can scientifically say that “Psychic phenomena have never been proven to exist.” That is a scientifically valid fact. But we are all human, so some of us would go on to say “…and since hundreds of other psychics have been debunked, most likely none of them are ever going to pass the test.” That part would be an opinion. It is an informed opinion backed by scientific observation and therefore probably true, but we cannot call it “scientific.” And yes, you are right that some people go too far and confuse informed opinion with scientific fact. Academic institutions are composed of people and therefore liable to contamination by this kind of bias. But again, science is self-correcting. If someone publishes a paper based on opinion, eventually it will be pointed out and corrected. This is where science differs from religion, it has built-in mechanisms to correct personal biases.
Back atcha.
It might help if you stopped arguing with me like I was trying to get creationism taught in textooks, or the ten commandments posted in courthouses. You have yet to address the subject of this thread. You have vehemently defended academia when no case was being made against it. I was merely referring to attitudes in American Academia as a culture, not Academia as the pursuit of the body of knowledge. I am sorry you are completely incapable of addressing the point of this thread.
I agree. This thread is about mutual respect in a public cultural/political setting.
You claim a hostility from religion toward academia, yet for purposes of this thread, I have only seen a hostility from those who CLAIM to be on the side of academia, toward religion, and not the other way around.
This is completely off-topic and has little to do with the discussion. I am not asking that the rules be bent in any way. I am trying to examine the way things are going. I wonder why you chose to enter into a philisophical thread, if your only point is that science is superior to philosophy. Are you going to start through gang signs? Academic Mafia in the (not da) house!!! Represent (not reprazent)!!!
As for which is superior science of philosophy, I have to ask you, how many pounds to the gallon does your car get? Don’t you think a kilometer is an interminably long time to wait for the doctor to see you?
The truth cannot change, Academia is a social grouping, and can change as the body of knowledge changes. Don’t confuse the group that you belong to with it’s pursuit. No one is asking for the standards to change.
Again, someone can be wrong. You’d be hard pressed to find any one religion that believes things completely the same way internally, let alone apply those things to religion overall. Just because one person is wrong that does not reflect upon anyone else wit
What is better objectively? The color blue, or Dolphins?
So people’s votes don’t matter? Their opinion on who should be PRESIDENT or CONGRESSMAN, is irrelevant to the decision making process? And courts don’t make judgements upon opinion polls? What about when a judge sets a precedent and other judges work by that same precedent? Are you saying that a judge’s ruling is objective fact? What about the President’s OPINION as to who he should appoint to the supreme court?
Uniqueness doesn’t have a matter of degree. Something is either unique or it is not. One thing cannot be more one of a kind than another. I’ll remember there’s no collection plate next time I’m being asked for money for AIDS research.
Jesus invites skepticism:
Pr.14:15
“The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.”
1 Th.5:21
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
Back atcha.
My problem has more with your linking the terms science and spirituality into some sort of duality that I don’t think applies to them. This would have more to do with your definition of spirituality than your definition of science. My problem with the way you approach science is that if something is known, then it ceases to be spiritual. I disagree with this. I don’t disagree with your definition of science except in that it seems to debunk spirituality by it’s very nature, which I disagree with.
]
This is correct, but science is not a synonym for objectivity, and religion is not a synonym for subjectivity. Both deal with the objective, whereas religion deals with both the subjective and objective.
I don’t disagree that science is a set of tools useful in determining whether or not something is a fact.
I am not attacking science, this is where your argument is flawed. I am debating whether or not the stance you are taking is actually scientific.
No, I pretty much agree with the definition of science offered. My problem is the extra garnishes that are being thrust upon the definition of science.
I disagree that religion does not have built in mechanisms. I will stick to my argument that the scientific method is a built in mechanism to correct the personal biases of religion.
I retracted in a previous post, science as religion. Religion is broader than science. Science deals only with knowledge whereas religion deals with knowledge and understanding.
Erek
NattoGuy: In a system that includes me, my spiritual beliefs inform upon how you react, because you exist within that system. You don’t have to believe in them, but you still react to them. There can still be a set of objective rules in a system where my subjectivity informs upon your environment. Your reaction thus, informs upon how you believe in the future, because you examine your actions.
Let’s take some physical objects and assign them some arbitrary valuations of their properties. If Object A has a gravity of X, and a Magnetism of Y this determines its relationship to Object B that has a gravity of R and a Magnetism of Z. While the laws of gravity and magnetism are objective, that does not mean that the two bodies have the same gravity or magnetism. So the subjective reality is determined by the reference point of Object A or B, and all that is observable from those reference points, it does not however in any way negate the objective properties of Gravity or Magnetism, even though depending upon which point you are standing upon, your experience of the laws of physics will be dramatically different.
So let’s say I am Object A and you are Object B, we see the world very differently, but the way we each see the world informs dramatically upon each other, as we make decisions about how to utilize our energy in order to change our “inertia” in relation to one another. When you react, you thereby change your reference point, and your subjective view of the world is unalterably changed by your interaction with me.
Erek
I attributed those biblical quotes to Jesus, they were not attributable to Jesus. They are however, still applicable to the topic at hand, even if the topic at hand barely touched the OP.
In this light I guess I can truly say that I “react” to your spiritual beliefs, but it is only fair to inform you that I also “reacted” in the same way to “The Lord Of The Rings” and “Star Trek.” Thus, you have proven that your spiritual beliefs are just as real as hobbits and vulcans. I won’t argue against that.
If these objects are not in the same universe, this comparison is null. If they are in the same universe and have appropriate equipment, both observers will be able to give the same description of both objects. This is a completely objective scenario.
You could make this scenario subjective if you allowed the observers to communicate but did not allow them to make measurements and compare notes. They would find themselves unable to prove anything except that they both exist and they both claim to have a particular experience. Sounds a lot like religion, no? Your god is very real to you, but it can’t be measured or detected by both of us, so it cannot be made real to me. That doesn’t mean it isn’t real, but it does mean that your god controls nothing in my word except for you. And if I avoid you, then basically your god doesn’t exist for me.