There is an entity called soul. It is in your body. It is in everybody. — Meta
There is an elementary particle called quark. Basically it is everywhere in the universe. — Meta
I think both the quark and the soul are things we (everyday individuals) will never be able to observe. We can only believe what the church or the scientific community says. (edit: and this is why the other parts of the text are important and not for advertising reasons) — Meta
You say that "quarks exist" is scientific and "souls exist" is not scientific. Based on what criteria? — Meta
-The priestI think both the quark and the soul are experienceable. I know some prayers. I have a pretty good grasp of how priests feel the spiritual world is put together and what role souls play. Also of how God told that to the priests. I have a reasonably strong confidence in the spiritual method and establishment that makes me believe what I have been told, at least as the best current explanation.
My problem is I don't know what you mean by scientific method. In my understanding observation is a basic concept of scientific method. I will never be able to observe quarks. Same with the soul. The method which is capable of telling which possible reality is real from the infinite possible mathematical universes is not accessible for me. So my observation is indirect. But I can also have an indirect observation of the soul if religion is true. So my question still remains. What is the criteria? What is scientific method?The existence of quarks has been verified (?), confirmed (?), established (?) following a set of procedures known as the scientific method.
You say that "quarks exist" is scientific and "souls exist" is not scientific. Based on what criteria? — Meta
My problem is I don't know what you mean by scientific method. — Meta
Modern science emerged in the seventeenth century with two fundamental ideas: planned experiments (Francis Bacon) and the mathematical representation of relations among phenomena (Galileo). This basic experimental-mathematical epistemology evolved until, in the first half of the twentieth century, it took a stringent form involving (1) a mathematical theory constituting scientific knowledge, (2) a formal operational correspondence between the theory and quantitative empirical measurements, and (3) predictions of future measurements based on the theory. The “truth” (validity) of the theory is judged based on the concordance between the predictions and the observations. While the epistemological details are subtle and require expertise relating to experimental protocol, mathematical modeling, and statistical analysis, the general notion of scientific knowledge is expressed in these three requirements.
Science is neither rationalism nor empiricism. It includes both in a particular way. In demanding quantitative predictions of future experience, science requires formulation of mathematical models whose relations can be tested against future observations. Prediction is a product of reason, but reason grounded in the empirical.
What is the difference between the observations in CERN and the observations of saints and gurus? They dont have any significant predictions which influence my life in any way. And the priest's and the scientist's theory of everyday physical reality are the same in a sense. — Meta
I have never observed a scientist say anything like that about quarks. Why should a scientist care whether a lay person believes in quarks? Such a belief has no consequences for the lay person. What she probably would care about is whether a lay person believes her prediction that a certain observable physical event such as a hurricane will occur - because lives can depend on such a belief.believe me our highly qualified scientists know what they are doing and believe us since we are the only ones capable of observing the truth. You can see how many new technologies we have invented so trust me. — Meta
What she probably would care about is whether a lay person believes her prediction that a certain observable physical event such as a hurricane will occur - because lives can depend on such a belief. — andrewk
What is the difference between the two arguments — Meta
What is empirical in Cern is dogmatic here in my room. What is empirical for a saint is dogmatic here. — Meta
Both the priest and the scientist argue that their knowledge is true, observable and worth believing.They are not arguments. They are descriptions of ways of life.
Even if Im out of the chair, most probably I will never be able to observe an elementary particle at Cern or anywhere. Plus it is unreasonable and impossible to test every (most likely contradictiory) belief system.If it's a problem to you, get out of the chair and get to work.
Both the priest and the scientist argue that their knowledge is true, observable and worth believing. — Meta
it is unreasonable and impossible to test every (most likely contradictiory) belief system. — Meta
Yes, and my response to that is that that's not how science works, and that the text is not something that a thoughtful scientist would say.It is just a hypothetical text based on my understanding of how science works. — Meta
Unless the priest is a young-Earth creationist, it is unlikely that you will have to choose between the two. Again, consider Georges Lemaitre.Who do I cooperate with: the priest or the scientist?
Taken on faith yes, but not in the same way, because the act of faith in science is consistently being vindicated in this world, whereas that in religious dogma is not.scientific evidence is "taken on faith" for the average citizen in the West, in the same way that theological conundrums were taken on faith by the average person for centuries. — Noble Dust
Address what? That moral and existential problems still remain? To whom is that supposed to be news? Moral and existential problems are part of the human condition, and I'm not aware of anybody that seeks to deny it - be they pro-religion and pro-science (Francis Collins and, I would suggest, most sensible religious people), pro-religion and anti-science (US fundamentalists and Tony Abbott), pro-science and anti-religion (Richard Dawkins and Laurence Krauss) or anti-religion and anti-science (not sure who this is - Jacques Derrida perhaps?).the West has transferred the religious need to another sphere of inquiry; or more accurately, to another perspective from which to view "reality". But the same moral and existential problems remain.
I haven't seen any arguments from the likes of ↪andrewk and others that actually address this concept. — Noble Dust
Taken on faith yes, but not in the same way, because the act of faith in science is consistently being vindicated in this world, whereas that in religious dogma is not.
The scientist says the light will go on if you press that switch. The average person has no idea why that should be so, but they take it on faith, press the switch, and the light does indeed go on. — andrewk
But when the hellfire preacher tells us that unmarried couples will be tortured forever after they die, there is no confirmation of that in this world. — andrewk
Address what? — andrewk
Moral and existential problems are part of the human condition, and I'm not aware of anybody that seeks to deny it — andrewk
As for 'transferring the religious need to another sphere of inquiry' I don't know what that means, or why you think it should be true. If you can clarify what exactly that claim means and provide some reasons to believe it, I'm happy to respond. — andrewk
If by 'religious need' you just mean the need that many feel to explore and express spiritual feelings and ideas, then I agree that it is likely an in-built feature of the human animal, that manifests in many, but not all, humans. — andrewk
But I don't understand the suggestion that such a need is 'descended from religion'. Such a statement sounds like it's either a trivial tautology obtained by equating spirituality with religion, or obviously false. — andrewk
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.