Stupid is dismissively concluding crap such as god’s existence or not existence. Tom Storm — invicta
I think we see this differently. Explanations are explanations. Besides religious explanations do not always provide comfort. They often provide fear and trembling and terrifying obligations. — Tom Storm
The point for me is that both world views attempt to make sense of the world - explanations. How they go about it is of course quite different but that has no impact on the fact they are both trying to explain reality. — Tom Storm
As it happens, I have known a number of former evangelicals who have deconverted and most of them have stated that science has made the world a whole lot less scary on account of the supernatural not being the explanation of why we are here. — Tom Storm
No, I beat stupid people all the time, especially at logic and chess. — invicta
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
— 1 Corinthians 13
Science and religion are two different things and there's no point in pitching them against each other [...] — Christoffer
Science is about facts and the pursuit of facts, [...] — Christoffer
I don't think science discerns facts. I think it creates predictive models.
The idea that science produces Truth with a capital 'T' is what risks science being turned from a useful tool into a religion or ideology. — Tzeentch
In comparison to religion, [...] — Christoffer
The same goes for pretty much everything that has been validated by science, especially things that became a foundation for some technology since that technology wouldn't work if our models weren't true in relation to the reality we create this technology within. Creating that technology requires certain truths to be valid and it's not really predictive anymore, but confirmed. — Christoffer
I don't see why such a comparison would be relevant to the nature of science. — Tzeentch
I think it simply requires the models to be accurate enough. That standard is usually set by some arbitrary measure like whether it provides adequate accuracy for practical application. — Tzeentch
Science will not replace religon because it has a hard time answering one very big question: "who am I?" Most religions say you are one soul in a world of many. Science currently has no good answer. You are consciousness created by the brain: how? If so then why? If consciousness is epiphenomenal and not a force of nature what is its evolutionary survival value?
Religion is based on superstitious faith but science also has faith that these questions will be eventually answered without a major shift in its current paradigms. — lorenzo sleakes
Is there a useful thread here on post modernism and truth? I would be keen to read something accessible on the subject. — Tom Storm
“Realism is the view that science aims to provide theories that truthfully represent how the world is--independent of human categories, capacities, and interventions. Both realists and antirealists propose to explain the content of scientific knowledge, either by its causal connections to real objects, or by the social interactions that fix its content; the shared presumption here is that there is a fixed "content" to be explained. Both scientific realists and antirealists presume semantic realism--that is, that there is an already determinate fact of the matter about what our theories, conceptual schemes, or forms of life "say" about the world. Interpretation must come to an end somewhere, they insist, if not in a world of independently real objects, then in a language, conceptual scheme, social context, or culture.”
By contrast, a postmodern view of science rejects “the dualism of scheme and content, or context and content, altogether. There is no determinate scheme or context that can fix the content of utterances, and hence no way to get outside of language. How a theory or practice interprets the world is itself inescapably open to further interpretation, with no authority beyond what gets said by whom, when…. we can never get outside our language, experience, or methods to assess how well they correspond to a transcendent reality.”
How else would one go about killing a religion? — praxis
"There are those" seems to be covertly pointing at yours truly. Likewise, the poster-who-shall-not-be-named falsely accuses Gnomon of substituting New Ageism for Scientism. But he's dead wrong, and so are you, if you interpret a> my defense of metaphysical Philosophy*1, as a rejection of physical Science, and b> my references to Holism as a sign of New Age beliefs. Holism*2 is actually a modern scientific concept that was adopted by New Agers, and by Quantum Physics pioneers.Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? — Gnomon
Why not.
But my point was missed, so I'll put it again, more directly. There are those who leave one fundamentalism only to find another, who putting down one bible, choose another. Such folk might miss the distinction ↪Tom Storm makes. — Banno
You can't kill a religion. As beliefs are not killable. They resurface from natural thought, exploration and desire for fundamental answers. — Benj96
If everyone was a scientist, some of them would move away from science in a quest for an alternative. If everyone was religious, many of them would move away towards something alternative (science). Neither subjective nor objective views of reality can ever be fully eliminated (killed). — Benj96
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.