Is Science more than skin deep?

[Tuddrussell]

I think you may be misunderstanding my point. Probably because I'm rambling. I'm not trying to prove God to you.

I wasn't trying to get you to do so, that would be ridiculous. I was merely trying to get you to prove that your experiences (whatever they may be, you haven't really said anything about them yet...) are useful, true, and of divine origin as you claim them to be. If they are all those things, there must be better ways to attain them.

Why must God have the monopoly, would it hurt him to share? Couldn't we get it second hand, from a third party source, or just do it ourselves?

I was also explaining why I (like Nietzsche) saw nihilism hiding around the corner when people disbar the possibility of obtaining truth through any means save the scientific method . Mainly because science itself doesn't lead to truth it leads to useful fictions or abstractions about a "shadow world". When people realize this they are then left with nothing. If science is all we have then be extension we have no truth. If we can have no truth why worry about truth in the first place? It's simply a pie in the sky utopia. How then can those who are limited to such means make truth claims about anything at all let alone religion? Truth is disbarred to them because they have no faculty or method that is up to the task.

Science is not about "truth," that's more to do with philosophy, science is about knowledge. There are no truths in science, only theories. Truth is static, science is dynamic. Truth has no place in science.

I agree that focusing on science to the exclusion of other important methods of understanding would be limiting.

Your argument raises some questions: If religion is the only way to truth, why does it have so many falsehoods? If it is unambiguously a good thing, why does it bring such suffering? What is "truth," and why is it important?

Most of all, why is nihilism a bad thing?

If you say there are fundamental problems with science, then you should write a paper on it so we can fix it. Just because something is flawed doesn't mean it can't be fixed, if it can't then that doesn't mean it has no use. Technology, medicine, and what have you are all evidence of that.

 

[Drunk On Love]

If you say there are fundamental problems with science

I'm not saying that all. It's abstractions and fictions can prove themselves imminently useful. It's absured to oppose science to religion though when science has nothing to do with truth. I see self professed "scientific atheists" using science (or rather philosophy masquerading as "science") to supposedly disprove religion and people eat it up. For that reason I think it's worthwhile to bring to light the limitations of science.

Most of all, why is nihilism a bad thing?

I was just pointing out that x leads to y. I wasn't particularly thrilled with my experience as a nihilist but I didn't mention it primarily to claim that nihilism is evil. I was pointing out that such people have no legitimate base from which to make truth claims or attack the beliefs of others. Their beliefs have nothing to do with truth so why attack other people for having beliefs they consider untrue? Like people in glass houses throwing stones at religion.

Your argument raises some questions: If religion is the only way to truth, why does it have so many falsehoods?

You would have to give something more specific I'm not sure what supposed falsehoods you have in mind.

If it is unambiguously a good thing, why does it bring such suffering?

You will experience pain regardless. It's not something unique to a person who practices a religion. Any sort of pain that was given to you specifically as a result of following God would also be a blessing. A sort of painful surgery or educational process meant to refine you and help you in your battle against the ego.

 

[Tuddrussell]

You would have to give something more specific I'm not sure what supposed falsehoods you have in mind.

Okay, how about theistic Satanism, Scientology, or Cthuhluism? Are they all true? If not then they are falsehoods, religious falsehoods. Also every single denomination/variety of YHWHism.

Why do you consider nihilism to be untrue, is this just a feeling you have? If not then please share!

I'd like to see these scientists that you say think they have disproved god. (I know you said religion, but I assume you meant god.) The main problem that real scientists have with religion, and god hypotheses in general are that they are unfalsifiable!

You have still not explained what uses you claim religion has, or what you think "truth" is. From what I can tell, it seems to be something closer to an opinion about the nature of reality than anything actually objective.

 

[j4c3]

T
Much to gain and nothing to loose. If it's false nihilism is the only reasonable alternative.

Many people lost lives during 9/11, I think that's alot to lose, and hihilism is most certainly not the only alternative. Just because the world will one day certainly end, no matter what religion you are (or lack thereof), you probably think this, that doesn't mean you would want to make the world a horrible place.

 

[Antarctika]

Science works likes a model and tries to find out how things work. The goal is to have it make as much sense as possible. Its not supposed to be the absolute truth (can such a thing exist?)

When a theory shows its limit, it's time to fix its flaws by proposing a new one. This happened countless times in the past and will certainly happen in the future. Think of Newton's theories being replaced by Einstein's general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Now why I give more credit to science than to monotheisms when it comes to determine how old our world is? Because radioactive datation makes sense to me, and it is not compatible with the theory saying an invisible, supreme being created the world 6000 years ago unless this being intervenes and makes the radiactive decay process seem to work for longer periods of time when it actually doesnt, which does not make sense to me (gosh, even what i said barely made any sense).

One of the many problems with monotheisms is that to embrace them you need to be sure to hold the unique, absolute truth. I also dislike the fact they use a system of threats and rewards to convince you. Ive (partly, i quickly got bored) read the bible and the quran and were not convinced at all. Surely some of those books' teachings are positive, but I disliked many things Ive read (in both books, not only the quran).

This does not mean Its impossible that our realm of existence stems from something superior (commonly called God), but monotheisms and the "Im right theyre wrong" thinking process are not for me.

 

[KCfromNC]

Those are useful paradigms to embrace. Does it imply that truth is discernible or obtainable through the scientific method though?

Yes, of course, for some definitions of truth. Which one are you using in this context and why do you think it is the correct one?

 

[Drunk On Love]

I will answer some of the questions later but I want to post some more from the physicist Arthur Edington.

"Briefly the position is this. We have learned that the exploration of the external world by the methods of physical science leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating. Feeling that there must be more behind , we return to our starting point in human consciousness- the one center where more might become known. There we find other stirrings, other revelations than those conditioned by the worlds of symbols... Physics most strongly insists that its methods do not penetrate behind symbols. Surely then that mental and spiritual nature of ourselves, known in our minds by an intimate contact transcending the methods of physics, supplies just that... which science is admitingly unable to give."

Science might not be up to the task but it isn't all we have!

 

[Drunk On Love]

Many people lost lives during 9/11,.

To get rid of God because of that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like saying we should have nothing of value or meaning because people might fight over it. History shows that people have in fact fought over things they considered meaningful after all. Therefore the only safe thing to do is put an end to all meaning.?

 

[Drunk On Love]

Now why I give more credit to science than to monotheisms when it comes to determine how old our world is?

I believe scientific process can be useful for determining the age of the earth as well.

upreme being created the world 6000 years ago unless this being intervenes

I don't believe the earth was created literally 6000 years ago. The number 6,000 may express some symbolic value but I doubt it has anything to do with the precise literal number of years. I believe the number was obtained by adding the life spans of certain people in the genealogies given in the Torah. I am a Muslim though.

 

[Antarctika]

it's nice to see someone not too blinded by faith, but I was not trying to prove you wrong anyway. It was simply an example.

This being said, the creationism thing is not my only problem about monotheisms not making sense. I could cite a number of them, such as the incompatibility of an omniscient God and the existence of free will, the inconsistency of an immensely merciful/forgiving God and the punition of an ETERNAL hell, the incompatibility of a perfect God and him commanding actions such as rape, kidnapping, infanticide, the incompatibility of an all-powerful God and the ability of lesser beings to step away from him. The list goes on but this is not the point of the thread.

 

[Drunk On Love]

Okay, how about theistic Satanism, Scientology, or Cthuhluism? Are they all true?

A religion is true if it points a person in the direction of God or the Absolute. Religions are like vehicles or as the Buddhist say like fingers pointing at the moon. If they take you to the moon they can be called true. I would question that Satanism or scientology do this and I really can't comment on cthuluism.

Why do you consider nihilism to be untrue, is this just a feeling you have? If not then please share!

Revelation and personal experience. My point wasn't so much to say that it was untrue but rather that it's absurd for a nihilist to attack other peoples beliefs because when it comes down to it they would have to admit that theirs have nothing to do with truth either if they were honest with themselves. If the logical outcome of a way of thinking leads to nihilism then it is no stable base from which to hurl attacks at religion.

I'd like to see these scientists that you say think they have disproved god.

It's usually not so much scientists themselves but rather the more run of the mill anti-religion crusaders you find on the internet. A good number of scientists have recognized the spiritual dimension of life or at least ignored it rather than pretending to have "scientific" evidence against it. They know it isn't there specialty so they don't claim expertise.

 

[david_x]

In what why do any of philosophy, math, or theology transcend physical existence?

They deal with that which can not be seen, or truly sensed in any way.

 

[david_x]

That contradicts what you said before that philosophy is beyond science.

Science is applied philosophy that effects future philosophy.

Beyond as in grandparent, not as in separate.

To your main question though getting beyond the physical universe is only possible if there is something beyond it.

Beyond that your use of metaphor is weak, science goes streight to the bone marrow, and your religion is not "more deep" in any sense you can demonstrate.

I am not talking about my religion, necessarily. Math for instance seems to be unprovable by using any evidence provided by the shallow senses.

 

[david_x]

What results does religion obtain that could not be obtained without religion?

Escape from hell.

 

[Drunk On Love]

such as the incompatibility of an omniscient God and the existence of free will

It is very hard to logically reconcile the two. There are certain verses in the Koran which seem to imply what me might consider "free will" but the phrase itself or anything similar never shows up in the text. There has been debate on this issue throughout the history of Islamic faith and people have come down on different "sides". So it's not universaly true that Muslims believe in both free will and predestination. Some do and other don't.

inconsistency of an immensely merciful/forgiving God and the punition of an ETERNAL hell,

Only God is Eternal.

"One day will He gather them all together, (and say): "O ye assembly of Jinns! Much (toll) did ye take of men." Their friends amongst men will say: "Our Lord! we made profit from each other: but (alas!) we reached our term - which thou didst appoint for us." He will say: "The Fire be your dwelling-place: you will dwell therein for ever, except as God willeth." for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge." S. 6:128


"Those who are wretched shall be in the Fire: There will be for them therein (nothing but) the heaving of sighs and sobs: They will dwell therein for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure, except as thy Lord willeth: for thy Lord is the (sure) accomplisher of what He planneth. And those who are blessed shall be in the Garden: They will dwell therein so long for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure, except as thy Lord willeth: a gift without break." S. 11:106-108


​

 

[Drunk On Love]

It's also important to realize that God isn't a person. The Islamic understanding of God is closer to that of Vedantic Brahman then an over sized person.

 

[Antarctika]

Well, maybe according to your belief Allah will at some point be mercyful towards me and pull me out of Hell. According to most christians this will never happen and i'm lost forever.

But what if both the Bible and the Quran were not the truth? Remember that they dont make sense to me. I dont think I will ever go to heaven or to hell.

Also, what if God was not eternal? Among the speculation I can do about God, I could speculate that above the universe lives a specy of conscious beings that have the power to create universes. I can also speculate that the member of this specy that created our universe will eventually die. These gods could themselves have been created by something superior to them. The conundrum of causality having no solution, even God would have to come from somewhere (unless we decide that God works as an axiom).

Also, can something everlasting exist outside the material world? It makes sense to me that time is a metric for the motion of particules and therefore a change of the state of matter. If every particle of your body freezes (stops moving), do you keep getting older? If every existing particle of matter freezes, is time still running?
If time depends on matter then can there be a past and a future to matter?

 

[j4c3]

To get rid of God because of that doesn't make a lot of sense. It's like saying we should have nothing of value or meaning because people might fight over it. History shows that people have in fact fought over things they considered meaningful after all. Therefore the only safe thing to do is put an end to all meaning.?

I don't think religion has had as much value as a world without it would now. I've personally seen many good religious people, but I've also seen many good atheists. I've also seen more people kill for the sake of religion than I have atheism. I would take an imaginary friend away from my brother if it caused him to fly planes into my house, but that's on the assumption that there is no imaginary friend, so I understand what you're saying.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I thinkthat one of the problems with superstring theory is that it goes beyond "skin deep" and makes predictions which are beyond the range of our experimental ability to test.

 

[KCfromNC]

I will answer some of the questions later but I want to post some more from the physicist Arthur Edington.

"Briefly the position is this. We have learned that the exploration of the external world by the methods of physical science leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating. Feeling that there must be more behind , we return to our starting point in human consciousness- the one center where more might become known. There we find other stirrings, other revelations than those conditioned by the worlds of symbols... Physics most strongly insists that its methods do not penetrate behind symbols. Surely then that mental and spiritual nature of ourselves, known in our minds by an intimate contact transcending the methods of physics, supplies just that... which science is admitingly unable to give."

Science might not be up to the task but it isn't all we have!

Science might not be up to the task of discovering stuff which is impossible to discover by any means? Not surprising. But it does beg the question of how you know there's stuff beyond what we can observe if no one can observe it.