Would a world without religion...

[Wiccan_Child]

False comparison.

Science didn't create the internet. People did, using science as a tool. Science works to make things such as the internet.

If you'll recall, I listed four things, not just one: science, the scientific method, established scientific knowledge, and fleets of scientists. I'm well aware than an ideology didn't just poof the Internet into existence.

People created the English language and built upon it. They used other tools that work just as well in their field.

If it weren't for liberal arts you'd probably not have the Internet because how would those scientists communicate with each other?

Using English, obviously.

Are you saying no progress comes from the humanities?

What about progress in language forms and expression? Or, do you only use Old English at home?

People who graduate with a degree in the liberal arts (liberal artists?) didn't instigate the Great Vowel Shift. They didn't strive to create Modern English from Old English - the former evolved naturally from the latter, as virtually all languages do.

I'm sure you have a point still waiting to be expressed

You attempted to compare the usefulness of science with the usefulness of liberal arts. My point is that the comparison is flawed - the usefulness of the former is different to the usefulness of the latter.

My original point is that scientists used science to create the Internet, specifically and purposefully. The Internet works. It exists as a product of working, scientific knowledge and principles. The fact that you're using the Internet to criticise why people have more trust in science than religion... well, you're kinda missing the forest for the trees buddy.

 

[eb9090]

"Liberal Arts (Humanities)" did not create the English language. Science, the scientific method, established scientific knowledge, and fleets of scientists, did create the Internet.

Humanities students may study language, but scientists build upon it.

Umm...Engineers created the internet, scientist does not create much thing they just make theories explaining various phenomena that they have discovered, whereas for us engineers we try to overcome all the odds that can go against those scientific theories and apply those scientific knowledge into real life.

 

[Montalban]

If you'll recall, I listed four things, not just one: science, the scientific method, established scientific knowledge, and fleets of scientists. I'm well aware than an ideology didn't just poof the Internet into existence.

Great. And so what?

Using English, obviously.

So all praise Liberal Arts

People who graduate with a degree in the liberal arts (liberal artists?) didn't instigate the Great Vowel Shift. They didn't strive to create Modern English from Old English - the former evolved naturally from the latter, as virtually all languages do.

So what?

If it weren't for English being taught, formally where would we be? Or were your teachers non-qualified?

The guy who discovered artificial colour dye wasn't a scientist. If I want to pick out 'discoveries' or inventions by non-scientists I could, just as you pick out particular movements in English not made formally.

You attempted to compare the usefulness of science with the usefulness of liberal arts. My point is that the comparison is flawed - the usefulness of the former is different to the usefulness of the latter.

Liberal arts is more useful, because we need English. That English was based on a system developed by people without a degree lessens it no more than science was also based on the same type of people.

My original point is that scientists used science to create the Internet, specifically and purposefully. The Internet works. It exists as a product of working, scientific knowledge and principles. The fact that you're using the Internet to criticise why people have more trust in science than religion... well, you're kinda missing the forest for the trees buddy.

I'm used to your kind of triumphalism that misses the point.

Great that we have microwave ovens and 3-D tvs. Well done to science! That we use more highly developed language than they did in the cave seems to be something you missed 'cause it's so obvious. The fact you use a QWERTY (keyboard developed by a newspaper guy Christopher Latham Sholes) in order to use the Internet seesm to have escaped you.

From non-science we get the language skills, the laws that govern Internet use, and conventions, such as naming rights, etc. The fact that the guys who developed it went to universities - the idea of universities came about because of the liberal arts - seems to escape you in your highly selective appraisal of things. J. C. R. Licklider who helped start the thing off did his science courses as a Bachelor of Arts!

 

[Montalban]

Umm...Engineers created the internet, scientist does not create much thing they just make theories explaining various phenomena that they have discovered, whereas for us engineers we try to overcome all the odds that can go against those scientific theories and apply those scientific knowledge into real life.

Engineers always get things done!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Montalban, what on Earth are you on about? I couldn't give less of a hoot about the Liberal Arts. I haven't criticised them, despite your wailing to the contrary.

You attempted to disparage science. I pointed out the irony of doing this on the Internet. Bafflingly, you took that to be a scathing attack on the Liberal Arts, even though no one but you actually mentioned them.

I've seen some non sequiturs in my time, but this one takes the cake.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban, what on Earth are you on about? I couldn't give less of a hoot about the Liberal Arts. I haven't criticised them, despite your wailing to the contrary.

I used it as a foil against your triumphalism about science.

You attempted to disparage science.

No. I don't. I put it in the same category as other endeavours of human learning. I don't set it apart on a pedestal as you seem to be doing.

I pointed out the irony of doing this on the Internet. Bafflingly, you took that to be a scathing attack on the Liberal Arts, even though no one but you actually mentioned them.

No. I showed you that you miss the irony that you use English as taught formally at school. Therefore there's nothing necessarily extra special about science even though it brought about the Internet.

I've seen some non sequiturs in my time, but this one takes the cake.

I've seen people trying to make a point, then missing it, but then I see people telling about how wonderful their (sacred cow) science is.

In particular I was talking about Scientism which is a non-scientific idea that science will one day have all the answers. You said science has an advantage in that it works - it gave the internet (post #24).

I said that the Liberal Arts also works too. Therefore several fields of endeavour equally work (post #31). You then tried to disparage the Liberal Arts by removing such achievements as language from it (post #32).

Now it seems you've dropped this entirely. I guess you didn't have a point about science.

I already acknowledged science gives us wonderful things such as tvs, etc. Other endeavours of humans equally work. So why you're particularly wanting to crow about science is unknown to me.

Philosophy works.

I guess you view my equating science as one of a number of working systems as an attack on science. I see a lot of overly sensitive people do that all the time. Such is their faith in science.

If you want to say 'science works, so do the liberal arts' then your introducing of the issue 'science works' is pointless.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In particular I was talking about Scientism which is a non-scientific idea that science will one day have all the answers.

That's not what scientism is. One can be scientistic and still believe that science won't necessarily be able to find all of the answers. One could regard the view that science will find all of the answers as the "strongest form of scientism", but it is not essential to scientism.

Scientism is essentially the view that all areas of inquiry must regard science as the ultimate epistemological authority, as if science were the only true way to gain knowledge. The problem with scientism is that while science may have that authority within certain domains of inquiry, those domains may nevertheless be limited, and other methods of gaining knowledge may carry some weight.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Montalban]

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education
Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This cannot be shown scientifically.

Some may look to science

"Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education, and that it is superior to all other interpretations of life"

Of course this can't be proved through science so it is therefore self-refuting

“The first thing to notice about scientism is that it makes a fundamental assertion about reality. Scientism says, "science is the only way of obtaining true knowledge of reality." This statement, however, cannot itself be verified by the methods of science."
Questioning the Scientific Worldview
(I don't believe in 'integral science' but I think that they accurately capture what scientism is)

Scientism

Scientism, in the strong sense, is the self-annihilating view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not a scientific claim and hence, if true, not meaningful.
scientism - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

One can have answers through experience. However it would hold that all the answers that it has are superior to other systems of knowledge.

I worded my statement poorly. It holds the idea not that EVERYTHING one day will be understood by science but that everything potentially can be explained through science - science deals with the material, and materialists believe that there is NOTHING but the material. Or, if you're not a materailist then probably you're a naturalist and science doesn't deal with the super-natural, which it doesn't hold exists anyway.

"Can science explain everything? Scientific naturalism and the death of science," Cambridge Papers. Vol 8, No 2, 1999.
Scientific naturalism is the view that only scientific knowledge is reliable and that science can, in principle, explain everything. This paper surveys the inherent weaknesses in this philosophy, illustrated by the naturalistic attempt to extract ethics from biology. Different Christian responses to naturalism are considered. It is argued that the Christian worldview provides a more coherent explanation than naturalism for the properties of the universe and for the richness of human experience. Ironically, naturalism itself puts at risk the future health of science.
http://science.drvinson.net/scientism

 

[Eudaimonist]

Scientism is the idea that natural science is the most authoritative worldview or aspect of human education
Scientism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This cannot be shown scientifically.

Of course, I agree. Science rests on a thin layer of philosophy. It is not self-validating.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Montalban]

If atheists here wish to acknowledge that things exist outside the 'natural' and the 'material' then I would state that science can't potentially answer everything

But I doubt that people here will concede that so they would therefore believe that potentially science can explain everything

 

[Eudaimonist]

If atheists here wish to acknowledge that things exist outside the 'natural' and the 'material' then I would state that science can't potentially answer everything

But I doubt that people here will concede that so they would therefore believe that potentially science can explain everything

I don't believe that things exist outside the "natural", and yet I reject both strong and weak forms of scientism.

Science cannot replace philosophy, for instance.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[laconicstudent]

ALL: As the prophets beheld! As the apostles have taught! As the Church has received! As the teachers have declared! As the world has agreed! As grace has shown forth! As truth has been revealed! As falsehood has been dispelled! As wisdom has become manifest! As Christ awarded!

Thus we declare and affirm as we proclaim Christ our true God, and honor His saints in words, writings, thoughts, sacrifices, churches, and holy icons; on the one hand, worshiping and reverencing Christ as God and Lord, and on the other hand, honoring the saints as true servants of the same Lord of all, and offering them proper veneration.

Believing in one God Who is celebrated in the Holy Trinity, we salute and venerate the honorable images of holy icons. Those who do not so hold, let them be anathema. Those who reject these truths, let them be separated from the Church. For we follow the most ancient tradition and rules of the universal Church.

We keep the laws of the Fathers. We denounce those who add anything to, or take anything away from, the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. We honor the venerable images. We place under anathema those who do not do this. Anathema to them who presume to apply to the venerable images the things said in Holy Scripture about the veneration of idols! Anathema to those who refuse to venerate with proper reverence the holy images of our Lord and His blessed saints. Anathema to those who call the sacred images idols. Anathema to those who say that Christians resort to the sacred images as to gods. Anathema to those who say that any other delivered us from the idols except Christ our God. Anathema to those who dare to say that at any time the Holy Church received and worshiped idols.

So we all believe, and we are all of one mind, and we all have given our consent and have signed our names in agreement. This is the Faith of the Apostles! This is the Faith of the Fathers! This is the Faith of the Orthodox! This is the Faith that has established the universe!


The Synodikon
Of the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea

And how could the universe be better off without it?
​

 

[HarryCovert]

Lot's of people acknowledge the supernatural but don't believe in God. Even most empiricist admit there are things that can't be explained based on our current understanding of the universe. Why should they suddenly make the leap to God? It's safer to say we just don't know yet. Believing and trusting in God is a leap that no one can make on their own.

 

[AllOrNothing]

... be a better place?

Buddha and Jesus seem to think so..

Religions only serve to divide us

The Law of Love Unites..

----

Kutadan ta said:

"I am told that thou teachest the law,
yet thou tearest down religion.


Thy disciples despise rites and abandon immolation,
but reverence for the gods can be shown only by sacrifices.
The very nature of religion consists in worship and sacrifice."


Said the Buddha:
"Greater than the immolation of bullocks is the sacrifice of self. He who offers to the gods his evil desires will see the uselessness of slaughtering animals at the altar. Blood has no cleansing power,
but the eradication of worldly desire will make the heart pure.


Better than worshipping gods
is obedience to the laws of righteousness."

Identity and Non Identity [6]


----------


JESUS

“As he was going out of the temple one of his disciples said to him: "Teacher, see! what sort of stones and what sort of buildings!"”


However, Jesus said to him: "Do you behold these great buildings? By no means will a stone be left here upon a stone and not be thrown down."


"All things, therefore, that you want men to do to you, you also must likewise do to them; this, in fact, is what the Law and the Prophets mean."

Mark 13:2 + Matthew 7:12

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Lot's of people acknowledge the supernatural but don't believe in God. Even most empiricist admit there are things that can't be explained based on our current understanding of the universe. Why should they suddenly make the leap to God? It's safer to say we just don't know yet. Believing and trusting in God is a leap that no one can make on their own.

I wouldn't equate the 'unknown' with the 'supernatural', but still, good post

 

[Montalban]

Lot's of people acknowledge the supernatural but don't believe in God. Even most empiricist admit there are things that can't be explained based on our current understanding of the universe. Why should they suddenly make the leap to God? It's safer to say we just don't know yet. Believing and trusting in God is a leap that no one can make on their own.

Some might. However those favouring materialism don't say "Just because we can't explain it now, it's supernatural!"

They have faith that science will one day be able to provide an answer - that it's within the realm of science because science explains the natural world.

 

[HarryCovert]

I wouldn't equate the 'unknown' with the 'supernatural', but still, good post

Of course you're right. I actually intended to include that point as my second sentence but a customer actually came in when I was writing and I skipped right over it.

 

[Robban]

... be a better place?

Yes.
Or did Jesus go out onto the streets at the age of 30 to preach religion?
Or did he go out and tell people, they had it all wrong.
Religion is for prisoners, life, is for those that are free.
I am not a Christian, but I do not reject the "theme" of his teachings, what Christianity makes of it is another kettle of fish.
One thing I,m pretty sure of, that is, the use of parables is most effective and has a greater impact.
The prophet Nathan got it right when he was sent to David.
Or since when,is doing what is right, simply because it is the right thing to do, become a religion?
All nations are obligated to set up a JUST juridical system.
Worship God? Shower others with goodness and kindness, in the same way God showers us with goodness and kindness. We have nothing to lose.
Anyway that,s my take on "religion".
PS. Most people are kind in some way or other, that which is more difficult is to show compassion, the way God shows compassion, by showering it over those who are not worthy of it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Some might. However those favouring materialism don't say "Just because we can't explain it now, it's supernatural!"

They have faith that science will one day be able to provide an answer - that it's within the realm of science because science explains the natural world.

Why do you keep saying this when actual materialists are telling you they believe the opposite? You've obviously got a bone to pick with people who blindly worship science - even if those people exist only in your imagination.

 

[Delphiki]

I voted no, but my more precise reply is "No, not necessarily". It all depends on what replaces religion.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Voted the same, and the same reason.