Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?JP Cusick wrote:What I said and what I meant was attached to this saying: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
So if we take that saying literally as I did, then without religion one is handicapped as "lame" and without science those are handicapped by being "blind".
Science without religion is lame,
Moderator: Moderators
- McCulloch
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24063
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
- Location: Toronto, ON, CA
- Been thanked: 3 times
Science without religion is lame,
Post #1Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #211Because I do not see any evidence that it does.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pmIt goes back to your notion that reality doesn't exist without having been perceived.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 12:14 pm Why do you think that the biological can't be a manifestation of consciousness? How can say which one enables the other?
So, before I answer...
What makes you think reality doesn't exist unless perceived?
Neither "perception" nor "consciousness" can be defined, that is there is no reductionist definition for either of them.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pm Continuing...
We note perception requires consciousness. In the case of consciousness, it's only ever been observed in animals. The data shows animals haven't always existed on this, the only planet observed to have animals. No data suggests animals came to be right there along with the planet.
Therefore, the reasonable and logical conclusion to your notion of "reality only exists if perceived", is "hooey".
If we can't actually define something then I do not see how one can say "it's only ever been observed in animals".
Consciousness is and never has been observed either, it is always inferred.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #212I'm asking what evidence do you see that supports your contention, not evidence that'd put it to shame.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:07 amBecause I do not see any evidence that it does.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pm What makes you think reality doesn't exist unless perceived?
Then how proud must you have been to declare reality only exists upon perception, a term you now declare can't be defined?Neither "perception" nor "consciousness" can be defined, that is there is no reductionist definition for either of them.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pm Continuing...
We note perception requires consciousness. In the case of consciousness, it's only ever been observed in animals. The data shows animals haven't always existed on this, the only planet observed to have animals. No data suggests animals came to be right there along with the planet.
Therefore, the reasonable and logical conclusion to your notion of "reality only exists if perceived", is "hooey".
Pretending dictionaries no longer exist, I'll retract my claim in this regard.If we can't actually define something then I do not see how one can say "it's only ever been observed in animals".
Now we're left to ponder why you declare reality only exists because of a term / notion you used, only to now declare it can't be defined.
Then how come when someone punches me, and I wake up, everybody keeps telling how come I wasn't conscious there for a spell?Consciousness is and never has been observed either, it is always inferred.
I beg of you, quit playing fast and loose with definitions, and set in to actually supporting your claims
Yours is nothing different from the so many times theists present claims, only to attenpt to bog the debate down in grammarese.
You claimed reality only exists if perceived.
Either support that contention or risk the observer concluding you're just another in a long line of fraudulent claimants.
For the observer...
Note how our claimant employees every trick in the book, up to and including his very own terms can't be defined. Why can't our claimant show he speaks truth?
This is 'theist debate'... Claim something, then point the other way when challenged.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #213Everything is subjective, all experience is subjective.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:37 pmI'm asking what evidence do you see that supports your contention, not evidence that'd put it to shame.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:07 amBecause I do not see any evidence that it does.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pm What makes you think reality doesn't exist unless perceived?
We cannot observe perception, period.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:37 pmThen how proud must you have been to declare reality only exists upon perception, a term you now declare can't be defined?Neither "perception" nor "consciousness" can be defined, that is there is no reductionist definition for either of them.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pm Continuing...
We note perception requires consciousness. In the case of consciousness, it's only ever been observed in animals. The data shows animals haven't always existed on this, the only planet observed to have animals. No data suggests animals came to be right there along with the planet.
Therefore, the reasonable and logical conclusion to your notion of "reality only exists if perceived", is "hooey".
Perception is a subjective experience and cannot be defined in the sense we cannot analyze it, we cannot reduce it to any combination of lesser concepts, that's what I mean by "define" I meant scientifically, describe, explain.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:37 pmPretending dictionaries no longer exist, I'll retract my claim in this regard.If we can't actually define something then I do not see how one can say "it's only ever been observed in animals".
Now we're left to ponder why you declare reality only exists because of a term / notion you used, only to now declare it can't be defined.
That's your problem, all experiences are subjective, private.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:37 pmThen how come when someone punches me, and I wake up, everybody keeps telling how come I wasn't conscious there for a spell?Consciousness is and never has been observed either, it is always inferred.
All experience is subjective, any claim that there is an objective reality outside of my perceived world is unprovable.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:37 pm I beg of you, quit playing fast and loose with definitions, and set in to actually supporting your claims
Yours is nothing different from the so many times theists present claims, only to attenpt to bog the debate down in grammarese.
You claimed reality only exists if perceived.
Either support that contention or risk the observer concluding you're just another in a long line of fraudulent claimants.
For the observer...
Note how our claimant employees every trick in the book, up to and including his very own terms can't be defined. Why can't our claimant show he speaks truth?
This is 'theist debate'... Claim something, then point the other way when challenged.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #214In what way does everything being subjective offer some means to confirm your claim that reality only exists upon the perceiving - where you declare perception can't even be defined?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:30 pm Everything is subjective, all experience is subjective.
"Reality only exists if it's perceived, only don't it beat all, we can't observe the perception it is, I declare must occur fore it is, reality can exist."We cannot observe perception, period.
So then, you have absolutely no means by which we may confirm you speak truth, in that your entire argument's predicated on the subjective.Perception is a subjective experience and cannot be defined in the sense we cannot analyze it, we cannot reduce it to any combination of lesser concepts, that's what I mean by "define" I meant scientifically, describe, explain.
Best I can tell, what's "private" is the evidence that might lead us to conclude you speak truth.That's your problem, all experiences are subjective, private.
And that what's the "problem" here is your continued and documented inability to show you speak truth.
So by your own admission, your claims do not represent objective truth.All experience is subjective, any claim that there is an objective reality outside of my perceived world is unprovable.
Instead, they rely on a perception you yourself previously said couldn't be defined, only to then declare such as, "well now that it makes my argument look goofy..."
I gotta tell it, I got me an eighth grade education, I can't possibly be the smartest one on this site, but I find comfort in the knowing I ain't the I can't finish this sentence without causing too much a fuss.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #215Why should I believe that it does exist when I don't perceive it? "Reality" is in fact all in my mind, it is a construct, totally private world that will likely disappear when "I" disappear.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:10 pmIn what way does everything being subjective offer some means to confirm your claim that reality only exists upon the perceiving - where you declare perception can't even be defined?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:30 pm Everything is subjective, all experience is subjective.
All that exists is "now", the past and future do not exist, they are constructs, imaginary, abstractions.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:10 pm"Reality only exists if it's perceived, only don't it beat all, we can't observe the perception it is, I declare must occur fore it is, reality can exist."We cannot observe perception, period.
How can I conform a private, subjective experience? if everything I experience is subjective then how can anything be confirmed?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:10 pmSo then, you have absolutely no means by which we may confirm you speak truth, in that your entire argument's predicated on the subjective.Perception is a subjective experience and cannot be defined in the sense we cannot analyze it, we cannot reduce it to any combination of lesser concepts, that's what I mean by "define" I meant scientifically, describe, explain.
I do speak the truth, just as I speak the truth when I write "I think therefore I am" I cannot "prove" it to another, I cannot "confirm" it, only with additional assumptions can we talk of proof, of confirmation and if we must assume to do that then how can we call it "truth"?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:10 pmBest I can tell, what's "private" is the evidence that might lead us to conclude you speak truth.That's your problem, all experiences are subjective, private.
And that what's the "problem" here is your continued and documented inability to show you speak truth.
What is "objective truth"? how did you establish there even is such a thing?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:10 pmSo by your own admission, your claims do not represent objective truth.All experience is subjective, any claim that there is an objective reality outside of my perceived world is unprovable.
?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:10 pm Instead, they rely on a perception you yourself previously said couldn't be defined, only to then declare such as, "well now that it makes my argument look goofy..."
I gotta tell it, I got me an eighth grade education, I can't possibly be the smartest one on this site, but I find comfort in the knowing I ain't the I can't finish this sentence without causing too much a fuss.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #216[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #215]
Your own perception of reality disappears when you "disappear" (assuming that means death and loss of your own consciousness), but reality itself does not disappear. It happily continues for every other conscious being. Or are you equating reality with personal consciousness so that by this definition they are one and the same? Reality is not dependent on consciousness, but the perception of reality evidently is."Reality" is in fact all in my mind, it is a construct, totally private world that will likely disappear when "I" disappear.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3543
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1144 times
- Been thanked: 735 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #217I think what he's getting at is that even though some reality might exist outside of our perception-bubbles, we don't know that, because no one has knowledge of any reality beyond their perception-bubble. We have a good idea by combining perspectives, but that's only if we concede that every other person is not in one prime perceiver's head to begin with.DrNoGods wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:20 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #215]
Your own perception of reality disappears when you "disappear" (assuming that means death and loss of your own consciousness), but reality itself does not disappear."Reality" is in fact all in my mind, it is a construct, totally private world that will likely disappear when "I" disappear.
I often look to another person and say, "Aha, he sees the same as me," and become validated, but I also know there's a possibility I just made him up to validate myself.
One thing I will say though, is that regardless of if no reality without perception is correct, it isn't a very useful speculation.
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #218Snippages...
When you die you lose your reality, the rest of us keep ours, thank ya very much.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:25 amWhy should I believe that it does exist when I don't perceive it? "Reality" is in fact all in my mind, it is a construct, totally private world that will likely disappear when "I" disappear.JK wrote: In what way does everything being subjective offer some means to confirm your claim that reality only exists upon the perceiving - where you declare perception can't even be defined?
The past is confirmable by remembering the Niners beat the Cowboys, the future, while not promised, is rationally anticipated.All that exists is "now", the past and future do not exist, they are constructs, imaginary, abstractions.
By admitting that reality ain't all about you.How can I conform a private, subjective experience? if everything I experience is subjective then how can anything be confirmed?JK wrote: So then, you have absolutely no means by which we may confirm you speak truth, in that your entire argument's predicated on the subjective.
So you can't confirm your claims are truth.I do speak the truth, just as I speak the truth when I write "I think therefore I am" I cannot "prove" it to another, I cannot "confirm" it, only with additional assumptions can we talk of proof, of confirmation and if we must assume to do that then how can we call it "truth"?JK wrote: And that what's the "problem" here is your continued and documented inability to show you speak truth.
www merriam-webster.comAll experience is subjective, any claim that there is an objective reality outside of my perceived world is unprovable.What is "objective truth"? how did you establish there even is such a thing?JK wrote: So by your own admission, your claims do not represent objective truth.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- JoeyKnothead
- Banned
- Posts: 20879
- Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
- Location: Here
- Has thanked: 4093 times
- Been thanked: 2572 times
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #219It's always good to get your take on things
It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.
Theory of mindPurple Knight wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:49 am ...
I often look to another person and say, "Aha, he sees the same as me," and become validated, but I also know there's a possibility I just made him up to validate myself.
One thing I will say though, is that regardless of if no reality without perception is correct, it isn't a very useful speculation.
It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #220Does this forum offer me an option to ignore particular users?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:54 am It's always good to get your take on things
Theory of mindPurple Knight wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:49 am ...
I often look to another person and say, "Aha, he sees the same as me," and become validated, but I also know there's a possibility I just made him up to validate myself.
One thing I will say though, is that regardless of if no reality without perception is correct, it isn't a very useful speculation.
It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.