When science does not work

[Rufus21]

I follow science where one should follow science and I follow religion/revelation where science does not work.

Can someone give an example of a situation where science doesn't work?

I've heard people say that science cannot handle situations outside the natural world, but there is no indication that religion can either. In fact, neither can offer any evidence that a supernatural realm exists in the first place. So what are some situations where science does not work but religion does?

[Kenisaw]

I follow science where one should follow science and I follow religion/revelation where science does not work.

Can someone give an example of a situation where science doesn't work?

All attempts to prove the biblical flood happened have failed dismally.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 2 by Willum]

So can religion be used to fill in any of these areas where science stumbles?

Not really, no. Religion does not appear to deal in accuracy from everything I've seen, and therefore isn't a viable substitute...

[bjs]

There is, as far as I can see, no scientific method for determining the meaning of life. Do you know of one?

The purpose of life is to reproduce with genetic variability. At least according to the guys in white coats. I like to believe there's a lot more to it than that, but those are meanings and purposes that I add to my own life.

Ok. How do you know that the purpose of life is to reproduce with genetic variability? I understand that most life forms do this, but what scientific evidence is there that this their purpose? The guys in white coats that I have known have never claimed that the meaning of life is to reproduce.

Moreover, if you find meaning in life beyond reproduction, do you have scientific evidence to support that meaning? If not then you have answered your original question " you have found an example of area where science doesnt work.

[bjs]

When do I ever not?

Well, in this specific case you have not.

Please Google "What is the meaning of life."

Googling something is no way a scientific method.

If we take the measurements of a table, of voltage, of etc., these are true.

You have provided a partial explanation one way one of discovering if something is true. That does nothing to show that truth matters.

Networks, (helping others) increase in strangth as a function of members squared. Two men are four times more able to survive than one.

It's a bit difficult to prove mathematically, but we see it in heards, wolf-packs and so on.

It is true that two men are more likely to survive than one. That does not even attempt to address the question of what makes something good or right. The best take I can put on this is that you have, without any form of scientific evidence, assumed a specific moral view and attempted to apply it.

[Kenisaw]

You have provided a partial explanation one way one of discovering if something is true. That does nothing to show that truth matters.

Next time you slam on your car brakes and narrowly miss hitting a pedestrian, ask yourself if the truth about hydraulics matters or not...

[bjs]

[Replying to Kenisaw]

I already believe that truth matters, in hydraulics as well as in many other areas. I also recognize that I did not come to that belief by means of science.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by bjs]

Simply not good enough for you?
Agree to disagree.

[Mithrae]

The purpose of life is to reproduce with genetic variability. At least according to the guys in white coats. I like to believe there's a lot more to it than that, but those are meanings and purposes that I add to my own life.

Ok. How do you know that the purpose of life is to reproduce with genetic variability? I understand that most life forms do this, but what scientific evidence is there that this their purpose? The guys in white coats that I have known have never claimed that the meaning of life is to reproduce.

It would also paint a pretty bleak picture for people who do not have the ability to reproduce.


Ultimately I don't think anyone would dispute that there are questions which science currently hasn't answered. But that obviously doesn't imply that we should look to religion (which one?) instead.

[Rufus21]

How do you know that the purpose of life is to reproduce with genetic variability?

That was the original purpose, yes? Since the very begining of life on this planet? We reproduce, we die, and hopefully enough of our offspring have traits that allow them to survive and adapt. Science has shown us the evolution of life over billions of years, right? If life has a purpose (which is a whole new thread!) then that purpose would be present from the beginning.

Our lives have changed a lot and the survival of our species is not really at the top of the list anymore. That gives us the luxury of finding additional meaning and purpose in our lives. It's nice to be able to see where you want to go, but don't forget where you came from. The underlying meaning of life would be the same now as it was almost 4 billion years ago.

[Rufus21]

It would also paint a pretty bleak picture for people who do not have the ability to reproduce.

Not necessarily. Biologically infertile life forms and sexually incompatible couples can play a crucial part in society. In the case of humans, those lousy fertile/heterosexual people are popping out more offspring than they can handle. There are warehouses full of healthy offspring that need a loving and nurturing environment. Perhaps those people who cannot reproduce are a slippery rung on the evolutionary ladder, but society has made them a necessity.

And let's not forget the folks who simply don't want to have offspring. There's nothing wrong with that. The rest of humanity has the reproduction area covered. There are plenty of ways to contribute to society and further the progress of mankind...especially with all that free time and money! LOL