Science without religion is lame,

[McCulloch]

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".

Does science benefit from the inclusion of religion? Which religion? How? Be specific. Do the benefits outweigh the difficulties?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #170]

Of course, but "rational" is a subjective term. I thought it was rational to get two covid vaccine shots back in March/April and a booster shot last week as well. There are others who think it is not rational to get the covid vaccine. Are they "thinking rationally" and I wasn't? It depends on who you ask.

Rational Def: based on or in accordance with reason or logic

Logic will not lead to the same conclusion if different information is used.

Those that received the vaccine shot believed that it would stop the covid virus.

Those that did not receive the vaccine saw no need to receive a vaccine on a virus that has a 99% survivability rate and that is with the death from flu almost going to 0.

Both are logical but the input information is different.

You are assuming that you are even made of material matter.
This doesn't require any assumptions. I am indeed made of material matter, as are you and every other human:

That is not what the Boltzmann brain theory, computer simulation, or the hologram theory say.

But it is not a foregone conclusion that gods exist, or that humans have afterlives, etc. These are full-on assumptions lacking any hard evidence, yet form the basis of entire religions.

Science can only test for objects that are made of matter. God is not made of matter, He created matter or condensed energy. Science has no idea what energy even is. Science can describe how it behaves and how it can change form but the essence of energy is unknown.

[William]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #171]

Science can only test for objects that are made of matter. God is not made of matter, He created matter or condensed energy. Science has no idea what energy even is. Science can describe how it behaves and how it can change form but the essence of energy is unknown.

The Effect of Sound and The Universe

An invisible silent thing which can be 'seen and 'heard' by the effect it has on matter.

[JoeyKnothead]

Those that received the vaccine shot believed that it would stop the covid virus.

I got my shots fully aware they only offered a limited level of personal protection.

While knowing full well that bunch over yonder'd refuse any measure that infringed on their 'freedom', thereby risking spread and mutation, and all such as that.

Those that did not receive the vaccine saw no need to receive a vaccine on a virus that has a 99% survivability rate and that is with the death from flu almost going to 0.

One word...

Herman Cain Award

Both are logical but the input information is different.

You and logic really need to meet, then sit down for a talk to get acquainted.

This doesn't require any assumptions. I am indeed made of material matter, as are you and every other human:

That is not what the Boltzmann brain theory, computer simulation, or the hologram theory say.

Such proponents should be expected to support these deals.

Science can only test for objects that are made of matter.

And religion can only test for how proud someone is to believe it.

God is not made of matter, He created matter or condensed energy.

I challenge you to show you speak truth regarding the following...

1. God can create
2. God created matter
3. Or condensed energy

Science has no idea what energy even is. Science can describe how it behaves and how it can change form but the essence of energy is unknown.

That's hilarious coming from someone who claims to know the properties of a god they can't even show exists.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #171]

That is not what the Boltzmann brain theory, computer simulation, or the hologram theory say.

And why should be believe that any of these ideas (they are far from being theories at the moment) are valid? None have any solid evidence to support them (Boltzmann brain is often referred to as a reductio ad absurdum argument). Until they get more traction, they aren't theories but unsupported hypotheses, ideas or arguments.

Science can only test for objects that are made of matter. God is not made of matter, He created matter or condensed energy. Science has no idea what energy even is. Science can describe how it behaves and how it can change form but the essence of energy is unknown.

Are photons made of matter? They have no mass, but we can certainly measure their properties in many different ways, test for their presence, etc. Gods are imaginary, so can be created willy nilly by anyone and ascribed qualities and abilities limited only by the human imagination. When you have that degree of freedom, you can make up anything and claim it is true because you thought of it or declared it so.

What does the "essense of energy" even mean?

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #174]

What does the "essence of energy" even mean?

Search "essence"
the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, which determines its character.

Search "energy"

:1: the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.
:2: power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.


In the context presented, I took "essence of energy" to mean "An invisible silent thing which can be 'seen and 'heard' by the effect it has on matter."

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #175]

In the context presented, I took "essence of energy" to mean "An invisible silent thing which can be 'seen and 'heard' by the effect it has on matter."

In physics, energy is usually defined as the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Thoughtco have a short article:

https://www.thoughtco.com/energy-defini ... es-2698976

Energy is a word we invented to describe something (the capacity of a physical system to perform work), but I don't see how it has an "essense" in terms of some intrinsic nature or indispensable quality. A word like love might fit that description, but energy to me seems like more of a cold, hard word describing a physics or chemistry concept.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #175]

In the context presented, I took "essence of energy" to mean "An invisible silent thing which can be 'seen and 'heard' by the effect it has on matter."

In physics, energy is usually defined as the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Thoughtco have a short article:

https://www.thoughtco.com/energy-defini ... es-2698976

Energy is a word we invented to describe something (the capacity of a physical system to perform work), but I don't see how it has an "essense" in terms of some intrinsic nature or indispensable quality. A word like love might fit that description, but energy to me seems like more of a cold, hard word describing a physics or chemistry concept.

I would say by your description that you are a materialist in your world view and approach to existence.

The capacity of a physical system to perform work = energy. Energy is the demonstration of something silent and otherwise unseen.

Perhaps the universe [energy/motion et al] was created through an act of love...silent and otherwise unseen...whereas the energy produced can be used differently...

[Difflugia]

Energy is the demonstration of something silent and otherwise unseen.

Onions do that to me.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #177]

I would say by your description that you are a materialist in your world view and approach to existence.

I am exactly that, because I've yet to see any convincing evidence to refute that world view. I can't see consciousness as anything more than an emergent property of a working brain because by all observation only members of the animal kingdom possess consciousness (using the dictionary definition of the word), and specifically only those members that possess brains. If the brain is destroyed consciousness is lost. If it is damaged consciousness can be impaired. The correlation between having a working brain, and possessing consciousness, is too strong for me to believe that consciousness is anything special or magical.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #179]

The correlation between having a working brain, and possessing consciousness, is too strong for me to believe that consciousness is anything special or magical.

Expressed like a true materialist believer.

Call something 'woo-woo' as if that somehow casts a spell of protection over ones sensibilities.

Consciousness is natural. It does not matter how vast it extends, or whether human dictionaries declare it only 'this' and 'that'.

Einstein's brain no longer functions as a vessel for Einstein's consciousness. Therefore the consciousness which was Einstein no longer exists as far as we can know.

What we can know though, is that information which Einstein projected into the world was carried along by consciousness, was useful to consciousness.

What we do know is that consciousness was the thing that made things happen, and without it, we could not be able to have peered into the depths of space to behold the awesome imagery reflected back at us - at consciousness itself.

Maybe it is worthy of being called 'special' and even 'magical' out of simple respect for it's existence, rather than through materialistic spitefulness, intent on worshiping the container while belittling what is contained, as if consciousness was merely a bi-product of the main event.

The materialist religion and its beliefs are no less destructive that any other religion.