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
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14186
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #201brunumb wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:42 pmThere you go again. According to my analysis the thousands of readers who don't comment find it to be complete and utter nonsense. But then, perhaps you have better mind reading equipment than me.Swami wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:47 pmI have been sharing this message since I joined this forum. The skeptics do not understand it but the thousands of readers who don't comment understand it well.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:08 am This is why some have said that reality doesn't exist until we observe it, we - the observer - our consciousness - is inextricably entwined. Physical "reality" requires consciousness.
- 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 #202Edit: I posted before I read brunumb's Post 200 here. I'll leave my extranual comments so folks have the additional data.
As well, it could be they consider our replies unworthy of even the least consideration.
As to reality - it's reasonable and logical to conclude it existed before anyone was here to consider it. Y'all's replies here reek of an argument that'll never be shown to reflect, and don't this beat all, reality.
Just because someone reads our replies and don't respond, that doesn't immediately mean they understand.Swami wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:47 pmI have been sharing this message since I joined this forum. The skeptics do not understand it but the thousands of readers who don't comment understand it well.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 05, 2022 9:08 am This is why some have said that reality doesn't exist until we observe it, we - the observer - our consciousness - is inextricably entwined. Physical "reality" requires consciousness.
As well, it could be they consider our replies unworthy of even the least consideration.
As to reality - it's reasonable and logical to conclude it existed before anyone was here to consider it. Y'all's replies here reek of an argument that'll never be shown to reflect, and don't this beat all, reality.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #203How did you establish that it was reasonable or logical?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:34 am As to reality - it's reasonable and logical to conclude it existed before anyone was here to consider it. Y'all's replies here reek of an argument that'll never be shown to reflect, and don't this beat all, reality.
The material realm cannot be used to explain the presence of the material realm.
Therefore matter, fields, laws cannot be used to explain the presence of the material realm.
Faced with this we can take one of two courses of action:
1. Repeat the mantra "but just because we haven't explained it yet doesn't mean..." (etc, etc)
2. Infer the reality of a non-deterministic agency that has the capacity to make a universe and laws not as a result of laws but of will, intent.
The first course of action is for the gullible inattentive materialists, the second of for the rational honest mind.
- 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 #204A multitude of data indicates critters weren't always around , so saying such as "reality" only exists if it can be "perceived" is incorrect.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:49 amHow did you establish that it was reasonable or logical?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 12:34 am As to reality - it's reasonable and logical to conclude it existed before anyone was here to consider it. Y'all's replies here reek of an argument that'll never be shown to reflect, and don't this beat all, reality.
Wake up stumbling drunk in the dark and stub you a toe into the coffee table the pretty thing paid way too much for.The material realm cannot be used to explain the presence of the material realm.
Therefore matter, fields, laws cannot be used to explain the presence of the material realm.
Report your findings.
False dichotomy, where other answers may be available, though unknown at this timeFaced with this we can take one of two courses of action:
1. Repeat the mantra "but just because we haven't explained it yet doesn't mean..." (etc, etc)
2. Infer the reality of a non-deterministic agency that has the capacity to make a universe and laws not as a result of laws but of will, intent.
Of course slandering one bunch immediately shows the other bunch ain't em guilty of the exact same thing.The first course of action is for the gullible inattentive materialists, the second of for the rational honest mind.
You're Republican, ain't ya?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14186
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 912 times
- Been thanked: 1644 times
- Contact:
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #205[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]
What you are referring to is 20/20 hindsight vision by proposing that 'multitude of data' [all dragged up from some theorized perceived past] shows us [they which can now perceive], that something existed long before it was now perceived to have existed.
Given the evidence, it appears obvious that the universe is an intelligently created thing, so therein it strongly suggests that the universe was perceived long before we here in it, even existed in this stage of its ongoing development.
Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?
This is part of the data stream which gives evidence and insight that allows for the individual to consider we exist with a created reality experience - unless of course said individual is fixated upon upholding their particular beliefs which distort their perception to the degree that they are willing to turn a blind eye to certain bytes of the data-stream in order to defend those beliefs.
[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #203]
[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]
I tell myself that this is because my findings are so new that people are having to take time to study them and will get back to me soon as they have done the study for themselves.
I even invite folk to critique the evidence - evidence which is supplied to those who demand said evidence... [example] and still hear nothing but crickets.
I am well past thinking that those materialists who demand evidence, actually want evidence. The impression I get is that the demand is made based upon the assumption by those making the demand, that no such evidence can be provided.
How did you establish that it was reasonable or logical?
What was "perceiving" it before it was "perceived" that makes your statement correct?A multitude of data indicates critters weren't always around , so saying such as "reality" only exists if it can be "perceived" is incorrect.
What you are referring to is 20/20 hindsight vision by proposing that 'multitude of data' [all dragged up from some theorized perceived past] shows us [they which can now perceive], that something existed long before it was now perceived to have existed.
Given the evidence, it appears obvious that the universe is an intelligently created thing, so therein it strongly suggests that the universe was perceived long before we here in it, even existed in this stage of its ongoing development.
Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?
This is part of the data stream which gives evidence and insight that allows for the individual to consider we exist with a created reality experience - unless of course said individual is fixated upon upholding their particular beliefs which distort their perception to the degree that they are willing to turn a blind eye to certain bytes of the data-stream in order to defend those beliefs.
[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #203]
Materialists use a similar argument re the bible. It cannot be used to explain itself...something about 'fallacy of circular reasoning'...The material realm cannot be used to explain the presence of the material realm.
Therefore matter, fields, laws cannot be used to explain the presence of the material realm.
[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]
I do. Generally these are responded to with the sound of crickets chirping.Report your findings.
I tell myself that this is because my findings are so new that people are having to take time to study them and will get back to me soon as they have done the study for themselves.
I even invite folk to critique the evidence - evidence which is supplied to those who demand said evidence... [example] and still hear nothing but crickets.
I am well past thinking that those materialists who demand evidence, actually want evidence. The impression I get is that the demand is made based upon the assumption by those making the demand, that no such evidence can be provided.
- otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20520
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 197 times
- Been thanked: 337 times
- Contact:
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #206Moderator CommentSherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:49 am The first course of action is for the gullible inattentive materialists, the second of for the rational honest mind.
Please avoid making any indirect attacks.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #207Of course, you're right, I will avoid this going forward.otseng wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 4:09 pmModerator CommentSherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:49 am The first course of action is for the gullible inattentive materialists, the second of for the rational honest mind.
Please avoid making any indirect attacks.
Please review the Rules.
______________
Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Thanks
- 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 #208My point is that the data resoundingly points to perception to be a product of the biological, so wouldn't have been 'there' until such time.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:11 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]How did you establish that it was reasonable or logical?What was "perceiving" it before it was "perceived" that makes your statement correct?A multitude of data indicates critters weren't always around , so saying such as "reality" only exists if it can be "perceived" is incorrect.
We can, ahem, perceive the past based on current observations. It's how we know the universe expanded from a prior size or form.William wrote: What you are referring to is 20/20 hindsight vision by proposing that 'multitude of data' [all dragged up from some theorized perceived past] shows us [they which can now perceive], that something existed long before it was now perceived to have existed.
"Appears" precludes any firm commitment to "obvious".William wrote: Given the evidence, it appears obvious that the universe is an intelligently created thing, so therein it strongly suggests that the universe was perceived long before we here in it, even existed in this stage of its ongoing development.
"Turn a blind eye" is an insult I thought beneath your dignity.Re: Did the universal constants exist before the big bang?
This is part of the data stream which gives evidence and insight that allows for the individual to consider we exist with a created reality experience - unless of course said individual is fixated upon upholding their particular beliefs which distort their perception to the degree that they are willing to turn a blind eye to certain bytes of the data-stream in order to defend those beliefs.
The referenced topic is one more unanswerable question. Those are Schrodinger's Constants, truth be told.
That's why we draw our conclusions from as broad a spectrum of disciplines, sources and such.William wrote: [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #203]Materialists use a similar argument re the bible. It cannot be used to explain itself...something about 'fallacy of circular reasoning'...The material realm cannot be used to explain the presence of the material realm.
Therefore matter, fields, laws cannot be used to explain the presence of the material realm.
So when you woke from a drunken stupor and stubbed your toe on the coffee table, did you find the table material, or nonmaterial?William wrote: [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]
I do. Generally these are responded to with the sound of crickets chirping.Report your findings.
Snip youtube link
Fer sher.William wrote: I tell myself that this is because my findings are so new that people are having to take time to study them and will get back to me soon as they have done the study for themselves.
Your ideas are quite intriguing, but I'd contend ultimately untestable.
Your link seems to go to a post where you just kinda mention the same thing.I even invite folk to critique the evidence - evidence which is supplied to those who demand said evidence... [example] and still hear nothing but crickets.
Please expound.
Maybe them crickets you hear are also a bit put off by being slanderously accused of not wanting the very thing they keep asking for?William wrote: I am well past thinking that those materialists who demand evidence, actually want evidence.
Your "Argument of a Mind" (my term) deserves attention, but just going about saying mean stuff about folks might be counter productive.
You've got the best idea going in theistic circles. As we know, many folks struggle to fully understand it.
Don't waste your epiphany by pushing folks away.
We all have our assumptions, I propose even you, so your task is the hard one of getting us to overcome em, while maybe overcoming some of your own.William wrote: The impression I get is that the demand is made based upon the assumption by those making the demand, that no such evidence can be provided.
Snip video
As I've said, I find your hypothesis quite compelling and definitely worthy of further study. It's just sometimes one way won't work to tell it, so we gotta seek another'n, if it's clanging folks' heads together.
Heck, you've forced me to reexamine some of my own pet notions, so you're moving the needle.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #209Why do you think that the biological can't be a manifestation of consciousness? How can say which one enables the other?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:34 pmMy point is that the data resoundingly points to perception to be a product of the biological, so wouldn't have been 'there' until such time.William wrote: ↑Sat Jan 08, 2022 2:11 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]How did you establish that it was reasonable or logical?What was "perceiving" it before it was "perceived" that makes your statement correct?A multitude of data indicates critters weren't always around , so saying such as "reality" only exists if it can be "perceived" is incorrect.
- 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 #210It 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?
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".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin