Science without religion is lame,

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24068
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 2 times

Science without religion is lame,

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

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

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #201

Post by William »

brunumb wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 9:42 pm
Swami wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:47 pm
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.
I 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.
There 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.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18758
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1729 times
Been thanked: 1169 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #202

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Edit: I posted before I read brunumb's Post 200 here. I'll leave my extranual comments so folks have the additional data.
Swami wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 7:47 pm
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.
I 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.
Just because someone reads our replies and don't respond, that doesn't immediately mean they understand.

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.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #203

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

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.
How did you establish that it was reasonable or logical?

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.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18758
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1729 times
Been thanked: 1169 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #204

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 11:49 am
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.
How did you establish that it was reasonable or logical?
A multitude of data indicates critters weren't always around , so saying such as "reality" only exists if it can be "perceived" is incorrect.
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.
Wake up stumbling drunk in the dark and stub you a toe into the coffee table the pretty thing paid way too much for.

Report your findings.
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.
False dichotomy, where other answers may be available, though unknown at this time
The first course of action is for the gullible inattentive materialists, the second of for the rational honest mind.
Of course slandering one bunch immediately shows the other bunch ain't em guilty of the exact same thing.

You're Republican, ain't ya?
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10556
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 503 times
Been thanked: 1151 times
Contact:

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #205

Post by William »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]
How did you establish that it was reasonable or logical?
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 was "perceiving" it before it was "perceived" that makes your statement correct?

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]
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.
Materialists use a similar argument re the bible. It cannot be used to explain itself...something about 'fallacy of circular reasoning'...

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]
Report your findings.
I do. Generally these are responded to with the sound of crickets chirping. :)



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.

Image

Online
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18587
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #206

Post by otseng »

Sherlock 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.
Moderator Comment

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.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #207

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

otseng wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 4:09 pm
Sherlock 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.
Moderator Comment

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.
Of course, you're right, I will avoid this going forward.

Thanks
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18758
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1729 times
Been thanked: 1169 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #208

Post by JoeyKnothead »

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?
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 was "perceiving" it before it was "perceived" that makes your statement correct?
My 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: 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.
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: 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.
"Appears" precludes any firm commitment to "obvious".
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.
"Turn a blind eye" is an insult I thought beneath your dignity.

The referenced topic is one more unanswerable question. Those are Schrodinger's Constants, truth be told.
William wrote: [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #203]
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.
Materialists use a similar argument re the bible. It cannot be used to explain itself...something about 'fallacy of circular reasoning'...
That's why we draw our conclusions from as broad a spectrum of disciplines, sources and such.
William wrote: [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #204]
Report your findings.
I do. Generally these are responded to with the sound of crickets chirping. :)
So when you woke from a drunken stupor and stubbed your toe on the coffee table, did you find the table material, or nonmaterial?

Snip youtube link
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.
Fer sher.

Your ideas are quite intriguing, but I'd contend ultimately untestable.
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.
Your link seems to go to a post where you just kinda mention the same thing.

Please expound.
William wrote: I am well past thinking that those materialists who demand evidence, actually want evidence.
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?

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.
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
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.

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.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1707
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Location: Arizona Badlands
Has thanked: 61 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #209

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 8:34 pm
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?
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 was "perceiving" it before it was "perceived" that makes your statement correct?
My 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.
Why do you think that the biological can't be a manifestation of consciousness? How can say which one enables the other?
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18758
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1729 times
Been thanked: 1169 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #210

Post by JoeyKnothead »

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?
It goes back to your notion that reality doesn't exist without having been perceived.

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".
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

Post Reply