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
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1559
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #211

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pm
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?
Because I do not see any evidence that it does.
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".
Neither "perception" nor "consciousness" can be defined, that is there is no reductionist definition for either of them.

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

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18675
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1636 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #212

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:07 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pm What makes you think reality doesn't exist unless perceived?
Because I do not see any evidence that it does.
I'm asking what evidence do you see that supports your contention, not evidence that'd put it to shame.
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".
Neither "perception" nor "consciousness" can be defined, that is there is no reductionist definition for either of them.
Then how proud must you have been to declare reality only exists upon perception, a term you now declare can't be defined?
If we can't actually define something then I do not see how one can say "it's only ever been observed in animals".
Pretending dictionaries no longer exist, I'll retract my claim in this regard.

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.
Consciousness is and never has been observed either, it is always inferred.
Then how come when someone punches me, and I wake up, everybody keeps telling how come I wasn't conscious there for a spell?

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.
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: 1559
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #213

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:37 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 11:07 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jan 09, 2022 1:30 pm What makes you think reality doesn't exist unless perceived?
Because I do not see any evidence that it does.
I'm asking what evidence do you see that supports your contention, not evidence that'd put it to shame.
Everything is subjective, all experience is subjective.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:37 pm
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".
Neither "perception" nor "consciousness" can be defined, that is there is no reductionist definition for either of them.
Then how proud must you have been to declare reality only exists upon perception, a term you now declare can't be defined?
We cannot observe perception, period.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:37 pm
If we can't actually define something then I do not see how one can say "it's only ever been observed in animals".
Pretending dictionaries no longer exist, I'll retract my claim in this regard.

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.
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 pm
Consciousness is and never has been observed either, it is always inferred.
Then how come when someone punches me, and I wake up, everybody keeps telling how come I wasn't conscious there for a spell?
That's your problem, all experiences are subjective, private.
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.
All experience is subjective, any claim that there is an objective reality outside of my perceived world is unprovable.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18675
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1636 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #214

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:30 pm Everything is subjective, all experience is subjective.
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?
We cannot observe perception, period.
"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."
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.
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.
That's your problem, all experiences are subjective, private.
Best I can tell, what's "private" is the evidence that might lead us to conclude you speak truth.

And that what's the "problem" here is your continued and documented inability to show you speak truth.
All experience is subjective, any claim that there is an objective reality outside of my perceived world is unprovable.
So by your own admission, your claims do not represent objective truth.

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.
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: 1559
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #215

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:10 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:30 pm Everything is subjective, all experience is subjective.
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?
Why 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 pm
We cannot observe perception, period.
"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."
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
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.
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.
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 pm
That's your problem, all experiences are subjective, private.
Best I can tell, what's "private" is the evidence that might lead us to conclude you speak truth.

And that what's the "problem" here is your continued and documented inability to show you speak 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"?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jan 15, 2022 5:10 pm
All experience is subjective, any claim that there is an objective reality outside of my perceived world is unprovable.
So by your own admission, your claims do not represent objective truth.
What is "objective truth"? how did you establish there even is such a thing?
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.
?
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #216

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #215]
"Reality" is in fact all in my mind, it is a construct, totally private world that will likely disappear when "I" disappear.
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.
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

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #217

Post by Purple Knight »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:20 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #215]
"Reality" is in fact all in my mind, it is a construct, totally private world that will likely disappear when "I" disappear.
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.
I 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.

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.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18675
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1636 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #218

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Snippages...
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:25 am
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?
Why 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.
When you die you lose your reality, the rest of us keep ours, thank ya very much.
All that exists is "now", the past and future do not exist, they are constructs, imaginary, abstractions.
The past is confirmable by remembering the Niners beat the Cowboys, the future, while not promised, is rationally anticipated.
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.
How can I conform a private, subjective experience? if everything I experience is subjective then how can anything be confirmed?
By admitting that reality ain't all about you.
JK wrote: And that what's the "problem" here is your continued and documented inability to show you speak 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"?
So you can't confirm your claims are truth.
All experience is subjective, any claim that there is an objective reality outside of my perceived world is unprovable.
JK wrote: So by your own admission, your claims do not represent objective truth.
What is "objective truth"? how did you establish there even is such a thing?
www merriam-webster.com
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18675
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1636 times
Been thanked: 1120 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #219

Post by JoeyKnothead »

It's always good to get your take on things :wave:
Purple 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.
Theory of mind

It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.
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: 1559
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 81 times

Re: Science without religion is lame,

Post #220

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:54 am It's always good to get your take on things :wave:
Purple 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.
Theory of mind

It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.
Does this forum offer me an option to ignore particular users?
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Post Reply