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
- 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 #221Yes.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:50 amDoes this forum offer me an option to ignore particular users?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:54 am It's always good to get your take on things
Theory of mindPurple 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.
It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.
It allows ya to disregard anyone who questions your claims and unproven, unprovable beliefs.
However, it does seem to present your unproven, unprovable beliefs and claims to folks who have em the audacity to expect you'd have you the honor and integrity to support your claims.
"Does this site allow me to claim stuff, but not hafta see me no challanges to em?"
Yes. The mods just ain't got em enough time to tell em the lies from the truths.
"Does this site prevent me from folks thinking I ain't me a lying so and so?"
No.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #222I think calling me or implying that I am a liar is a breach of forum rules by the way.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:12 pmYes.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 11:50 amDoes this forum offer me an option to ignore particular users?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:54 am It's always good to get your take on things
Theory of mindPurple 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.
It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.
It allows ya to disregard anyone who questions your claims and unproven, unprovable beliefs.
However, it does seem to present your unproven, unprovable beliefs and claims to folks who have em the audacity to expect you'd have you the honor and integrity to support your claims.
"Does this site allow me to claim stuff, but not hafta see me no challanges to em?"
Yes. The mods just ain't got em enough time to tell em the lies from the truths.
"Does this site prevent me from folks thinking I ain't me a lying so and so?"
No.
- 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 #223We all risk folks thinking we lie when we make claims we can't show to be truth.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:38 pm ...
...
I think calling me or implying that I am a liar is a breach of forum rules by the way.
Like how the pretty thing claims I'm a "high functioning idiot". Okay, poor example.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- AgnosticBoy
- Guru
- Posts: 1620
- Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
- Has thanked: 204 times
- Been thanked: 156 times
- Contact:
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #224I'm by no means saying that all of reality is dependent on perception, but the conundrum we have is that we can't know about the "unpercepted" form of it because our knowing requires perception.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:54 am It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.
Even to DrNoGods point regarding people having different perceptions, but it's still all perception even if it's not my own.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #225I care not what you think only what you write here in a public forum governed by basic rules of courtesy.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:50 pmWe all risk folks thinking we lie when we make claims we can't show to be truth.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:38 pm ...
...
I think calling me or implying that I am a liar is a breach of forum rules by the way.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14192
- 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 #226[Replying to Purple Knight in post #217]
IF:
"There is no reality without perception", is correct
THEN:
This is a useful observation because it clearly proves that even given the hard problem of consciousness, the truth is that without consciousness, none of this would even be happening.
Since it is happening, it is useful speculation because it allows for consciousness to be examined as the primary reason that things are acknowledged as happening. The things happening are secondary to that matter of fact.
The hard problem of consciousness = 341
Who Knows What That Is Worth? = 341
Set the board up or put the game aside... = 341
I perceive this, differently. I agree that such observation may not be useful to materialism, BUT.One thing I will say though, is that regardless of if no reality without perception is correct, it isn't a very useful speculation.
IF:
"There is no reality without perception", is correct
THEN:
This is a useful observation because it clearly proves that even given the hard problem of consciousness, the truth is that without consciousness, none of this would even be happening.
Since it is happening, it is useful speculation because it allows for consciousness to be examined as the primary reason that things are acknowledged as happening. The things happening are secondary to that matter of fact.
The hard problem of consciousness = 341
Who Knows What That Is Worth? = 341
Set the board up or put the game aside... = 341
- 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 #227It's my contention an inability to show one speaks truth does risk the observer thinking that'n there's a liar.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:18 amI care not what you think only what you write here in a public forum governed by basic rules of courtesy.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:50 pmWe all risk folks thinking we lie when we make claims we can't show to be truth.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:38 pm ...
...
I think calling me or implying that I am a liar is a breach of forum rules by the way.
That such a comment causes you discomfort ain't my problem.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
- 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 #228I hear ya. I still maintain there's enough reason to conclude reality's there whether we like it or not.AgnosticBoy wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 12:45 amI'm by no means saying that all of reality is dependent on perception, but the conundrum we have is that we can't know about the "unpercepted" form of it because our knowing requires perception.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 8:54 am It's a nice notion, but reality doesn't rely on being perceived. It would just be an "unpercepted" form of it.
Even to DrNoGods point regarding people having different perceptions, but it's still all perception even if it's not my own.
I find the argument "reality only exists if perceived" most often comes from folks who think God's a reality.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin
Re: Science without religion is lame,
Post #229Lets be very clear then please, are you calling me a liar?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:19 pmIt's my contention an inability to show one speaks truth does risk the observer thinking that'n there's a liar.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:18 amI care not what you think only what you write here in a public forum governed by basic rules of courtesy.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:50 pmWe all risk folks thinking we lie when we make claims we can't show to be truth.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:38 pm ...
...
I think calling me or implying that I am a liar is a breach of forum rules by the way.
That such a comment causes you discomfort ain't my problem.
- 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 #230My understanding is it's a violation of site rules to call someone a liar.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:37 amLets be very clear then please, are you calling me a liar?JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 11:19 pmIt's my contention an inability to show one speaks truth does risk the observer thinking that'n there's a liar.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Tue Jan 18, 2022 9:18 amI care not what you think only what you write here in a public forum governed by basic rules of courtesy.JoeyKnothead wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:50 pmWe all risk folks thinking we lie when we make claims we can't show to be truth.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:38 pm ...
...
I think calling me or implying that I am a liar is a breach of forum rules by the way.
That such a comment causes you discomfort ain't my problem.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
-Punkinhead Martin