Uncovering objective truths

[QED]

There exist many objective truths that form the fabric of our universe. This is why we can see exactly the same outcomes from the action of certain laws at work irrespective of whereabouts in the universe they are operating. Consider therefore these truths to be things awaiting discovery. Things that may furnish an explanation of phenomena having a bearing on our existence.

I would say that science is the only discipline with the potential to access all such truths given the application of sufficient critical thinking.

This is because the scientifc approach is framed in such a way as to be subject to falsification. It can never know when it is right, only when wrong. So while not necessarily knowing that it has ever reached the truth, it may indeed have already arrived. No harm is done by such over-reaching, what counts is that the conclusions will remain the same in the absence of contradictory data (which by definition will never emerge once an objective truth has actually been arrived at).

It is as though a systematic 'sweep' for a conclusion has been made through the enormous space of 'possibilities' - a sweep that automatically stops at the proper conclusion upon encountering an objective truth even though we may errantly continue to consider more possibilities.

Contrast this with the use of faith (in all its forms) to furnish such fundamental truths - while faith might stumble across the odd truth by accident now and then, it has no feedback mechanism to tell it when it is wrong (as if it would listen anyway!) Thus many a false conclusion will inevitably be arrived at - given the vast number of possibilities to choose from.

Given enough time then, science is capable of gradually revealing a coherrent and accurate interpretation of all the unerlying objective truths that embody our universe. Whereas revelations arising through the channel of faith alone will beome more and more incoherrent with the passage of time.

Supporting evidence for this analysis can already be found in the consistency of information contained in students textbooks world-wide. I leave it to your imagination to consider the subjects I might be referring to.

[asajoseph]

Simple question - do you think science can ever answer the question, 'Is there life after death?'?

[DarkSaying]

Simple question - do you think science can ever answer the question, 'Is there life after death?'?

Hahah, but not so simple a question, because --

what is life?
what is death?

As as side note, I like the dictionary's (merriam/webster) definition of the two:

life: "the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body" (ie, life is not being dead)
death: "a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life" (ie, death is not being alive)

Kind of reminds me of the "endless loop" joke:

Endless Loop: see Loop, Endless
Loop, Endless: see Endless Loop

[mrmufin]

Hi, QED, and a somewhat belated welcome to the Debating CHristianity & Religion forums!

Per the DC&R Rules, all topics initiated in the debate subforums (Christianity, CvE, Philosophy, Current Events, etc.) must have a clearly framed question for debate.

If you have a question or two to debate on this topic, please offer it, else this thread will be moved to a more appropriate location.

Thank you for your participation in DC&R!

Regards,
mrmufin

[QED]

I would say that science is the only discipline with the potential to access all such truths given the application of sufficient critical thinking.

I thought this would be enough to start a debate What do you think?

[BeHereNow]

I have always felt that science is a tool of philosophy.
It is philosophy which imagines “what next?”, then formulates a conjecture and puts science to the task of investigating.
Might we say that science is a dead end? There is after all a finite amount of knowledge concerning the nature of the natural world. Surely there will come a time when we have knowledge of all that exists in the material realm.
Science can improve our physical well being.
It is philosophy in its various forms which improve our mental well being.
Philosophy attempts to unite the elements of the physical world and our being, our existence, our purpose.
It is philosophy in its various forms which gives meaning to the life that science is so capable of describing.
Remove philosophy and there is no need for science.
Religion is part and parcel of philosophy.

[Vladd44]

I would say that science is the only discipline with the potential to access all such truths given the application of sufficient critical thinking.

I thought this would be enough to start a debate What do you think?

heh

I couldnt get past your first sentence without taKing up an issue of debate.

There exist many objective truths that form the fabric of our universe.

Thats conjecture, I dont think any one of us is in a position to even define objective, much less define views from such a position.

[BeHereNow]

QED: There exist many objective truths that form the fabric of our universe.

Vladd44: Thats conjecture, I dont think any one of us is in a position to even define objective, much less define views from such a position.

I have an opinion on that.
By “objective”, I take you to mean “objective truths” (not merely ‘objective’).
That which exists is an objective truth. Not that which is observed, but that which exists independent of observation.
Can we say planet earth is an objective truth?
I'm not, of course, claiming I can prove planet earth exists, merely that we can agree that planet earth exists, just as we might for the sake of convenience agree this discussion is occuring.

[Vladd44]

By “objective”, I take you to mean “objective truths” (not merely ‘objective’).

Both, reread what i typed.

I dont think any one of us are in a position to even define objective, much less define views from such a position.

That which exists is an objective truth. Not that which is observed, but that which exists independent of observation.

If it exists, and we can discuss it, it has been observed, and we are discussing our observations, which may/may not have any bearings on the reality of the situation (whatever that is). So how can we even discuss objective truth without observation? How can we even know it exists? We have no frame of reference to discuss it.

[asajoseph]

But that's the point of objectivity - it exists whether it's observed or not. What you seem to be discussing is whether or not objectivity is knowable.