Is science overrated?

[Swami]

I am often told that science is the greatest tool for knowledge. Then I notice that scientists admit not having a consensus when it comes to the origin of the Universe, origin of life, origin of consciousness, and if there is life after death.

Why can't scientists answer these questions?

Please feel free to provide any book references that provide clarity on these topics. Thank you. Cheers

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 131 by For_The_Kingdom]

So do you acknowledge that humans evolved into homo sapiens from more primitive hominids like homo erectus?

No, I don't acknowledge that.

Can you explain it then? What are these more primitive hominids?

[DeMotts]

Your entire argument boils down to an argument from ignorance fallacy. Your main point is that you can't see how something is possible. This doesn't mean something is impossible.

Even if it does, what is wrong with that? Many atheistic arguments boil down to the 'impossibility' of God or aspects of God. My also argument boils down to the fact that spirit or mind is by far a better explanation for the world as it is.

What's wrong with that is that this is a debate board and that is a logical fallacy - you've essentially admitted your argument has no merit because you lack imagination. If you've been paying attention I've never once argued that there is definitive proof there is no god. Atheism is just a statement that there is insufficient evidence to conclude there IS a god.

Atheism just boils down to 'stuff happened'. That doesn't really explain anything. Granted, there are many distortions of religion and false paths but to cherry pick these things and then dismiss all religion as 'woo' is not really responding to religion. One would have to look at the best aspects of religion to construct a meaningful argument.

Atheism is the rejection of god as an explanation for the state of the universe. A belief in evolution, and biology, and cosmology could be summed up as "stuff happened and here's what we know about how it happened, and here's how we think it happened, and here's why we think it happened, and here's what we think will happen next based on what has been observed to have happened". A belief in god is "stuff happened because god said so". There's no predictive capacity in that. There's no working anything out.

It may be that on the level of viruses or bacteria, things are automatic. Maybe bacteria are no more than a sophisticated collection of molecules, I don't know. But if we define life as consciousness and intelligence then that emerges at some point in the evolutionary tree.

Why would we define life as intelligence and consciousness? Are plants not alive then?

Your argument is so incredibly fuzzy. So at some point something develops enough of a neural network to justify some sort of ethereal floating "mind" that drives the brain? So jellyfish have no mind but Stygotantulus does?

[mgb]

[Replying to post 157 by brunumb]

To be clear, Buddhism, Taoism, as originally formulated, are not paths to knowledge, not ways of finding what is true or real, they are responses to observation and reasoning. It is possible the even Christianity was just an injunction to be nice, even when it hurts.

https://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/56.htm

Rhetoric. Your response in no way presents another pathway to knowledge along with the criteria which you can apply to reliably distinguish between what is true and what is a product of the imagination. Woo is not a valid substitute.

Constantly repeating 'woo' is not an argument. I have explained how the spiritual life can be tested; it leads to a true vision of the world.

What's wrong with that is that this is a debate board and that is a logical fallacy - you've essentially admitted your argument has no merit because you lack imagination.

Imaginary truths are not necessarily real truths.

If you've been paying attention I've never once argued that there is definitive proof there is no god. Atheism is just a statement that there is insufficient evidence to conclude there IS a god.

I never said you said there is no God. I am saying that when atheists are asked how things came to be they ultimately say 'stuff happened'. Science does not explain how things came to be, it explains how one thing is related to another. To explain how things came to be it would be necessary for science to explain what existence itself is, or, at least, explain what energy is.

Why would we define life as intelligence and consciousness? Are plants not alive then?

Why do you say plants are not conscious?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 161 by mgb]

Imaginary truths are not necessarily real truths.

Surely you understand the irony of this statement coming from a theist...

I admit I misspoke before: You are not employing an argument from ignorance (in this case), you are employing an argument from incredulity - a similarly ineffective logical fallacy.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The issue here is that the argument is based on the lack of effort by the participant. I can't force you to study evolution and biology, but I can point out when your version of it is a distorted straw man that you summarily dismiss.

Your argument from ignorance is your position that there is some metaphysical force of mind that drives a mind from some "other place". Your position is that because we can't disprove this, it must be so. This is also fallacious - you have to support your argument with more than just "conversations are complicated, it can't just be molecules".

Why do you say plants are not conscious?

Consciousness is a pretty nebulous term, and you've spent a huge part of this thread asserting that consciousness is incredibly complex and expresses itself through the brain as a conduit, ergo plants are not conscious by your own definition - unless I'm misunderstanding you. If you're now saying that plants ARE conscious then clearly we don't need a brain to conscious, and consciousness now includes simply reacting to an environment and not some sort of "sense of self" or awareness/qualia - this starts falling into Williams domain of "everything in the universe is conscious including rocks and dirt" (no disrespect William).

I don't really know what you're arguing any more. You seem to switch between "consciousness is special and unique and requires a brain but isn't FROM the brain it's just THROUGH the brain" and "plants are conscious because they react to their environment". So maybe you can clear it up for me.

[mgb]

Your argument from ignorance is your position that there is some metaphysical force of mind that drives a mind from some "other place". Your position is that because we can't disprove this, it must be so. This is also fallacious - you have to support your argument with more than just "conversations are complicated, it can't just be molecules".

I assure you, my argument is more subtle than that, but it would take a long time to explain. My argument is not just that the idea that molecules can create a person borders on the absurd, it is also based on the understanding that the spiritual world view, properly formulated, is by far a better explanation for the world we live in. The spiritual explanation obtains on all levels of our experience. It is far superior to the materialist's argument.

Consciousness is a pretty nebulous term,

Not really. The ability to think requires consciousness. When we think we are thinking with the power of God. It is because our minds are in God that we are able to think. Consciousness is awareness of God. Everyone is aware of God, albeit sometimes, subconsciously or simply.

and you've spent a huge part of this thread asserting that consciousness is incredibly complex and expresses itself through the brain as a conduit, ergo plants are not conscious by your own definition

I didn't say plants are not conscious. I didn't say the only beings that are conscious must have brains. I assume consciousness of the physical world requires a body. It is a mistake to separate the brain from nervous system or the body. It is all one system. Even the body is not separated from the world. This whole complex of brain/body/human experience is a whole system. It is there to help spirits evolve. The five senses are a physical image of consciousness. They enable the mind to experience the physical pattern of human life.

- unless I'm misunderstanding you. If you're now saying that plants ARE conscious then clearly we don't need a brain to conscious,

There is spiritual consciousness or awareness, and there is physical consciousness. The brain may be only one mechanism for experiencing the physical world.

and consciousness now includes simply reacting to an environment and not some sort of "sense of self" or awareness/qualia

Consciousness is being. An unconscious mind has no being. Consciousness is awareness of what is. Life is the relationship between self and other.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 163 by mgb]

The spiritual explanation obtains on all levels of our experience. It is far superior to the materialist's argument.

The material world is known to exist. The spiritual world is speculative at best. There is no spiritual explanation until there is evidence that irrefutably demonstrates that the spiritual is something more than just an imaginative creation of the human mind. The actions of Zeus once explained the source of lightning and thunder. Every time we have found an explanation for some seemingly mysterious phenomenon, it has never been supernatural. God keeps getting squeezed into ever diminishing gaps.

[Swami]

[Replying to post 141 by Razorsedge]

I've also dabbled in some New Age stuff.

In a sense, I view god as a level of consciousness. It is the highest level of consciousness. Though meditation I realized that it was the highest level of reality.

I have studied art and even dabbled in some painting. Through reflection and introspection I have come to the realisation that my talent is of the highest order.
Or I am just indulging in self-delusion because that is what I would like to believe.

I am not advocating for accepting any type of experience as valid. I refer to experiences that everyone can experience and experiment with for themselves. It's an experience that fits within what I would consider to be 'field research'. Your example is more of an opinion than an experience.

[Swami]

So yet another definition of "god." This is my problem with religion in general (besides the fact that no gods, using any definition, have ever been shown to exist in the real world). Anyone can create their own definition of "god", and even form a set of rules around that definition to create a religion. So there is essentially an infinite number of ways to define what "god" is given that any one person could come up with as many as their imagination can muster.

Here again your comments show that you are unwilling to experience. When you experience, then you can come up with your own conclusions.

Do you think it's fair to comment on things that you have no experience of? How do you know what its like if you are unwilling to experience???

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 165 by Razorsedge]

I am not advocating for accepting any type of experience as valid. I refer to experiences that everyone can experience and experiment with for themselves. It's an experience that fits within what I would consider to be 'field research'. Your example is more of an opinion than an experience.

The interpretations of your experiences boil down to nothing more than personal opinion, even if you prefer the label of 'field research'.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 166 by Razorsedge]

Here again your comments show that you are unwilling to experience. When you experience, then you can come up with your own conclusions.

Do you think it's fair to comment on things that you have no experience of? How do you know what its like if you are unwilling to experience???

Are you suggesting I should immerse myself at some level in all of the religions that mankind has invented ... at a level that you deem to satisfy your definition of "experience", and until that is done it is not valid to comment on any aspects of these religions? I can check off one of those boxes (Christianity), and that experience led to a clear conclusion in my own mind. It is easy to extrapolate that experience to any other religion that involves a "god" being, given that no such beings have ever been shown to exist. Why would I waste time "experiencing" (whatever that actually means as you are using the word) other god-based religions when there is no reason to expect a different result (ie. the central god being is man-made along with all of its characteristics, and most likely does not exist).

I am not "unwilling to experience", but without a very good reason to make the substantial effort I don't see the point. If I were searching for something that religion might could provide then maybe it would make sense. But I'm not, and I don't have any particular holes in my existence that need filling with belief in imaginary gods and hope for an afterlife. I'm perfectly happy to live out my days trying to enjoy the relatively short existence us humans have on this planet, then being recycled.