Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What is the necessity of science?

1246

Comments

  • #92
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    dmclean1842 wrote: »
    This is what happened in the past and in my opinion is happening now, we just cannot see it.

    So, if we cannot see it, then it is not scientific - is it? It is rather an opinion that is unsupported by evidence.

    So, we are supposed to believe your unscientific assertion that science is replacing religion and will eventually explain God. The irony is terrific.


  • #93
    user1842
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭user1842


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you believe in the existence of a particular god?

    Particular meaning a personnel God who has influence in our lives. Then no but I would like to and I think that's the crux of the matter.


  • #94
    user1842
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭user1842


    PDN wrote: »
    So, if we cannot see it, then it is not scientific - is it? It is rather an opinion that is unsupported by evidence.

    So, we are supposed to believe your unscientific assertion that science is replacing religion and will eventually explain God. The irony is terrific.

    That's unfair in the extreme. Its my opinion and opinions are neither unscientific or scientific.

    There is a lot of things in science we cannot see so I dont see your point there.

    My evidence for my opinion is past human behaviour.


  • #95
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    And I think you're now nit-picking.

    I'm really not. Every religion makes claims of revelations from God, or gods. You have some how determined that one set is the real deal and all the others aren't. Whether you realize it or not how you did that is a methodology.
    PDN wrote: »
    We all have our own methods for determining how to assess whether we believe a revelation to be genuine or not.

    Yes, that is my point.

    So back to the original question, what is the necessity of science? You didn't use science to determine Christian revelations are true and Hindu ones aren't.

    What would happen if you used the same methodology to try figure out, say for example, which claim of the atom is the correct one?
    PDN wrote: »
    Not really. Because it still seems incredibly naive (I'm being charitable in choosing that term) to think that someone's method of assessing a revelation in the Bible should somehow do away with the need for science.

    Why? What does science do that the other method doesn't?


  • #96
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    dmclean1842 wrote: »
    Particular meaning a personnel God who has influence in our lives. Then no but I would like to and I think that's the crux of the matter.

    No, not really. If you have never used a non-scientific methodology to determine the truth of a particular religion or set of religious claims then the question isn't for you, since you don't have a methodology to compare to science.

    Sorry, but you aren't really the target audience for this question :)


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    dmclean1842 wrote: »
    There is a lot of things in science we cannot see so I dont see your point there.

    Really? So you are defining science as knowledge that is reached by some other means than by evidence?


  • #98
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes, that is my point.

    So back to the original question, what is the necessity of science? You didn't use science to determine Christian revelations are true and Hindu ones aren't.

    And I can't use science to determine whether many scientific revelations are true or not.

    If an article in New Scientist claims that a particular star is 640 million light years away, I personally do not have the knowledge or tools to assess whether that is true or not. I have to ask the kind of questions I outlined above to decide whether I think the claim in New Scientist is true.
    What would happen if you used the same methodology to try figure out, say for example, which claim of the atom is the correct one?
    Unless I personally possess the tools and knowledge to scientifically verify the claim then I have no choice but to use the same methodology.
    Why? What does science do that the other method doesn't?
    Science enables us to observe and measure certain things.

    If you tell me that water freezes at zero centigrade then I possess a freezer and a thermometer and can test your claim scientifically.

    If you tell me that a star is 640 million light years away then I don't possess the tools or knowledge necessary to test your claim scientifically. However, others do say they have the equipment and knowledge. Therefore I am forced to rely on a non-scientific method of assessing their claim that they have verified your claim.

    If you tell me that God does or doesn't exist then nobody has the tools or knowledge to test that claim scientifically. Therefore we all use non-scientific methodologies to assess it and form our opinions accordingly.

    Of course you can paint yourself into a corner and insist that you will never form an opinion or hold a conviction that cannot be tested scientifically. So you will hold no belief as to whether your girlfriend loves you or not, as to whether Picasso is good art or not, or as to whether it is morally wrong to torture babies for entertainment.

    Or, you can form a conviction or opinion on these subjects by non-scientific methods. Of course then, you always run the risk that some halfwit will ask you, "Well, if you claim to know that your girlfriend loves you, but haven't reached that knowledge scientifically, then what point is there to science at all?"


  • #99
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    And I can't use science to determine whether many scientific revelations are true or not.

    If an article in New Scientist claims that a particular star is 640 million light years away, I personally do not have the knowledge or tools to assess whether that is true or not. I have to ask the kind of questions I outlined above to decide whether I think the claim in New Scientist is true.

    Yes, that is my point. So why bother with science at all? Why not just do that for everything?
    PDN wrote: »
    If you tell me that water freezes at zero centigrade then I possess a freezer and a thermometer and can test your claim scientifically.
    Why though would you bother?
    PDN wrote: »
    If you tell me that a star is 640 million light years away then I don't possess the tools or knowledge necessary to test your claim scientifically. However, others do say they have the equipment and knowledge. Therefore I am forced to rely on a non-scientific method of assessing their claim that they have verified your claim.

    If you tell me that God does or doesn't exist then nobody has the tools or knowledge to test that claim scientifically. Therefore we all use non-scientific methodologies to assess it and form our opinions accordingly.

    If someone told you that star is 640 million light years away but didn't have the tools or knowledge to assess that claim scientifically, couldn't you just use the same methodology to assess if their claims as accurate as you do above with relation to God?
    PDN wrote: »
    Of course you can paint yourself into a corner and insist that you will never form an opinion or hold a conviction that cannot be tested scientifically. So you will hold no belief as to whether your girlfriend loves you or not, as to whether Picasso is good art or not, or as to whether it is morally wrong to torture babies for entertainment.

    Or, you can form a conviction or opinion on these subjects by non-scientific methods.

    That is the point of my question.

    If we can do that, and by perfectly happy with that, what is the point of science in the first place? Why bother with science at all?


  • #100
    user1842
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭user1842


    PDN wrote: »
    Really? So you are defining science as knowledge that is reached by some other means than by evidence?

    No, not at all. I assume what you mean by evidence is empirical proof then yes science needs that. Just because we cannot see something does not mean we cannot prove scientifically that is does exist.


  • #101
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes, that is my point. So why bother with science at all? Why not just do that for everything?

    I would if everything was revealed to me from a sufficiently reliable source.
    Why though would you bother?
    I don't bother. I've never gone into my freezer with a thermometer because I'm happy enough with the sources that tell me water freezes at zero degrees.
    If someone told you that star is 640 million light years away but didn't have the tools or knowledge to assess that claim scientifically, couldn't you just use the same methodology to assess if their claims as accurate as you do above with relation to God?
    That would depend on who they were, and on what basis they claimed to know that information.

    If it was you then I would reject it out of hand. If it was someone who died on a cross for me and then was raised from the dead, and claimed to be God, then I would be more inclined to listen.
    That is the point of my question.

    If we can do that, and by perfectly happy with that, what is the point of science in the first place? Why bother with science at all?

    Because, while science is not a useful tool for testing art, morality or love - it is a useful tool for measuring certain things.

    Also, the methodology you use for determining whether something is immoral or not is not useful for determining or measuring some other things.

    I don't see why you keep stumbling over this rather straightforward point.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight, let's try this three questions on you.

    1. Do you believe it is morally wrong to torture babies to death for fun?

    2. If so, did you use the scientific method to reach this conclusion?

    3. If you didn't use the scientific method to reach that conclusion, then what's the point of science at all?


  • #103
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    I would if everything was revealed to me from a sufficiently reliable source.

    Again revelation is not a methodology. Lots of things, from various religions, are "revealed" to you. You some how shift through which ones you believe and which ones you don't, using some methodology.
    PDN wrote: »
    That would depend on who they were, and on what basis they claimed to know that information.

    Well obviously, that comes down again to the methodology you would use
    PDN wrote: »
    If it was you then I would reject it out of hand. If it was someone who died on a cross for me and then was raised from the dead, and claimed to be God, then I would be more inclined to listen.

    Look what you managed to determine without requiring science, Jesus was resurrected, Jesus was God, God is accurately described in the Bible.

    That is pretty impressive, given that there is nothing to test from a scientific position. Yet you still, using what ever methodology you used, managed to determine that this is a very accurate description of reality.

    So, why not just do that (what ever that was that lead you to these conclusions) for everything, every claim?
    PDN wrote: »
    Because, while science is not a useful tool for testing art, morality or love - it is a useful tool for measuring certain things.

    Useful in what way? What does science do that other methodologies don't?

    I should also point out, simply because you have mentioned it a few times, that science is not a process of measuring things. People have been measuring things since before we had language, where as science is a relatively speaking new invention. Sorry to be pedantic, just wanted to make that clear.
    PDN wrote: »
    I don't see why you keep stumbling over this rather straightforward point.

    Well probably because you still haven't actually answered the question :)

    You have just said science has its uses, but haven't explained what they are or why the other methodologies that can also accurate determine things about, for example the existence and properties of God without scientific test, aren't just as good.

    I would also point out your posts seem to be getting increasingly hostel. By all means don't answer if you don't want to. I've no interest in another argument with you.


  • #104
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    1. Do you believe it is morally wrong to torture babies to death for fun?

    Depends on what you mean by morally wrong, whether you are talking about subjective or objective morality. I think it is morally wrong to torture babies, though I don't claim that this is some how in line with some knowable universal morality.
    PDN wrote: »
    If so, did you use the scientific method to reach this conclusion?

    No
    PDN wrote: »
    If you didn't use the scientific method to reach that conclusion, then what's the point of science at all?

    The point of science is to provide a robust methodology to assess the accuracy of claims about the true nature of reality that attempts to remove as much as it can biases and other cognitive deceptions innate in humans from the process of assessing these claims.

    Since above I'm not making a claim about the true nature of reality (ie I'm not making an objective claim about objective morality) the issue of whether I believe it is immoral to torture babies is not applicable. This is what I meant earlier about different domains.

    You can say the same thing about God if you like, that "God exists and is the God of the Bible" or "Jesus was the son of God and salvation to heaven requires faith in him" etc are not claims about the true nature of reality but as I mentioned earlier I don't agree and really if you genuinely believe that then there isn't a whole lot else to discuss.


  • #105
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Depends on what you mean by morally wrong, whether you are talking about subjective or objective morality. I think it is morally wrong to torture babies, though I don't claim that this is some how in line with some knowable universal morality.
    ...
    The point of science is to provide a robust methodology to assess the accuracy of claims about the true nature of reality that attempts to remove as much as it can biases and other cognitive deceptions innate in humans from the process of assessing these claims.

    Since above I'm not making a claim about the true nature of reality (ie I'm not making an objective claim about objective morality) the issue of whether I believe it is immoral to torture babies is not applicable. This is what I meant earlier about different domains.

    You can say the same thing about God if you like, that "God exists and is the God of the Bible" or "Jesus was the son of God and salvation to heaven requires faith in him" etc are not claims about the true nature of reality but as I mentioned earlier I don't agree and really if you genuinely believe that then there isn't a whole lot else to discuss.

    So you don't believe that it is really wrong or to torture babies to death for entertainment? It might seem that way to you from your subjective viewpoint, but if someone else thinks it is right to torture babies then their view is as valid as yours? Is that it?


  • #106
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    So you don't believe that it is really wrong or to torture babies to death for entertainment?

    What do you mean "really" wrong? I don't believe there is a universal morality, I believe morality is a product of the human brain and is an opinion of a person based on their internal ethical machinery, for want of a better term. And yes, science was involved in that assessment.
    PDN wrote: »
    It might seem that way to you from your subjective viewpoint, but if someone else thinks it is right to torture babies then their view is as valid as yours?

    I never understand what people mean when they say something like that? Valid to who, or to what standard? It is certainly true that it is their moral position.


  • #107
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,240 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    What area of science do you work in, WK?


  • #108
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    What area of science do you work in, WK?

    Computers, though how much of a science that is is debatable.


  • #109
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    For example, if I read an article in a magazine that purports to present a truth (be it the National Enquirer or the New Scientist) then I assess it by asking questions. Does this magazine have a good track record? What do people that I know and trust say about it? Have other 'truths' presented from this source proved useful or not? Does the person communicating this 'truth' to me appear to have a bias or an agenda? These are all part of how we screen and assess information.

    Isn't that what those of a scientific naturalistic disposition like myself do to assess rationally how to discern the truth, yet how come we come to different conclusions I wonder?
    PDN wrote: »
    Not really. Because it still seems incredibly naive (I'm being charitable in choosing that term) to think that someone's method of assessing a revelation in the Bible should somehow do away with the need for science.

    Well actually no it isn't naive. Going by the definition of what you call "revelation" it completely negates the need for science as a method for discovering the truth about the universe.


  • #110
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Well actually no it isn't naive. Going by the definition of what you call "revelation" it completely negates the need for science as a method for discovering the truth about the universe.

    How so?

    I assess a particular source (a) as being reliable in what it states on a particular subject (b). But my source states little or nothing about another subject (d).

    However, there is an available methodology (c) that has nothing to say about b but is very useful for exploring d.

    Please explain why my use of source a to discover b negates the need to use methodology c to explore d.

    You and Wicknight have made assertions - but neither of you have presented any logical or coherent argument as to why I should not use source a (the Bible) to discover b (truths about God), and methodology c (science) to explore d (the material composition of the universe).


  • #111
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    How so?

    I assess a particular source (a) as being reliable in what it states on a particular subject (b). But my source states little or nothing about another subject (d).

    However, there is an available methodology (c) that has nothing to say about b but is very useful for exploring d.

    Please explain why my use of source a to discover b negates the need to use methodology c to explore d.

    You and Wicknight have made assertions - but neither of you have presented any logical or coherent argument as to why I should not use source a (the Bible) to discover b (truths about God), and methodology c (science) to explore d (the material composition of the universe).

    If you already have the truth in one book science is redundant. You already have the answer as you guys claim, thus why need any other method? God did suffices for all questions. No?


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    PDN wrote: »
    Because, while science is not a useful tool for testing art, morality or love - it is a useful tool for measuring certain things.

    Ah, I want to flag you on that, because it's bold claim and from my understanding of science not really true. All of the above are a result of the deterministic behavior of the brain which as a field of research is about to be blown right open. Given enough information I can tell you exactly in a causal chain why I'm bothering to debate with someone who believes in two obviously contradictory methods for finding the truth about the universe.


  • #113
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Ah, I want to flag you on that, because it's bold claim and from my understanding of science not really true. All of the above are a result of the deterministic behavior of the brain which as a field of research is about to be blown right open. Given enough information I can tell you exactly in a causal chain why I'm bothering to debate with someone who believes in two obviously contradictory methods for finding the truth about the universe.

    There's a subtle but salient point that should be made. Science can tell us why we like art, and why we adopt the moral principles we do, but the actual standards themselves cannot be scientifically determined. I fully accept that Darwinian evolution is, on some level, responsible for my morality, but I would not turn to a science textbook to help me unravel a complex ethical dilemma. Similarly, artists rely on insight and talent to generate art, and aren't going to be applying for SFI grants any time soon.


  • #114
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Morbert wrote: »
    There's a subtle but salient point that should be made. Science can tell us why we like art, and why we adopt the moral principles we do, but the actual standards themselves cannot be scientifically determined. I fully accept that Darwinian evolution is, on some level, responsible for my morality, but I would not turn to a science textbook to help me unravel a complex ethical dilemma. Similarly, artists rely on insight and talent to generate art, and aren't going to be applying for SFI grants any time soon.

    You haven't outlined one scenario there that couldn't be explained scientifically. An artists insights and talent and solutions to ethical dilemma's are as explainable as any other ability or behaviour. Your in for a hell of a shock if you think they aren't my friend.


  • #115
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    How so?

    I assess a particular source (a) as being reliable in what it states on a particular subject (b). But my source states little or nothing about another subject (d).

    However, there is an available methodology (c) that has nothing to say about b but is very useful for exploring d.

    Please explain why my use of source a to discover b negates the need to use methodology c to explore d.

    The two highlighted bits have the same purpose, assessing the accuracy of claims about reality. b and d are the same things, claims about the true nature of existence. As we established a claim like "God exists and has the nature of the Christian God as described accurately in the Bible" is not that much different from a claim like "A body on Earth fall to Earth at a consistent acceleration of 9.8m/s/s due to the warping effects of gravity"

    These are both claims about the true nature of reality. They are not a claim like "Jim Carey is the best actor in the world" or "Teaching children religion is morally wrong" Appealing to a different domain is not applicable because questions about whether God exists are not any different to questions about what atoms are really like. They are not in different domains (as I think you agreed above)

    God either exists or he doesn't. The claim that he does is either true or false, and is true or false independent to subjective opinion. I think we both agree that God exists for me is a some what nonsensical expression, where as we might accept a statement like Well I think Carey is great

    The Bible makes claims about reality, as does a someone studying atoms (an unconfirmed claim about something in science is called an "hypothesis")

    You, some how, established that the claims in the Bible (or what ever religious source) were accurate. You used some methodology to establish this, you didn't just wake up one morning and randomly decide that out of all religious claims (or all claims for that matter) Christianity was the accurate one, or that all the people claiming to speak for God you were randomly going to believe Jesus was the true one. Or maybe you did, I don't know. If you did, if you had no methodology to assess this, then the question isn't for you.
    PDN wrote: »
    You and Wicknight have made assertions - but neither of you have presented any logical or coherent argument as to why I should not use source a (the Bible) to discover b (truths about God), and methodology c (science) to explore d (the material composition of the universe).

    I'm not arguing you shouldn't do something. I'm asking why, if you can establish the truth of some claims using methodology A (how ever you figured out Christianity is true over say Hinduism or Atheism) why do you think some people (scientists mostly) think it is necessary to use methodology (science) to establish the accuracy of claims about reality. You didn't use science yet you are still perfectly happy with these claims.

    Surely what ever methodology you used to establish that the Bible is accurate about its claims about reality is enough? What more does science do, and is this necessary?


  • #116
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    You haven't outlined one scenario there that couldn't be explained scientifically. An artists insights and talent and solutions to ethical dilemma's are as explainable as any other ability or behaviour. Your in for a hell of a shock if you think they aren't my friend.

    How is that post related to mine? I haven't outlined one scenario that couldn't be explained scientifically because I don't believe there is one, and never said I did. I said science is not used to determine the standards, even if it can explain why we choose the standards we do. I.e. Science can never determine whether we should or shouldn't act towards the good of the society, even if it can explain why people would pick the former. Similarly, an artist would not use the scientific method to determine how his painting, or poem, or novel will turn out, even if psychology can tell us why he wrote a particular poem, or painted a particular picture.


  • #117
    user1842
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭user1842


    Morbert wrote: »
    How is that post related to mine? I haven't outlined one scenario that couldn't be explained scientifically because I don't believe there is one, and never said I did. I said science is not used to determine the standards, even if it can explain why we choose the standards we do. I.e. Science can never determine whether we should or shouldn't act towards the good of the society, even if it can explain why people would pick the former. Similarly, an artist would not use the scientific method to determine how his painting, or poem, or novel will turn out, even if psychology can tell us why he wrote a particular poem, or painted a particular picture.

    This is an impossible argument. A Scientist cannot argue without proof and a Theologian cannot argue with proof.


  • #118
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    dmclean1842 wrote: »
    This is an impossible argument. A Scientist cannot argue without proof and a Theologian cannot argue with proof.

    What? I can't relate that sentence to my post either. I have noticed an unfortunate trend on these boards of people responding to my posts with only vaguely related points.


  • #119
    dcmraad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭dcmraad


    dmclean1842 wrote: »
    I cannot agree with this. Science in my opinion is slowly replacing Religion and eventually will be able to explain God. The more we explore science the more we explain Religion.

    This is what happened in the past and in my opinion is happening now, we just cannot see it.

    To use Religion to explain Science make no sense as Science in my opinion is the refined accurate evolution of Religion.

    Religion started in superstition, it should be a belief kept to yourself as it lacks common sense, and it should never be involved in the education of children.
    PDN wrote: »

    For example, if I read an article in a magazine that purports to present a truth (be it the National Enquirer or the New Scientist) then I assess it by asking questions. Does this magazine have a good track record? What do people that I know and trust say about it? Have other 'truths' presented from this source proved useful or not? Does the person communicating this 'truth' to me appear to have a bias or an agenda? These are all part of how we screen and assess information.

    why are you christian then?
    PDN wrote: »
    And I can't use science to determine whether many scientific revelations are true or not.

    If an article in New Scientist claims that a particular star is 640 million light years away, I personally do not have the knowledge or tools to assess whether that is true or not. I have to ask the kind of questions I outlined above to decide whether I think the claim in New Scientist is true.

    So you do not fly, or use a computer then.
    PDN wrote: »
    I would if everything was revealed to me from a sufficiently reliable source.

    You believe the bible is a sufficiently reliable source, your judgement is already flawed.
    PDN wrote: »

    If it was you then I would reject it out of hand. If it was someone who died on a cross for me and then was raised from the dead, and claimed to be God, then I would be more inclined to listen.

    WOW, do you seriously believe this nonsense, what frightens me is that you can vote, and you have followers.
    PDN wrote: »
    So you don't believe that it is really wrong or to torture babies to death for entertainment? It might seem that way to you from your subjective viewpoint, but if someone else thinks it is right to torture babies then their view is as valid as yours? Is that it?

    How many biblical passages can you quote to support gods love for vengence and murdering babies.


  • #120
    user1842
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,125 ✭✭✭user1842


    Morbert wrote: »
    What? I can't relate that sentence to my post either. I have noticed an unfortunate trend on these boards of people responding to my posts with only vaguely related points.

    The posts here from the scientific point of view all describe that you need to prove your argument and that you cannot just say the God exists without having a fundamental rational behind your belief.

    However the religious side state that no such rational need to exist and that faith alone is all that is necessary for belief.

    A scientist can never understand this. If they did they would no longer be a scientist.

    To go back to the point of the post. In my opinion you cant have it both ways. You either believe that God can explain everything or nothing. Picking and choosing what science to except based on nothing but whimsical evidence is nonsense.

    My opinion anyway


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Morbert wrote: »
    How is that post related to mine? I haven't outlined one scenario that couldn't be explained scientifically because I don't believe there is one, and never said I did. I said science is not used to determine the standards, even if it can explain why we choose the standards we do. I.e. Science can never determine whether we should or shouldn't act towards the good of the society, even if it can explain why people would pick the former.

    Why can't science be used to determine the standards or we should act going forward especially if future decisions are based on past experiences and learnings? The standards we have aren't arbitrary they're there for understandable and scientifically determinable reasons.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Similarly, an artist would not use the scientific method to determine how his painting, or poem, or novel will turn out, even if psychology can tell us why he wrote a particular poem, or painted a particular picture.

    Well actually artists mostly don't and I don't think they need to, but that's certainly not to say that they can't understand their choices using science(in fact it's the only way) and use science to recognise and augment his behaviour.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement