Is There Any Room For God In Modern Science?

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Jimbee68, Jun 11, 2015.

  1. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    There is nothing whatsoever wrong with getting caught up in the love of wisdom. If you take a plane and fold it into itself then you have the plane surface interacting with itself. Now imagine a single hologram with texture and each fold gives a view of another part of the hologram. It seems separate but it is in fact not. Everything occurs at the edges but there is nothing beyond the edge. Not saying that is absolutely the way it is but it is a model that doesn't need duality to function, just geometry.
     
  2. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Is there any room for god in science is a philosophical question.
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    And that statement is a philosophy.
     
  4. NoxiousGas

    NoxiousGas Old Fart

    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    wrong again...(no surprises there)
    science is a philosophy.
    the actual application of the scientific method to philosophical inquiries is what most people think of when they hear the term "science".

    snatched this quote from here;
    http://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_science_a_part_of_or_separate_from_philosophy

    "I think that we oversimplify many terms. We also need to be cautious in our use of terms when they start taking on multiple different meanings. In academia, for example, we differentiate between scientist and philosophers. These terms are however often used as titles and not descriptive of an individual's activities. Many scientists do not practice "science". If one were to follow the tenets of science rigorously, we would find that very little research actually takes on this form.
    Philosophy is the study of knowledge. How it is acquired, the form it takes, and the its limits. Philosophy is much more than reflection. It can be extremely formal and may include subfields such as formal logic.
    Science is a research methodology by which knowledge is acquired.
    Philosophy allows us to study the nuances by which knowledge is acquired using scientific methods. Science is the execution.
    Philosophy allows us to identify different methodologies, other than science, by which knowledge can be acquired. It helps us understand what makes a method consistent and robust.
    Philosophy also allows us to differentiate between methods. It helps us understand why practitioners of different methodologies don't always see eye-to-eye. It explains why different practitioners may disagree on different research approaches and even differences in the interpretation of what constitutes knowledge.
    "
     
    2 people like this.
  5. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,526
    Likes Received:
    761
    That science is a narrow aspect of philosophy is not to that philosophy is science. The statement "philosophy is not science" is correct.

    [​IMG]

    Failure to understand the boundaries and fundamentals of science accounts for majority of this thread, more than the larger percentage of this image that is...

    NOT SCIENCE!
     
  6. Moonglow181

    Moonglow181 Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    16,175
    Likes Received:
    4,927
    It is not that I have no use for the concept or philosophy, but although there is much beauty in this world. It is all around......when looking at the suffering, and not just what people do to people, but what nature does herself, i have to wonder......what kind of work is that to rejoice about?
     
    1 person likes this.
  7. NoxiousGas

    NoxiousGas Old Fart

    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,389
    sorry, but you are mistaken.
    science is at it's core a philosophy and it also ticks a lot of the same boxes that religion does.
    It holds a particular world view, seeks to discover and explain the origin of the universe and man within that world view and makes extrapolations/predictions about the future.

    Now the application of that philosophy is known as the scientific method and that is the practical application of the philosophy of science.

    Does that mean that I or others consider science the same as say religions or humanism or other ideas more commonly thought of as philosophies? not at all, but science it still a philosophy.
    if you can not make that distinction, that is your problem.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Solipsism is what I've been talking about.

    The subjective experience is a first person experience alone. This is not scientific. The way science works is that others verify what you say you are experiencing. But your subjective experience is yours alone, and can't be verified.

    So please prove to me that your mind isn't the only thing that exists. Prove to me that I have a mind. You cannot. You are making the assumption that I have a subjective experience like your own. It could be that you're simply imagining everything, including your own body. That this is all the creation of your own being.

    So, something definitely exists, that we all take for granted, which is not a matter of science.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. relaxxx

    relaxxx Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,526
    Likes Received:
    761
    Yes, science is a kind of philosophy, that was not the problem I had. The problem I have is you are arguing purely on your warped misreading of FF's statement. "philosophy is not science", is what he said, NOT "philosophy isn't partly science" or "Science isn't a type of philosophy". Rationally, he might as well have said "Gas tanks are not cars" and then you go off on a tangent about how gas tanks are important parts of cars. You're deliberately derailing and twisting meanings to suit your biased agendas and delusions about what you think is actually scientific knowledge.

    The fact is, if you put a poster on the wall representing the broad spectrum of all philosophy, and randomly throw darts at it... very few are going to strike the real science section. Through most all history of philosophy, people were mostly interested in justifying beliefs than determining real empirical knowledge.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. The purpose of God isn't just to comfort. It's a real question about how the world was created and how it works. If God exists, the purpose God serves may be simply to keep existence intact. That's a pretty important function.

    Perfection is a tricky subject, because there are ideas about what would be perfect and then there is what is necessary in order for anything to exist. I don't complain about the way things are (unless I can do something about it,) because I don't assume that things could be any different than they are, and I think the good things in life are worth the bad.
     
  11. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    And solipsism is an idea about experience, not a fact of it. The subjective experience is shared. It is the reason we can communicate. What do you mean the experience cannot be verified? Do you mean it is not real? All you have shown is the specter of doubt caused by the appearance that the body separates one mind from another. Minds join, bodies touch. There is no substantive difference in our personal experiences. We all experience a range of familiar emotions and flavors. They arise from the same common mammalian sources. The differences are in shading, inflection, or emphasis. Qualia are locally manifested but they are not unique.

    I take this above as your answer to the question what is unscientific about the subjective experience? That it is solipsistic? Not what you would call a scientific application but a speculative one. And in it is the failing of the subjective take in apprehending what is so. Our powers of distinction are scientifically accurate at a certain level. That is we can accurately distinguish one thing from another and figure out what a thing is for. The thing about subjective experience that is not scientifically accurate is our temptation to qualify as opposed to quantify. Your solipsistic assumptions are just such a qualifying view of what is so or what is possible. This eliminates some of what you will even consider and does not come from any statistical or taxonomical accounting but is entirely self referential.
     
  12. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Well if science is a kind of philosophy then science is of like kind as philosophy. So philosophy is not science is correct only on the basis that philosophy is not the same word as the word science. It is not a warped reading but a garbled statement confusing form and content.

    A gas tank is not a kind of car. Who is twisting what? This is a case of not using standard metrics.
     
  13. PROVE it. Just prove it, and I'll concede. The point is you can't prove it, and what you can't prove is not scientific.

    What do you mean it is shared? If I have my own subjective experience, I am the only one who experiences it. You mean we share it in words? What proof are they? I can easily tell you that I experience nothing -- is it true because I have shared it?

    I mean that you can't enter another's psyche and know that they experience anything. You can communicate with people in dreams...anyway, I have. Are all those people who have spoken to me or communicated with me in dreams real because they're communicating? My parents aren't dead, then; they've spoken to me in dreams. I've literally met a slew of cognizant people in dreams, according to you, because they've communicated with me.

    The fact is you can never step into a person's body and know that they are experiencing, and you can't show how powerful the imagination is to know for certain that everything isn't simply being imagined by you and you alone. Perhaps you are God, the only sentient being in existence, and you just happen to exist and this is all a creation of your being.

    I don't BELIEVE myself that this is the case, and I am sentient, in case you were wondering, but the whole point is that none of this can be proved.
     
    2 people like this.
  14. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    Do you laugh?
     
  15. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    I tell you the statistical accounting for everything i mention in this vein will be it is the same.
     
  16. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    This is the essence of what i have been getting at.
     
  17. ChinaCatSunflower02

    ChinaCatSunflower02 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    130
    I would agree but if you get too lost in talking about how everything is One and Awareness and ignore the fact that there is still Matter and Separation, then you're letting the philosophy of Vedanta and Oneness replace your direct experience. You can't get rid of separation, however, Oneness realization can liberate your attachment to separation.
     
  18. BlackBillBlake

    BlackBillBlake resigned HipForums Supporter

    Messages:
    11,504
    Likes Received:
    1,548
    The point though is not to get lost in useless talk.
     
  19. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    It is flattering to think that your highs and lows are special and unique to yourself. That way you can claim special circumstances. What proof is there available but direct comparison between what is the same and what is different.
    Do you laugh,
    Do you eat
    do you poop
    Get hungry
    etc.

    All these things are in common or identical and this is what I mean by we share our subjective experience. The only reason to say that there is lack of proof is simply to sustain the argument that you are special. Your experience seems private in a world where you interact with others constantly. It is simply a weird kind of self conception where you don't consider the whole picture. The only thing unique about your experience is where or how you apply your attention.
     
  20. thedope

    thedope glad attention Lifetime Supporter

    Messages:
    22,574
    Likes Received:
    1,207
    The geometric model I gave eliminates the necessity of duality as a fundamental quality. Separate is a conception.
    You see yourself as separate. Variation is the rule.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice