* ENLIGHTENED *.....by.....* SCIENCE *

[shawn]

Reality is far more fantastic than anything that unaided human imagination could ever devise.
For example: the mind could not visualize a new color, such as infrared or ultraviolet.
It can only manipulate combinations of elements that it has already experienced.
Everything that is truly new can only come from the Universe(or multiverse) outside.
And uncovering the truth that is out there is of course, the function of science.

What is knowledge?
True knowledge, of reality as it is, as opposed to how it might appear to be or how one might wish it to be?

What is the only system of thought that has been developed that is effective in distinguishing fact from fallacy, truth from myth, and reality from delusion?

Science.
All the truths we know, as opposed to beliefs which some choose blindly to adopt (as if the strength of their convictions could affect facts) have been revealed by the rational processes of applied scientific method.
Science alone yields a basis for the formulation of beliefs whose validity can be proved because they predict results that can be tested.

And yet,
for thousands of years,
the races of earth have clung persistently to their cults, their superstitions, their irrational dogmas and their impotent idols.
They refused to accept what their eyes alone should have told them:
That the magical and mystical forces in which they trusted and which they aspired to command......WERE FICTIONS, barren in their yield of results, powerless in prediction and devoid of any useful application.
In a word, they were worthless, which of course, made any consequences harmless.
And this, from a particular viewpoint, constituted a remarkably convenient situation.
Too convenient to be merely a coincidence
But we know that it was not merely a coincidence.
Far from it.
We remember.
Those of you reading can also remember.
Then you too will also know.



Anamnesis.

 

[Dogbrain]

What is knowledge?
True knowledge, of reality as it is, as opposed to how it might appear to be or how one might wish it to be?

What do you know that has nothing at all to do with appearances? What do you know that does not require you to use a symbol of some form to even know you know it?

What is the only system of thought that has been developed that is effective in distinguishing fact from fallacy, truth from myth, and reality from delusion?

Science.

So, in what field of science do you work, or are you just another cultist who blindly follows a made-up image of science?

 

[shawn]

I would respond, but all you do is speak in a rude and offensive manner.
So I will not respond to you.

 

[Dogbrain]

I would respond, but all you do is speak in a rude and offensive manner.
So I will not respond to you.

In other words, you are without any true working scientific background, so you're going to hide behind that.

I've yet to collaborate with a real scientist who has such an arrogant and self-serving attitude to our work as you have. We don't worship ***SCIENCE***. We use science as a tool.

 

[bob x]

I've yet to collaborate with a real scientist who has such an arrogant and self-serving attitude

You need to look in a mirror before you start talking about anyone else's "arrogance".

 

[citizenzen]

I would respond, but all you do is speak in a rude and offensive manner.

He is rather rude.

Makes you wonder what he expects to contribute in a forum dedicated religious practice.

Maybe he's hoping some wisdom and benevolence will accidentally rub off on him.

 

[c0de]

I would respond, but all you do is speak in a rude and offensive manner.
So I will not respond to you.

Well then, allow me to rephrase the issue politely.

Science.
All the truths we know, as opposed to beliefs which some choose blindly to adopt (as if the strength of their convictions could affect facts) have been revealed by the rational processes of applied scientific method.
Science alone yields a basis for the formulation of beliefs whose validity can be proved because they predict results that can be tested.

First of all, do you realize the scientific method was crystallized by religious minded Muslims?

Secondly, please (notice politeness) state how the knowledge you gain through the scientific method can be considered an absolute picture of reality, when all science does is apply inexplicable symbolism to unexplained phenomenon, simply for purposes of functionalism?

 

[Paladin]

Reality is far more fantastic than anything that unaided human imagination could ever devise.
For example: the mind could not visualize a new color, such as infrared or ultraviolet.
It can only manipulate combinations of elements that it has already experienced.
Everything that is truly new can only come from the Universe(or multiverse) outside.
And uncovering the truth that is out there is of course, the function of science.

What is knowledge?
True knowledge, of reality as it is, as opposed to how it might appear to be or how one might wish it to be?

What is the only system of thought that has been developed that is effective in distinguishing fact from fallacy, truth from myth, and reality from delusion?

Science.
All the truths we know, as opposed to beliefs which some choose blindly to adopt (as if the strength of their convictions could affect facts) have been revealed by the rational processes of applied scientific method.
Science alone yields a basis for the formulation of beliefs whose validity can be proved because they predict results that can be tested.

And yet,
for thousands of years,
the races of earth have clung persistently to their cults, their superstitions, their irrational dogmas and their impotent idols.
They refused to accept what their eyes alone should have told them:
That the magical and mystical forces in which they trusted and which they aspired to command......WERE FICTIONS, barren in their yield of results, powerless in prediction and devoid of any useful application.
In a word, they were worthless, which of course, made any consequences harmless.
And this, from a particular viewpoint, constituted a remarkably convenient situation.
Too convenient to be merely a coincidence
But we know that it was not merely a coincidence.
Far from it.
We remember.
Those of you reading can also remember.
Then you too will also know.



Anamnesis.

Anamnesis, I like that. Remebering, awakening, coming back to one's senses.

I wonder what a scientific study of religion would produce?
A study like that would have to take in quite a bit of data before any conclusions could be drawn. Everything from the magical thinking of children to the experiences of the worlds mystics.

Of course this would all be raw data and be open to interpretation but I would hazard a guess that we could explore religion not only as a sociological phenomena but by delving into the mythos, ethos, pathos and logos find something quite remarkable.

All for the betterment of science of course.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

OK, but here's the thing: Language essentially arises from the naming of accidental gods. Science arose from the superstitious flogging about of early humans as they tried to understand and name things and processes beyond their ability to comprehend. Science and philosophy could not have developed without intermediate metaphysical modeling. So let's not kid ourselves that science is self born as a rational persuit.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

OK, but here's the thing: Language essentially arises from the naming of accidental gods. Science arose from the superstitious flogging about of early humans as they tried to understand and name things and processes beyond their ability to comprehend. Science and philosophy could not have developed without intermediate metaphysical modeling. So let's not kid ourselves that science is self born as a rational persuit.

Chris

Yep.

Science at its core stems from the same foundations as religion.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Yep.

Science at its core stems from the same foundations as religion.

Yes, and culture, even secular culture, still functions as an essentially religious endeavor in the way it creates and uses mythos. Science may observe, categorize, and enumerate these functions, but it is not itself the impetus or sustenance of such.

Chris

 

[shawn]

Well then, allow me to rephrase the issue politely.

First of all, do you realize the scientific method was crystallized by religious minded Muslims?

Secondly, please (notice politeness) state how the knowledge you gain through the scientific method can be considered an absolute picture of reality, when all science does is apply inexplicable symbolism to unexplained phenomenon, simply for purposes of functionalism?

With science we can build things that work.
With religion we can divide and destroy, we can segregate, we can discriminate, etc.
Religion is based on unprovable theories which people MUST take on faith to be accepted.
Science is based on provable, reproducible facts.
There is theoretical science which is the unproven side where we form our hypothesis, which with experimentation and effort, notions on that side can be moved into the realm of factual data which gives us "substance" to work with.
All religion has is subjective ideas which must be taken on faith and some religions get very violent in their demands on the adherents, physically, psychologically, socially.

In our present time, however, we also see that some people like to glorify "science" beyond what is rational.
That is not science, that is just another type of cult.
Our world is full of that type of crap.

The point I am making here (one of them), is that we need to become less superstitious if we are to build a better world/society/civilization.
Science provides a workable model which will aid that effort.
(in spite of the faults which it also has).

 

[c0de]

Religion is based on unprovable theories...

No, it isn't, because that is an oxymoron. Anything which is unprovable is not a "theory"

Science is based on provable, reproducible facts.

Let's examine one such "fact" shall we? >> Shawn in held down in his chair due to gravity.

Now, science can tell us that something known as "gravity" exerts x amount of "force" on x amount of "mass". But this means absolutely nothing in terms of understanding the nature of reality. Because it can not tell us what "force" and "mass" (and "gravity") actually are. In fact, we don't even know what "x" actually is (or is it, at all?)

So in the words of Hume, (someone who was a fierce opponent of the type of "knowledge" you think exists) just because the sun arose in the East today, does not "prove" it will again tomorrow. Because every observable/measurable phenomenon (or "fact") is no different, essentially, from magic.

 

[bananabrain]

With science we can build things that work.

religions have been used to buld things that work, called "societies", some of which even functioned quite well. they have also been used to build innumerable cultural artifacts, books, art, music, legal systems etc. all of these "things" "worked". your terms are not terribly clear.

With religion we can divide and destroy, we can segregate, we can discriminate, etc.

well, yes, we can also write love poetry and defend the humanity of people who might not have a strictly utilitarian value. this is all a bit "glass half empty", don't you think?

Religion is based on unprovable theories which people MUST take on faith to be accepted.

all systems of thought have an axiomatic basis. an axiom is, by definition, irreducibly faith-based. one of your axioms, for example, would presumably be that anything whose material existence cannot be tested under laboratory conditions must a priori be excluded from consideration. it's the "must" that makes it an axiom.

What is the only system of thought that has been developed that is effective in distinguishing fact from fallacy, truth from myth, and reality from delusion? Science.

what about philosophy? i think you'd get a pretty sharp answer from philosophers.

All religion has is subjective ideas which must be taken on faith and some religions get very violent in their demands on the adherents, physically, psychologically, socially.

any system of thought is subjective if it depends on axioms. so is yours. and you don't need to tell me that religion can, y'know, do bad stuff. we know about that. part of the reason we know the difference between "good" and "bad" is because of religion. then again "good" and "bad" are also "subjective ideas which must be taken on faith", philosophically speaking.

you do seem terribly angry about this.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[shawn]

No, it isn't, because that is an oxymoron. Anything which is unprovable is not a "theory"

Let's examine one such "fact" shall we? >> Shawn in held down in his chair due to gravity.

Now, science can tell us that something known as "gravity" exerts x amount of "force" on x amount of "mass". But this means absolutely nothing in terms of understanding the nature of reality. Because it can not tell us what "force" and "mass" (and "gravity") actually are. In fact, we don't even know what "x" actually is (or is it, at all?)

So in the words of Hume, (someone who was a fierce opponent of the type of "knowledge" you think exists) just because the sun arose in the East today, does not "prove" it will again tomorrow. Because every observable/measurable phenomenon (or "fact") is no different, essentially, from magic.

Well, split hairs then, call them ideas or notions if you will.

I can prove gravity exists even if the exact mechanics are still beyond my grasp to explain and it seems to be consistent and reproducible the world over.
The same goes for light which is another concept which still stumps the physicists, but the same applies. It has constants and is reproducible.

Where is the alleged angel who delivered said scripture to Mr M.?
They are not constant, nor reproducible, nor are any of the tenets which said scriptures go on about.
Ahh, but the pundits and the apologists say...it is a test of our faith....the great one is testing us to see how loyal we are.
BS.

The point is that no one can prove that a particular god of any kind actually delivered said scriptures into the alleged hands stated.
There is no proof of heaven or hell, being specious conjecture designed to scare people into accepting various moral codes as fundamental tenets.
As such, we are dealing with fictional stories being used to socially manipulate gullible and ignorant people in ways that favor/benefit a small cadre of aristocrats.
This is FRAUD.
It is a criminal matter.
And so it ought to be taken seriously.

 

[shawn]

I will respond to each point within the quote in red:

religions have been used to buld things that work, called "societies", some of which even functioned quite well. they have also been used to build innumerable cultural artifacts, books, art, music, legal systems etc. all of these "things" "worked". your terms are not terribly clear.

Of course I was being brief and this affects the concision.
I can think of example of Gulags which worked "quite well" or plantations and slave camps, sheesh, even Auschwitz "worked" very well.
The ideas that one people is better than another all come from religion and so the guilt for all the racism and the holocaust rests on those and on the heads who have promoted and taught such ideology.
I am sure you could apply the same concept you expound above to exonerate even hitler or other criminals.


well, yes, we can also write love poetry and defend the humanity of people who might not have a strictly utilitarian value. this is all a bit "glass half empty", don't you think?

Science is not merely about "what is utilitarian", that is another religious/philisophical idea. And one does not need to be of any particular "religion" to produce poetry or defend people's rights. That will merely biase whatever they do or say.


all systems of thought have an axiomatic basis. an axiom is, by definition, irreducibly faith-based. one of your axioms, for example, would presumably be that anything whose material existence cannot be tested under laboratory conditions must a priori be excluded from consideration. it's the "must" that makes it an axiom.

I do not need faith to see the effects of gravity. I know therefore that there is a force which affects things which is "invisible" which I then need to develop the "eyes" to see, much like ultraviolet or infrared.


what about philosophy? i think you'd get a pretty sharp answer from philosophers.

I am certain, that is about all such people are good for, sharp answers and wrangling of words to no end.


any system of thought is subjective if it depends on axioms. so is yours. and you don't need to tell me that religion can, y'know, do bad stuff. we know about that. part of the reason we know the difference between "good" and "bad" is because of religion. then again "good" and "bad" are also "subjective ideas which must be taken on faith", philosophically speaking.

I don't need religion to convince me that life is important and people should not be harmed, this is self evident and consistent around the world regardless of what religion people do or do not have.

you do seem terribly angry about this.

Well, we are being manipulated into a global conflict which will annihilate hundreds of millions (?, more, maybe billions, maybe less) in the next short period of time, via religion. so I have every right to be angry about such foolishness and I will not be quiet.
Will you go quietly into your grave, doing nothing, saying nothing to prevent this?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[shawn]

In other words, you are without any true working scientific background, so you're going to hide behind that.

I've yet to collaborate with a real scientist who has such an arrogant and self-serving attitude to our work as you have. We don't worship ***SCIENCE***. We use science as a tool.

I will respond to this however.
I am not hiding at all.
If you wish to have an intelligent and civil discussion then you must behave and control your inner dog which has a tendency to get carried away which has made you none too popular on this board.

I am not suggesting in any way that people ought to "worship" science as you put it.
Science is a tool which can be used for our enlightenment and our collective betterment,and it can be quite effective in that purpose, if we apply it correctly.

 

[shawn]

"Doubt is not a pleasant condition but certainty is absurd" - Voltaire

So, we need to remain open minded.

Really, these matter wouldn't be any contention at all if it were not for the ignorance of humanity.
I hope we can do something about that issue.

 

[c0de]

Where is the alleged angel who delivered said scripture to Mr M.?
They are not constant, nor reproducible,

Neither is time, space, or matter.

Listen Shawn, did you wonder why others on this forum, who
have much more understanding of science then you are not
supporting your point of view? Why do you think that is?

 

[shawn]

Neither is time, space, or matter.

Listen Shawn, did you wonder why others on this forum, who
have much more understanding of science then you are not
supporting your point of view? Why do you think that is?

You are just being defensive is all.
Because you subscribe to one of these superstitious and unprovable ideologies.
And, it is too early to say.
Unless there are only a dozen or less people who come here anymore.
But this place is notorious for being slow to get anywhere in a discussion....it could take months.