Religion vs Science - Proof

[Willum]

Why is it that it requires tons and tons of evidence and even practical application to demonstrate a theory in science.
And theories are treated with contempt, as if our world didn't rely on gravity and electricity.

But religion has three books, no back-up and virtually everything is contested, not observed or shown to be false, yet it has such a strong following?

What can explain the idea overwhelming proof can not dismiss anecdotal or idealistic religion?

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 5 by mgb]
Educate me, then. Show me what occupations or beliefs demonstrate "higher rationale" than what scientists have. You may take issue with my terminology, but that's coming from my experience with others in the past who use spirituality as a catch-all term so they can sell snake oil. Now are you going to debate, or not?

Snake oil? Try to have more substance and less inflated rhetoric. What I'm saying is that a primitive rationale, derived from primitive matter, cannot address subjects like art, literature, spiritual matters, etc. etc. These cannot be know by the reductive rationale of science. I'm not putting scientists or science down, I'm just saying that they are misguided if they think science can address philosophical or metaphysical questions. It is like saying literature can be reduced to the primitive logic of chess. Scientism says everything can be explained by science. I don't think so.

I think your use of the term "primitive" here is what is being objected to. Is it primitive for physicists to conceive of abstract explanations and mathematical formulae to explain the motions of the atoms and the cosmos, then construct the most complex machine ever designed (LHC) to check their theories?

Science is falsifiable and adheres to a rigorous standard. Science makes no claim on the metaphysical. Philosophy is speculative. To regard science as "primitive" because it deals with real tangible things, in fact the only things whose existence we have any real certainty about, seems dismissive.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 5 by mgb]
Educate me, then. Show me what occupations or beliefs demonstrate "higher rationale" than what scientists have. You may take issue with my terminology, but that's coming from my experience with others in the past who use spirituality as a catch-all term so they can sell snake oil. Now are you going to debate, or not?

Snake oil? Try to have more substance and less inflated rhetoric. What I'm saying is that a primitive rationale, derived from primitive matter, cannot address subjects like art, literature, spiritual matters, etc. etc. These cannot be know by the reductive rationale of science. I'm not putting scientists or science down, I'm just saying that they are misguided if they think science can address philosophical or metaphysical questions. It is like saying literature can be reduced to the primitive logic of chess. Scientism says everything can be explained by science. I don't think so.

I think your use of the term "primitive" here is what is being objected to. Is it primitive for physicists to conceive of abstract explanations and mathematical formulae to explain the motions of the atoms and the cosmos, then construct the most complex machine ever designed (LHC) to check their theories?

Science is falsifiable and adheres to a rigorous standard. Science makes no claim on the metaphysical. Philosophy is speculative. To regard science as "primitive" because it deals with real tangible things, in fact the only things whose existence we have any real certainty about, seems dismissive.

Yeah. Things like this are primitive.


Or this.


But this? This is advanced...hmm...what word should we use? Can't use technology.

[mgb]

[Replying to post 3 by mgb]

You are postulating that undeveloped peoples can adhere and understand this "higher rationale."

Undeveloped? You mean people who don't understand science? They are undeveloped? Like Rembrandt? Shakespear? Lao Tzu? Confucius? Plato? Buddha? Michelangelo?

This is so contrary to everything we have observed in history and experience, I would like to see your evidence or rationale.

Leibniz, Agustine, Kahlil Gibran, Simone Weil, Plotinus, Plato, Origen of Alexandria, Keith Ward, to name but a few.

You could not be serious if you put Simone Weil's writing under the heading 'woo'. That is just slandering something you don't understand.

[mgb]

Yeah. Things like this are primitive.

Yes. But you should not see primitive as a derogatory term. These inventions of science and technology are very sophisticated, physically, but they are still primitive because matter is primitive. Yes, the LHC is very complex but relatively primitive compared to art, literature, consciousness, etc. I have been reading science since I was in my early teens and have great respect for it but it is on a different level from living consciousness which is beyond the reach of science.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by mgb]

I am referring to those people who allegedly first wrote the NT and Torah. Not:

Undeveloped? You mean people who don't understand science? They are undeveloped? Like Rembrandt? Shakespear? Lao Tzu? Confucius? Plato? Buddha? Michelangelo?

But yes, even they are undeveloped.
Not to be confused with great.

Would you trust the best surgeon that was a peer to any one?
No,you would insist on modern instruments, drugs and knowledge.

Nor should you have faith in their philosophies. The least of us today look at life from the shoulder's of giants who crawled on top of the shoulders of these giants.

But you think primitive goat-herders know some higher rationale, beyond science? Name one of their names.
You've tried to segue once, let's see what you have now.

[benchwarmer]

Yes. But you should not see primitive as a derogatory term.

Perhaps it would help the discussion if you defined what exactly you mean by primitive?

You made the assertion "Matter is primitive and the study of it is a primitive occupation". You supplied no definition or why you have come to this conclusion.

You then listed things which are you believe are "more evolved":

"life, being, consciousness, intelligence, creativity, value, morality, the personal". Again, you supplied no definitions or rationale, just an unsupported assertion.

You do realize that science can be used to study all of these right? Anything that can be observed can be studied. I can hear the objections now... but Benchwarmer, how do you apply science to morality?? Well, we can observe the decision making process of individuals and make predictions based on all available data. Depending on how sophisticated we can get with the observations and how much data we can collect, we can probably eventually be quite accurate. i.e. if we can do very detailed, real time brain scans and map out past stimulus/response data with what is happening now. I'm not saying this is all possible today, but if something is 'real' i.e. made of matter, then we should eventually be able to observe EVERY bit of it in detail and make useful predictions. Voila, science.

Just because we cannot scientifically explain or predict everything now, does not render the field 'primitive'. I would agree to a point that our scientific knowledge may indeed be primitive now compared to what we will have in 100 years, but we are way past primitive compared to those of even 100 years ago.

I can draw a few lines on a piece of paper and claim it's art. Highly evolved according to your theory. I can also automate a menial process at work on my computer (using all kinds of science) and save myself 100s of hours of effort. Primitive according to your theory. So, reality does not match your claims IMHO.

[rikuoamero]

Yeah. Things like this are primitive.

Yes. But you should not see primitive as a derogatory term. These inventions of science and technology are very sophisticated, physically, but they are still primitive because matter is primitive. Yes, the LHC is very complex but relatively primitive compared to art, literature, consciousness, etc. I have been reading science since I was in my early teens and have great respect for it but it is on a different level from living consciousness which is beyond the reach of science.

All you're doing here is comparing apples to baseball fields. They're two completely different things so one cannot be contrasted with the other.

[mgb]

But yes, even they are undeveloped.
Not to be confused with great.

Here you are doing what atheists like Dawkins do. Great is how you define great. Dawkins defines rationality as his own rationality or that of science.

Intelligence expresses itself in many different ways. Can you seriously argue that Mozart or Shakespear are less intelligent than Newton? Only the most biased argument could make such an assertion.

But you think primitive goat-herders know some higher rationale, beyond science?

I did not mention goat herders. I am saying that there are higher parts of the mind that have intuition and creative intelligence that cannot be reduced to the scientific, logical rationale. You cannot reduce literature to Boolean algebra.

You then listed things which are you believe are "more evolved":
"life, being, consciousness, intelligence, creativity, value, morality, the personal". Again, you supplied no definitions or rationale, just an unsupported assertion.

Mathematics is based on numbers. Numbers are among the most primitive notions the mind can have. Numbers, in set theory, arise out of iteration and partition.

Start with: /
Iterate: //
Reiterate: ///
and so on: //////////////////...
Partition each step: /, //, ///, ////,...

The science of pure number theory and applied mathematics arise from this primitive concept.
Matter and mathematics are BASIC. That is why they are primitive. They are the basis of science. There is nothing wrong with the primitive, but it should not pretend to be something else.

There is another part of the mind concerned with creative intelligence and intuition that transcends the basics.

Granted, the very best science is sometimes imbued with brilliant insight and intuition that cannot be reductively analysed. But scientists who argue that everything can be reduced to primitive logic are mistaken.

Well, we can observe the decision making process of individuals and make predictions based on all available data. Depending on how sophisticated we can get with the observations and how much data we can collect, we can probably eventually be quite accurate.

I don't wish to be offensive but this is scientism; the belief that everything can be explained by science. This is largely an article of faith. I have no problem with scientists having faith in their dicipline but it is not right to assert that art, morality etc. are scientific subjects when no real progress has been made by science in these areas.

[DeMotts]

Granted, the very best science is sometimes imbued with brilliant insight and intuition that cannot be reductively analysed. But scientists who argue that everything can be reduced to primitive logic are mistaken.

WHO is making this argument? Who is even saying that "everything" can be reduced to primitive logic? Strictly speaking, logic isn't even a purely scientific term. It is the study of valid inference. One can be perfectly logical without being scientific at all.

I don't wish to be offensive but this is scientism; the belief that everything can be explained by science. This is largely an article of faith. I have no problem with scientists having faith in their dicipline but it is not right to assert that art, morality etc. are scientific subjects when no real progress has been made by science in these areas.

Again, WHO is saying that art is a scientific subject??

This entire thread seems to be you constructing a strawman that absolutely nobody is advocating for, and then you self righteously tear it apart claiming that science has no jurisdiction over the arts, philosophy, metaphysics, etc. Yeah, ok, we get it - science is good for naturalistic explanations of phenomena. Art is a means of human self expression. People can be experts in both, either, or neither. What is your point??

[mgb]

Again, WHO is saying that art is a scientific subject??

"life, being, consciousness, intelligence, creativity, value, morality, the personal". Again, you supplied no definitions or rationale, just an unsupported assertion.

You do realize that science can be used to study all of these right? Anything that can be observed can be studied.

Dawkins asserts that everything human can be reduced to biology. He says that if Natural Selection does not explain these things the theory of evolution will fail.

It is also asserted by many neurologists that we are 'nothing more' than a collection of neurons and so on. Many people with a scientistic bias speak like this.

WHO is making this argument? Who is even saying that "everything" can be reduced to primitive logic? Strictly speaking, logic isn't even a purely scientific term. It is the study of valid inference. One can be perfectly logical without being scientific at all.

I was saying that these things cannot be reduced to a scientific rationale. Logic is an integral part of science and computing and computers are becoming more and more a part of scientific investigation.


Many things such as philosophy, religion, spirituality etc. are derided and characterised as 'woo' because they don't fit into the scientific world view.
The argument is that science will explain them or dismiss them as irrelevant. See also, Post 15.