It's an interesting subject, as a lot of religious fundamentalist arguments are constructed solely around faith, whereas non religious science relies completely on the whole observation, hypothesis, experimentation and verification process.

What do you trust more, faith or science, and of course why?

Personally I trust science because I believe people put too much faith in things that can never happen. But some may say they trust the word of God over any scientist.

I trust science in explaining scientific matters. I trust faith in explaining spiritual matters.

Neither does a good job of explaining the other.

What are 'spiritual matters' supposed to be???

Ghosts 'n shit.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Ghosts 'n shit.

Thats really the best reply you could have given.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Thats really the best reply you could have given.



Can you give a better one?

quote:Originally posted by ohhi:



Can you give a better one?

I'm not claiming faith will solve spiritual problems. But then, I've never believed just hoping you're right with no attempt to discern truth solves any kind of problem.

What truth?

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

I trust science in explaining scientific matters. I trust faith in explaining spiritual matters.

Neither does a good job of explaining the other.



If you're going to claim something exists, it's your responsibility to back that claim up with evidence. There is no empirical evidence to suggest God exists, much less ghosts and spirits. Thus, scientificly, God does not exist based on the current evidence available. Of course, it is impossible to prove something does not exist due to the fact that it is impossible to travel to every single space in the universe in search of evidence. But for all practical purposes... you get the picture.

this is what religious people are afraid of:

http://tinyurl.com/htg5t

quote:Originally posted by One_Armed_Scissor:



If you're going to claim something exists, it's your responsibility to back that claim up with evidence. There is no empirical evidence to suggest God exists, much less ghosts and spirits. Thus, scientificly, God does not exist based on the current evidence available. Of course, it is impossible to prove something does not exist due to the fact that it is impossible to travel to every single space in the universe in search of evidence. But for all practical purposes... you get the picture.

Yeah. What's your point? You can believe whatever you want, I believe what I believe.

That's the whole deal with 'faith.' If you are unable to view the human experience beyond the scientific method, you'll never get that.

Faith is the non-falsifiable wall that people hide behind because their argument makes little or no logical sense. I know I pick science everytime over faith. Some people have double standards though and have this silly idea in their head that science can be taken seriously and that faith is somehow on the same level with science. They'll accept science until it infringes on what they'd like to believe ie the comforting notion of an omnipotent protective being.

I also trust science on things. Of course it'll be wrong from time to time, but that fixes itself.

Also, since I don't have a spirit or soul, I don't have any spiritual questions. I have a brain and emotions, but I'm still confused as to where the soul fits.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Yeah. What's your point? You can believe whatever you want, I believe what I believe.

That's the whole deal with 'faith.' If you are unable to view the human experience beyond the scientific method, you'll never get that.



Why do you believe it though? What's your reasoning behind it?

quote:Originally posted by ohhi:



Why do you believe it though? What's your reasoning behind it?

I believe that we survive death and that we're more than biological machines. I DO believe in the existence of these biological machines, and everything else that goes along with, including the evolution of these vehicles to better suit our environment.

I see the body as the mechanism by which the soul interacts with the physical plane, via the brain, which controls the other aspects of our physical body. My reasoning is all of the incredible anecdotal evidence that we DO survive death, including the phenomena of astral projection and Out-Of-Body Experiences. There is no scientific evidence of most these phenomena yet, but I think that as science becomes more advanced, there will be.

However, I think it will be beyond "this part of the brain has activity when experiencing this phenomena, therefore the part of the brain is responsible for creating that phenomena." That doesn't hold a lot of water for me. I refer you to classic example of eating an apple pie. When you eat it, areas of your brain respond and have electrical activity. You brain is fed information from your tongue about what it tastes like, for example, and your brain is active. If you were to look at an PET or MRI of your brain at that moment, you'd see the activity. But does that mean that all that apple pie is comprised of are electrical signals in your brain? No, it's just the process your brain undergoes in experiencing it.

Above all, I don't think science and spirituality need to clash. Science explains the physical world. Spirituality attempts to explain the world above it(a world that science can't or hasn't yet proven, but the anecdotal evidence for which is so enormous that it should at least be taken into consideration as a possibility.)

If you'd like me to extrapolate, I'll do my best.



[This message has been edited by The_Rabbi (edited 03-03-2006).]

I don't think you have answered my 1st question though. Why exactly do you believe that. What do you get out of it?

quote:Originally posted by ohhi:

I don't think you have answered my 1st question though. Why exactly do you believe that. What do you get out of it?

I believe it because it's what I've come up with after seeing all I've seen. I don't get anything out of it, it's just what I know to be reasonably true. I make my own moral code, if that's what you mean. I suppose I get some inner peace in knowing that there's something bigger, but the borderline personality disorder kinda offsets that.

Why do I believe that? Because it makes more sense to me than athiesm.

yeah rabbi, recently i have been thinking about it, and i do think there IS more to "this" than everyone knows about right now. mostly due to some very revealing acid trips. during one of these i had an out of body experience.

i'm starting to think that our consciousness is more than just a neural-net system, just a bunch of organic wires, because the very nature of the signals passed betwean the neurones is in the form of electromagnetism, i think the mind works on a very subtle quantum level also. it simply needs to to perform all the functions it performs.

but that is still no reason to subscribe to these dogmatic "faiths" which i think simply dull and restrict "spiritual" growth.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

I believe that we survive death and that we're more than biological machines. I DO believe in the existence of these biological machines, and everything else that goes along with, including the evolution of these vehicles to better suit our environment.

I see the body as the mechanism by which the soul interacts with the physical plane, via the brain, which controls the other aspects of our physical body. My reasoning is all of the incredible anecdotal evidence that we DO survive death, including the phenomena of astral projection and Out-Of-Body Experiences. There is no scientific evidence of most these phenomena yet, but I think that as science becomes more advanced, there will be.

However, I think it will be beyond "this part of the brain has activity when experiencing this phenomena, therefore the part of the brain is responsible for creating that phenomena." That doesn't hold a lot of water for me. I refer you to classic example of eating an apple pie. When you eat it, areas of your brain respond and have electrical activity. You brain is fed information from your tongue about what it tastes like, for example, and your brain is active. If you were to look at an PET or MRI of your brain at that moment, you'd see the activity. But does that mean that all that apple pie is comprised of are electrical signals in your brain? No, it's just the process your brain undergoes in experiencing it.

Above all, I don't think science and spirituality need to clash. Science explains the physical world. Spirituality attempts to explain the world above it(a world that science can't or hasn't yet proven, but the anecdotal evidence for which is so enormous that it should at least be taken into consideration as a possibility.)

If you'd like me to extrapolate, I'll do my best.



This world "above" as you say, has an influence on the physical world, otherwise we would not be aware of it. How is it possible for something NOT physical to influence something physical? If activity in the brain IS detected, it must have a material cause.

I think that as science advances and we find out more about how the brain works, it will turn out that this world "above", this "spiritual realm" is not separated by the physical world and that everything in it has a natural cause.

Try to find Daniel Dennett's "Consciousness Explained", a great book, both scientific and philosophical, will make you think these things in great depth.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

I believe it because it's what I've come up with after seeing all I've seen. I don't get anything out of it, it's just what I know to be reasonably true. I make my own moral code, if that's what you mean. I suppose I get some inner peace in knowing that there's something bigger, but the borderline personality disorder kinda offsets that.

Why do I believe that? Because it makes more sense to me than athiesm.

But do you reject any scientific explanation for spiritual experience or only the ones proposed so far?

i Think life is nothing but a dream

as soones we die we wake up from it, not how we would on this planet. our form will problay not resamble anything human, but everything will be clear and perfect.

quote:Originally posted by burymeag:

i Think life is nothing but a dream

as soones we die we wake up from it, not how we would on this planet. our form will problay not resamble anything human, but everything will be clear and perfect.



Exactly! Clear, because nothing will exist, and perfect... well you can't define "nothing" as chaos, so then you can always call it perfect.

So therefore:

Clear + Perfect = Nothing

quote:Originally posted by Real.PUA:

But do you reject any scientific explanation for spiritual experience or only the ones proposed so far?

Only the "this part of brain lights up, so it's created in this part of the brain" explanation.

quote:Originally posted by The_Rabbi:

Only the "this part of brain lights up, so it's created in this part of the brain" explanation.

There isn't a mature Science of the Mind... YET. But it is on the way, advances in cognitive/neuroscience are being made everyday. There is no reason to suppose that science is unable to explain spiritual experience (yet that is a common belief held among people of faith).

[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 03-07-2006).]

Faith seems to be presented by most as having no concrete basis. Thats fine with me.

Science is more interesting. It always claims to be the answers, to be reality.

I have a question: Does science have a purpose, and if so, what is it?

I have a better question: Does religion have a purpose, and if so, what is it?

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:



I have a question: Does science have a purpose, and if so, what is it?

Acquiring knowledge.

Merely observing, which is acquiring knowledge, is not science.

As far as I know, science is a method that tests whether a specific explanation fits a specific observation. This does not mean it is the only method. It does not mean that the explanation is the only possible explanation. It does not account for where the explanations come from.

Now, I have trouble coherently connecting that explanation of what it is to your explanation of its purpose, Rust. Could you tell me your definition of science to make sure there is not a misunderstanding somewhere?

[This message has been edited by DarkMage35 (edited 03-08-2006).]

Uhhh science involves a lot of observation... I think the real misunderstanding you have is with your definition of knowledge not science.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:



As far as I know, science is a method that tests whether a specific explanation fits a specific observation. This does not mean it is the only method. It does not mean that the explanation is the only possible explanation. It does not account for where the explanations come from.



The explanation comes from a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is really SCIENTIFIC then it should make predictions and be falsifiable. Then, testing and experiments are done to see if the predictions are true. If they are, the hypothesis is deemed true, at least until we have observations that show differently. Even in this case, our new hypothesis has to take account of the original observations. So, usually, a new hypothesis is a more or less simple modification of the old one.

In the end, this may not be the only explanation but it certainly is the one we can call reliably closer to the truth. Saying "God did it" is not scientific, because it is not falsifiable and makes no predictions. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't but it's not a matter of science.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:

Merely observing, which is acquiring knowledge, is not science.

As far as I know, science is a method that tests whether a specific explanation fits a specific observation. This does not mean it is the only method. It does not mean that the explanation is the only possible explanation. It does not account for where the explanations come from.

1. Science involves, as Real.PUA said, a lot of observation.

2. Observation in and of itself does not usually grant one knowledge of what is happening "beneath that observation" (so to speak), or what caused it. Of course it could, but it usually does not. Moreover, observation can easilly be clouded, be it by material phenomenon, or even phsycological ones. You cannot simply trust observation, which is where testing and experimentation come in; and thus, where acquiring knowledge via means beside observation comes in.

3. Nobody ever said it was the only possible explanation. If you're trying to insert the argument we had in the other thread into this one, it's not going to work.



quote:

Now, I have trouble coherently connecting that explanation of what it is to your explanation of its purpose, Rust. Could you tell me your definition of science to make sure there is not a misunderstanding somewhere?



"Science (from Latin scientia - knowledge) refers to a system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism – aimed at finding out the truth."

-- Wikipedia.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 03-08-2006).]

Truth is the stuff that grows in my shoes.

Real.PUA:

I agree that science involves a lot of observation. That does not equate it to observation.

elfstone:

I thought the hypothesis /was/ the explanation; it just starts out untested. It can be argued that all hypotheses are falsifiable, except that not all can be done with the means that we have available to us.

Rust:

1.See Real.PUA.

2.Science does not grant one knowledge of what is happening "beneath that observation" either. It only tests explanations after they have already been thought up. Science can be clouded too, by similar problems that cloud observation.

3.I was just pointing out a few aspects that I didnt think were obvious from the other things I had written. The other argument we had may be related in an oblique way, but Im not trying to insert it; no.

I like that wikipedia definition, except for the phrase "acquiring knowledge". Perhaps "testing knowledge" would fit better? Last time I checked, knowledge != truth.

So far the answer to my question seems to be "finding out the truth". That works, but it doesnt demonstrate what I wanted to demonstrate... Ill go back to thinking for a while.

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:



elfstone:

I thought the hypothesis /was/ the explanation; it just starts out untested. It can be argued that all hypotheses are falsifiable, except that not all can be done with the means that we have available to us.



Well, then by all means, do argue this point. What means are we supposed to be lacking that could falsify "God did it"? This is just another argument from ignorance.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

[B]...What means are we supposed to be lacking...B]

Of course, in practical (realistic or pragmatic) terms, we can't falsify anything with deductive certainty other than mathematical proofs or the like (and that's all abstract- nothing concrete so that we'd be interested in it regarding gods or prayer, unlike maybe a hurricane, a cancer cure, etc.) So we can never know "for sure," and we're all free to "call it as we see it" and put our own money where we think best, regardless of what any scientists, popes, or ayatollahs say. That's fine with me, as long as their alleged gods aren't instructing them to kill people for disagreeing (as they have an annoying tendancy to do.)

quote:Originally posted by DarkMage35:



1.I agree that science involves a lot of observation. That does not equate it to observation.

2.Science does not grant one knowledge of what is happening "beneath that observation" either. It only tests explanations after they have already been thought up. Science can be clouded too, by similar problems that cloud observation.



1. Nobody said that equated it with observation.

2. Of course it does. By experimentation, one can gather information of what is the driving force behind that observation. Take lightning for example. Simply observing it does not get you insight to why lightning occurs, or what makes it possible, yet a series of experiments can.

quote:I like that wikipedia definition, except for the phrase "acquiring knowledge". Perhaps "testing knowledge" would fit better? Last time I checked, knowledge != truth.

The definition is perfectly fine. The purpose of Science is to acquire knowledge, not to mention its very etymology.

As for knowledge, that depends wholly on your definition of it.