• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science, religion and the truth

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Generally agreed. In science there are lots of assumptions on the very belief levels which just is called "hypothesis" - and in religion lots of historical belief systems have occurred throughout time. IMO mostly because of the loss of understanding the human symbolic language in the myths.

Yeah, but I am a skeptic. I don't know what reality really is and I don't need to know it, because I still have a life.

Look at this:
Philosophy, (from Greek, by way of Latin, philosophia, “love of wisdom”) the rational, abstract, and methodical consideration of reality as a whole or of fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience. ...
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

I don't consider reality as a whole or what the universe is. I start from what it is to be a human and how that relates to the rest and what matters in the end. What matters, is as far as I can tell, always what matters to humans.

Regards
Mikkel
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I'll listen to the video when you provide me with the meaning of the words he uses.

If you know the answers to my questions, please tell me.

If you don't know the answers, just say so.
It´s fine by me if you don´t bother to watch the linked video as I asked.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I don't consider reality as a whole or what the universe is. I start from what it is to be a human and how that relates to the rest and what matters in the end. What matters, is as far as I can tell, always what matters to humans.
OK then we are on the same level really. Even though I´m speaking much of "Stories of Creation", I´m not dealing with "a creation of the entire Universe and all that jazz" because our ancestors "just" spoke of a creation of the local Milky Way and some few general principles of formations in the (eternal) cycle of life, and that´s it. And that´s really all what really matters to us humans.

That´s also why my profile signature express the very same.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Now the bold we agree on.
As for this part: "Some, like myself, see religions interfering in such, and no doubt coming from initial speculation as to our creation." - I disagree, that is not unique to religions. It also happens in other world view and even with how some humans claim science. Not science as a practice, but science as incorporated as a world view.
So let us talk about the singularity in regards to the Big Bang. In practice it is a form of mysticism, because it is apparently unknowable, because "I know something" is not a singularity, so I can't know a singularity, because knowing a singularity is as it appears in effect a contradiction.
I know it isn't unique to religions - that is what humans tend to do - searching for meaning all the time. But for most people this is irrelevant. Only those more deeply interested in such things, like those being perhaps more keen to establish credentials for their religion, or scientists, will be bothered with such. It hardly affects us in general life. What I am pointing out is where such speculations leads - and often not into a better position than just accepting we just don't know.
So here it is in the words of a scientist:
"For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."
Author and cosmologist Paul Davies

Now strip away that is about multiverses and ask how can you even in principle explain how you observe a singularity?
Remember I am not talking about science as such. I am talking about the limits of knowledge and how that pertains to science.
So some claims in the name of science are apparently no different than religions.
That is what I am trying to get across to you. And yet you limit it to religions and as if it is only religions, which do this.

Regards
Mikkel

I have never claimed science has an appropriate answer for everything, or perhaps ever will. I have no issues with the problems that science has to confront. That is why I am slightly agnostic. My main arguments are against what happens when we try to extrapolate from speculations - if, as I believe, the main religious beliefs are not derived from some divine source but projections by humans - and results in what we have at the moment - contentiousness, and often resulting in conflicts. I'm more interested in why we are so clinging to myths that tend to harm us as much as they seem to comfort us.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Native said:
From WHICH cultural Story of Creation do you conclude this?
How many cultural Stories of Creation have you investigated?

To me this is a nonsensitive argument and I just asked you from which cultural Story of Creation you´re making your conclusions. IMO you can take any cultural story since they´re all very much the same. The question was/is IF you have studied ANY story of creation at all.

It is pretty obvious I couldn't care less what myth since they are all myths, no matter any agreement. What people believe (and numbers don't count) is irrelevant if such isn't true. We can all believe what we will but it is still not the truth if it is not the truth. It might be convenient to believe such but our agreement is no indicator of anything being true, or even useful to us.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
It is pretty obvious I couldn't care less what myth since they are all myths, no matter any agreement.
OK, this explain all what I need to read from your own keyboard :)

"Myths are just myths regardless of any astronomical or cosmological content and context".

My next question is then: How can you judge myths and religions at all when you don´t bother to care more and investigate what you´re talking about?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I know it isn't unique to religions - that is what humans tend to do - searching for meaning all the time. But for most people this is irrelevant. Only those more deeply interested in such things, like those being perhaps more keen to establish credentials for their religion, or scientists, will be bothered with such. It hardly affects us in general life. What I am pointing out is where such speculations leads - and often not into a better position than just accepting we just don't know.

I have never claimed science has an appropriate answer for everything, or perhaps ever will. I have no issues with the problems that science has to confront. That is why I am slightly agnostic. My main arguments are against what happens when we try to extrapolate from speculations - if, as I believe, the main religious beliefs are not derived from some divine source but projections by humans - and results in what we have at the moment - contentiousness, and often resulting in conflicts. I'm more interested in why we are so clinging to myths that tend to harm us as much as they seem to comfort us.

Well, I don't know, but I guess it is about being right and that we don't like unanswered questions. Then there is the social element, we "follow" the herd and that skepticism requires training. I properly left some out.

Regards
Mikkel
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The problem with skepticism is whatever you think you know about what is not provable cannot be shown to be true. And therefore, it's meaningless and irrelevant.

Yes, to you. Now as far as I can tell there is another way to going about that. What is meaningful and relevant is always a case of that it is meaningful and relevant to someone.

Here is your claim as a deduction.
Premise one: The problem with skepticism is whatever you think you know about what is not provable cannot be shown to be true.
Conclusion: Therefore it's meaningless and irrelevant.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise and is thus not valid(true).
You are missing at least one premise:
Premise 2: Only that that which is true, is meaningful and relevant to all humans.
Now comes the problem of showing that this premise is true. So how do you know it is true?

BTW What is truth?

Regards
Mikkel
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Yes. We should all be believers in the nature of human language because it is all we have to communicate. If not words then what?

Think that is what I meant? I think you need to brush up on what we might mean when we write things. it seems to be rather easy to be believers and perhaps a bit harder to be sceptical - perhaps because it is not so comfortable.
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
OK, this explain all what I need to read from your own keyboard :)

"Myths are just myths regardless of any astronomical or cosmological content and context".

My next question is then: How can you judge myths and religions at all when you don´t bother to care more and investigate what you´re talking about?

They are creation myths. You think one will be better than any other? I base my dismissal on the fact that they had very little knowledge in the past, very few tools with which to obtain such, and therefore if they did imagine anything it is extremely unlikely as to correspond with reality. Especially when they no doubt could have imagined up a lot of better things that might have improved their lives somewhat. The coincidences are irrelevant - just a product of the human mind and where we do tend to come to the same conclusions all too often. I can't see why you seem to defend any of these as if they have any value apart from being comforting stories to tell children. Many of can accept that we might never know how the universe was created but we don't need the gap filling in with some nonsense.

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

I'm sure there will be some disagreements amongst this lot.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
"Symmetry breaking is equally important in the world of particle physics. ... Physicists believe that just after the big bang, all of the forces of nature were identical and all elementary particles were the same. But within an instant, symmetry was broken."

Yes, thank you.

The poster was referring to forces, not particles, which also experienced symmetry breaking.

From Wiki: "The Higgs mechanism, the spontaneous symmetry breaking of gauge symmetries, is an important component in understanding the superconductivity of metals and the origin of particle masses in the standard model of particle physics."

So science is a belief system?

The word science means many things. Within formal science (I describe informal science below), one is the method used to determine how nature works in laboratories and observatories, and another is the body of knowledge extracted by that process.

The scientific method is based in philosophical principles such as skepticism, empiricism, falsifiability and reproducibility. You can call that a belief system if you like.

When scientists discovered that the galaxies should not be gravitationally stable based on known science, and that the universe appeared to be accelerating in its expansion, it modified the narrative to account for this new evidence. Same process.

Do you realize what you´re saying and claiming here? Of course galaxies are stable in their own right and formational stage! This has NOTHING to do with any human theory in the first place! The point is HOW humans INTERPRET the galactic imageries and motions.

That wasn't my point. My point is that it is a strength of science, not a defect, that it modifies its narrative to conform to new evidence. The galaxy thing was one example.

The creation myths are mutually exclusive and contain no truth. The only creation story with any truth content is the scientific one, which even the religious recognize as authoritative when they strain to show conformity between the scientific and mythical accounts with a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy - emphasizing the small amount of overlap between the two while downplaying or ignoring the considerable differences.

The creation myths are excluded by you because you don´t understand these and the astronomical and cosmological descriptions.

What I said is that these myths are mutually exclusive. I reject them, which you might call excluding them, but that isn't what mutually exclusive means. It means that if any one is correct, all of the rest are wrong - a contradiction to your claim that they reinforce one another and collectively reveal some truth other than how human beings think and behave.

How can you judge myths and religions at all when you don´t bother to care more and investigate what you´re talking about?

Why do you assume that because people don't agree with you that it is due to failure to look at the material? You seem to rule out the possibility that one can look at some of these myths and religions and justifiably reject them all as being wrong ideas about reality simply because of the process used in generating them - faith. I reject all faith-based, insufficiently evidenced claims including those in myths and religions.

A logical test for you: What´s the similarities and differences between these two galaxies?

That's not a logical test. A logical test would require reasoning. The answer to your question would be a list of known facts.

Or maybe you're asking only about the difference in appearance between the two pictures rather than all differences. You can describe those differences yourself. I see two spiral galaxies with different configurations of their spiral arms (shape and number) and a difference in the shape of the central areas of the two, one more circular and the other more elongated.

The answer you are looking for would not be relevant to the discussion of whether myths have value or how science adapts its models to account for new, unexpected data.

Why can´t you se any truth in this even when " . . . light to heaven above and earth beneath. To the stars they gave appointed places and paths" is mentioned in the Norse Mythology?

I don't need ancients to tell me the trivial fact that stars emit light.

And what they? Some pantheon? Sorry, but I have no reason to believe that any such thing exists. So much for truth.

Is it just pure mumbo jumbo when it´s said in the Mesopotamian version that: "He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless patrol."?

That's meaningless to me. As far as we know, nobody created the moon. The moon has no purpose.

Those words regarding the motions of the moon are also inaccurate. It doesn't go back and forth. Whether we are talking about absolute motion or apparent motion, the moon only moves in one direction in its orbit.

I don't see why you find value there apart from any poetic appeal myths may hold.

The problem here is that you, per biased automatism, refuse the ancient knowledge and don´t even take factual astronomical descriptions in myths seriously because you can´t connect the correct myth to the correct astronomical or cosmological issues.

I see no problem here. I have no need to connect these myths to science or anything else except human nature.

I don't feel the same as you about ancients having hidden or lost knowledge of any value today. Maybe, but I see no examples. I'd like to tell them about antibiotics and electricity. They have no equivalent knowledge to offer us.

Also, bias is a good thing if it's rational. Every time somebody decides that one thing is better than another, that's bias. It's irrational biases that are a problem.

It is on this unconscious and disconnected level that you conclude ancient myths to be nonsense and claim modern science to be objective facts.

My judgments are quite conscious, evidence-based, and are connected to reality through empiricism - what we can reproducibly experience - and pragmatism - what works to help us accomplish our goals.

I conclude that ancient myths are stories with no value to science, just the humanities, and that the only useful knowledge about the world comes from empiricism, which includes not just formal science (laboratories and observatories), but informal also the science we all do every day collecting data from the senses, applying reason to this input (interpreting its possible meanings), hypothesis formation and testing, revision of hypotheses where needed, etc.. That s what scientists are doing as well. This is how we learn most of the important knowledge we hold such as how to get home, not from science books.

But it's all empirical, and no idea not rooted in empiricism can be called knowledge

If only you had the courtesy to ask before you refuse what you don´t understand, that would in itself be a huge step forward

But I do understand. I question whether you do. I think you give too much importance to these stories.

Actually, I have quite a bit of education and exposure to the liberal arts both in school and thereafter, as with those two cosmology books I referred to that I also read in the eighties when in a self-teaching mode. I've been through all of this decades ago. I purchased and enjoyed the entire Joseph Campbell series, The Power of Myth also in the eighties.

I didn't find much value in myth in my life at that time either, and your views haven't changed that any, either. I don't know what this subject does for you, or why you are so enthusiastic about it, but it does little for me.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It´s fine by me if you don´t bother to watch the linked video as I asked.
So in order that I might understand your position, you want me to watch a video you don't understand.

That doesn't sound like a good idea, does it.

My discussions are with you, not with your videos. If the video has something you want to communicate, tell me what it is.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
Okay, something simple. The grammatical status of the words "the truth". Those words means that there is one version of the truth. So there can't be different versions of the truth. That is simple to test: 2 examples are given now.

Someone: The truth of how the world is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and think differently about the truth than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the truth as only one truth for the world.

Someone: The one true God is...
Me: Stop, you don't have to continue, because I can just do that differently and believe differently about God than you. I.e. as long as humans can't in practice eliminate subjectivity, I just have to do something different than you and out the window goes the one true God.

Yeah, it is that simple. In practice both science and religion are limited as it comes to the truth. I know, how to test for it, because I accept for the subjective subjective results as valid evidence. For the objective I accept objective evidence as valid, but I try not to confuse the 2.
That is how I learned to do it and I accept that you can do subjectivity and objectivity differently, but I will still just check if what you do appears to be subjective regardless of you claim science or religion, how ever you do it.

Regards
Mikkel

Science does not look for truth. Science strives to discover to the best of man's ability to discover what is factual with regard to the natural world. Even then, facts are subject to modification or replacement.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Science does not look for truth. Science strives to discover to the best of man's ability to discover what is factual with regard to the natural world. Even then, facts are subject to modification or replacement.

I am tired of this. Some people use truth and science together, others don't. Some people claim science can prove metaphysical naturalism. Others claim it can't.
I know science is not like religion, but some people apparently use science without understanding what it can do. A bit like an authoritative word to win a debate: I draw the card science and I win. And no, I don't mean how some religious don't get it or pure pseudo science. I mean that science is used as an integrated part of world view without noticing what science can do as much what it can't do and in some case without a clue about the demarcation problem: What science can't do.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

So here is how I view it. Science is now so old and established as a human behavior, that some times some people learn about it, is a form of cultural hand-down of a kind of folk beliefs. Now again, I don't mean science as actual science. I mean science as a folk belief or sometimes as a result of a form of Dunning-Kruger.

So let us look at this one: "Even then, facts are subject to modification or replacement." I know and the model and the landscape. Science is not about certainty, it is about the ability to predict an outcome.
I get all these sayings about science, yet science is about constants in nature and the scientific laws of nature. What I am getting at is that science is despite all these sayings to some people an absolute certainty in some sense and how reality really is and what really matters.
So here is an example: Science is the only form of knowledge(that is not science, that is a form of philosophy) and it is not rational to believe in religion(again, that is not science, that is psychology, philosophy and what not).

So yes, science is to you not about truth and to others it is all about truth.

Regards
Mikkel
 

Mock Turtle

Oh my, did I say that!
Premium Member
Think that is what I meant? I think you need to brush up on what we might mean when we write things. it seems to be rather easy to be believers and perhaps a bit harder to be sceptical - perhaps because it is not so comfortable.

I seem to have caught the b-catty virus. :oops:
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
OK, this explain all what I need to read from your own keyboard :)
"Myths are just myths regardless of any astronomical or cosmological content and context".
My next question is then: How can you judge myths and religions at all when you don´t bother to care more and investigate what you´re talking about?
You think one will be better than any other?
Some creation myths are more or less astronomical and cosmological elaborated, but of course they all deal with the same issues of creation.
I base my dismissal on the fact that they had very little knowledge in the past, very few tools with which to obtain such . . .
How can you tell if you haven´t studied comparative myths of creation? And how many tools do you need in order to observe the day- and nighttime scenario and motions of the Earth and the Sky above? You just need a stick in the ground and some marker points in a circumference of this stick. Then you can mark all what´s needed to know for humans in order to follow the creation and survive.

Oh yes, and then you of course generally need to connect your mind with nature on and above the Earth in order to communicate intuitively with everything.
The coincidences are irrelevant - just a product of the human mind and where we do tend to come to the same conclusions all too often.
Of course they all got their same mytho-astronomical convictions by observing the same motion of the Earth; the Sun; the Moon, the 5 visible planets and everything else in the Sky. If this global and collective scenario is a coincidence to you, you certainly need to spend some time in nature and get updated on nature and its myths.
I can't see why you seem to defend any of these as if they have any value apart from being comforting stories to tell children. Many of can accept that we might never know how the universe was created but we don't need the gap filling in with some nonsense.
No obviously, you can´t see - You even can´t see the most obvious causes to ancient common stories of creation even when it is written black on white and explained to you in plain sentences.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
...

Oh yes, and then you of course generally need to connect your mind with nature on and above the Earth in order to communicate intuitively with everything.

...

Yeah, that is it. It varies to some extent, but the idea that e.g. fact matters, is not a fact as facts go, because you can only understand that it is a fact, that fact matters, in your mind. In a weird way that facts matter, is itself a myth in modern western mythology of with reason, logic, evidence and all the objective "magic". That facts matter, is subjective and in the mind and no where else. It is not out there in the universe.

That is what some of the "non-religious" people don't get. That facts matter, is a cultural myth and not a scientific fact.

Regards
Mikkel
 
Top