• 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!

If Science Can't Answer it...

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Hmm, strange. My copy of Wikipedia says...
"Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality"

I can't see any problem with the statement "Science and the scientific method is the best way to render truth about the world and reality".
Obviously there are areas that science doesn't necessarily cover like aesthetics, emotion, morality, etc - however, science is beginning to explain the how and even the why behind such things.
I don't think there are actually any rational thinkers who insist that only science can ever be used as a means of arriving at any conclusion about anything.

Perhaps "scientism" is just a pejorative term for people who prefer evidence-based explanations over ones that require the supernatural?
Then what I suggest is that you comfortably accept 'Scientism' as a belief system and not as a pejorative,

As for me I give much respect to other traditions also in the so-called 'spiritual fields' so I would not adopt the term 'Scientism' for my beliefs.
 

Yazata

Active Member
Following on this, Dawkins wondered whether there were any deep, important questions that science was incapable of answering. He supposed that there might be, citing as an example the question of what determined the fundamental constants of physics.

Science and the practice of science depend on multiple assumptions. The assumption that there are fundamental regularities and principles that govern what reality is and how it unfolds. The assumption that these fundamental principles are knowable by human beings and are discoverable through what is given us by our human senses and by use of things like mathematics and logic (whatever they are).

But as Dawkins kind of suggests that he grudgingly acknowledges, science seems to be incapable of pulling itself up into the sky by its own bootstraps, providing us with all the explanations of where the fundamental principles of reality come from, from the laws of nature to the principles of mathematics and logic.

But, he claimed, such gaps in scientific explanation should provide no comfort to theologians who wished to claim a distinctive sphere of competence for religion. For if any area of study were to deliver answers to these questions – questions Dawkins labeled "the deep questions of existence" – it would be science, not religion.

Well, if the deepest secrets of reality are still unknown to humans, then that would seem to point us towards agnosticism, not towards theological doctrines per-se. So I agree with Dawkins about that.

But there's natural theology. The natural theologians from Aristotle onwards have traditionally defined 'God' as first-cause, source of cosmic order, ultimate ground of being and ideas like that. Whatever the unknown answers are to those fundamental metaphysical questions.

I expect that Dawkins and I would agree that it's probably inappropriate to personify the answers as if the answers were a giant man in the sky. Again, the best way to approach these issues seems to be through agnosticism.

But that being said, it does justify belief in a deep and fundamental transcendant dimension to the reality that surrounds us and the reality that is us. It's all mysterious at its core. That idea certainly speaks to a certain kind of religious intuition in a way that the doctrines of textbook science where everything finds an explanation seemingly can't. One is reminded of the neoplatonists, the Christian mystical traditions and to concepts like the Hindu Brahman.

Or do you think religion holds some meaningful answers for humanity?

It seems to me that religion isn't really about satisfying curiosity about ultimate things. It's about somehow tuning one's self to what is deepest and most real. That might be conceptualzed as living in accordance with God's will, as realizing Brahman or one's Buddha-nature. Perhaps even science could be described as a religious path for somebody like Dawkins.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Well, let's consider and compare the two claims.
You claim you have seen a ghost. There is no hard evidence for ghosts. Every attempt to detect, record or otherwise test ghosts has failed. There is hard evidence that the consciousness is a product of the physical brain. There is hard evidence that the brain can produce false experiences that seem completely real to the subject. So "all things considered", ghosts don't seem at all likely.
I claim to have slept with your mother. We have hard evidence that we both exist and we also know that people sleep with people, including other people's mothers. So "all things considered", regardless of how unlikely it seems, it is a more reasonable claim than your ghost actually existing outside your imagination.
And I judge the evidence for the paranormal to be overwhelming to the point I would say 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So when I hear a claim I consider it from that perspective.

Your choice of what is proved versus 'not shown' sounds like just your preferences stated as facts. Such as: There is hard evidence that the consciousness is a product of the physical brain. I'll form my own opinions, thank you.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
How do you know such a thing even exists? How do you now you aren't just imagining it?
Well, I consider ESP scientifically proven by controlled laboratory testing. (details already presented earlier in this thread)
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So if you consider the testimony of people who have never seen ghosts, don't believe in ghosts, have tried to contact ghosts and failed, and who have conducted experiments that have failed to show any sign of ghosts, along with all the evidence for hallucinations, delusions, consciousness being a product of the physical brain, etc as dispassionately as claims to have seen ghosts - how do you arrive at "ghosts are real" as the most reasonable explanation?
It's an all things considered judgment that considers quantity, quality and consistency and including things like multiple witnesses, physical effects, camera/video evidence, etcetera.

That's why. If you think this can all be best explained within known science then, we'll have to disagree on the interpretation of the evidence.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
"Scientism" as usually defined by apologists for the supernatural doesn't really exist at all. It isn't an actual "philosophy". I can't imagine any rational thinker who would follow it.
I am referring to the accepted definition of 'Scientism' as presented in places like Wikipedia. It's acceptable to espouse that view, but I personally disagree with it.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Whoah!
So you are saying that you base your conclusion on information that you admit may be inaccurate or dishonest?
And you are complaining about "scientism"?
In my 'all things considered' method I consider that individuals may lie, yes. I also judge the likelihood that all similar claimants are lying given my general belief that most people are not liars. That's how human reasoning works: ALL THINGS CONSIDERED/
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I would say the lives of people who are deaf to poetry are the poorer for it, yes.
1. Any poetry?
2. Define "poetry".
3. Do you consider your life poorer for not liking things that other people like?

Though that is just my subjective opinion.
Of course it is.

It is also my subjective opinion, that people who have no sense of the spiritual in their lives are similarly the poorer for it.
So presumably you accept the opinion that those with a sense of the spiritual in their lives are poorer for it as equally justified?

And no, I would not associate the human spirit with the brain, the heart or indeed the spleen; although as mind, body and spirit are facets of one fundamental whole, they are naturally connected, as all things are.
If you don't thing a person's "human spirit" originates in the brain, where do you think it does come from?

I had no idea you tuned a piano with a socket set,
Which is why it is always a good idea to check your ideas before broadcasting them as facts. (They are called tuning wrenches. The size and shape of the socket varies with the type of instrument so tuners will have a set of them)

I guess that particular poetic flourish fell flat then.
It was a humorous analogy rather than poetry. But yes, it did.

Glad I amused you, you must need all the laughs you can get if you really are locked away in an underground facility somewhere. No wonder your online persona is so full of sound and fury.
Sound and fury? First time I've been described like that. Usually along the lines of ignorant and sarcastic.
But no need to worry, we loop old Derek and Clive recordings on the PA, so laughs a plenty down here!
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Some can be disproved, depending on what the claim is. Many claims of the supernatural have been disproved.
As a seeker of truth I applaud those efforts.
Once again you are admitting that you consider potentially inaccurate and dishonest claims to be of more value than hard evidence as long as they appear to support your existing position.
And you call this "reason"!
Already addressed in previous post:

In my 'all things considered' method I consider that individuals may lie, yes. I also judge the likelihood that all similar claimants are lying given my general belief that most people are not liars. That's how human reasoning works: ALL THINGS CONSIDERED/
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Well, you have certainly demonstrated your willingness to accept flawed and questionable sources simply because they support your existing position.
You don't seem to be grasping the difference between 'considering' and 'accepting'.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
While I would agree that our experience of time is subjective, it does not follow that time has no objective existence; even if you are a phenomenalist who believes that all properties of the material world are reducible to sense data, it’s still only our perception of the material world that is in question there, not it’s very existence.
Without an intelligence capable of abstract thought, "time" doesn't exist in the universe, but that doesn't affect the existence of universe itself.

Time and space are defining characteristics of our universe, and all objects within it, certainly at the macro level, require a time co-ordinate in order to locate them. Indeed there is a case, argued very eloquently by Carlo Rovelli in The Order of Time, that we should think of the universe as being populated not by objects, but by events; and events unfold in time, do they not?
None of that works without the intelligence to impose the concept of time on the physical universe.

So no, I don’t agree that time is a human concept - any animal that has felt his own heartbeat has had an encounter with time, after all.
Nonsense. It merely felt its heart beating. You only consider that to be related to "time" in some way because you are capable of understanding the concept of time.

It may be, however, that our probably illusory experience of time is linear, as well as cyclical. Everything in the cosmos is orbiting something, and what are orbits if not cyclical?
Orbits are physical phenomena. They only take on a temporal aspect because we created it ourselves.
Time is not a thing, it is an idea.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
So if enough people answer "what is 2+2?" with "Five", yo will accept that the answer really is five? "Cumulative weight" only applies if all the components have weight to begin with.
My 'all things considered reasoning method' would tell me all people that think '5' are wrong. None of those claims would overrule my math knowledge.
Sceptics dislike extraordinary claims based on little to no evidence. Do you blame us?
That is a good policy to follow!

Our difference though here is your claim of 'little to no evidence' versus my claim of an 'overwhelming preponderance of evidence'.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Why do you think these pan-dimensional entities can think of nothing better to do for us than make a vase fall over in an old house, or reincarnate someone with somewhat vague and ambiguous memories of their past life, or something?
They have much better things to do. A very few might still be stuck obsessing about some past events. They need to get an afterlife, lol.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Perhaps I need to clarify that by the extended definitions of physical and material that I am claiming that living non-physical entities are indeed also physical and material. So when you say 'your proposed "non-physical entities" you are not stating or understanding me correctly.
So when you say "non-physical entities", you mean "physical entities".
Makes sense.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
Then what I suggest is that you comfortably accept 'Scientism' as a belief system and not as a pejorative,
Accepting science and the scientific method as the best means by which to arrive at working explanations for observable phenomena is hardly a "belief system" because it does not require any "belief". It is a statement based on demonstrable, repeatable results.
I don't "believe" that antibiotics work or that the plane will stay in the air as long as there is sufficient forward movement, or that iron will oxidise when exposed to moist air.

As for me I give much respect to other traditions also in the so-called 'spiritual fields' so I would not adopt the term 'Scientism' for my beliefs.
Can you give any examples where this "respect for the spiritual" has produced any demonstrable, repeatable results?
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
In my 'all things considered' method I consider that individuals may lie, yes. I also judge the likelihood that all similar claimants are lying given my general belief that most people are not liars. That's how human reasoning works: ALL THINGS CONSIDERED/
But you appear to be giving everything equal consideration, even favouring anecdote over evidence as long as it appears to support your existing position.
You assume that there is a "spiritual realm" and then search for anything that might seem to confirm this, and ignore anything that refutes it. This is a common trait in most proponents of the supernatural. Massive question begging and cherry picking confirmation bias.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
You don't seem to be grasping the difference between 'considering' and 'accepting'.
So you reject any sources that may be inaccurate of dishonest.
But you also stated that you considered everything on that website to be "strong evidence" despite it being shown that some of it is inaccurate or dishonest.
 

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
My 'all things considered reasoning method' would tell me all people that think '5' are wrong. None of those claims would overrule my math knowledge.
So "cumulative weight" principle only applies if you are already convinced that the component parts are accurate, honest, etc.

Our difference though here is your claim of 'little to no evidence' versus my claim of an 'overwhelming preponderance of evidence'.
WADR I think the issue is actually your confusing "evidence of the supernatural" with "belief in the supernatural".
 
Top