1. 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!

Featured If Science Can't Answer it...

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Nakosis, Aug 2, 2022.

  1. Sheldon

    Sheldon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2021
    Messages:
    10,825
    Ratings:
    +7,128
    Religion:
    None
    I am dubious, especially since all you have offered is a bare claim.

    Well there you go, an appeal to mystery straight away. That's assuming this unevidenced anecdote is accurate and true of course.

    Again I am dubious, since again all you have offered is a bare assertion.
     
  2. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    16,281
    Ratings:
    +6,322
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Apparently you're not or willingly not following. English language can cause confusion here.

    Usually the words 'physical and material' refer to observable matter.

    An expanded use of the words 'physical and material' includes also the majority of matter in the universe which is not observable.

    So the use of the words can cause confusion and seeming contradictions.

    The paranormal/spiritual does involve matter that is not directly observable so to call it material is correct in the expanded use of the word 'matter'.

    Now, what is not clear?
    I employ not faith but reason. After 'all things considered' I follow the understanding that makes best sense of things. That's reason, not faith.
     
  3. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    16,281
    Ratings:
    +6,322
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    I clearly believe these wisdom traditions are not part of what you call 'science' because they cannot be reproduced and verified through the physical senses and instruments.

    However, not being a follower of Scientism, I consider (not blindly accept) all wisdom tradition claims. I accept what seems to make best sense of this reality in regards to paranormal/spiritual subjects. It is clear to me that materialism as a philosophy must be lacking in some dramatic ways when I give consideration to all the evidence.
     
  4. George-ananda

    George-ananda Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    Messages:
    16,281
    Ratings:
    +6,322
    Religion:
    Advaita and Spiritualist and Pantheist
    Fine, then you may be one that requires scientific proof before acceptance (Scientism). (Scientific proof of things held to not be directly observable by the physical senses and instruments is probably an oxymoron anyway)

    When I review the evidence for dramatic things outside the explanatory powers of the materialism philosophy and the quality of alternative understandings out there, I find your approach to be impoverishing to the intellect.
     
  5. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    Science does a good job of answering a lot of how’s and some why’s.

    However in terms of meaning of life like questions it does little to nothing.
     
  6. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    22,074
    Ratings:
    +11,847
    Religion:
    Scientism
    Ok, so what is the meaning to life?
     
  7. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    22,074
    Ratings:
    +11,847
    Religion:
    Scientism
    Some would. But their actions would be questioned by other scientists. In science no one's bias goes unquestioned.
     
  8. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    3,945
    Ratings:
    +1,687
    Yes actually they do have one thing in common. They are all mythologies that use fictional deities to frame man-made wisdom, philosophy, knowledge, laws, traditions and customs.
    All of those things are the point. Several different fictions don't add up to something real.


    Intuition and imagination are great. Sometimes they lead to something than can then be tested and confirmed to be real. intuition and imagination also lead to incorrect things so we do not always base truths on them. For example intuition and imagination can just as easy suggest a God is not real, or souls are not real. Further evidence is needed.
     
  9. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    3,945
    Ratings:
    +1,687


    Ok, that was 1995. She found an 8% difference in what was expected. There would need to be several follow ups by different teams to see if mistakes were made at at any level, which does happen with these tests. There are some unanswered questions with funders standing to gain something and other things. You need repeat testing. Why this never took off also suggests there wasn't a lot of confidence in it. There is some info on her Wiki page, as you can see there are some suspect issues. Much more studies are needed. I think people have tried and simply not gotten the results they were looking for. As I said Lynn McTaggart wrote about all sorts of testings but then the studies were debunked on a skeptic website and shown to be not as impressive as claimed. I think we cannot get solid evidence. The military tried and stopped.

    "
    In 1995, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) appointed a panel consisting primarily of Utts and Ray Hyman to evaluate a project investigating remote viewing for espionage applications, the Stargate Project,[6] which was funded by the Central Intelligence Agency and Defense Intelligence Agency, and carried out initially by Stanford Research Institute and subsequently by SAIC.[7]

    A report by Utts[8] claimed the results were evidence of psychic functioning, however Hyman in his report argued Utts' conclusion that ESP had been proven to exist, especially precognition, was premature and the findings had not been independently replicated.[9] According to Hyman "the overwhelming amount of data generated by the viewers is vague, general, and way off target. The few apparent hits are just what we would expect if nothing other than reasonable guessing and subjective validation are operating."[10] Funding for the project was stopped after these reports were issued. Jessica Utts also co-authored papers with the parapsychologist Edwin May, who took over Stargate in 1985.[2] The psychologist David Marks noted that as Utts has published papers with May "she was not independent of the research team. Her appointment to the review panel is puzzling; an evaluation is likely to be less than partial when an evaluator is not independent of the program under investigation."[7]

    Utts is on the executive board of the International Remote Viewing Association (IRVA).[11]"



    These are the sort of dead ends I would find as well when trying to find solid results.

    Evidence isn't supporting a supernatural explanation. Men doing G-force testing reported similar to NDE experiences before they pass out -
    "The range of phenomena these men recount may amount to “NDE lite”—tunnel vision and bright lights; a feeling of awakening from sleep, including partial or complete paralysis; a sense of peaceful floating; out-of-body experiences; sensations of pleasure and even euphoria; and short but intense dreams, often involving conversations with family members, that remain vivid to them many years afterward. These intensely felt experiences, triggered by a specific physical insult, typically do not have any religious character (perhaps because participants knew ahead of time that they would be stressed until they fainted)."
    What Near-Death Experiences Reveal about the Brain
     
  10. joelr

    joelr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2014
    Messages:
    3,945
    Ratings:
    +1,687
    Yes they always blame the alternative treatment but forget to mention the surgery, medication and medical staff as possibly contributing to the healing?
     
  11. KWED

    KWED Scratching head, scratching knee

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2021
    Messages:
    7,949
    Ratings:
    +5,459
    Religion:
    None
    More question begging. By calling these claims and anecdotes "wisdom traditions" you are presuposing an unwarranted sense of validity. You then insist that materialism "must be lacking" if it does not allow for the conclusion that you have already formed.

    If an extraordinary claim cannot be repeated or verified or supported, it can be dismissed - as you did with my claim about sleeping with your mother, despite it not requiring the laws of nature to be suspended and relying only on a repetition of the kind or event that we know happens daily. Why so sceptical in that respect but so credulous when it comes to stuff that has never been demonstrated or verified? The answer? You like the idea of one claim but not the other. You want one to have happened but not the other.
     
  12. KWED

    KWED Scratching head, scratching knee

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2021
    Messages:
    7,949
    Ratings:
    +5,459
    Religion:
    None
    Why would anyone accept extraordinary claims that fly in the face of what we know without any evidence? Seriously. That is a pretty important issue that needs addressing. Why are you prepared to accept extraordinary claims that cannot be supported or verified?

    Not quite. We can demonstrate the existence of things indirectly.
    But the question is - if something is undetectable by any means, does not have any effect on anything that is detectable, and is not required for any known explanation to work, how is it any different to "nothing"?

    When you say "evidence" here, you actually mean "unverifiable claims".
    What is actually "impoverishing to the intellect" is accepting any extraordinary claims as fact simply because you want them to be true.

    This video might help (although I suspect not)...
     
  13. KWED

    KWED Scratching head, scratching knee

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2021
    Messages:
    7,949
    Ratings:
    +5,459
    Religion:
    None
    Don't think you understand how science works.
     
  14. KWED

    KWED Scratching head, scratching knee

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2021
    Messages:
    7,949
    Ratings:
    +5,459
    Religion:
    None
    That's like saying that the NHS does little to nothing in terms of unicorn health.
     
  15. KWED

    KWED Scratching head, scratching knee

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2021
    Messages:
    7,949
    Ratings:
    +5,459
    Religion:
    None
    Which is why history shows us that different religions have been a unifying influence on different civilisations and societies.
    Oh...
     
  16. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ

    Learn, grow, and become like the Creator.
     
  17. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    Far from it. the NHS is too busy conspiring with big pharma to do their actual job, but I digress.

    Science has a domain and within that domain it does a good job, but it does not do well in other areas.
     
  18. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    20,317
    Ratings:
    +2,679
    paarsurrey said:
    "
    "

    on what standard, please?

    It simply and loudly tells that
    1. it is beyond the limits of Science,
    2. the narrow limits of Scientific Method,
    3. and it tells reality is not a function of Science
    4. or the Scientists, please. Right?

    " intrinsic "
    I don't agree with one , please:
    " The natural " word"
    intrinsic (adj.)

    late 15c., "interior, inward, internal," from Old French intrinsèque "inner" (14c.), from Medieval Latin intrinsecus "interior, internal," from Latin intrinsecus (adv.) "inwardly, on the inside," from intra "within" (see intra-) + secus "along, alongside," from PIE *sekw-os- "following," suffixed form of root *sekw- (1) "to follow."

    The form in English was conformed to words in -ic by 18c. Meaning "belonging to the nature of a thing" is from 1640s. Related: Intrinsical; intrinsically.
    intrinsic | Etymology, origin and meaning of intrinsic by etymonline

    It is Science that follows nature, it is not nature that follows Science, please. Right?

    Regards
     
  19. Nakosis

    Nakosis Time Efficient Lollygagger
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    22,074
    Ratings:
    +11,847
    Religion:
    Scientism
    Sure if it is natural, not supernatural.
     
Loading...