Is Science the Best Method to Understand the World?

[Left Coast]

Depends on which world you mean.
(John 8:23, 24) 23 [Jesus] went on to say to them: “You are from the realms below; I am from the realms above. You are from this world; I am not from this world. 24 That is why I said to you: You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.”
This world, to a greater measure, yes. Otherwise, No.
The spirit world and the things associated with it are beyond science, and its instruments.

What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the spirit world?
(Ephesians 4:13, 14) 13 until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man, attaining the measure of stature that belongs to the fullness of the Christ. 14 So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.

The advantage of this accurate knowledge, is that it accomplishes what science can never do, and will never do, not in this life time, or the one to come.
(Colossians 3:5-10) 5 Deaden, therefore, your body members that are on the earth as respects sexual immorality, uncleanness, uncontrolled sexual passion, hurtful desire, and greediness, which is idolatry. 6 On account of those things the wrath of God is coming. 7 That is how you too used to conduct yourselves in your former way of life. 8 But now you must put them all away from you: wrath, anger, badness, abusive speech, and obscene talk out of your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another. Strip off the old personality with its practices, 10 and clothe yourselves with the new personality, which through accurate knowledge is being made new according to the image of the One who created it,

Hey nPeace. How do we gain accurate knowledge of the spirit world? What method would we use, if it isn't science?

 

[Left Coast]

if it doesn't cost anything you can use that method and discover things even about God, I guess.
(Still under the premise that God does not favor the rich)

How would we scientifically investigate God?

 

[Audie]

HA! Gonna try a "gotcha" :

Does introspection not provide you with knowledge of yourself? People do not use the scientific method to evaluate that. The same goes for our knowledge of others through interpersonal relationships.

What component of scirntific approach are not used to evaluate others?

 

[Audie]

How would we scientifically investigate God?

Same way you investigate Nessie or Batboy.

Start by trying to detect it.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:


Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

Note that it specifically says "knowledge of the world." So I must agree that using things like "observation, experimentation, and rational analysis" is how one should go about acquiring knowledge of the world, and science tends to mete out its dealings using those tools. Not that science is the "end all beat all" - nor does it matter what you call it. Activities in the vein of observation, experimentation and rational analysis are the best tools to get at the facts surrounding an item of interest. Much less accurate, and more volatile tools are things like emotional involvement, opinions and instinct. Those things have their place - but they are much less useful in garnering "knowledge of the world."

 

[Left Coast]

Same way you investigate Nessie or Batboy.

Start by trying to detect it.

I think the problem is that God as defined classically is undetectable.

 

[ChristineM]

nah first of all tell us that what science is offering us ? huh? simply saying science, science and science wont make it scientific, just explain the method which you ( i or anyone else ) would get understand world via science.

Interesting that you posted that post using quantum mechanics, materials science, discoveries in electromagnetism, the science of software engineering.
I am sure you realised that

 

[Audie]

I think the problem is that God as defined classically is undetectable.

What definition is that?

Definition aside the actual problem is in nonexistence,
as with Nessie.

 

[Valjean]

and what is our common understanding of world through science ? huh? or by any other means ?

It's an understanding of facts, laws, mechanisms and relationships.
As for purpose or meaning -- that's a different magisterium.

but you are discussing about science ? because you want to understand world through the medium of science, is it not ? so what view is offered by it ? or by any other thing ?

What kind of question is that?
Rocks are hard. Water is wet. Dropped things fall. Wood burns. DNA is an organism's blueprint.
How else are we to understand the world?

 

[Left Coast]

What definition is that?

Something that exists outside/beyond space and time.

 

[ChristineM]

The Humanist Manifesto says, in part:


Agree or disagree?

If you disagree, why? What non-scientific method provides us with more accurate knowledge of the world?

I agree that observation, measurement and experiment are far, far more accurate than guessing

 

[Polymath257]

Same way you investigate Nessie or Batboy.

Start by trying to detect it.

Nay, start by determining the proposed properties well enough so that you know if you do detect it and know if you do not.

 

[Polymath257]

Something that exists outside/beyond space and time.

Why does that mean it/he/she would be undetectable?

And if undetectable, even in theory, in what sense does it even exist?

 

[ChristineM]

Nay, start by determining the proposed properties well enough so that you know if you do detect it and know if you do not.

There's ya problem right there. The properties of a god are somewhat flexible

 

[Left Coast]

Why does that mean it/he/she would be undetectable?

How do we detect something outside of space and time? It seems to me that would indicate it's beyond empirical investigation, no?

 

[Polymath257]

How do we detect something outside of space and time? It seems to me that would indicate it's beyond empirical investigation, no?

I don't know. If it interacts with ordinary matter, we could detect the changes in that ordinary matter and regard them as a way to detect whatever is 'outside of space and time'. That is how we detect things like neutrinos, after all.

 

[Audie]

Something that exists outside/beyond space and time.

The old timers had god(s) who were up close and personal.
Set bushes on fire, dropped food from the sky,
etc and blah.
There are those who think these interventions
are still going on but when tested it always turns out that snakebite is deadly.
For those a little intellectualer it became necessary to define the nonexistent to
something immune to detection.
A ploy not convincing to yours truly.

 

[Samael_Khan]

What component of scirntific approach are not used to evaluate others?

Intuition, past experience without repetitive experimentation, no peer reviewing etc. There are certainly parts of the method, such as observation involved, but there is too much feeling involved as well.

 

[Audie]

I don't know. If it interacts with ordinary matter, we could detect the changes in that ordinary matter and regard them as a way to detect whatever is 'outside of space and time'. That is how we detect things like neutrinos, after all.

Thats just it. The interactions seem to have stopped before anyone would be able to
detect them with anything but tall tales.
No VIDEOS ALLOWED at Red Sea parting!

 

[Audie]

Intuition, past experience without repetitive experimentation, no peer reviewing etc. There are certainly parts of the method, such as observation involved, but there is too much feeling involved as well.

Ok but the things actually used are part of scientific method.