• 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!

Limits Are Not a Bad Thing.

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
From time to time I read/hear that the flaw with science is that it has limits. Well, I am going to suggest that this is not a weakness; instead it is strength. I think it is because science recognizes limits that it is able to make the great strides that it has made. Only once we recognize our limits can we work to move beyond them.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
From time to time I read/hear that the flaw with science is that it has limits. Well, I am going to suggest that this is not a weakness; instead it is strength. I think it is because science recognizes limits that it is able to make the great strides that it has made. Only once we recognize our limits can we work to move beyond them.
I agree pretty much. I think problems come in when some science aficionados don't maintain the humility to see that there may be some truth to religion/spirituality beyond science's current limits. Science needs to at least be agnostic and open to other types of wisdom traditions that may be beyond science's current limits. By definition, science can not know what lies beyond its limits.
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
Science needs to at least be agnostic and open to other types of wisdom traditions that may be beyond science's current limits.

Well science is open to it, as it is just a rational methodology. Anyone who puts in the effort can apply it, but I think you may be talking about people rather than the scientific process.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Well science is open to it, as it is just a rational methodology. Anyone who puts in the effort can apply it, but I think you talking about people rather than the scientific process.
Correct, I think you understood me. In theory science is fine but some people in actuality take it too far (scientism for example).
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Correct, I think you understood me. In theory science is fine but some people in actuality take it too far (scientism for example).

While technically true, I find this to be a misleading argument. Scientists are far more humble than the religious. Scientists admit to what they don't know, the religious often pretend to have all the answers.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
While technically true, I find this to be a misleading argument. Scientists are far more humble than the religious. Scientists admit to what they don't know, the religious often pretend to have all the answers.
Well. I like the humble scientist types you refer to. I unfortunately have also heard many mock religious/spiritual views as irrational, superstitious, etc.. I also like the humble religious types that listen to science.
 

Kuzcotopia

If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
The flaw with 'science' is that people forget it has its limits leading to scientism.

The people who forget that 'science' has limits aren't scientists, and have little understanding regarding how it works.

Not sure what Scientism was, so I looked it up.

Scientism - Wikipedia

According to this initial wiki (which I understand is flawed and incomplete), it seems as though the claim of scientism is often inappropriately applied by the religious as a way to justify their beliefs.

What do I know. . . Not sure I understand what it is in in the first place, nor am I certain that the belief as presents even exists in any real form.
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
I don't think it is wrong to use science as the dominating structural foundation of your worldview, but you won't want to ask a scientist how to write a poem. Instead you'd want to ask poets about how to properly write poetry (which they will all sit around and tell you there is no proper way, while at the same time telling you that you are doing it wrong).
 
The people who forget that 'science' has limits aren't scientists, and have little understanding regarding how it works.

You could make that argument in a 'no true Scotsman' way and I'd agree. Unfortunately some advocates are indeed scientists, although it is true that many others have little understanding of the sciences.

According to this initial wiki (which I understand is flawed and incomplete), it seems as though the claim of scientism is often inappropriately applied by the religious as a way to justify their beliefs.

Is there a word that isn't misused by some people at some point?

'Racism' is thrown about too easily but that doesn't mean it is never applicable.

What do I know. . . Not sure I understand what it is in in the first place, nor am I certain that the belief as presents even exists in any real form.

The idea that scientism doesn't exist is often applied by advocates of scientism as a way to justify their beliefs.

It is simply an overestimation of the scope and accuracy of the sciences (and their role in social and technological advancement). This leads to an underestimation of the importance of other forms of knowledge ('science' always trumps 'not science', and anything 'not science' isn't really to be trusted).
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
While technically true, I find this to be a misleading argument. Scientists are far more humble than the religious. Scientists admit to what they don't know, the religious often pretend to have all the answers.

People of faith acknowledge their faith as such,

perhaps this is why scientists who are skeptics of atheism, have generally been the ones to make the major breakthroughs. While atheists have been generally more reluctant to move beyond what they already declared 'fact'
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
People of faith acknowledge their faith as such,

perhaps this is why scientists who are skeptics of atheism, have generally been the ones to make the major breakthroughs. While atheists have been generally more reluctant to move beyond what they already declared 'fact'

Got any examples?
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
People of faith acknowledge their faith as such,

perhaps this is why scientists who are skeptics of atheism, have generally been the ones to make the major breakthroughs. While atheists have been generally more reluctant to move beyond what they already declared 'fact'

I think you are generalizing far to broadly.

You have made three claims: "People of faith acknowledge their faith as such", "scientists who are skeptics of atheism, have generally been the ones to make the major breakthroughs"and "atheists have been generally more reluctant to move beyond what they already declared 'fact'"

I doubt you can validate any of them, as they are far too broad of a generalization, and clearly nothing but personal opinion.
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Got any examples?

I think you are generalizing far to broadly.

You have made three claims: "People of faith acknowledge their faith as such", "scientists who are skeptics of atheism, have generally been the ones to make the major breakthroughs"and "atheists have been generally more reluctant to move beyond what they already declared 'fact'"

I doubt you can validate any of them, as they are far too broad of a generalization, and clearly nothing but personal opinion.

Georges Lemaitre for starters, scientific breakthroughs don't come much bigger than his
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I didn't ask for examples, as I don't think they prove generalizations.

It's just one stark example of science v atheism

But it is symptomatic of an unavoidable temptation inherent to atheist beleifs, to want to 'close the case' at the most simple, superficial, 'God refuting' explanation at hand for any given phenomena. There is no such resistance for the skeptic of atheism, to embrace a reality, as wondrously complex, mysterious, yet finely engineered as it has revealed itself to be.

So if we can accuse the person of faith, of having a 'bias' to look ever further for deeper explanations lying below the superficial observation, then that 'bias' is far more conducive to scientific breakthrough, as I think history has proven.
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
It's just one stark example of science v atheism

But it is symptomatic of an unavoidable temptation inherent to atheist beleifs, to want to 'close the case' at the most simple, superficial, 'God refuting' explanation at hand for any given phenomena. There is no such resistance for the skeptic of atheism, to embrace a reality, as wondrously complex, mysterious, yet finely engineered as it has revealed itself to be.

So if we can accuse the person of faith, of having a 'bias' to look ever further for deeper explanations lying below the superficial observation, then that 'bias' is far more conducive to scientific breakthrough, as I think history has proven.

"It's just one stark example of science v atheism"

You could have a hundred such examples and it still would not prove your generalizations. Surely a "non atheist", such as yourself, understands such basic concepts of mathematical science.

"But it is symptomatic of an unavoidable temptation inherent to atheist beleifs, to want to 'close the case' at the most simple, superficial, 'God refuting' explanation at hand for any given phenomena. There is no such resistance for the skeptic of atheism, to embrace a reality, as wondrously complex, mysterious, yet finely engineered as it has revealed itself to be.

So if we can accuse the person of faith, of having a 'bias' to look ever further for deeper explanations lying below the superficial observation, then that 'bias' is far more conducive to scientific breakthrough, as I think history has proven"

Trying to prove such broad generalizations in the manner that you have, is not generating a lot of confidence that you are some type of authority on the scientific community.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
"It's just one stark example of science v atheism"

You could have a hundred such examples and it still would not prove your generalizations. Surely a "non atheist", such as yourself, understands such basic concepts of mathematical science.

"But it is symptomatic of an unavoidable temptation inherent to atheist beleifs, to want to 'close the case' at the most simple, superficial, 'God refuting' explanation at hand for any given phenomena. There is no such resistance for the skeptic of atheism, to embrace a reality, as wondrously complex, mysterious, yet finely engineered as it has revealed itself to be.

So if we can accuse the person of faith, of having a 'bias' to look ever further for deeper explanations lying below the superficial observation, then that 'bias' is far more conducive to scientific breakthrough, as I think history has proven"

Trying to prove such broad generalizations in the manner that you have, is not generating a lot of confidence that you are some type of authority on the scientific community.

It's a pattern that's all, I'm sure there are exceptions!

But I'm basically agreeing with the OP, it's important to recognize our limitations in science, that our individual beliefs, are just that- beliefs not facts. They shouldn't interfere with scientific progress.

And this is the trouble with atheism in science - how does a person separate and put aside a deeply held belief, they don't even acknowledge as such?

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.
 

Jeremiahcp

Well-Known Jerk
It's a pattern that's all, I'm sure there are exceptions!

But I'm basically agreeing with the OP, it's important to recognize our limitations in science, that our individual beliefs, are just that- beliefs not facts. They shouldn't interfere with scientific progress.

And this is the trouble with atheism in science - how does a person separate and put aside a deeply held belief, they don't even acknowledge as such?

Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself.

"It's a pattern that's all, I'm sure there are exceptions!"

You have not established that there is a pattern, but you believe there is a pattern without any real proof. Then you go on to say, "Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself" and "our individual beliefs, are just that- beliefs not facts."

Smells a lot like hypocrisy to me.
 
Top