Religion (proper) and science (proper) both must be devoid of superstition?

[paarsurrey]

Science is an epistemological study, which means that it takes the side of doubt against the side of knowing. It builds models and tests that those models work, and while they work it's all good, but when they no longer work, science must evolve. It must build new models.

Just like consciousness.

"Science is an epistemological study"
"it takes the side of doubt against the side of knowing"

Where does it start? Please
Can one make a premise of science without basing it on knowledgeable data? It cannot start with doubt. Does it? Please
Regards

 

[psychoslice]

The reality is that the truthful religion has no superstition in it.
Those who do such things do on their own, neither supported by religion nor science, such persons could belong to science or even Atheism or whatever.
I don't agree with one.
Regards

And that truthful religion is no doubt yours ?.

 

[Willamena]

"Science is an epistemological study"
"it takes the side of doubt against the side of knowing"

Where does it start? Please
Can one make a premise of science without basing it on knowledgeable data? It cannot start with doubt. Does it? Please
Regards

It starts with empiricism, which is why it takes the side of doubt. Empiricism is the belief that knowledge, including speculative prediction, is all based on what we derive through sensation, but that the senses filter reality so that we can hardly trust it to be truth. Hence the need to build and test models about reality.

I don't know what you mean by 'a premise not based on knowledgable data.'. Like what? Ostensibly, you can make premises that would not be worthwhile to test.

 

[paarsurrey]

It starts with empiricism, which is why it takes the side of doubt. Empiricism is the belief that knowledge, including speculative prediction, is all based on what we derive through sensation, but that the senses filter reality so that we can hardly trust it to be truth. Hence the need to build and test models about reality.

I don't know what you mean by 'a premise not based on knowledgable data.'. Like what? Ostensibly, you can make premises that would not be worthwhile to test.

I was talking about scientific method. When the they make a scientific hypothesis/premise/proposition, they need some reliable data to make a premise before they start to test it with an experiment. Don't they? Please
Regards

 

[Willamena]

I was talking about scientific method. When the they make a scientific hypothesis/premise/proposition, they need some reliable data to make a premise before they start to test it with an experiment. Don't they? Please
Regards

They need facts to compose the premise, to the extent that a useful premise will build on the results of knowledge. The word 'data' refers to the notes and scribbles that are information gathered by testing. Data, facts, information, and knowledge are related concepts, but each has its place.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

None of that is supportable by reason or observation.
I present myself as an example (one of a great many) of materialists who reject communism & its ilk as oppressive.
And I offer Hitler (winning the Godwin Prize) as a Xian socialist who disproves the utility of religious ethics in preventing horrors.
Without giving further examples, we see enduring religions which perpetuate injustices.

To offer individuals as proof against my argument is to not appreciate what it is that has been argued.
I have pointed out that over many generations, the transcendental ethic survives best.
I point out that alternatives seldom last longer than a generation, so then you offer as proof against this
a couple of examples that are less than a generation in duration?
Come on!
To use Hitler as an example of a Christian is like using Piltdown man to claim that all science is wrong.

Things are not so simple as identifying this or that religious orientation which makes humanity safe from misery.

Logically there can be no such thing as 'safe from misery'. (in an absolute sense)
Just as there can be no such thing as light without shadow.

Whats vital is that the misery is not meaningless, but comes about from not observing Universal Laws.
And that the misery is lessened, the more those laws are understood.

 

[Revoltingest]

To offer individuals as proof against my argument is to not appreciate what it is that has been argued.

No.....if a broad claim is made, then finding an exception to it disproves it.

I have pointed out that over many generations, the transcendental ethic survives best.
I point out that alternatives seldom last longer than a generation, so then you offer as proof against this
a couple of examples that are less than a generation in duration?

There is no single ethics which exists throughout history.
(Note that "ethics" is singular in this context. Tricky word.)
And some durable ones in major religions are heinous.
Finally, ethics doesn't require religion at all for humans to have it.

To use Hitler as an example of a Christian is like using Piltdown man to claim that all science is wrong.

Wrong analogy.
Hitler, a Xian who committed evil, is a cromulent counter-example to the claim that only heathens commit evil.
Science isn't inerrant. It's chock full of human foibles, so there will be error & fraud here & there.
Piltdown man is just another example of how science will always be messy, advancing in imperfect fits & starts.

Logically there can be no such thing as 'safe from misery'. (in an absolute sense)

I'll restate that as....religion doesn't offer us anything better than a secular approach.

Just as there can be no such thing as light without shadow.

That's a law of physics I hadn't run across yet.

Whats vital is that the misery is not meaningless, but comes about from not observing Universal Laws.
And that the misery is lessened, the more those laws are understood.

Consider differences between Xianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.
One person's moral "laws" are another's evil.
Do you think your religious laws are absolutely true, or better than my heathen values?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

One person's moral "laws" are another's evil.
Do you think your religious laws are better than my heathen values?

Seriously?
You arguing for relativist ethics/morals?

If you are then you are claiming a universal ethic in doing so!
Thus your claim refutes itself.

What I am saying is that laws that are better, are thereby religious.
Not sure how you use the term heathen, though.
There are ideas some consider heathen, that are not (like reincarnation).

 

[Revoltingest]

Seriously?
You arguing for relativist ethics/morals?

I'm not arguing for that.
Only that there is no universal ethics.
The various systems change with location & time.

If you are then you are claiming a universal ethic in doing so!
Thus your claim refutes itself.

I don't claim universality of ethics.
That would be as silly as claiming a universal language.
Both are just things which happen (influenced somewhat by genetics).

What I am saying is that laws that are better, are thereby religious.

Religion is simply one possible source of laws.
There just codes of conduct imposed upon people by an authority,
be it democratic (by consensus), a pope, king, cabal, or dictator.

Not sure how you use the term heathen, though.
There are ideas some consider heathen, that are not (like reincarnation).

"Heathen" is a catch all term for atheists, agnostics, pagans, & other groups often despised by major religions.
I like the sound of it.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I'm not arguing for that.
Only that there is no universal ethics.
The various systems change with location & time.

I don't claim universality of ethics.
That would be as silly as claiming a universal language.
Both are just things which happen (influenced somewhat by genetics).

Religion is simply one possible source of laws.
There just codes of conduct imposed upon people by an authority,
be it democratic (by consensus), a pope, king, cabal, or dictator.

"Heathen" is a catch all term for atheists, agnostics, pagans, & other groups often despised by major religions.
I like the sound of it.

Consider this carefully:

THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE ETHICAL LAWS

This is itself a law of ethics that is claiming to be absolute.
So it refutes itself.
So there must be some absolute ethical laws as a result of pure logic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Consider this carefully:

THERE ARE NO ABSOLUTE ETHICAL LAWS

Okey dokey.

This is itself a law of ethics that is claiming to be absolute.

It's not a "law of ethics"....just an observation that history reveals no universal ethics.

So it refutes itself.
So there must be some absolute ethical laws as a result of pure logic.

But there's the premise problem I pointed out earlier.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Okey dokey.

It's not a "law of ethics"....just an observation that history reveals no universal ethics.

Interesting reasoning you have there.
But there's the premise problem I pointed out earlier.

So gravity is just an observation that reveals a universal force.
There is no law of gravity!
Eurika!
(Are you levitating off your seat yet?)

 

[Revoltingest]

So gravity is just an observation that reveals a universal force.
There is no law of gravity!
Eurika!
(Are you levitating off your seat yet?)

The "law of gravity" is nothing more than a quantitative statement about what we observe.
And this "law" is continually changing. Even general relativity, while useful, isn't doing it's
job as well as we'd like. There are problems of scale & other things beyond me.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

The "law of gravity" is nothing more than a quantitative statement about what we observe.
And this "law" is continually changing. Even general relativity, while useful, isn't doing it's
job as well as we'd like. There are problems of scale & other things beyond me.

The law of gravity is continually changing?
Dang! And I thought I'd just put on a few pounds.
Whew. No need to cut down on ice-cream and pop-corn then.

General Relativity, on the other dang, is just sophistry with numbers.
But I'm busy working on THAT article that disproves gravitational waves entirely.
So I'll only back that statement up by perhaps the end of the month.

But a preview is this:
If the escape velocity of a black hole is the velocity of light
and gravity is curved space
and gravity travels at the velocity of light
then the black hole gives off zero gravity.

Triple-dang!

 

[Revoltingest]

The law of gravity is continually changing?

Of course!
A "law" is just our description of an aspect of the physical world.
Our ability to describe it is imperfect, so as we learn more, we update the law to match observations.
It happened when Newton's laws became a special case of general relativity.
And even the latter has shortcomings.

I don't claim that behavior of the universe is changing....just our understanding (expressed as laws).

Dang! And I thought I'd just put on a few pounds.

Well, I wasn't going to say anything.

Whew. No need to cut down on ice-cream and pop-corn then.

No, stick with fat free yogurt.

General Relativity, on the other dang, is just sophistry with numbers.
But I'm busy working on THAT article that disproves gravitational waves entirely.
So I'll only back that statement up by perhaps the end of the month.

Yes, you've said that before.
I'll skip hehashing it.

But a preview is this:
If the escape velocity of a black hole is the velocity of light
and gravity is curved space
and gravity travels at the velocity of light
then the black hole gives off zero gravity.

Triple-dang!

This is above my pay grade to dispute.
But wouldn't you be the toast of Physicstown if you'd debunked what's accepted by most physicists?
Or is there physics priesthood which conspires against you?

 

[paarsurrey]

They need facts to compose the premise, to the extent that a useful premise will build on the results of knowledge. The word 'data' refers to the notes and scribbles that are information gathered by testing. Data, facts, information, and knowledge are related concepts, but each has its place.

How the facs were thought to be facts to start with? It will be like egg and hen as to which was earlier, how the facts were established to make science without the scientific method.
Regards

 

[Willamena]

How the facs were thought to be facts to start with? It will be like egg and hen as to which was earlier, how the facts were established to make science without the scientific method.
Regards

Facts were thought to be facts because of truth. Blame truth. Egg and hen about which? Science isn't truth, it's method.

 

[paarsurrey]

Facts were thought to be facts because of truth. Blame truth. Egg and hen about which? Science isn't truth, it's method.

Facts, as is understood, if these do not relate to Revelation, have to be first verified to be true by science. Right? Please
Anybody please.
Regards

 

[Willamena]

As they both are truthful.
Religion is higher in status. It covers the whole human life while science is confined in its limits. Religion supports science as it is useful for the human beings. Please
Regards

If the religion includes a supernatural aspect of any sort, even a true one, then superstition is unavoidable.

Neither religion nor science need to divest themselves of superstition, it just so happens that science has none to divest itself of.

 

[Willamena]

Facts, as is understood, if these do not relate to Revelation, have to be first verified to be true by science. Right? Please
Anybody please.
Regards

Facts are already verified before we can call them "facts." Science uses them, but it's not science's business to verify them, just to use them.