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 The limitation of both science and religion due to biology.

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by mikkel_the_dane, Sep 24, 2020.

  1. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,402
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Now this is kind of a joke. I will use the idea of proof, evidence, truth and what not, so show that all of these ideas have a limit.

    Part 1: If you accept that some types of your behavior have limits, e.g. because gravity limits your mobility, I will show that proof or any of its variant also have a limit. If you deny that there is limit, you are in effect denying that, what you are experiencing now, is real. That is the methodology of testing I use. I don't test using objective proof. I use subjectivity and accept that it also has limit, but it still works in a limited sense.

    Part 2:
    The test involves if everything is objective, subjective or a combination and the rest of this test is not an observation as per science, but a first person experience of a negative feeling.
    So here it goes. Any experience of a contradiction, i.e. cognitive dissonance, is first person as a non-observation. You don't see that it doesn't make sense. You feel that it doesn't make sense.

    Part 3:
    The psychology of logic is as follows: Something can't make sense as being and not being in one sense and not when you think about it. Now the limit of this is that everything is not a thing. It is in effect the combination of different times, spaces and senses, but if you treat everything as the same, I can mess with your mind.

    Part 4:
    So here it goes:
    Everything is objective as per science or God whether it be physical or as with idealism. It really doesn't matter what word is used. What matters is the methodology or rather psychology/cognition used:
    In the formal sense of all cases it goes like this:
    Someone: Everything is in effect X and not Y.
    Someone else: No, everything is in effect Y and not X.
    Me: The fact that you both can disagree, is explained in the following sense. Everything is not just one factor or category of factors for which all other are wrong. And that is so, because you both use that to deny the other person's use of it, while assuming that you are not doing it.

    Part 5:
    The limit of logic is this. Something can't at a given time, space and sense be different as not being in that time, space and sense, but something else can at a different given time, space and sense. Now remove all time, space and senses except one sense and compare it to another. I am me of all time, space and senses so you can't be you, because that is a contradiction. Well, no, but that is how some people do it in effect.
    They in effect in their individual brains reduce away time and space and all the different senses but one and in a psychological sense do the following in effect.
    Everything must as a positive make sense in one sense. They all do that at a given time, space and sense, but assume it applies to everything for all time, space and only in one sense. They can of course do that subjectively and they don't understand how I can do it in another sense, because that doesn't make sense to them.
    Here it is an observation of the inner mental effect of this:
    "No one can believe that the same thing can (at the same time) be and not be." Aristotle.
    What they do, is to remove time and space and all other differences than one and treat everything as one thing and thus all other things or senses are false.

    Part 6:
    For example for everything is physical, it is in effect a meta-category of different process, because there is no one universal one physical process(sense), but if someone treat physical as one sense, you get this result:
    Someone: Everything is physical.
    Me: No!
    The result is the same of the One True God.
    Someone: Everything is from the One True God.
    Me: No!

    Part 7:
    So how is this connected to biology? Well, because of the effect of the replication of the best adapted and most fit gene. That is in effect subjective, because it takes place in different lifeforms and that includes you and me. The effect is that the causation as cause and effect takes place in the given individual and is not objective, because it happens in a subject as subjective.
    And this causation among different individuals can't be reduced down to only one universal one, which is all the same for time, space and senses as to only one sense.

    Hi you. I predict the following: If you are of those who do "everything is X", you can continue to do so and that includes that I can't really do it differently, because it is utterly objectively meaningless for all humans including me and not just you.
    I have been told that for over 20 years now by some humans, but somehow I am still here.

    It also goes for truth, rationality, justified reason and what not. If you in effect treat your own individual subjectivity as universal for all humans, I just test if I can do it differently subjectively and if I can I have in effect falsified your claim. But because it is subjective, you can subjectively deny its relevance.

    So here it is for the rules of trying to convert you to my belief system. I really don't care for that in a sense. You can remain you and do you as you. But if the idea of that you and I ought to be come a "we", then it comes at a price. I will only accept that "we" if you accept that we have to agree on a subjective set of beliefs for which there is no universal truth, proof or what not.
    I do want us all to come together as one. I am just aware of that this is not how reality works in practice and I accept that. But I won't stop trying, but I am realistic about the chance of it working. I predict it won't. So:

    Regards and love
    Mikkel. apparently not really a part of reality according to some humans. :D
     
    #1 mikkel_the_dane, Sep 24, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,413
    Ratings:
    +347
    Religion:
    Shamanism
    This is OK as most of the "cosmological knowledge" is a joke - and much of the inherited religion is skewed into jokes as well. This leaves only a discussion of how and from what the human mind percieve and understand everything when using both physical and spiritual senses.
    The only chance you, me and everyone else have regarding finding the truth, is to collect all the human knowledge since ancient times and se if this knowledge goes as a common human collective wisdom. This is what all cultural religions speaks about in their Stories of Creation.
    Me too :)
    Me too :) And this is also what i sometimes feel myself :)
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,710
    Ratings:
    +7,339
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Idea? First, there is no such thing as 'objective proof.' Second, yes humans have obvious limits. So what?!?!!? Third, science nor I use 'objective proof.'

    This not and adequate description of Logic and how it applies to human thinking.

    Not coherent nor useful based on Aristotle' citation. The problem is when different people believe subjectively in different things that can and cannot be at the same time without 'objective verifiable evidence,' claim them as 'true.'

    What you present here is a philosophical/theological disagreements, which is common based on subjective beliefs, without 'objective verifiable evidence' to support the conclusions.

    Very confusing and incoherent, and does not reflect the sciences that underlie the science of biology, and the nature of science in general.

    Science nor I as a scientist would ever conclude "everything is X," though many religions and belief systems reach this conclusion subjectively.

    One cannot falsify subjective claims, This is terrible circular reasoning like my dog chasing his tail.

    True, even when this the reality of the thinking of one.
     
    #3 shunyadragon, Sep 24, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,402
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Thank for your answer. I don't accept your subjectivity of using philosophy when it works for you and deny it when it don't.

    Now open your eyes and learn that some people even on this forum claim in the name of science proof and that everything is e.g. physical.

    Now for the critique of the rest of my post, start with logic, use your own words and do a proper reasoned argument.
     
  5. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,710
    Ratings:
    +7,339
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    I responded in a meaningful and direct way and you failed to respond.

    Do you understand the difference between objective and subjective? If the proposed hypothesis is supported by objective verifiable physical evidence, and logic it is science. If the proposed hypothesis is based on philosophical assumptions 'thinking human arguments,' and not objective verifiable physical evidence it is a subjective logical argument, and not science.

    Objective and Subjective Arguments).

    • OBJECTIVE arguments are often those that have to do with logos [knowledge], that is, reason, evidence and logic, generally dealing with material questions (things that can be sensed or measured and have to do with the real outside world, outside of oneself).
    • SUBJECTIVE arguments are most often those dealing with the personal situation, feelings or experiences of a particular individual, family or group, and are usually arguments from ethos or pathos (though material subjective factors may involve arguments from logos as well).
    Logic based on the subjective is tool for human 'thinking,' and not a proof of anything beyond those that accept the presuppositions therefore accept the conclusions. In fact science does not prove anything. The only meaningful proof are in our math tool box.
     
    #5 shunyadragon, Sep 24, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,402
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    You really are a product of culture.
    You use a certain cognitive model based on philosophy of science, but you are unaware that you are doing a certain variant philosophy of science.
    So here it is:
    • OBJECTIVE arguments are often those that have to do with logos [knowledge], that is, reason, evidence and logic, generally dealing with material questions (things that can be sensed or measured and have to do with the real outside world, outside of oneself).
    Now give reason and justification for that.
    I will be honest with you. I don't accept that just because you say it. If you can prove that you are God, I will accept it. If not I will be skeptical about that and question that.
    Now here are some different definitions of science.
    Definition of SCIENCE

    Now I will use this one and back it up by these links.
    - the state of knowing , knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.
    science | Origin and meaning of science by Online Etymology Dictionary
    https://explorable.com/definition-of-science
    https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

    Now for the last link it points back to your claim:
    "The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is part of the larger task of determining which beliefs are epistemically warranted."

    So here it is. I want you to warrant that science is as you claim as epistemically warranted. In other words, I don't accept your claim as it stands as it is unwarranted, because you haven't backed it up by any actual justified reasoned arguments.

    In other words unless you explain how you choose that one, I will until you reason for it, treat it as a subjective and not warrant claim, that simply has to be accepted because you say so.
     
  7. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,413
    Ratings:
    +347
    Religion:
    Shamanism
    Logic: You have to differ between "human speculations" and "intuitive logic" and furthermore have a differention between a "personal speculation" and a "collective knowledge".

    Science: Which parts of the entire scientific area are you thinking about here?

    Math: If you were thinking of "cosmological science", why is it that math cannot describe the conditions and motions in a presumed "black hole"? This isn´t a "meaningful and universal proof" of math, is it?
     
  8. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,710
    Ratings:
    +7,339
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    I do not have to do anything of the sort. Personal speculation and 'collective knowledge' are a part of the whole that contribute to logical thinking and need not be specifically differentiated to define and describe logic as thinking human reasoning. Collective knowledge of humanity evolves and grows over time by human use of science, logic and reasoning to meet human needs.

    To understand Logic better begin here:https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-dependence/

    All of science based on Methodological Naturalism that evolves over time as our collective knowledge of our physical existence and used to develop human technology.

    I am referring to all science throughout the history of civilizations. As I stated: In fact science does not prove anything. The only meaningful proof are in our math tool box. Math has developed over time as first 'how to count things for practical purposes and than logical proofs of theorems to be useful in science and technology.

    Science can describe the conditions and motions of black holes, and use math as a tool to describe them and make predictions concerning their nature and behavior.

    Your points are not clear as to how logic, math, and science function in the human world.
     
  9. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,402
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Please give an example and state the law of non-contradiction in ontological terms using this kind of logic.
     
  10. Native

    Native Natural Philosopher

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    2,413
    Ratings:
    +347
    Religion:
    Shamanism
    OK then. But what then about your sentense here?
    Do you include "philosophical scientific fields" too? How can "collective knowledge" grow since "science doesn´t prove anything" in your opinion?

    I said:
    Math: If you were thinking of "cosmological science", why is it that math cannot describe the conditions and motions in a presumed "black hole"? This isn´t a "meaningful and universal proof" of math, is it?
    I was referring to the motion IN a assumed black hole and not AROUND such a hole and you should know that your math in this case brakes completely apart.
    Maybe you should do a litlle work on your own logics?
     
    #10 Native, Sep 25, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2020
  11. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,402
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Is there a difference between the human and physical world?
     
  12. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,128
    Ratings:
    +4,842
    Religion:
    Pi π
    Natural Sciences are the studies of nature that include -
    1. the physical world (Physical Sciences, eg physics, chemistry, astronomy and Earth science), and
    2. life (Life Sciences, that is everything relating to biology, eg botany, zoology, human biology, anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, biophysics, molecular biology, genetics, evolution, and a whole lot more).
    I had included human biology in Life Sciences (biology), only concern with physical aspects of a human body, eg bodily structures, organs, tissues, and their functions.

    All of Natural Sciences include the study of nature, the natural law or law of physics.

    Natural sciences are knowledge obtained through following 3 requirements:
    1. Falsifiability,
    2. Scientific Method,
    3. Peer Review.
    The Scientific Method involved formulation of a model, to explain what the phenomena is, how it work, and if there are any applications. This explanatory model is sometimes referred to as a hypothesis or scientific theory.
    • Part of the explanatory model may use mathematical models or mathematical statements, like set of equations, formulas, constants or metric, etc, and may have predictive powers. The maths used in science, are what science call PROOF. Proofs are not evidence.
    • Part of the explanatory model would include predictions based on preliminary observations. The prediction
    The second part of Scientific Method is to TEST the model, thus (A) testing the explanations, (B) testing the mathematical proofs, and (C) testing the predictions. These tests would determine if the model is science or not, AND they are determined by the available evidence.

    Tests involved observations, in the forms of -

    (A) discovering evidence in fieldwork, or

    (B) performing experiments in labs (the test results are the evidence).​

    These evidence, including data (eg quantities, measurements), are then analyzed to see if it support the model or not. It is the accumulation of evidence that provide scientists objective ways to reach a conclusion about the success or failure of the model (hypothesis or scientific theory).

    That’s the way Natural Sciences work.

    Now while humans are biological entities, Natural Sciences doesn’t include anything about what human think, the way humans behave or what humans do (human activities). There is another type of science that encompassed everything else about humans: Social Science.

    Anything relating to human thinking and social behavior, could fall under many different fields and sub-fields of Social Sciences, and they include psychology and psychiatry, behavioral science, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, Humanities, political science, economics, laws, ethics, etc. Social sciences involved anything relating to cultures, societies and human civilizations (eg urbanization, city building or city planning).

    I have mentioned Humanities, which encompassed many different fields, eg classical studies, languages, literature, arts, musics, etc. Humanities are anything that involved human expressions through communication and through their works.

    Do you see the differences between Natural Sciences and Social Sciences?

    The huge differences between Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, and one of them is that Social Sciences don’t need to follow guidelines of Scientific Method.

    So if you want to study human physical nature, then you would study any biology-related fields.

    But if you want to understand the ways humans think or behave, then you could use a number of different fields within Social Sciences.

    So, yes. There are limitations to what Natural Sciences or Physical Sciences focus on in their respective studies.

    There are nothing wrong with limits.

    So I really don’t see why you being so myopic about there being limits in certain fields of science.
     
    #12 gnostic, Sep 28, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,710
    Ratings:
    +7,339
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    Physically no difference.

    Not sure what answer you are looking for since humans are physically apart of the physical world our existence and we are subject to and based on the same physical laws and natural processes as the rest of the physical world. The 'objective verifiable physical evidence' of our physical world also applies physically to humans as well.

    @gnostic addressed it also in some detail in terms of science, and that is OK.
     
    #13 shunyadragon, Sep 28, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
    • Like Like x 1
  14. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,710
    Ratings:
    +7,339
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    In our physical existence the 'objective verifiable physical evidence' is consistent, predicable and non-contradictory and the basis of science.
     
    #14 shunyadragon, Sep 28, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
    • Like Like x 2
  15. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,710
    Ratings:
    +7,339
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    It is important to add that the Methodological Naturalism (Popper) is based on the confirmation that our physical existence is simply deterministic, consistent, predictable and non contradictory, but our human view and that of science is limited from the human perspective, and our equipment limitations, therefore science is non-deterministic and cannot prove anything, therefore we only are able to falsify theories and hypothesis.
     
  16. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    17,128
    Ratings:
    +4,842
    Religion:
    Pi π
    The problem with this “Stories of Creation” is just that - they are stories. They are traditions and myths; they are not history or science.

    Whether they contain any truth, are all subjective in nature. They are often distorted, embellished, exaggerated, not at all reliable, and often archaic or just plain wrong. All that are required in creation myths are belief.

    History and science required some forms of verification.

    With science (I’m talking about natural sciences, not social sciences), it required objective and verifiable evidence. That’s how falsifiable models are tested - to determine the validity of the model, and rejecting (refuted) models, which evidence don’t support.

    With history, it required either independent sources or archaeological evidence.

    So unless, the creation myths are supported by evidence, there are no ways to determine the truth of any creation story.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    15,710
    Ratings:
    +7,339
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The only knowledge we can achieve from from the ancient scriptures and creation stories is understanding their relationship to their world, traditions, culture, and their world at the time they lived. Through this we can understand the evolution of our heritage.

    It takes science to understand the actual nature, and cosmological history of our physical existence.
     
  18. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    3,578
    Ratings:
    +139
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    The conscious self one teachings, quotes, each one human is a separately owned conscious thinker. Think for yourself, seeing right here and right now you actually just own your owned one self. A human. And do not be coerced.

    As the one natural human self, living today the body type and conscious self was created by the 2 human being parents having sex. Which is not any past scientific thesis...to think. Today we can think, and today we can quote life existing was by the act of sex. How and what body type you live owning was due to humans having sex.

    If you then want to compare biology like a medical scientist does...you then would question, why is human DNA today changed from the study of human ancient life bodies? The answer is mutative radiation conditions, the atmospheric conditions.

    As a very basic simple self advice, why life is changed.

    If you agree with life human continuance in the claim of I believe my ancient brother Jesus or any male human title was life attacked and sacrificed, then I would not support radiation sciences/cosmological thesis. For I am not living in the states of their discussions out of space.

    As a logical thinker. To think for self as a one self claiming that my ability to think can be just as a self and not group coerced.
    www.trueselfbahai.com/ego-1
    “Every imperfect soul is self-centred and thinketh only of his own good. But as his thoughts expand a little he will begin to think of the welfare and comfort of his family. If his ideas still more widen, his concern will be the felicity of his fellow citizens; and if still they widen, he will be thinking …
     
  19. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,402
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yes.

    Correct for the limits. That you can't see why I am so myopic, is because it is not natural science.

    I already knew all that and this matters differently to me and you, are in both cases not natural science.
    Here is a reason of the difference:
    Home | American Atheists
    Our Vision | American Atheists
    So here is the important part:
    "Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds."

    So it is import to understand these limits, but some people don't get them. You and I do.
    I get how science works. You do. But every time we gets close to this, you need to tell me something I already know.
    Did you know this:
    "Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds."
     
  20. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    4,402
    Ratings:
    +1,010
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    As long that you understand that it is important, that is not just natural science and not a part of our physical existence for the word "physical" as per science as such.
    The question is if all human experience is of the physical existence kind? And the answer is no!
     
Loading...