The limitation of both science and religion due to biology.

[gnostic]

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."

Science has nothing to do with atheism, and atheism has nothing to do with science.

Atheism has only to do with the question to the existence of deity or deities, nothing more, nothing less.

All you are doing is falsely projecting one to the other and vice versa.

But have said that, it is important that any scientist doing science, regardless of their religious backgrounds (eg theists and atheists alike), to focus only on understanding and explaining (and testing) the natural phenomena and natural processes, without resorting to supernatural, magic or miracle.

Why is that so bloody hard for you understand, mikkel?

Being a scientist, is a profession, not religious title. And science is no more religion than people working in trades or professions like bricklaying, carpentry, welding, plumbing, farmer, sales, sailing, motor mechanics, etc.

If you were farmer, would your religion or god(s) teach you how to grow crops or harvest them, or construct irrigation in your farmland?

Would your god teach teach you how to become electrician? Does any scriptures provide you instructions on how to wire the house?

Just as no god would teach people farming or working with electrical devices or appliances or with the engines of cars or boats, and so on, then why are you fussing over science, not including your god or your religion?

Neither being atheists and theists will with people’s employment or career, whether it be science or non-scientific jobs.

You are being hypocritical about what science when there are jobs that don’t require god or religion to interfere with non-scientific works.

You got hung up over atheists being atheists, and confusing atheism with science, just only demonstrated the foolishness of some biased theists, making false generalizations with both science and atheism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science has nothing to do with atheism, and atheism has nothing to do with science.

Atheism has only to do with the question to the existence of deity or deities, nothing more, nothing less.

All you are doing is falsely projecting one to the other and vice versa.

...

Yeah, I am the head of American Atheists and my example given is something I do as an atheist and has nothing to do, how some other humans understand science.

 

[Native]

The problem with this “Stories of Creation” is just that - they are stories. They are traditions and myths; they are not history or science.

And the other problem with "Stories of Creation" is that some persons have huge problems understanding why numerous cultural Stories of Creation are so similar in the essence.

So unless, the creation myths are supported by evidence, there are no ways to determine the truth of any creation story.

To you it doesn´t matter how many evidences you get - which is why you cannot determine any mythical thruth and just reject it all.

 

[Native]

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.

It doesn´t seem that you familiar with the numerous ancient cultural Myths of Creation?

 

[shunyadragon]

It doesn´t seem that you familiar with the numerous ancient cultural Myths of Creation?

'It'? What 'it' are you referring to?

I am very familiar with many if not most Creation myths, and they have nothing to do with the science of the origin and nature of our physical existence. They may have some vague, subjective, personal or anecdotal reference as analogies to the actual nature of our existence. Nothin more.

 

[Native]

'It'? What 'it' are you referring to?

I am very familiar with many if not most Creation myths, and they have nothing to do with the science of the origin and nature of our physical existence.

I´ll just repeat my:

It doesn´t seem that you familiar with the numerous ancient cultural Myths of Creation?

Of course our physical exsistence have the origin in the Creation Myths. So obviously you don´t understand the creation myths at all or fails to make the correct and relevant connections.

 

[shunyadragon]

I´ll just repeat my:

Of course our physical existence have the origin in the Creation Myths. So obviously you don´t understand the creation myths at all or fails to make the correct and relevant connections.

It is a fallacy to claim someone does not understand something, because we disagree, It is called the fallacy of 'Personal Incredulity.'

You have go beyond your disagreement and present some evidence.

The nature of our physical existence is defined by Natural Laws and natural processes, and not Creation myths.

Again I will repeat . . .

I am very familiar with many if not most Creation myths, and they have nothing to do with the science of the origin and nature of our physical existence. They may have some vague, subjective, personal or anecdotal reference as analogies to the actual nature of our existence. Nothin more.

You have failed to present any evidential line of thinking that would justify 'our physical existence have the origin in the Creation Myths' other than subjective and anecdotal symbolic comparisons.

Still waiting . . .

 

[shunyadragon]

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!

The answer is vague needs more clarification. You have also failed to clarify your view the objective versus subjective nature of the relationship of the human mind and our physical existence.

You advocated a Kantian view of the nature of human relationships wit our world, and I responded and you failed to follow up.

When to "provide evidence" making claims? ! Post #141

I understand Kant very well, yes he was an important philosopher, but a philosopher and not a scientist. He died over 200 years ago, we have come along way since, and I go with more contemporary science and philosophy. Kant's view of science is old and not practical. Kant's philosophy could not design airplanes nor computers.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/...ntifies pure,requires a metaphysics of nature.
"Kant's very conception of natural science proper thus immediately gives rise to several systematically important questions. First, if the “transcendental part” of the metaphysics of nature can be identified with the results of the Critique of Pure Reason, then the Metaphysical Foundations is a work in special metaphysics. But what exactly is a special metaphysics? In particular, what particular natures or kinds of things could be its object? And how precisely can an empirical concept of such things be given without compromising the necessity required of the pure part of natural science? Second, how is the special metaphysics provided by the Metaphysical Foundations supposed to be related to the transcendental part of the metaphysics of nature that was established in the Critique of Pure Reason? Does the former presuppose the principles of the latter or are they logically independent, but still related to each other in some other way? Another question concerns the method of special metaphysics. Is that method the conceptual analysis (of the notion of matter), the transcendental investigation of the presuppositions of the mathematical science of nature, or something else entirely?"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The answer is vague needs more clarification. You have also failed to clarify your view the objective versus subjective nature of the relationship of the human mind and our physical existence.

...

Yes, I can't with evidence because nobody is able to do so with evidence. I assume that the physical causes the mental, but we can't in all cases reduce the mental to the physical.

As for the metaphysics that is anybody's guess.

So you think science is important? So do I. But you can't give evidence for that, because important has no objective referent.
Objective as per 1a, 2a and 2b.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

So here it is. Please using your body as through external sensation and physical behavior engage with important. Please state how important is measured using an international scientific measurement standard and which instrument to use.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, I can't with evidence because nobody is able to do so with evidence. I assume that the physical causes the mental, but we can't in all cases reduce the mental to the physical.

As for the metaphysics that is anybody's guess.

So you think science is important? So do I. But you can't give evidence for that, because important has no objective referent.
Objective as per 1a, 2a and 2b.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

So here it is. Please using your body as through external sensation and physical behavior engage with important. Please state how important is measured using an international scientific measurement standard and which instrument to use.

No more silly games. You go with Kant hundreds of years moldy old, and I go with Karl Popper

You did not respond to the substance of my previous post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No more silly games. You go with Kant hundreds of years moldy old, and I go with Karl Popper

You did not respond to the substance of my previous post.

A large part of Kant’s work addresses the question “What can we know?” The answer, if it can be stated simply, is that our knowledge is constrained to mathematics and the science of the natural, empirical world. It is impossible, Kant argues, to extend knowledge to the supersensible realm of speculative metaphysics. The reason that knowledge has these constraints, Kant argues, is that the mind plays an active role in constituting the features of experience and limiting the mind’s access only to the empirical realm of space and time.
Kant, Immanuel: Metaphysics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

If we go through this, we end with methodological naturalism and not metaphysical naturalism nor idealism as concrete. Transcendental idealism is if you unpack it methodological naturalism.
Or in other words: You trust "das Ding an sich" to be fair and in the end all we talk about is how the world makes sense to us without being able to eliminate the "I" or rather the observer.
So there is no objective independent knowledge as all knowledge is in and of the mind.
Kant questioned what knowledge is as in regards to metaphysics and Popper took for granted that you can't answer that, so you just concentrate on making sense of how to organize your thinking in regards to your experiences. What your experiences is about in the metaphysical sense is not science. So thus methodological naturalism. You assume nature.
Now if you can answer in the positive sense scientific realism, I will listen to you, but nobody has so far been able to do that.
Thus again methodological naturalism ends in how it appears that the world makes sense.

So back to what reality really is and if it is an illusion or not. I don't know that one way or another, but I don't believe that it is an illusion. Rather I subjectively find it meaningless to speculate if we can know what reality really is. So I trust nature to be fair. Descartes trusted God. And some think it is an illusion.
But I don't know. The word "know" is in the mind and it has no objective referent.

 

[Native]

It is a fallacy to claim someone does not understand something, because we disagree, It is called the fallacy of 'Personal Incredulity.'
You have go beyond your disagreement and present some evidence.
The nature of our physical existence is defined by Natural Laws and natural processes, and not Creation myths.

Well, here you have the explanation why you claim the Creation Myths to be disconnected from yourself and everything else.

You don´t make the connection between ancient forces of creation and the ideas of modern cosmological forces.

Which tells me that your mythical understanding is very shallow and disconnected from reality.

 

[shunyadragon]

If we go through this, we end with methodological naturalism and not metaphysical naturalism nor idealism as concrete. Transcendental idealism is if you unpack it methodological naturalism.
Or in other words: You trust "das Ding an sich" to be fair and in the end all we talk about is how the world makes sense to us without being able to eliminate the "I" or rather the observer.
So there is no objective independent knowledge as all knowledge is in and of the mind.
Kant questioned what knowledge is as in regards to metaphysics and Popper took for granted that you can't answer that, so you just concentrate on making sense of how to organize your thinking in regards to your experiences. What your experiences is about in the metaphysical sense is not science. So thus methodological naturalism. You assume nature.
Now if you can answer in the positive sense scientific realism, I will listen to you, but nobody has so far been able to do that.
Thus again methodological naturalism ends in how it appears that the world makes sense.

So back to what reality really is and if it is an illusion or not. I don't know that one way or another, but I don't believe that it is an illusion. Rather I subjectively find it meaningless to speculate if we can know what reality really is. So I trust nature to be fair. Descartes trusted God. And some think it is an illusion.
But I don't know. The word "know" is in the mind and it has no objective referent.

You in a way described the problem. In the bold above it is obvious you will not listen unless I agree with your 200+ year old philosophy of Kant, and fundamentally reject science and Methodological Naturalism. The relationship between the mind and our physical existence is based on the observable objective verifiable evidence that results in our science and technology. Again, Kant's philosophy cannot result in computers and airplanes.

You go with Kant, and I with Karl Popper.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You in a way described the problem. In the bold above it is obvious you will not listen unless I agree with your 200+ year old philosophy of Kant, and fundamentally reject science and Methodological Naturalism. The relationship between the mind and our physical existence is based on the observable objective verifiable evidence that results in our science and technology. Again, Kant's philosophy cannot result in computers and airplanes.

You go with Kant, and I with Karl Popper.

No, because you haven't solved Descartes' evil demon and nor has methodological naturalism. It assume nature is fair and I agree. It is an assumption and not a fact.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, here you have the explanation why you claim the Creation Myths to be disconnected from yourself and everything else.

You don´t make the connection between ancient forces of creation and the ideas of modern cosmological forces.

Which tells me that your mythical understanding is very shallow and disconnected from reality.

I have not claimed nor posted any of the above. The question concerns the relationship of the science of origins, nature and history of our physical existence and Creation myths.

I like Joseph Campbell, who is able make this differentiation between science and our relationship with our human heritage in the stories and myths of our ancestors.

Again I will repeat . . .

I am very familiar with many if not most Creation myths, and they have nothing to do with the science of the origin and nature of our physical existence. They may have some vague, subjective, personal or anecdotal reference as analogies to the actual nature of our existence. Nothin more.

You have failed to present any evidential line of thinking that would justify 'our physical existence have the origin in the Creation Myths' other than subjective and anecdotal symbolic comparisons.


.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I am very familiar with many if not most Creation myths, and they have nothing to do with the science of the origin and nature of our physical existence. They may have some vague, subjective, personal or anecdotal reference as analogies to the actual nature of our existence. Nothin more.
...

So you are philosophical/metaphysical physicalist. Good, that you showed your true color. Now can we forget methodological naturalism and get to the meat of. How do you know that?

 

[shunyadragon]

No, because you haven't solved Descartes' evil demon and nor has methodological naturalism. It assume nature is fair and I agree. It is an assumption and not a fact.

Nothing to do with Methodological Naturalism. No need to solve the problem of Descartes evil demon unless someone believes that they can prove absolutely what they 'know' and science does not claim that. Descartes philosophy does have merit as reflected in Karl Popper's Methodological Naturalism, where all our scientific knowledge is tentative, transitory, and not subject to proof. In reality Descartes does recognize the objectivity of human observations.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-epistemology/#MethFounDoub

The difference is that the primary notions which are presupposed for the demonstration of geometrical truths are readily accepted by anyone, since they accord with the use of our senses. Hence there is no difficulty there, except in the proper deduction of the consequences, which can be done even by the less attentive, provided they remember what has gone before. …

Among Descartes’ persistent themes is that such preconceived opinions can obscure our mental vision of innate principles: that where there are disputes about first principles, it is not “because one man’s faculty of knowledge extends more widely than another’s, but because the common notions are in conflict with the preconceived opinions of some people who, as a result, cannot easily grasp them”; whereas, “we cannot fail to know them [innate common notions] when the occasion for thinking about them arises, provided that we are not blinded by preconceived opinions” (Prin. 1:49f, AT 8a:24, CSM 1:209). These “preconceived opinions” must be “set aside,” says Descartes, “in order to lay the first foundations of philosophy” (May 1643 letter to Voetius, AT 8b:37, CSMK 221). Otherwise, we’re apt to regard, as first principles, the mistaken (though prima facie obvious) sensory claims that particularists find attractive. Such mistakes in the laying of the foundations weaken the entire edifice. Descartes adds:

All the mistakes made in the sciences happen, in my view, simply because at the beginning we make judgements too hastily, and accept as our first principles matters which are obscure and of which we do not have a clear and distinct notion. (Search, AT 10:526, CSM 2:419)

Your still clinging to ancient philosophy, and hiding in Plato's cave.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you are philosophical/metaphysical physicalist. Good, that you showed your true color. Now can we forget methodological naturalism and get to the meat of. How do you know that?

Absolutely NO.
Science, Methodological Naturalism and I do not claim to 'know.' That is one of the foundation principles of Karl Popper's philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nothing to do with Methodological Naturalism. No need to solve the problem of Descartes evil demon unless someone believes that they can prove absolutely what they 'know' and science does not claim that. Descartes philosophy does have merit as reflected in Karl Popper's Methodological Naturalism, where all our scientific knowledge is tentative, transitory, and not subject to proof.

So you don't know absolutely that the world is physical. Good, we agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Absolutely NO.

Thanks.