• 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!

What matters, whats real?

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Exactly science and philosophy do not deal in absolutes, religion does. We are debating religion and science not philosophy. Nice switch though.

Empirical: In part that "a theory that all knowledge originates in experience". That connects to philosophy and philosophy of science.
That you are unaware, that science is connected to philosophy, is your problem, not mine.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Really, can you tell me when a scientific community last stoned an apostate to death.

I was using an example of one of the most intelligent religious persons as a good example of the religious, if you want to discuss some of the less enlightened we can do so.

Lets look at how science has offered excellent evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, yet still it is denied for no better reason than scriptures say so.


We could do that. Or we could look at the historic willingness of the scientific community, to serve the weapons industry; if scoring cheap points to claim the moral high ground is all we are concerned with.

But that would be foolish, and not conducive to a civilised exchange of views between people of different outlooks.
 

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
We could do that. Or we could look at the historic willingness of the scientific community, to serve the weapons industry; if scoring cheap points to claim the moral high ground is all we are concerned with.

But that would be foolish, and not conducive to a civilised exchange of views between people of different outlooks.
Which is exactly why I used the example of WLC rather than go to the lowest common denominator.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Have you forgotten what our discussion is about, that I contend science is an open system, everything can and should be doubted.

Thus science can't be based on empirical evidence as you understand it, because it is possible to use a different version. Or is it an aboulute, that science is based on your understand of empirical evidence and it has to be accepted on faith?
 

Justanatheist

Well-Known Member
Thus science can't be based on empirical evidence as you understand it, because it is possible to use a different version. Or is it an aboulute, that science is based on your understand of empirical evidence and it has to be accepted on faith?
Hoe many times do I have to tell you that I do not believe in absolutes. I am only arguing that science is an open system.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Hoe many times do I have to tell you that I do not believe in absolutes. I am only arguing that science is an open system.

If science is an open system, it can't be closed and thus it is an absolute that science is open.
As for philosophy and science:
"Astronomer William Keel explains:

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

You really should learn that science is in effect based on absolutes, which can't be doubted in practice for at least some humans. E.g. it is either an absolute that science has nothing to do with philosophy or can you change your mind? So which is it?
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
If John Doe believes in a god and you don't, why does what's he believes in matter so much to you?
If you're someone who thinks we should treat others with decency, respect and inclusion, then outside of the debate forums here, it doesn't matter to me. Although I continue to dislike the idea of teaching fundamentalism to children.
Evidence for a god can neither show a god does or doesn't exist.
I never get that far. I fall at the threshold question, what real entity is intended to be denoted by the word 'God'? No one knows, or if they do. they're not telling. Instead God is / gods are made up of imaginary qualities like omnipotence and perfection and so on, and there's no objective test that will tell us whether any real candidate is God or not. For instance, if God is real (not imaginary, found in nature), what species is [he]?
So my question is what makes anyone think their belief is stronger than the belief of others?
I think the fact that reasoned enquiry, including science, has an objective definition of 'truth' gives it a huge advantage over religions, which have no such test.

But as far as your question is concerned, I have no way of determining whether some believer believes in God more strongly than I believe in the skeptical and methodical approach of reasoned enquiry.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
If you're someone who thinks we should treat others with decency, respect and inclusion, then outside of the debate forums here, it doesn't matter to me. Although I continue to dislike the idea of teaching fundamentalism to children.
I never get that far. I fall at the threshold question, what real entity is intended to be denoted by the word 'God'? No one knows, or if they do. they're not telling. Instead God is / gods are made up imaginary qualities like omnipotence and perfection and so on, and there's no objective test that will tell us whether any real candidate is God or not. For instance, if God is real (not imaginary, found in nature), what species is [he]?
I think the fact that reasoned enquiry, including science, has an objective definition of 'truth' gives it a huge advantage over religions, which have no such test.

But as far as your question is concerned, I have no way of determining whether some believer believes in God more strongly than I believe in the skeptical and methodical approach of reasoned enquiry.

Just as with God, that applies to objective reality in the strong sense. Any strong positive metaphysical claim so far has not been based on knowledge.
 
Top