Which camp do you fall in?

[Sgt. Pepper]

I think there's things that exist that only God knows about. Science will never discover these, since they are not on this earth. I believe there are other worlds besides this world but only God knows is aware of them. We can only read about them in scriptures.

“Verily I say, the creation of God embraceth worlds besides this world, and creatures apart from these creatures. In each of these worlds He hath ordained things which none can search except Himself, the All-Searching, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, pp. 152-153

“As to thy question concerning the worlds of God. Know thou of a truth that the worlds of God are countless in their number, and infinite in their range. None can reckon or comprehend them except God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.” Gleanings, pp. 151-152

There are also human spirits and non-human entities in this world that only psychic mediums can perceive, see, and hear. I also believe that there are strange creatures (known as cryptids) in this world that are rarely seen and photographed. As a medium, I'm aware of paranormal events that cannot be proven by ghost-hunting equipment, explained by science, or legitimately explained away by religious dogma that strongly opposes the idea that the spirits of the dead can talk to and interact with the living. I'm well aware that there are supernatural events that defy scientific or religious explanation.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm well aware that there are supernatural events that defy scientific or religious explanation.

Well said. I am also aware of this even though I have not personally experienced these supernatural events.

 

[Wu Wei]

Why do I need to choose a camp

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do I need to choose a camp

You don't have to. You can stay at the motel.

 

[Heyo]

You don't have to. You can stay at the motel.

I think @Wu Wei was asking "why do I have to choose one camp? Why not go to all of them and see who has the most tasty pick-a-nick basket?".

 

[Heyo]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

I'm kind of in multiple "camps". I think science is the best known way to investigate real things. You could say I'm a realist.
I think philosophy is the best least worse way to investigate ideal things. You could say I'm a idealist.
If you want to learn more, first look at 5 Planes of Existence which may give you an idea of my definitions of "real" and "ideal".

 

[Nakosis]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

I don't see the job of science is to tell you all there is. Mainly its job is to verify what you think is true. Doesn't matter if what you accept as true came from scientific claims or studies, intuition or wisdom gained through personal experience. Science mainly provides a means to verify the reliability of what you accept as true.

Up to you whether you want to verify the reliability of what you think to be true or not. You are free not to verify it and continue to believe whatever feels right to you.

Feelings are a mediocre way of testing the truth of something. What you feel to be true is as likely to be wrong as it is right. If you are not concerned with the truth then relying on your feelings is fine. You'd never know how reliable your feelings were anyway. Until your feelings changed you could remain blissfully ignorant. Certainly most people can go through their entire life blissfully ignorant perfectly fine. No need to concern themselves about the reality of what they believe.

Personally, I've see, via science, the unreliability of feelings. So I can no longer remain happily ignorant. I am aware, painfully perhaps, of the ignorance relying on feelings can lead to. So for better of worse, I am no longer capable of remaining blissfully ignorant.

 

[Trailblazer]

I think @Wu Wei was asking "why do I have to choose one camp? Why not go to all of them and see who has the most tasty pick-a-nick basket?".

Yeah, maybe that is what he meant.

 

[ChristineM]

Science doesn't tell me which herbs and spices to add to my stew, although it does tell what will happen when I add certain herbs and spices. Science has its place.

I was always told by my mother and at school that cooking is a science, an offshoot of chemistry.

 

[ChristineM]

How existence came to be will always be outside it's realm.

I don't think that's an insurmountable problem for science. Time will tell

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

I think that science is a wonderful activity, entirely natural to us.

I think that science understands that what we experience (see, hear, touch, taste, smell) purely through our 5 most developed senses, are the effects of what is; not what “actually” is. I think that sometimes, knowing this matters and other times, knowing this does not matter.

I think that the effects that we are able to sense (without assistance), we then interpret from perspectives. And, I think that it is through these interpretations that things acquire meaning.

I think that the meanings things acquire, through our interpretations of their sensible effects, are what we base our agency on.

I think that since the early 2000’s, when the natural sciences also began to address the inevitable impact of human thought on scientific research in general, science has become an even more wonderful activity.

I think that today’s science is less stuck in the man-made boxes that they research that it was when I partook in it. I think, that is a promising change.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[King Phenomenon]

I think that science is a wonderful activity, entirely natural to us.

I think that science understands that what we experience (see, hear, touch, taste, smell) purely through our 5 most developed senses, are the effects of what is; not what “actually” is. I think that sometimes, knowing this matters and other times, knowing this does not matter.

I think that the effects that we are able to sense (without assistance), we then interpret from perspectives. And, I think that it is through these interpretations that things acquire meaning.

I think that the meanings things acquire, through our interpretations of their sensible effects, are what we base our agency on.

I think that since the early 2000’s, when the natural sciences also began to address the inevitable impact of human thought on scientific research in general, science has become an even more wonderful activity.

I think that today’s science is less stuck in the man-made boxes that they research that it was when I partook in it. I think, that is a promising change.

Humbly,
Hermit

So u like science. Haha

 

[King Phenomenon]

I don't see the job of science is to tell you all there is. Mainly its job is to verify what you think is true. Doesn't matter if what you accept as true came from scientific claims or studies, intuition or wisdom gained through personal experience. Science mainly provides a means to verify the reliability of what you accept as true.

Up to you whether you want to verify the reliability of what you think to be true or not. You are free not to verify it and continue to believe whatever feels right to you.

Feelings are a mediocre way of testing the truth of something. What you feel to be true is as likely to be wrong as it is right. If you are not concerned with the truth then relying on your feelings is fine. You'd never know how reliable your feelings were anyway. Until your feelings changed you could remain blissfully ignorant. Certainly most people can go through their entire life blissfully ignorant perfectly fine. No need to concern themselves about the reality of what they believe.

Personally, I've see, via science, the unreliability of feelings. So I can no longer remain happily ignorant. I am aware, painfully perhaps, of the ignorance relying on feelings can lead to. So for better of worse, I am no longer capable of remaining blissfully ignorant.

Too bad

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

Knowledge resulting from intuition and wisdom is purely subjective. In order for such knowledge to manifest objectively in the phenomenal world, one must rely upon science.

 

[Elihoenai]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

1 Corinthians 2:11

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.



That's correct! Science and Logic have their Place/Sphere. True Religion is beyond the Sphere of Science and Logic and, therefore, cannot be understood and/or explained by Science and Logic.

The Inferior Religion of the Deists and Earthly Christians and the like seek from Science and Logic to explain Religious Phenomenon.



Deism

Deism (/ˈdiːɪzəm/ DEE-iz-əm [1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/ DAY-iz-əm; derived from the Latin deus, meaning "god")[3][4] is the philosophical position and rationalistic theology[5] that generally rejects revelation as a source of divine knowledge, and asserts that empirical reason and observation of the natural world are exclusively logical, reliable, and sufficient to determine the existence of a Supreme Being as the creator of the universe.[3][5][6][7][8][9] More simply stated, Deism is the belief in the existence of God solely based on rational thought without any reliance on revealed religions or religious authority.[3][5][6][7][8] Deism emphasizes the concept of natural theology (that is, God's existence is revealed through nature).

Deism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Question posed to members and readers of these Forums:
Are you a Deist? You might be one without realising that you are.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

So u like science. Haha

I do, yes - very much.
And I also love the god I believe in.
I do not find this a challenge; I feel that I do it harmoniously.

Humbly,
Hermit

 

[King Phenomenon]

I do, yes - very much.
And I also love the god I believe in.
I do not find this a challenge; I feel that I do it harmoniously.

Humbly,
Hermit

Me too

 

[HonestJoe]

Do you think that what you see and what science tells you and will be able to tell you in the future is all there is or do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal? I'm definitely in the latter. I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.

That is an entirely false dichotomy that misrepresents (or misunderstand) what scientific method as a fundamental principle actually is.

First, science doesn't tell us anything. Science is a tool which we can use to help understand and rationalise things we experience and observe. We still need to use intuition and wisdom to interpret those answers though, and any limitations and errors in our conclusions are a function of our limitations to observe or understand, not any fundamental flaw of science as a concept.

There is no limit to what science could be used to explain but there can be (and are) limits to how we're able to apply it, because there are things we can't observe. Those limits can vary and change though, both though time for the human race in general and between individuals circumstantially. For example, in 1900, we couldn't study the surface of the moon because we couldn't get there but now we can. The science hasn't changed nor has the answers about the surface of the moon. The only changes have been our ability to observe the evidence.

We all use scientific principles constantly without realising it. If you're crossing the road and determining whether the gap in the traffic is big enough, you're using science. If you're deciding how much salt to put in your cooking, you're using science. If you're reading scripture and determining if and how it reflects the world, you're using science. That is all often very loose and unspecific (and hence often flawed) but the underlying concepts of science still apply - observation, hypothesis, evidence, conclusion.

 

[Ella S.]

As far as I'm aware, the scientific method is an application of the philosophy of science, chiefly statistics and critical rationalism which are derived from inductive logic.

The entire point of logic is that it refines and formalizes our intellectual intuition. Of course, logic is also used in mathematics and analytical philosophy, so if you're asking if I think there are true statements that exist outside of empiricism, the answer is yes. We can derive tautologies from definitions.

The difference is that scientific truths are real. They refer to an objective, external, sense-independent reality, which we call the natural world. By contrast, other logical truths are merely facets of highly-formalized and abstract language; they do not refer to "real" things in an empirical sense. They solely deal with concepts that we ourselves define.

In the philosophy of mathematics, the position I just described is akin to the mathematical anti-realist position. And this is also my main reason for being a moral anti-realist and an aesthetic anti-realist.

 

[Ella S.]

I agree that science is a "methodology of discovering how and why."

But it is a purely empirical method. (ie. it deals with what can be sensed or detected with instruments). If there were some fact (any fact... even a completely mundane one) that could not be verified through observation, science could never answer those questions.

I'm not trying to justify gods or ectoplasm here. But there are certain matters of fact and truth that don't have an empirical basis. Mathematics is a fine example. And (although it can be incredibly unreliable and dissatisfying) philosophy asks important questions that aren't necessarily empirical questions. I think science is better than philosophy in most regards. It can actually settle issues once and for all... which philosophy kinda struggles with.

But it's too narrow of a view to say that "nothing is outside the realm of science."

I might refine the statement to say that science is our only reliable method of investigating facts about reality, precisely because it deals with empirical facts that can be said to be abstractions of our (in)direct perceptions of the physical universe.

Truth in mathematics and analytical philosophy relies on how we define our terms, because this form of truth ultimately reduces to tautology.

Empirical analysis is when we define these terms in reference to something real. In this way, good empirical investigation is a subset of logical analysis; it merely deals with genuinely real facts about nature rather than tautologies in and of themselves. This is due to how the terms in empirical analysis are directly defined by their relationship to reality, which no other philosophy or practice does because this is the unique feature of empiricism that makes it, well, empirical.

I hope I'm explaining myself well here. The same reasons I have for being a moral anti-realist make me a mathematical anti-realist, and I think that comes down to how I approach logic as a whole. Nonetheless, I do think that logic can grant us knowledge about many things that are not real.

Writing it out like this, I think that makes me a fictionalist in the relevant matters.