• 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!

Which camp do you fall in?

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Nothing is outside the realm of science, only our current understanding of it.

Trouble is, we can't demonstrate that assumption scientifically. Science can only assess empirical data available to our senses. If something exists beyond the empirical data available to us, we cannot scientifically verify it.

Science also doesn't speak to questions of value or meaning. Those are subjective ethical and spiritual questions that can't be answered merely by empirical investigation.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Trouble is, we can't demonstrate that assumption scientifically. Science can only assess empirical data available to our senses. If something exists beyond the empirical data available to us, we cannot scientifically verify it.
That's what I meant by our current understanding. There was a time when we didn't understand lightning, but there was still a science behind it. We just haven't discovered it yet.
Science also doesn't speak to questions of value or meaning. Those are subjective ethical and spiritual questions that can't be answered merely by empirical investigation.
For the abstract, sure.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
That's what I meant by our current understanding. There was a time when we didn't understand lightning, but there was still a science behind it. We just haven't discovered it yet.

There's an implication there though that we will eventually discover scientific explanations for everything. But we can't know that scientifically. We can hope? Or assume? But there may be things completely beyond science's ability to discover or analyze.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
There's an implication there though that we will eventually discover scientific explanations for everything. But we can't know that scientifically. We can hope? Or assume? But there may be things completely beyond science's ability to discover or analyze.
Sure, there might be stuff we'll never figure out. We could've gone extinct before we've made any of the discoveries regarding our current body of knowledge.

There could've been weather anomalies that happened millions of years ago on a planet in the galaxy furthest from ours that we'll obviously never be able to study, but there was still a science behind it. It's not magic just because some simians haven't cracked the case.
 

King Phenomenon

Well-Known Member
Sure, there might be stuff we'll never figure out. We could've gone extinct before we've made any of the discoveries regarding our current body of knowledge.

There could've been weather anomalies that happened millions of years ago on a planet in the galaxy furthest from ours that we'll obviously never be able to study, but there was still a science behind it. It's not magic just because some simians haven't cracked the case.
Na, with some things there’s no science. That’s just the way it is
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Sure, there might be stuff we'll never figure out. We could've gone extinct before we've made any of the discoveries regarding our current body of knowledge.

There could've been weather anomalies that happened millions of years ago on a planet in the galaxy furthest from ours that we'll obviously never be able to study, but there was still a science behind it. It's not magic just because some simians haven't cracked the case.
I'm thinking also about non-physical things such as God or an afterlife. Or whatever preceded the Big Bang, if anything did. Science has no means to assess those ideas.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
I'm thinking also about non-physical things such as God or an afterlife. Or whatever preceded the Big Bang, if anything did. Science has no means to assess those ideas.
So fire and lightning really were magic until a specific group of primates gained the ability to study and understand it? The mathematics of gravity didn't exist until a human mind was able to calculate them?
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
So fire and lightning really were magic until a specific group of primates gained the ability to study and understand it? The mathematics of gravity didn't exist until a human mind was able to calculate them?

No, I don't think that's what I said lol. I'm talking about things that science literally does not have the capacity to assess because they're either non-physical or physical in some way it's impossible for us to assess.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
No, I don't think that's what I said lol. I'm talking about things that science literally does not have the capacity to assess because they're either non-physical or physical in some way it's impossible for us to assess.
Why would it require human assessment for something to have a science behind it? That's what I'm trying to get at. Simply being inaccessible to us lowly ape creatures doesn't make it magical or supernatural.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
Why would it require human assessment for something to have a science behind it? That's what I'm trying to get at. Simply being inaccessible to us lowly ape creatures doesn't make it magical or supernatural.
Science only has the capacity to assess things empirically. If something can't be assessed empirically, science is incapable of saying anything about it. If we don't know if something can be assessed empirically, then the answer is simply that - we don't know.
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
Science, in my opinion, is limited in that it cannot answer all questions or explain everything in the world. So, I believe that there are some things that can only be revealed through intuition and wisdom. I'll use myself as an example. I'm an empath, a highly sensitive person, a sensitive, and a psychic medium.

As an empath, I can sense the emotions (for instance, the pain, joy, elation, fear, anger, and sadness) of those around me. I can also see the auras of living people in vivid colors as well as feel their emotions. I can tell within a couple of minutes of meeting someone what kind of person they are and whether they are trustworthy or not. And as a highly sensitive person, I'm prone to overstimulation by sight, sound, and emotions. If I'm in a loud environment, then I will experience overstimulation from intense emotions, which I can't easily stop or control. I have learned some coping mechanisms that will help me stay calm when feeling other people's emotions so that I won't become overwhelmed, but they don't always work. I can still become overwhelmed at times.

As a sensitive, I'm constantly aware of the presence of human spirits and/or non-human entities. I can also feel their emotions at the time. It's similar to how I experience different sensations depending on the living person I'm sensing. And as a psychic medium, I can interact with and communicate with both earthbound human spirits and non-human entities. I can see (visually and/or mentally) human spirits or non-human entities, hear them speak audibly and/or mentally, communicate directly with them, and interact with them in the same way that I interact with the living. So, that is essentially what I have experienced every day of my life as an empath, a highly sensitive person, a sensitive, and a psychic medium. To be honest, it is not always easy to be me.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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
For starters, I think the proper term is not science, but empiricism, which comprises both the formal investigation of evidence in laboratories and observatories that most people mean when they refer to science, and the activities of daily life that involve interpreting evidence. They are the same process, and much more of my understanding of the world and how it works comes from that second process - experiencing life and collecting ideas that accurately anticipate outcomes. It is only this last category of ideas that I apply words like truth, correct, and knowledge to.

To answer your question, only the senses can tell us about reality, by which I mean the collection of objects and processes that interact with one another within space and time. Nothing can be known as fact through intuition or by faith.

We imagine that there are things that can exist outside of space and time, and which are not detectable even in principle, but those are the qualities of the nonexistent, like werewolves. I treat that which is indistinguishable from the nonexistent as nonexistent, and claims about it like I do any metaphysical (unfalsifiable) claim - neither correct nor incorrect, but rather, "not even wrong." That pretty much dispenses with the supernatural, which is described in those same terms.

These ideas are razors. They remove ideas from further consideration, which consideration leads to quite a bit of confusion. Consider Hitchen's and Occam's razors, which do the same. And there are several more.
do you think there's things that exist that only intuition and wisdom can only reveal?
Wisdom is empirical knowledge, gained through experience. Intuition, by which I mean the feeling that something is or might be correct for reasons one cannot give, does not provide reliable knowledge, but is a valuable source of new ideas to be considered and investigated if possible. Unlike the results of reasoning, they're the result of unseen neurological processes that generate output to consciousness which is sometimes very valuable and leads to new science or great art, and sometimes just a nagging feeling not otherwise useful.
I know there's stuff out there that science will never explain, like the mystery of existence.
Perhaps, but if so, then it will never be explained. The argument isn't that empiricism (formal and informal science) can answer any question, just that if it can't, the question can't be answered, and by answer, I don't mean a metaphysical (unfalsifiable) claim such as God did it. I mean a demonstrably correct idea that can be used to anticipate outcomes.
Science doesn't tell me which herbs and spices to add to my stew
Empiricism does. You have experienced these spices or can taste them in the kitchen and have empirical knowledge of how they make you feel. And as you cook, you taste, and decide that maybe a little more of this or that is needed.
Does it tell you it will be tasty? Haha
Empiricism tells you if it tastes good to you or not.
Why do I need to choose a camp
Where else will you find campers?
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 assuming that when you say cannot be verified empirically that you mean necessarily so rather than contingently so while awaiting the discovery that allows one to detect what was previously undetectable. These are the ideas that I call metaphysical, or "not even wrong." What does it mean to call something a fact that cannot be confirmed as such by any method from any perspective at any time with any device? I reserve the word for other kinds of ideas, ones that can be put to work.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Science only has the capacity to assess things empirically. If something can't be assessed empirically, science is incapable of saying anything about it. If we don't know if something can be assessed empirically, then the answer is simply that - we don't know.
You're stuck because you're conflating science as a fundamental concept and the capabilities of human beings to apply it.

If a god exists, that god could use scientific method. If cross-dimensional aliens exist, they could use scientific method. If our universe is contained within some kind of outer-universe and there are sentient beings there, they could use scientific method. If any of those beings, or any other kind of hypothetical being, had access to evidence we don't (and/or never will), they will be able to apply scientific method to those things in ways we can't.

There is no limitation to science because anything that exists could be observed by some hypothetically sentience. There may well be things that no sentience will ever observe but that isn't a limitation of science.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
If a god exists, that god could use scientific method. If cross-dimensional aliens exist, they could use scientific method. If our universe is contained within some kind of outer-universe and there are sentient beings there, they could use scientific method. If any of those beings, or any other kind of hypothetical being, had access to evidence we don't (and/or never will), they will be able to apply scientific method to those things in ways we can't.

Again, the problem is that you don't actually know any of that. Nor do we know if those statements even coherently apply to the things you're talking about (what would some immaterial, timeless omnigod need science for? If there is some plane of existence beyond spacetime, how would science even begin to assess that?).

There is no limitation to science because anything that exists could be observed by some hypothetically sentience. There may well be things that no sentience will ever observe but that isn't a limitation of science.

I understand you believe that. But you can't demonstrate it scientifically.
 

vulcanlogician

Well-Known Member
I'm assuming that when you say cannot be verified empirically that you mean necessarily so rather than contingently so while awaiting the discovery that allows one to detect what was previously undetectable. These are the ideas that I call metaphysical, or "not even wrong." What does it mean to call something a fact that cannot be confirmed as such by any method from any perspective at any time with any device? I reserve the word for other kinds of ideas, ones that can be put to work.
Funnily enough, we can examine truth-statements like: "Metaphysical claims are not even wrong." or "Metaphysics is inferior to scientific investigation," and see that these statements say something significant. But scientific inquiry will never reveal this. "Science is better than metaphysics" is not a claim about nature. It's a metaphysical claim. And if you think science is superior to metaphysics (which I also tend to agree with) you are left having to admit that at least ONE metaphysical claim is true. Science can tell us many things. But it can't tell us how important metaphysics (or science itself) is.

My ethics professor used to tell a story about one of his fellow students in grad school. This student would carry around a card in his back pocket. This card had an "M" printed on it. The "M" stood for metaphysics. And when the debate would drift from, say, ethics or epistemology into metaphysics, this student would pull out his "M" card and hold it up. He did this to signify that the debate was entering into metaphysics and therefore was pointless because the issue would never be resolved.

My epistemology professor regarded this anecdote with disdain. She said, "I would carry around my E card-- for "epistemology" and pull it out to show that the "M card student" had no true grounds of knowledge to dismiss metaphysical questions so brashly.

Metaphysics gets a bad wrap. It has been abused by religious folks to advance dubious ideas, and has come into popular conception to deal with ghosts, chakras, spirits and stuff. Metaphysics simply deals those true things that aren't physical matters of fact. The pythagorean theorem counts as metaphysics according to certain strict definitions of the term. You can't use scientific instruments of the scientific method to detect the physical presence of the pythagorean theorem "out there" in the universe. But it is arguably very real.

Just because a fact can't be "confirmed" or "verified" doesn't mean you can't learn something about the status of that fact. ie. rule out certain things or ascertain that "if this fact is true then other facts are necessarily true or false."

I don't want to oversell metaphysics here. It's fairly limited in what kinds of knowledge it can give us. But it can give us SOME knowledge. And that's all it needs to do to show that science alone isn't the end-all-be-all of gnosis.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
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?
Stop, think a bit, and let us know when you come up with a third alternative.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I see existence having intrinsic natures meaning there is an inner aboutness to many things in reality. Science can only tell you the extrinsic behaviour of how things behave. Science cannot answer why questions. Why questions are the realm of philosophy.

I think human experience reveals evidence of intrinsic qualities. Those qualities can be explored through self analysis using the scientific method, or other methods such as meditation.
 
Top