Why scientists are closer to God than you are.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Alliance
God(s), in their everlasting wisdom have left a tremendous amount of information on this Earth for us to study and to learn about their existence. Gods usually leave two "books" for us to read and learn about their existence: The Book of Scripture and The Book of Nature.

The Book of Scripture is any collection of religious texts and varies from religion to religion. These texts have been edited over and over again in throughout history. They are often ambiguous and can easily be interpreted differently.

The Book of Nature is everywhere around us, in plain sight. By studying this world which God(s) have left for us, we can, free from historical bias and human intervention, look upon God(s) through their most evident gift, creation.

Natural Scientists study God's work, learning in great detail what He/They in his/their wisdom created. By understanding our place within creation and creation's place within us, we can interpret God's will here and now from their active influence in this world, not from man-made/corrupted text.

Natural Scientists are like clergy, only studying the living will of God(s), and hence closer to God(s) than those who ignore God's living legacy.

Alliance
Oh, and post your opinons. (on this topic)

Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
hug There, there now, don't cry just because you have a crappy thread.

eek! laughing

jk

Nellinator
Somehow I don't think you believe what you wrote. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Alliance
Why does it matter if I do? To what extent to I have to agree with it to believe in it? In what context am I believing this?

Nellinator
Well, let's just say there are some major holes in your statement up there. Glaring ones actually, its pretty sloppy work, very unlike you Alliance.

Alliance
Well would you like to address them or simply point out how intelligent you think you are?

ThePittman
Originally posted by Alliance
Well would you like to address them or simply point out how intelligent you think you are? OH snap stick out tongue

Alliance
That was too harsh of me.

Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Alliance
That was too harsh of me.

No, I think it was perfectly justified.

FeceMan
Well, for starters...

1. The article--since I feel it is evident that Alliance himself did not write it, though he has failed to quote it--presents the classic "Church vs. science" viewpoint. Flawed from the very beginning.

2. This sentence is beyond ridiculous: "By understanding our place within creation and creation's place within us, we can interpret God's will here and now from their active influence in this world, not from man-made/corrupted text."

It's hogwash. How can we possibly determine how God is "actively influencing" this world by studying nature?

3. The article tries to make the case that, by studying creation, we can understand God's will "be closer to Him." This is akin to me saying that, by studying how a telephone works, I can understand Alexander Graham Bell.

4. "Natural Scientists are like clergy, only studying the living will of God(s), and hence closer to God(s) than those who ignore God's living legacy."

Again, this makes the faulty claim that anyone in organized religion ignores/disregards science. Furthermore, this very claim is invalidated by the sheer number of scientists that have taken it upon themselves to boldly proclaim that science disproves God--and those that try to combine science and religion, such as William Dembski, are treated with scorn and derision.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
God(s), in their everlasting wisdom have left a tremendous amount of information on this Earth for us to study and to learn about their existence. Gods usually leave two "books" for us to read and learn about their existence: The Book of Scripture and The Book of Nature.

The Book of Scripture is any collection of religious texts and varies from religion to religion. These texts have been edited over and over again in throughout history. They are often ambiguous and can easily be interpreted differently.

The Book of Nature is everywhere around us, in plain sight. By studying this world which God(s) have left for us, we can, free from historical bias and human intervention, look upon God(s) through their most evident gift, creation.

Natural Scientists study God's work, learning in great detail what He/They in his/their wisdom created. By understanding our place within creation and creation's place within us, we can interpret God's will here and now from their active influence in this world, not from man-made/corrupted text.

Natural Scientists are like clergy, only studying the living will of God(s), and hence closer to God(s) than those who ignore God's living legacy. I think in many religions your post is absolutely accurate. If a religion disregards science, holding to some scriptural interpretation over the scientific fact, that religion is further from God than the scientist. If the religion embraces scientific fact, then it is closer to God than the scientist though, unless the scientist belongs to such a religion.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Alliance
God(s), in their everlasting wisdom have left a tremendous amount of information on this Earth for us to study and to learn about their existence. Gods usually leave two "books" for us to read and learn about their existence: The Book of Scripture and The Book of Nature.

The Book of Scripture is any collection of religious texts and varies from religion to religion. These texts have been edited over and over again in throughout history. They are often ambiguous and can easily be interpreted differently.

The Book of Nature is everywhere around us, in plain sight. By studying this world which God(s) have left for us, we can, free from historical bias and human intervention, look upon God(s) through their most evident gift, creation.

Natural Scientists study God's work, learning in great detail what He/They in his/their wisdom created. By understanding our place within creation and creation's place within us, we can interpret God's will here and now from their active influence in this world, not from man-made/corrupted text.

Natural Scientists are like clergy, only studying the living will of God(s), and hence closer to God(s) than those who ignore God's living legacy. Isn't that what Darwin did?

Mindship
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Einstein

These debates always seems to come down to "which is better" in understanding the Big Picture: using the Mind or the Heart.

IMO, using both is better than either by itself. Blind faith alone is religionistic self-indulgence; science alone is directionless number-crunching.

xmarksthespot
On the other hand to that oft-quoted saying.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
--Einstein

Mindship
That's why I make the distinction between religion and religionism...Einstein did too.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

Alliance
Einstein's personal conceptionof religion was way out of the league of most people today. It was purely cosmic. The "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." quote is consitantly used by religious organizations to seemingly validate thier existance. However, they, as has been pointed out, dont know the context of the quote. They just hear religion, think "good" and plaster it up.

Its so often taken out fo context.

Alliance
Originally posted by lord xyz
Isn't that what Darwin did?

No. This philosophy actually predates Darwin. Darwin is an iffy case, because he later went through an athiest-agnostic case when his kid died.

Darwin did use some elements of this philosophy, but it came out of its golden age by the time the Enlightnement rolled around.

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance
Einstein's personal conceptionof religion was way out of the league of most people today. It was purely cosmic. The "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." quote is consitantly used by religious organizations to seemingly validate thier existance. However, they, as has been pointed out, dont know the context of the quote. They just hear religion, think "good" and plaster it up.

Its so often taken out fo context.

It sure is. Conversely, it is also often counter-quoted (again, taken out of context) by those who feel "religion," in any form, no matter what, is negative, that Science Alone (especially empirical science ) saves the day. It doesn't. This is why I included context in my second post.

Alliance
Wait, I don't get that. " t is also often counter-quoted (again, taken out of context) by those who feel "religion," in any form, no matter what, is negative"

lord xyz
Originally posted by Alliance
No. This philosophy actually predates Darwin. Darwin is an iffy case, because he later went through an athiest-agnostic case when his kid died.

Darwin did use some elements of this philosophy, but it came out of its golden age by the time the Enlightnement rolled around. But the thing is, the way I see it, you can't look at nature and think of a God, rather, you look at nature and realise that nature is how people came to be, not of a higher power. Everything we have is due to nature, there's too much evidence to prove other wise. If you think nature is proof of God, or shows how God works, then you clearly don't understand the laws of physics and think life or nature is a machine, a painting, a video game, or anything else that is created and can't create. Obviously life can create.

Alliance
Can we state as an assumption that God exists?

Lord Urizen
But he doesn't....

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But he doesn't.... So much for being Agnostic...

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
So much for being Agnostic...




God is not a person

xmarksthespot
Originally posted by Mindship
It sure is. Conversely, it is also often counter-quoted (again, taken out of context) by those who feel "religion," in any form, no matter what, is negative, that Science Alone (especially empirical science ) saves the day. It doesn't. This is why I included context in my second post. Somewhat strawman-ish. Religion, in the classical sense, has it's place; it can and has been utilised for positive and negative ends, and may or may not be a motivation for peoples' innovation and ingenuity in the sciences.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I fail to see how this above is thoroughly lacking in context. The latter quote perhaps, however.

The meaning of the word religion in its common usage, and the meaning underlying Einstein's usage of it are two relatively different things, which you did not particularly distinguish in your first post.

Alliance
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
God is not a person
Does it matter? NO.

This argument is only going to work in the pressumption that god actually exists. I'm not trying to debate whetehr or not god exists, I'm trying to examine how science relates to God in the context of religion.

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Alliance
Does it matter? NO.

This argument is only going to work in the pressumption that god actually exists. I'm not trying to debate whetehr or not god exists, I'm trying to examine how science relates to God in the context of religion.


Religious God doesn't exist

Mindship
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Somewhat strawman-ish. Religion, in the classical sense, has it's place; it can and has been utilised for positive and negative ends, and may or may not be a motivation for peoples' innovation and ingenuity in the sciences.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

I fail to see how this above is thoroughly lacking in context. The latter quote perhaps, however.

The meaning of the word religion in its common usage, and the meaning underlying Einstein's usage of it are two relatively different things, which you did not particularly distinguish in your first post.

I did use the term "religionistic" (not "religious"wink. But perhaps that wasn't clear enough. Thus:

Religionism is ego-serving and self-contradicting. It is "religion" as commonly grasped, especially when referring to all the bias, suffering, death and destruction people have wrought in "God's" name throughout history. This is "religion" as rejected by Einstein and most (all?) great scientists and honest thinkers. At the very least, it is a horrid aberration of Humanity's noblest aspirations.

Religion is truth-serving and ultimately self-transcending. It is the sense of the numinous, of the ultimate mystery that is reality (Einstein's "cosmic" feeling...though even Einstein felt that the universe was ultimately knowable, which is why he didn't like quantum mechanics: "God does not play dice..." to toss off another of his quotes). It includes the realization that there is more to the world than meets the eye or mind, that reality includes nonempirical elements, at the very least "mind" (not the neurochemical correlates, but the subjective experience of consciousness), and possibly, Possibly, something "higher."

Whether one includes a personal God in this or not, it doesn't matter. Religion (as used here) dictates, above all else, a prime directive of respect and compassion for one another, regardless of faith, creed or religionistic upbringing. Science Alone (ie, empirical science) says nothing about that; all it knows is numbers.

Alliance
I'm not quite sure what you're asking/saying, but I hope what I said above might make my position more clear. Also, with regard to examining "how science relates to God in the context of religion," it is my feeling the scientific method can be used to investigate "God" as long as one is fair about it. That is, the tools used and the data collected should reflect the domain being studied. If "God" is regarded as a transempirical entity, then the insistence on using empirical science becomes an exercise in Scientism, which like Religionism, is ultimately ego-serving and self-contradicting.

Alliance
Listen dude.

1. I don't care if its a religious God or not. Its GOD.

2. This is NOT an argument about if God exists or not, its about how God, Science, the clergy and scientists realate WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF RELIGION.

Anything that is "god does not exist" is off-topic.

Let me state this again. GOD WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF RELIGION. I

Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Alliance
Listen dude.

1. I don't care if its a religious God or not. Its GOD.

2. This is NOT an argument about if God exists or not, its about how God, Science, the clergy and scientists realate WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF RELIGION.

Anything that is "god does not exist" is off-topic.

Let me state this again. GOD WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF RELIGION. I



God doesn't exist no

Alliance
Originally posted by Mindship
Alliance
I'm not quite sure what you're asking/saying, but I hope what I said above might make my position more clear.

Despite the beautiful distinction, its is one not recognized by society and pop culture. It is an intellectual differentiation and not one interpretable by the common man.

A better disctinction to draw would to be against organized religion, not religion itself. This terminology is more immediately accessible to everyone.

I understand where you're comming from now.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
God doesn't exist no

Listen. Many people in the world believe that God does exist. It is REAL to them, despite logic to the contrary. I am looking at this issue from thier perspective.

EVERY religious argumant can be stifled by your conclusion. Thats why I want to disallow it. Its not productive.

The point of this thread was to examine the role of scinetists in religion as the primary interpreters of creation. That cannot be examined from your point of view, so you are not contributing.

You don't have to post here, but I'm not exculding you. I'd just appreciate it if posts were either on-topic or humorous.

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance
Despite the beautiful distinction, its is one not recognized by society and pop culture. It is an intellectual differentiation and not one interpretable by the common man.
A better disctinction to draw would to be against organized religion, not religion itself. This terminology is more immediately accessible to everyone.

That I do agree with...though if the common man tried just a wee bit harder... wink

Alliance
laughing out loud That would solve MANY a problem.

And there was much rejoicing.

FeceMan
Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, for starters...

1. The article--since I feel it is evident that Alliance himself did not write it, though he has failed to quote it--presents the classic "Church vs. science" viewpoint. Flawed from the very beginning.

2. This sentence is beyond ridiculous: "By understanding our place within creation and creation's place within us, we can interpret God's will here and now from their active influence in this world, not from man-made/corrupted text."

It's hogwash. How can we possibly determine how God is "actively influencing" this world by studying nature?

3. The article tries to make the case that, by studying creation, we can understand God's will "be closer to Him." This is akin to me saying that, by studying how a telephone works, I can understand Alexander Graham Bell.

4. "Natural Scientists are like clergy, only studying the living will of God(s), and hence closer to God(s) than those who ignore God's living legacy."

Again, this makes the faulty claim that anyone in organized religion ignores/disregards science. Furthermore, this very claim is invalidated by the sheer number of scientists that have taken it upon themselves to boldly proclaim that science disproves God--and those that try to combine science and religion, such as William Dembski, are treated with scorn and derision.

Alliance
Sorry, Fece, let me think about it for a little bit and then answer.

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Sorry, Fece, let me think about it for a little bit and then answer. sad His response deserved a response while mine did not *pouts*


j/k wink

Alliance
Sorry, there are a lot of responses and I will adress all of them. I working on a paper for finals right now, and I find it hard to devote time to a thoughtful response to anything....


So I write sh!t like this ^^^

Regret
Originally posted by Alliance
Sorry, there are a lot of responses and I will adress all of them. I working on a paper for finals right now, and I find it hard to devote time to a thoughtful response to anything....


So I write sh!t like this ^^^ laughing laughing laughing

Good luck on the finals, its nice when you finish with school. Although then every grant application becomes a huge, and possibly life altering, final.

lord xyz
Originally posted by Alliance
Does it matter? NO.

This argument is only going to work in the pressumption that god actually exists. I'm not trying to debate whetehr or not god exists, I'm trying to examine how science relates to God in the context of religion. And I see your point.

If there was a God, (something that created us that we should follow) then science definately is closer to it than religion by the fact that science is based upon truth not opinion.

Alliance
Originally posted by Regret
I think in many religions your post is absolutely accurate. If a religion disregards science, holding to some scriptural interpretation over the scientific fact, that religion is further from God than the scientist. If the religion embraces scientific fact, then it is closer to God than the scientist though, unless the scientist belongs to such a religion.

Ok. laughing out loud

lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
God doesn't exist no laughing

Jim Reaper
Originally posted by Mindship
Also, with regard to examining "how science relates to God in the context of religion," it is my feeling the scientific method can be used to investigate "God" as long as one is fair about it. That is, the tools used and the data collected should reflect the domain being studied. If "God" is regarded as a transempirical entity, then the insistence on using empirical science becomes an exercise in Scientism, which like Religionism, is ultimately ego-serving and self-contradicting.


I don't think that Scientism is self-serving, it just doesn't have all the answers right now...
Being able to investigate "gods" existince is contradictory to its feasibility IMO, since we are supposedly its creation. I can varify my creator by getting a sample from my parents... Science appiles in that case. If there is an omnipotent "god," it would be something incomprehensible. It would be beyond science's capabilities. Hence, there is no logical reason to give the idea of a supernatural creator any credibility. That concept filled a gap for its time... I view the bible as a primitive form of natural science in some ways.

Mindship
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
I don't think that Scientism is self-serving, it just doesn't have all the answers right now...
Being able to investigate "gods" existince is contradictory to its feasibility IMO, since we are supposedly its creation. I can varify my creator by getting a sample from my parents... Science appiles in that case. If there is an omnipotent "god," it would be something incomprehensible. It would be beyond science's capabilities. Hence, there is no logical reason to give the idea of a supernatural creator any credibility. That concept filled a gap for its time... I view the bible as a primitive form of natural science in some ways.

Understood. However, may I clarify...

The edict of scientism is basically this: "Only empirical evidence counts." This is self-contradicting because there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of that sentence.

Secondly, I said scientism is ego-serving not self-serving. The latter makes it sound like scientism is serving itself, whereas my point is that it serves the user. How? By limiting oneself strictly to empirical data, the user can assure him/herself that a transempirical god not only will never be found, but simply doesn't exist. Ego can rest assured that it is the highest form of consciousness known, and this, IMO, can lead to arrogance as readily as a religionistic POV.

While I do agree somewhat with what you're saying, it remains my feeling that Scientific Method is viable in transempirical investigation if we expand our definition of "proof." Of course, in the case of "God," we'd also have to supply a viable operational definition, and by definition "God" in the highest sense is ineffable.

Admittedly, this would be a very tough nut to crack. But theoretically I believe it could be done...or at least, I haven't come across any empirical proof which says it couldn't. wink

Alliance
Originally posted by Mindship
The edict of scientism is basically this: "Only empirical evidence counts." This is self-contradicting because there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of that sentence.
Empirical data is something that everybody can agree on. Truth is what is experienced by all people. Right now, empirical data is the only way to achieve that.

Originally posted by Mindship
By limiting oneself strictly to empirical data, the user can assure him/herself that a transempirical god not only will never be found, but simply doesn't exist. Ego can rest assured that it is the highest form of consciousness known, and this, IMO, can lead to arrogance as readily as a religionistic POV.

You forget that historically, God was not empirical, he was thought to be empirical. The conception of faith changed, for a variety of reasons, but one amongst them was that it removed God from quantification. If God was nonimperical, he could never be eliminated by experimentalism.

Science does not give a damn if God exists or not. Science is here to observe, not to explain. Scientists who explain why things happen, myself included, are breaking the code of science. Thats not the goal...AT ALL.

Originally posted by Mindship
While I do agree somewhat with what you're saying, it remains my feeling that Scientific Method is viable in transempirical investigation if we expand our definition of "proof." Of course, in the case of "God," we'd also have to supply a viable operational definition, and by definition "God" in the highest sense is ineffable.

The scientific method is viable transimperically and is used in such a manner in a variety of other fields, namely the soft (non-natural)sciences. It has and will be continued to be applied in this manner.

However, one must realize that this is the scientific method and is not true natural science.

As you pointed out, God is a self-defeating concept because the concept of God is constantly readjusted to fit in the most accurate picture of the physical world available at the time...including redefining the concept in a non-imperical nature.

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance
1. Empirical data is something that everybody can agree on. Truth is what is experienced by all people. Right now, empirical data is the only way to achieve that.

2. You forget that historically, God was not empirical, he was thought to be empirical. The conception of faith changed, for a variety of reasons, but one amongst them was that it removed God from quantification. If God was nonimperical, he could never be eliminated by experimentalism.

3. Science does not give a damn if God exists or not. Science is here to observe, not to explain. Scientists who explain why things happen, myself included, are breaking the code of science. Thats not the goal...AT ALL.

4. The scientific method is viable transimperically and is used in such a manner in a variety of other fields, namely the soft (non-natural)sciences. It has and will be continued to be applied in this manner.

5. However, one must realize that this is the scientific method and is not true natural science.

6. As you pointed out, God is a self-defeating concept because the concept of God is constantly readjusted to fit in the most accurate picture of the physical world available at the time...including redefining the concept in a non-imperical nature.

1. I would say it might be easiest, perhaps, for everyone to agree on. After all, we're tacitly agreeing on the meaning of the sentences we're using right now, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate.

2. Not forgotten; I just have a tendency to substitute what I may mean by God for what most people take God to mean. This is why I often put the word "God" in quotes. And certainly, as a concept, "God" has often been molded to fit people's views and needs. I think this is a main reason why "organized religion" wink hasn't faired well over time.

3. Absolutely: the aim of science is not to explain but to describe, to provide reliable (hopefully valid) "as ifs."

4. Psychology is a good example, but...aren't our minds natural? sad

5. If by natural, you mean physical or biological, then I agree.

6. The concept of God, yes. But I wonder if Scientific Method, employing transempirical tools and collecting transempirical data, might be used to verify, if not God in the highest sense, then the domains beneath "Him," as elucidated in the various schools of mystical thought.

Robtard
Decent post Alliance with some valid points... I'm assuming you wrote it yourself.

Alliance
Originally posted by Mindship
2. Not forgotten; I just have a tendency to substitute what I may mean by God for what most people take God to mean. This is why I often put the word "God" in quotes. And certainly, as a concept, "God" has often been molded to fit people's views and needs. I think this is a main reason why "organized religion" wink hasn't faired well over time.

5. If by natural, you mean physical or biological, then I agree.


Yes. I don't discriminate amongst gods. God as the void that fills in the gaps in knowledge cannot be disputed. God is certainly more a feeling than an man.

Natural Sciences are Biology, Chemistry, and Physics in their modern forms.

Psychology is more the study of thought and behavior, which is not real natural. smile Sorry Regret.


Originally posted by Mindship
6. The concept of God, yes. But I wonder if Scientific Method, employing transempirical tools and collecting transempirical data, might be used to verify, if not God in the highest sense, then the domains beneath "Him," as elucidated in the various schools of mystical thought.
I don't know which schools you are referring to specifically, but I will say this. The scientific method will likely not apply to god, as it relies on reproducibility. If a god is all powerful, his actions won't be reproducible, as he can constantly change them. If god it not all powerful, the scientific method won't be able to distinguish him from the Natural Laws themselves.

God may be beyonf the Method, but he is not beyond logic. However, its important to keep logic and science seperate as I can think of MANY things that are currently thought true that aren't at all logical.
Originally posted by Robtard
Decent post Alliance with some valid points... I'm assuming you wrote it yourself.
Yes. Scientists everywhere have increasingly found themselves on the defensive from societal groups, namely religious ones, that are bastardizing what science is in order to gain traction with things like "Intelligent Design" etc. Its really quite sad actually, but I believe that its partially the fault of science itself.
I can go on, but thats enough for now.

Basically, as a scientist myself and a History of Science major, there is a need, especially now, to define what science is and what it is not. Its something important to me and I feel it has positive consequences for society.

Mindship
Originally posted by Alliance
God as the void that fills in the gaps in knowledge cannot be disputed.
Agreed, at least as "God" is being used here.

Psychology is more the study of thought and behavior, which is not real natural. smile Sorry Regret.
Behavior can be empirically measured--that's the whole point! When (eg) biologists go out in the field to observe an animal, That's what they're observing.

I don't know which schools you are referring to specifically, but I will say this. The scientific method will likely not apply to god, as it relies on reproducibility. If a god is all powerful, his actions won't be reproducible, as he can constantly change them. If god it not all powerful, the scientific method won't be able to distinguish him from the Natural Laws themselves.
Basically, all the schools have a common thread, called the perennial philosophy, and by examining this common thread, it might be possible to come up with viable operational definitions.

God may be beyonf the Method, but he is not beyond logic.
Here I disagree. "God" (again, leaving the definition open for the moment) is translogical as well. Otherwise, for example, Aquinas' "ontological arguments" could be considered valid, which I don't think they are. I think if one pushes logic on "God," you end up with paradox. As to what these paradoxes ultimately mean (eg, Omnipotence Paradox), depends on the belief system of the individual.

Basically, as a scientist myself and a History of Science major, there is a need, especially now, to define what science is and what it is not. Its something important to me and I feel it has positive consequences for society.
Agreed. However, since there are many bright and insightful people in this forum, I personally like to push the envelope, as it were, in discussing "what science is." I Wouldn't do this in an "Intro to Science" course.

Jim Reaper
Originally posted by Mindship

6. The concept of God, yes. But I wonder if Scientific Method, employing transempirical tools and collecting transempirical data, might be used to verify, if not God in the highest sense, then the domains beneath "Him," as elucidated in the various schools of mystical thought.

Clarifying the concept of "god" is no easy task these days.

Jim Reaper
Originally posted by Alliance

God may be beyonf the Method, but he is not beyond logic. However, its important to keep logic and science seperate as I can think of MANY things that are currently thought true that aren't at all logical.



Logic is important when it comes to making decisions when there is a lack of evidence. Science can't have all the answers, but I find it to be the most promising alternative.

Mindship
Originally posted by Jim Reaper
...but I find it to be the most promising alternative.
yes

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.