I think the general public has a kind of intellectual "budget", they don't go out of their way to learn academics that they don't really need to know. Similarly people typically aren't ultra-religious without some external motivation.So the "Science vs. Religion" debate is almost always just uninformed psychobabble.
Left to their own devices people shift back into complacency.
>>593755 Supposedly "scientism" means belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method. Scientists don't use the term, because they're too busy using the scientific method to better understand the universe, while others whine about "scientism" and science "overreaching" in its attempts to explain reality.
Basically, it's a meme coined by religious and philosophical people to try to preserve a niche for themselves by convincing scientists not to make them irrelevant. It doesn't work.
>>593755 It means people like Sam Harris who say what is morally right is factual and should be determined by scientific method, and that Christian morality is as incoherent of an idea as Christian physics.
Most scientists are shit at history and spout memes about religion being anti science The worst are those who think making scientific theories about how thing happened is better than actually finding it out
>>593797 The issue is that non scientists especially politicians take what they think are scientific principals and apply then to policy Cf social Darwinism and also Margaret thatcher idea there is no such thing as society
The problem you fail to understand is that history and the origins of scientific thought have fuck all to do with it in the first place. Francis Bacon being a friar etc really has little to do with the modern clash in wordlviews of science and religion.
>>594230 The modern clash in world views has to do with liberalism and the Reformation, nothing more, nothing less. They were never considered antagonistic in Russia until the USSR, and probably aren't consider so today. Religion and science were considered extremely complementary, as thinkers like Nikolai Fyodorov, Lev Berg and Pavel Florensky illustrate.
>>594184 >The worst are those who think making scientific theories about how thing happened is better than actually finding it out How does this even work? The whole point of scientific method is that hypotheses are testable.
>>594059 >Sam Harris who say what is morally right is factual And then being absolutely retarded with it by pretty much proclaiming that utilitarianism is right just because and adding some vague buzzwords. >>593797 >Supposedly "scientism" means belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method Which is correct, since it isn't. >Scientists don't use the term, because they're too busy using the scientific method to better understand the universe, Or they are smart enough to not barge into shit they aren't good at, and those that do get laughed at for making idiotic statements regarding it, and making asses of themselves. >It doesn't work. I'm not really good at either, but they already got philosophically pwned at their most autistic proclamations.
If modern religion had gotten out of the way of science earlier people would categorize them as separate understandings. The concessions being made now are too little too late and the historical importance of the church to scientific advancement has been forgotten in the popular conciousness.
the antagonism between science and religion only exists within edgy folks. Most scientists either don't care about the other or are religious/spiritual in some way. The militant atheists are a minority.
>>599184 For some reason, even Catholic thinkers seem to have fallen for the middle ages memes. Instead of citing real historians and illustrating their contributions to science, they apologize for shit. No wonder everyone will jump on you.
>>599184 While people who follow a religion can make scientific contributions, Science and Religion do not go particularly well together.
Religion requires one to frequently take things on faith without ever providing a falsifiable hypothesis that can be disproven which would be required for a theory to be accepted by science.
And science frequently displaces assumptions of religion which were proposed with no particular proof in the first place in what might be an uphill battle since you can't conclusively prove a negative.
>>600054 Go away, fag. You're just another idiot who has no knowledge about the foundations of the scientific method you so venerate. I'm sure SCIENCE emerged in a vacuum of human genius and will rule with its methods unquestioned for the rest of time.
>>600068 Just because the scientific method has some roots in platforms for religious apologetics does not mean that the scientific method gets along with religious theories provided without falsifiable hypotheses.
>>600065 But you can use that to prove anything and in effect can use it to prove nothing. You're also phrasing your argument poorly since you arent choosing any particular religious assumption to defend, you are in effect just saying that "Everything exists, so all religous assumptions are correct".
Yes, because we were already making tools and making discoveries before philosophy was even invented. You've just fell for the fallacy that because pre-historic people didn't have a name for something or didn't have a central doctrine to wrap a certain group of activities around, it didn't exist, which would make me wonder how science and scientific discoveries then would gotten started in the first place.
>>600109 No, I'm saying "everything exists, and we don't know why, therefore to equate the religious impulse as utterly baseless and arbitrary, as if a chieftain told everyone to believe in pink zebra unicorns wearing top hats and it just happened to catch on, reveals a very poor grasp of human nature"
>>600187 But that isn't proof enough to even contemplate approaching it in a skeptical sense.
Not knowing why something exists is not grounds to simply propose anything you can think of without evidence.
By the modern approach of the scientific method the statements of religious impulse are typically useless because they propose a positive claim without anything that can be proven wrong, forcing the opponent to conclusively prove a negative claim which is typically impossible.
>>600309 No I'm saying that you can't prove something wrong if no one ever gives you anything to prove wrong.
Having something to prove wrong is the basis of a falsifiable hypothesis.
Otherwise you have two options:
>Attempt to prove the statement yourself with a falsifiable hypothesis that is then either is true or false This is rather obviously the wrong option (excepting that your falsifiable hypothesis is actually true in which case you've just done your opponents work for them and now have something you can attempt to argue against if you have not already convinced yourself). Depending on who you are disputing with this is going to be a work of trial and mostly error since they are not burdened to accept that your hypothesis is accurate despite not proposing one of their own.
>Accept that what was proposed without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence since the burden of proof was on the person proposing the positive claim rather than on you to prove himself correct This is the correct option.
So yes, provided by "boundary conditions" you mean that the other party must provide an actual argument then science is useless.
>>600361 Yes, we all know this. Science's epistemology is toothless in the religious domain. "Science cannot verify the claims of religion" is not the same as "religion is baseless and without evidence", since relative to the metaphysics themselves their arguments are perfectly coherent and as elegant as any mathematical formula. Either you've been stating the obvious this whole time or youre makingbexaggerated claims about whole systems of thought that you and I both know you haven't read a word of
Yeah. Because it isn't like the Catholic Church didn't sanction attacks on evolution for decades before the evidence became overwhelming and isn't blocking stem cell research right now at this very minute.
>>600396 Science has many teeth but given nothing to chew it may as well be toothless.
>since relative to the metaphysics themselves their arguments are perfectly coherent and as elegant as any mathematical formula And examples of this would be? Preferably examples that don't assume god as a solution or make a mockery of themselves with "maximally supreme being" nonsense. So refrain from posting Aquinas' apologetics.
>Either you've been stating the obvious this whole time or youre making exaggerated claims about whole systems of thought that you and I both know you haven't read a word of This is just a restated argumentum ad populum. Just because a lot of people have believe something for a long time doesn't make them correct.
>>600398 >science needs to take a seat Everyone needs to take a seat. You can't make a statement about any of that without ignoring that a statement needs actual proof behind it.
>>600478 >This is just a restated argumentum ad populum
What? No it's not. Educate yourself on what you're trying to refute, especially something which is grounded on, and purports to explain the nature of, the qualitative and not the quantitative. You literally can't logic your way into the spiritual mind, you can only read what its most articulate proponents have to say and see if it resonates with you on a level deeper than beep boop sigma delta pi beep boop
>>600638 I'm sorry I must have misread your intended meaning. I understood that you were saying that these people had been making metaphysical models this whole time and that I was either stating something that was obvious and they could not have overlooked for all this time or I was exaggerating and just didn't understand their models. So I guess you meant that I was either only repeatedly restating that "science can only prove science" or that I "just didn't get" your brand of metaphysics.
And I may be misinterpreting you again when I say that something "resonating with you" is not a particularly sound base for judging the validity of a statement or the accuracy of a model.
>>600718 You're spot on, but it's less a matter of just "not getting it" because you're dumb and more "make specific arguments to specific points because religion/metaphysics is a lot more rigorous and intricate as a system of thought than you seem to think it is"
The point is knowing and feeling something intuitively is the only way you CAN know anything metaphysical, since by its definition you can't rely on physical proof to prove the metaphysical. The empirical and intuitive are two different forms of knowledge. The rational is rigid mentation grasping rigid physical processes. Intuition is life grasping life.
You would be seen as a wackaloon to ask me for empirical evidence of the assertion that, say, I intuitively feel something is bothering a loved one. Sure I can point to certain, empirically verifiable behaviors - such as one-word answers and a flat tone in their voice - but IN AND OF THEMSELVES, empirically, these mean nothing. It's the whole package of behaviors that I understand intuitively as meaning "this person is hiding something". It's my familiarity with their habits and mannerisms give me insight into their inner condition that's at work here. Not science
Consciousness has its own way of knowing things that subsumes and transcends the purely rational
>>600406 >Because it isn't like the Catholic Church didn't sanction attacks on evolution for decades But it didnt... > isn't blocking stem cell research right now at this very minute. The Church doesnt have problem with Adult Stem Cells, it's the ones that come from dead babies that it opposes
>>593719 >Would scientism and the 'science vs. religion' dichotomy be less widespread with a greater understanding of the history and philosophy of science? Yes, everything would be less widespread if people knew more about what happened. But most people dont want to know what happened, they just want confirmation on what they know
>>600750 >You would be seen as a wackaloon to ask me for empirical evidence of the assertion that, say, I intuitively feel something is bothering a loved one. Sure I can point to certain, empirically verifiable behaviors - such as one-word answers and a flat tone in their voice - but IN AND OF THEMSELVES, empirically, these mean nothing. It's the whole package of behaviors that I understand intuitively as meaning "this person is hiding something". It's my familiarity with their habits and mannerisms give me insight into their inner condition that's at work here. Not science.
>Consciousness has its own way of knowing things that subsumes and transcends the purely rational
This is assuming that the human mind, evolved to be used in a social context, is just as capable of intuiting emotional states from small signals as it is capable of intuiting metaphysics. This is also assuming that you can't construct a falsifiable hypotheses using those empirically verifiable behaviors. And I know that you're just using this as an example.
And while I am fairly certain that you are going to accuse me of overly simplifying many different things but I'm going to insist that intuiting something is a very fallible process and as such is not strong evidence for anything in particular.
>>600874 Not if you intuit in an objective state of mind, see if it agrees (but is not necessarily extrapolated from) a rational and sober view of the world, and if you return to that intuition constantly to verify its content. We're talking about self-knowledge, not sentimentalist spiritualist fantasies
For example, the Buddha intuited impernenance and no-self without any external experimentation, and science has just come around to confirming his views. We absolutely cannot know for sure if what we intuit about consciousness and existence has any application to what is outside the universe, but since the universe and consciousness are intimately linked we can learn about one from the other. For example, a calm mind and a calm environment are both intrinsically conducive to healthy consciousness/propagation of life. These are principles that apply on all levels. Solid matter is passive, subject to influence, and the integrity of its elements is constantly under threat. A mind solidified around pathological mental complexes is more often acted upon than being an agent of action itself, and it's sanity is constantly under threat. Fluidity, suppleness, and pristine awareness are the key. "Be like water" as Bruce Lee says. I don't mind to iust draw metaphors across Nature and Mind, I'm only trying to illustrate that the same intelligible principles inform the constitutions and behaviors of both.
If we assume what is metaphysical is beyond comprehension, then the discussion ends there. If we assume these principles, however, are traceable to perfect manifestations of themselves that are their source and driving power, then good religion is invaluable to living a healthy life
>>599934 The mindsets are mutually exclusive though, even the greatest Christian and Islamic logicians were ultimately intellectually dishonest and only used their considerable skills to justify their religious dogmas which they would hold to be the truth no matter the evidence or logic presented.
[spoiler]Which means they truly were the first academics [/spoiler]
>>603544 The inherit imperfections found in people lay and professional does not really justify the inherit contradiction though.
Though the people who are tied up in science are not immune to this, they are ultimately better at tackling it in the long run (see the piltdown man).
Reason plays a far more integral role for them than it does the theist logician, for instance it would never be acceptable for the Christian scholasitic to demonstrate Christ having one nature or not being trinitarian. This is not just a cultural thing like we get in science which can be worn down over time, this is literally set in stone for them for now until the end of times.
1) Religion and Science are fundamentally opposed ways of understanding the Universe. Science is based on testing, experimentation and observation and coming up with models and theories that can be proven wrong and can be used to predict things. Religion is based on having a set of beliefs and believing them based on faith.
That is not to say it is impossible for people to reconcile these two worldviews. There are plenty of religious people who are scientists and scientifically literate people who are religious. You can view them as non-overlapping magisteria that answer completely different questions. Some people buy that idea, other's don't.
2) The practical clashes between the different viewpoints. The two big ones would be the attack on evolution based on religious views from Muslims and some Christians and oppostion to stem cell research.
Neither of these two issues are sorted out by by making appeals to history or "where science came from".
Fideism is literally a term invented to describe certain Catholic thinkers.
>The term “fideism” appears to have entered the philosophical lexicon by way of theology in the late nineteenth century. It was originally used in reference to a movement within Roman Catholic thought, also known as traditionalism, which emphasized, over against rationalism, the role of tradition as the medium by means of which divine revelation is communicated, and which was sometimes conjoined with a conservative social and political agenda. Although of late modern vintage, the term “fideism” has since been applied retrospectively to thinkers at least as far back as the second century C.E.
>>600963 This is assuming that an objective state of mind exists.
>For example, the Buddha intuited impermanence and no-self without any external experimentation, and science has just come around to confirming his views. Regardless of whether someone eventually correctly confirms an intuited view that view is essentially useless without evidence or a given reason (Which follows from intuiting something) since it can simply be juxtaposed to a roughly equally valid view which has also been intuited but which says the opposite.
>but since the universe and consciousness are intimately linked we can learn about one from the other. >For example, a calm mind and a calm environment are both intrinsically conducive to healthy consciousness/propagation of life. I do not understand how this follows. Define calm in the context of mind and environment. Define propagation of life, does this include a sudden burst of new life to occupy a niche originally occupied by another lifeform which has been ousted by a changing environment?
> If we assume these principles, however, are traceable to perfect manifestations of themselves that are their source and driving power. How do you actually justify this particular statement?
>>603925 I've made my point. Arguing like this about intuition is a waste of time. I'm not saying we can become omniscient, but I am saying we can become progressively more detached from our minds activity and perceive the world in a new dimension. Youve either experienced it or you haven't. That's it
>>603734 Religion and science are not fundamentally opposed at all. In the broadest sense they are exactly the same thing. All attempts at understanding the world as a system of causality are at their foundation religious.
Now what you call science is a very specific kind of religion, based on the scientific method. The scientific method is something that developed in the West from the 13th to the 17th century, and that didn't just spring out of a vacuum. Specifically, it grew out of Catholicism and Catholic philosophy. Its validity can't be "proven" any more than any other religious system can.
>>604466 >In the broadest sense they are exactly the same thing Which is exactly why they're fundamentally opposed.
Ibn Al Hasan "created" the scientific method by the way, and before him ptolemy and aristotle too envisaged something very similar, I'm curious as to why you think catholic philosophy had a hand in it.
>>603648 I made the original post, the op asked about "greater understanding of the history and philosophy of science" which I took to mean among the general population. And if you want to argue that typical people rigorously study the scientific method or their religion's dogma, well then I disagree, I think most people content themselves with the basic primer and then go about their daily lives. So then when a discussion pops up, they "go to war with the troops they have" so to speak, meaning they just use whatever tidbits to support their side that they recall at that moment.
I'm not claiming to be a master of philosophy or religion, but I think the above comment is pretty accurate.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.