Faith & Reason

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

people who base their worldly perspectives solely on science are as intellectually close-minded as people who base their perspectives upon faith.

What do you mean worldly perspectives, and what else should I base opinions on? My gut? Just whatever I feel like is the answer? Nonsense; that should be a thing of the past. We're smarter than that now.

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

We're smarter than that now.

if you say so

[Curiouser]

Lots of faith in this thread.

Faith that contradiction means some scenario doesn't obtain.

Faith that the future is like the past in terms of its adherence to certain propositions but not others.

Faith that one's interaction with the world doesn't fundamentally change the possibility of that interaction (some sort of radically free will that isn't caught up in any sort of historical constraint).

Faith in method as determining the possibility of true results.

Science and idolizing religions make a similar mistake: to be assured of the success of some particular stance with respect to experience in the world without knowing what it is to "take a stance" at all. To be fair, that isn't really the domain of either science or religion, but it does mean it can't be true, just sort of vaguely useful in the same way feeling some ultimate purposeful but vaguely defined god can help one ignore the rather chaotic (and ever new!) world we're in.

[fearthebug]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

never finding absolutes?

science says that 40 degrees fahrenheit is always 40 degrees,

no matter if viewed from another perspective (such as 277.59 kelvin or 4.4 degrees celsius).

and etcetera.

if you don't want 40 degrees to equal 40 degrees, then come up with a formula to distinguish each degree of measurable temperature on a scale that has not been known or understood by the most knowledgeable humans over the course of our entire history, and 40 degrees will no longer equal 40 degrees.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by fearthebug

if you don't want 40 degrees to equal 40 degrees, then come up with a formula to distinguish each degree of measurable temperature on a scale that has not been known or understood by the most knowledgeable humans over the course of our entire history, and 40 degrees will no longer equal 40 degrees.

That's the point. It's not "reality" wtfti. It's a definition of reality. Nothing more, certainly, but still, nothing less. I'll give you that.

[mrblonde77]

Originally Posted by Curiouser

Lots of faith in this thread.

Faith that contradiction means some scenario doesn't obtain.

Faith that the future is like the past in terms of its adherence to certain propositions but not others.

Faith that one's interaction with the world doesn't fundamentally change the possibility of that interaction (some sort of radically free will that isn't caught up in any sort of historical constraint).

Faith in method as determining the possibility of true results.

Science and idolizing religions make a similar mistake: to be assured of the success of some particular stance with respect to experience in the world without knowing what it is to "take a stance" at all. To be fair, that isn't really the domain of either science or religion, but it does mean it can't be true, just sort of vaguely useful in the same way feeling some ultimate purposeful but vaguely defined god can help one ignore the rather chaotic (and ever new!) world we're in.

Quit living in a dream. There are thing s we can know

[Curiouser]

Originally Posted by mrblonde77

Quit living in a dream. There are thing s we can know

I agree. When I suggested that an important thing to do was to figure out what it means to "take a stance" at all, I had in mind the interesting phenomenon that figuring that out is itself taking a stance, which provides a circle which doesn't serve to contradict what is thereby found out, but which continually inhabits what is thereby found out.

I don't think the difference is between living in a dream and not living in a dream; rather, its between living in a dream with an understanding of what one is while in a dream, and between living in a dream which is reified to the point of an absolute (pretending one isn't living in a dream).

I mean, at least one thing I think is possible of being known is that interpretation plays a large part in how we live our lives. That's part of what figuring out what it means to take a stance implies, I think.

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by fearthebug

if you don't want 40 degrees to equal 40 degrees

thats not the point im trying to emphasize (even though you completely disregard relativity)

all those "knowledgeable humans" did was to come up with a means of labeling these ideas that we choose to use to explain our existence.

conceptually no different then using religious ideals to explain our existence.

Originally Posted by fearthebug

then come up with a formula to distinguish each degree of measurable temperature on a scale that has not been known or understood by the most knowledgeable humans over the course of our entire history, and 40 degrees will no longer equal 40 degrees.

can implies ought?

i think not.

[Zylark]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

conceptually no different then using religious ideals to explain our existence.

I think the ability to reproduce the conditions that lead to a certain conclution (ie evidence) is a maybe just a slight bit different in concept from the religious believing on faith alone thingie.

Which is why the scientific method can produce results, and the religious one cannot. The former tries to understand nature, doing a good job I might add. The latter takes wild guesses and is content with non-answers, doing rather poorly.

The religious approach isn't an approach at all. It is thinking you got all the answers before you go looking for the facts. Not the most healthy, nor open minded, method of getting down to the gritty details of studying nature and our place in it.

[scoobydooby67]

Originally Posted by Zylark

I think the ability to reproduce the conditions that lead to a certain conclution (ie evidence) is a maybe just a slight bit different in concept from the religious believing on faith alone thingie.

Which is why the scientific method can produce results, and the religious one cannot. The former tries to understand nature, doing a good job I might add. The latter takes wild guesses and is content with non-answers, doing rather poorly.

The religious approach isn't an approach at all. It is thinking you got all the answers before you go looking for the facts. Not the most healthy, nor open minded, method of getting down to the gritty details of studying nature and our place in it.

good.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

thats not the point im trying to emphasize (even though you completely disregard relativity)

all those "knowledgeable humans" did was to come up with a means of labeling these ideas that we choose to use to explain our existence.

Point? The Earth revolving around the sun is a fact no matter how we decide to describe it, or the words we use to try and explain the event to one another.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

conceptually no different then using religious ideals to explain our existence.

Does not make any sense at all. Can you please explain the comparison, which seems like a leap that is equivalent to jumping over a skyscraper? Religion does not "answer" a question, it simply pulls something from its "ass" and says that is an answer. I could say the same kind of thing.

Random Person: "Why is the sky blue?"
Me: "Because the invisible dragon in my garage wants it to be!"

That is an answer? Sure it is. A correct answer? 99.99999% improbable. Any old answer does not necessarily mean it is an acceptable, or practical, or even a possible answer, nor should one sit on the fence because of a remote possibility.

Originally Posted by scoobydooby67

can implies ought?

i think not.

This also, in response to what was quoted, makes no sense.