Subject:
|
Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:25:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1716 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > My brain hurts just reading that! :-)
> >
> > I was agreeing with you.
>
> Ok, phew!
>
> > Both seek to explain the world around us, but approach it at different
> > levels. Ultimately, one is taken as a matter of faith, the other isn't.
>
> Ah. Maybe this is the semantic that we've been missing. I'm dealing with
> religion in the theoretical sense. In my mind, I'm referring to what
> religion COULD be, not necessarily what it IS.
>
> My implication is that IF one judged metaphysical events as consistant, and
> applied the scientific theory to them to conclude the existence of God,
> absoluteness of morality, etc, then religion wouldn't be arguing the absurd
> to conclude so. Hence, religion isn't NECESSARILY wrong. But the plain and
> simple of it is just that that's not what most religions have done. And to
> that extent, I agree with you. Unless that's how a Christian has derived
> their version of their religion, then I don't think they have the 'right' to
> proclaim such a version of religion as potentially valid.
I agree that religion isn't necessarily wrong - though it would seem the
conflicting claims of the religions, not to mention the sects within the
religions would indicate that somebody *is* wrong somewhere!
But then again, maybe every one of them is right (except for those claiming
everybody else is wrong). :-)
Anyway, you are speaking on a hypothetical basis, and this involves
something else than what I was dealing with, and requires a different
approach on my part (dunno what it is, or even if I have an argument with
you at this level).
_
:-O (My usual Edvard Munch-inspired emoticon)
--
>
> That change it up at all? I'm expecting so...
Yup.
>
> > > Not necessarily. One big thing I'm getting at here isn't that science is
> > > wrong, but that many people tote around science as being necessarily right.
> > > Science in and of itself has NEVER (nor will) 'proven' ANYTHING. It's only
> > > showed that which is probable.
> >
> > That is correct. Well, maybe mathematical proofs.
>
> Hmm... I kinda wonder whether I'd call mathematics as being explored by
> mathematical principles... Hmm.. actually, no, I don't think so-- I think
> math is more of a tautology. It defines itself. It's not really based on
> evidence, it's based on definitions... Basically, we didn't take 1 and 1, do
> something with them, get 2 a bunch of times, then derive the idea of 'plus',
> but rather defined plus and discovered that 2 comes out of it. At least
> that's my thought on the matter. Tough call though... Not sure I'm grounded
> in that yet...
Can't say that I'm any great shakes at mathematical theory, but it is viewed
as something that would be universal with any advanced society.
>
> > > Why? Because you've seen evidence to believe so.
> >
> > That's evidence, not faith.
>
> I guess here's perhaps another difference semantically. I've heard things
> like "Why do you have faith in X?", etc. And to say such a thing denotes a
> reasoning behind faith, not to say that their definition of faith is
> incorrect. But really, I think it's a trust of your own power to reason. Why
> did you pick physical over metaphysical? Because it's consistant. Why do you
> think it's consistant? You have faith in your ability to judge consistancy.
Because I consistently get consistency? It's a matter of accumulated
experience.
> Basically, what if you judged the metaphysical to be consistant? Would you
> be wrong to apply the scientific method to those consistant perceptions? I'd
> hope not.
Unless somebody could verify my metaphysical conclusions, there's not much I
could prove scientifically. Who knows - maybe we'll be able to do the
cyberpunk thing and all jack-in our brains directly to a universal network
where we can scientifically compare things on a metaphysical level (hold the
Black Ice).
Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with science and metaphysics
|
| (...) I perfectly agree, as was my point, I think-- it's not NECESSARILY wrong, but I *think* it's wrong based on what I've seen... (...) That's kinda what I thought might be happening-- I.E. I'm taking the absolutest of theoretical arguments, (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) Ok, phew! (...) Ah. Maybe this is the semantic that we've been missing. I'm dealing with religion in the theoretical sense. In my mind, I'm referring to what religion COULD be, not necessarily what it IS. My implication is that IF one judged (...) (23 years ago, 22-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
