News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Religion and Spirituality  (Read 172302 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lord Ulthanash

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1007
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Eldar: Corsairs and Ulthwe
Re: Religion and Spirituality
« Reply #1620 on: March 19, 2011, 01:32:55 PM »

Which is fine! Science doesn't stop there, we scientists are not content at seeing something happend. We must know why and how. If there is nothing we do not understand, then it gets all the more exciting. We don't do simple explinations and if the existing theory isn't up to par we'll get our scalpels and scissors and butcher our darlings till something more elegant appears.

To quote Dara O'Briain, "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop."


Of course its fine, I'm just saying that it can't 'prove' anything, at least in the philosophical sense. If my two options are between a system made of ancient, obscure rules that were done without tests and a system based of rationality and is constantly improving, I'm definitely going with the second. Neither religion or science HAVE to prove something, there purpose is to provide us with a layout to properly live and advance, and science does this better.



He who sees his own doom can better avoid its path. He who sees the doom of others can deliver it.

Offline Roy

  • Infinity Circuit - Harbinger of the Dark Millenium
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4700
  • Country: no
Re: Religion and Spirituality
« Reply #1621 on: March 20, 2011, 03:51:22 PM »
Of course its fine, I'm just saying that it can't 'prove' anything, at least in the philosophical sense.

That sound like a position of radical doubt.

In philosophy of science, we cannot strictly speaking prove anything, only disprove claims to the contrary. A scientific theory needs to be in principle falsifiable and also make accurate predictions.

In practical reality however, science can prove something well beyond any reasonable doubt. There is weak and strong proof, and scientific fact has very strong supporting evidence indeed. Well beyond reasonable doubt in any other field of human endeavor.

Offline Archon Khiraq(danceman)

  • The Devil in Pale Moonlight
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Country: se
  • What's the matter? Don't you like clowns?
Re: Religion and Spirituality
« Reply #1622 on: March 20, 2011, 06:53:44 PM »
Science can prove a great deal of things. Not being able to prove/disprove some brand of philosophy isn't an argument against it. Like Roy mentions, a philosophical and/or metaphysical claim that is unfalsifiable is not a claim worth considering because the claim itself, by its very nature, has made itself immune from criticism.



"The blade itself incites to acts of violence" - Homer.

Offline BunniRabbi

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 500
  • Reason & Faith must coincide, else one risks both.
    • Burgeon Battle Wargame Wiki: A Fan-Collaborated Wargame System
Re: Religion and Spirituality
« Reply #1623 on: March 23, 2011, 06:20:31 PM »
Science can prove a great deal of things. ...
...Like Roy mentions, a philosophical and/or metaphysical claim that is unfalsifiable is not a claim worth considering because the claim itself, by its very nature, has made itself immune from criticism.

I think what they're trying to get at is that one can actually take the whole of logic as an unprovable claim, and thus religion with it.  In order to prove something, you must apply logic.  If you apply logic to prove logic, you have a "begging the question" fallacy.  Sometimes you will hear one of the clearer-thinking theists point this out.  Literally, it does mean that there is a basic unprovable assumption in science.   The theist arguer is setting a trap in this case, and often an atheist will bite the lure and try to deny that there is an assumption involved.  Support for that stance, that there is no assumption, would require proof that doesn't rely on logic.  Good luck there.

Really, when this comes up, it's necessary to admit that there is an assumption.  The one assumption required, however, is still a lot smaller then the multiple assumptions made to support most religions. 
Interested in an open-source, player made wargame system?  We could use your help getting off the ground.  http://burgeonbattle.pbworks.com/

Offline Roy

  • Infinity Circuit - Harbinger of the Dark Millenium
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4700
  • Country: no
Re: Religion and Spirituality
« Reply #1624 on: March 23, 2011, 07:04:31 PM »
I think what they're trying to get at is that one can actually take the whole of logic as an unprovable claim, and thus religion with it.  In order to prove something, you must apply logic.  If you apply logic to prove logic, you have a "begging the question" fallacy.  Sometimes you will hear one of the clearer-thinking theists point this out.  Literally, it does mean that there is a basic unprovable assumption in science.   The theist arguer is setting a trap in this case, and often an atheist will bite the lure and try to deny that there is an assumption involved.  Support for that stance, that there is no assumption, would require proof that doesn't rely on logic.  Good luck there.

Really, when this comes up, it's necessary to admit that there is an assumption.  The one assumption required, however, is still a lot smaller then the multiple assumptions made to support most religions.

Basing your evidence on logic alone does not make science. Or at least not within the current scientific paradigm. The position of using logic and reasoning alone to prove something is called rationalism, and is largely derived from Descartes. (at least in it's modern form). This was challenged strongly by David Hume, who championed empiricism. The difference, obviously, is that rationalism suggests that answers can only be found in rational logical thinking, empiricism suggests that the only way to arrive at truth is through observation and testing. Hume specifically added the viewpoint of extreme skepticism to empiricism.

Also, there is a difference between proof in the common sense, and proof in the philosophical sense. In philosophy of science, one cannot practically speaking prove a theory. Only disprove any argument against it. Quantum mechanics can calculate and predict results to a degree of accuracy which is comparable to measuring the exact width of the US to within the width of a hair.

The point is, in strict terms of philosophy of science, nothing can ever be proven, only disproved. In practical reality however, we can prove a vast amount of things to well beyond any reasonable doubt.

Also, the very act comparing empirically tested and validated knowledge with ontological or metaphysical deductive reasoning is engaging in a false equivalency fallacy. Especially considering the burden of proof. In scientific fields, it is incumbent upon the person making a claim to prove his hypothesis using inductive reasoning.

 


Powered by EzPortal