The Limits of Science

[skakos]

I believe God is as much "human" as we are.
We are luminous beings with consciousness.
Not just matter.
As far as we see that truth, then we are a lot like Him...

[skakos]

How can science not accept the religious experience?
Isn't science supposed to be based upon empirical data?
How much are scientific theories like the one of "multiple parallel universes" based on empirical data on the other hand?

Food for thought...

[Ginkgo]

How can science not accept the religious experience?
Isn't science supposed to be based upon empirical data?
How much are scientific theories like the one of "multiple parallel universes" based on empirical data on the other hand?

Food for thought...

I guess the short answer is that "religious experience" is not the type of experience science deals with. Having said that you make an interesting point. In exactly the same way one can say such things as string theory and quantum loop gravity are not really scientific theories because they don't provide us with an testable predictions. It seems reasonable to assume that such theories are just another branch of metaphysics in the same way as religion can be seen as a branch of metaphysics.

The defining difference seems to be that string theory and quantum loop gravity can be linked back to such things as general relativity and the standard model.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I believe God is as much "human" as we are.
That's the great thing about belief isn't it? Anyone can believe anything no matter how absurd, and believe they've gotten away with it, as it bears no necessary proof in truth!

We are luminous beings with consciousness.
Then why can't we see in the dark, those things that escape us? While anyone can use any grandiose modifier of mankind's creation, attempting to elevate oneself in their own eyes.

Not just matter.
Something tangible, that can be sensed, tested and manipulated, that only of which we can be sure of, as sure as we can be!

As far as we see that truth, then we are a lot like Him...
As if you could know of him; make no mistake, schizophrenia is real, else one jumps to grandiose conclusions!

[Ginkgo]

I believe God is as much "human" as we are.
We are luminous beings with consciousness.
Not just matter.
As far as we see that truth, then we are a lot like Him...

Could be.

First we would need to know what sort of computations would luminous beings need in order to be something like a God.

A bit like asking what sort of computations would it take for a computer to be conscious.

If you can answer the second question then you will probably go a long way towards answering the first.




P.S. Messed that post up. Fixed it now.

[skakos]

I believe God is as much "human" as we are.
That's the great thing about belief isn't it? Anyone can believe anything no matter how absurd, and believe they've gotten away with it, as it bears no necessary proof in truth!

We are luminous beings with consciousness.
Then why can't we see in the dark, those things that escape us? While anyone can use any grandiose modifier of mankind's creation, attempting to elevate oneself in their own eyes.

Not just matter.
Something tangible, that can be sensed, tested and manipulated, that only of which we can be sure of, as sure as we can be!

As far as we see that truth, then we are a lot like Him...
As if you could know of him; make no mistake, schizophrenia is real, else one jumps to grandiose conclusions!

Jokes and non-argumentative arguments aside, I do not understand what your position about human nature is. Are we just matter? A complicated set of bones, meat and blood? Or are we something more? Do you trust your senses so much that you see your body as the quintessence of your being or do you believe (yes, "believe", since science is the method of thinking based on what evidence we have and we can never be 100% certain) that we are something "more"?

[skakos]

I believe God is as much "human" as we are.
We are luminous beings with consciousness.
Not just matter.
As far as we see that truth, then we are a lot like Him...

Could be.

First we would need to know what sort of computations would luminous beings need in order to be something like a God.

A bit like asking what sort of computations would it take for a computer to be conscious.

If you can answer the second question then you will probably go a long way towards answering the first.




P.S. Messed that post up. Fixed it now.

I do not believe computers can be conscious. Do you?

[skakos]

How can science not accept the religious experience?
Isn't science supposed to be based upon empirical data?
How much are scientific theories like the one of "multiple parallel universes" based on empirical data on the other hand?

Food for thought...

I guess the short answer is that "religious experience" is not the type of experience science deals with. Having said that you make an interesting point. In exactly the same way one can say such things as string theory and quantum loop gravity are not really scientific theories because they don't provide us with an testable predictions. It seems reasonable to assume that such theories are just another branch of metaphysics in the same way as religion can be seen as a branch of metaphysics.

The defining difference seems to be that string theory and quantum loop gravity can be linked back to such things as general relativity and the standard model.

But true science cannot work by censoring things it does not like to investigate. It should investigate everything.
And since religious experience is something many people have, it should try to analyze it.
Not doing so it just a matter of choice.
A choice based on specific philosophical dogmas penetrating today's scientists.

[Ginkgo]

How can science not accept the religious experience?
Isn't science supposed to be based upon empirical data?
How much are scientific theories like the one of "multiple parallel universes" based on empirical data on the other hand?

Food for thought...

I guess the short answer is that "religious experience" is not the type of experience science deals with. Having said that you make an interesting point. In exactly the same way one can say such things as string theory and quantum loop gravity are not really scientific theories because they don't provide us with an testable predictions. It seems reasonable to assume that such theories are just another branch of metaphysics in the same way as religion can be seen as a branch of metaphysics.

The defining difference seems to be that string theory and quantum loop gravity can be linked back to such things as general relativity and the standard model.

But true science cannot work by censoring things it does not like to investigate. It should investigate everything.
And since religious experience is something many people have, it should try to analyze it.
Not doing so it just a matter of choice.
A choice based on specific philosophical dogmas penetrating today's scientists.

The scientific methodology doesn't allow for an experiment to be set up to test the existence of God. I don't think it is a matter of censoring.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I believe God is as much "human" as we are.
That's the great thing about belief isn't it? Anyone can believe anything no matter how absurd, and believe they've gotten away with it, as it bears no necessary proof in truth!

We are luminous beings with consciousness.
Then why can't we see in the dark, those things that escape us? While anyone can use any grandiose modifier of mankind's creation, attempting to elevate oneself in their own eyes.

Not just matter.
Something tangible, that can be sensed, tested and manipulated, that only of which we can be sure of, as sure as we can be!

As far as we see that truth, then we are a lot like Him...
As if you could know of him; make no mistake, schizophrenia is real, else one jumps to grandiose conclusions!

Jokes and non-argumentative arguments aside, I do not understand what your position about human nature is. Are we just matter? A complicated set of bones, meat and blood? Or are we something more? Do you trust your senses so much that you see your body as the quintessence of your being or do you believe (yes, "believe", since science is the method of thinking based on what evidence we have and we can never be 100% certain) that we are something "more"?

I do hear you. And I know what you mean. But I take the stance of an agnostic, that we can know neither way. Because I understand humans quite a bit. Many are selfish egomaniacs taking every opportunity to inflate themselves, even at the expense of another. So it's very common for people to believe they're something special, which just like those scientists you speak of, can't be 100% sure. I mean, can anyone be 100% sure about anything? To me, humility, when looking in that mirror, at self, is not only probably a much more accurate truth, but is a far better way to ensure we all get along. The boastful braggadocios, patting oneself on the back hasn't worked, as the other side of that dichotomy is putting others down. Instead, if we all put ourselves down, then the opposite of that dichotomy, would be everyone putting others above themselves, then maybe we'd finally be close to something more, something really special. There is far too much greed already, I mean I understand the innate need to survive, but we go way too far, even in a time when it's no longer needed, though that time seems to be passing us by.

I think that we'd be more if we sacrificed ourselves more for the sake of balance, that we'd be more, if we believed we were, and made ourselves, less. If we believe we're on top, the only place left is the bottom. And of course if we believe ourselves at the bottom, the only place left is the top.

[skakos]

The scientific methodology doesn't allow for an experiment to be set up to test the existence of God. I don't think it is a matter of censoring.

The term "God" is a highly emotionally "charged" word and this could lead to misinterpretations.
Let's take the simple characteristic of "God" as the Cause of the Universe.
Can't science investigate with logical arguments if such a cause can exist?
Aristotle did so...

[Blaggard]

How can science not accept the religious experience?
Isn't science supposed to be based upon empirical data?
How much are scientific theories like the one of "multiple parallel universes" based on empirical data on the other hand?

Food for thought...

I guess the short answer is that "religious experience" is not the type of experience science deals with. Having said that you make an interesting point. In exactly the same way one can say such things as string theory and quantum loop gravity are not really scientific theories because they don't provide us with an testable predictions. It seems reasonable to assume that such theories are just another branch of metaphysics in the same way as religion can be seen as a branch of metaphysics.

The defining difference seems to be that string theory and quantum loop gravity can be linked back to such things as general relativity and the standard model.

But true science cannot work by censoring things it does not like to investigate. It should investigate everything.
And since religious experience is something many people have, it should try to analyze it.
Not doing so it just a matter of choice.
A choice based on specific philosophical dogmas penetrating today's scientists.

SCIENCE is not held to be culpable for the actions of either the few or many. It's just what is, flawed yes, but ultimately human.

Science thrives on iconoclastic behavior, sadly when money is involved the funding isn't there for the idle or idol breakers.

The root of all evil is not money, it is the love of money that destroys a balanced perspective in science, just as it does in matters social and economic.

Even the Devil/an atheist may quote scripture. Ironically they may be more on the money than the "religious Scientist".

[skakos]

OK.

So you agree that science should research the "religious experience" many people have, right?

[Ginkgo]

The scientific methodology doesn't allow for an experiment to be set up to test the existence of God. I don't think it is a matter of censoring.

The term "God" is a highly emotionally "charged" word and this could lead to misinterpretations.
Let's take the simple characteristic of "God" as the Cause of the Universe.
Can't science investigate with logical arguments if such a cause can exist?
Aristotle did so...

Unfortunately not. This is where a lot of confusion comes about when dealing with causation. Teleological explanations that deal with first cause is not the type of causation science deals with. In other words, science doesn't investigate first cause. Aristotle did, and this is why he wasn't doing science.

Sometimes the response is that the Big Bang singularity is the scientific explanation for the beginning of the universe. This is also a misunderstanding of causation as well.

[cirin]

Religious knowledge and science are not able to explain to the modern civilization the understanding of life. The proposed concept of modern harmonious worldview is summarized in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDidxZu ... freload=10
The offered world view is expounded in the book "The Modern Understanding of Life... Elementary Introduction". There, simply and briefly, without fictions and religious philosophical fantasies, the concept of the new world outlook is being offered with documented proofs of its streamlined and logical system of views. Explanations and determinations of Spirit, Soul, Mind, Body, and the constituents of the human ‘I’, as typically used in sciences, religions and everyday life. Their location is presented on the schematic picture of humans and how they co-operate inter se. Discussed are unusual human abilities in telepathy, vision with closed eyes, hypnosis, foresight (precognition), the ability of magicians and yogins to get out of their physical bodies and move in space. It provides answers for genesis of all known paranormal phenomena, origins of human illnesses, and how an ordinary old woman can bewitch a man, cause illness, and see through walls. It has no fiction. It is based on scientific facts in tune with the theory of physical vacuum and reflects a new world view, changing Darwin's outdated theory.