Truth: Science versus Religion

[Phil8659]

A lot of people get their panties in a bunch about people building temples in which they worship their god, claiming that the religious are simply stupid or mad.

While a true scientific person, sets up schools (we just change the name) in which, by their own words, worship their false gods.

I ask, is it possible to judge, between two groups, neither of which has ever had the wit to produce even one correct grammar book, ever, in history, meaning both are illiterate, which of two groups, both equally illiterate, is right?

Really? One group at least keeps alive the idea of monotheism by religion, while the other, by provable fact, practices polytheism.

Which group still has the seed of unity, even though not practiced, kept before them? Science by fact, looses the argument.

God is a metaphor, which, if kept in mind, will lead mankind to unity, a planet which worships the goal of this God, to unify all of mankind in truth.

[Flannel Jesus]

I can't wait for that, tbh. I welcome my muslim overlords. Allah is the greatest.

[promethean75]

i dunno about all that, Phil. i tink you might have the wrong idea about science and what it is.

normally I'd just say 'empiricists' do it better, but empiricism - the position that all knowledge is 'a posterior' to experience and gained through sensation and induction - doesn't account for analytical truths that I don't need to get off my couch and go experience to know are true.

but even counting this exception (the few 'a priori' truths that do exist and can be known analytically), empiricism, the principle behind the scientific method, is vastly superior and safer than the pure rationalism behind scholastic theology, which tricks you into thinking proofs of 'gods' can be analytical and 'a priori' like the other analytical truths. Kant recognized this, hence his agnosticism. Spinoza too, hence his equivocation of 'god' and nature.

[promethean75]

you know what im sayin tho? i think it was in the critiques that kant showed how at best you could just not rule out some kind of transcendental cause for existence... but it stopped there, as far as what could be known and known clearly about it. bone dry metaphysics. nothing more can be said about 'god' other than true conclusions drawn from self evident truths as axioms... or something like that. can't remember. one is that by necessity something must exist. i think Parmenides played around with that one. at any rate, not much more could be said about the postulate 'god' other than a few vague, metaphysical tyoe statements like 'self caused cause of everything' and 'eternal' and 'immaterial' and/or 'transcendental', etc.

shirley you see that anthropomorphic concepts of this postulate 'god' such as the 'father' who is an intelligent, benevolent designer of everything that exists and who rules and runs everything with divine providence, can in no way be drawn from those essential metaphysical arguments for 'god's' existence.

That's something we added as an intelligent species who can't but feel like there is something special about us. How existentially and phenomenologically peculiar and sometimes bizarre the experience of being conscious and self-aware is, for one fuckin thing.

directly from that feeling, in fact, anthropocentrism evolves, and that's when man makes the theological shift from animism to polytheism, henotheism and monotheism. He conceives of 'god' as his own likeness, as Feuerbach put it sorta.

if you aksed a triangle about 'god' it would tell you that 'god' is infinitely triangular.

[puto]

Phil8659 prove that religion and science?

[puto]

Needing, to apply the principle of charity, of which I was reminded, and not merely to win the argument. Going, for the jugular and then manufacturing direct data and with appeals does little to advance knowledge or understanding. “Scientia potentia est.” by Meditationes Sacrae, circa 1597 CE.

[Harbal]

A lot of people get their panties in a bunch about people building temples in which they worship their god, claiming that the religious are simply stupid or mad.

While a true scientific person, sets up schools (we just change the name) in which, by their own words, worship their false gods.

You are comparing two things that are qualitatively different. And some scientists also attend church without seeing a conflict.

I ask, is it possible to judge, between two groups, neither of which has ever had the wit to produce even one correct grammar book, ever, in history, meaning both are illiterate, which of two groups, both equally illiterate, is right?

Well your grammar isn't exactly red hot, is it?

Which group still has the seed of unity, even though not practiced, kept before them? Science by fact, looses the argument.

I get the Impression that religious differences are more prevalent than scientific ones, and certainly tend to lead to more trouble.

God is a metaphor, which, if kept in mind, will lead mankind to unity, a planet which worships the goal of this God, to unify all of mankind in truth.

If there were unity, which there clearly isn't, and never can be, it would be unity in superstition, not truth.