Philosophy Now Forum

uwot wrote:

skakos wrote:Science has everything to do with prediction models but NOTHING to do with the "truth".

Science tries to discover the "truth" about how the universe behaves; as you say, partly to generate prediction models, that help us wend our way through life. It is only interested in the truth about what the universe is insofar as it affects what happens. Of course, lots of scientists are interested in what everything is ultimately made of, but it is only science if a certain belief, at least theoretically, gives rise to repeatable and ultimately predictable phenomena.

skakos wrote:Philosophy tries to find the truth but the only thing is actually HAS found is that there is NO truth whatsoever!

Well, Parmenides pointed out that there isn't nothing; more to the point, something definitely exists. Descartes upped the ante by proving that experience exists. It's not a lot, I grant you, but it isn't quite no truth whatsoever.

skakos wrote:Religion is a mix of science and philosophy but for the Self.What you experience (empirical data - "science"), what you understand (your logic - "science"), make up your metaphysical philosophy - your religion.

You're Greek skakos, you should know that philosophy started with Thales separating science and religion. Pythagoras tried to create a philosophy that blended maths and religion, but what the ancient Greek philosophers did was to break up thinking into smaller chunks. It meant that people could create a philosophy of their own, based on their own experiences. This has led to philosophers and scientists devoting entire careers to tiny problems, a great deal of which will be of no practical value, but you never know until you look. A philosophy should include an opinion on metaphysics, it should not, therefore, include religion, much less be one.

skakos wrote:The "One" cannot be felt with the dogmatism engulfing modern scientism - a.k.a. materialism...

I think this is a bit of a myth. Certainly scientists can be dogmatic, Max Planck suggested that new theories don't replace old ones, it's just that scientists with old beliefs die out. But there is no materialist agenda; like I said, scientists are interested in how the world behaves; materialism is a philosophical point of view that some scientists, no doubt adhere to, but it is not science. There is nothing about the "One" that is contradicted by science unless you make a claim that the universe will behave in a measurable way that can only be attributed to the "One".
You say in your article:
"It is also very important to understand that science and religion are both based on some kind of faith. Science on the faith that an ultimate truth exists and that logic can reveal that ultimate truth and religion on the faith that an ultimate purpose (and, thus, God) exists"

This just isn't true. Science isn't based on any faith, it just describes the way the world is and is prepared to be surprised at any point.

uwot wrote:

Blaggard wrote:To add there's nothing dogmatic about materialism, since science can only experiment on things that they can show by experiment they are limited to things that are provable, and not on the soul or anything else immaterial,

In another thread you showed some images of clouds of electrons and a graphic of a spherical nucleus with spherical electrons. It is Democritus' vision of solid 'material' atoms that many people who are new to the subject have in mind. I think it's worth bearing in mind that if you say 'material', that is what people think you mean. Physics, as I understand it, doesn't measure 'material', it measures forces.

Blaggard wrote:Philosophy can discuss matters such as the soul, ontology and epistemology.

Philosophy can talk about anything; as I say, it's main function is to puts things into a (logically consistent) context. Even nonsens and babble.

skakos wrote:

uwot wrote:

Blaggard wrote:To add there's nothing dogmatic about materialism, since science can only experiment on things that they can show by experiment they are limited to things that are provable, and not on the soul or anything else immaterial,

In another thread you showed some images of clouds of electrons and a graphic of a spherical nucleus with spherical electrons. It is Democritus' vision of solid 'material' atoms that many people who are new to the subject have in mind. I think it's worth bearing in mind that if you say 'material', that is what people think you mean. Physics, as I understand it, doesn't measure 'material', it measures forces.

Blaggard wrote:Philosophy can discuss matters such as the soul, ontology and epistemology.

Philosophy can talk about anything; as I say, it's main function is to puts things into a (logically consistent) context. Even nonsens and babble.

Democritus is an excellent example on how science works.
This man imagined a world of atoms, at an era where no CERN existed.
Now, because we BELIEVED him, we are searching and (surprise surprise!) "find" the things he imagined!
What you seek, you will find...

skakos wrote:As I said above, science is based on axioms. And axioms are purely a matter of faith.
Religion on the other hand is based mainly on experience - what we call religious experience. Much more "scientific" if you ask me...

And in Greece, expecially in ancient Greece, there was no separation of religion and science. All philosophers tried to understand the cosmos based on a holistic way of thinking. Only now, have we managed to imagine a "war" between religion and science even though - as Einstein said - they are two sides of the same coin...

skakos wrote:What is "logically" true is true only in the context of specifix axioms. And axioms are based on nothing. ...

Religion is based on empirical evidence as science does. Religious people believe because of some religious experience they have...

skakos wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"Science has everything to do with prediction models but NOTHING to do with the "truth"."

That depends entirely on how one defines 'truth'.

I say truth (what is true) is that which corresponds or is aligned with 'fact'.

If you accept this definition, then you must accept that science (the method) 'can' offer a pathway to truth.

If you have a differing definition (of truth) then -- practically speaking -- we (you and me) are livin’ on different worlds.

Facts exist only in our mind.
Fact and truth is synonymous in my book, and all the mind does is take sensory information of a physical fact/truth, supplying language as a representation, and a self serving reaction, as to it's significance, and then initiates report. This never has any affect on the physical fact/truth, in and of itself, by whatever language one wants to supply to characterize it. All physical phenomena are in fact/truth, regardless of how they are characterized in report. Report is always after the fact, lest you have a crystal ball, which doesn't mean it necessarily has to be accurate to any universal perspective. A physical fact/truth, is always so, in and of itself.

If a religious person has a religious experience, would you accept it as a "fact"?
You're speaking of ones interpretation, their characterization, which can be a dime a dozen, depending on who you talk to. Something that's exclusively in ones mind, comes under great scrutiny by others, unless one can formulate irrefutable logic, as proof, that can stand the test of time.

Blaggard wrote:

skakos wrote:As I said above, science is based on axioms. And axioms are purely a matter of faith.
Religion on the other hand is based mainly on experience - what we call religious experience. Much more "scientific" if you ask me...

And in Greece, expecially in ancient Greece, there was no separation of religion and science. All philosophers tried to understand the cosmos based on a holistic way of thinking. Only now, have we managed to imagine a "war" between religion and science even though - as Einstein said - they are two sides of the same coin...

Quite the opposite science is based on evidence, and if it has some it is a theory, religion is based on faith, and if it has no tangible evidence it is nonetheless right by default because some guy in a dress says so.

Everything is based on axioms even philosophy although science is not at least not solely and I will get to that, fundamentally at some point one has to have a point to start from so we say something like if 1+1=2 then therefore adding more positive numbers makes it larger. You can only go so far until you hit a fundamental: why is the speed of energy in the universe c, no one knows, but if you did not accept it was, it would need to be proven that it was a law that could be broken. In science laymen there is a perception that laws are stronger than theories, this is not true, for a law to be disproven it would only take one piece of evidence, prove that gravity can make things fall up, or prove that light or anything can travel faster than c, then relativity is wrong and its theory is false.

Axioms only really apply to philosophy though at least in experimental terms, and religion, in science no one is claiming absolute truth, just that all we know shows what we know to be based on what we can see. An axiom is an apriori truth that cannot be argued with, just about everything in science can be argued with, even its method and even its fundamentals. Therein lies the difference between, God exists, I exist and your mum.

It goes:

an idea or a religion which is not subject to testing<a hypothesis which can be tested< a weak theory that has only been tested by a few, a strong theory such as evolution or general relativity at least as it models wave theory is = a law but bear in mind a law although equal is much easier to destroy with one counter example than a theory.

Why religious people attack science that is unable to defend itself from religion instead of philosophy is a fault of your reasoning. Anything at all to do with religion has no place whatsoever in science and vise a versa. You're making the same mistake creationists do, you're attacking the wrong area of thought. It pains me to point this out for the hundredth time, but if you want to attack science and/or religion it's philosophy where you must muster your troops in the army of reason.

There's a fundamental rule in science absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence although such a rule may be subject to change in future if alternate facts come to light that show it to be false.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:My point earlier was that many that follow science, can only believe, not know, that any particular finding is accurate/true, they take it on faith, much like one does that reads the bible, and that just like the bible, the information could be fictitious from an absolute/universal perspective, or maybe not. Only the scientists conducting the experiments could know, but even that's not always sure.

Then, I for one, wonder why most that follow science, speak of it, as if they just saw god! That is, with so much conviction, that they believe it trumps alternate views. Just that someone studies such things, on a daily basis, does not 'necessarily' speak of their accuracy, not even their conviction, as sometimes it may just be a job, to get money, to survive, as this particular human construct, demands. Whenever one can see a hint of potential, conflict of interest, it should cause their skepticism, to kick in, not definitively of course, yet ever hovering in the wings, of ones mind.

When considering Science, I remember this proverb:

'Men are four:

He who knows not, and knows not he knows not;
He who knows not, and knows he knows not;
He who knows and knows not he knows;
He who knows and knows he knows.'

Yet when analyzing it, I wonder how one could ever 'truly know' which of the four applies to them, as not knowing precludes knowing?

I see that in truth, like Socrates noted, we can only ever be sure, that #2 applies to us, or in his words, 'I only know that I know nothing.' As at least I see, that knowing something is at the end of the line, not ever being capable of further refinement, otherwise merely belief. The problem is, how can one 'know,' they are at its end? It's not like there is a big printed sign from god that says, "you have completed this quest, congratulations!" I guess we just keep making educated guess's, then supply maths, that seemingly support them, as if it's absolutely definitive, the actual truth/fact of the matter, universally speaking.

Arising_uk wrote:

skakos wrote:What is "logically" true is true only in the context of specifix axioms. And axioms are based on nothing. ...

Not true, axioms can be based upon many things but in the case of Logic they are based upon the existence of things or states of affairs.

Religion is based on empirical evidence as science does. Religious people believe because of some religious experience they have...

Not quite like science does, whilst true that the term 'empirical evidence' could be used this way its a slippery argument as what you are saying is that a subjective experience is enough to claim existence of an objective entity, my take is if it is objectively empirical show me one!? Show me an observable 'God' that you believe in, in the way you can show me that you believe a tree exists because you've had an experience of one.

henry quirk wrote:"Facts exist only in our mind."

No, a forest fire (for example) exists 'outside' of me, independent of me...my attention is not necessary for trees to combust...I can observe the fire, assess it, and act accordingly (or not) but the fire is a 'fact' (reality).

My perspective on the fire is in my head, but the fire is 'outside' me.

There is a clean line between the forest fire and my reaction/response.

The fire, then, is an exterior event (real, factual, true).

#

"If a religious person has a religious experience, would you accept it as a "fact"?"

The religious experience (rooted in a particular physiological cascade) is an interior event no one can be privy to...it's inaccessible by any one but the religious experiencer.

The religious experience, then, is an interior event.

The line is nonexistent between the religious experience and he or she who experiences it.

So: while rooted in the flesh (brain) the religious experience is not real...it's like a dream.

skakos wrote:Actually no. Axioms are based on nothing.
Actually they are based on intuition.

I like intuition very much.
Would you trust it if it told you God exists?

Take for example the simple axiom "Every logical proposition is either true OR false".
Did you know that EVEN THIS is an axiom?!?