posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:45 PM
["The whole point of science is that we gain a concrete basis for our understanding of the world,..."]
If you by "concrete basis" and "understanding of the world" mean what's implied as being inside some chosen parameters of science, I agree for
that chosen 'territory' (world). But I believe, that the OP suggested that the epistemological perspective was to be taken as far as possible.
Sooner or later parameters will also have to be exposed to scrutiny, as new information/data becomes available. And presently, on this thread, at
least a definition of the scientific parameters used would be an advantage.
Quote: ["but to put the idea of things that aren't testable as something equivalent to those great things is downright stupid"]
Religionists will cling to science's alleged inability, unwillingness or selfcontained'ness concerning answers, when it (science) is confronted with
faith, as long as an undefined 'testability' is a moot-point. A science working with parameters of strict, unbendable, linear causality,
reductionism and empiricism will eventually be up against 'experienced' religion.
So disregarding the surface confrontation between doctrinal 'scientism' and doctrinal religion (both worthless in my opinion), I'll make my
perspective the one of 'experienced'...an expression of something rather commonly experinced by mankind, which needs some observation, processing,
For me it shouldn't be necessary to repeat this, but just to be sure: My arguments are not FOR any specific claims of doctrinal or interpretated
experienced religion. I'm talking about experienced religion as a common denominator of a recurrent phenomenon. 'Religion' per se.
And religion per se can't be discarded just like that, by ultimately referring to insufficient scientific parameters unsuited for the purpose. If
science wants to uphold its general reputation as a good map-maker, it'll have to meet this challenge head-on.
I have ofcourse my own suggestions on how this could be done (lengthy and somewhat off-topic), but to cut it short it's my opinion, that the
religious experience, the religious need, the religious drive and the religious psychology should be approached. There are several options of
directions for this (and hopefully a neutral and objective science will not start out with the answer before the facts), as e.g. 'god'(or
religion)-need and/or 'god'(religion) experience is a purely psychological mechanism. That religion per se represents experiences of anomalies or
sofar unknown aspects of cosmic 'natural' laws; or that religion per se the same way (as in the cosmic context) is an exponent of experinces around
the event-horizon of science.