It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution/Creation Answer with Mathematical Proof.

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Ubeen
 


Well, the other tool we have sure as hell isn't religion or 'spirituality'. The tools we have are science, philosophy, reason, logic, mathematics, imagination, etc...but to put the idea of things that aren't testable as something equivalent to those great things is downright stupid.

And no, I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm not saying anyone is stupid. But some otherwise intelligent people often have some stupid ideas.




posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Re Madnessinmysoul

You wrote:

["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, analysis etc.

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.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I see that you have a point, but I think you put too much stock in the concept of personal experience. And lack of scientific evidence alone doesn't discount religion, there are philosophical reasons aplenty, but I'll halt further discussion as to not drag the thread off topic.

I'd like to see this discussion go further, and would gladly participate in a thread you opened.

You get a star.



posted on Jan, 8 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Re Madnessinmysoul

thanks for your answer, and fair enough about not dragging the thread into off-topic and/or off-subforum.

To be quite honest, I'm shamefully too lazy or without energy (due to being 169 years old) to start threads, where I naturally must take the responsibility of doing a lot of homework. In any case my little obsession with epistemology isn't shared by many. There may be later occasions, where I just can 'hang on'.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 11:36 PM
link   
This was a very crude attempt to show a point from as many views as possible at the same time. The intent was to show how many different ideas can be expressed at the same time. It was hard to maintain a structure that allowed me to commutate to one world view without totally offending the other. This shows that words can be read from different views in completely different means of communication and still carry the same message and not very well I will give you. But communication across this many views at the same time is already the way we read as a whole. But as you see it very hard for all views to ever get the same message even when you try.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
In all fairness i will say show your math. Is how = why ? I say no. But if you can show it is tell me? Or does Science explain how or why more correctly. Does Religion explain how or why more correct. Use the science it is a logic structure after all. I want your math proveing they have a framework to compare. If you have one i will debate. but show first is a how question or a why question. if your subsition is that how is equal to compare. Come on How you go to work is not the same as why. Cars. May answers both questions but it does mean how = why
edit on 10-1-2011 by Ubeen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Re Ubeen

Your basic attitude sounds sensible, but the epistemological 'purity' you expect doesn't exist to satisfy a 'theory of everything'/'a grand unified theory'. Especially not in a reductionist form of an equation simple enough for everyone to understand.

Contemporary science has white spots on its map(s) of the existential territory and admits it. It's open in the sense, that the examined existential territory is ever increasing, but (with the more philosophical part of science) it refuses to give premature conclusive 'answers' concerning the white spots.

Religion in general uses different parameters for making existential maps. In the case of Abramic religion mainly 'faith', and as 'faith' is a subjective basis, the outcome is naturally depending on WHICH 'faith' is used. In competition with other 'faiths' or rational systems a specific 'faith' usually ends up with a very extensive, complex and questionable patchwork (more or less like tax legislation, where loop-holes will be plugged as they manifest).

So academically there are no absolute answers to your request; we'll just have to accept approximate 'truths' for a long time...each describing a specific 'territory' or perspective. This can actually be quite functional. It's not some kind of total existential confusion, bewilderment or wishy-washy relativity.

In a social context it's easier to make positions more clearcut. It's mainly an elitist position or a humanitarian/liberal/egalitarian position.


edit on 10-1-2011 by bogomil because: context



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join