Science rooted in what most would call "Religion"

reply to post by rwfresh


You do understand you are the one:

1) Asking others to "freely acknowledge...the obvious difference," between a, "yogi who meditates for 40 years and a christain (sic) in the pews of an evangelical church."
2) Stating the numeral 1 is an unknown, 2 is an unknown, an atom is unknown...no equivalencies...

In a world of no equivalents and where objective terms are blurred, then no one can freely acknowledge anything...

If you cannot state for certain that A=A is meaningless in the context of Truth and Reality, then all bets are off. Prove A. It's stupid and juvenile.. Why place your entire base of knowing on an assumption? isn't that what you despise about Religion?

I suggest you read all my responses in this thread...you sir/madam, are being non-sensical in your argumentation...do not begrudge me for pointing out the obvious...

A=A is the basis...without a sense of shared contextual understanding of terms, you arrive at nihilism...are you a nihilist?

reply to post by totallackey

Of course it would occur to me you are a Buddhist making a worthwhile attempt to explain things to me...It would also occur your explanation is lacking. Buddhism is indeed a religion.

If you cannot understand my explanation, it is not my fault.

You want to point to revisions in a Wiki page as proof it is not a religion? Would the Dalai Lama agree with you? Would millions of adherents agree with your position? Come now...let us not quibble over such an obvious fact...

You are the one who seems to think that a single sentence from Wikipedia makes Buddhism a religion. Yes, the Dalai Lama would very much agree with me, as would most practitioners and religious scholars. There are sects of Buddhism that qualify as a religion, but the core of Buddhism is based on meditative practice. If the definition of a religion is that it is about an individual's relationship with God, Buddhism is definitely not a religion. For one thing, most branches don't have a God, and even those which do do not consider gods to be particularly important to the individual. They have their own karma to deal with.

reply to post by rwfresh

Objective observation and analysis is the best way to determine whether an action is effective.

Is reading a science journal and believing the results considered Objective observation?

No, but the experimenter who wrote up his results did perform objective observations. The peer review process is designed to confirm this, and make it possible to accept the results without repeating the experiment for one's self.

No. Rational beliefs tend to lead to more productive actions. Religion, by its very nature, is irrational. Nevertheless, it can have positive effects if it is administered rationally. Science is a tool for examining the nature of reality; exorcism is a religious ritual.

hahaha what a load of absolute irrational jibberish. Sorry, it is impossible to prove what you are saying has any value whatsoever. It seriously sounds like a bunch of mumbo jumbo. Especially considering the intended meaning.

What do you think I intend it to mean? Speaking of mumbo jumbo, you have yet to explain exactly what you mean by words like "science," "religion" and "truth." I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Sorry, but your strawmen didn't stand up very long.

Logic, and NO mathematician will argue this, is entirely subject to an initial set of ASSUMPTIONS. ie: UNPROVEN or UNPROVABLE beliefs. You understand this right?

Wrong. There are any number of systems for evaluating truth values; any or all of them may be valid. One can choose the system most appropriate for a given problem. Just wishing for something to be true is not the most effective or useful.

reply to post by rwfresh

is 1+1=2 a superstition?

No, it is a definition that is used in most mathematical systems. There are systems where that would not be a true statement. For example, to the computer you are sitting at, 1+1=10.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by DJW001

 

Of course it would occur to me you are a Buddhist making a worthwhile attempt to explain things to me...It would also occur your explanation is lacking. Buddhism is indeed a religion.

You want to point to revisions in a Wiki page as proof it is not a religion? Would the Dalai Lama agree with you? Would millions of adherents agree with your position? Come now...let us not quibble over such an obvious fact...

Was Buddha a Buddhist? No. So acknowledgement of his research does not make one a Buddhist. The religion of Buddhism is a religion. But all Buddhists are not religious followers of Buddhism.

reply to post by rwfresh

Thanks for the well thought out response. Science is what it is. And it does not and should not function as an ideology.

This is precisely the sort of statement you make that confuses me. What is your definition of science? What do you mean by ideology? Can you provide an example of science functioning as an ideology? Please don't bring up the Nazis again. They were anti-science. They used what passed as a science at the time to rationalize and defend their irrational ideology.

reply to post by rwfresh

Was Buddha a Buddhist? No. So acknowledgement of his research does not make one a Buddhist. The religion of Buddhism is a religion. But all Buddhists are not religious followers of Buddhism.

More incomprehensible nonsense. If the historical Buddha really existed, he would have been what we now call a "Hindu." Practicing formless meditation makes one a Buddhist, even if one thinks one is a Christian. There are organized sects like the "Pure Land" that are indeed religions with a suspiciously Christian soteriology, but Buddhism , properly understood, is not a religion.

reply to post by rwfresh

Prove it. You are alone in your assumptions. There is no truth in you. You demand proof so you are imprisoned by your ideology. What belief should i have in your intelligence or knowledge? How can you prove to me that you aren't a completely evil ignorant fool? There are those who seek to personally experience Truth and their are those who seek to discourage the personally experience of Truth.

Who are you that anyone needs to prove anything to you? What does your belief matter? Please re-read some of your posts. Do you hear the voice of wisdom, or some judgmental egotist?

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by rwfresh

 

You do understand you are the one:

1) Asking others to "freely acknowledge...the obvious difference," between a, "yogi who meditates for 40 years and a christain (sic) in the pews of an evangelical church."
2) Stating the numeral 1 is an unknown, 2 is an unknown, an atom is unknown...no equivalencies...

In a world of no equivalents and where objective terms are blurred, then no one can freely acknowledge anything...

If you cannot state for certain that A=A is meaningless in the context of Truth and Reality, then all bets are off. Prove A. It's stupid and juvenile.. Why place your entire base of knowing on an assumption? isn't that what you despise about Religion?

I suggest you read all my responses in this thread...you sir/madam, are being non-sensical in your argumentation...do not begrudge me for pointing out the obvious...

A=A is the basis...without a sense of shared contextual understanding of terms, you arrive at nihilism...are you a nihilist?

I am a realist. We/People do freely acknowledge things. That is what faith is (Complete trust or confidence in someone or something). Through faith in each other we develop understandings, thrive and evolve. We both agree what 1+1=2 and go from there. The act of agreeing is Faith that both of us understand the assumption to mean the same thing. But either of us can argue to no end that the other is lacking in proof. See how far it gets a society.

If we all sit around and completely ignore that different labels may in fact be labeling the exact same subject we cannot evolve. Anyone who declares 2000 years of any developed nomenclature as being nonsense is ignorant of linguistics, history, communication. I'm not suggesting you are one of those people.

The religion of science as i define it does just that. It is based on ignorance. Again i LOVE science. I respect REAL scientists in the same way i respect REAL gnostic or ascetics. People who will not except anything as Real without first hand experience of the truth. That is all ANY religion should encourage. 1. that the Truth is REAL and available. 2. That the EXPERIENCE of the Truth is the only proof that can ever be given.



OHHHH i forgot. Faith is something only practice by evil Christians.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rwfresh

 

No, but the experimenter who wrote up his results did perform objective observations. The peer review process is designed to confirm this, and make it possible to accept the results without repeating the experiment for one's self.

So you put your faith in the scientific bureaucracy of peer review. Just like many put their faith in the Catholic system of bureaucracy. I get it. I mean.. on those questions that you don't have time to actually prove yourself. You know a lot of scientists will argue that the peer review system as it exists is FULL of problems and actually contributes to all kinds of misunderstandings and incorrect information. They would argue the peer review system is a system who's first objective is self preservation over truth. Just like many churches (final statement being my own observation).

What do you think I intend it to mean? Speaking of mumbo jumbo, you have yet to explain exactly what you mean by words like "science," "religion" and "truth." I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Of course you don't. But guess what both of us have access to a dictionary. That is where i get my meanings from. Try it out.

Wrong. There are any number of systems for evaluating truth values; any or all of them may be valid. One can choose the system most appropriate for a given problem. Just wishing for something to be true is not the most effective or useful.

You don't know anything about math then do you. What i said is without argument. ALL math/logic problems require a set of assumptions to work. All of them. This is not even arguable.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rwfresh

 

is 1+1=2 a superstition?

No, it is a definition that is used in most mathematical systems. There are systems where that would not be a true statement. For example, to the computer you are sitting at, 1+1=10.

That is incorrect. On my computer when i am using the calculator 1+1=2. Same when i write some js or most other programming languages. Even the circuits will give you the same result. But it's all been developed on a set of agreed upon assumption that express something that is apparently true.

reply to post by DJW001


I perfectly understood your explanation to be lacking in factual basis. Buddhism is a religion.

You are the one who seems to think that a single sentence from Wikipedia makes Buddhism a religion. Yes, the Dalai Lama would very much agree with me, as would most practitioners and religious scholars. There are sects of Buddhism that qualify as a religion, but the core of Buddhism is based on meditative practice. If the definition of a religion is that it is about an individual's relationship with God, Buddhism is definitely not a religion. For one thing, most branches don't have a God, and even those which do do not consider gods to be particularly important to the individual. They have their own karma to deal with.

I am not relying simply on Wiki, as can be seen here.

Buddhism is deeply mystical, and mysticism belongs to religion more than philosophy. Through meditation, Siddhartha Gautama intimately experienced Thusness beyond subject and object, self and other, life and death. The enlightenment experience is the sine qua non of Buddhism.

So, we are arguing semantics...keeping with the A = A proposition, I would agree with this definition, found from the same secondary source, buddhism.about.com:

Religious historian Karen Armstrong defines religion as a search for transcendence, going beyond the self.

I believe transcendence is something shared in many religions...using this criteria, Buddhism certainly falls within the definition of a religion.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Thanks for the well thought out response. Science is what it is. And it does not and should not function as an ideology.

This is precisely the sort of statement you make that confuses me. What is your definition of science? What do you mean by ideology? Can you provide an example of science functioning as an ideology? Please don't bring up the Nazis again. They were anti-science. They used what passed as a science at the time to rationalize and defend their irrational ideology.

PLEASE tell me how the nazis were anti-science. Friend we likely agree on MANY issues. I should stop arguing with you because you're assumption that i will eventually look stupid if we both go on it long enough is right. Arguing with someone about things you agree on is stupid.

I use the dictionary definitions of the words. I don't claim to be the most articulate person on the planet. I tried to lay out a description of some individuals who have turned their perverted idea of Science into what can be categorized as a religion. I love science as it is traditionally defined.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Was Buddha a Buddhist? No. So acknowledgement of his research does not make one a Buddhist. The religion of Buddhism is a religion. But all Buddhists are not religious followers of Buddhism.

More incomprehensible nonsense. If the historical Buddha really existed, he would have been what we now call a "Hindu." Practicing formless meditation makes one a Buddhist, even if one thinks one is a Christian. There are organized sects like the "Pure Land" that are indeed religions with a suspiciously Christian soteriology, but Buddhism , properly understood, is not a religion.

Gautama Buddha existed. There is no benefit in holding out for more proof. He wasn't a Hindu. If he was he would likely be celebrated as one. But whatever.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Prove it. You are alone in your assumptions. There is no truth in you. You demand proof so you are imprisoned by your ideology. What belief should i have in your intelligence or knowledge? How can you prove to me that you aren't a completely evil ignorant fool? There are those who seek to personally experience Truth and their are those who seek to discourage the personally experience of Truth.

Who are you that anyone needs to prove anything to you? What does your belief matter? Please re-read some of your posts. Do you hear the voice of wisdom, or some judgmental egotist?

I am no one. This is the sound of an atheist demanding proof of God... Or even FAITH in a belief. Sounds retarded doesn't it? And i am sincerely sorry for anything that comes across judgmental. When you play in the mud you get dirty.

reply to post by rwfresh


I can only state I find this response to be substantively and totally contradictory to your last reply. Here you are stating:

I am a realist. We/People do freely acknowledge things. That is what faith is (Complete trust or confidence in someone or something). Through faith in each other we develop understandings, thrive and evolve. We both agree what 1+1=2 and go from there. The act of agreeing is Faith that both of us understand the assumption to mean the same thing. But either of us can argue to no end that the other is lacking in proof. See how far it gets a society

In the previous reply post, you stated:

If you cannot state for certain that A=A is meaningless in the context of Truth and Reality, then all bets are off. Prove A. It's stupid and juvenile.. Why place your entire base of knowing on an assumption? isn't that what you despise about Religion?

I am sorry, but I find the essence of these two statements extremely contradictory and misleading.

Well, my oldest son is still not open on discussing all the alternative theories. However, in his first year of physics course at college, he shared with me that the instructor had told them, they what they were learning was wrong, and that they already had different understandings. And that soon, he would have to teach them yet again, another wrong thing.

time to use the Trivium/Quadrivium with a little side of love and understanding to undo this mess.

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by rwfresh

 

I can only state I find this response to be substantively and totally contradictory to your last reply. Here you are stating:

I am a realist. We/People do freely acknowledge things. That is what faith is (Complete trust or confidence in someone or something). Through faith in each other we develop understandings, thrive and evolve. We both agree what 1+1=2 and go from there. The act of agreeing is Faith that both of us understand the assumption to mean the same thing. But either of us can argue to no end that the other is lacking in proof. See how far it gets a society

In the previous reply post, you stated:

If you cannot state for certain that A=A is meaningless in the context of Truth and Reality, then all bets are off. Prove A. It's stupid and juvenile.. Why place your entire base of knowing on an assumption? isn't that what you despise about Religion?

I am sorry, but I find the essence of these two statements extremely contradictory and misleading.

Good. What does it demonstrate? You know exactly what it is. "A=A is meaningless" (ideology vs ideology) is mankind's failure. Faith in each other is evolution. We an agree on an assumption of life's purpose or we can declare war on each other's nomenclature.

We can have faith that our desire to know truth and survive and thrive is mutual or we can declare ourselves dominant over each other.

I don't believe A=A is meaningless. The fight over it's meaning is.

reply to post by DJW001


yes but during the 1900s there was a philosophical corruption of physics.

basically inductive reasoning was replaced with deductive reasoning. meaning instead of using Pythagorus triangle to use questions and repetitive testing to TEST a theory, we now use deduction, meaning that we have a question--

AND TRY LIKE HELL TO PROOVE ITS RIGHT NO MATTER THE COST IN SPITE OF ACTUAL TESTING OF SAID THEORY.

(sorry for yelling)