Real World Philospohy

Atrocities · #1 November 6th, 2003, 11:15 AM

Who the hell really knows?

Loser · #2 November 6th, 2003, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack Simth:
Ever read Mark 2:27?

Of course. But I was responding to your claim that you follow the Ten Commandments, not the apparently implied claim that you follow the Ten Commandments as modified by certain later scholars and holy men. That would be different.

DavidG · #3 November 6th, 2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:

oh, and death isn't as scary once you know it's not the end.

Which probably contributes to the fact there is so much killing going on.

Erax · #4 November 6th, 2003, 01:42 PM

Hmm... this is difficult to translate, but basically my motto is "Let others be if they let you be." Don't try to impose anything on people who are not being actively disruptive.

Conversely, don't try to impose anything on me. I'll make my own choices, thank you very much.

At the same time, I try to be supportive of other people, help them whenever I can. Knowledge should not be hoarded.

DarkAngel · #5 November 6th, 2003, 01:54 PM

my views are my views and your views are your views.it's only when everyone realizes that everyone's views are different and unique to their own and can look past that will mankind ever truly be able to move forward

Loser · #6 November 6th, 2003, 03:33 PM

You are right, Narf, there are a lot of similarities between Science and Religion. The big difference between Science and all the other Dogma out there is that science is wrong. No other Dogma is willing to admit that it is wrong, if that ever happens, it is abandoned and people invent a new one, maybe giving it the same name, but the words of higher powers are never wrong.

Science, on the other hand, is wrong. It is allowed to be. It is constantly correcting itself, improving, and moving forward. True science does not require faith, because "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen", and science is not about hope, or the unperceivable. Real science deals only with what can be proven, and most importantly what can be proven repeatedly by different scientists. If an experiment does not get reproducible results the theory it 'proves' is not proven, and not part of Hard Science.

Some areas commonly associated with science are difficult to prove, but that doesn't stop people from trying, and from taking the results and forming new theories. The psychology of an individual and certain actions or trends of great scale, like astrophysics, evolutionary biological trends, or even economics, may still be highly theoretical simply because we do not yet have the technology to make the needed measurements, let alone to run or reproduce an experiment. So these might not be Hard Sciences, and these might, for now, require 'faith'. We're working on it.

Now you might point out that you are not able to reproduce, personally, the experiments on which many modern principles of Science depend. And you might claim this moves Science into the realm of faith. And you might point out that the lingua sancti of Science, Math, has grown so large that no one man can understand all its fields, in fact I believe that Last man to do so was John Herschel, who died in 1871. And you might have a point. But they can be proven, where faith is reserved for those thing that can't.

Erax · #7 November 6th, 2003, 04:22 PM

While I agree with most of Loser's points, I believe there is a larger issue you are all missing.

Simply put, there is no need for conflict between science and religion bercause they address different questions.

Science exists to explain how.

Religion exists to explain why.

Using science to explain why or religion to explain how is apt to fail miserably (and often does).