My point is that he shouldn't even bother publishing a book on atheism. Religion isn't worth his time
What should he do then with his time? Sleep? Garden?
My point is that he shouldn't even bother publishing a book on atheism. Religion isn't worth his time
Science and the philosophy of science reach a wall beyond a certain point. For example, if you had a dream last night and related the details, even if you were a good scientist and accurately related the details of what you observed, there is no way to prove these details in a scientific way. There is no machine to help extend the senses, it is not repeatable, nor can another reproduce it. It was real enough to be observed, but it cannot be proven via science, because of a technicality; it does not meet the standard. This is why psychology is call a soft science. It goes through all the science motions, but there is a gap in terms of human data sources relating internal data.
The reason this gap in science exists, is when the scientific method was developed, the founding fathers were trying to factor out subjectivities, so all that was left was the objective data, which can be agreed upon by all. From that you derive laws of science. But when the mind confronts itself there is a whole range of data that is objective, like dream details, that gets lumped in the bias of the definition, since this data is only objective to one person and not all. Ironically, consciousness is the main tool of science, yet it is not subject to science due to internal data. There is no way to calibrate the tool since it has yet to be defined what it is.
Dream details are the tip of the iceberg, on the other side of the gap. When comes to experiences of religion, science can only say that this is outside the scope of what science was designed for, since science gets soft beyond the gap. Beyond this recognition it becomes irrational and a religion of its own based on bold claims while standing on the other side of the gap, but afraid to jump.
Humans are not man made machines. Souls have never been shown to exist. More dishonesty from Mazulu.
True. Humans are made by God. That's why we have consciousness. That's why we can experience suffering. That's why we have a soul.
Why would God program suffering into us?
God gives us the ability to love. It is the world that turns love into suffering.
How does love turn to suffering?
By taking it away. By killing it. By denying it.
Maybe religions should devote themselves to love and that will make certain use of them.
I completely agree.
Among other things like knowledge and happiness.
The voice of reason.
There are about 7 billion human beings living today. Each one of the human beings is a subjective system unto itself. Therefore, the world is filled with subjectivity which is beyond the reach of objective science.
The problem is that drugs do not feed the soul.
This is simply xenophobic prejudice on your part. Your western religion purged drugs from it's theology, in preference for stained glass and sips of wine.
Science and the philosophy of science reach a wall beyond a certain point. For example, if you had a dream last night and related the details, even if you were a good scientist and accurately related the details of what you observed, there is no way to prove these details in a scientific way. There is no machine to help extend the senses, it is not repeatable, nor can another reproduce it. It was real enough to be observed, but it cannot be proven via science, because of a technicality; it does not meet the standard. This is why psychology is call a soft science. It goes through all the science motions, but there is a gap in terms of human data sources relating internal data.
The reason this gap in science exists, is when the scientific method was developed, the founding fathers were trying to factor out subjectivities, so all that was left was the objective data, which can be agreed upon by all. From that you derive laws of science. But when the mind confronts itself there is a whole range of data that is objective, like dream details, that gets lumped in the bias of the definition, since this data is only objective to one person and not all. Ironically, consciousness is the main tool of science, yet it is not subject to science due to internal data. There is no way to calibrate the tool since it has yet to be defined what it is.
Dream details are the tip of the iceberg, on the other side of the gap. When comes to experiences of religion, science can only say that this is outside the scope of what science was designed for, since science gets soft beyond the gap. Beyond this recognition it becomes irrational and a religion of its own based on bold claims while standing on the other side of the gap, but afraid to jump.
Carl Jung found that the elements of religion are archetypes--stories, images and rituals that recur in nearly every society in nearly every era.In sum, religion is for ignorant and outdated people.
Anyway, perhaps now you'll agree with me that religion is worth discussing because it is the biggest problem facing humanity. If we can't cleanse ourselves of this bullshit, we may all be doomed.