Maybe so. That's why we need empirical testing as well as ivory-tower theorizing.
Should science replace religion?
- Thread starter wegs
- Start date
I don't know if it's the basis, per se. Both feed off each other.
The Empirical is the starting point . The most basic .
In the End , any theorizing by the ivory tower thinkers must agree with the empirical evidence .
Goldtop
Registered Senior Member
Even if science can explain everything? I suppose that's why we now have watered down, practically useless versions of religions, they try to explain everything.
Of course, you're free to explain anything with religion, that is, if it can't be explained any other way. Go.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism
For your edification, since, judging by your statements, you don't appear robustly familiar with either history or religion.
Science is locked in (rigidly to reality) but I doubt it is capable of explaining everything
There are sign post pointing to possibilities but fog hiding the evidence from those possibilities
Religion does not have even sign post as guides
Early on in this thread "religion" was assumed to be dealing with the aesthetic/emotional/"irrational" aspects of human life. That this placed it "above", "inclusive", "higher", "more central", "governing", and so forth, than rationality and all limited to rationality, followed - not without objection, but the weight of the evidence is conclusive. To talk of science replacing religion is to talk not so much of apples replacing oranges as equivalent incommensurables, as to talk of a part replacing a whole, a subset replacing its set, an engine replacing a car.
Along that line, and to illustrate via an unusually simple and direct real world example: https://aeon.co/ideas/how-erasmus-darwins-poetry-prophesied-evolutionary-theory
Erasmus Darwin's intellectual work is well known to have set the stage, as it were, for his grandson's contributions - he provided to his grandson, who grew up in his intellectual shadow, context, approach, and some major concepts in broad outline (and therefore vague - no underestimating Charles's fundamental work. Charles did the science.)
That Erasmus Darwin was a poet, that an art was a central means or medium of that intellectual work, is not unusual in the history of science.
I would be interested to know how science would be capable of valuing the following art work and the unknown ideas and dare I suggest, science it has inspired.
Blue Poles.
Jackson Pollock. USA Citizen. 1952.
Purchased by Australian Government for $1.3 Million in 1973
Currently (2018) valued at between $100 and 300 million.
Blue Poles.
Jackson Pollock. USA Citizen. 1952.
Purchased by Australian Government for $1.3 Million in 1973
Currently (2018) valued at between $100 and 300 million.
Last edited:
Noticed a curious quote today:
Science is a culture of doubt, while religion is a culture of faith.
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. I think science requires some faith, too. Faith in believing that what you're doing is making a difference, for starters?
Science is a culture of doubt, while religion is a culture of faith.
Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. I think science requires some faith, too. Faith in believing that what you're doing is making a difference, for starters?
You might have faith in an experiment
If it does not work out
You do not retain said faith
Difference
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
Religion wants to replace science with religion
that political party in the usa is called "The conservatives"
except for guns bombs and torture
those religious types love that stuff.
that political party in the usa is called "The conservatives"
except for guns bombs and torture
those religious types love that stuff.
Not the same kind of faith, so, an equivocation fallacy. Thinking that something is merely likely is not what religious faith is about.
Easy, take a survey, do a statistical analysis on the results to determine average worth value of this piece to a population sample.
true... but how do you value the inspiration it might generate. For all you know the painting might inspire a scientist into devising the method of opening a star gate to another galaxy...
Value has a lot more to it than mere money...money is merely a token system any how...
I didn't mention money! A survey could measure any intangible quantity you want, it just depends on what questions you ask. You could even measure involuntary responses to the art, or the destruction of the art.
And what bench mark would you use and who would provide it?
Indigenous, Greek, Croation, English... who?
Ultimately it would come down to individual preference i think.
For example the destruction of Mosul in Iraq. It is possible to determine the value of reconstruction, but not the cultural losses, ancient ruins destroyed, relics stolen and lost due to ISIL insanity.
Just one ancient Pre-Persian empire statue destroyed can not be valued other than in a token way.
Eventually it would come down to the individual. Some could be quite apathetic and others could be totally devastated.
Just one ancient Pre-Persian empire statue destroyed can not be valued other than in a token way.
Eventually it would come down to the individual. Some could be quite apathetic and others could be totally devastated.
The aesthetic, emotional, irrational, etc (the stipulated domain of religion) is comprehensive, inclusive, and leading. It sets the context, organizes and incorporates the whole of the human mind's doing, frames everything.
The rational, and even more that subset of the rational we label "science", is smaller, subsidiary, on a "lower" level of thought, a contributing aspect or even substrate of the larger aesthetic whole.
One can do art and song and worship and so forth without scientific or any other rational contribution. One cannot begin to do science, or even think rationally, without an aesthetic ground or frame. (That insight, centuries old, has in our time been further supported by scientific research into brain injuries, human decision making, and so forth. )
Meaning derives from context. The aesthetic etc domain is where we find the context of the human mind's doings - the source of meaning.
Fundamentalist Abrahamic monotheistic religions want to replace scientific findings and theories with their dogma.
They have been granted an unearned opportunity to do that, partly by the failure of the scientific community to create or settle on an establishment of suitable religion. There's a vacuum at the top.
Last edited:
That's what I'm saying, you can measure individual preference across various cultures. There's no absolute value for such things.