superluminal said:
I like all of those definitions. There is a common thread among them, that being a love of knowledge and wisdom. Now, science, as I understand it is the pursuit of knowledge and wisdom.
Agreed.
So tell me, how and why are any areas of philosophy or science mutually exclusive? I find both of your views to be narrow and provincial. The scientific method is just a philosophical set of rules that smart people throughout the ages have devised in order to efficiently ascertain the best approximation of truth possible and in the process gain natural wisdom. Philosophy, in isolation, can provide hours of good cocktail party fun, but that's about it. Until you apply your philosophy to the real world and see how well it works for whatever your interests are, you might as well get out the kleenex to clean up after your orgasmic release of philosophical insights.
Also agreed. The problem I have around here is the stamping out of religious philosophy because of the emotional reaction of many of the atheists on this message board. Like I said before, this is
not the real world, and any kind of philosophical discussion founded upon the ideas of a particular religion is immediately attacked instead of discussed in a calm, cool-headed philosophical sense, as if this is the seat of some national legislature and someone is proposing the murder of everyone who wears green t-shirts, just because they had a vision of a monster destroying the world who wears green t-shirts. I object to this kind of knee-jerk reaction, and regardless of how many zealots have appeared on this board it is
still rude and unfair.
Religion is a philosophy. Science is a philosophy.
Exactly my point. In a philosophical sense, they rest on equal footing in that they are both founded upon unprovable assumptions. Knowledge is derived from those assumptions, and it is the
derived knowledge of each that can be legitimately debated, and science has a nice, straightforward, standardized way of doing that in the scientific method. Religion does not, because religion is too vague and culturally specific to be that uniform, but that doesn't make religious discourse amongst people debating philosophy an invalid position to take.
So if your interest is in determining, by experiment and experience, the best way to understand and manipulate the natural world, you use science. Why? The simple fact is that, by direct demonstration, it works for that purpose infinitely better than other methods. Religion can tell you zero about the real, natural world as, by your own insistence JM, it is supernatural - outside of and immune to analytical understanding of any human kind.
I agree with you completely. I never said that religion was a valid way of discovering the underlying principles which govern the natural world. To me, religion is pure philosophy. I find it unfortunate and even hideous that the masses of the world do not treat it as such, and I agree that it should be combated in the realm of public policy. Again, though, my position is that at Sciforums we are not deciding public policy, we are debating philosophy, and the repeated attempts to stamp out all philosophical discourse in regards to religion knaws at my sensibilities to no end, because I really do believe in intellectual freedom.
So, religion is a philosophy of purely internal, self-referential discourse with ones own mind and it's perception of a non-physical, non-analyzable speculated-upon entity.
Yes, that's exactly what it is. That doesn't make it an invalid topic of philosophical discussion. Like I said, my problem is with the way in which people around here approach the subject, which is usually a knee-jerk emotional reaction. If people can't get over that, the subject shouldn't be discussed.
As to the concept of respect for other's beliefs, we must rank these beliefs somehow. At one extrene we have GOD. At the other we have the easter bunny. This comparison always draws fire because it's deemed to be silly, disproportionate, and disrespectful. Why should this be? The easter bunny is, by the definition of supernatural, no more or less demonstrable than god (and vice-versa). The existence or non-existence of god is based on no more physically obtainable proof positive or negative than is peter cottontail. By definition, they are both beyond the ken of humans.
So what makes them different? Well, adults know for sure that the easter bunny is a made up childrens fantasy, right? And bunnies certainly can't talk or think like humans. They don't really have hands. And they are much too small to carry baskets full of candy. And no single bunny could possibly visit all of the childrens houses in one day (much like the hypothesized santa being).
What do we know about god? Well, we have a few books written in various ancient poetic styles. God can create universes, answer your prayers for various things, stop planets in their tracks, levitate over water, instantly heal the sick, destroy cities (this is mainly the christian god since I don't know much about the special powers of the muslim/hindu/etc. god(s) ).
Obviously I agree that, at their essence, there is no philosophical difference between belief in the easter bunny or santa clause, and God. There is a difference, though, and that is in the specifics. Anything so specific as the myth of the easter bunny or the myth of santa clause is
always meant to be metaphorical by those who talk about them, and so are the myths about God's actions in texts such as the bible. Sure, many millions of people around the world take these myths literally, but if you take any well educated, reasonable member of the clergy or religious elite of whatever belief system you are talking about, they know that these stories are not meant to be taken literally, and you can always find some kind of point about life and how we should live it, or the relations between people, in those myths when you break them down because they are essentially
symbolic. Like I said, it's unfortunate and I find it horrible that many people are unable to understand this when practicing their religion, but that's not a flaw in the
idea, it's a flaw in the
people
JM, I think your arguments are specious. Axioms are only as good as the testable and valid results they lead to. Otherwise they remain fantasy speculations. Religion is not cocktail party chat, as I've said before. It's serious business. Debating it's validity is really the only thing worth doing with it unless you're infected with that unfortunate meme.
Axioms are the foundation of all knowledge, and the idea that they need to lead to testable results is a very modern concept and is based upon the axioms of scientific thought. It's not an inherent qualification, it's a standard that's been placed upon all philosophy by those who believe that science has somehow become the mother philosophy, that if a particular philosophy is incompatible with scientific inquiry then it's worthless. I object to this idea, but mostly because I am a philosopher first and a scientist second. Of course, that's just
my opinion, and you are entitled to yours.
As to your point about religion being serious business? I agree. But that doesn't apply when you are engaging in a philosophical discussion on a message board where no important decision making is taking place. As I said before, the seemingly automated reaction that many atheists have to the mention of any kind of religious idea as a philosophical point is highly irritating, and totally unworthy of the majority of your intellects. You're all smart people, and I still think so even when we completely disagree, but I find it completely unnecessary and childish that you must act as if the fate of mankind if on the line every time someone mentions God in a philosophical discussion. (Not all of you are that mature about it either...)
