Scientism

Doc Dutch said:
Yes, you're a dumbass clown.
Click to expand...

coming from a career orientated social typecast personna, staying within the legal stereotyping allowed by law to defend human rights to ignore self evident evolving as a greater good social order, I know that is the best you have against self evident time displaced here now.

Every reality requires it each generation population changes ancestors added to ancestry like never arrived before, forward now. Always replaying the same old static ideologies every generation.
 
Cypress said:
Scientism: Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.


https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/...ke the use of the,about the world and reality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Click to expand...

Do you believe that claims of people coming back to life after three days don't intersect with biology? Do you believe that philosophy and the metaphysical don't intersect with neurology?
 
ZenMode said:
Do you believe that claims of people coming back to life after three days don't intersect with biology? Do you believe that philosophy and the metaphysical don't intersect with neurology?
Click to expand...
IF he was really dead. Let's not forget he was taken down early....and it was 300 years before the NT was canonized so it's possible the facts were distorted.
 
ZenMode said:
Do you believe that claims of people coming back to life after three days don't intersect with biology? Do you believe that philosophy and the metaphysical don't intersect with neurology?
Click to expand...

There's no evidence that Jesus was resurrected, and assuming you align with Buddhism Zen dude, there's no evidence of Samsara and reincarnation either.
 
Doc Dutch said:
IF he was really dead. Let's not forget he was taken down early....and it was 300 years before the NT was canonized so it's possible the facts were distorted.
Click to expand...

The resurrection story was either a myth, or maybe Jesus didn't really die. Heartbeats and pulses were sometimes hard to detect before stethoscopes, and people were frequently buried with bells they could ring if they came out of a coma and found themselves entombed. I always wondered if maybe Jesus was still just barely alive when they took him off the cross and entombed him.
 
Cypress said:
There's no evidence that Jesus was resurrected, and assuming you align with Buddhism Zen dude, there's no evidence of Samsara and reincarnation either.
Click to expand...

I thought you were taking the side that religion, philosophy and the metaphysical could actually exist independently science. I'm guessing that we on the same side.
 
ZenMode said:
I thought you were taking the side that religion, philosophy and the metaphysical could actually exist independently science. I'm guessing that we on the same side.
Click to expand...

I don't think my opening post said anything about religion.

I'm saying that there is probably more to the reality of the human experience than quarks, mathmatical equations, and laboratory experiments
 
Cypress said:
The resurrection story was either a myth, or maybe Jesus didn't really die. Heartbeats and pulses were sometimes hard to detect before stethoscopes, and people were frequently buried with bells they could ring if they came out of a coma and found themselves entombed. I always wondered if maybe Jesus was still just barely alive when they took him off the cross and entombed him.
Click to expand...

I think something extraordinary happened. Death isn't extraordinary. "Coming back from the dead" is extraordinary even if it was only from a coma or passing out from pain.

The shock of seeing someone who was thought dead to "come back to life" certainly would have made Jesus stand out from all the other rabbis and religious figures running around in those days.
 
ZenMode said:
I thought you were taking the side that religion, philosophy and the metaphysical could actually exist independently science. I'm guessing that we on the same side.
Click to expand...

If you read more of his threads, you'd see Cypress is on the side of science albeit, like me, he understands there is a spiritual side to mankind. We both agree that facts always come first.
 
Cypress said:
I don't think my opening post said anything about religion.

I'm saying that there is probably more to the reality of the human experience than quarks, mathmatical equations, and laboratory experiments
Click to expand...

Science is a very broad topic that extends well beyond quarks, equations and experiments. If someone is claiming that a human came back to life after 3 days, they're making a biological (also a science) statement. Same with walking on water, bushes talking, one person, with no medical education or tools, repairing the lost eyesight of another person or bring a deceased person back to life. Claims of an eternal soul that is able to traverse time and space is also a claim that intersects with sceince.

If you're talking about philosophy, what you're generally talking about is experience of conscious beings - neurology, also a science.

There is nothing I'm aware of that doesn't intersect with science.
 
Doc Dutch said:
I think something extraordinary happened. Death isn't extraordinary. "Coming back from the dead" is extraordinary even if it was only from a coma or passing out from pain.

The shock of seeing someone who was thought dead to "come back to life" certainly would have made Jesus stand out from all the other rabbis and religious figures running around in those days.
Click to expand...

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies." --> Hamlet
 
Doc Dutch said:
If you read more of his threads, you'd see Cypress is on the side of science albeit, like me, he understands there is a spiritual side to mankind. We both agree that facts always come first.
Click to expand...

Spirituality, while it is generally associated with religion, isn't only a religious concept. You can be spiritual without believing in irrational religious claims that conflict with science.
 
ZenMode said:
Spirituality, while it is generally associated with religion, isn't only a religious concept. You can be spiritual without believing in irrational religious claims.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
All religions are based in spirituality. Religion is simply a formalized version of spiritual beliefs. They often devolve into dogma...which, like political parties, always ends up serving itself over the spiritual belief itself.

Consider all the Trumpers on JPP who claim to be Christians then constantly behave in very a unChristian manner. They think following the dogma makes them Christian, not following the actual spirituality of Jesus of Nazareth.
 
ZenMode said:
Science is a very broad topic that extends well beyond quarks, equations and experiments. If someone is claiming that a human came back to life after 3 days, they're making a biological (also a science) statement. Same with walking on water, bushes talking, one person, with no medical education or tools, repairing the lost eyesight of another person or bring a deceased person back to life. Claims of an eternal soul that is able to traverse time and space is also a claim that intersects with sceince.

If you're talking about philosophy, what you're generally talking about is experience of conscious beings - neurology, also a science.

There is nothing I'm aware of that doesn't intersect with science.
Click to expand...

"Intersect" is a very fuzzy and nebulous term.

Explain the mathematical equations and scientific experiments which give us true and unambiguous knowledge of justice, fairness, freedom, equality.


Even scientists routinely engage in metaphysics. Einstein invented the cosmological constant based on his belief that a static and infinitely old universe was just more philosophically satisfying. The search for a theory of everything is driven by a belief that it's just more philosophically satisfying to think the fundamental forces are unified and can be described by a single equation.

I know of no physics or maths which provide true knowledge of why the big bang happened.

I really don't think Scientism and a strict reductionist materialism is subscribed to by most people, including scientists themselves
 
Cypress said:
"Intersect" is a very fuzzy and nebulous term.

Explain the mathematical equations and scientific experiments which give us true and unambiguous knowledge of justice, fairness, freedom, equality.


Even scientists routinely engage in metaphysics. Einstein invented the cosmological constant based on his belief that a static and infinitely old universe was just more philosophically satisfying. The search for a theory of everything is driven by a belief that it's just more philosophically satisfying to think the fundamental forces are unified and can be described by a single equation.

I know of no physics or maths which provide true knowledge of why the big bang happened.

I really don't think Scientism and a strict reductionist materialism is subscribed to by most people, including scientists themselves
Click to expand...

You're trying to pigeon hold "science" as only experiments and equations. An understanding of justice and fairness isn't even limited to humans. Chimpanzees have been shown to enact justice and express unhappiness at things that are unfair. Those are all concepts that come as a result of brain functionality at a neurological level.

Everything you're talking about, even Einstein's beliefs, are all explainable scientifically. Why have humans created thousands of gods throughout history? There's a scientific explanation for it, even if we don't have an complete understanding at this point. The moral ideas that the religious, especially Christians, like to take credit for are scientifically explainable at least partially as a result of evolution.

As humans, we have been programmed to prefer agreement vs disagreement when in a group setting. When you express agreement in a group, it produces dopamine in the brain, which feels good, while disagreeing with a group does not. It's believed that this is the result of evolution and is meant to mitigate conflict and encourage cooperation.
 
Cypress said:
Scientism: Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth.

Scientism is the opinion that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality.


https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/...ke the use of the,about the world and reality.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Click to expand...

Sounds like it would conflict with the Stalinism you follow...
 
ZenMode said:
You're trying to pigeon hold "science" as only experiments and equations. An understanding of justice and fairness isn't even limited to humans. Chimpanzees have been shown to enact justice and express unhappiness at things that are unfair. Those are all concepts that come as a result of brain functionality at a neurological level.

Everything you're talking about, even Einstein's beliefs, are all explainable scientifically. Why have humans created thousands of gods throughout history? There's a scientific explanation for it, even if we don't have an complete understanding at this point. The moral ideas that the religious, especially Christians, like to take credit for are scientifically explainable at least partially as a result of evolution.

As humans, we have been programmed to prefer agreement vs disagreement when in a group setting. When you express agreement in a group, it produces dopamine in the brain, which feels good, while disagreeing with a group does not. It's believed that this is the result of evolution and is meant to mitigate conflict and encourage cooperation.
Click to expand...

Your view of science makes life seem pointless. Just physical laws. No one really believes that. But sounds sophisticated to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top