The evolution of complex life

Cypress said:
American evangelicalism seems to labor under the impression that science and religion are incompatible, perhaps even enemies.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The fathers of cosmology and genetics arguably are a Catholic priest and and Augustinian monk, respectively.

Religion and science are just asking different questions.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The conflict is that they take the Bible literally instead of figuratively. This is exemplified in their fervent belief in the Garden of Eden/Creationism and Noah's Ark. Most are Young Earther's who believe Satan planted evidence to the contrary....meaning Science is the Devil's work!

Agreed on the compatibility of religion and science. IMO, if one believes God created the Universe, then studying God's creation is divine work.

Agreed on "different questions". Science asks "how?" and religion asks "why?" Notice how fervent atheists ignore the "why" and fervent theists ignore the "how".
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. The conflict is that they take the Bible literally instead of figuratively. This is exemplified in their fervent belief in the Garden of Eden/Creationism and Noah's Ark. Most are Young Earther's who believe Satan planted evidence to the contrary....meaning Science is the Devil's work!

Agreed on the compatibility of religion and science. IMO, if one believes God created the Universe, then studying God's creation is divine work.

Agreed on "different questions". Science asks "how?" and religion asks "why?" Notice how fervent atheists ignore the "why" and fervent theists ignore the "how".
Click to expand...

There are many questions which cannot be answered by mass spectrometers or particle accelerators. That is why I never put science on a pedestal as the fountainhead of all knowledge and wisdom.
 
Cypress said:
There are many questions which cannot be answered by mass spectrometers or particle accelerators. That is why I never put science on a pedestal as the fountainhead of all knowledge and wisdom.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Science is a tool, not an end in itself...even though some people seem to believe that it is.

The Scientific Method is limited to the natural universe, since that is all that can be observed...at present. It has a much harder time with philosophical questions. Purists seem to stick with more direct experiments such as boiling water and ignore statistical experiments such as rats in a Skinner box.

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
scientific method, mathematical and experimental technique employed in the sciences. More specifically, it is the technique used in the construction and testing of a scientific hypothesis.

The process of observing, asking questions, and seeking answers through tests and experiments is not unique to any one field of science. In fact, the scientific method is applied broadly in science, across many different fields. Many empirical sciences, especially the social sciences, use mathematical tools borrowed from probability theory and statistics, together with outgrowths of these, such as decision theory, game theory, utility theory, and operations research. Philosophers of science have addressed general methodological problems, such as the nature of scientific explanation and the justification of induction.
Click to expand...
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. Science is a tool, not an end in itself...even though some people seem to believe that it is.

The Scientific Method is limited to the natural universe, since that is all that can be observed...at present. It has a much harder time with philosophical questions. Purists seem to stick with more direct experiments such as boiling water and ignore statistical experiments such as rats in a Skinner box.

https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-method
Click to expand...

Some people get mad when I say this, but there is no mathmatical law of nature, no laboratory experiment which can teach and inform us about truth, justice, freedom, equality, fairness, beauty, humility, mercy. Those are probably the questions that really matter on a day to day basis, because few people are walking around in the course of a day thinking about quantum mechanics and general relativity.
 
Cypress said:
Some people get mad when I say this, but there is no mathmatical law of nature, no laboratory experiment which can teach and inform us about truth, justice, freedom, equality, beauty. Those are probably the questions that really matter on a day to day basis, because few people are walking around in the course of a day thinking about quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Click to expand...
Would those people be purists or have a newly minted Phd? :laugh:

I love the tech of our age. It wouldn't exist without science and those who did the work...even those who blindly stumbled upon a new discovery.

Still, as you've brought up, it has no meaning unless put into the context of "truth, justice, freedom, equality". While some people may enjoy boiling water with varying amounts of salt for personal fun, unless those experiments can be applied to the betterment of all, then it's just a form of intellectual masturbation.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Would those people be purists or have a newly minted Phd? :laugh:

I love the tech of our age. It wouldn't exist without science and those who did the work...even those who blindly stumbled upon a new discovery.

Still, as you've brought up, it has no meaning unless put into the context of "truth, justice, freedom, equality". While some people may enjoy boiling water with varying amounts of salt for personal fun, unless those experiments can be applied to the betterment of all, then it's just a form of intellectual masturbation.
Click to expand...

I haven't noticed that with Perry but sometimes it seems to me that a hardcore atheist just doesn't want to hear science cannot provide all knowledge and truth.

I love science and consider the scientific method one of the crowning achievements of human civilization.

But I am really not going to crack open a physics textbook for guidance on how to live a genuine human life and what to hope for.
 
Cypress said:
I haven't noticed that with Perry but sometimes it seems to me that a hardcore atheist just doesn't want to hear science cannot provide all knowledge and truth.

I love science and consider the scientific method one of the crowning achievements of human civilization.

But I am really not going to crack open a physics textbook for guidance on how to live a genuine human life and what to hope for.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Mankind, and life, is more complex than home science experiments.

IMO, mankind is still a triangle of the physical, mental and spiritual as noted in the link below:

https://www.grcc.edu/faculty-staff/...t/employee-wellness/seven-dimensions-wellness
Wellness is the pursuit of continued growth and balance in the seven dimensions of wellness. Many people think about "wellness" in terms of physical health only. The word invokes thoughts of nutrition, exercise, weight management, blood pressure, etc. Wellness, however, is much more than physical health. Wellness is a full integration of physical, mental and spiritual well-being. It is a complex interaction that leads to quality of life.
Click to expand...
 
Cypress said:
I haven't noticed that with Perry but sometimes it seems to me that a hardcore atheist just doesn't want to hear science cannot provide all knowledge and truth.
Click to expand...

I don't expect science to answer ALL questions. I've even explicitly said so, especially in matters of cosmogenesis. What I DO expect is that science is the only tool that provides information that can be generally agreed upon by all independent observers. That it NEVER fully proves anything but rather provides EVIDENCE of something being MOST LIKELY.

As a scientist I realize that NOTHING is ever proven. There's a reason there is a p-value that is NEVER exactly zero. And that's why.

But I am really not going to crack open a physics textbook for guidance on how to live a genuine human life and what to hope for.
Click to expand...

Nor would anyone suggest you do. But by the same reasoning: just cracking open a book that some anonymous source tells you is the ultimate in TRUTH is not an improvement.

Humans are, indeed, complex creatures and social interactions are even moreso. You might do better to crack open an anthropology text to understand "how to live a genuine human life" (whatever that means). You could even open up a book on the musings of some random guy from 18th century France. It's all good. Philosophy has a role.
 
Perry Phimosis said:
I don't expect science to answer ALL questions. I've even explicitly said so, especially in matters of cosmogenesis. What I DO expect is that science is the only tool that provides information that can be generally agreed upon by all independent observers. That it NEVER fully proves anything but rather provides EVIDENCE of something being MOST LIKELY.

As a scientist I realize that NOTHING is ever proven. There's a reason there is a p-value that is NEVER exactly zero. And that's why.



Nor would anyone suggest you do. But by the same reasoning: just cracking open a book that some anonymous source tells you is the ultimate in TRUTH is not an improvement.

Humans are, indeed, complex creatures and social interactions are even moreso. You might do better to crack open an anthropology text to understand "how to live a genuine human life" (whatever that means). You could even open up a book on the musings of some random guy from 18th century France. It's all good. Philosophy has a role.
Click to expand...

Yes, I said I didn't consider you the type to have put science on a pedestal.

Socrates, Confucius, Jesus, Laozi, Aristotle all had ideas about how to best live a human life, that's what I meant by living a genuine human life. I don't think Donald Trumpf led a genuine human life, he was driven by power, money, grievance, and retribution. That is a questionable human life.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. The conflict is that they take the Bible literally instead of figuratively. This is exemplified in their fervent belief in the Garden of Eden/Creationism and Noah's Ark. Most are Young Earther's who believe Satan planted evidence to the contrary....meaning Science is the Devil's work!

Agreed on the compatibility of religion and science. IMO, if one believes God created the Universe, then studying God's creation is divine work.

Agreed on "different questions". Science asks "how?" and religion asks "why?" Notice how fervent atheists ignore the "why" and fervent theists ignore the "how".
Click to expand...
Your last sentence is wrong, science often deals with the question of “why”.
 
Every time I click onto this thread, I find myself craving donuts.

This time enough so that I'm going out to get them.

Catch you later.
 
Phantasmal said:
Your last sentence is wrong, science often deals with the question of “why”.
Click to expand...
Only in the context of "how".

Did you see the video of the boulder that blew through a house in Hawaii? Yes, there'd be a "why" question, but mainly it's "how did this happen and how can we prevent it from happening again?"

In aviation safety, we ask a lot of similar "how did this occur" questions. Sure, there's a "why" in there, but ultimately it's a "how" question.

In the spiritual nature of man, there's a lot of "why" questions, such as "Why are we here?" and "why can't we answer those questions?"
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Only in the context of "how".

Did you see the video of the boulder that blew through a house in Hawaii? Yes, there'd be a "why" question, but mainly it's "how did this happen and how can we prevent it from happening again?"

In aviation safety, we ask a lot of similar "how did this occur" questions. Sure, there's a "why" in there, but ultimately it's a "how" question.

In the spiritual nature of man, there's a lot of "why" questions, such as "Why are we here?" and "why can't we answer those questions?"
Click to expand...
No, it’s separate from how. How and why are different inquiries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top