There is no definition of religion that I can find that would make science a religion JB. I think your perspective on the matter is flawed.

I think that is exactly what I am doing . . . putting things into perspective. I agree with you no one needs to defend science . . . it is just all to often that people do not even know what science is . . . nor to really even think about what it has done for us.

If we could stack all of the things that the "spiritual" has done for us as a people next to all the things science has done for us as a people . . . . what would we get?

That last point bushido won't work. Someone with faith and belief in spiritual things would probably say that the greatness that has come from that is immeasurable and therefore infinitely greater than science.

Perhaps I need to be more specific.

Lets differentiate from "god" "creation" "spirituality" and "religion"

What has religion done for us? What has "spirituality" the act of belief done for us?

What great discoveries have come from "religion" and "spirituality" that have enhanced our lives, that have saved people from miserable deaths?

I want exact specific examples.

___________________

The reason this argument is not about god, or creation, is that we could be a people created by a god, and never know it, never thought about it, we could have never had religion even with a creator.

Some could argue rightly so, that it is apart of our physiology, we could research this, we can look at the genes (and have) that control the emotions and feelings of awe and wonder . . . and we could have been built without them.

Its a whole other conversation to discuss if we could have been successful, or as successful without those feelings, without perhaps even the knowledge that we where created (if).

So IT is valid to ask what has "religion"(the organization of believers) and "spirituality" (The concept of a god or spiritual medium) done for us.

Flawed? Never! I'm purrrrfet.

To me, a religion is any belief system that attempts to explain our existence. Science is one of those IMO.



I think technology has done a lot of good and yet it has its disadvantages too. If given a choice, I would not want to go back live life as it was 150 years ago. Perhaps I've gotten soft. I enjoy electricity, computers, running water etc. Things that make life easier and more comfortable.

I could do without established religion completely. It was when I had decided to take the position of agnostic that I began to focus on my body and my health and improving my life as it was. I started doing yoga.

It was the deep breathing exercises that changed my life. I found spirituality then. It is simply a feeling of inner peace and compassion for others. I don't know where it comes from.

I can't say that I believe in a God. But I believe in the infinite self... and I believe I will always exist. Not me, Jeannie, but me... inside which is eternal spirit.

jb

To me the really important things are entirely subjective.

Now science has contributed significantly to that. It has made it incredibly easier for my body to function within and control the physical universe. There is not, and never has been, any argument with that.

But saying that something is meaningless or worthless because it is not scientific, is the exact reason why science is ignored and scorned. Because not only does it not help, it tries to say that the problem doesn't really exist - all the while I'm standing right there looking at it.

So, as I said, the really important things, to me are entirely subjective. That's really the bottom line. In order for something to be valuable to me, it must help me to achieve what I want to achieve. Science can do some of that, but it cannot do all of it. And where it hinders me in achieving what I want to achieve, it is less than useless. In that curcumstance, it is by definition "bad".

I don't think people should ever discount science.

Every generation has said there where things science would never uncover, then poof . . .

The ONLY way to explore our reality in any meaningful way has been science, and will continue to be science as long as time exists.

If you disagree likely you do not really understand what science is.

Science is only scorned by those that do not understand it. I have never met someone who studies this stuff to scorn the processes that have helped us discovery the facets and details of nature.

In IT we like to call those people the ones with just enough knowledge to be dangerous.

I never made any judgments about worth or meaning . . . quote me. I asked to stack these things side by side. To show me, to make an example of how spirituality has lead to advancements in understanding . . . . I am asking a question, posing a question, perhaps illustrating a point if those that have been posed the question fail to show anything . . . .

What is interesting to me is that the question is ignored, and instead the questioner is questioned. Very curious . . .

I do not disagree, simply because reality is (apparently) being defined as “that which can be explored and described by science.” I cannot disagree with that any more than I could disagree with my own existence. It is self-defining. No argument at all.

It may be that some people scorn science because they don’t understand it. But it is my opinion that those types of people are scornful of anything that disagrees with them, regardless of whether they understand it or not.

However there are also those who scorn science because have been ridiculed or simply dismissed by scientists for not believing what the scientists tell them. In this case, it is not wscience that is the problem, it is the scientists. Just like with religion. It is not the beliefs that are the problem, it’s the attitude of the some of the believers.

So with that in mind, I need to say that I do not have any problem with science. I wanted to be a scientist for many years, and the reason behind that desire has never changed – to discover and understand the things I observe. But some years ago I reached a point where I realized that there are some things I observed that science could not explain to my satisfaction. I’m not saying that science does not have explanations or that their explanations are wrong. I’m simply saying that the explanations being offered don’t satisfy my personal requirements for an acceptable explanation. And following that, being told by a scientists that my personal requirements are wrong or invalid or ridiculous or meaningless, because they are not scientific is what evokes a feeling of scorn towards the scientists. And since the scientists profess to be representing science, that scorn is naturally targeted at the thing the scientists represent as well.

I understand the concept in IT. I have a lot of experience in with exactly that myself. But I don’t see how the analogy applies to science.

What exactly is the danger? Describe the nature and target of this danger. Who is in danger and what are they in danger of?

Are the scientists in danger? Is science in danger?

From where I sit, the only danger is to the non-scientific people and the danger is of being ridiculed and belittled and scorned (and possibly much worse) by the scientists.

Ok, here is your question: “Name 5 things that religion or philosophy has given us that has changed our understanding of reality.”

It is impossible for anything non-scientific (i.e. “religion”, “philosophy”, “spirituality”) to contribute to the understanding of reality. Otherwise it would be scientific, by definition (see above). So you win there. No one will ever be able to name anything of a non-scientific nature that has ever increased our understanding of reality.

And that is why the question was ignored. It was based on a postulate that it could not be answered and so I considered it to be rhetorical.

So I went off with my own rhetoric on the issues of “worth and meaning” because, to me, that is the ultimate acid test of anything be it science or philosophy or basket weaving.

But then, I have to admit that the issues of worth and meaning are off topic.

There have always been scientists that where scorned by there contemporaries, its not the other scientists you have to convince to get research money . . . . its the donors.

If you decided to not become a scientists because of the scorn of other scientists that to me seems like the ultimate cop out.

No offense. The greatest scientific discoveries have been controversial and if the people who discovered those things felt the same way as you likely we would not enjoy tv dinners, or public internet chat forums such as this.

Science is hard stuff, most people don't engage in it because its hard and takes a lot of time, and isn't as fun as other things we can do with our time in these modern times.

Touche with the point regarding what can be determined is science, that is exactly my take, except I doubt that anything does not fall within that category, I see no hard fast reasons why anything cannot be scientifically determined.

What is dangerous is that New age remedies and detoxification is a big industry built on deceptions. That is dangerous and unethical. Here using a little truth that many people can relate to is all the hook that is needed to "try" a product.

<Quote>Except that in 500 years science has given us everything we know and love here in modern life, where as any other philosophy or religion has given us what?

Name 5 things that religion or philosophy has given us that has changed our understanding of reality . . . .


The way I see it, is science requires hard work, where as any "guru" can claim to have spiritual knowledge . . . . He just has to sell his claim to "guruness"

You want to understand reality, time to pick up some science books, you want to mentally masterbate to feel better about yourself, then go find some religion or some new age "energy"
<Quote>
5 things huh.....lets see jeremy...
who do you think started all your cherished science. Churches and monasteries were what helped bring us out of the dark ages. They kept and maintained books, kept records. Hell jeremy monks were some of the first biologists, only they were called naturalists back them. Eygptian priests were some of the first astronomers. Taoist, Gnostic and Kabbalist alchemists were the first chemists. Philosophy is responsible for the very development of the scientific method. I can name hundreds of philosophers who were scientists before there ever was such a title to go by. Heres a couple, Archemiedes, Pythagoras, and Socrates. Hell many scientists were religous or philosphical. Here's a few, Issac Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Francis Bacon, Kelper and even Carl Sagan. Hell Albert Eistien was jewish. We owe are knowlegde of nuclear power to a jewish woman. Jeremy nothing irritates me more than some punk spouting the virtues of something to which he himself knows nothing about. I don't care if its science, religion or philosophy. Your statements are arrogant, foolish igonorant. You attack and fear what you yourself do not understand which you no better then anyone else. Heres some advice; Get over yourself and quit coming on here playing mental ego head games. Take your own advice and pick a book and read it. If you had done that then maybe you would actually know something about your precious science. The Japanese samurai had a saying,"When speaking and acting one must think twelve times before speaking. That way no one will doubt what he says. When acting one must think twenty times before taking any action. That way no one will doubt what he does." My sensei told me that when you could do that in a instant then you would be a master. Your screename speaks of the Bushido but i get the impression you know nothing of it meaning let alone understand the Bushido Code. Arrogance is unbecoming of the samurai and i counsel you to remove this aspect of your behavior before you can even begin to talk of the Way.

None taken. I just got seduced by other things that were easier and more fun.


If I may, I’d like to split the “blame” down the middle. Yes, the sellers base their sales pitch on the ignorance of their buyers. I cannot absolve the buyers of all responsibility. I maintain that the buyers have just as much responsibility for perpetuating the scam as the sellers. The proof of this is simple: if not for the ignorance of the buyers, there would be no scam. And who is responsible for the ignorance of the buyers?

So the danger is shared equally by both the seller and the buyer and it is equally dangerous to both.

But of course if one believes in a deterministic universe, then the scam was inevitable from the start, so no one is to blame at all.

I have a question for the “scientists”, which relates very directly to the topic.

Logic seems to dictate that it is impossible for something to happen only once.

Here’s the (very abbreviated) logic

Postulate: Nothing can exist that cannot be demonstrated or described by science.
Definition: Reality = that which can be demonstrated or described by science.
Definition: Science = workability
Definition: Workable = reproducible
Definition: Reproducible = happens multiple times
Conclusion: Anything that happens only once, is not real
Corollary : Nothing can happen only once.

Any flaws in that logic?

"Nothing" can never happen.

An event is unique. They all happen only once. Similar events may happen but they are not exactly the same as other similar events. Each event is unique. Each individual is unique.

False...

This presupposes that no thing exists until discovery, when actuality demands that things must exist in order to be discovered.



False...

Reality is not determined by science nor science's understanding of actuality.



False...

Science is the pursuit of an accurate understanding of actuality, of how the universe works. Workability is an adjective. Science is a noun. Does this mean that pool = wet ???



False...

Workable means that a true conclusion can be successfully drawn from the construct which has been deemed to be "workable". Reproducible simply means that it can be copied. Just because a workable "thing" must have the ability to be repeated does not mean that all things that are reproducible are in fact "workable." One can copy an inequality an infinite amount of times without the inequality ever attaining the value of workability.



False...

The quality of being reproducible means that "it" can be copied or done again, not that it has been.



No practical use.



No practical use.



Since you asked...

Wrong. Look up the word "can".

That's the only one I'm going to bother to address because all of them do the same thing - make up a definition and then present an argument based in that made-up definition.

Okay Billy, then the human energy field is still waiting to be discovered, because it does exist. Of course when scientists finally do discover it, they will undoubtedly give it a different and new name and define it according to their postulates so as not to have given in to their prior claims that such a think does not exist... to save face.

Then, people will refer to this discovery giving all the credit to science ignoring the fact that some people have known about it long before they did.

That is how the scientific community seems to work. They take the credit for discovering things that spiritualist have known for a long time.

jb

Mirror, mirror, on the wall...

Definitions that correlate to actuality.

Science cannot demonstrate nor describe that which is yet to be discovered. That does not equate to a thing's nonexistence in actuality. It does equate to a thing's nonexistence in human knowledge. There is a distinction.

There are those who know of a things existence by personal experience but it is a thing that has yet to be discovered by science.

Therefore, the thing does exist in "human knowledge," it has just not been "proven" (or discovered) by science so science simply does not acknowledge its existence.

Some lean on the authority of science alone, others do not wait for science.

"Some lean on the authority of science alone, others do not wait for science."

This is just a blatant troll JB . . tisk tisk , not even well fashioned, no one relies solely on science, we all have observations and personal experience that help shape our reality, we just don't expect other people to innately believe what only we ourselves have subjective knowledge of . . . .

Your just still mad at Creative for calling you a bs'r lol.

HAHAH


And JB, shesh you sure are hard on the science community, can you name me anything where anything like what you are talking about happened or is it just a dig?

I am always willing to see different perspectives, but not without specifics . . .

I speak truth as I have experienced it. I don't care who believes it so it does not matter to me.

And I'm not mad at anybody.






Yes but I am too busy right now to get into it.

I once spent an entire day researching my evidence and collecting references and authorities to make my case for Creative on a subject and it was just a waste of time.

It would not matter how much I presented, if my authorities and examples do not meet with your personal approval they are simply ignored, dismissed, made fun of, etc. I have left other examples for you and they were simply ignored, so I'm sorry, I am not going to spend the time.

And don't tell me not to make such statements if I am not prepared to "prove" them.

This is a science AND philosophy forum, not just science.

Just call it my opinion. I don't have to prove my opinion to anyone.

jb

You mean too busy to express when and where you had heard how the science community took a spiritual knowledge and "discovered" it and took credit but never mentioned where they had found said spiritual knowledge, or list the source of there research . . . .

Oh ok, I understand, its tough to recall where you might have heard something like that. I know Id probably forget too.