How should we go about understanding reality

[Peter Fentyle]

I wish to discuss how does one rationally go about understanding the world we live in.

There is the scientific approach of empiric data and evidence etc. There are philosophers who come up with many different ideas based on their rational thinking and there's religion that claims so many ideas are the truth based on evidence from scripture. And there's a whole mix of weird and wild experiences from individuals. Everyone propogates their own version is the best, so what is a best methodology to understand things properly.

Should I accept everything that science says with full faith and ignore other sources of knowledge -- or should I try to balance out the different ideas from science, philosophy and religion and try to pick out the best and choose my reality, so to speak.

What is the best approach for a rational person and how to do that on a practical level?

 

[evenflower]

I say, it begins and ends with geometry: the apriori science that deals purely with the form of the external intuition. I think Kant hit the nail on the head.

The problem with theor. physics as I see it is that it is innundated with algebraic formalism, and pays scant attention to this most "concrete" of disciplines. Even when geometry is talked about, the language becomes so abstract and technical. That's a shame.

I think it's best to ask the simple questions, such as: What does it mean for matter to occupy space?

The "particle" theories don't ask this question at all, and the "field" theories seem to deny that there could be an equivalence between the concepts of ponderable matter and diffuse field.

There are definitely elements of QM that seem to be on the right track, when it speaks of entanglement and non-localism. That is, if matter is fundamentally *spatial*, and if there are no good a priori reasons to restrict the extent of this spatiality, then it makes sense to say that "ontological disconnectedness" (for want of a better term) is the spooky idea, rather than the other way around.

And I obviously have a lot of love for GR. The only problem is when it is said that "matter bends space, and bent space directs matter." This definition is ugly, there seems to be some kind of infinite loop going on here, logically speaking (chicken and the egg, what?). I think matter and space/field are one and the same.

What can I say... I'm a universalist. All things are connected, etc.

 

[Willowz]

Should I accept everything that science says with full faith...

Looks like your taking the wrong approach here. Science doesn't require faith.

 

[evenflower]

Science kind of requires faith in one's self. Because it's not a "thing", it's a method. And it's not even any particular method. The idea of science is more like method, in itself. Logical procedure. Whatever you want to apply that to is your own bag. Theology is scientific/methodical, even.

 

[Darken-Sol]

we can make models to represent our universe and its functions. what then does the scientist represent?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Science does not rely on faith at all. If you lack the training to understand the science you take it on trust from authority figures, not on faith.

In science we try to explain the universe by observing/testing/concluding to make predictive explanatory models of how the world works.

Religion relies on faith. It has no evidence (often holds beliefs inspite of evidence) and makes absolute claims about the nature of reality. It is not a good pathway to uncovering how the universe really works.

Choosing your reality is a hellishly bad idea. You can choose not to believe that inertia exists but that isn't going to stop the truck hitting you squashing you into a pancake. The best approach to figuring out what we know about reality is to go with what we have evidence for, not what people "believe".

The scientist represents the guy whose profession it is to do science

 

[Darken-Sol]

The scientist represents the guy whose profession it is to do science

so he the fact that he created and controls the model has no similarities with a god, scientifically. so in science we can ignore some data if it causes us to ask the wrong questions?

 

[thorium1010]

so he the fact that he created and controls the model has no similarities with a god, scientifically.

Not a very good analogy. Scientists can be wrong. Testing and verifying the predicted models by others is part of the scientific method.

so in science we can ignore some data if it causes us to ask the wrong questions?

perhaps a example would help .

 

[Ryan_m_b]

so he the fact that he created and controls the model has no similarities with a god, scientifically. so in science we can ignore some data if it causes us to ask the wrong questions?

I really can't make sense of what you are trying to say here.

 

[Darken-Sol]

i'm not tryin to bust anyones balls. i was just playin devils advocate. to get useful data experiments have to be designed. things don't happen on their own. model is to universe as scientist is to god, creator(s), or whatever you use to explain how things came to be. back to understanding reality. i doubt we wil truly understand what is real. one could argue that the only thing that exists is this present moment. then again i could be experiencing this right now and you could be remembering it ten years from now.

 

[Pythagorean]

I like Robert Sapolsky's pedagogical approach; you have "buckets" that each represent an approach to a general problem and you try to examine the problem from each bucket, never fully committing to one bucket or the other, though one bucket may be your dominant bucket, and eventually you may lose interest in particular buckets all together.

 

[cobalt124]

Should I accept everything that science says with full faith and ignore other sources of knowledge -- or should I try to balance out the different ideas from science, philosophy and religion and try to pick out the best and choose my reality, so to speak.

What is the best approach for a rational person and how to do that on a practical level?

Choosing your reality is a hellishly bad idea.

To answer your question literally, I would say a rational person would have to ditch everything but science. I wouldn't advise taking what any of them say with full faith, for the most part each should be questioned "on its own terms" e.g. there is no point questioning faith from a scientific perspective or vice versa (IMO), though philosophy could be used to question the other two I reckon, but not vice versa. Whichever way, I agree with ryan_m_b. These approaches are ways of seeing (aspects of?) reality, you should be able to view reality though them interchangeably (possibly "pick n mix"), rather than using them to impose a choice upon reality. The choice is in how you want to view (live?) life. I'm essentially saying the same as Pythagorean but not as succinctly.

 

[wuliheron]

Taoists like to say, "Many paths, one mountain." The assumption is that everyone is climbing the same mountain and some paths might get you to the top faster, but there is no single path that is the best for everyone. The scientific path is one of many and you can switch back and forth between paths whenever it seems to your advantage.

This is a pragmatic approach where what is reasonable depends upon the individual and their specific circumstances at the time. Hence the need to know your own limitations at any given time and the demands of the paths you have to choose from. While there is only so much we might be able to determine about the path ahead, there is certainly a great deal we can learn about ourselves. The more we know and accept our own limitations, the better we can assess the path before us and the less we need to rely on arbitrary rules of thumb about what we should and shouldn't do.

 

[Pythagorean]

In my experience the scientfic paths have been the most fruitful for answering all of my questions.

 

[wuliheron]

In my experience the scientfic paths have been the most fruitful for answering all of my questions.

Is that a scientific approach to how he should choose?

 

[Willowz]

Yes, if he is searching for an answer here.

 

[wuliheron]

So subjective anecdotal evidence now qualifies as scientific evidence so long as it is posted at a website dedicated to science?

 

[JaredJames]

So subjective anecdotal evidence now qualifies as scientific evidence so long as it is posted at a website dedicated to science?

What? No one said that.

However, I'm yet to here any logical argument that points out any other system that can provide the benefits of science.

No other path has provided as much development and discovery as science has - the 'first' world is because of science.

 

[Pythagorean]

Is that a scientific approach to how he should choose?

No, my first post pertained to the rational approach. My second post was more about the results in this particular trial.

But why should their be a scientific approach to choosing? I'm emotionally satisfied by the scientific approach, that should be enough to justify my choice.

 

[dm4b]

I say, it begins and ends with geometry: the apriori science that deals purely with the form of the external intuition. I think Kant hit the nail on the head.

The problem with theor. physics as I see it is that it is innundated with algebraic formalism, and pays scant attention to this most "concrete" of disciplines. Even when geometry is talked about, the language becomes so abstract and technical. That's a shame.

I think it's best to ask the simple questions, such as: What does it mean for matter to occupy space?

The "particle" theories don't ask this question at all, and the "field" theories seem to deny that there could be an equivalence between the concepts of ponderable matter and diffuse field.

There are definitely elements of QM that seem to be on the right track, when it speaks of entanglement and non-localism. That is, if matter is fundamentally *spatial*, and if there are no good a priori reasons to restrict the extent of this spatiality, then it makes sense to say that "ontological disconnectedness" (for want of a better term) is the spooky idea, rather than the other way around.

And I obviously have a lot of love for GR. The only problem is when it is said that "matter bends space, and bent space directs matter." This definition is ugly, there seems to be some kind of infinite loop going on here, logically speaking (chicken and the egg, what?). I think matter and space/field are one and the same.

What can I say... I'm a universalist. All things are connected, etc.

Interesting post evenflower.

I thought Roger Penrose's new idea (CCC - Cyclical Conformal Cosmology, or something like that) was also interesting along similar lines. Put very simply, once all the matter is gone in the Universe (i.e. we have a Universe filled solely with radiation) there is nothing around to experience the passage of time, and length contraction goes to zero. The infinite becomes the infintesimal, and we get another Big Bang, or another "cycle" begins.

It seems obvious you cannot have matter without space, but this whole idea he has also seems to imply that you cannot have space without matter. They would seem to be somehow dependent upon one another.

We'll just have to wait and see if RP's idea gets any validation. For now, it seems most think it's a really neat idea, but are highly skeptical about it. Sounds like many are uneasy about the way he treats the 2nd Law, as well.

 

[dm4b]

Should I accept everything that science says with full faith and ignore other sources of knowledge -- or should I try to balance out the different ideas from science, philosophy and religion and try to pick out the best and choose my reality, so to speak.

What is the best approach for a rational person and how to do that on a practical level?

I think it's important to fully look into ALL of the above - science, religon, philosophy, etc.

Many scientists who tell you to ignore religion, have never done a thorough study of religion. Most religous folks that are anti-science, likewise understand little about it.

(And when I say study religion I mean ALL the major religions, both East and West. A good 10+ years of reading!)

I recommend learning as much as you can and forming your own opinion.

Lastly, I'd recommend to never be completely swayed by the mainstream. All fields of human "knowledge" are heavily influenced by the current paradigm, or way of thinking, that is ultimately limiting.

As humans, we always seem to think we're at the top of the totem pole, and that our current way of thinking about the world is the best/ultimate ... maybe one day we'll learn from history and realize it's not

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think it's important to fully look into ALL of the above - science, religon, philosophy, etc.

Many scientists who tell you to ignore religion, have never done a thorough study of religion. Most religous folks that are anti-science, likewise understand little about it.

(And when I say study religion I mean ALL the major religions, both East and West. A good 10+ years of reading!)

I recommend learning as much as you can and forming your own opinion.

Lastly, I'd recommend to never be completely swayed by the mainstream. All fields of human "knowledge" are heavily influenced by the current paradigm, or way of thinking, that is ultimately limiting.

As humans, we always seem to think we're at the top of the totem pole, and that our current way of thinking about the world is the best/ultimate ... maybe one day we'll learn from history and realize it's not

Of course he should study as much as possible to come to a conclusion but whether or not scientists (or anyone from that matter) tell others to ignore religion has nothing to do with whether or not they have studied religions.

Science is an approach to discovering truth, religions are claims of truth. The difference with the scientific approach compared to any other is that it is demonstrable. It is not simply a case of the mainstream preaching dogma, the "mainstream" is the widely held view with the most evidence. Mainstream opinions should be taken as the yardstick for our best understanding, not statements of absolute truth

 

[Willowz]

Once you get rid of any confirmation biases or belief biases, then anything seems possible. Implementing a sort of scientific method in life as in trying different things in different ways to get the same goal would help any person stuck.

 

[dm4b]

Of course he should study as much as possible to come to a conclusion but whether or not scientists (or anyone from that matter) tell others to ignore religion has nothing to do with whether or not they have studied religions.

Science is an approach to discovering truth, religions are claims of truth. The difference with the scientific approach compared to any other is that it is demonstrable.

Well, your first statement up there was sort of my point. Why would anyone dismiss something they know next to nothing about? In other words, it should have something to do "with whether or not they have studied religions". Additionally ...


the second one is a matter of opinion. On the surface, it may be valid opinion for western religions, but it may be equally NOT valid for eastern religions. Eastern religions are pretty much a road map to personal experience of the truths they contain, in other words they claim their truths are demonstrable for each individual - albeit, not in a way that is accepted to the current scientific paradigm.

Although I doubt you will agree! Doesn't really matter, we all gave our opinions. I'd say to Peter .. ignore all of 'em .. and make your own informed decision

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, your first statement up there was sort of my point. Why would anyone dismiss something they know next to nothing about? In other words, it should have something to do "with whether or not they have studied religions". Additionally ...


the second one is a matter of opinion. On the surface, it may be valid opinion for western religions, but it may be equally NOT valid for eastern religions. Eastern religions are pretty much a road map to personal experience of the truths they contain, in other words they claim their truths are demonstrable for each individual - albeit, not in a way that is accepted to the current scientific paradigm.

Although I doubt you will agree! Doesn't really matter, we all gave our opinions. I'd say to Peter .. ignore all of 'em .. and make your own informed decision

It depends on which eastern religion you are talking about. Hinduism, Taoism, Jainism all have unverified proposals of truth and are all eastern religions. In my experience I have yet to find a religion that sought to explain personal experiences in any other way than attributing them to preconceived faith beliefs.

So you are right, I do respectably disagree

 

[dm4b]

In my experience I have yet to find a religion that sought to explain personal experiences in any other way than attributing them to preconceived faith beliefs.

Well, there's no doubt that in Eastern religions most do have to start out with an open mind (or have "faith") in what they are saying. But, the WHOLE point of Eastern religions, is that in the end, you WILL directly experience what they are talking about, while you are still alive (although more than likely, NOT easily). The reason I put faith in quotation marks, is because in the East, faith is more of a stepping stone, on the path to experience. Once you have direct experience, faith isn't really needed anymore.

Once again, their claim is that this direct exerpience is demonstrable, and can be attained by anybody, anywhere. Millions of people in the world have claimed to have had that experience.

Ultimately, since the truths in Eastern religions are the same truths in Western religions, all this applies there too. It's just much harder to see.

Since science has no aswers on this either way, to claim it is just delusion, is premature, at best. They only real reason to do so, is that it doesn't fit within the current accepted way of viewing the world for some.

I'll give you another thought, courtesy of Carl Jung, IIRC. Even if there is no God, all myths/religions are still 100% true on a psychological level. They can still tell you much about yourself and they even have some predicitive power. If you know what "type" of myth a culture follows, you can be pretty darn sure what the societal structures and behaviors will be like.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, there's no doubt that in Eastern religions most do have to start out with an open mind (or have "faith") in what they are saying. But, the WHOLE point of Eastern religions, is that in the end, you WILL directly experience what they are talking about, while you are still alive (although more than likely, NOT easily). The reason I put faith in quotation marks, is because in the East, faith is more of a stepping stone, on the path to experience. Once you have direct experience, faith isn't really needed anymore.

Once again, their claim is that this direct exerpience is demonstrable, and can be attained by anybody, anywhere. Millions of people in the world have claimed to have had that experience.

Ultimately, since the truths in Eastern religions are the same truths in Western religions, all this applies there too. It's just much harder to see.

Since science has no aswers on this either way, to claim it is just delusion, is premature, at best. They only real reason to do so, is that it doesn't fit within the current accepted way of viewing the world for some.

I'll give you another thought, courtesy of Carl Jung, IIRC. Even if there is no God, all myths/religions are still 100% true on a psychological level. They can still tell you much about yourself and they even have some predicitive power. If you know what "type" of myth a culture follows, you can be pretty darn sure what the societal structures and behaviors will be like.

That's not just a facet of eastern religions. I have met many Christians who claim that they directly experience God and that I could too if only I prayed and studied the Bible.

I'm not sure what you mean by "all myths/religions are still 100% true on a psychological level". Do you mean that what the person experiences is true? Perhaps but not always (there can be delusion and lying). I don't necessarily doubt that a person feels the presence of what they think is God. I doubt that what they say is true. In the same way that if someone claims that they have a headache because an invisible alien is sitting on their brain I would believe:

That they have a headache
That they believe an alien is causing it

I wouldn't believe

That an alien was actually causing it

I believe what I believe because of evidence (evidence here could be that I know the person is trustworthy). I do not believe what I do not believe because of lack of evidence or because of evidence proving said thing to not be real

 

[dm4b]

That's not just a facet of eastern religions. I have met many Christians who claim that they directly experience God and that I could too if only I prayed and studied the Bible.

Well, I don't want to put down the claims of most "born again" Christians. Let's just say the phenomenon is often distinctly different than what Eastern religions are talking about. But, in the end, yes, in the Christian religion, there is no reason you cannot have the same experiences there and, from what I can tell, many have over time.

There is a Hindu allegory for this: The blind men and the elephant. One blind man is feeling the leg and saying the elephant is a leg. Another the tusk, saying it is a tusk. Another the trunk. And they argue on and on. Here the elephant is symbolic for God, and the blind men are symbolic for typical religous thinking. The whole point is to try and break through and see the whole elephant, and realize you're all talking about the same darn thing!

I'm not sure what you mean by "all myths/religions are still 100% true on a psychological level". Do you mean that what the person experiences is true?

Yes and No. I just mean you can study it like you would any other thing in psychology. Myths are born in and appeal to the psyche, and can therefore tell you much about the human psyche. That's true whether or not a God actually exists.

I believe what I believe because of evidence

We all believe in (or know?) lots of stuff without "evidence". Prove you love your family. There's no way you can, definitively and scientifically. Yet, you yourself don't believe - you know you love them, without question. Nobody has to prove that to you. I can observe you and realize you do, because I share a similar set of experiences, (Yet, I can't prove you do, and I can't make any claim along those lines without referencing my own beliefs and experiences on love, which I also can't prove) Likewise, if you practiced Yoga for the next 10 years, maybe you would have an experience the Yoga Sutras talk about. At that point, you could "relate" to others who had that experience. But, neither of you will be able to "prove" that you had it. All you can do is experience it for yourself (which is, of course, the essence of Buddhism.)

 

[Peter Fentyle]

Hi. Thank you very much for all the responses. It is very interesting hearing your viewpoints and I'm learning alot.

I've been asked by the authorities to rephrase my post or they will delete it. So I am in the process of doing that.

One thing that would help me is if we could very simply list down the most important pros and cons for each of them. Why you feel science is better than religion and philosophy/experience. Or if all then what's good and what's bad for each one. This will give me a good yardstick to rationally follow when accepting and rejecting knowledge from these sources. List as many as possible pros and cons in language that even a 7 year old could grasp.

If this thread dies, then perhaps you can private message me as this is very helpful to me to decide how i should live my life in a rational way.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, I don't want to put down the claims of most "born again" Christians. Let's just say the phenomenon is often distinctly different than what Eastern religions are talking about. But, in the end, yes, in the Christian religion, there is no reason you cannot have the same experiences there and, from what I can tell, many have over time.

There is a Hindu allegory for this: The blind men and the elephant. One blind man is feeling the leg and saying the elephant is a leg. Another the tusk, saying it is a tusk. Another the trunk. And they argue on and on. Here the elephant is symbolic for God, and the blind men are symbolic for typical religous thinking. The whole point is to try and break through and see the whole elephant, and realize you're all talking about the same darn thing!
Yes and No. I just mean you can study it like you would any other thing in psychology. Myths are born in and appeal to the psyche, and can therefore tell you much about the human psyche. That's true whether or not a God actually exists.
We all believe in (or know?) lots of stuff without "evidence". Prove you love your family. There's no way you can, definitively and scientifically. Yet, you yourself don't believe - you know you love them, without question. Nobody has to prove that to you. I can observe you and realize you do, because I share a similar set of experiences, (Yet, I can't prove you do, and I can't make any claim along those lines without referencing my own beliefs and experiences on love, which I also can't prove) Likewise, if you practiced Yoga for the next 10 years, maybe you would have an experience the Yoga Sutras talk about. At that point, you could "relate" to others who had that experience. But, neither of you will be able to "prove" that you had it. All you can do is experience it for yourself (which is, of course, the essence of Buddhism.)

We'll have to continue this conversation elsewhere, we're pulling away from the OP

Hi. Thank you very much for all the responses. It is very interesting hearing your viewpoints and I'm learning alot.

I've been asked by the authorities to rephrase my post or they will delete it. So I am in the process of doing that.

One thing that would help me is if we could very simply list down the most important pros and cons for each of them. Why you feel science is better than religion and philosophy/experience. Or if all then what's good and what's bad for each one. This will give me a good yardstick to rationally follow when accepting and rejecting knowledge from these sources. List as many as possible pros and cons in language that even a 7 year old could grasp.

If this thread dies, then perhaps you can private message me as this is very helpful to me to decide how i should live my life in a rational way.

By "science is better" and "what's good and bad for each one" I'll go for more than just what gives better truth.

Religion
Pros
-Potentially useful system of ethics

Cons
-System of ethics is (supposedly) immutable as often those ethics are the absolute values
-Claims absolute knowledge based on faith (i.e. belief with no or even in spite of evidence).
-The religious method of determining truth is flawed, you cannot discover anything if you have absolute belief.
-Religion does not encourage a questioning mind as claims about the nature universe are presented to the adherent as absolute fact. Religion encourages behaviour based on those claims (which can be good or bad) but does not encourage a questioning of those claims or a desire to investigate further.

Philosophy
Pros
-Can provide better ways of critical thinking (i.e. studying what logic is, what evidence is etc). In my opinion you can be a better scientist if you study philosophy, science itself is a philosophy.
-Can help construct better systems of ethics
-Massively encourages questioning and further thinking

Cons
-When done wrong will lead to over intellectualising of an issue that has a good scientific explanation
-When discussing real world phenomenon has a tendency to build ideas not based on evidence and dissuades the user from seeking evidence on the subject.
-Is not a good method of discovery. It can help you formulate the method (i.e empiricism) and help define and characterise important aspects such as "what is evidence", "what is truth" etc but does not encourage practice. If philosophy is the theory, science is the practice.

Science
Pros
-I'm talking to you over the internet (not really a joke that, without science we wouldn't have technology)
-Encourages a rational approach to understanding the mechanisms by which the universe works
-Is DEMONSTRABLE. I emphasise here because it is one of the most important facets, science bases it's conclusions on demonstrable evidence. If a scientist tells you something you can always look at the evidence, scientists are reporters of evidence whereas religious figures are interpreters of scripture. There is often a conflation of the two that is undeserved.
-Encourages the adherent to be ok with saying "I don't know". Science thrives on the unknown and importantly it teaches that if something is unknown we should not and can not speculate on it.

Cons
-(Not too sure about this one because it doesn't really bother me but does bother a lot of people) Science does not give us certainty. Nothing in science is absolute, everything is indicative. I.e. we can have millions of man hours of study showing that water boils at 100 degrees C at 1 atmosphere from a range of fields (from quantum chemistry to just looking with eyes) however this does not prove that the next time this will happen the same way.
-It is difficult to use science to create a system of ethics because whilst science could be very good at examining the effects of behaviours (i.e. happiness of individuals) it is not helpful in providing us with the initial hypothesis. For example I could make the claim "The world would be a better place if people acted in X manner". If that was my hypothesis I could test it scientifically but things like defining "better" and coming up with the hypothesis would be hard to do with science.

These are my immediate thoughts this morning and I hope they help, It's hard to compare these without having an idea of what one is meant to be comparing. Interesting question though thank you. Sorry for the long post!

 

[Darken-Sol]

we barely have an idea of consciousness. is it right to believe that my consciousness is a different one than yours. ego maybe. the universe itself is conscious, if only in the tiny amount of matter and chemical reactions that make up humanity. we say it is our own but how can it be? we are not separate from the universe. science states this. we rule this planet. we hold its fate in our hands. some would consider that godlike. the sun will shine whether we understand how it goes about shining or we worship it. hell we can even flip it the bird. even if we use science to understand everything, it won't change how this universe functions. so it seems to be a "why" question. to make life better i would guess. then religeon and science have the same goal. if people stopped arguing about which and who and started practicing some of their beliefs, maybe reality wouldn't suck so much. we are all in the same boat.

 

[JaredJames]

the universe itself is conscious

Prove it. There's nothing to back that up, at all.

Just because we are, doesn't mean the universe is.

we are not separate from the universe. science states this.

Where? Please show me where it states my consciousness is part of the universe.

we rule this planet.

Tell that to the Earth next time a natural disaster occurs - nature rules us, we work within its limits. There are boundaries we cannot work outside of.

we hold its fate in our hands.

We hold our fate in our hands. The planet doesn't care what happens to us and will continue onwards regardless of us.

some would consider that godlike.

If it were true.

then religeon and science have the same goal.

Not true at all.

Science aims to discover how things work. Religion tells you how they work.
Science shows evidence for their theories. Religion tells you to just believe it.

Science does not care about "making life better", that is just one of its uses. Neither does religion - in fact there are many religious texts which discuss various things we consider crimes as being supported and welcomed - hardly making life better.

 

[Darken-Sol]

where is your consciousness taking place? biologically is it not happening in our brain? if it is not a part of this universe it would seem thought can travel faster than the speed of light. from outside the universe all the way back here to earth. how could i lift a finger otherwise. you're right about the planet though the rock would still exist. i am guessing if we set our hearts on it we could end life on this planet. why even practice science or religion if neither better our cause? even wanting to understand how things work is a comfort issue(making life better). i see a lot of religion aimed at teaching us how to behave in a manner which enables to function as a society. even a child can sift out useful knowledge from a fairy tale. i am suprised at the number of educated people who look past all the good and see only the impossibility of a god. which can't be proved or disproved. find every answer you seek it won't change a damn thing universally. find a way to put it to use and it can better our lives.

 

[JaredJames]

biologically is it not happening in our brain?

Yes it's in our brain. That does not have anything to do with the rest of the universe though.

i am guessing if we set our hearts on it we could end life on this planet.

Life yes, destroy the planet no.

why even practice science or religion if neither better our cause?

Well that's a personal choice.

(making life better) i see a lot of religion aimed at teaching us how to behave in a manner which enables to function as a society.

Really? Is there not a passage in the Bible that says "if someone looks at your wife with lust, kill him"? And similar passages regarding killing being acceptable in all religions?

even a child can sift out useful knowledge from a fairy tale.

Not true. It has been shown children will go with the solution they feel is most believable (I'll try and find it, it was on TV not long ago). A woman asked a number of children various questions and they, for the most part, chose the solution relating to magic / mystic etc as it seemed more believable to them (simpler).

i am suprised at the number of educated people who look past all the good and see only the impossibility of a god. which can't be proved or disproved.

Actually, it could easily be proved. Or at least supported - it is not in any way.

find a way to put it to use and it can better our lives.

That's what science does. Only you have to answer the questions first in order to do this. Religion doesn't even try to do this. It just says "this is how it is" and you should "live with it". I hate philosophy, but at least they do this much.

 

[Darken-Sol]

who cares if a child picks a magical answer if the morals it teaches him are sound? again you miss the point. you would make a good suicide bomber. easily distracted by the letter of the law completely ignoring the purpose. if the matter which makes up the brain is part of the universe, I'm pretty sure it is, then it is a tiny part of the universe where consciousness is happening. your ego claims ownership and cries "i'm special" but that's just not the case. PM me if you wish to continue arguing senslessly. I'm game. we need not jack this thread any longer.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

who cares if a child picks a magical answer if the morals it teaches him are sound? again you miss the point. you would make a good suicide bomber. easily distracted by the letter of the law completely ignoring the purpose. if the matter which makes up the brain is part of the universe, I'm pretty sure it is, then it is a tiny part of the universe where consciousness is happening. your ego claims ownership and cries "i'm special" but that's just not the case. PM me if you wish to continue arguing senslessly. I'm game. we need not jack this thread any longer.

I haven't seen you post one useful thing yet, nor one thing that isn't a messed up stream of consciousness. What exactly are you trying to say on the topic of understanding reality?

 

[Willowz]

If this thread dies, then perhaps you can private message me as this is very helpful to me to decide how i should live my life in a rational way.

So, you want other people to tell you how you should live your life? Seriously, ask yourself in how many ways can that go wrong?

Infinitely many.

 

[dm4b]

In regards to Peter's last message, I always like Joseph's Campbell's advice: "follow your bliss"

I'd still recommend learning as much as you can about science, religion, and philosophy with an open mind and from an objective viewpoint.

You'll naturally gravitate more towards one or the other. It's an individual choice really.

I just think it's important to realize none of the fields are the sole owners of the "truth", and in that regard I don't think it is wise to ignore any of them, either. They all have something important to offer you in the end.

Good luck!

 

[computerphys]

...learning as much as you can about science, religion, and philosophy...

I agree and quote Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

 

[JaredJames]

I agree and quote Albert Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

Is that in context?

I just did a bit of searching and it seems to have a fair bit more context to it. Can someone clarify?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Is that in context?

I just did a bit of searching and it seems to have a fair bit more context to it. Can someone clarify?

I can't find the context however there is a good little essay on it here http://www.chowk.com/Views/Science/Is-Science-without-Religion-really-Lame

Near the end there is a good concluding remark

So in conclusion: Is science lame without religion? I do not believe so. It still has two legs (without any help from religion) if it was a biped to start with. Fortunately it doesn’t need any props; it stands and falls by its own standards. Science explains how natural phenomena occur; it does not explain why they occur. Due to our ignorance, we need religion to explain “why”. But such explanations may not be true and they are not verifiable. Science does not accept anything until it is verified by empirical data. So we see that science and religion do not live in the same space.

However science may be regarded lame in the sense that its knowledge is limited. The moment one brings in religion to make it whole, it ceases to be science. It becomes metaphysics.

I try not to get bogged down by profound sounding quotes from historical figures. It always seems to much like an appeal to authority. Einstein, for all his importance, was wrong on many matters. Particularly when he tried to reconcile his religious beliefs with scientific understanding

EDIT: it seems this conversations been had on the forum before https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=424394&page=4 there's a few links that might provide more context. The general idea is that the quote means science explains the how and religion explains the why. Not a very good statement; I don't think religion explains anything at all, instead it provides often unverifiable answers with no evidence to back them up.

 

[computerphys]

Is that in context? ... Can someone clarify?

Here, I try. According to wikipedia, "Science ... builds ... knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world".

What happens if we find that part of the world is NOT predictable? Then, science would be lame, as Einstein quoted.

But, have we found that the world (or part of it) is NOT predictable? The answer is YES, definitely. HUP is the thing that makes Science lame. So, Einstein was right.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Here, I try. According to wikipedia, "Science ... builds ... knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world".

What happens if we find that part of the world is NOT predictable? Then, science would be lame, as Einstein quoted.

But, have we found that the world (or part of it) is NOT predictable? The answer is YES, definitely. HUP is the thing that makes Science lame. So, Einstein was right.

And how does religion fit into this? Apart from the fact that Einstein was opposed to quantum physics on personal and religious grounds?

EDIT: not saying that was the sole reason but Einstein certainly had non-scientific objections to a non-determinate universe

 

[Pythagorean]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/12/peopleinscience.religion

I think Einstein is talking more about spirituality. Perhaps there wasn't such a new-age, secular concept for that, perhaps Einstein was just being polite. To me, what he means is that if you don't have some fascination with nature and how it could work so wonderfully, then you won't be a very motivated scientist (well, not the deep kind of theoretical scientist einstein was). Carl Sagan had a similar message. So we weren't created by an intelligent design, but that's even more fantastic of a reason to be impressed that we exist! I mean, science should be a way of life, science should be the meaning of life! That's a "religious" sentiment (i.e. non-scientific, non-fasifiable, a value judgment).

from the article above:

In his later years he referred to a "cosmic religious feeling" that permeated and sustained his scientific work. In 1954, a year before his death, he spoke of wishing to "experience the universe as a single cosmic whole". He was also fond of using religious flourishes, in 1926 declaring that "He [God] does not throw dice" when referring to randomness thrown up by quantum theory

A deterministic universe, reduced to one equation, that was closer to Einstein's god than an anthropomorphic omnipotent dude that cares about human behavior. Christopher Hitchens refers to him as a deist, rather than a theist.

 

[computerphys]

... Einstein was opposed to quantum physics ...

In 1905, Albert Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect by describing light as composed of discrete quanta. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

So, I would rather say that Einstein is a father of quantum physics.

 

[Pythagorean]

In 1905, Albert Einstein discovered the photoelectric effect by describing light as composed of discrete quanta. This discovery led to the quantum revolution in physics and earned Einstein the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921.

So, I would rather say that Einstein is a father of quantum physics.

They're not mutually exclusive.

I would say that he had an emotional reaction to the implications of some aspects of QM, not that he outright opposed it altogether. He didn't reject the observations he or Planck found, but a fundamental aspect of QM: the implications of Bell's Theorem.

 

[computerphys]

I would say that he had an emotional reaction to the implications of some aspects of QM

Right, I agree with you, but that not implies he couldn't achieve some enlightenment from these very implications.

Taking the context into account (his life, his theories, his letters, his quotes, ...) I think he meant science is not enough to understand reality, a religious belief or sentiment is the complement.

Personally, I would also add philosophy to this receipt:

* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality

 

[JaredJames]

Taking the context into account (his life, his theories, his letters, his quotes, ...) I think he meant science is not enough to understand reality, a religious belief or sentiment is the complement.

I see no purpose to religious belief outside of people needing it.

I'm doing pretty well so far and I have never had to bring religion into it.

 

[thorium1010]

* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality

Religion does not help to understand reality, it has an assumption about reality - which is neither testable nor verifiable.
Philosophy falls under the same category as religion IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Personally, I would also add philosophy to this receipt:

* Philosophy to define reality
* Science to describe reality
* Religion to understand reality

Agreed,
Agreed,
Disagree.

Religion does not help anyone understand reality any more than the Lord of the Rings does. As a mechanism for learning about the universe religion is a poor mental crutch for those who do not like to admit they do not have the answers (or that they live in an uncaring universe).

Religion simply replaces one "I don't know" with a magical answer. E.g. "Why does the Earth support life?" --> "God did it". Alternatively religion is a way of justifying events people find unacceptable e.g. "why did 10,000 people die in a tsunami?" --> "It's all part of the grand plan. It was actually a good thing that the tsunami happened, we're just unable to understand God's reasons why"