How should we go about understanding reality

[computerphys]

Religion does not help anyone understand reality

You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary. At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

When I feel that I think, this is religion. When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy. When I see myself in the mirror, this is science. I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?

 

[JaredJames]

When I feel that I think, this is religion.?

What's religious about that?

Please give an example of how religion helps you understand reality.

It tries to tell you what reality is. It dictates how you should act within that reality. Where does the understanding come from?

 

[thorium1010]

You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary. At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

When I feel that I think, this is religion. When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy. When I see myself in the mirror, this is science. I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?

claims are not a good way to understand reality. what individual feels or experiences is his own has little to do with the workings of nature.

 

[computerphys]

claims are not a good way to understand reality. what individual feels or experiences is his own has little to do with the workings of nature.

Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You sure? A lot of people claims the contrary.

Everybody in existence (and all those who have ever existed) could claim something and that wouldn't make it true.

At least there is one truth here: some people need religion included in the receipt and some people don't need it at all.

Whether or not somebody "needs" religion to get by in life bears absolutely no relationship to whether or not religion provides answers to life. If I could not go a single day without reading Harry Potter does not mean that Harry Potter can provide me with answers about the universe.

When I feel that I think, this is religion.

When you feel that you think? How can one even do this? We can think yes, we know we think however this bears nothing to religion. Religion is an organised collection of faith based beliefs.

When I conclude that I exist, this is philosophy.

It is science, you're conclusions are based on evidence. Your definition of existence, definition of you and the manner in which you decided what counts as evidence, how to conclude etc is philosophy

When I see myself in the mirror, this is science.

No. Science can explain the mechanisms by which you stand, by which you see and by which light travels, reflects etc.

I need these 3 acts of self-conscience to understand who I am. And you?

No you do not. Understanding who you are has no religious requirement. Religion may play a part in your life but it cannot explain who you are.

 

[thorium1010]

Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.

I was referring to religious experiences. What experiences have given to our understanding of reality (perhaps an example )?

 

[JaredJames]

Just the contrary. Science is based on experiences.

Science says nothing about individual experiences and 'anecdotal' issues.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Science says nothing about individual experiences and 'anecdotal' issues.

Exactly. Science is based on verified evidence, not "experience". As if flicking through Nature or Science would comprise of reading various excerpts from scientist's diaries.

"Dear Diary

Today I experienced dark matter under my sofa. True story..."

 

[computerphys]

When you feel that you think? How can one even do this?

You really don't feel that you think?

We can think yes, we know we think however this bears nothing to religion. Religion is an organised collection of faith based beliefs.

One of these beliefs could be, depending on which particular religion we choose, the sense of spirituality.

You may call it the way you like, but the point is that there is a part of the reality that does not belong to science (because it is not based on rules) nor to philosophy (because it cannot be derived from logic). This domain of knowledge that comes from direct feeling is used to be called religion.

 

[JaredJames]

You really don't feel that you think?

What does that even mean?

You may call it the way you like, but the point is that there is a part of the reality that does not belong to science (because it is not based on rules) nor to philosophy (because it cannot be derived from logic). This domain of knowledge that comes from direct feeling is used to be called religion.

Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.

 

[Darken-Sol]

What does that even mean?Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.

the trait of curiosity for one. we can geuss and test at the reasons we have it. without it we would not have science, religion or philosophy. even if we found a sound scientific explination that describes how we expierience it, it would leave questions about the "why" of it. religion provides an answer. e.g. mankind was created with a flaw and he wil never have enough. this idea covers many other questions, such as greed. it is also supported by the idea of evolution. may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along. on another post you explained this is how science works. some people are only curious to the point of "god says so" and some are only curious back to the "big bang".

 

[JaredJames]

the trait of curiosity for one. we can geuss and test at the reasons we have it. without it we would not have science, religion or philosophy. even if we found a sound scientific explination that describes how we expierience it, it would leave questions about the "why" of it. religion provides an answer.

To ascribe religion to curiosity, that implies it was written purely by humans trying to explain their world and there is nothing divine about it.

So either it's the word of God and is telling us how things are and we should accept it - no curiosity required, or it's created from curiosity in which case, no God required except for our own purposes.

All that aside, what does that have to do with what I responded to?

Would it not also be fair to say that religion initially (and still now in some cases) is against curiosity in so far as it persecuted those who dared to try and explained things without the use of religious texts.

mankind was created with a flaw and he wil never have enough.

I don't like the word "created" there, but I assume you didn't mean it as it reads.

it is also supported by the idea of evolution.

Nothing religious relates to evolution - that's science at its finest.

may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along. on another post you explained this is how science works. some people are only curious to the point of "god says so" and some are only curious back to the "big bang".

"God says so" doesn't answer anything, it raises more questions than it answers. Filling in the blanks with such a concept shows a lack of curiosity and a willingness to just accept the easiest concept you hear.

Another thing, what is it with people insisting there's a "why" to everything? It is meaningless, you don't need a "why" at all.

 

[thorium1010]

mankind was created with a flaw and he will never have enough. this idea covers many other questions, such as greed. it is also supported by the idea of evolution. may not be the right one but it will do till a better one comes along.

on one stretch you say man is created, any evidence for creation ? generally human beings have a lot of flaws not just one.

 

[computerphys]

What does that even mean?

Probably I have expressed wrongly. I mean the perception/awareness/consciousness of being thinking. That is feeling yourself, not your body, but your mind.

Could you give an example please. What cannot be described by rules or logic?

The act of thinking, or even simpler, the creation of a particle from the void. There is no rule for that.

Remember, the inability to now simply reflects out current understanding, not that we will never be able to or that it doesn't follow it in some way.

It's been discussed a lot about HUP being interpreted as an inability of current scientific/technological status. HUP is not due to it, but has an absolute meaning about the limited predictability of science.

 

[Darken-Sol]

i know "created" makes some people uncomfortable. caused to exist. my point is you don't need religion. i do. i will never isolate a photon and prove it exists. so for me to take science seriously i have to accept someoneelses experience on the matter. in that case science is just another religion for me. i build houses and probably will till i die. i don't care enough about proving things to alter my way of life to do so. so i sift thru data, formulate opinion, put it to practical use, and reject what doesn't work. until it doesnt, religion works just fine for me. so does science.

 

[Evo]

This discussion has been going in circles since the first page. Closed.