God and Science

You still do not get it. With such a low level of of knowledge [as a matter of fact] you try to sound so arrogant.

The Principle is this, whatever is regarded as a “Scientific Theory” must have complied with the requirements of the Scientific Framework and System [note the elements and systems].

Catholic Vatican Council can make whatever assumptions, conclusions based on peer reviews, but they are not regarded as 'Scientific Theories" until they have complied with the requirements of the Scientific Framework and System. Note Mendel’s work. Gregor Johann Mendel who was a friar was not recognized in his works in genetics based on his religious beliefs but solely because his theories complied with the requirements of the Scientific Framework and System [note elements therein].

what kind of thinking is that??
A pretty vague list??
If you are knowledgeable you would have readily accepted them and reconfirm them if necessary from other sources.
I have discussed this point on the “assumptions” used by Science and no one [note, not a single poster] has ever question it. You are the only one who questioned it and besides you were ignorant that assumptions in Science ever exists!

Note my signature, how could I [not-a-theist] ever assume the “Science Vatican Council” [if this is what you are referring Pontifical Academy of Sciences] can ever disseminate Scientific Truth. There are so many Creationist Scientists with their theories but theirs are not ‘Scientific Truths’ because they don’t fully comply with the requirements of the recognized Scientific Framework and System [note elements therein].

Note one of the critical process of a Scientific Theory is it any one can test and verify the theory and they are expected to get the same results.
Scientific Theories are open ended, if the test prove otherwise, then they are abandon and derecognized as not-Scientific.

You are assumming I am assumming. Note my explanation above.

Again you are so unaware of such seemingly quite common knowledge of what Science-proper is.
It is not blind consensus like the speculations of the theists on God’s existence.
The consensus is based on the requirements of the Scientific Framework and Systems which are confirmed by testing and repetitions of the conclusions when tested, then reconfirmed by peers.

You are so thick I have to be blunt in this case.
It is not offensive to ask a person [to get cured, i.e. take corrective actions to improve] who has repeatedly failed in his academic results to read up and be more exploratory.

It is very natural for all scientists to defend their theory as best as they can. But frankly, for many Scientist they are most happiest when their theories are proven wrong as this meant there is incremental knowledge to mankind.
It is immoral to live with a lie [falsehoods] and keep defending a lie. Only those with low-self esteem [weak psychology] will defend their lies even when they know it is not true and tenable.

Yes, I stated I agreed with Popper’s “Scientific truths are at best 'POLISHED CONJECTURES.”
There is no such thing as ‘Absolute Truth’. Whatever is truth must be qualified and conditioned upon its relevant Framework and System.
All Scientific truths are conditioned upon the Scientific Framework Systems and its limitations, assumptions, human-hands-at-work, etc. therein.
What is critical is Scientific Truth has very very high survival values and other positive utilities for mankind within its recognized cons.
In addition, Scientific Theories are open to scrutiny to any one and after peer review they most likely [in most cases] to be confirmed by any one who set out to test it. If there are exceptions [which has happened], they are abandoned as Scientific.

In general, whatever is regarded as a Scientific Theory [proper] must complied with all the critical requirements of the Scientific Framework and System [note elements therein].
Truth is not that critical to Science when Scientific Theories can be accepted as “POLISHED CONJECTURE”. Most scientists do not give a damn about the element of “truth” in their scientific work but compliance to their the requirements of the Scientific Framework. What is most critical to Science is whether it works and its utility to mankind after being subjected to moral conditions.

You are insulting your own intelligence on this by showing how little you know what Science-proper is.

Oh, I know without question that you are assuming. You are amazingly shallow and superficial in your faith and information (so much so it is hard to even have this discussion).

And again, you are so unaware of such seemingly quite common knowledge of what Religion-proper is. It is not blind consensus like the speculations of the atheists on God’s non-existence.

Obviously you payed no attention to the fact that in reality, real science and real religion do not conflict. It is merely the atheists and advocates who conflict. And science has a different goal than religion.

So then you shouldn’t be offended.

Obviously you don’t know many scientists.

What makes you an expert on morality? You appear to need some serious polish, to me.

Due to that one statement, everything else you have been babbling about has been pointless.

Science is “POLISHED CONJECTURE”.
I can’t argue with that one.

HAha … here we go again (another one every month). I take it that you are absolutely certain that there is no such thing as Absolute Truth. And you are absolutely certain of this particular absolute truth because … ???

Well, it is obvious to me that the more recent “science” is not at all concerned with truth. And I am a little curious what makes you think that “moral conditions” have anything to do with anything. And where did those “moral conditions” get defined? Another consensus?

I am not sure what you meant by “real religion.” There are theistic religions and non-theistic religions [Buddhism, Jainism, etc.].
If you are theist [religious or otherwise], then you are not likely to understand ‘why you are a theist.’ There is a psychological ‘DOOM’ barriers that stop theists from understanding themselves as a theist.

The above is so basic. Where did I claim to be an expert.
To maintain at least some credibility on this subject I have done a very extensive literature review and research on the Philosophy of Morality and Ethics.
Note I have not expressed fully on what I know on Morality so far, so your judgment is off.
From my perspective and what I have read of your postings on Morality, you have holes and gaps to fill.

Note there is a very serious topic on the Philosophy of Certainty [Absoluteness]. Note Wittgenstein, etc.

Within a very sound philosophical framework I am absolutely certain there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
So what I am absolutely certain is ultimately relative, but notably grounded on a ‘sound philosophical framework’.

Only those scientists who are into Scientism would believe Scientific knowledge are the greatest ‘truths.’
Note en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Basically Morality from my perspective is to do with absolute moral principles that are supposed to be absolutely good for the well being of humanity. If it is not good, then it is evil.
Surely humanity in general would not expect any Scientific elements to tilt towards evil which could at the extreme exterminate the human species.

Note my view is ‘Morality’ is Pure Absolute Moral Principles while ‘Ethics’ belong the Applied aspects of applying Pure Absolute Principles.

It can determine the truth value of a testable hypothesis but with regard to truth per se it has nothing to say. Because that is not its remit which is
to observe natural phenomena and nothing else. Including any non scientific questions pertaining to such phenomena. This is also why science does
not investigate reality. Because that is an ontological question not a scientific one. And science does not answer why questions only what questions

Testable Hypotheses / Experimentation / Repeatability

Inter Subjectivity / Potential Falsification / Peer Review

One should be careful with language here. Science is primarily an inductive discipline so does not do proof as such
[ only disproof ] Proof is the remit of axiomatically deductive systems of logic such as mathematics and syllogisms

I have came across your point and claim that ‘proof’ is exclusively for mathematics or syllogisms but I have never taken that seriously.

I don’t think it is necessary to be that pedantic about it.
In any case I qualified my ‘proof’ to within the Scientific Framework to provide context and to avoid confusion.

I notice ‘proof’ is not exclusively for only mathematics & syllogism.
There are contexts below where ‘proof’ is related to evidence, i.e. Science, Law, theology, philosophy [non-logic situations] and in general.

One of the most common use of ‘prove’ and ‘proof’ is with reference to the existence of God and this is ‘evidence’ [absence of] related.

Here is a list of related context where ‘proof’ is acceptable.
(note not all are relevant to our point but many [bolded] are]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof
Proof may refer to:
Proof (truth), argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition
Formal proof
Mathematical proof, a convincing demonstration that some mathematical statement is necessarily true
Proof theory, a branch of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects

Alcohol proof, a measure of an alcoholic drink’s strength
Artist’s proof, a single print taken during the printmaking process
Galley proof, a preliminary version of a publication
Prepress proof, a facsimile of press artwork for job verification
Proof coinage, coins once made as a test, but now specially struck for collectors
Proofreading, reviewing a manuscript or artwork for errors or improvements
Proofing (baking technique), the process by which a yeast-leavened dough rises, also called “proving”

Law[edit]
Evidence, information which tends to determine or demonstrate the truth of a proposition
Evidence (law), tested evidence or a legal proof
Legal burden of proof

dictionary.com/browse/proof?s=t
noun

1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
   2.anything serving as such evidence:
   What proof do you have?
   3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial:
   to put a thing to the proof.
   4.the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
   5.Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
   6.the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.
   7.an arithmetical operation serving to check the correctness of a calculation.

adjective
18.able to withstand; successful in not being overcome:
proof against temptation.
19.impenetrable, impervious, or invulnerable:
proof against outside temperature changes.
20.used for testing or proving; serving as proof.
21.of standard strength, as an alcoholic liquor.
22.of tested or proven strength or quality:
proof armor.
23.noting pieces of pure gold and silver that the U.S. assay and mint offices use as standards.

verb (used with object)
24.to test; examine for flaws, errors, etc.; check against a standard or standards.
25.Printing. prove (def 7).
26.to proofread.
27.to treat or coat for the purpose of rendering resistant to deterioration, damage, etc. (often used in combination):
to proof a house against termites; to shrink-proof a shirt.
28.Cookery.
to test the effectiveness of (yeast), as by combining with warm water so that a bubbling action occurs.
to cause (especially bread dough) to rise due to the addition of baker’s yeast or other leavening.

How can you say that there is no absolute truth and also say that there are absolute moral principles and an absolute good? That’s an obvious contradiction.

In practice there are ‘absolutes in the conventional sense’

Absolute may refer to:
Science[edit]
Absolute magnitude, the brightness of a star
Absolute zero, the lower limit of the thermodynamic temperature scale, -273.15 °C
Mathematics[edit]
Absoluteness in mathematical logic
Absolute value, a notion in mathematics, commonly a number’s numerical value without regard to its sign
Absolute (geometry), the quadric at infinity

Law[edit]
Absolute defence, a factual circumstance or argument that, if proven, will end the litigation in favor of the defendant
Absolute liability, a standard of legal liability found in tort and criminal law of various legal jurisdictions

Politics[edit]
Absolute majority, a majority of the entire membership of a group
Absolute monarchy, a monarchical form of government in which the monarch’s powers are not limited by a constitution or by the law
Linguistics[edit]
Absolute construction, a grammatical construction used in certain languages

Philosophy[edit]
Absolute (philosophy), a concept in philosophy
Absolute truth (Buddhism) (Sanskrit, paramārtha-satya, Pāli paramattha sacca, Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa), describes the ultimate reality as “sunyata”, empty of concrete and inherent characteristics

When I say,
Within a very sound philosophical framework I am absolutely certain there is no such thing as Absolute Truth.
Note the “Truth” is with a capital ‘T’ i.e. the ontological Truth and some claim to be God. This is the Truth of the Absolutely Absolute.

When I refer to “absolute moral principles” I was referring to relative absolutes within the Moral and Ethical Framework. Such absolutes are conditional upon whatever their framework and system of knowledge, thus they are relative absolutes.
From my perspective, in term of degrees of philosophical complexity, “absolute moral principles” would be rated at 99% while the others are below it.

If you take mathematics as an example. It has absolute truths. And since gods do not need to be introduced, it has Absolute Truths as well.
Physics provides absolute truths in the form of descriptions of physical interactions. The theories which explain those interactions may not be true, but the descriptions are truth. (Again no gods.)

If you concepts of good and evil and moral principles can evaporate simply by adopting another philosophical framework, then I don’t see why you are so gung-ho to push your own particular concepts on to everyone. Those are just your own preferences and they are no better than the preferences of someone with another framework.

I had agreed, Mathematics, Physics and others do have absolute truths, but these absolute truths are conditioned by their respective Framework and Systems which are maintained [shared with consensus] within the specific groups of human minds.

As with the above, religions can claim for absolute truths which are conditioned within their Framework and Systems. So as long as believers are willing to accept such conditions and their systems are man-made there is no issue. For example, most of the Eastern religions are willing to accept their Framework and System are human-made.

However there is an issue with the Abrahamic religions and some theistic Framework and Systems which claimed their Framework and Systems are not conditioned by humans at all but are independently created by a God which is totally unconditional. Thus the truths from such an Absolute system is the Absolute Truth without any condition at all. Such claims are not philosophically sound, thus are illusory and false, albeit they do work to a very limited degree based on threats, i.e. ‘Do do this ought, else Hell!’

Note the difference?

So far I have not presented the full proposals of the philosophical Moral & Ethical Framework and System yet. The only clue I gave is it is along the same theories proposed by Kant and similar to the principles from some Eastern religions, especially Buddhism, Taoism [complementarity for e.g.].

The point is no one should accept any proposals until the arguments are soundly proven to be logical, sound, rational and possible to be implemented, tested and verified.

Those religious are also ‘conditioned’ because not all texts and revelations are accepted. There is a process of selection and interpretation. And there is an acknowledgement of the possibility of error.

Not all Abrahamic religions have a belief in hell. The concept of hell has changed significantly over time. The “threat” has evolved.

[/u]
I was thinking the same. It doesn’t make sense to even talk about such as transcendental being - a being that transcends reality itself. It would be like talking about nothingness. Transcend into what? The closest that we can get to that is an expression of fear of the unknown (and perhaps faith is just that). After an encounter with such an unknown, you can’t really say anything, nor should be, really, unless you can somehow prove it to be true in empirical sense; and this is where science comes in (but science does not work with transcendental, only with reality).
Another variation of such transcendental being, from the Buddhists, is reality as a God’s dream. However, even if that were a true case, how can one prove it to be true, other than alluding to as-below-so-above argument, from which one can make many such assumptions. So it does boil down to simply a thought experiment; and when people overstep this and start taking it seriously, as truth, they either are just being naïve, or self-serving.
So, if God is transcendental, then science is not compatible with it. If God is not transcendental, but is seen as some sort of revelation of complex reality that is mystified/spiritualized (as Jung may have believed) then science may be compatible; although the interpretation of facts may be affected by assigning extra meanings.

There is no possibility of error in the Quran as Allah had claimed.

Quran 5:3 [part] … This day have I [Allah] Perfected [akmaltu] your religion [deenakum] for you [Muslims] and completed My favour unto you [Muslims], and have chosen for you [Muslims] as religion [deenan] AL-ISLAM. [al-islama deenan], …

I understand Christianity has a provision for error by humans. Not too sure with Judaism?

Whatever the “hell” concept the fundamental intent is to invoke and trigger primal existential fears.

Yes, note Meno’s Paradox, i.e. how can one really knows any thing when one do not know it in the first place.

I am very familiar with Buddhism. Within Buddhism proper there is no such thing as an absolutely independent transcendental being.
Some Buddhist schools may have beliefs in some sort of beings but they are ultimately conditioned. There is no independent transcendental being within Buddhism-proper.

If “God” is not taken as an independent absolute transcendental being, then it is compatible with or explainable by Science and other fields of non-transcendental knowledge subject to sound arguments and justifications.

Allah is perfect and his religion is perfect but fallible men read the texts and act in imperfect ways.

It can also be looked at as an absolutely fair justice system - nobody can hide his wrongdoing or to avoid the consequence of a wrong act.

Scientist vs Mystic | A Conversation about Cosmos, Brain and Reality | David Eagleman and Sadguru:
youtube.com/watch?v=aaCTs8oeAh8

Most of what the mystic said was based on yogi metaphysical classification of human mind and rather outdated view of the components of reality through primary classical elements. Some of the things they talked about (mostly yogi mystic):

Dimensions of the mind:

Intellect - quality of the brain - conscious reasoning - slave to arbitrary (social) identity which it protects
Identity - Ahamkara - ego identity - intellect serves identity.
Body memory (genetic/subconscious) - Manas - has more memory than the brain - memory of ancestors all the way back to beginning of life - and beyond! (3:16-4:38)
Pure Intelligence - Chitta - deeper intelligence present in nature - is not dependent on memory - appears to be like that of automatic animal nature (4:38- 6:00)

The question raised by yogi is whether there is a type of knowledge which does not fit into logical framework, that is through intellect, and the consequences of pursuing knowledge only through intellect (science)

On time perception (8:03-12:23)
Acts as psychological filter - Physicality is cyclical/movement - planets, etc. - disassociation with one’s physical nature (time) will negate the consequence of time!

[This naturally begs the question of self identity. The yogi admitted that the brain could be fooled, but the body could not (10:00-10:20), but how does he get his self identity to be independent of them, even as acknowledging them? The answer to that, as I understood it, was the evolution of self-awareness (the breaking off) to be seen as a purely exploratory independent phenomenon (as he believed that the instinctive animal nature would have taken care of itself without awareness), exploring different dimensions of reality, not for its usefulness or survival (as in current science), but for exploration sake only. (12:23-17:00). This led to his critique of science being driven not for the sake of exploration, the need to know, (as he claims is so in mysticism), but primarily for its usefulness/utility (17:05- 18:15).]

Purpose/Point of Life vs Purpose of Science (27:48- 32:13)
Yogi - Life is not about how to use knowledge/its usefulness - this approach will not make life better, because no matter how well you survive it will never be enough to fulfill a human being - the possible alternative presented is perhaps knowing itself is purpose of life because it satisfies the fundamental need to know. He also points to the issue of morality: if science only looks for what it can use (utility), why wouldn’t it also not study humans for their potential uses?

What is life (40:46-46:55)
Everything is life, differentiated by varying degrees of accumulation of information - it’s possible to dissasociate yourself from your genetic memory - it is possible to know a part of self that is beyond your physical nature (47:45-48-55).
[I don’t know what to say on that issue. This is something you either believe in or not. I can only comment by saying that the yogi himself pointed out that science is trying to touch the non-physical with a physical stick, pointing to its limitations, but, somehow, humans themseves are an exception, being able to access the non-physical]

This is not new, but would be worthwhile to consider and maybe even explore further.

Changes in right parietal lobe (and frontal lobe) and their effect on sense of spirituality.

eurekalert.org/pub_releases … 041812.php

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 … 012.657524

‘Perfected’ and ‘Completed’ in Quran 5:3 above are merely ideals and theoretical.

1. The reality is, it is impossible for a God to exists as real.

2. Therefore there was no ‘Perfected’ and ‘Completed’ Quran from any God.

3. Thus from 2, the Quran [claimed to be from God] was authored by human[s].

4. Because the Quran was from fallible human[s] it contain X-good [some] and Y-evil [lots] elements.

5. Muslims must adopt the Quran and thus are compelled to comply with X and Y elements to please God.

6. When they commit Y element to please God, the consequences are terrible evils and violence wrecked upon non-Muslims and even some Muslims deemed as apostate.

It cannot be an absolutely fair justice system to humanity-in-general and even to believers when fears and guilt exist like a shaky ceiling [or guillotine] over their heads all the time.

A system based on threat do work [morally or immorally] but it is limited within circumstance, conditions, time, etc.
Religious based morals are relatively effective if implemented in a society that is full of anarchy, the people are very barbaric and has great sensitivity to fears. But this is an the expense of genuine justice and basic human rights.

A moral system that has justice is one where people has high moral quotient and act spontaneously good and not because they are threatened with a rod or the wrath of God who will send them to HELL.