No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
201

You are mistaken. All evidence requires reasoning. You believe some things to be self-evident but if you look closer, you would realize that it is not so.

I understood your terms. Your example is flawed because the motion of the earth is very complex and it would not be possible to simply measure a distance and get an irrefutable result. One factor is that the sun is losing mass and as a result the earth is moving away from it. Measurements and calculations would be need to be made to compensate. Another factor is pull from the other planets.

Yeah, a lot of people want simple answers that do not require thinking. Unfortunately, thinking is unavoidable.

202

I think I figured it out; Lev Muishkin is a Google bot

203

Well Duh!
It seems we are arguing over one another.

204

Ha, that made me laugh.

205

This is a part of history I studied in me Intellectual History MA. So I have a particular set of reason concerning Newton and the specific historical context of his life and times.
I do not think you would be receptive to a long explanation given the exchanges we have already had on the Forum and the details are complex.
I don’t want to waste my time on you.

206

No, Phyllo. All evidences do not require reasoning. In almost every inquiry, there comes a point, when it can be settled forever either way if a certain type of evidence comes out. But, that does not haapen too often but possible.
And, i am not saying this just because of this issue and the thread. That is applicable in many cases.

Whether that distance can be calculated exactly or not was not my point. I was saying if it can be done perfectly.

Secondly, complexity does not make any example flawed, if it can be handled. And, if cannot be taken care of, it is not a example either.

The real issue is whether any evidence is irrefutable or not. Is there any other explanation or not?

And, the certainty of the evidence is inversely proportionate to the theories involved in explanation (not measurements/observation).

I was not asking for a simple answer but a perfect one, which cannot be challenged in any way.

with love,
sanjay

207

There is no seemingness in that as that is certainly a part of the discussion also.

with love,
sanjay

208

I think what phyllo meant was that even to know that you have such evidence requires reasoning. Even the most direct observations require a degree reasoning. All sensing uses a degree of reasoning.

209

I do not know but if you are saying that i can take it as truth. There is no reason for me to disbelieve you.

That is your presumption. You have to try it to see whether it is true or not.

But, i have to remind you that it is not the issue here whether Newton’s metaphysics was right or not, or whether it is accepted or not. There may be many flaws in his findings. That all is irrelevant.

The only point pertinent here is what is the guiding force in the case of Newton to explore science and whether science is benifited from that or not.

If you can throw some light on that, you are welcome, no matter how long it may be.

As you like. I am not insisting to waste your precious time either. Save it for better application. The choice is all yours. I am open either way, though i do not see engaging with you as a waste of time in all type of discussions. But, that is true is some cases.

with love,
sanjay

210

The point about Newton and belief is a highly complex issue, with many controversies and requiring a huge amount of back ground knowledge that relates to what is inadequately called the English Reformation and the Civil War which form the background to the curious and unique social and political milieu in which he lived.
His contribution to science is not at issue and I am puzzled why you think that "The only point pertinent here is what is the guiding force in the case of Newton to explore science and whether science is benifited from that or not. " His contribution is immense.
What is more significant is the tragic waste of a good brain tormented by religious nonsense which meant that most of life was wasted on the fruitless pursuit of mumbo-jumbo. What he could have achieved had he actually stuck to the method of science is unimaginable.
As I think I mentioned above the estimates of his writing is a million words each on theology, alchemy and science. Most of which the former two categories were never published being idle and useless unscientific speculations and investigations of dead ends. But so prolific was Newton that these estimates from around 10 years ago, have had to be drastically altered. The Newton Project has already transcribed over 6 million words and there is more to come.

It’s clear enough from any analysis of the Newton Project,(newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=1) that where the scientific method has been applied rigorously has achieved two classes of results; positive and negative. Both of which can contribute to the Canon of Scientific Knowledge. Where no scientific method has been applied, but where faith and religious understanding has formed the basis of the discussion nothing of value has persisted to the present.

211

Alchemy and cymistry of the time of Newton rested on a divine and spiritual understanding of matter. And it was thought by Newton that the sum of ancient alchemical text held theological codes that is was his duty to de-code and reveal to the world his findings.
Thus the basis upon which cymistry was investigated was borrowed from untried and unsystematic Catholic dogma of the Humours. And like all theologically based “science” was the divinely inspired adoption of Aristotelean and other ancient Greek speculations about the Metaphysics of matter. Because it was ratified and codified by the RCC, it was held to be the undeniable and unimpeachable word of God, and therefore only challengeable on pain of torture, excommunication or death.

It was not until the power of religion was challenged in the Reformation that religion let go the reigns of matters Secular and scientific that science was able to flourish. Obviously the staring point for the new adventure in part launched by Bacon’s Novum Organum, was not a clean slate. The old “certainties” of the past were the starting point of science and it would take 100s of years to wipe the slate clean and replace it with ideas that were more sound and provided by replicable and verifiable examples from the world of experimentation.

By the time of Newton few of the dogmatically and ideologically held ideas had yet been dismissed, and early science of the time was still hamstrung by the gross and idiotic pronouncements of faith and religion. For both Newton and Bacon and many more besides the “truth” of Prophesy, and the idea that divine messages were encoded in the movement of the planets and the disposition of matter was remained an unchallenged assumption that was to prove a massive stumbling block for progress.

212

‘Perfect’ does not exist. It is an unattainable goal. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

213

That is what i was trying to tell you. We are discussing what was the contributin of the religions inthe progress of the science.

His religiousity was the guiding force behind his scientific exploration. If he was not a religious person, he would not be a scientist either and science would have to miss all that what he contributed.

LM, that is your opinion and may be wrong also. If you are not interested in anything or cannot understand it, that does not mean that all that is useless by default.

Are you saying that he had less intellectual skills than you or he cannot see things objectively (beyond his faith) but you can do!

with love,
sanjay

214

“Perfect”, although existing only in concept, is the GOAL of “Good”, not its adversary.

215

And deleting the portion of the God from it, would you mind telling me what else the science does besides decoding even now, in the 21st century?

LM, science is/was about nothing else but deconding nature, from the very first day till now, and will be the same forever. Because, that is exactly the science does and can do. There is nothing whatsoever else to be done.

The only thing changed is the reason/mindset behind that exploration. In the past, religious persons did that in the name of God, not athiests do that in the name of nature. The science has not changed a bit but motivation behind it changed a lot.

with love,
sanjay

216

If the good is ignored when pursuing the perfect,

If the good is abandoned to pursue the perfect,

If the good is devalued in comparison to the perfect,

then the perfect is the enemy of the good.

217

Naaaa… I would say that “the idiot” is the “enemy of the good”. :sunglasses:

218

It did change considerably in focusing on measuring.
“If you want to improve on something, learn to measure it.”

219

To say I don’t understand is a patronising comment which implies that that which I describe as mumbo jumbo is actually true.
Well - more fool you. DO you actually think that it is reasonable to suggest that astrology and Alchemy works?
How absurd of you!
We are supposedly discussing the distinction between science and religion.
Everything of use that Newton provided to the world was based on a clearly defined scientific method.
Everything he said where this was not the case has not survived.
As these ideas have been shown to be absurd.
You are trapped into building your world on faith and you know in your heart that it is inadequate . So you try to see that same fault in other people. You falsely conclude that science is not better than your own faith based reasoning.
Well you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Faith is totally inadequate to understand the world. You can’t make a car or a computer or even build a house on faith, you have to rely on the knowledge gleaned from careful understanding of the world, Only science can offer that.
Faith based mumbo-jumbo is just empty nonsense that does not stand the test of time, and as the fashions of superstition change religious ideas have to change too, and old cosmologies upon which religions are based such as the borrowed misunderstanding of the Koran and the OT, have to be rejected in the face of science.

220

Yes, it is certainly a patronising comment. I do not hesitate in saying things if they are necessary, whether the other person feels good or bad about that. Knowing realty is more important than mere emotions.

If you can patronise some thoughs of such a person as a numbo-jumbo, who is considered as all time great by the whole intellectual world, why i cannot patronise you? Is your stature bigger than Newton?

LM, i am not saying that all he said was nothing but truth. He may be wrong on many accounts. Everybody makes mistakes and he was not a exception but that does not change the fact that he was certainly far more intelligent and knowledgeable than you and me. And, we should respect that fact.

You may criticize him by showing where he was off track. That is acceptable but you have no right to declare his all religious ideas as numbo-jumbo. That is nothing but pure insult to a person who is still helping you in many ways in your life. You cannot survive even a day now without his contribution.

LM, forget about the distintion between the science and religion, first you need to learn the distintion between a fair critisim and bias patronising. If you want some respect for you, you have to earn it by giving others their fair share. So, stop making demeaning remaks from the very moment when anybody talks about religions as you have developed this habit. You can do better than that.

You may consider all this again as patronising but i do not mind that.

Yes, but i was enlightening you about the fact that how much religions and religious people contributed to the science. If there was no religion, there would be no science either. Though, people like you tend to think that religions were the worst enemy of the science. Science was a part of parcel of the religions from the word go.

Delete the contributions of religions and religious persons from the modern science and it would fall to its face within a moment.

And, tell me if i am wrong!

with love,
sanjay