Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Is science religious?

Expand Messages
  • bestonnet_00
    ... No it isn t. You see faith is believing without or despite evidence which is exactly the opposite of what science is (science being only believing what
    Message 1 of 12 , Sep 27, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@y...> wrote:
      > Here are some starting definitions:
      > -----------------------------
      > Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
      > Main Entry: faith
      > [...]
      > 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
      > [...]
      > Main Entry: re·li·gion[...]
      > 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
      > faith [...]
      > -----------------------------
      >
      > Since science is faith based by the above definition, it is also
      > religious by the above definition.

      No it isn't. You see faith is believing without or despite evidence
      which is exactly the opposite of what science is (science being only
      believing what can be concluded from the evidence).

      > My proposed reclassification of words is such:
      >
      > I. Philosophy - Religion (the same)
      > -A. Analytic Philosophy / Mathematics
      > -B. Science - Vijnana (systemitized experietial knowledge)
      > --1. Material science
      > --2. Yoga (spiritual science)
      >
      > What do y'all think?

      Quite terrible really. Yoga is not science it is bullshit and science
      is not a religion.
    • n1n31nchn3rd
      ... That you would be pronounced clinically insane... Not admitted into any college... Not allowed a handgun... Be allowed to play with a big plastic sack
      Message 2 of 12 , Sep 27, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Mark wrote:
        > What do y'all think?

        That you would be pronounced clinically insane...

        Not admitted into any college...

        Not allowed a handgun...

        Be allowed to play with a big plastic sack unsupervised...
      • Mark
        ... conviction; ... and ... evidence... -M: Who s evidence? Is there faith in this evidence? (I have been through this one many times before.) Isn t the
        Message 3 of 12 , Sep 28, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          --bestonnet_00wrote:
          > --"Mark" wrote:
          > > Here are some starting definitions:
          > > -----------------------------
          > > Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
          > > Main Entry: faith
          > > [...]
          > > 3 : something that is believed especially with strong
          conviction;
          > > [...]
          > > Main Entry: re·li·gion[...]
          > > 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor
          and
          > > faith [...]
          > > -----------------------------
          > >
          > > Since science is faith based by the above definition, it is also
          > > religious by the above definition.

          >B: No it isn't. You see faith is believing without or despite
          evidence...

          -M: Who's evidence? Is there faith in this evidence? (I have been
          through this one many times before.)

          Isn't the credible verbal testimony of the philosopher-saints
          evidence?

          >B...which is exactly the opposite of what science is (science being
          only believing what can be concluded from the evidence).

          -M: Where did science come from? Was the scientific method created
          using the scientific method?

          > > My proposed reclassification of words is such:
          > >
          > > I. Philosophy - Religion (the same)
          > > -A. Analytic Philosophy / Mathematics
          > > -B. Science - Vijnana (systemitized experietial knowledge)
          > > --1. Material science
          > > --2. Yoga (spiritual science)
          > >
          > > What do y'all think?

          >B: Quite terrible really. Yoga is not science it is bullshit...

          -M: Yet it works, I know this from direct experience, and others
          benefit as well.

          >B:...and science is not a religion.

          -M: If my defintion of faith is correct, science, bein faith based,
          would be religious - this is simply how logic works.

          shanti
          Mark, Seattle
        • Mark
          ... any college...Not allowed a handgun...Be allowed to play with a big plastic sack unsupervised... -M: You seem quite opinionated - You must have quite a
          Message 4 of 12 , Sep 28, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --n1n31nchn3rd wrote:
            > Mark wrote:
            > > What do y'all think?

            >N: That you would be pronounced clinically insane...Not admitted into
            any college...Not allowed a handgun...Be allowed to play with a big
            plastic sack unsupervised...

            -M: You seem quite opinionated -

            You must have quite a strong faith.


            shanti
            Mark, Seattle
          • bestonnet_00
            ... The only good evidence is scientific evidence. For evidence to be scientific it has to come from experiment or observation and has to be able to be
            Message 5 of 12 , Sep 29, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@y...> wrote:
              > -M: Who's evidence? Is there faith in this evidence? (I have been
              > through this one many times before.)
              >
              > Isn't the credible verbal testimony of the philosopher-saints
              > evidence?

              The only good evidence is scientific evidence. For evidence to be
              scientific it has to come from experiment or observation and has to be
              able to be repeated by others. There's no faith in it, if you have
              good evidence you just don't need to have faith.

              Testimony of people that may not have existed isn't usually considered
              to be evidence.

              > -M: If my defintion of faith is correct, science, bein faith based,
              > would be religious - this is simply how logic works.

              Your definition is not correct. It is merely an attempt to lower
              science down to your level.
            • Mark
              ... -M: There are repeatable and observable yogic techniques. ... have faith. ... Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: faith [...] 3 : something that
              Message 6 of 12 , Sep 29, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --bestonnet_00 wrote:
                > -- "Mark" wrote:
                > > -M: Who's evidence? Is there faith in this evidence? (I have been
                > > through this one many times before.)
                > >
                > > Isn't the credible verbal testimony of the philosopher-saints
                > > evidence?

                >B: The only good evidence is scientific evidence. For evidence to be
                > scientific it has to come from experiment or observation and has to be
                > able to be repeated by others.

                -M: There are repeatable and observable yogic techniques.

                >B: There's no faith in it, if you have good evidence you just don't need to
                have faith.
                ---------------------------
                Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
                Main Entry: faith
                [...]
                3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
                [...]
                Main Entry: re·li·gion[...]
                4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
                faith [...]
                -----------------------------

                -M: There is *strong conviction* in the employed scientific methods. This is
                why they are used. This is *faith* by the operational definition.

                >B: Testimony of people that may not have existed isn't usually considered
                > to be evidence.

                -M: Abhinavagupta, Patanjali, Shankarachara, Jnaneshwar all existed. Many
                of their bodies still exist. And living Masters are in existence right now.

                > > -M: If my defintion of faith is correct, science, bein faith based,
                > > would be religious - this is simply how logic works.

                >B: Your definition is not correct. It is merely an attempt to lower
                > science down to your level.

                -M: I am using the current operational definitions. Please give me competing
                definition(s).

                shanti
                Mark, Seattle
              • Bruce Allen
                conviction: noun, An unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence. (wordweb) From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
                Message 7 of 12 , Sep 30, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  conviction: noun, An unshakable belief in something without need for
                  proof or evidence. (wordweb)


                  From "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language"
                  we have;
                  conviction: A fixed or strong belief.

                  science: The observation, identification, description,
                  experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

                  Your argument that science uses conviction is completely misleading.
                  The strong conviction used by science would be to avoid a strong
                  conviction to any answers.

                  Searching for the most vague definitions is usually rewarded by the
                  most confusing results. Remember that Miriam Webster was a VERY
                  religious person and did his best to define words to fit 'his'
                  Christian ideas so Websters will always give a religiously biased
                  definition.

                  Of course your arguments are not intended to be real arguments but are
                  contrived to show the ease with which language can be twisted and
                  misunderstood. I believe this is what the Society of Sophists did in
                  ancient Greece. There is no real value in these arguements without the
                  explanation that they are valid only to provide an understanding of
                  language and that the "subject" introduced is unimportant to the
                  argument or demonstration.

                  --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@y...>
                  wrote:
                  > --bestonnet_00 wrote:
                  > > -- "Mark" wrote:
                  > > > -M: Who's evidence? Is there faith in this evidence? (I have
                  been
                  > > > through this one many times before.)
                  > > >
                  > > > Isn't the credible verbal testimony of the philosopher-saints
                  > > > evidence?
                  >
                  > >B: The only good evidence is scientific evidence. For evidence to
                  be
                  > > scientific it has to come from experiment or observation and has
                  to be
                  > > able to be repeated by others.
                  >
                  > -M: There are repeatable and observable yogic techniques.
                  >
                  > >B: There's no faith in it, if you have good evidence you just don't
                  need to
                  > have faith.
                  > ---------------------------
                  > Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
                  > Main Entry: faith
                  > [...]
                  > 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction;
                  > [...]
                  > Main Entry: re·li·gion[...]
                  > 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and
                  > faith [...]
                  > -----------------------------
                  >
                  > -M: There is *strong conviction* in the employed scientific methods.
                  This is
                  > why they are used. This is *faith* by the operational definition.
                  >
                  > >B: Testimony of people that may not have existed isn't usually
                  considered
                  > > to be evidence.
                  >
                  > -M: Abhinavagupta, Patanjali, Shankarachara, Jnaneshwar all existed.
                  Many
                  > of their bodies still exist. And living Masters are in existence
                  right now.
                  >
                  > > > -M: If my defintion of faith is correct, science, bein faith
                  based,
                  > > > would be religious - this is simply how logic works.
                  >
                  > >B: Your definition is not correct. It is merely an attempt to
                  lower
                  > > science down to your level.
                  >
                  > -M: I am using the current operational definitions. Please give me
                  competing
                  > definition(s).
                  >
                  > shanti
                  > Mark, Seattle
                • Mark
                  ... need for proof or evidence. (wordweb) ... phenomena. ... misleading. The strong conviction used by science would be to avoid a strong conviction to any
                  Message 8 of 12 , Sep 30, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --"Bruce Allen" wrote:

                    >BA: conviction: noun, An unshakable belief in something without
                    need for proof or evidence. (wordweb)
                    > From "The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language"
                    > we have; conviction: A fixed or strong belief.
                    > science: The observation, identification, description,
                    > experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of
                    phenomena.

                    >BA: Your argument that science uses conviction is completely
                    misleading. The strong conviction used by science would be to avoid
                    a strong conviction to any answers.

                    -M: And this you have a strong conviction in, hence faith.

                    >BA: [...] Of course your arguments are not intended to be real
                    arguments but are contrived to show the ease with which language can
                    be twisted and misunderstood.

                    -M: No, this is not my intent. I am argueing for more rigorous
                    definitions.

                    >BA: I believe this is what the Society of Sophists did in ancient
                    Greece. There is no real value in these arguements without the
                    explanation that they are valid only to provide an understanding of
                    language and that the "subject" introduced is unimportant to the
                    argument or demonstration.

                    -M: Language is just a carrier of information, and there is more
                    than what can be put into words, so language does have its
                    limitations, but I am not being a Sophist in any way.

                    I am simply wanting science to be a subcategory of religion.

                    shanti
                    Mark, Seattle


                    > > > > -M: Who's evidence? Is there faith in this evidence? (I have
                    > been through this one many times before.)
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Isn't the credible verbal testimony of the philosopher-
                    saints evidence?
                    [...]
                  • bestonnet_00
                    ... No. You are arguing for the definition that you like. ... Just because you want something doesn t mean you ll get it.
                    Message 9 of 12 , Oct 1, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@y...> wrote:
                      > -M: No, this is not my intent. I am argueing for more rigorous
                      > definitions.

                      No. You are arguing for the definition that you like.

                      > I am simply wanting science to be a subcategory of religion.

                      Just because you want something doesn't mean you'll get it.
                    • Mark
                      ... -M: I am arguing for the definitions that I like because they are the most rigorous - the test is in the debate, so give me responses that I can work with.
                      Message 10 of 12 , Oct 1, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --bestonnet_00 wrote:
                        > --"Mark" wrote:

                        > > -M: No, this is not my intent. I am argueing for more rigorous
                        > > definitions.

                        >B: No. You are arguing for the definition that you like.

                        -M: I am arguing for the definitions that I like because they are the
                        most rigorous - the test is in the debate, so give me responses that I
                        can work with.


                        shanti
                        Mark, Seattle
                      • bestonnet_00
                        ... But they aren t.
                        Message 11 of 12 , Oct 3, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In deathtoreligion@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <parashakti108@y...> wrote:
                          > -M: I am arguing for the definitions that I like because they are the
                          > most rigorous - the test is in the debate, so give me responses that
                          > I can work with.

                          But they aren't.
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.