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

Re: Is science religious?

Expand Messages
  • Mark
    ... -M: There are repeatable and observable yogic techniques. ... have faith. ... Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary Main Entry: faith [...] 3 : something that
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.