What do Religious people say to this?

[StAnastasia]

Hooding Trees, like many people who need an excuse, have a very poor understand of thee relationship between religion and science. An even poorer understanding of science.

That’s quite true. They should read Catholicism and Science (Greenwood Press, 2008), or any number of other books on the subject, such as Fr. Denis Edwards’ The God of Evolution: A Trinitarian Theology.

 

[JohnDamian]

There are realms of subjective truth and realms of objective truth. It is vital to seperate them.

That is absurd.

Can you name one thing that is true* subjectivelly; but not **true **objectivelly?

*(Not believed to be true; actually true)

 

[grannymh]

There are realms of subjective truth and realms of objective truth. It is vital to seperate them.

Please explain since there are also subjective methods of arriving at objective truth and there are objective methods of arriving at objective truth. Depending on your explanation of subjective truth, there would be subjective methods of arriving at subjective truth but most likely there would be no objective methods at arriving at subjective truth.

As for realms of subjective truth and realms of objective truth – please explain what these realms encompass so one can separate them.

For example, the dictionary calls a realm a " field, sphere, or province: the realm of science." (The American Heritage College Dictionary) It is a well known fact that the realm of science encompasses the material and physical elements of the universe. While one can separate the realm of science from the realm of faith and morals, there are exceptions where the two appear to intersect.

As for your comment about realms of subjective truth and realms of objective truth, it is best that you explain exactly what you mean since you comment that it is vital to separate them.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Why is it that philosophers can sit with an orange in front of them, an orange that everyone can see, and they can swear blind that logic dictates it must be an apple?

It doesn’t matter what logic says, selection works, it can be seen to work. Branched heirarchies work and can be seen to work.

What is completely and utterly counter to reason and beggars logic is postulating the existence of a superbeing that by definition is too subtle to be understood in order to explain why complexity exists.

My friend, if I were not prohibited by the forum administrators from discussing certain arguments that provide a foil for certain modes of doctrinarianism, you fine people wouldn’t know what was hitting you at the moment.

What is completely and utterly counter to reason and beggars logic is dismissing the clear likelihood of a superbeing, because by definition it is beyond our ability to stick under a microscope and claim absolute authority on understanding in our rather limited fashions, and instead clinging desperately to dodgy illogic to justify an absurd model of understanding reality, just because we can base it on material evidence we *can * stick under a microscope, and build a ikle story to congratulate ourselves on inventing, based solely on that…

A model which doesn’t really make any sense.

In fact, I’d say it’s the height of superstition!

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Philosophers can’t even fully accept their own existence, let alone solve any puzzles. Philosophy is the last bastion of the man who has far too much time on his hands and no girlfriend.

Hmmm… my general experience is that us philosopher types do better with the chicks than any scientist types ever did! Pure science types, anyway… the applied scientists probably do better than either: I could have made that into a joke, really, couldn’t I?

 

[Cristiano]

Hmmm… my general experience is that us philosopher types do better with the chicks than any scientist types ever did! Pure science types, anyway… the applied scientists probably do better than either: I could have made that into a joke, really, couldn’t I?

Hey! Watch your mouth, I am a physicist!

 

[Cristiano]

Science is not about determining the simplest model of reality. That is a misunderstanding, if I’m not mistaken, of the precept Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor, when translated literally, actually says that the explanation with the least assumptions will usually be the correct one.

This is great! A person that claims to live by empirical data, rejects philosophy, and faith also has a blind faith in something like Occam’s razor.

Here we see the thinking of another Wikipedia atheist.

 

[lemondiesel]

This is great! A person that claims to live by empirical data, rejects philosophy, and faith also has a blind faith in something like Occam’s razor.

Here we see the thinking of another Wikipedia atheist.

but doesn’t philosophy pave the way for empirical data to be found?

 

[StAnastasia]

but doesn’t philosophy pave the way for empirical data to be found?

I’m not sure this means. Empirical data are found all the time, every time I bump into something in the dark. Philosophy helps us understand the ways in which we interpret data.

 

[Cristiano]

but doesn’t philosophy pave the way for empirical data to be found?

Yes, you are correct! However, I think that discounting philosophy (formal thinking in general) and then using it for other purposes is not intellectually honest. I think that using empirical data is critical for a rational mind; however, discounting reason can make the empirical data useless. It would be like putting a pig in a party dress.

 

[lemondiesel]

I’m not sure this means. Empirical data are found all the time, every time I bump into something in the dark. Philosophy helps us understand the ways in which we interpret data.

Yeah but if its pitch black, philosophy isn’t going to tell you what you bumped into. It would tell you why you bumped into it. (because your walking in the dark without a flashlight dumb dumb )

 

[buffalo]

Voom! Evolution in Fourier Space

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Hey! Watch your mouth, I am a physicist!

Whuupps! Er, some of my best friends… (etc. etc.)

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Yeah but if its pitch black, philosophy isn’t going to tell you what you bumped into. It would tell you why you bumped into it. (because your walking in the dark without a flashlight dumb dumb )

I’m guessing you’re forgetting that technically speaking the scientific method is in itself but a form of philosophical investigation, and, in definition, a philosophical invention

 

[StAnastasia]

Yeah but if its pitch black, philosophy isn’t going to tell you what you bumped into. It would tell you why you bumped into it. (because your walking in the dark without a flashlight dumb dumb )

Philosophy is involved because every act of perception involves me in an act of interpretation. I interpret the world around me day and night, and I bring to bear on that interpretation presuppositions about what I think is in the world around me.

 

[lemondiesel]

I’m guessing you’re forgetting that technically speaking the scientific method is in itself but a form of philosophical investigation, and, in definition, a philosophical invention

yeah but philosophy isn’t going to create light, it allows you to think but not act. Creating something to see in the dark takes science, but it takes philosophy to get there.

 

[StAnastasia]

yeah but philosophy isn’t going to create light, it allows you to think but not act. Creating something to see in the dark takes science, but it takes philosophy to get there.

Every science is underlain by a philosophy of science. Every act is underlain by a philosophy of will, a moral philosophy.

I’m not disagreeing with you; I just don’t draw very sharp lines between disciplines.

StAnastasia

 

[Mystic_Banana]

yeah but philosophy isn’t going to create light, it allows you to think but not act. Creating something to see in the dark takes science, but it takes philosophy to get there.

Actually, I’d say creating something to see in the dark takes action, instinctive, desperate or calculated. It takes Philosophy to spawn the science (or relevant analogue) to calculate it, but then still action to light the candle

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Every science is underlain by a philosophy of science. Every act is underlain by a philosophy of will, a moral philosophy.

I’m not disagreeing with you; I just don’t draw very sharp lines between disciplines.

StAnastasia

Ooh, we could civilly drag this out for ages - I think lemondiesel isn’t quite (any longer?) so opposite to Catholic/theistic ideology as materialistic antitheist types such as hooding trees (who I’m cheerfully priding myself on beating off with blatant reverse psychology )

Well, I’m game

 

[StAnastasia]

Ooh, we could civilly drag this out for ages - I think lemondiesel isn’t quite (any longer?) so opposite to Catholic/theistic ideology as materialistic antitheist types such as hooding trees (who I’m cheerfully priding myself on beating off with blatant reverse psychology )

Well, I’m game

I agree, and I don’t have ages, as I leave in a a few days for Oregon and Washington to deliver a series of lectures on evolution and religion. I’ll be offline after the 14th, until the 28th. I’m trusting that between philosophy, theology, and science I’ll be able to get there an back.

StAnastasia