Will science explain everything?

Kburjr said:
The duality concept is full of these type questions. Maybe to be human is to try to merge them into a unified "one"?
Click to expand...

Hence my consideration of the merger between science and religion.

Religion has started to bring in science, while holding on to their own truths/doctrine. Can science bring in religion?

Does there actually have to be a merger? With the additional knowledge readily accessible, I see a convergence, but I don't think we're ready for that quite yet.
 
Cobrabit said:
Hence my consideration of the merger between science and religion.

Religion has started to bring in science, while holding on to their own truths/doctrine. Can science bring in religion?

Does there actually have to be a merger? With the additional knowledge readily accessible, I see a convergence, but I don't think we're ready for that quite yet.
Click to expand...
The problem may lie with the common connotation of religion.
 
Kburjr said:
The problem may lie with the common connotation of religion.
Click to expand...

In my opinion (agnostic), there are a lot of problems with religion. Developed by man to teach moral perspectives and provide some explanation to the unexplainable (at the time), but perverted by many to maintain power.

Religion has been the main contributor to human conflict, with disagreements to the unknown leading to countless deaths for no more than being born in a different part of the world.
 
Cobrabit said:
What would be the reasoning for science to ever include religion? What are the reasons that religion has begun to include science?

Is it to find "truth" or maintain "power"?

Added with edit:

Is the "truth" worth a change in "belief" that comforts many?

The issue is that no one trully "knows". It's the limitation of the human mind to comprehend our existence and the biggest question of all....WHY?
Click to expand...
Well As knowledge has expanded through time. Religion has incorporated Science to funnel those to the "one answer" (as you stated earlier)
Science would have no need of religion to find its approximate answer.
If Science ever did merge with Religion. It would be fake. Used to gain power (say from a politician) Which would make it not science, since the outcome would be the opposite of an answer, the answer, approximate answer, etc. However you wish to claim a scientific answer is.
 
Cobrabit said:
Hence my consideration of the merger between science and religion.

Religion has started to bring in science, while holding on to their own truths/doctrine. Can science bring in religion?

Does there actually have to be a merger? With the additional knowledge readily accessible, I see a convergence, but I don't think we're ready for that quite yet.
Click to expand...
The target audience should be those who aren’t subscribers, but are willing to listen.

But, it’s usually those most interested in tithings.
 
Kburjr said:
The belief that science is the only basis for truth is called scientism. But even scientists know there are limits to the scientific method. Science cannot handle certain things like love, justice or ethics.

Does this explain the need for a god? Or is there a 3rd realm of understanding to go along with natural and supernatural?
Click to expand...
I disagree with your premise.

Science can handle those three, but not in the analytical way that you might want or understand.

There may not be an output/data set that can assign a rational value of sorts to any of those three.
But, they can be measured scientifically for each individual.
Genetics/environment/upbringing would all play a role in how those three evolve over time.
Then you would need the ability to measure the role our neurons play when our brains tackle those three areas if you truly want to quantify it.

The science isn't there yet. Our comprehension of how these things work isn't there yet.
Recognizing those limits does not imply that we will never get there.
Just the knowledge that more work has to be done.

Genetics/environment/upbringing all play a role in whether or not a person will be religious, as well.
 
Cobrabit said:
In my opinion (agnostic), there are a lot of problems with religion. Developed by man to teach moral perspectives and provide some explanation to the unexplainable (at the time), but perverted by many to maintain power.

Religion has been the main contributor to human conflict, with disagreements to the unknown leading to countless deaths for no more than being born in a different part of the world.
Click to expand...
I am with you until the end of the end of the first paragraph. The bolded parts are in direct conflict, IMHO. If religion has been perverted, how can it be the main contributor in human conflict? Are you suggesting that without religion human history would have engaged in less warfare/oppression? Religion is a tool, no more responsible for conflict than gunpowder, cannons, technology, economic theory, horses, ships, iron, rocks and stone. If you want to name the thing responsible for human conflict, go with humans. JMO
 
Sparhawk said:
I disagree with your premise.

Science can handle those three, but not in the analytical way that you might want or understand.

There may not be an output/data set that can assign a rational value of sorts to any of those three.
But, they can be measured scientifically for each individual.
Genetics/environment/upbringing would all play a role in how those three evolve over time.
Then you would need the ability to measure the role our neurons play when our brains tackle those three areas if you truly want to quantify it.

The science isn't there yet. Our comprehension of how these things work isn't there yet.
Recognizing those limits does not imply that we will never get there.
Just the knowledge that more work has to be done.

Genetics/environment/upbringing all play a role in whether or not a person will be religious, as well.
Click to expand...

Science, at its heart, is a predictive objective discipline. If given certain conditions, this will be the result. If each individual has their own concept of love, justice, etc., then those areas are subjective by definition.
 
Kburjr said:
Science, at its heart, is a predictive objective discipline. If given certain conditions, this will be the result. If each individual has their own concept of love, justice, etc., then those areas are subjective by definition.
Click to expand...
Sure, I agree that those three areas are subjective.
They cannot necessarily be measure quantitatively, but they can be measured qualitatively.
And given enough of a sample size, patterns might emerge.

I suppose the argument is whether or not a questionnaire meets your definition of scientific objectivity.
 
Sparhawk said:
Sure, I agree that those three areas are subjective.
They cannot necessarily be measure quantitatively, but they can be measured qualitatively.
And given enough of a sample size, patterns might emerge.

I suppose the argument is whether or not a questionnaire meets your definition of scientific objectivity.
Click to expand...
I see the objective/subjective comparison as kind of a number line. The ratio of objective to subjective would determine placement on that line. I really don't know how that ratio could be measured.
 
Kburjr said:
Science, at its heart, is a predictive objective discipline.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you then, when we find the correct unified theory of the universe and advance our computing power enough to handle the math(really advanced chaos, game and other theories), should we not be able to predict the future to the minutest detail? And then be able to rewind the viewable timeline to any point in the past like watching a movie?
 
Kburjr said:
I see the objective/subjective comparison as kind of a number line. The ratio of objective to subjective would determine placement on that line. I really don't know how that ratio could be measured.
Click to expand...
And perhaps that is beyond our current comprehension.

We all want analytical analysis that can be reproduced and proven.

But, when it's not there, we are only left with our faith in that we will get there eventually.
QED : religion!
 
Sparhawk said:
And perhaps that is beyond our current comprehension.

We all want analytical analysis that can be reproduced and proven.

But, when it's not there, we are only left with our faith in that we will get there eventually.
QED : religion!
Click to expand...

Religion is not the same as subjective, IMO. Science describes an objective reality. I hold that it cannot describe a subjective reality.

Kind of riffing on Forms and the Cave. Also, playing with the Trolley Problem and trying to see if there can be an objective solution. I have already ruled out a subjective solution.
 
batchaps4me said:
Let me ask you then, when we find the correct unified theory of the universe and advance our computing power enough to handle the math(really advanced chaos, game and other theories), should we not be able to predict the future to the minutest detail? And then be able to rewind the viewable timeline to any point in the past like watching a movie?
Click to expand...

Not if quantum mechanics is part of the math. Spontaneous creation of matter throws a monkey wrench into a purely mechanical universe at least so far.
 
Kburjr said:
Religion is not the same as subjective, IMO. Science describes an objective reality. I hold that it cannot describe a subjective reality.

Kind of riffing on Forms and the Cave. Also, playing with the Trolley Problem and trying to see if there can be an objective solution. I have already ruled out a subjective solution.
Click to expand...
I hear ya.

I believe science can be both objective and subjective.

Once you hit a wall where science cannot be quantified objectively, you can still come up with a subjective scientific theory based on whatever data you have. And that's what you may windup forever chasing for all your days.
 
Sparhawk said:
I hear ya.

I believe science can be both objective and subjective.

Once you hit a wall where science cannot be quantified objectively, you can still come up with a subjective scientific theory based on whatever data you have. And that's what you may windup forever chasing for all your days.
Click to expand...
The Human Condition.
 
Science should never learn everything.

If science learned everything, there would be nothing left for science to learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top