Thats why we have Biden. All bases are covered now.Science cannot handle certain things like love, justice or ethics
Thats why we have Biden. All bases are covered now.Science cannot handle certain things like love, justice or ethics
Take it to the MLB thread. 2/10Thats why we have Biden. All bases are covered now.
The duality concept is full of these type questions. Maybe to be human is to try to merge them into a unified "one"?
The problem may lie with the common connotation of religion.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.
The problem may lie with the common connotation of religion.
Well As knowledge has expanded through time. Religion has incorporated Science to funnel those to the "one answer" (as you stated earlier)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?
The target audience should be those who aren’t subscribers, but are willing to listen.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.
I disagree with your premise.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?
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. JMOIn 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.
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.
Sure, I agree that those three areas are subjective.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.
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.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.
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?Science, at its heart, is a predictive objective discipline.
And perhaps that is beyond our current comprehension.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.
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!
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?
I hear ya.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.
The Human Condition.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.
...and we all end up selling life insurance to each other.Science should never learn everything.
If science learned everything, there would be nothing left for science to learn.