InmannRoshi Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 The means to test "religious hypothesis" may not be conducted as physical experiments, but perhaps through equally rigorous testing using philosophical or subjective inquiry methods. And the special word for the day is ...... subjective. Link to post Share on other sites
dyermaker Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Wasn't Descartes a Deist? Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by dyermaker Wasn't Descartes a Deist? Good question, and one I had to go look up. Here's a little bio on Mr. Rene: http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/modphilbegin.html Scroll down to read the copyrighted bio of Rene. Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I could have sworn that he wrote "Meditations on First Philosophy" while in Spain, during the height of the Inquisition as well (something from school sticking in my head about it...). But I wasn't able to find any confirmation on that, so I'm not sure. If so though, one has to wonder if the political climate of his times didn't force him to perhaps not be as articulate in his thoughts as he would have been, had he been able to write without fear of retribution. I've always been attracted to the concept of Deism. For me, a belief structure that is dedicated to discovering God through reason rather than faith seems to mesh well with my own views on contemporary religions. Plus gramma was a huge Deist, so it runs in the family. Link to post Share on other sites
HokeyReligions Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by moimeme love is not science Then why believe in it? you can feel, hear, touch it Still can't hear, feel, or touch love - or gravity. im sure you can feel gravity Um, no. I don't know where you are floating, Merry - but I can feel gravity whenever I climb a ladder -- especially when I get out of the pool! As for love, I can feel it - I just can't identify what I'm feeling it with! It is an identifiable and separate sensation from any other that my body or mind senses. I can't feel a flu virus as it courses through my body, but the symptoms appear eventually. Science can put that virus under a microscope now - but it existed long before science recognized it. Maybe love is in the DNA or something and just hasn't been identified by science yet. I may not believe in God, but I don't dispute other's beliefs and I'm open to the possibility that 'they' are right and I am wrong. My mother is a believer and I saw how much she relaxed and how comfortable and safe she felt after the chaplain came in and prayed with her in the ER on Tuesday and again yesterday. I told her that others were praying for her too and shared with her the well-wishes I recieved from the folks on this board and all of that helped her physically. The knowledge that others were praying for her, and her participating in ritual prayer did help her heart to stabilize. Some would say that is a miracle and proof of God. I still don't see it as proof of God, but I do see the power of it and wonder where that power comes from and I wonder at the vast resources of the human mind and what untapped powers are waiting to be discovered. I don't believe or disbelieve in science or religion. I do believe that there are far more questions than answers and that just because we don't 'know' an answer to a question, does not mean that the answer does not exist. I also believe that the design of the human animal is such that we find comfort in answers and seek to find answers that will comfort us and that is all the criteria we need to believe in the answers we find. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 As for love, I can feel it There's my point, exactly, Hokey! We feel love - and that's the only proof we have. Well, I have felt God's presence but that is as impossible to prove as my having felt love. You only have my word for it; there is no science which can verify either. Consider a phobia. We know there are people who feel utter panic and fear at the sight of a spider or the thought of climbing onto a plane. Though you don't experience that feeling, you believe that others do. Why? You only have their report that they feel that way - and maybe their behaviour but somehow those same 'proofs' don't suffice to convince people that people can experience divine presence or have spiritual experiences. Link to post Share on other sites
Darkangelism Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Love is neither science or religion. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 DA. The point is what is provable and what is not. If you claim that you MUST be able to prove something to believe it, then your logic falls where love is concerned because love is as unprovable as is the existence of God; both depend upon subjective report. Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Eh..they've done plenty of MRI's that have shown significant brain activity via dopamine receptors when people are near or view images of the ones they love. Most of the studies are pretty comprehensive and double blinds, and the same people do not have these chemical reactions when seeing/viewing images of people they do not know. I'm not saying that this is "seeing love", but as we begin to understand more and more about how our neuro systems work, and how the chemicals that cause feelings of affection, lust and love manipulate our emotions and moods, can it really be all that far off that at some point we'll have an accurate understanding of exactly what the chemical process is that initiates these feelings? It was either last week, or the week before, but Time had a bunch of articles directly related to this. I'll see if I still have that issue kicking around when I go home for lunch. Peace and love. Link to post Share on other sites
Darkangelism Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Right, and because I feel love I know it exists. love is just a chemical reaction in the brain. Link to post Share on other sites
moimeme Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 And there have also been imaging studies of people having religious experiences, or considering God, which also show changed brain activity. But neither of these things are proof of anything other than that there is brain activity concurrent with an experience. We still don't understand consciousness! because I feel love I know it exists DA, that is what I am saying. Because some of us feel spiritual experiences, we know they exist. Link to post Share on other sites
Darkangelism Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I know, and i am not saying that they don't exist, there is a scientific reason for it that we just havnt found. I have more a problem with established religion because it tells us what to believe. Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 CaterpillarGirl Yes, but it is your perception of touch and feeling that is feeding your beliefDo you believe that you can trust your senses? I think the scientific method was developed to get around that. CaterpillarGirl Can you touch gravity?Would you believe that every atom in the universe has a gravitational pull on you? How could a scientist prove that? Errol Before you can discuss science as a religion you have to have a thorough understanding of, and agreement with, the definition of religion, faith, and science.I agree. This seems like another argument on semantics, and yes, I am guilty of perpetuation arguments like that. Errol After hiroshima people wavered on the use and application of the science used to create the A bomb.I am afraid of ignorance and arrogance. Scientists are people too, and they are just as capable of doing incredibly stupid things except on a much larger scale. Darkangelism I never saidu have to se it, you can feel, hear, touch it, and im sure you can feel gravity, love is not science.Can you feel planet Neptune? jester Religion abounds in ethical "oughts" and "shoulds."Let’s call scientific method a gospel in science. jester Religionists "preach it." Scientists "prove it."Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (I borrowed this one from Ryan). Did cancer exist 200 or 300 years ago? How about radioactivity? What if a scientist were to develop an experiment proving the existence of God? Would that mean God didn’t exist before the evidence was collected? I think there are just as many quacks in science as there are in any religion. Link to post Share on other sites
wideawake Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 If a tree falls and no one is around.... Link to post Share on other sites
Darkangelism Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 I could see the planet neptune with a telescope. Link to post Share on other sites
CaterpillarGirl Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 Originally posted by BlockHead Would you believe that every atom in the universe has a gravitational pull on you? How could a scientist prove that? I don't believe anything can be proven. I take everything on faith. Even science, which is my profession. But I think people resist the notion that their "faith" in science is anything like their "faith" in religion. The term "science" didn't even evolve until the renaissance. Before that it was known as "natural philosophy!" Link to post Share on other sites
BlockHead Posted March 5, 2004 Share Posted March 5, 2004 CaterpillarGirl I don't believe anything can be proven.You can prove it, but there will always be uncertainty. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts