Atheism on the Decline; Paganism on the Rise

[Seeker]

When will we grow up and realize that no one knows anything about this stuff?

It's all a matter of uncommunicateable personal experience.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Seeker
When will we grow up and realize that no one knows anything about this stuff?

It's all a matter of uncommunicateable personal experience.

Uncommunicable personal experience counts for sh*t when trying to prove something...you could invent anything that way.

[Whaleboy]

Seeker, if it's incommunicable then it's hardly subject to objectifiable knowledge, so it doesn't "exist". Its more like the feeling of an emotion... and no basis to claim "truth".

[Agathon]

Uncommunicable personal experience counts for sh*t when trying to prove something...you could invent anything that way.

Like my manly love for you darling.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp


I could probably dig out a photo of me on Glastonbury Tor on Midsummer's morning. Would you accept that as proof that I'm a pagan?

I was talking to MNG.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Seeker, if it's incommunicable then it's hardly subject to objectifiable knowledge, so it doesn't "exist". Its more like the feeling of an emotion... and no basis to claim "truth".

[Jon Miller]

bull****

it isn't science

but that does not mean that it does exist, and has no basis on being 'truth'

Jon Miller

[Whaleboy]

it isn't science

but that does not mean that it does exist, and has no basis on being 'truth'

If it's not subject to science, it cannot be called knowledge; and vice versa.

Whether or not science has understood it yet is a different matter, but if it, by definition, cannot be understood by science, then the games up.

[Jon Miller]

well, how about love

people thought (and many still do) that that is not subject to science

and how can you be sure that everything that is, is subject to science..

I have (as a physicist) huge doubts that everything in nature, even everything that we can theorize about, can be probed and experimented on

Jon Miller
(to use all the mechanisms we know of, to show whether string theory is right or not, most physicists thing we would need an appartus the size of the universe)

[Whaleboy]

well, how about love

people thought (and many still do) that that is not subject to science

and how can you be sure that everything that is, is subject to science..

Love, as a result of hormones, neurons firing, or even psychological patterns, is within the bounds of science, neuroscience specifically. Sure we know relatively little about the brain now, but there's no barrier to a greater understanding.

The "feeling" of love however, as the "feeling" of faith, or emotion as I used earlier, is a different matter. Can I communicate with you the experience of colour? Of anger? Of course not. There is no shared assumption at work there, the two operate entirely independently, hence cogito ergo sum. Any use of language or mathematics to communicate it would be preclusive because of the very experience of language itself... the best we could do is describe and model. Would you call telepathy that, or a shared consciousness? I don't know, that's an interesting one... but methinks irrelevant to truth and faith.

I think, as a physicist, you would surely agree that if it exists in nature, it could (at least hypothetically) be subject to experiments, of scientific method and analysis. Whether or not it's practical is irrelevant... it wasn't practical to image bones inside living tissue 400 years ago, but scientific method, the remit of science, hasn't changed at all since then... if you like, our knowledge has grown to fill it. Your standard infinite regress of uncertainty principle defines that remit by the way, that which exists subject to objective logic.

The consciousness on the other hand, we would say exists "object" to objective logic.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

I think, as a physicist, you would surely agree that if it exists in nature, it could (at least hypothetically) be subject to experiments, of scientific method and analysis.

no, I disagree with that

it takes a lot of faith to think that everything in nature is subject to experiments and the like

JM

[Whaleboy]

it takes a lot of faith to think that everything in nature is subject to experiments and the like

No, that's rationalist faith in empiricalism. Scientific method is just an extension* of empiricalism. Put simply, the only part faith or belief plays in science is the "faith" that the outside world exists, to solve the debate between empiricalism (we learn of the world through outside experiences furnishing our brains), and rationalism (furnishings come pre-installed). Faith in scientific method is a misnomer.

*for want of a better word

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


no, I disagree with that

it takes a lot of faith to think that everything in nature is subject to experiments and the like

JM

Faith isn't involved in this. It's merely a question of the nessecary techinque is available and is ethical acceptable.

[Whaleboy]

ethical acceptable

That too. More reasons religion shouldn't tread on science's lawn.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
well, how about love

people thought (and many still do) that that is not subject to science

and how can you be sure that everything that is, is subject to science..

I have (as a physicist) huge doubts that everything in nature, even everything that we can theorize about, can be probed and experimented on

Jon Miller
(to use all the mechanisms we know of, to show whether string theory is right or not, most physicists thing we would need an appartus the size of the universe)

Well there is the issue of Heisenberg, but apart from that you can't just make things up, although you can attempt to predict with extrapolation. I don't see theism as a logical extrapolation.

And love, well love is a state of mind, and as Whaleboy has said, is governed by neurology and neurochemistry. That we don't understand the precise mechanisms doesn't mean it is mystical. Once upon a time we didn't know the underlying mechanisms behind fire or evolution - we know those now...