Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Count Lucanor]

Science is not perfect, but it rests on methodical critical thinking and self-correction. Religion is dogma and rests on reinforcing delusions and pure ignorance.

Count, although quite kind to science, your take on religion misses the mark. Religion is simply the intellectualization of spirituality, the key understanding being that realization is a non-intellectual pursuit.

At best, religion is the institutionalized form of superstition and wishful thinking.

[impermanence]

At best, religion is the institutionalized form of superstition and wishful thinking.

Equal amount of good and bad in everything.

[impermanence]

As epistemology, science is incoherent.

As practical affair, it is incredibly successful.

I believe it is easy to fall in the trap of believing that science/technology has improved the quality of our lives. If that was truly the case, then it seems reasonable to suggest that mankind should be nearing max contentment considering the "advances" made in science and technology over the past millennia.

[Sy Borg]

As epistemology, science is incoherent.

As practical affair, it is incredibly successful.

I believe it is easy to fall in the trap of believing that science/technology has improved the quality of our lives. If that was truly the case, then it seems reasonable to suggest that mankind should be nearing max contentment considering the "advances" made in science and technology over the past millennia.

Science appears to be part of the march of evolution, and change does not tend to suit those being superseded. The rise of Homo sapiens probably brought little joy to other hominids and great apes. Now humans have recently reached a milestone, where the mass of their creations outweighs all of the Earth's known biomass (sans water). Yet so many of us love nature - yet we are replacing it with our stuff. The direction is clear.

Yet none of this can be stopped. Let's say that American Pentecostals wrest permanent control of the US and then severely cut back on all science-based departments and programs so everyone could return to less complicated days. That would make the US easy pickings for its rivals.

Here's another example of inconvenient progress - city life. Most people flock to cities but a significant number of urban people dream of escaping to the country. Yet many of us have little choice but to cram in.

I like to think it will all work out for the best, but the next century or two are looking like "interesting times".

[baker]

Most people flock to cities but a significant number of urban people dream of escaping to the country.

And once they can move to the country, they pave it over with concrete and asphalt, turning it into one giant suburb.

[Steve3007]

The idea is to point out that science is just another attempt to access Reality [taking up where religion left off].

If by "reality" you mean the world we believe to be the cause of the common features of various sensations in ourselves and others, then every time we make assumptions about the causes of the patterns in our sensations, we "attempt to access Reality". There's nothing special about either science or religion here. Every time I assume that an object will be where I last saw it and didn't disappear when I wasn't looking, I'm "attempting to access Reality" by implicitly postulating a form of conservation law. Every time I go to the place where I left my car so i can get in it and go shopping I'm doing that. Every time I see an object and thereby assume, based on past experience, that others see it too, I'm doing that. Science is just a formalized version of that. Some aspects of religion were precursors and inspirations to that formalized process, while also being mixed with the search for moral guidance and the solutions to various social problems.


So, going back to this:

The "fact" that we can not be present in the present presents many difficulties. Add the notion that there are infinite times occurring at the the same time doesn't make matters any more palatable.

If anyone were to make self-contradictory statements like those two they wouldn't "present many difficulties". There would just be the one difficulty of them being self-contradictory. The solution would be to not make the statements. Do you think that someone other than you, here, has said those things? If so, who?

Who, apart from you here, has said "there are infinite times occurring at the the same time"?

[Steve3007]

And once they can move to the country, they pave it over with concrete and asphalt, turning it into one giant suburb.

Someone wrote a song about that.

[baker]

And once they can move to the country, they pave it over with concrete and asphalt, turning it into one giant suburb.

Someone wrote a song about that.

It's not just parking lots. I mean residential housing where people are trying to have the perks of the countryside and the city at the same time.
I live in such a situation. When I moved here, this was the real countryside, with mud and everything. Now it's turning into a suburb. I can't quite put my finger on it yet, but there's something ugly about it.

[Pattern-chaser]

Equal amount of good and bad in everything.

There is good and bad in everything.

I think you stopped one step short of correctness?

[impermanence]

Science appears to be part of the march of evolution, and change does not tend to suit those being superseded. The rise of Homo sapiens probably brought little joy to other hominids and great apes. Now humans have recently reached a milestone, where the mass of their creations outweighs all of the Earth's known biomass (sans water). Yet so many of us love nature - yet we are replacing it with our stuff. The direction is clear.

Yet none of this can be stopped. Let's say that American Pentecostals wrest permanent control of the US and then severely cut back on all science-based departments and programs so everyone could return to less complicated days. That would make the US easy pickings for its rivals.

Here's another example of inconvenient progress - city life. Most people flock to cities but a significant number of urban people dream of escaping to the country. Yet many of us have little choice but to cram in.

I like to think it will all work out for the best, but the next century or two are looking like "interesting times".

Greta, it is easy to tell that you are a child of the sixties and seventies [as am I] and even easier to view what has happened in the years passed as discouraging and disheartening, but alas, there has also been a great deal of wonderful things that have occurred, as well.

Everything comes and goes and so will the political/economic mess that was created by those who only saw the idealism of our youth as yet another conduit to egoism and personal wealth. Take solace in the notion that all these things work out in the end as there is no skirting one's karma.

[impermanence]

Who, apart from you here, has said "there are infinite times occurring at the the same time"?

By currently accepted definition, this would be the case, no?

An observer is surrounded by objects [points, if you like] that are at various distances. The light reflecting off of each point and entering the observer's eyes [proceeding through to the visual cortex] takes an amount of time determined by the distance. Therefore, each point being at a different distance from the observer is also at a different time [although one observes these as simultaneous events].

Even if you are outside on a clear night and observe the light emanating from a star hundreds of millions of light years away and a tree also in your line of sight, you are observing the distant past and the near present simultaneously. How is that possible?

[impermanence]

Equal amount of good and bad in everything.

There is good and bad in everything.

I think you stopped one step short of correctness?

Good and bad define each other so they must co-exist in equal parts, no?

[hegel]

As epistemology, science is incoherent.

As practical affair, it is incredibly successful.

I believe it is easy to fall in the trap of believing that science/technology has improved the quality of our lives. If that was truly the case, then it seems reasonable to suggest that mankind should be nearing max contentment considering the "advances" made in science and technology over the past millennia.

Practical benefit does not equate with producing happiness.

[impermanence]

Not happiness, but contentment [being ok with whatever comes your way].

[Count Lucanor]

At best, religion is the institutionalized form of superstition and wishful thinking.

Equal amount of good and bad in everything.

I don't know what you're talking about.

I believe it is easy to fall in the trap of believing that science/technology has improved the quality of our lives. If that was truly the case, then it seems reasonable to suggest that mankind should be nearing max contentment considering the "advances" made in science and technology over the past millennia.

The statements science/technology has improved our lives and science/technology has deteriorated our lives are not mutually exclusive. Science and technology are purely instrumental, they can serve distinct purposes.