9 replies to this topic

[Julia36]

According to Hegel, one position is formed.
Then the opposite gathers.

Finally they are synthesised.

Has any school done this?

Religion has survival aspects science doesn't do
eg in natural philosophy live or die it is of no intrinsic difference.

However in some religions you are intrinsically important in the world because God built the world and he has a plan for you. This is very comforting but could scientist subscribe to it?

It seems like taking opiate.

[N.T.M.]

Could scientists subscribe to it? Sure, but that'd require taking a hypocritical position. I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

[cats_lover]

Could scientists subscribe to it? Sure, but that'd require taking a hypocritical position. I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

What is the official position of science for scientifically unquantifiable "phenomena"?

I understand that this reasoning can lead us to believe everything unquantifiable.

But if an assertion cannot be disproved with evidence, it is not hypocritical to believe that the claim may be valid. Otherwise theories would not exist.

We are limited to studying the phenomena around us, perhaps the final answer to the origin of the universe is in another dimension, I mean that is related to phenomena that we are not able to analyze, or simply our brain can not understand it for longer than think about it.

So I think it's not a hypocritical position for a scientist to have a religious belief.

[N.T.M.]

Could scientists subscribe to it? Sure, but that'd require taking a hypocritical position. I'm not quite sure what you're asking here.

What is the official position of science for scientifically unquantifiable "phenomena"?

I understand that this reasoning can lead us to believe everything unquantifiable.

But if an assertion cannot be disproved with evidence, it is not hypocritical to believe that the claim may be valid. Otherwise theories would not exist.

We are limited to studying the phenomena around us, perhaps the final answer to the origin of the universe is in another dimension, I mean that is related to phenomena that we are not able to analyze, or simply our brain can not understand it for longer than think about it.

So I think it's not a hypocritical position for a scientist to have a religious belief.

You're equating a religious belief with acknowledging the possibility that something's true. For example, as an atheist I acknowledge the possibility that there's a god, but I find it to be very unlikely.

[cats_lover]

You're equating a religious belief with acknowledging the possibility that something's true. For example, as an atheist I acknowledge the possibility that there's a god, but I find it to be very unlikely.

Your position then it is not an atheist, but an agnostic.

Equating a religious belief with acknowledging the possibility that something's true is not the correct scientifical way?

[sthira]

You're equating a religious belief with acknowledging the possibility that something's true. For example, as an atheist I acknowledge the possibility that there's a god, but I find it to be very unlikely.

Narrowing here, what you may mean is that your brain, its biology, genetics, your environment, your personal history, education, and the limitations of current science have you conclude it's possible but unlikely (for god to exist).  The peak of you -- your best foot forward on the issue -- leads you to a position. And yet what your (future) computer (or tools presumably capable of wider ranges of cognitive abilities) will "conclude" with regard to the god issue may be entirely different.   In other words, while you may find something (anything) "very likely" or "very unlikely" your tools may not.  Keepth open thee mind, man, we're involved in the process of evolution; we've no reason to believe we've reached final end points on the mysteries of the universe.

[platypus]

You're equating a religious belief with acknowledging the possibility that something's true. For example, as an atheist I acknowledge the possibility that there's a god, but I find it to be very unlikely.

Your position then it is not an atheist, but an agnostic.

I believe his position is called "weak atheism". IMO "agnostics" would/could not say that they think the probability of deities existing is very small.

[cats_lover]

Just asking the original question (in the post)

About the universe and its origin the theory is: "Fine-tuned Universe theory"
This theory synthesised Religion & Science.

We also have the theory of Holographic Universe, which can be synthesized with religion, or at least with existence of God.
Recent research shows some evidence for this theory (link).

http://www.scientifi...eally-is-a-holo

[N.T.M.]

You're equating a religious belief with acknowledging the possibility that something's true. For example, as an atheist I acknowledge the possibility that there's a god, but I find it to be very unlikely.

Your position then it is not an atheist, but an agnostic.

lol No, I'm an atheist, but If I didn't concede the possibility of being wrong, I'd be religious.

Equating a religious belief with acknowledging the possibility that something's true is not the correct scientifical way?

No, they're entirely different. If, for example, you were to ask a Christian if he believes in the resurrection of Jesus, he would almost certainly say that he knows it's true, which is very unlike admitting that it just might have happened. In most contexts, the word belief connotes something with no evidential basis.

*edit* (Addressing the post above) The fine-tuning argument is really rather poor. Considering all the ways the universe is trying to kill us, it's hard to suggest that it was designed for anything.

Edited by N.T.M., 18 January 2014 - 09:05 AM.

[cats_lover]

No, they're entirely different. If, for example, you were to ask a Christian if he believes in the resurrection of Jesus, he would almost certainly say that he knows it's true, which is very unlike admitting that it just might have happened. In most contexts, the word belief connotes something with no evidential basis.

Well, of course that believers just believe, and sometimes it is frustrating to see how they think and discussed; especially those caught by the pre-established concepts of organized religions. My point is that if you are religious or not, and you want to analyze religion from a scientific point of view, you cannot eliminate the possibility that a god exists.

You're an atheist, then you do not believe in God. You are a scientist, then you can not rule out the possibility that God exists (using "sciences rules"). Im not really comparing religion with a possibility, just putting it under the lens of science (which surely is not validated for most believers).

Concerning the Fine-Tuning universe theory, again it's a matter of viewpoints; some people like you will say that universe is trying to kill us everytime. Others will say that it has given us the exact elements to meet the extremely low probability of being here.

Edited by cats_lover, 18 January 2014 - 02:09 PM.