Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 44
  1. ancalagon's Avatar
    Posts
    17 Posts
    Global Posts
    27 Global Posts
       #1  
    Of Religion, Philosophy and Science; Which of the 3, gives us a more complete and reliable explanation of Life?

    Another debate with my better half yesterday. She sided with Religion, I sided with Science. To me Religion and Philosophy are about the same. Science at least tries to use a system.
  2. #2  
    Religion would give the most complete and reliable explanation. It does not mean its accurate in any way though...

    Surur
  3. #3  
    Surur, we agree! Going further, none are completely accurate. Ben
  4. #4  
    Maybe it depends on what your "Philosophy of Science" or your "Philosophy of Religion" is??
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  5. ycats's Avatar
    Posts
    18 Posts
    Global Posts
    19 Global Posts
    #5  
    it would be true religion, not the false...........can create a long list of what's true and false.............here's an easy one, Jesus died on a stake (upright pole), not a "t" shape......check the original Greek scriptures for this
  6. #6  
    Combination of all three is balance. Albert Einstein believed in all three which is what made him special.
    at&t iPhone3G
  7. #7  
    Einstein was special because of his scientific, not his philosophical or religious ideas. A lot of people can mix science, religion and philosophy but an Einstein comes around only once in a great while.
  8. #8  
    Science. That said I have not ruled out a supreme being or god. I just don't believe in the fairy tales that a gazillion different organized religions have propagated since man invented it to explain the unexplainable and validate the divinity of their leaders (e.g. Kings, Queens, Emperors, Chiefs...Presidents etc.).
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    Einstein was special because of his scientific, not his philosophical or religious ideas. A lot of people can mix science, religion and philosophy but an Einstein comes around only once in a great while.

    I didn't say Einstein was special because of philosophy or religion...I was implying that he didn't cancel them out along with his study of science. Sceintists need hard data, facts, something they can touch and see. Einstein acknowledged the other two without impunity and embraced them yet his strength was science. In other words if it helps you more understand...He tried to come up with equations that would explain Gods work and he described it in a philosophical way.
    at&t iPhone3G
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by KStewart View Post
    I didn't say Einstein was special because of philosophy or religion...I was implying that he didn't cancel them out along with his study of science. Sceintists need hard data, facts, something they can touch and see. Einstein acknowledged the other two without impunity and embraced them yet his strength was science. In other words if it helps you more understand...He tried to come up with equations that would explain Gods work and he described it in a philosophical way.
    You can devote your career towards discovering new scientific facts, while at the same time appreciate philosophical or religious thought. There is nothing special or unique about this.
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix View Post
    You can devote your career towards discovering new scientific facts, while at the same time appreciate philosophical or religious thought. There is nothing special or unique about this.
    Your right...there is nothing special or unique about this but there are so many in the public eye that don't openly embrace any of the other which ever one they mainly contribute there lives to. Look how Einstein has been remembered with his famous poetic one liners reverting to the beauty of science, God, in a philisophical way where Robert J Oppenheimer(i.e. the creator of atomic bomb) or Stephen Hawkins will not be remembered in such way as well as many other scientists.
    at&t iPhone3G
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by ancalagon View Post
    Of Religion, Philosophy and Science; Which of the 3, gives us a more complete and reliable explanation of Life?
    Science of course. Religion is a faith-based system, as such it certainly cannot be reliable. We can be sure about that because different religions have mutually exclusive explanations about how/why things work the way they do. Of course our religious friends here will now think (but not admit) that of course THEIR religion IS in fact reliable and explains the world and the after-world correctly, and the others are wrong and will unfortunately not end up in heaven (as their religion states).
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  13. #13  
    Science. What you see is what you get. Clean. Simple.

    No controversies.

    Sure, there will be differences of opinions on various hypotheses, but systematic observations, now, or in the future, will resolve these differences.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by KStewart View Post
    Combination of all three is balance. Albert Einstein believed in all three which is what made him special.
    Albert Einstein did not define religion or god in the same sense that most people think of it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #15  
    Please indulge me this...

    Philosphy or Religion, of course. Science is a fact-based system, as such it certainly cannot be reliable (since it chooses which facts to include, which to not include, and how to scentifically interpret them). We can be sure about that because different scientists have mutually exclusive explanations about how/why things work the way they do (or they would have solved all major problems scientifically by now). Of course our scientific friends here will now think (but not admit) that of course THEIR science IS in fact reliable and explains the world and the lack of an after-world correctly, and the others are wrong and will unfortunately not end up in enlightenment (as their science states).

    Sorry, I couldn't resist... I guess that is a scientific or philosphical religious weakness.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1 View Post
    Please indulge me this...
    Unacceptable.
    Philosphy or Religion, of course.
    Begging for indulgence does not necessarily deserve acceptance (nor does paying for indulgences ).
    Science is a fact-based system, as such it certainly cannot be reliable (since it chooses which facts to include, which to not include, and how to scentifically interpret them).
    Perhaps we have different definitions of 'reliable', well, and obviously of science. Science, by definition, does not choose what to include or not include. Scientifically, one must accept that one can be proven wrong.
    We can be sure about that because different scientists have mutually exclusive explanations about how/why things work the way they do (or they would have solved all major problems scientifically by now).
    Unfair and unaccurate. Substitute 'religion' for 'science' and one should see the logical flaw if one is being intellectually honest, considering how much longer religion has had its go at it.
    Of course our scientific friends here will now think (but not admit) that of course THEIR science IS in fact reliable and explains the world and the lack of an after-world correctly, and the others are wrong and will unfortunately not end up in enlightenment (as their science states).
    Science makes no claim to an afterlife or enlightenment.
    Sorry, I couldn't resist... I guess that is a scientific or philosphical religious weakness.
    Philosophical weakness.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by duanedude1 View Post
    We can be sure about that because different scientists have mutually exclusive explanations about how/why things work the way they do (or they would have solved all major problems scientifically by now).
    Any theory that explains ALL independently observable phenomena is considered acceptable in science. Even better, the theory would predict phenomena that could be verified independently in the future.

    Feynman's books make it absolutely clear: Any valid theory must be consistent with observations. Not just any observations: but observations that can be repeated, at different times, at different places, by different people.

    The problems that have not been solved (or resolved) are because of lack of data or lack of tools. Indeed, science progresses when more observations or better observations become available.
    --
    Aloke
    Cingular GSM
    Software:Treo650-1.17-CNG
    Firmware:01.51 Hardware:A
  18. #18  
    If you have not ruled out a supreme being or god, then why do you refer to such as a fairy tales?



    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Science. That said I have not ruled out a supreme being or god. I just don't believe in the fairy tales that a gazillion different organized religions have propagated since man invented it to explain the unexplainable and validate the divinity of their leaders (e.g. Kings, Queens, Emperors, Chiefs...Presidents etc.).
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    If you have not ruled out a supreme being or god, then why do you refer to such as a fairy tales?
    Not buying into the superstitions, myths, and dogmas that humans have created to explain the mysteries of the universe we inhabit does not equate to the impossibility of there being a being or beings who created that system. Not being able or willing to make that distinction is how so many misunderstand Einstein's statements about there being a 'God'.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Not buying into the superstitions, myths, and dogmas that humans have created to explain the mysteries of the universe we inhabit does not equate to the impossibility of there being a being or beings who created that system. Not being able or willing to make that distinction is how so many misunderstand Einstein's statements about there being a 'God'.
    Couldn't have said it better myself.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions