http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world grep understanding Tue, 16 Mar 2010 00:11:14 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241919 Jack David Baucum Sat, 23 May 2009 19:21:16 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241919 <p>Do you have feelings? Can I see them? Or a consciousness?<br>Either way it is a red herring from my point, which is that Daniel is comparing apples and oranges. Science and religion/philosophy attempt to explain different areas of our existence.</p> Do you have feelings? Can I see them? Or a consciousness?
Either way it is a red herring from my point, which is that Daniel is comparing apples and oranges. Science and religion/philosophy attempt to explain different areas of our existence.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241754 Jack David Baucum Sat, 23 May 2009 15:21:16 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241754 <p>Do you have feelings? Can I see them? Or a consciousness?<br>Either way it is a red herring from my point, which is that Daniel is comparing apples and oranges. Science and religion/philosophy attempt to explain different areas of our existence.</p> Do you have feelings? Can I see them? Or a consciousness?
Either way it is a red herring from my point, which is that Daniel is comparing apples and oranges. Science and religion/philosophy attempt to explain different areas of our existence.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241753 Jon Sat, 23 May 2009 06:12:36 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241753 <p>do you have a spirit? may I see it?</p> do you have a spirit? may I see it?

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241749 permial Fri, 22 May 2009 14:44:53 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241749 <p>I must agree with you. I cannot accept things on faith alone. There has to be a reason, one that wasn't written down to subjugate the people at least, that we are thinking creatures and not autonomous drones. This is also something that I'm currently dealing with in my AI research. I'm currently stuck on, "If the machine becomes self aware, do I have the right to turn it off" syndrome, because it's getting closer than most people think.</p> I must agree with you. I cannot accept things on faith alone. There has to be a reason, one that wasn't written down to subjugate the people at least, that we are thinking creatures and not autonomous drones. This is also something that I'm currently dealing with in my AI research. I'm currently stuck on, “If the machine becomes self aware, do I have the right to turn it off” syndrome, because it's getting closer than most people think.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241748 Maxolasersquad Fri, 22 May 2009 14:30:32 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241748 <p>Exactly. You are agreeing with me here. For the purpose of religion, those scientific questions are unimportant. Just like a language arts teacher doesn't attempt to explain geography.<br>In your post your are comparing how each of the three "determine the nature of reality" and then use your explanation to pick which you choose to trust in. However the comparison isn't as clean as you make it out to be because what is ultimately trying to be explained by the three are not the same thing, it's not just "the nature of reality." Science attempts to explain the physical laws that make up our reality, but neither science nor philosophy are interested in those physical laws, so it is not really as comparable as you are making it out to be.</p> Exactly. You are agreeing with me here. For the purpose of religion, those scientific questions are unimportant. Just like a language arts teacher doesn't attempt to explain geography.
In your post your are comparing how each of the three “determine the nature of reality” and then use your explanation to pick which you choose to trust in. However the comparison isn't as clean as you make it out to be because what is ultimately trying to be explained by the three are not the same thing, it's not just “the nature of reality.” Science attempts to explain the physical laws that make up our reality, but neither science nor philosophy are interested in those physical laws, so it is not really as comparable as you are making it out to be.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241747 Daniel Miessler Fri, 22 May 2009 14:23:57 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241747 <p>That's all minutia.<br><br>All we're expected to believe as Christians is that the entire universe was made for just us, for the purpose of being the stage on which we return to loving God the way he wants to be loved.<br><br>All the planets, starts, space, time, plants, animals, nature, etc.--all that is pretty much decoration for a later life which will be much better than this one. That's why this stuff isn't attempted to be explained by the Bible. <br><br>It's not because they're giving way for science to explain this stuff, it's because they think it's unimportant given the fact that heaven is the thing that really matters anyway. This notion, by the way, of our current life being less important than the next is one of the things I abhor most about religion.</p> That's all minutia.

All we're expected to believe as Christians is that the entire universe was made for just us, for the purpose of being the stage on which we return to loving God the way he wants to be loved.

All the planets, starts, space, time, plants, animals, nature, etc.–all that is pretty much decoration for a later life which will be much better than this one. That's why this stuff isn't attempted to be explained by the Bible.

It's not because they're giving way for science to explain this stuff, it's because they think it's unimportant given the fact that heaven is the thing that really matters anyway. This notion, by the way, of our current life being less important than the next is one of the things I abhor most about religion.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241746 Maxolasersquad Fri, 22 May 2009 14:16:14 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241746 <p>I don't think that Christianity claims the universe was created just for humans is a claim that can be backed for easily. And even if it could be backed with solid biblical claims, that is hardly the breadth of physical understanding. Christianity does not try to explain gravity, black holes, the relationship between space and time, energy, the reproduction of cells, the migration of Monarch butterflies to Central America, or the breeding habits of salmon.</p> I don't think that Christianity claims the universe was created just for humans is a claim that can be backed for easily. And even if it could be backed with solid biblical claims, that is hardly the breadth of physical understanding. Christianity does not try to explain gravity, black holes, the relationship between space and time, energy, the reproduction of cells, the migration of Monarch butterflies to Central America, or the breeding habits of salmon.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241745 Daniel Miessler Fri, 22 May 2009 14:10:19 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241745 <p>You're ignoring the fact that Christianity makes extraordinary claims about the nature of reality. Maybe they don't dwell in the minutia, but this matters little. <br><br>Remember, they're claiming, quite arrogantly I'd argue, to know precise WAY in which the entire universe came into existence (God willed it). Additionally, they claim to know the precise REASON for it happening (so that man can return to loving God).<br><br>These are, by any measure, major claims about the nature of reality, and as a result they infringe directly on the realms of science and philosophy. But again, their grounds for making the claims are different. They ask us to simply believe a narrative handed down to them, and I reject that.</p> You're ignoring the fact that Christianity makes extraordinary claims about the nature of reality. Maybe they don't dwell in the minutia, but this matters little.

Remember, they're claiming, quite arrogantly I'd argue, to know precise WAY in which the entire universe came into existence (God willed it). Additionally, they claim to know the precise REASON for it happening (so that man can return to loving God).

These are, by any measure, major claims about the nature of reality, and as a result they infringe directly on the realms of science and philosophy. But again, their grounds for making the claims are different. They ask us to simply believe a narrative handed down to them, and I reject that.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241744 Daniel Miessler Fri, 22 May 2009 14:08:37 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241744 <p>You're ignoring the fact that Christianity does attempt to explain the most<br>important thing about reality, which is why it came into being. Christianity<br>says that the entire universe was created just for us puny little humans, on<br>a puny little planet. And that the entire reason for this is so that we can<br>learn to love God, who also created the whole thing.<br>This is not a minor claim, and it conflicts directly with the realm of<br>science.</p> You're ignoring the fact that Christianity does attempt to explain the most
important thing about reality, which is why it came into being. Christianity
says that the entire universe was created just for us puny little humans, on
a puny little planet. And that the entire reason for this is so that we can
learn to love God, who also created the whole thing.
This is not a minor claim, and it conflicts directly with the realm of
science.

]]> http://danielmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world/comment-page-1#comment-241743 Maxolasersquad Fri, 22 May 2009 13:51:03 +0000 http://dmiessler.com/blog/philosophy-science-and-religion-three-ways-of-learning-about-the-world#comment-241743 <p>I reject your notion about religion because it is not the goal of most of the major religions to fully explain the physical universe.<br>Using specifically Christianity as an example here, there is the attempt to explain creation, but beyond that the characteristics of the <b>physical</b> world are not very important. The main goal of religion is to explain our spiritual side, the goal of science is to explain our physical world, and the goal of philosophy is to use objective reasoning and logic to explain concepts (morality, sexuality, "the greater purpose", etc.) It may be appropriate to view philosophy as the marriage of science and religion.</p> I reject your notion about religion because it is not the goal of most of the major religions to fully explain the physical universe.
Using specifically Christianity as an example here, there is the attempt to explain creation, but beyond that the characteristics of the physical world are not very important. The main goal of religion is to explain our spiritual side, the goal of science is to explain our physical world, and the goal of philosophy is to use objective reasoning and logic to explain concepts (morality, sexuality, “the greater purpose”, etc.) It may be appropriate to view philosophy as the marriage of science and religion.

]]>