Can parsimony turn science into a religion?

I just replied to ramos in the "Do animals have a soul thread?" and realized that it was totally off topic and might be able to be turned into a new topic so I figured I'd propse it.

quote:

---

I think that the soul lacks properties that are able to be experimented on, scientifically. Perhaps we could have a philosophical experiment, if thats possible.

The problem with something that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable, it has a strong resemblance to something that is non-existent.

That certainly is a problem. I think it could be considered a fault of science, or positivism, that without detection, things are assumed to not exist. Now, I understand why parsimony is important and agree, but there does seem to be some limitations to science.

​

The counter argument could be that we'd have to assume that everything exists if we don't assume that nothing exists without detection. I think this is a little overboard. There are things that people profess to exist that science has not dicovered and I think its important for science to continue to assume theses thing do not exists, but I don't think its good for other people to completely write these people off because science doesn't see it.

​

Assuming that something exists that is unobservable, untestable, and non-detectable (without getting into how), would it be completely unknown to science? Would science fail in the discovery of this thing? Should we only believe in things that science can find? Should we take that assumption, without scientific detection things don't exist, and apply it to our entire lives?

​

I'd say no, because, to me, it seems like my soul does exist. While this might be some sort of detection, it isn't recognized by science, so it is assumed to not exist. I don't think I should go with science on this one. Especially when my soul is apparent to my self. I just wouldn't be being honest with myself. That is when science becomes a religion.

---

Whadaya think?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spelling mistakeEdited by Catholic Scientist, : noticed another spelling mistake

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"

Where did you want this to go?My first instinct is Is It Science?. But it seems you want something other than the scientific point of view here, so perhaps you have other suggestions.

---

Yeah, how about Comparative Religions?

It doesn't really belong in comparative religions. But then it doesn't quite fit into any of our forums. So I'll put it where you want it.

---

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

"Consciousness" would do as well as "soul." No nobody knows what that is, and all we have is a private experience of it.

Then why is there scientific studies on consciousness and not the soul? I think the consciousness is more substantiate-able than the soul, but I dunno.Anyways, you wanna reply to some of the questions in the OP?

OH, okay. We don't live scientifically. That's impossible.

Scientific studies on "consciousness" are not about consciousness. They are about neurology or behavior.Private experience doesn't count in science.

robin, When we "do" things, certain parts of our brain become electrically/neurologically active. This includes things like thinking & other activities associated with what we think of as conciousness. So it seems to me that scientific studies relating to concioussness being about neurology are perfectly valid, testable science.Just because what you want concioussness to be isn't science doesn't make other investigations unscientific.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

But some people are fine with not believing in stuff because science hasn't found it yet, or never will. I think that's a bad reason because your using science as your religion.So do you think that science can be used as a religion? Good point, thanks. ABE{But that doesn't make them any less scientific in there studies on consciousness.} Eh, it can, like in surveys where they're studying more qualitative stuff. Which-do-you-prefer type surveys... But then the private experiences are usually all added up to make something that counts, so I dunno. But anyways, this doesn't really contribute to the discussion.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE{..} wanted to put that in after I saw mark24's post

I didn't say these studies weren't scientific. I'm sure they are. I'm saying that they are not about consciousness, in the sense of a private experience that we have.

I don't know of such people. We believe all sorts of things that are unscientific in our private lives.

Firstly I can't see how it can be considered a failure to find something that cannot be found.Secondly I don't know how it can "seem to you" that you have a sul in anyway that could count as "detection".Thirdly I don't see why science having limits on what it could discover can in anyway turn it into a religion.

The point was that it could be found, just not by science. Maybe some kind of spiritual crap that you find within yourself...or something.Another way to look at it is as the pursuit of truth. If the soul truthfully exists and science doesn't recognize and says that it does not exists, then it failed in its pursuit of truth. Well, actually I put that detection part in there because I thought that someone would say that if it seems like I have a soul then I'm detecting it. But also, it could be considered a subjective detection. I think it becomes a religion when people start making positive beliefs that something doesn't exist because science hasn't found it.