It is my understanding that one's religion is his philosophy (or worldview). To me, they are synonymous terms.
sorry a religion is a set of beliefs about the spiritual, a worldview encompesises more than that, philosophy is also part of a worldview, they are not synonymous in anyway
it can neither prove or disprove anything that lies outside of itself.[/qs]
and no one ever said any different, the thing is, science only works within our reality, which is everything
The modern habit of saying that we must prove God with science to be sure that we know of his existence is to falsely put a burden of proof on the issue that is strictly impossible.
but everything we know of this reality can be shown with science, in order for you to make the argument that god exists you have to define things with qualifiers that everyone agrees on and can be tested
When you hear a scientist saying that the universe is not designed it is not because of the facts. It is because of the philosophy they use to interpret those facts. Natural science has nothing to say on the issue. That is how it should be, but that is not how it is...
thats just wrong, scientists define things via human understanding, since we are the only beings we can define things by. so inorder for design to be shown, you have to show it the same way we can show human designed things, a marking, an intelligent structure, a method that makes logical sense
i can tell you easily that nature doesn't show it
Everyone has an agenda. Scientists are no exception. The only agenda that will lead us to what Francis Schaefer called true truth, is one that is reality itself; the default philosophy of the universe. The truth has an objective, and is objective.
yes the agenda is honest understanding of the universe and how it works.
the fact that it disagrees with your beliefs doesn't mean its not true, anymore than my own
That does not mean it is not biased. The universe is very biased. It operates on laws biased toward being. If you violate them, then by definition, you begin to cease to be. The fine tuning of the physical laws is an incredible thing to behold. And they are relative to each other, so that if you change one, you change the relationship and community of all of them.
hmm? which ones? the laws of physics? you are making it sound like if you fall you go poof and the matter that made you is gone, if you fall from a tall height you are just dead, you still exist
Whenever you hear a scientist using natural science to disavow the legitimacy of faith, know that he is using a religious worldview to deny the legitimacy of religious worldviews.
of course he is, only the ignorent don't think so, this doesn't mean faith is equal or more truthful than science can be, faith has no evidence, so it has no validity in science, no one said you can't believe what you want, of course that doesn't mean you are right though
I think it is fatally flawed because that statement does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence.
uh what? so you are testing his idea based on his own idea? he's making a statement about how logical and meaningful books on religion and metaphysics are, it's a statement about non-objective things, i agree with him: books on religion and metaphysics are meaningless if you can't even show they are true
How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless?
what are you talking about? hume is saying both religion and metaphysics are useless, which i agree with him
This is not the realm of science. It is the realm of philosophy and logical consistency. Logic will lead us to God, it cannot be used any other way without destroying itself.
logic? religion has nothing to do with logic, metaphysics is a waste of time, since most of it has no evidence to show it is true
Natural science is not a religion if it is used without bias. But it is used with bias because we have given it a philosophy that helps make the facts meaningful to the observer. It cannot even be what so many claim that it is. It is not possible to have no reason for believing something. We all have our reasons. Once we realize that consciously, we can question our own assumptions objectively.
science is not a religion in any form, since the way you are using it makes anything a religion and makes the word meaningless.
i'm wondering what you mean by bias and philosophy?
if you mean the scientific view on verifiblity and evidence, than say over someones beliefs, then yes it is bias, because it has been found to be effective
the way you are saying this makes no sense at all, of course people have reasons for everything, you make it sound like people say they have no reasons behind what they think, thats impossible, its how the brain works
now people who don't believe in gods have reasons, they can have a position that they don't care about god, namely its irrelevent to them, because they don't know or find it has no meaning to thier lives
sorry but you have no clue what objective means.
So when a creationist uses a philosophy to examine the facts, the naturalists are correct in crying bias. But they defeat themselves, because a naturalist cannot be an unbiased observer either. If they were, they would not call themselves naturalists. They would only call themselves scientists. And in that grid (or perspective), when they saw a polar bear eating a human being they would not be moved emotionally in any way. They would just study the event to collect facts. That is just not possible except for the most unusual psychopath
but no one calls themselves naturalists, all science is about the natural world, because thats all we can test and observe.
what does the bear have to do with anything? are you saying that in order to be a true scientist you have to be a robot, because our own humanity effects our observations about the bear? this is true we wouldn't want to see a man get eatten by a polar bear,but what does that have to do with bias, if the point is to observe that bears eat people?
[qs]So, science is not a religion in and of itself. But human beings make it a religion because it is not possible to not be religious.
[/q]
where did you show this? i must have missed where you showed this is true?
i am not religious at all, there you go i refuted you
come on you are just changing the meaning of religious to anything you want
I imagine I used twice as many words as necessary to make the point, but I hope it was clear.
no it wasn't it just looked like a pseudo-intellicual smoke-screen to me, pretty much i just see you trying to claim that by your own "logic" god is the only answer and anything else is wrong
™ Version 4.2