the rules in science

I'm glad you see the error of assigning the investigation of love and other values to religions alone. History shows us that such an error leads to massive corruption. Exactly. You can investigate love productively without religion at all. Religion is not required whatsoever.What exactly do you mean by the "Doctrine of Reasonable Judgement"?It sounds very logical and almost even objective... very similar to science.
It certainly is not necessarily spiritual or religious. Because history has shown us that it doesn't work.
The Dark Ages regarded such things as spiritual, it didn't work for them.
The Manson Family regarded such things as spiritual, it didn't work for them.
Heaven's Gate regarded such things as spiritual, it didn't work for them.Every cult you have ever heard of regards such things as spiritual, it doesn't work for any of them.Perhaps people do not seem to think "why" question are no longer limited to the spiritual for the same reasons you brought up in Message 32. That is, because they can be derived through logic and reason. They may not be entirely under the strict, physically-empirical umbrella of pure science. But they certainly do much better when derived logically and reasonably rather than being left in the hands of religions and spiritualists.History certainly has shown us that regarding such things as spiritual is exactly what produces a broken, worthless system.Edited by Stile, : Added a link for some support

No. What I'm saying is that I'm agreeing with you.They will not move towards religions, bizarre or "safe". They will move towards logical, reasonable judgements. Which have absolutely nothing to do with religions or spirituality, just like you said. That's right, I'm agreeing with you.This stuff isn't for strict science. And it's not for religions or spirituality either. It's just like you said, it's for logical, reasonable judgement.

But acknowledging the spiritual realm is not required. You said yourself that people can understand and pursue things like love and morals using nothing more than reasonable judgement.You have yet to provide any reasonable judgement to explain why such things should be acknowledged in a spiritual sense.
You also have not been able to show anything that can be gained from acknowledging the spiritual realm can't equally be gained through reasonable judgement.
We have lots and lots of examples where acknowledging a spiritual realm makes for some very unreasonable judgements.So, if acknowledging a spiritual realm can be very, very negative. And there's nothing uniquely positive about it... why should anyone acknowledge it?Why shouldn't we just use logical, reasonable judgement?Why add on superfluous baggage?

I think you may be confusing "subjective" with "spiritual". They are not the same thing. By 'spiritual', I was assuming you meant something relating to the divine or religious. Perhaps supernatural, like angels or God. Perhaps gaining enlightenment from non-material sources. Something like that.I agree with you that all spiritual judgements are subjective judgements ("not objective"). But not all subjective judgements are spiritual in nature.Like this:

------------------------
                 |      Subjective      |
                 |                      |
                 |       ---------------|
-------------    |      |               |
| Objective |    |      |   Spiritual   |
-------------    |      |               |
                 ------------------------

I can think of many reasonable, non-objective judgements that are also not spiritual:Buying a car that is good on gas, or one with big towing capacity are both reasonable judgements. They are subjective judgements, there is nothing spiritual about either of them. There is also nothing scientific or objective about either of them.Wanting chocolate ice-cream is a reasonable judgement. It is subjective, and not spiritual in any way. It is obviously not scientific, or objective as well.People can understand and pursue love and morals using reasonable judgement in a subjective, completely non-spiritual way. This is also possible with the simple distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. Science is about objective decisions, unhindered by subjective judgementalism of any kind.Notice how I did not need to bring up any spiritual realm.Logical, reasonable, subjective judgement is quite possible without bringing in anything spiritual. This is quite capable of handling the oughts and ought nots that science and objectivity do not consider. The division you seek is quite possible without bringing in any sort of spiritual realm. In fact, this division actually exists and is exactly what defines current science. Perhaps it is your confusion between 'subjective' and 'spiritual' that has hindered your ability to see that your idea is already in place.Perhaps it will help if you identify an ought or ought not that you think only comes from the spiritual, one you think is impossible to come from non-spiritual subjectivity.If you can identify such a thing, perhaps then we can look at how the spiritual realm would be required for certain situations.

Let me try again, from scratch.First off, every single claim (judgement/observation/view) falls into two categories: objective and subjective.Objective claims are those which can be verified. Sciene restricts itself to objective, verified claims.
Example: The sun is hotter than the earth.
Example: A ball in a vacuum (no air pressure/resistance) on earth will drop down.Subjective claims are everything else. Anything that cannot be verified.
Example: I want a fuel efficient car.
Example: Being on a rollercoaster is fun.Or perhaps you seem to be talking about two other divisions such as material and immaterial.Material is obvious, we have rocks and water and frogs and everything else.Immaterial can be thoughts, ideas, feelings, immagination. However, there are many current studys that seem to be noticing that all these things are tied in to the material realm as well. This would also include (but isn't limited to) everything you've mentioned so far about a spiritual realm. Everything you mention about a spiritual realm exists as a thought or idea or emotion or immagination. But perhaps you just haven't fully explained what you mean by spiritual yet.Can you identify something about this spiritual realm you keep talking about that is more than an idea, feeling, or imagination? Something that provides anything that cannot equally be provided by other more mundane thoughts, emotions or imaginary creations?

No. There is the material, and the immaterial. What is unnamed? It may very well be difficult to distinguish. Nature isn't always cut-and-dry, that's just reality. We don't even have an easy-to-distinguish line between things that are inanimate and things that are alive. That's just the reality of nature.It may also be that all things are a part of the material world, and that there is no immaterial world at all. Maybe not. But no one's come up with anything to show that this can't happen, yet anyway. Do you know of anything that definitively exists and is not a part of the material world in some way? No, it's not. I have fun all the time when I'm playing soccer, or humming a tune to myself or sometimes just joking with friends. There is nothing spiritual about any of those things. They certainly are all subjective, though. All the fun we sense is also tied into our material brains, as well. Unless you're able to show otherwise? That's rather confusing. Perhaps you should use the word "spiritual" for things that are actually spiritual. And then you can use the word "subjective" for things that are simply subjective. That is, after all, why we have two different words to identify the differences in the first place.

I have to agree with Straggler, are you suggesting that Syamsu's assertions actually make sense, and that it's Straggler's questions that seem off-balance? Using your symbollism, I have to say that I see the situation as Syamsu asserting that red has a taste, and Stragler is simply asking Syamsu to explain such a strange idea.The only way I can make sense of your post is if you replied to Straggler, but ended up shifting and talking more about Syamsu at the end of it. Did you intend for your final remark to be for Syamsu instead of Straggler?

A simple "no" would have sufficed.Why are you just making up things about other people? You don't know if anyone else is being self-centered or not. You don't know if what I do is material centered or not. You have no idea how concretely my oughts and is' are separated. Why are you lashing out like this? Is it because you're incapable of thinking of anything that definitively exists and is not a part of the material world in some way? It's okay to just say "I don't know". Who would you like to contribute the good to if not the people who initiated that good?Can you think of a situation where "good" should be attributed to something-without-a-brain?Edited by Stile, : I got confused...Edited by Stile, : All better.

Ah, I see. Straggler's "red" vs. Syamsu's "taste." That makes much more sense. I was too linear in my interpretation. Actually, I've had similar observations myself. But it's one thing to muse over some interesting observations and another to assert a categorical truth of the universe without having the necessary support to show such. Take your time, and have fun.