Originally posted by Scottish
Truth is what is.
Regardless of how you choose what you believe to be true, there will always come a point when your understanding of the universe comes down to the leap of faith.
With Religion, that leap of faith comes as soon as you encounter questions such as "Why?" "How?".
With Science-Vs-Religion, Science comes in and says that leaps of faith are stupid, that you must have tangible evidence and proofs of everything in order for them to be considered Truth (or at least an aspect of it). But it ignores the fact that our senses are subject to the very things which science seeks to investigate and eventually you come to a point where the reliability of the senses becomes so circular and suspect that it's a case of taking a simple leap of faith. Einstein understood that. He also understood that there could be no scientific progress when working within a circular environment, so he simply pinned all the circular variables into a tangible set of forumlae based upon the leap of faith that the speed of light was hard-set into the universe. And then tried to hide what he'd done, because....
In Science-Vs-Religion, Science can't be seen to be taking leaps of faith, or it entirely and fully validates the argument of the Religious and destroys the entire concept upon which the Scientific Argument is based.
But regardless of what either side believes, the Truth is the Truth, wether we can test it, understand it, see it or not.
And what is the 'Truth'
(truth is what is, geddit....ach, nevermind)
I don't see how
any of that invalidates the use of science. All it's saying is that some things are not yet known, which is exactly what science says. Science takes leaps of faith; but it doesn't 'stick' with them. Those leaps become hypotheses, which only become scientific theory once tested (assuming they pass that test, of course).
Again,
observable universe.
From what I think you're saying, it's essentially that nothing we sense can be trusted to be, well, what we sense it is. That nothing can be discovered, seen, examined, measured, pontificated over, etc and the universe is, will be and must be eternally unknown. That it's not even worth looking because of the very act of looking.
I'd point again no-one has made this into a science-destroys-religion argument. The only conflict between science and religion is when both are trying to explain something we can observe, and religion takes a preconception and tries to fit that to mesh with the observed (see flat earth vs actual spherical earth, for example). But in that case it's religion trying to place an intangible concept like God, within a tangible basis; at which point it enters the realm of the observable and examinable, where it can be contradicted (like the whole pi=3 thing). Now, you can't deny the validity of the observable world because it contradicts with an assumption, surely?
What you've taken is this abstract, unquantified and unstated 'Truth' and provided no basis for it. No explanation of what it is, let along why it should be right. It becomes 'what is', another abstract concept without quantification. How does that help us - humanity - understand the world for what it
is, not what we want it to be?
Do you think we should abandon everything we've worked on (scientifically) for the last millenia? Just abandon all the tests we've seen to work, all the correct predictions on what experimental results would be, all the self reinforcing expansions upon theory?
You're on a computer. Well, unless you actually are an electric orange. Anyways, said computer is built upon a myriad of interacting, interconnected scientific theories. Like the simple physics of the base circuit level, or the waveform theories to convert data to analogue, etc. If just one of these theories was wrong, that the correct experimentation upon it was coincidence.... then you wouldn't be able to type and send a post.
Sure,
maybe there is some remarkable, gigantic set of coincidences that just somehow makes us able to build this technology and have it work exactly as expected. But it's not the most likely thing, is it? I mean... look at what you see (literally) in front of you, what alternatives are there that are plausible? Why are those better or even equal to the good old 'human endevour and technology' one?
I think you're ignoring the simple mechanics of cause and effect. I think you're saying that they're entirely seperate, coincidental, random, because they provide observable evidence. For no reason beyond that the evidence is observable. To me that's a very strange attitude; to regard what we see as the same as everything we do not see (for whatever reason, whether it even exists to be seen at a point, or can never be seen but does exist, or simply doesn't exist).
Is it a leap of faith to say 'my eyes show me the world'? Is it any more a leap of faith than saying 'I exist'? Is it not
true because we see it? Is it true if we don't see it? Is truth in fact invisible, because you deny the 'truth' of the visible? Because we're not dealing with what exists, or what may exist, but what we know exists and why we know. Because we see it; and the only other alternative is, what, to close our eyes and guess what's sitting in front of us?
I'd say that's the worst possible alternative.
Originally posted by Scottish
Actually, I've got a better way of putting it:
I'm not arguing against Science or Religion. I'm arguing against metaphysics.
I understand that all our knowledge is based upon observation and it always will be. I understand the inherant danger in simply assuming truths, as Religion does. But I also understand that the Truth is the Truth, regardless of our opinions and that regardless of what the Truth is, we can happily thrive in an environment based upon our perceptions regardless of wether they're Truth or not.
Funny little universe, eh?
(eep. Problems of writing long posts, eh?)
Um... metaphysics doesn't assume stuff; it postulates it, and then says what experiments can/should be carried out (or whether they can't at present), but it doesn't assume the actual result of those experiments when they cannot be currently performed.
It's not like blindly assuming String Theory is true, for example. It's a case of 'we think this would be an explanation' and then trying to work out how to test that, and soforth.
Although isn't the very idea of 'Truth' something that exists by your own perception? You think there's some 'Truth', but it doesn't mean there
is. At least, from what I take your meaning of 'Truth' to be. So you're saying that perceptions are wrong and the 'Truth' is right, but we don't actually know or have any way of even knowing if there is any such thing as the 'Truth', nor any reason why it is right and perceptions would not be?
Originally posted by Osiri
aldo,
I thought I told yall to go out and get a girl yesterday. What are you doing posting on a Saturday night.
It's Sunday afternoon. I'm watching the football. Chelsea vs Everton on Sky.
In any case, my personal life is my own, and it's not your little plaything for snide insults or insinuations.
Originally posted by Osiri
Aldo has more sensible posts and as such I sometimes disregard yours. Also 
of times you seem to simply restate aldo and this is another reason I disregard yours.
Um, we just agree on stuff. Kara is a far, far more eloquent 'speaker' than me in this sort of thread, and I'd say he's asking the more pertinent questions here. Which would make them the harder questions........
