Pot, kettle, black? You can dish it out, but can't take it? I look forward to rational replies, from now on, devoid of ad hom, from you. Is that a reasonable expectation? Or will you excuse it in yourself and condemn it in others?
Good observation. It is the constant danger for humans, to underestimate their egos and vanity in ANY Intellectual undertaking. It is what makes us into bigoted dogmatists.. losing the ability of abstract introspection, and insisting on absolute interpretations based on limited information. That is constantly illustrated in the world.
Nothing wrong with imagination and innovation. But imagination doesn't provide knowledge and innovation results from empiricism. Neither should be confused with faith which is unfounded belief. I'm not against faith either but it makes no sense to compare it to science.
A slight disagreement. Yes, science wouldn't try to explain something outside the laws of the natural universe. No, that the concept people are more than just ambulatory meat computers responding to biochemical programming is a "magical, madeup" one. The vast majority of human beings now and throughout history, on the order of over 95%, feel there is more to existence than what they see in front of their noses. They don't know what it is and they may ascribe different ideas about it, but most know it is there.
Agreed on the difference between faith and science. They are not in conflict since they concern different realms of existence. Agreed there's nothing wrong with imagination and innovation. In fact, it's the impetus for R&D. Where would we be if Da Vinci, Franklin, Newton, Edison and others didn't have imagination and innovation driving them? Therefore, I disagree with your comment that "imagination doesn't provide knowledge and innovation results from empiricism" since it's the basis for empiricism. Imagination tempered by logic = advancement.
I am refuting the phony narrative that 'science and faith are enemies!', that is a constant in this forum. That is a caricature of both science AND faith, and is unbecoming to a thinking person. Pretending enmity between them is the domain of dogmatists, who put all their Intellectual eggs in one basket. They either become blind or lame. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. ~Albert Einstein
You must be an expert on what I think since I didn't say anything like that. I said faith is good but should not be compared to science. They are different things unrelated to each other. Scientists can be faithful and the faithful can be scientists. Be good enough not to throw me in with those you describe.
You misread my post. I explained the goal of the OP. I was not directing anything at you, personally. I was affirming your last post, not refuting it.
NO. Your nonsense about ego was pure ad hom. And, I've not lowered myself to similar arguments. Plus, YOU said, "Too bad Einstein didn't have a supergenius like you around to straighten him out, huh?" All that IS ad hom - YOUR style, not mine.
Do feel free to specify. By its insistence that there is more to be seen than has been seen. Not necessarily. It can also draw his opponent into that selfsame foolishness, if he becomes irritated by such stubbornness. On the contrary, I know I have a soul - or, more properly, that I am a soul. You'd have me believe knowledge is not science? If you can't observe the soul in an obviously soulful person, your sensory equipment is defective. What does any of that have to do with the existence of a soul? Predictably, you didn't understand a word I said. The casual observer could reasonably conclude you don't know what that means; but more likely you're just flailing blindly for an objection to an idea you find distasteful, not having a clue as to why. Actually all that does is define the status quo. Faith is what impels the scientist to look beyond it. Funny how some of Einstein's beliefs turned out to have been anything but. I don't see anyone doing that. Then you disagree with this: Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Right? Actually that was yours truly. Sue me.
? You do need to read more, William. I said no such thing to you, but am OFTEN on the receiving end of ad hom from you. I found your indignation to be humorous... hypocritical, but humorous. Misquote, ad hom, hypocrisy, false accusations.. maybe i should ignore you, unless you're addled from medication, or something. I'll cut you some slack, if that is the case, but I'm a little bored by the constant needling, ad hom, distortions, and personal shots.
I assume you mean there is more to be discovered then has been discovered and that is based on the entire experience of the human race not on faith. Science hasn't been visual for hundreds of years.
I am sure you can explain just what reciprocal relationships and dependancies are being referred to to in the quote you posted. " Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. "
There are some Evangelical kooks that believe that, but the largest number of people by far who believe it are secularists who are frequently openly hostile to religion.
People become openly hostile to religion because religious peopke are continuously trying to use the political process to control other peoples lives. Religion has been behind much if not all of the bigotry against gays and transgender people. The prohibition laws. The criminalization of drug use. The prohibition of contraception. And we won't even get into the role of religion in slavery and the opression of women.
And by the way the constant is that science and faith are two distict entities not that they are enemies. And that is referring to the second definition of faith not the first. Too many posters forget that faith has two distict meanings and are content to confuse the two. faith fāTH/ noun 1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something. "this restores one's faith in politicians" synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More 2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine "she gave her life for her faith"
There are lots of different ways to define both terms, depending on context and intent. I defined them in the OP for this thread, and they are both valid dictionary definitions. They illustrate the dichotomy between the empirical and theoretical, believed vs known, and are epistemological in their usage.
Most people that 'become openly hostile' toward a religious belief are just expressing their own religious bigotry. It is one of the oldest human sentiments, and is active, now. Atheists are not exempt from this human trait, and it is readily seen in the public discourse.. especially here. All 'political processes' are driven by ideology, or 'religion'. To condemn Christianity as 'religious!', but exempt atheism or secular humanism as 'science!' is Orwellian obfuscation with terms. It is nothing but age old religious bigotry.
But, that isn't even close to what is happening here. The problem is that there are two very different tool sets, and picking which tool set to use IS important. It makes no sense to use the religious tool set to address questions of how this universe works. And, it makes no sense to use scientific method to address why we're here, what's going on in the supernatural, questions about an afterlife, etc. Religion is safe in this, as scientific method has built in requirements that explicitly exclude the questions answered by religion. And, it REALLY makes no sense to mix and match the various parts of these two different tool sets. This has nothing at all to do with bigotry.
I doubt many on this forum are going to describe athiesm as either science of a religion. That of course excludes the few who somehow seem to find a necessity to make them intellectually equal. The Orwellian obfuscation is yours. And I find it interesting that you had to resort to the " openly hostile to religion" claim instead of being able to refute my arguement as to why some are deservedly hostile to religion attempting to impose it's values on their behavior.
