Religion, Science and Philosophy.

Does either Religion, Science or Philosophy have the inherent human capacity of thought that would enable either of them to seek, find, discover, anything? I have seen on this forum people claiming that science finds this or that; that religion seeks this or that; that philosophy does this or that, but when closely examining what each of them do, I conclude that each of them do nothing. It is only the practitioners of such things that are capable of doing those things attributed to Religion, Science and Philosophy. Your thoughts on this please.

 

You will argue against gravity so the thread is really just flamebait.

 

How, precisely and exactly, is the thread "flamebait" when all three branches of study are included without favoring one or the other?

 

Your nihilism is so depressing. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by nothing, but hope you find what you're looking for.

 

Then substitute the word "nothing" with the word "anything"... it will have the same contextual meaning. Point being, they have no inherent human abilities in and of themselves.

 

Wow! I am sure glad that the people on this forum who like to take me to task did not catch that little slip up.

What I should have stated is "Then substitute the word "nothing" with the words "..cannot do anything." You folks really missed your opportunity on that one. Oh well.. there is an old Chinese adage that reads 'to be aware is to be alive." so much for awareness on this forum.

 

To me Religion, Science or Philosophy are just words that in and of themselves have no actual value or meaning. Humanity created these words and us humans apply value and meaning to each of those words. As humanity is incredibly diverse the meaning of each word will be relative to the individual.

 

Of course its all human activity. Religion, Science, Philosophy, are merely classifications of subject matter as determined by humans that are accompanied by a set of operating rules and processes.

Guns don't kill people, people do.

 

In like manner, the rules and processes of one do not necessarily apply to the other.

 

You are displaying ignorance here, in that these are all Fields of Study, or Academic Disciplines that people enter into as they build the ideas up, subject to the rules of that Discipline.

When Science is discussed, there are postulates that must be accepted in order that the case can be made for ideas.
The Scientific Method requires that what is called a Fact has been evidenced by some experiment which cn be repeated if necessary, showing that it is correct for all viewers.

These facts are then used by scientists to make Theories which seem to follow logically from the Facts, themselves.

Religions also are disciplines.
They usually have on written text, or bible-like set of writings which they insist are correct, and which ill be used to support what they say thereafter.

Philosophies include Empirical Science, Religion, and a variety of about 12 different fields of study, each with a set of ideas which are there basis for them. They each represent themselves as a point of view that supersedes other philosophical statements, and claim to replace the others, (which is dead wrong, of course, because all twelve philosophies answer back with arguments.)

 

It seems gooble de gook, for sure.

But if we examine Philosophies, for instance, we see that the Stoics (who have always been around), are people who basically say "Pleasure is always followed by pain," in their experiences.
So restrain pleasure to the Nth degree, and avoid pain.

That is their philosophy.

They are opposed by the people who insist life is enjoyed only because there is pleasure in it.
Some, like the Epicureans, say "have a little fun, but don't go too far, and that will avoid pain."

 

Religion and philosophy can't do much at all. Science grew from philosophy because it had to. Thinking about things is inferior to dealing with the world as a physical entity. Thinking is good as a prep but activity proves things.

 

Nihilism is a part of Nietzche's philosophy which describes the world as so bad nothing is to be valued.
It underwrites the idea that changes which will then be made are justifiable just because what exists is so bad.
It us very similar to how teenagers believe their parents and the adult world is messed up, and they ought void it like a plague.

 

You sound like an Empiricist, the doctrine/philosophy that all knowledge is derived from sense experience.

 

And it is duly noted that the scientific method is based on a set of assumptions. So you are now admitting to what was previously stated about the scientific method. What was stated? That in order to justify the scientific method, the practitioners must accept a set of assumptions regarding 'objective reality'. So who set the standard of discipline for the use of the scientific method... simple... those that were opposed to religion and therefore had a vested interest in fabricating something that would have to be accepted as opposed to accepting religion.

Those ASSUMED facts regarding the foundation of the scientific method. Using that criteria, then it could be applied to the 'Bible' and the 'Bible' would logically follow the facts of the 'Bible'.

Tit for tat in comparison to science.

Representations are not the things being represented.

 

Because you accept nothing. Troll everything.

But here goes. Religion and Philosophy are tools humans use to try to explain things unexplainable. They are both personal opinions based on some reason and logic. Some claim extraterrestrial influence.

Science has many areas of inclusion. But the main sciences explain how and why the natural world works. Main being those that pertain to the natural world.

 

The individuals within each discipline, with their own biases and preconceptions are who offer their findings, speculation, hypotheses, beliefs, etc. within that discipline, probably these are the three which are most about individual opinion.

 

Science has nothing to do with individual opinion. Quite the opposite.

 

No.
Science is based upon Facts.

Facts are things which tell us something about Reality.
A fact is formed by experiments which demonstrate a things happens after conditions are set up for an experiment.
Others do and can repeat the same experiment and see the same Facts appear again, for themselves.

Science Theories use the Facts to explain things which seem reasonable and logical thereafter.

 

Those are interesting comments throughout the post DA. One in particular highlighted above. It appears that you have indicated that the main sciences explain "how and why the natural world works.", but not 'how the natural world came into being.' Why the exclusion of how the world came into being?

 

Science uses a postulate, which says the First Cause, or the thing that first started the universe, is not included in its claim that "all other Effects have natural Causes."

 

Did I say 'science' ? No! I said that the " scientific method is based on a set of assumptions." Keep the subject matter accurate.

 

So, can thought, which is grounded in memory, that is, knowledge, experience, which thought is based upon, ever discover something like God, which is probably, if it exists, timeless, immeasurable? It appears to be logically impossible. Thought is clearly in time, it is not timeless. Left can never touch right, up, can never come in contact with down, and that which is of time can never know that which is timeless. The logic of this should be irrefutable, yet people will try to weasel around it, try to get out of it. Fat chance at doing that.

So, IMO, thought can never know what is necessarily, logically, beyond all thought, all time, all memory. Is it even possible for memory, which is clearly of time, to hold that which is timeless, even if it could touch it, know it? Again, logically, no way.

 

and what is a postulate: "pos·tu·late
(pŏs′chə-lāt&#8242tr.v. pos·tu·lat·ed, pos·tu·lat·ing, pos·tu·lates 1. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument:
2. To propose as a hypothesis or explanation: Researchers now postulate that the disease is caused by a virus.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted.
4. Archaic To make claim for; demand."

Just another assumption.

 

?
The Scientific Method merely says that, "What I see, you too will see too, if you do what I do ."

That is pretty simple.
Do an experiment.
Watch what happens.
let others do the same experiment and watch.

Emperical Science says both will see the same results.