Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Human reason is not perfect, science neither

lukewilson27
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 12:15:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The human mind is a wonderful thing, but it withers and decays over time. The human body is also amazing, but the same, withers and decays, but gives rise to new through childbirth. So whom do we credit for our abilities to reproduce? Our ability to be conscious and our very notion of God and endless pursuit of answers that cannot be given by science, only by faith and spirituality. Science is limited to human observation and the 5 senses, but what about the many dimensions that theoretically exist that we cannot see or observe? Do we have all possible senses? Basically, I am here to say that all who hold so confidently the foundation of truth in their human mind and limited human intellect, which give rise to science, are fools!!!! Unwise and fail to see all that science fails to answer. Theories are evolving over time as our ability to observe and see things in the Universe expands, Imagine the guy who designed all of this. Think of of it this way. I could take our technology today, go back 200 years and be nearly a God by the "miracles" of the computer and audio/visual technology. I could create a whole new world for them in a matter of seconds and they would not comprehend or even begin to scratch the surface. Is this not the same for us? Do we not live in a reality, a universe in which everything is so complex, so vast, that the mere thought of it is overwhelming. The reality is we will never know, because we did not create it. All we can do is try to understand and seek the ways in which the creator weaved everything together, but do not forget that purpose and meaning in life are everlasting and infinite, but knowledge of physics and and biology is finite and ever evolving and changing as we progress. The human soul is not described or observed or defined by the human mind or intellect. The soul lives on, according to faith and intuition, which on a much higher plane than science and reason.

If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth? Just as we are taught to question religion and belief systems, we should question the "scientific" theories that are presented to us throughout our education and quest for knowledge. Everything must be questioned in order to attain knowledge, accepting truth without the inquiry of how,what, when, where, why, etc. is mindless and unwise. Wisdom comes by the rigorous quest for the Universal Truth, and recognizing that our "scientific theories" are very limited and merely explain the universe in a very finite and focused way, specific to experiments and observations. The Universe is so complex. The human body, the human brain, the soul, consciousness, etc is so complex and vast that even the greatest scientist have only proposed theories that answer a very small portion of what is actually going on. I believe it is safe to say, we will never even scratch the surface, because we do not possess the ability to comprehend such complex interactions, some which cannot be observed scientifically. The unknown, the spiritual, the fact that no one "knows" but has faith in the afterlife or lack thereof.

In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was ``the Truth'.

During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton's theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory is ``the Truth'.

When a theory is said to be ``true' it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence. But even the best of theories have, time and again, been shown to be incomplete: though they might explain a lot of phenomena using a few basic principles.
When an accepted theory cannot explain some new data (which has been confirmed), the researchers working in that field strive to construct a new theory. This task gets increasingly more difficult as our knowledge increases, for the new theory should not only explain the new data, but also all the old one: a new theory has, as its first duty, to devour and assimilate its predecessors.

Also, science does not make moral judgments. Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of nature is on very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to suffer from this. At one time or another it seems to have been used to justify Nazism.

What we are truly concerned with at this level is knowledge and what Truth is. It will be useful to define Epistemology - "knowledge, understanding", the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired. Also, the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired.

Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.

Someone who blindly accepts truth from the sentiments in which they posses lacks wisdom. To understand the nature of the universe is to first accept our limitations. I've noticed a huge wave of human reason, atheism, "scientific truth", and a lack of empathy for the human condition when not at it's best. No matter how much we advance in science and computers, we will never be able to answer the questions posed by things that cannot be measured or experimented with or even observed with any human sense. I speak of matters of the heart, the soul, the afterlife, things in which science does not disprove and will never be able to prove either, because science is HUMAN OBSERVATION. Spirituality and the complexity of our lives cannot be explained with psychiatry or psychology, for this reduces everything to matter and assumes we have no soul. Last time I checked, no one has proved we did not have a soul, or even what the soul is, and no one has came back from dead with experiments and observations, so the afterlife is still in question. So how do we come to conclusions about such things without the scientific observations and theories to back it up? Baffles me???
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 1:01:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 12:15:37 AM, lukewilson27 wrote:
The human mind is a wonderful thing, but it withers and decays over time. The human body is also amazing, but the same, withers and decays, but gives rise to new through childbirth. So whom do we credit for our abilities to reproduce? Our ability to be conscious and our very notion of God and endless pursuit of answers that cannot be given by science, only by faith and spirituality. Science is limited to human observation and the 5 senses, but what about the many dimensions that theoretically exist that we cannot see or observe? Do we have all possible senses? Basically, I am here to say that all who hold so confidently the foundation of truth in their human mind and limited human intellect, which give rise to science, are fools!!!! Unwise and fail to see all that science fails to answer. Theories are evolving over time as our ability to observe and see things in the Universe expands, Imagine the guy who designed all of this. Think of of it this way. I could take our technology today, go back 200 years and be nearly a God by the "miracles" of the computer and audio/visual technology. I could create a whole new world for them in a matter of seconds and they would not comprehend or even begin to scratch the surface. Is this not the same for us? Do we not live in a reality, a universe in which everything is so complex, so vast, that the mere thought of it is overwhelming. The reality is we will never know, because we did not create it. All we can do is try to understand and seek the ways in which the creator weaved everything together, but do not forget that purpose and meaning in life are everlasting and infinite, but knowledge of physics and and biology is finite and ever evolving and changing as we progress. The human soul is not described or observed or defined by the human mind or intellect. The soul lives on, according to faith and intuition, which on a much higher plane than science and reason.

Where did you get to "whom"? You offer no explanation for how you know that faith and intuition are reliable sources of knowledge.

If scientific theories keep changing, where is the Truth? Just as we are taught to question religion and belief systems, we should question the "scientific" theories that are presented to us throughout our education and quest for knowledge. Everything must be questioned in order to attain knowledge, accepting truth without the inquiry of how,what, when, where, why, etc. is mindless and unwise. Wisdom comes by the rigorous quest for the Universal Truth, and recognizing that our "scientific theories" are very limited and merely explain the universe in a very finite and focused way, specific to experiments and observations.

Theories change as we observe new evidence. This explains it well: http://i.imgur.com...

The Universe is so complex. The human body, the human brain, the soul, consciousness, etc is so complex and vast that even the greatest scientist have only proposed theories that answer a very small portion of what is actually going on. I believe it is safe to say, we will never even scratch the surface, because we do not possess the ability to comprehend such complex interactions, some which cannot be observed scientifically. The unknown, the spiritual, the fact that no one "knows" but has faith in the afterlife or lack thereof.

For the vast majority of atheists, the issue is less of one where we have faith in the lack of an afterlife and is more about the fact that our life is the only one we know we have. I think Richard Dawkins put it quite well:

"If you're an atheist, you know, you believe, this is the only life you're going to get. It's a precious life. It's a beautiful life. Its something we should live to the full, to the end of our days. Where if you're religious and you believe in another life somehow, that means you don't live this life to the full because you think you're going to get another one. That's an awfully negative way to live a life. Being a atheist frees you up to live this life properly, happily and fully"

In 1666 Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravitation. This was one of the greatest intellectual feats of all time. The theory explained all the observed facts, and made predictions that were later tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone could see, Newton's theory was ``the Truth'.

During the nineteenth century, more accurate instruments were used to test Newton's theory, these observations uncovered some slight discrepancies. Albert Einstein proposed his theories of Relativity, which explained the newly observed facts and made more predictions. Those predictions have now been tested and found to be correct within the accuracy of the instruments being used. As far as anyone can see, Einstein's theory is ``the Truth'.

When a theory is said to be ``true' it means that it agrees with all known experimental evidence. But even the best of theories have, time and again, been shown to be incomplete: though they might explain a lot of phenomena using a few basic principles.
When an accepted theory cannot explain some new data (which has been confirmed), the researchers working in that field strive to construct a new theory. This task gets increasingly more difficult as our knowledge increases, for the new theory should not only explain the new data, but also all the old one: a new theory has, as its first duty, to devour and assimilate its predecessors.

But it gets closer and closer to the real truth. That's the entire point.

Also, science does not make moral judgments. Anyone who tries to draw moral lessons from the laws of nature is on very dangerous ground. Evolution in particular seems to suffer from this. At one time or another it seems to have been used to justify Nazism.

What we are truly concerned with at this level is knowledge and what Truth is. It will be useful to define Epistemology - "knowledge, understanding", the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge, also referred to as "theory of knowledge". It questions what knowledge is and how it can be acquired. Also, the extent to which knowledge pertinent to any given subject or entity can be acquired.

Much of the debate in this field has focused on the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to connected notions such as truth, belief, and justification.

Someone who blindly accepts truth from the sentiments in which they posses lacks wisdom. To understand the nature of the universe is to first accept our limitations. I've noticed a huge wave of human reason, atheism, "scientific truth", and a lack of empathy for the human condition when not at it's best.

I do sincerely hope you are not implying that these traits go together.

No matter how much we advance in science and computers, we will never be able to answer the questions posed by things that cannot be measured or experimented with or even observed with any human sense. I speak of matters of the heart, the soul, the afterlife, things in which science does not disprove and will never be able to prove either, because science is HUMAN OBSERVATION. Spirituality and the complexity of our lives cannot be explained with psychiatry or psychology, for this reduces everything to matter and assumes we have no soul. Last time I checked, no one has proved we did not have a soul, or even what the soul is, and no one has came back from dead with experiments and observations, so the afterlife is still in question. So how do we come to conclusions about such things without the scientific observations and theories to back it up? Baffles me???

Why not simply admit that the problem is unresolvable?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 5:48:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Luke, should we stop trying to explain our surroundings and just assume God did it? Science is actively trying to find answers. Unfortunately, the religious seem content with the lack of answers they have. This is what is so frustrating to atheists. Those of faith call us fools, however, I want the truth. Do you? Your post seems to say we will never have the truth or complete understanding so, "why keep looking?" If this is indeed what you are saying, then this is an extremely unimaginative, unambitious, and naive way to view life and the universe in which live.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten