(June 16, 2009 at 3:49 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:(June 16, 2009 at 2:48 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Science leads me to greater insight and understanding of the physical universe. It's limited to that. (there's an opening if I ever saw one!
Now there you see is the crux of what I think is your extremely limited view on science ... I believe that not only does science answer many, many questions but it influences the way a person thinks, the way they analyze, evaluate and assess things. In short science & reason, once adopted as a rational outlook, mkes a person look at the world differently, evaluate it in a rational fashion, influences their entire outlook on life (or at least informs on it).
If you think that isn't true try reading a newspaper and you'll find that maybe 75% (perhaps even all) of the articles require some understanding, some comprehension of science ... a car loses control and results in a multi-car pileup (you can understand that because you have at least a basic grasp of physics, trajectories, velocities and the kinds of impacts that cause damage), a rugby player scores a 100yd try (again physics, velocities, trajectories ... I've no idea if there is such a thing as a 100yd try BTW), there's a swine flu epidemic in Mexico (you understand that because you have a basic grasp of biology and the way diseases are communicated from one person to another), there's a corrosive chemical spill on the interstate in America (you understand the dangers because you have a basic scientific understanding of how wind and atmosphere works, how chemicals react and corrode etc.). People naively claim that science doesn't affect culture but it touches on every aspect of our lives ... television, books, plays, films all rely these days on the technological advances of science ... we embrace science in every aspect of our daily lives, we live science, we breathe science, we ARE science are scence!
Science is what we are, what we do and if that isn't the very essence of a philosophy I don't know what it is.
Kyu
Hmm ok although I thought my other point was more pertinent. ..And sorry to be derailing the topic/ digressing.
The limit of your scientific philosophy is that it only deals with questions relating to empirical data. We can establish that proof of God may or may not be in the artifacts that are the physical universe. Scientific method finishes in it's usefulness there, unless you want to talk about the reasoning for (for example) biblical guidelines which I find to be tried and tested and work.
If you don't want to discuss whether or not God exists then we have no problem. If you need to then yes, we do. And science will not deal with such abstract thought because it lacks the ability to do so. We can use scientific method to dismiss impossible scenarios easily, but that leaves the vast majority of questions still unanswered.
Just to show that I am very seriously considering your argument.. Maybe I'm using scientific method to reach my understanding of God. The biblical statement of "God" = "I am" works scientifically for me. God 'just is'. He doesn't exist in linear time. It's an idea that is more scientific in nature than theological. Perhaps that's why I have no interest in religious forums because my language is more philosophy of science than pure theology.
