Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[God of Mr. Hanky]

And so it begins.....

Jor! Please. Take your memes with you to Area 69. It took all my willpower to resist reaching for some hand lotion and paper towels.

Chad, I'm afraid you've got rather stange taste in ...er, bitches!

[robvalue]

Bitches!

Show Charlie Murphy your titties.

I'm Rick James bitch!

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're forgetting another possibility -- that morality is a human construct.

Human construct? That rabbit hole can get pretty deep if you aren't careful. Some people also say that the truths of mathematics are human constructs too.

Two totally different things. We can see the reality of the mathematical models we construct in the ballistics of artillery projectiles, the motions of objects, and so on.

Simply because both are human constructs doesn't mean they share any other properties. You're making a category error.

Others go even further, saying that universals are conventions based on similar physical properties.

Universal whats?

Others go still further saying that the notion of physical existence is a human construct too and that all that remains are arbitrary collections of properties.

That's great, but irrelevant to my point. It's also a recapitulation of the category error you made in your first point.

I'm willing to bet that those "others" you haven't named are philosophers, too. Perhaps you should start a thread about them and their claims, rather than sidetracking this one with dust in order to appear to have a cogent reply.

Some go even further than that. They think that personal identity is constructed. Eventually you get to the point where everything in the entire universe is a construct of a construct constructed by nothing.

Again, a category error compounded by the fact that it is irrelevant to the point. We aren't talking about any of those other things, mathematics, notions of physical existence, or personal identities. We are talking about morality and its sourcing, and only the last point of yours might have a tangential bearing on the topic at hand.

Ask three theists what a God is. They will all give varied answers that perfectly fit into their fantasy of a sky daddy looking over them.

So what? Ask three laymen what matter is and you'll get varied answers too. Ask three professional Christian theologians, a Catholic, an Orthodox, and a Baptist what God is and you will get remarkably similar answers. And none of them will remotely resemble you 'sky daddy' straw man.

Ask three children where Santa Claus lives.

Numbers do not a truth build. I thought you prided yourself on tight thinking.

[GrandizerII]

Jor! Please. Take your memes with you to Area 69. It took all my willpower to resist reaching for some hand lotion and paper towels.

Chad, I'm afraid you've got rather stange taste in ...er, bitches!

lol, Chad is getting some action today, it seems.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Bitches!

Show Charlie Murphy your titties.

I'm Rick James bitch!

Not retrospectively sure if this was obvious, but it was a play on Chad's avatar.

[robvalue]

Lol yeah

I assume everyone has seen the video I refer to... right? Probably harder to find now, it was rather controversial.

[Brian37]

There's no such thing as "scientific" knowledge and "spiritual" knowledge.  There is only knowledge. If you cannot support your claim, it isn't a special category of "knowledge"; it is an unsupported claim.

What the fuck? Yes there is such a thing as "scientific knowledge". You wouldn't be typing on this computer if there was not such a thing.

Now don't confuse the unknown future science has yet to explain as being equal to not knowing anything at all, that is simply flat out crap.

Science is the ONLY tool that can, when used ethically and correctly give us knowledge. 

The rest are just competing opinions. Humans are certainly entitled to having them, but scientific method as a tool does not give on care as to what anyone's personal opinion is. Peer review is what settles differences in science, not opinions.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

There's no such thing as "scientific" knowledge and "spiritual" knowledge.  There is only knowledge. If you cannot support your claim, it isn't a special category of "knowledge"; it is an unsupported claim.

What the fuck? Yes there is such a thing as "scientific knowledge". You wouldn't be typing on this computer if there was not such a thing.

Now don't confuse the unknown future science has yet to explain as being equal to not knowing anything at all, that is simply flat out crap.

Science is the ONLY tool that can, when used ethically and correctly give us knowledge. 

The rest are just competing opinions. Humans are certainly entitled to having them, but scientific method as a tool does not give on care as to what anyone's personal opinion is. Peer review is what settles differences in science, not opinions.

I think what Thumpy may be saying is that no "knowledge" which isn't science is valid, therefore there's no point in categorizing knowledge at all. This would not change the nature of scientific knowledge, but it may fight the special pleading from those who insist they have other forms of "knowledge". But it wouldn't stop theists from muddling any linguistic term, therefore if scientists stopped qualifying their "knowledge" as "scientific", then it would be that much harder to sort out the corruption of it by theists.

[Brian37]

What the fuck? Yes there is such a thing as "scientific knowledge". You wouldn't be typing on this computer if there was not such a thing.

Now don't confuse the unknown future science has yet to explain as being equal to not knowing anything at all, that is simply flat out crap.

Science is the ONLY tool that can, when used ethically and correctly give us knowledge. 

The rest are just competing opinions. Humans are certainly entitled to having them, but scientific method as a tool does not give on care as to what anyone's personal opinion is. Peer review is what settles differences in science, not opinions.

I think what Thumpy may be saying is that no "knowledge" which isn't science is valid, therefore there's no point in categorizing knowledge at all. This would not change the nature of scientific knowledge, but it may fight the special pleading from those who insist they have other forms of "knowledge". But it wouldn't stop theists from muddling any linguistic term, therefore if scientists stopped qualifying their "knowledge" as "scientific", then it would be that much harder to sort out the corruption of it by theists.

Not sure I agree with this. Yes you want to take the teeth out of the theist arguments, I simply don't think coddling them by allowing them all claims are equal is the way to do it. It still remains that you only have evidence when you can test an falsify it and have it confirmed by peer review. That is the only thing that allows us knowledge.


Yes I have knowledge that in the past humans once claimed Thor existed. But Thor still is not a scientific demonstration of knowledge of lightening in the scientific explanation.

I don't see how knowledge of opinions constitutes the same Empirical data based tested and falsified.

I repeatedly have and will again here, on top of saying Dawkins "God Delusion" gives us a scientific explanation as to why humans have flawed perceptions, Victor Stenger's "God The Failed Hypothesis" and " The New Atheism" and even Hawking "A god is not required" are all science based statements.  There really is no splitting the baby as some want there to be. 

Religion is like pretending a kaleidoscope can replace a telescope. All religions try this and all religions fail trying it.

[Brian37]

I think the only empathetic thing atheists can do and should do is keep pointing out the difference between the human right to make any claim you want, which I will always defend, and the separate issue of having the ability to demonstrate what you claim is valid. But outside that, it still remains right now that science is running away at full speed at any and all god of the gaps answers. I merely would suggest to my theist friends to consider they are wrong.