The Ownership of Science

[The Grand Nudger]

You just got through telling me that you were the confused one?

Sure, you can make claims, but that's not a scientific claim.  It's wrong with respect to the facts.  The universe isn't you shaped, you're universe shaped.  Are you trying to convince these people that it's not possible for a religious belief to be supported by scientific facts?

What do you need this to be true to contend about the sacred, about what's set apart and forbidden?  Let's start there?  I bet there's a way to establish that without making a counterfactual statement your only premise.

Dude, these are claims made using science. They can’t be proven. So basically you don’t want anybody to make claims using science. Fair enough.

It's the scientific understanding that you are evolved to fit the circumstances of this planet and, ofc, by extension, this universe.  Not the other way around.

Using that claim, would be using science.  That's not what you want to do, though..and that's fine.  I give up.  You apparently can't think of any religious belief that you or anyone else holds which could be supported by science.

[GaryAnderson]

Dude, these are claims made using science. They can’t be proven. So basically you don’t want anybody to make claims using science. Fair enough.

It's the scientific understanding that you are evolved to fit the circumstances of this planet and, ofc, by extension, this universe.  Not the other way around.

Using that claim, would be using science.  That's not what you want to do, though..and that's fine.  I give up.  You apparently can't think of any religious belief that you or anyone else holds which could be supported by science.

It’s like we’re speaking different languages you and I. 😄

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, I'm speaking the language of a person who believes that the religious truths we express can, indeed, be true, and that whichever ones of them are true could very much be investigated by the scientific method and could find their support in it.

You're speaking the language of a person who believes that the scientific understanding of the world is, a..wrong..and, b..an example of faithing one's way to conclusions - just like philosophy, for that matter.

You were invited to have a conversation about religious beliefs that are or could be held to be true with reference to some body of scientific literature, and you declined. Why would it matter who owned science if a person doesn't intend to use it?

[Neo-Scholastic]

You just got through telling me that you were the confused one?

Sure, you can make claims, but that's not a scientific claim.  It's wrong with respect to the facts.  The universe isn't you shaped, you're universe shaped.  Are you trying to convince these people that it's not possible for a religious belief to be supported by scientific facts?

What do you need this to be true to contend about the sacred, about what's set apart and forbidden? Let's start there? I bet there's a way to establish that without making a counterfactual statement your only premise.

Dude, these are claims made using science. They can’t be proven. So basically you don’t want anybody to make claims using science. Fair enough.

---

If your reading comprehension is that poor, what does that say about your reading of the magic book?

Your idiotic god created the universe and fine tuned it for life? That is not a fact, not science and not even vaguely rational.

The intelligence of my God is not the point. The point is do you have any problems with anyone using science to support their beliefs?

Here’s an example:
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened. <--- this is based on a very strong theory*

1 - An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
2 - An agnostic atheist, let’s take the scientist Michio Kaku for example, will philosophize and says : There’s a multiverse that exists which creates new universes and Big Bangs randomly.
3 - A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

Who is mis-using science here? (sic)

Statement 1 says nothing about science/scientific method.
Statement 2 is based on scientific theories that are not particularly strong but worthy of consideration.
Statement 3 is nothing but speculation.  There's no real science there.

So, taken in this context, none of these statements are misusing science.

Thank you !

Why does 2 + 2 equal 4?

Because it’s a mathematical brute fact. You’ve heard about brute facts I assume. Like the universe exists - that’s a brute fact.

Yes, some of us have heard of brute facts but I do not think you are there yet. Does the universe exist in the the particular way that it does by necessity or could it have been otherwise? To what exactly, i.e. what kind of objects, do the symbols of the math equation "2 + 2 =4" refer?

[GaryAnderson]

Sure, I'm speaking the language of a person who believes that the religious truths we express can, indeed, be true, and that whichever ones of them are true could very much be investigated by the scientific method and could find their support in it.

You're speaking the language of a person who believes that the scientific understanding of the world is, a..wrong..and, b..an example of faithing one's way to conclusions - just like philosophy, for that matter.

No man. This is why we don’t understand each-other. I’m simply asking if you have a problem with one group or another using science to make leaps of faith on existential topics. And it sounds like you do have a problem with people doing that. This doesn’t strike me as very tolerant because I don’t care who uses science to answer existential questions.
Live and let live.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are also the brute facts of evolution. It doesn't matter if a persons there yet, because those facts are - and that's the sort of thing that science concerns itself with. That would be the sort of thing a scientific justification for a religious belief would concern itself with.

Maybe there is some god belief, even..that a scientific understanding could support, but the god of a man shaped universe aint it, because it's wrong on it's face.

[GaryAnderson]

Dude, these are claims made using science. They can’t be proven. So basically you don’t want anybody to make claims using science. Fair enough.

---

The intelligence of my God is not the point. The point is do you have any problems with anyone using science to support their beliefs?

Thank you !


Because it’s a mathematical brute fact. You’ve heard about brute facts I assume. Like the universe exists - that’s a brute fact.

Yes, some of us have heard of brute facts but I do not think you are there yet. Does the universe exist in the the particular way that it does by necessity or could it have been otherwise? To what exactly, i.e. what kind of objects, do the symbols of the math equation "2 + 2 =4" refer?

Yes, the universe being a random accident is also a know stance here among skeptics and atheists. The statistical probability of this accident is explained by the existence of the infinite multiverse where universes collide and create baby universes or new Big Bangs. Infinite being the key concept there, as well as being a philosophy.
That’s also a valid position which I’m not dismissing. I just have different beliefs on fine-tuning that’s all. And I don’t mind others using string theory to say that a multiverse exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, I'm speaking the language of a person who believes that the religious truths we express can, indeed, be true, and that whichever ones of them are true could very much be investigated by the scientific method and could find their support in it.

You're speaking the language of a person who believes that the scientific understanding of the world is, a..wrong..and, b..an example of faithing one's way to conclusions - just like philosophy, for that matter.

No man. This is why we don’t understand each-other. I’m simply asking if you have a problem with one group or another using science to make leaps of faith on existential topics. And it sounds like you do have a problem with people doing that. This doesn’t strike me as very tolerant because I don’t care who uses science to answer existential questions.
Live and let live.

It certainly doesn't sound like anything of the sort, I'm the only person vocally supportive of the notion at all.  That's just you getting shit wrong again.

I think..for the umpteenth time, that many of our religious beliefs could very well be investigated by and even supported by science.  I suspect that a great many are informed by some actual facts. I see we're on to the random accidental universe portion of this shitthread.

[Spongebob]

Dude, these are claims made using science. They can’t be proven. So basically you don’t want anybody to make claims using science. Fair enough.

---

The intelligence of my God is not the point. The point is do you have any problems with anyone using science to support their beliefs?

Thank you !


Because it’s a mathematical brute fact. You’ve heard about brute facts I assume. Like the universe exists - that’s a brute fact.

Yes, some of us have heard of brute facts but I do not think you are there yet. Does the universe exist in the the particular way that it does by necessity or could it have been otherwise? To what exactly, i.e. what kind of objects, do the symbols of the math equation "2 + 2 =4" refer?

Not to confuse the matter even more, but mathematics is an example of an axiomatic system.

---

Sure, I'm speaking the language of a person who believes that the religious truths we express can, indeed, be true, and that whichever ones of them are true could very much be investigated by the scientific method and could find their support in it.

You're speaking the language of a person who believes that the scientific understanding of the world is, a..wrong..and, b..an example of faithing one's way to conclusions - just like philosophy, for that matter.

No man. This is why we don’t understand each-other. I’m simply asking if you have a problem with one group or another using science to make leaps of faith on existential topics. And it sounds like you do have a problem with people doing that. This doesn’t strike me as very tolerant because I don’t care who uses science to answer existential questions.
Live and let live.

Wait, this was not in the OP.  Using science (I assume you mean the scientific method) to make any "leap of faith" is inappropriate and very different from your original question.  The scientific method is meant to test an idea, not justify a leap of faith.

[GaryAnderson]

I don’t want to get into math because I’m neither an expert on it nor a big fan but Max Tegmark who has spent his life on mathematics says that “the bottom or pure reality is mathematical”. This is of course a respectable view to me and I don’t mind him using math to arrive at that conclusion.