conversation with ajax18

[_ajax18]

The details of a persons spiritual perceptions are dependent on his perspective in both time and location but the basic truths are still the same even though they cannot be proven or accessed through scientific means.

I don't see incomplete truths of other faiths or even my own as necessarilly useless.

[_Jersey Girl]

This was a comment for ajax18. I'm going to reply to it.

Science and reason can only do so much. And yet a simple faith in a simple spiritual knowledge (that we all as spiritual beings can access) can take you a very long ways ahead of what hard proven science can provide.

Really? I'd comment:

(a) The trouble about accessing 'simple spiritual knowledge' is that the simple spiritual knowledge that a given human being accesses seems to depend in nearly every case on where on the planet that person was born, and what his parents happened to believe in. Thus a person born in Riyadh is vey likely to be bought up as a Wahabi Muslim, and thus will access the 'simple spiritual knowledge' that goes with that identity. Born in Salt Lake City? Joseph Smith rather than Mohammed, and a lot else different too.

I agree that we tend to adopt the belief systems of our parents. Not in all cases and many of us break away as we age, but generally speaking, I agree. I don't think that what is being called "simple spiritual knowledge" is limited to a specific religious environment or doctrine. God belief is a universal feature of humanity, likewise is atheism. God belief developed long before there were any types of organized religions or doctrines. Think: Sky God.

(b) Poor dull unambitious old science, on the other hand, is pretty much the same for both people. 'Simple spiritual knowledge(s)' claim to go much, much further than science: the problem is that they all go off in quite different and often totally incompatible directions. At least with science you know, on the whole, where you have got to and where you haven't.

I disagree that science avoids "going off in quite different and totally incompatible directions". Science is limited by the ability of scientists to apply it's principles.

[Guest]

I disagree that science avoids "going off in quite different and totally incompatible directions". Science is limited by the ability of scientists to apply it's principles.

I think Chap has it right. Science is limited far more by the reluctance and/or inability of lay people (especially the dogmatically religious fundamentalists of all types) to understand, accept and correctly apply the principles of science than by the ability of scientists to discover and apply them. Like it or not, science has a far, far better and more consistent track record of discovering and applying useful truths than religion. Given the innumerable, mutually contradictory belief systems arrived at through the application of religious faith, it is impossible (for me, at least) to avoid concluding that there is no approach to discerning truth that is more unreliable than that.

[_Jersey Girl]

I disagree that science avoids "going off in quite different and totally incompatible directions". Science is limited by the ability of scientists to apply it's principles.

I think Chap has it right. Science is limited far more by the reluctance and/or inability of lay people (especially the dogmatically religious fundamentalists of all types) to understand, accept and correctly apply the principles of science than by the ability of scientists to discover and apply them. Like it or not, science has a far, far better and more consistent track record of discovering and applying useful truths than religion. Given the innumerable, mutually contradictory belief systems arrived at through the application of religious faith, it is impossible (for me, at least) to avoid concluding that there is no approach to discerning truth that is more unreliable than that.

ETA: I must admit, however, that even more potentially dangerous and destructive than scientific ignorance and illiteracy is the willfully corrupt and malicious misapplication of scientific knowledge and principles for selfish purposes.

Okay fine. I am not talking about science vs religion.

Firstly, I don't think that comparisons between science and philosophy make for valid comparisons and deliver only a futile argument.

Secondly, when I wrote that about science and scientists, I was actually thinking about the ineptness of doctors who don't know what they're doing, who don't know why they don't know what they're doing or ignore it, and researchers who fail to get their information into the hands of the medical community and/or the ability of the medical community to put that research into practice.

I see it every day of my life on an online support community that I work on.

[_Chap]

I agree that we tend to adopt the belief systems of our parents. Not in all cases and many of us break away as we age, but generally speaking, I agree. I don't think that what is being called "simple spiritual knowledge" is limited to a specific religious environment or doctrine. God belief is a universal feature of humanity, likewise is atheism. God belief developed long before there were any types of organized religions or doctrines. Think: Sky God.

I'm a little unclear what you are saying here. But you don't seem to dispute my point that what any individual on this board (such as ajax18) calls "simple spiritual knowledge" will be very different depending on the background he or she was brought up in (Mormon ? Wahabi Muslim? Japanese Zen Buddhist?).

Belief in 'God' with a capital 'G' (indicating some kind of monotheism, presumably?) is not a universal feature of humanity.

When you talk about "long before there were any types of organized religions or doctrines", do you have any hard evidence about the supposed state you are talking about? All known existing peoples with religions tend to have quite well articulated (but very different) ways of talking about their beliefs, and the same goes for all cases where we have any detailed knowledge of the past. What you are saying is, a think, a surmise rather than a fact: you may be right, you may be wrong, but we have no way of telling.

[_Jersey Girl]

Making another run at this in a different way...

I think Chap has it right. Science is limited far more by the reluctance and/or inability of lay people (especially the dogmatically religious fundamentalists of all types) to understand, accept and correctly apply the principles of science than by the ability of scientists to discover and apply them. Like it or not, science has a far, far better and more consistent track record of discovering and applying useful truths than religion. Given the innumerable, mutually contradictory belief systems arrived at through the application of religious faith, it is impossible (for me, at least) to avoid concluding that there is no approach to discerning truth that is more unreliable than that.

ETA: I must admit, however, that even more potentially dangerous and destructive than scientific ignorance and illiteracy is the willfully corrupt and malicious misapplication of scientific knowledge and principles for selfish purposes.

As I stated previously, this isn't a debate about science v. religion. It was intended to be a conversation between two believers whose orientations might differ slightly or greatly. I wanted to pick Ajax's brain to find out more about what he stated on another thread.

That said, do you see this as an either/or proposition? Do you think that all believers rely exclusively on God and disregard science? If that is the case, you have two believers on this thread whose life accounts and/or careers demonstrate otherwise so doesn't your position rely on bias?

[_Chap]

Like it or not, science has a far, far better and more consistent track record of discovering and applying useful truths than religion. Given the innumerable, mutually contradictory belief systems arrived at through the application of religious faith, it is impossible (for me, at least) to avoid concluding that there is no approach to discerning truth that is more unreliable than that.

Thanks for saving me having to say that. Scientific knowledge is by nature cumulative. The same is not true of religion.

[_Jersey Girl]

Before this entire thread derails into the vortex of no return, let me demonstrate what I think should have happened with this excerpt because God forbid anyone should make inquiry around this place. And ajax, if you are reading please respond if you are willing so we can get on with it.

Science and reason can only do so much. And yet a simple faith in a simple spiritual knowledge (that we all as spiritual beings can access) can take you a very long ways ahead of what hard proven science can provide.

1. What simple spiritual knowledge were you thinking about here?

2. When you say "can take you a long ways ahead of what hard proven science can provide" what does that look like in your life and can you provide at least a general example?

[_Jersey Girl]

Like it or not, science has a far, far better and more consistent track record of discovering and applying useful truths than religion. Given the innumerable, mutually contradictory belief systems arrived at through the application of religious faith, it is impossible (for me, at least) to avoid concluding that there is no approach to discerning truth that is more unreliable than that.

Thanks for saving me having to say that. Scientific knowledge is by nature cumulative. The same is not true of religion.

Go back to bed, Chap.

[Guest]

I must admit, however, that even more potentially dangerous and destructive than scientific ignorance and illiteracy is the willfully corrupt and malicious misapplication of scientific knowledge and principles for selfish purposes.

On second thought, I may not be fair to entirely dismiss the role of faith and emotion. In binary arithmetic, "10" is more that "1" by itself, even though "0" by itself equals nothing. Similarly, we can give evidence and reason a value of "one" and faith and emotion a value of "zero". If what we believe is supported by both the "one" of evidence and reason and the "zero" of faith and emotion, perhaps it would be fair to say that we have more than if we had evidence and reason alone. But if we do have evidence and reason alone, we still have something; while if we have faith and emotion alone, we really have nothing, no matter how many "zeroes" we have.