Is Science A Religion?

[Doctordick]

Truth is a word used quite often with little thought as to exactly what is meant when we use it. In a rough sense, it is nothing more than a category to which we assign specific ideas, statements or explanations. What qualifies a particular specific idea for that assignment? Well first, I think we could get almost universal agreement that the idea must be consistent with all other ideas already assigned to that category. It is pretty well accepted that, if any idea is inconsistent with something already regarded as true, there is a major problem. So the first thing one can say is that everything held as true must be consistent with everything else held as true.

 

We are thus lead to assign the concept "truth" to a assemblage of ideas or concepts which are totally consistent with one another. Now clearly, this is not the total definition of truth as it implies a collection of ideas totally consistent with one another could be called truth. I can easily come up with a collection of ideas which are totally consistent with one another which no one here would accept as truth. What is missing from this definition?

 

What is missing is the idea that there is only one truth. That is, the truth must be consistent with every idea assigned the title "true". It cannot be a simple collection, it must be all encompassing. Thus it becomes evident that we are talking about a single complete structure. Well, I am of the opinion that our subconscious minds are already aware of this fact and have assigned a label to refer to it. That label is "reality"; reality is what is truly real. Reality must be totally consistent with itself (or rather, any explanation of reality, if it is to be regarded as true, must be totally consistent with itself).

 

We are thus led to the idea that the "truth" is what is totally consistent with reality. But, what is reality? Isn't it what we consider to be absolutely true? It seems we are going in circles here; but are we? I think we can break out of that circle by realizing that our experiences are the fundamental issue of truth.

 

At this point, the problem becomes a tad subtle. We can accept our experiences as real (in the same sense that we can accept our experiences as truth) only with regard to the actual nature of those experiences and not with regard to our explanations of those experiences: i.e., our interpretation or definitions of those experiences. The moment we assign characteristics to any of those experiences, we are constraining our understanding of those experiences to a model consistent with what we already believe to be true. This leads to a difficulty which seems almost impossible to resolve.

 

Most people will add to the concept of "truth" the idea that if something is really true, one will never come to learn it is false. If that idea is "true" then the truth can never change. If the truth can never change, then it is impossible to know as the possibility, no matter how slim, always exists that what you thought was true might be proved wrong. Most modern philosophers use that fact to curtail the search for truth as something unachievable. Thus implying the concept is useless.

 

Let me suggest that the concept is still useful. Instead of holding that the truth cannot change, let me instead put forth the idea that the truth must be totally consistent with what is known. If what is known changes, then the truth can change. Under this constraint, the truth becomes merely an accurate representation of what is known and need not be unchangeable.

 

This leads me to the rather strange definition that the truth is exactly what you believe to be true. I am fairly confident that the definition fulfills all usage common to any philosophical discussion. I would challenge anyone to prove that what he believes to be true is not true. The issue is, once he has proved something he believed to be true is not true, does he still think it is true?

 

There is a very important issue buried in that last observation. That is the fact that no one has any control at all over what he believes is true. That is why we have the word convinced. It follows that, if you wish to learn the truth, your only option is to search for flaws in the consistency of what you believe. When you find inconsistencies in your beliefs, it opens your mind to the fact that something you believe to be true must be false. If you never look for inconsistencies, you will never find them and thus, learning the truth will be absolutely beyond possibility.

 

Think about it -- DoctorDick

[Turtle]

I am with Doug Hofstadter who said [wrote] "I don't think one can truly prove anything in philosophy; I think one can merely try to convince, and probably one will wind up convincing only those people who started out fairly close to the position one is advocating."

 

source: I Am A Strange Loop, pg.xvii

[sman]

Most people will add to the concept of "truth" the idea that if something is really true, one will never come to learn it is false. If that idea is "true" then the truth can never change. If the truth can never change, then it is impossible to know as the possibility, no matter how slim, always exists that what you thought was true might be proved wrong. Most modern philosophers use that fact to curtail the search for truth as something unachievable. Thus implying the concept is useless.

 

Unachievable does-not-imply useless.

 

Our knowledge may never achieve 100% accuracy, but it does not approach accuracy haltingly, or in random, unpredictable staggers. Because - as you say - each new kernel of knowledge is checked against the rest of it for consistency, it describes a smooth curve; a function, if you will. Knowledge seems to be approaching reality asymptotically. That’s ok. It doesn’t mean reality isn’t there. It means it’s not described by the function of our knowledge, but rather by the limit of that function. And - to complete the metaphor - as our knowledge sharpens, so does the precision of our estimation of where that limit lies.

[Doctordick]

I am with Doug Hofstadter who said [wrote] "I don't think one can truly prove anything in philosophy; I think one can merely try to convince, and probably one will wind up convincing only those people who started out fairly close to the position one is advocating."

Ah, then you see it as an issue you just don't want to think about? Sorry to hear that.

 

Knowledge seems to be approaching reality asymptotically.

That comment is essentially identical to the medieval goal of achieving a knowledge of God. Would you explain the difference between the two issues to me? Actually there are many people who sincerely believe God is a true aspect of "reality" and that is the very belief which gains them the qualification of "religion". Why do the beliefs of science not gain them the qualification of religion? (Note, I am not deriding science, I am merely trying to reach a truly objective perspective.)

 

Unachievable does-not-imply useless.

Did I make any suggestion that “religion” was useless? It clearly has a great influence on peoples daily behavior. I feel you are misinterpreting what I wrote.

 

Our knowledge may never achieve 100% accuracy, but it does not approach accuracy haltingly, or in random, unpredictable staggers.

It seems to me that you are putting forth the word “accuracy” as a plug in for the word “truth” to avoid thinking about the issue I bring up.

 

Because - as you say - each new kernel of knowledge is checked against the rest of it for consistency, it describes a smooth curve; a function, if you will. Knowledge seems to be approaching reality asymptotically.

That is not exactly what I said. We certainly do not have sufficient time to check everything we think we know so it is rather the goal that I speak of, not of actual achievement.

 

It doesn’t mean reality isn’t there.

Did I ever say “reality isn't there”? I was talking about the definition of truth!

 

It means it’s not described by the function of our knowledge, but rather by the limit of that function. And - to complete the metaphor - as our knowledge sharpens, so does the precision of our estimation of where that limit lies.

Now you are bringing up another issue I feel should be discussed. However, we need to define what we mean by “knowledge” and, at least in my mind, knowledge includes the concept of “truth”. In order to discuss “knowledge” we should at least be able to agree on the definition of “truth”.

 

I have put forth my definition of truth: “truth is exactly what you believe to be true”. As I said, “I would challenge anyone to prove that what he believes to be true is not true”. The only problem I see with my definition is that truth is not unchanging. Certainly you seem to see “knowledge” as changing. You also seem to be attaching the idea of truth to knowledge.

 

If you would like to define knowledge as “what you think is true”, I would willingly change the subject to “understanding knowledge". If instead your intention is no more than avoiding any discussion, I would be disappointed.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[Turtle]

I am with Doug Hofstadter who said [wrote] "I don't think one can truly prove anything in philosophy; I think one can merely try to convince, and probably one will wind up convincing only those people who started out fairly close to the position one is advocating."

 

source: I Am A Strange Loop, pg.xvii

Ah, then you see it as an issue you just don't want to think about? Sorry to hear that.

 

Have fun -- Dick

 

No Dick. Clearly I have thought about it or I wouldn't have an opinion. Moreover, I have been reading your opinion on all this for what, 5 years now? Without exception, anyone who questions your ideas or disagrees with you gets insults from you. You have in the past lamented going to the grave with this and I suspect that's the way it will go; if for no other reason than your demeaning and derogatory rhetoric. Sorry to hear that. [spare me your derogatory retort; been there done that.]

[Rade]

Let us look at this statement of DD exactly as written:

 

"...let me instead put forth the idea that the truth must be totally consistent with what is known, if what is known changes,

then the truth can change. Under this constraint, the truth becomes merely an accurate representation of what is known...

 

"This leads me to the rather strange definition that the truth is exactly what you believe to be true."

 

====

 

The problem with the argument is obvious. First the claim is made that truth must be consistent with, and a representation of, what is KNOWN.

 

OK, that is fine. And let us then ask...what is it that is known that truth must be totally consistent with ? ? And of course the answer is that what is true is what is known about the FACTS of reality. Sadly DD never makes the most important linkage between truth, knowledge, facts, and reality.

 

But then, the strange definition of truth is presented that puts aside the knowledge constraint correctly presented by DD and falsely replaces what is known with what is believed.

 

The logical problem with this substitution of words (word play) is that the concepts KNOW and BELIEVE have nothing in common, they have different definitions. Truth has absolutely nothing in common with what any human believes concerning facts of reality, truth requires knowledge of such facts, a horse of a different philosophic color. Hence, not only is the definition presented by DD strange, it is logically not true.

 

So, what is the solution to the problem ? Simple, let us define truth as being exactly what you KNOW to be true about the facts of reality, thus putting truth on sound philosophic ground as being a tautology, which leads to the conclusion that what is false (the opposite of truth) is a logical contradiction.

[Doctordick]

Ok, it has been quite a long time since I broached the issue of science and religion. Perhaps another perspective would be valuable.

 

Communication is the central issue of education and it is an issue seldom examined. We use language as a means of communicating and we are not born knowing the required language. It follows that comprehending reality is something to be learned and the underlying issue of learning is worth examination. Let me guide you down a rather special perspective on that issue.

 

All languages can be seen as a finite collection of concepts (you could think perhaps of words). The notation used to express these concepts (words if you like) is something which has changed many times through out history (many interpretations of such have long been lost) but it should be clear that numerical indices could be used to specify any language independently of our understanding that language. We can use that fact to think about unknown languages and use it to examine the final language; the language which perhaps explains everything.

 

Let us take that language and set a labeling numerical index to each and every concept required to understand that language. If we have such a collection of indices then any thought in that "final language" can be expressed via the notation:  (x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) ,essentially a finite list of those specific indices.

 

It should be clear that the meaning is entirely embedded in the pattern of those indices: i.e., changing the actual indices by adding a specific number (say "c" for the sake of argument) to each and every index, makes utterly no change in the relevant patterns being represented. This leads to a rather interesting idea. If one uses P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) to represent the probability (x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) is true, then it follows that P(x₁+c,x₂+c,⋯,x_i+c,⋯,x_n+c) must represent exactly the same number as P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n).

 

Now, if that expression were actually a mathematical function (which it certainly is not for a number of important reasons) then the fact that both representations represent exactly the same number would imply some very interesting implications.

 

If anyone here comprehends what I have just proposed, I will show how P(x₁,x₂,⋯,x_i,⋯,x_n) can be converted to a mathematical expression without altering the meaning of the embedded collection of indices.

 

Anyone interested???

 

Have fun -- Dick

Edited September 21, 2017 by Doctordick

[Super Polymath]

It's been infiltrated by selfish people & used like a religion, the U.S. education system is like the Church of that religion. IMHO people who go through the education system are misinformed "experts", rarely capable of breaking away from the ways of thinking they've adopted, lacking a certain ability to think outside the box. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil]

It's been infiltrated by selfish people & used like a religion, the U.S. education system is like the Church of that religion. IMHO people who go through the education system are misinformed "experts", rarely capable of breaking away from the ways of thinking they've adopted, lacking a certain ability to think outside the box. 

 

No **** polymath, it is all a big money scam College and stuff, I will be the first person to say this, the only reason I went is because I had to do my "Jail" time even though I already knew 99% of the **** they were teaching gotta pay your "Education" Taxes because don't give a **** about what you say unless you have a piece of paper that says you went to college companies don't give a **** about anything else. This is another subject, you don't want to get me started on how I had to pay 60,000$ with scholarships to certify I knew ****, that I already knew. I hated college but I still went without doubt, I will never disagree with that statement. It has always amazed the **** people will do for "Paper".

 

\

 

 

But it is not just in the United States all currency is stained with blood, animal, human or otherwise, but I still carry it because it is required to survive in human society.

 

 

 

That is why this is my favorite picture to always post at those types.

 

 

But I will bring religion into this, the primary reason Jesus was nailed to a cross by the Romans was not his teachings but Money.

 

This is what happens to people that Forgive in life or death situations.

 

If it where put to me this would have been the way he died, with them eating each other's flesh all around him, that would have been justice in that situation on what the Romans where doing and there is absolutely nothing the Romans at that time could have done about it and would have easily fallen to the Zombie Virus themselves or Zombie hordes, which I think would make a badass horror movie.

\\\

 

 

That is why I believe and respect  Moses the most of all bible characters, he truly defeated the Egyptians himself. Let them go or suffer, I love that he actually won against a superior enemy that was morally unethical. It makes you wonder what this world would have been like if Christ would have been more like moses?

 

 

I have even been known to quote things Moses said from time to time, but never Christ, one led his people to victory another got his people stoned to death.

 

 

But my views of both are grim and would disturb people, So that is the last I will say about this and these Two Subjects and a third that you really don't want to get me started on.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

No **** polymath, it is all a big money scam College and stuff, I will be the first person to say this, the only reason I went is because I had to do my "Jail" time even though I already knew 99% of the **** they were teaching gotta pay your "Education" Taxes because don't give a **** about what you say unless you have a piece of paper that says you went to college companies don't give a **** about anything else. This is another subject, you don't want to get me started on how I had to pay 60,000$ with scholarships to certify I knew ****, that I already knew. I hated college but I still went without doubt, I will never disagree with that statement. It has always amazed the **** people will do for "Paper".

 

\

 

 

But it is not just in the United States all currency is stained with blood, animal, human or otherwise, but I still carry it because it is required to survive in human society.

 

 

 

That is why this is my favorite picture to always post at those types.

 

 

But I will bring religion into this, the primary reason Jesus was nailed to a cross by the Romans was not his teachings but Money.

 

This is what happens to people that Forgive in life or death situations.

 

If it where put to me this would have been the way he died, with them eating each other's flesh all around him, that would have been justice in that situation on what the Romans where doing and there is absolutely nothing the Romans at that time could have done about it and would have easily fallen to the Zombie Virus themselves or Zombie hordes, which I think would make a badass horror movie.

\\\

 

 

That is why I believe and respect  Moses the most of all bible characters, he truly defeated the Egyptians himself. Let them go or suffer, I love that he actually won against a superior enemy that was morally unethical. It makes you wonder what this world would have been like if Christ would have been more like moses?

 

 

I have even been known to quote things Moses said from time to time, but never Christ, one led his people to victory another got his people stoned to death.

 

 

But my views of both are grim and would disturb people, So that is the last I will say about this and these Two Subjects and a third that you really don't want to get me started on.

Moses didn't beat the Egyptian, a set of natural catastrophes did:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcic4JRu7Nw

 

The greatest oppressors in history was the Holy Roman Church, more so now than in Medieval times as far as wealth inequality just because there's a lot more people now. The thing about a global moral authority such as the Vatican, is that they can maintain the ecosystem killing, money machine that is in place without much effort at all & the Vatican does have more horded wealth than any nation combined. I would even say they secretly have all lost treasures hidden in volts somewhere:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh5CzkWnhEo

 

However, throughout the ages no oppressor has faced as much natural catastrophes as has The Church 

 

 

 

If there is a higher power, it is definitely against the Church not for it. What would destroy the Church completely is strong AI:

 

 

[Super Polymath]

I'd go as far as to say that the Church is run by Satanists.

 

Put together the words God & Satan, what can you get?

 

Goats and

 

That's the only two words I could get using all the letters that makes any kind of sense.

 

Goats and ____?

 

Goats and sheep.

 

A shepherd is a term for someone who herds sheep, but not goats, & breeds sheep. The Bible says that the Lord is our shepherd, not our goatherder. We're back to the ritual of circumcision & marital arrangement now. 

 

"Sheep (Ovis aries) have 54 chromosomes, while goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) have 60." 

[Super Polymath]

What is the definition of Opus Dei? Common folk, sheep. There must be a secret high society in the Vatican that are above the law, above the 1% wealthiest people in the world, & even above the 10 commandments because this Secret Nobility, this Magocracy, starting with Constantine over a thousand years ago, has infiltrated Judeo-Christianity. What they truly believe in is maintaining the status quo while the reap the benefits of stem cell research, nano replication of gold, stable fusion, free electrical energy & the theory of everything - scientific discoveries made a century ago by the likes of Einstein, Tesla, & improved upon since. 

 

I do believe QM is a cover-theory for Pilot Wave microgravity, & that GWs beyond the known universe are responsible for dark matter, dark energy, & even particle charge, the fine-tuning of the CMB, the fact that there's more matter than anti-matter. 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil]

Alright I would stop there, you don't want to get burned at the stake by Christians like so many other free thinkers.

 

 

"he greatest oppressors in history was the Holy Roman Church, more so now than in Medieval times as far as wealth inequality just because there's a lot more people now. The thing about a global moral authority such as the Vatican, is that they can maintain the ecosystem killing, money machine that is in place without much effort at all & the Vatican does have more horded wealth than any nation combined. I would even say they secretly have all lost treasures hidden in volts somewhere"

 

 

I agree with that.

 

As for this part, about Moses, I think he used smallpox at-least for the Boils part, I dunno about the others.

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

 

 

As for this part, about Moses, I think he used smallpox at-least for the Boils part, I dunno about the others.

 

 

That's certainly possible. The thing about the slave race under Ramses is that they had nothing to combat their oppressors with but numbers, which was why all of their newborn were massacred, thrown to crocodiles in the Nile. They deliberately had been made to possess no stamina for physical confrontation at the end of their slave labor days. Under those conditions they'd have to get creative, & thus wage an ancient form of biological warfare, spreading disease by exposing the sick to as many as possible among their own just so they could infect the Egyptian slave drivers they interacted with while constructing great monuments. Ramses weakness was that he kept them so busy on his monuments.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Super Polymath]

Theirs was mainly a war of attrition though, sabotaging the food, the water, over time cutting the Egyptians off of their valuable resources.

Edited February 25, 2018 by Super Polymath

[Vmedvil]

I'd go as far as to say that the Church is run by Satanists.

 

Put together the words God & Satan, what can you get?

 

Goats and

 

That's the only two words I could get using all the letters that makes any kind of sense.

 

Goats and ____?

 

Goats and sheep.

 

A shepherd is a term for someone who herds sheep, but not goats, & breeds sheep. The Bible says that the Lord is our shepherd, not our goatherder. We're back to the ritual of circumcision & marital arrangement now. 

 

"Sheep (Ovis aries) have 54 chromosomes, while goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) have 60." 

 

 

Alright though Polymath, I do want to comment on part of this, You can believe whatever you want the bible is not entirely correct but as long as it helps you live a moral and good life, I think it is a good thing, but what the Roman Catholics did back in the old days was wrong with burning of innocent witches and freethinkers, but they do not do those actions anymore and seem to have a pretty good morality but not always,If it gives you a reason to behave like a decent human being more power to you, but if it is used to justify evil actions it is a bad thing like the Roman Catholic Church did when they were in power during the Dark Ages then it is bad, but that can be said for any philosophy.  They are not in power any more like they where during those times, we are now ruled by the State and Governments and People not the church.

 

 

 

Just as no scientist would want his works used for Mass Genocide of innocent people or Killing of innocent men,women, and, Self aware creatures.

 

 

For instance, ISIS, in my view they are no longer human, any action against them is acceptable for their crimes. ISIS are in the "Monster" category now, in my view, no longer human for their crimes, in my view that honor was taken away to be called "Human". Behave like a Beast you will be classified as such in my view of you.

 

List of Crimes that make my view that way about ISIS.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/192692-un-isis-war-crimes/

 

You could nuke ISIS and I would think it was the right response.

 

If anyone didn't to know the website of this planet's rulers, The U.N. which each have countries they run/present, how it is kinda like the Republic in Star Wars in how it functions which probably listen to the president or leader of that nation if they present its stance to the world.

 

http://www.un.org/en/index.html

 

Not people, I would ever want to get on the bad side of...... to anyone that would consider it.

 

How I know about them is in certain video games, it is realistic about that too.

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Vmedvil

[Super Polymath]

Alright though Polymath, I do want to comment on part of this, You can believe whatever you want the bible is not entirely correct but as long as it helps you live a moral and good life, I think it is a good thing, but what the Roman Catholics did back in the old days was wrong with burning of innocent witches and freethinkers, but they do those actions anymore and seem to have a pretty good morality but not always,If it gives you a reason to behave like a decent human being more power to you, but if it is used to justify evil actions it is a bad thing like the Roman Catholic Church did when they were in power during the Dark Ages then it is bad, but that can be said for any philosophy.  They are not in power any more like they where during those times, we are now ruled by the State and Governments and People not the church.

 

 

 

Just as no scientist would want his works used for Mass Genocide of innocent people or Killing of innocent men,women, and, Self aware creatures.

 

 

For instance, ISIS, in my view they are no longer human, any action against them is acceptable for their crimes. ISIS are in the "Monster" category now, in my view, no longer human for their crimes, in my view that honor was taken away be called "Human". Behave like a Beast you will be classified as such in my view of you.

 

List of Crimes that make my view that way about ISIS.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/192692-un-isis-war-crimes/

 

You could nuke ISIS and I would think it was the right response.

 

If anyone didn't to know the website of this planet's rulers, The U.N. which each have countries they run/present, how it is kinda like the Republic in Star Wars in how it functions which probably listen to the president or leader of that nation if they present its stance to the world.

 

http://www.un.org/en/index.html

 

Not people, I would ever want to get on the bad side of...... to anyone that would consider it.

 

How I know about them is in certain video games, it is realistic about that too.

 

No, Constantine created the Roman Catholic Church.

 

The quote you just replied to:

 

"I'd go as far as to say that the Church is run by Satanists.

 

Put together the words God & Satan, what can you get?

 

Goats and

 

That's the only two words I could get using all the letters that makes any kind of sense.

 

Goats and ____?

 

Goats and sheep.

 

A shepherd is a term for someone who herds sheep, but not goats, & breeds sheep. The Bible says that the Lord is our shepherd, not our goatherder. We're back to the ritual of circumcision & marital arrangement now. 

 

"Sheep (Ovis aries) have 54 chromosomes, while goats (Capra aegagrus hircus) have 60." "

 

This refers to the selective breeding of inferior traits based upon social class. God is spelled G.O.D. & Satan spelled "S.A.T.A.N." only in English or great Britain's Old English (you can see elements of Great Britain in the United States: Old York, New York - same nation different area) because the letters of the two names do spell "Goats and". 

 

But there's more to it than that:

 

"What is the definition of Opus Dei? Common folk, sheep. There must be a secret high society in the Vatican that are above the law, above the 1% wealthiest people in the world, & even above the 10 commandments because this Secret Nobility, this Magocracy, starting with Constantine over a thousand years ago, has infiltrated Judeo-Christianity. What they truly believe in is maintaining the status quo.

 

The greatest oppressors in history was the Holy Roman Church, more so now than in Medieval times as far as wealth inequality just because there's a lot more people now. The thing about a global moral authority such as the Vatican, is that they can maintain the ecosystem killing, money machine that is in place without much effort at all & the Vatican does have more horded wealth than any nation combined. I would even say they secretly have all lost treasures hidden in volts somewhere:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh5CzkWnhEo"

 

Implies secret royal families that would make Hitler look like a JOKE. We're talking a secret society originating nearly 1500 years ago, when Popes had more power than the Emperor of Spain & the King of France put together. They are a master race, but they are also creators, they

, they empower parasites, pimps & capitalists, they

, such as the

.