Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie  Scientists do not recognize religious linguistics, to have any validity to science, therefore; your application of the definition is incorrect... Evidently you see yourself as a meta-human being, and I see myself as a scientific human being___No meta___what-so-ever... |
It is my honor to correct you here, Lloyd, because it is not science that I call a religion, it is you I call that way for following science religiously. You may call me names, meta-names included; it does not phase me. Science = science, philosophy = philosophy, religion = religion, and non-existentialism, well... it just isn't. They all have their own place, but none of them can gain the top position unless that exact same top position fits the others in their own right just as much. If you got the gist of my delivery, you know what I am talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie You see, Fredrick, I am also quite familiar with math. I just don't think it much use, especially when it can't even figure four sphere inter-actions, and the universe, even in a cubic CM, operates at the trillions of spheres level. Math is far too limited. Words seem to be unlimited, sometimes for the good, and sometimes for the worse... |
The grand dame of science is math. Mathematics has often been the scout of scientific disciplines, delivering answers before the scientific questions were even asked. You make me wonder, Lloyd, if you are truly committed to science that is well-grounded or if
you are more committed to science as a religion.
Thank you for a good delivery, MJA. Though your question appears to be rhetorical only, you describe what my thoughts on this are too, and quite well. Theories in science have a somewhat similar nature as religions (depending on how the religion is phrased), and it is quite normal for a scientist to think the final answer need never be found. All that is needed is the theory — and the scientist sleeps well at night, as long as plenty of evidence supports the theory.
Dipayankar, I don't know how to answer you. Religion may be a natural thought process, or as you say maybe it is not. For me, after all the facts are in, I find it only logical that there remains a space for religion, too. I don't think scientists can ever capture all that there is or refute all that is claimed there is not, but in my view scientists may all come to a position of full understanding.