Thread: Is this even fundamentally possible?

Using science to study religion is like using religion to study science. It doesn't really work, because they're not meant to understand each other. Religion is about the human experience at a spiritual and cosmological level. Science is about the human experience at a material and universal level.

I really don't believe in the "scientific study of religion," because science in and of itself is a philosophy. You don't use one particular philosophy to study a different philosophy - it doesn't make sense.

Scientific method can be used to study any real phenomena...religion definitely qualifies.

Originally Posted by scienceinproducts

Using science to study religion is like using religion to study science. It doesn't really work, because they're not meant to understand each other. Religion is about the human experience at a spiritual and cosmological level. Science is about the human experience at a material and universal level.

I think you are conflating the understanding of the character of religion with the attempted act of resolving conflicts and contradictions between science and religion. The latter is difficult, perhaps impossible and if possible can only occur within the realm of philosophy. The former is as straightforward as any scientific investigation.

Originally Posted by scienceinproducts

Using science to study religion is like using religion to study science. It doesn't really work, because they're not meant to understand each other. Religion is about the human experience at a spiritual and cosmological level. Science is about the human experience at a material and universal level.

I really don't believe in the "scientific study of religion," because science in and of itself is a philosophy. You don't use one particular philosophy to study a different philosophy - it doesn't make sense.

Yours is an argument from ignorance. Just because you can figure out how/why science studies religion, you therefore choose not to believe it.

By the way, I removed your spam from our fair forum, as it seems your participation was self-centered and not to our benefit. I also banned your account as a spammer, but if you wish to create a new account without spamming your products to debate the scientific study of religion, I'll happily oblige.

Clearly science can and does study religion: anthropology, sociology, psychology and neurology have had quite a bit to say about religion and other forms of human superstition and belief. In fact, there are entire scientific journals devoted to this study, as well as thousands of books and edited volumes.]

In short, you couldn't be more wrong.

Hey, you're a fucking asshole. Not only do you not even listen to my argument, you presume that I'm spamming just because two out of ten of my posts link to my website. Then you ban me without allowing me to explain or justify myself, or even considering the fact that those links had SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS for RELEVANT TOPICS. Scientific DISCUSSION and DEBATE my ass.

I should've known that a "science forum" would be have people who are incredibly closed-minded. You're no better than the Christian fundamentalists and creationists that you despise, because you think you have a philosophy that can explain everything, and immediately shut down any perspective to the contrary.

Go ahead and ban me. I won't be coming back here ever again. And banning me won't destroy the truth of my words.

PS I had a BA in BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF BEHAVIOR at an ivy league institution. I think I know what I'm talking about with the limitations of the scientific method. Argument from ignorance my ass. FYI, are you even aware of the Marxist tradition of materialism that you're involved in? Oh no, you're too "OBJECTIVE" to follow any philosophy. I think you're the one who's being ignorant here, buddy.

You wanna talk about how bad science is for studying human reality? See all those pieces of "research" on love. If you've ever been in love, or in a real relationship, you know that all that BS about oxytocin and monogamy genes and psychological tricks doesn't even compare to actually experiencing love. Only literature, religion and spiritual philosophy have come close to understanding that. Science is good for understanding physics, chemistry, and biology. But it stops there.

Sociology is not a science. Science-based psychology is a load of crap - just look at how simple BF Skinner's work was. Anthropology? Where's the scientific method there? Neurology? Can neurology tell you how to live meaningfully? How to live happily without the use of drugs? I studied neurology, evolutionary psychology, and the endocrine system for YEARS and it got me nowhere. Two years studying different religions, spiritual philosophies, literature, personal reflection and REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE did.

Science in the humanities? That's nothing more than feigned autism in order to understand human truths that don't take a purely logical, analytical mind to understand - it takes the human heart. Something of yours that is clearly underdeveloped.

There is still a correspondence in the felt state of being—the second story—to the states beneath—the first floor.

Originally Posted by sciencenproducts

PS I had a BA in BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF BEHAVIOR at an ivy league institution.

Sorry you lost it. Was it over the same types of issue as expressed here?

--
Sometime I'll write up a page on my experiences during several test I was involved in for the Army as a test officer and analyst. One of the more common "lessons learned" from tests which involve staff processes is they don't include enough "soft-science" types who know how to study behavior, perception and build tools such as surveys to determine why people prefer to do things certain ways over other ways that quantitatively seem harder. One simple example we'd often see is people who'd keep manual email address booklets near their computer even though they know how to use the far more efficient outlook address manager. It's pretty interesting stuff.

Originally Posted by sciencenproducts

Hey, you're a fucking asshole. Not only do you not even listen to my argument, you presume that I'm spamming just because two out of ten of my posts link to my website.

Yes, I am and yes, I did. But, more importantly, I'm right. You were spamming and your intent wasn't to actually participate in discussion but drive traffic to your site to sell "scienceproducts." We see our share of spam around here and if it smells like shit it usually is.

Then you ban me without allowing me to explain or justify myself, or even considering the fact that those links had SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS for RELEVANT TOPICS. Scientific DISCUSSION and DEBATE my ass.

Your mature reaction and eloquent use of caps notwithstanding, I did allow you to explain yourself -evidenced by the very fact that you're posting now and not getting a message that your IP is restricted; and evidenced by the very fact that I invited you to start fresh with a new, non-spamming account.

I should've known that a "science forum" would be have people who are incredibly closed-minded. You're no better than the Christian fundamentalists and creationists that you despise, because you think you have a philosophy that can explain everything, and immediately shut down any perspective to the contrary.

Sticks & stones... Your insults are baseless and out of embarrassment and anger, not reason. Our minds are certainly closed to spam, it's a detraction and if we want a product, we'll Google it. But we're certainly welcoming to discussion and well-reasoned arguments. I've revised my own opinions on topics ranging from religion to geology to philosophy primarily through good arguments from others. And, I need not point out again that you're given an invitation to start fresh with a new, non-spamming account (which you did). Now, if you would just tone down the insults a bit, you'll fit right in if you truly wish to have intelligent discussions here. But, as I suspect, you'll choose not to stay since your true goal was to sell products and spam us under the guise of a potentially real member. Oops... now I've poisoned the well. Puts you in a dilemma: stay away and be thought of as a spammer or participate and be productive. My guess is you'll come back, act like a jerk in hopes of being "banned" again so you can say it wasn't your fault. Oops... I poisoned that damn well again... There are some logical fallacies you just have to love.

Go ahead and ban me. I won't be coming back here ever again. And banning me won't destroy the truth of my words.

We generally only ban spammers and trolls. We terminated your spam account and invite you to participate in discussion. Assuming you aren't a troll, you won't need to worry about having your new account terminated. Welcome to The Science Forum. And I agree, banning a member doesn't destroy the truth of their words.

PS I had a BA in BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF BEHAVIOR at an ivy league institution.

Meh... I don't trust spammers, so you could be lying. BUT... since you started a new (hopefully non-spam) account, we'll take you at your word. Which means that, given these quotes...

I think I know what I'm talking about with the limitations of the scientific method.

Sociology is not a science. Science-based psychology is a load of crap - just look at how simple BF Skinner's work was. Anthropology? Where's the scientific method there? Neurology? Can neurology tell you how to live meaningfully? How to live happily without the use of drugs? I studied neurology, evolutionary psychology, and the endocrine system for YEARS and it got me nowhere.

... you should ask for your tuition back.

Hey, you're a fucking asshole....bla bla

Look. We are constantly and mercilessly spammed each and every day and have dealt with all manner of attempts by the spammers to try an disguise the fact that they are spamming, including posting seemingly relevant posts and even whole topics. These guys are dealt with swiftly, but if you'd notice, you were cordially invited to request to be allowed back if you indeed were not a spammer.

I should've known that a "science forum" would be have people who are incredibly closed-minded. You're no better than the Christian fundamentalists and creationists that you despise, because you think you have a philosophy that can explain everything, and immediately shut down any perspective to the contrary.

Fantastic. So, how long have you been here to make such a judgement? Get off your podium for two seconds and actually engage with our members before you convince yourself of the character of the lot of us.

Go ahead and ban me. I won't be coming back here ever again. And banning me won't destroy the truth of my words.

The martyr spiel is old turkey. C'mon, let's hear those words of yours.

PS I had a BA in BIOLOGICAL BASIS OF BEHAVIOR at an ivy league institution. I think I know what I'm talking about with the limitations of the scientific method. Argument from ignorance my ass.

Woop tee doo. Your qualification did not include the matters of opinion you are gracing our forum with, did it?

FYI, are you even aware of the Marxist tradition of materialism that you're involved in? Oh no, you're too "OBJECTIVE" to follow any philosophy. I think you're the one who's being ignorant here, buddy.

Marxism? Are we to discard materialism because Marx chose to include it his philosophy? What nonsense. Is religion automatically bunk because some bloke used it as basis for genocide at some point? Nope. Science attempts to find out what the physical truth is, the natural law. It is not subject to the philosophies of any man. The laws of nature are not influenced by our subjectivity. Our subjective experience is a consequence of it.

You wanna talk about how bad science is for studying human reality? See all those pieces of "research" on love. If you've ever been in love, or in a real relationship, you know that all that BS about oxytocin and monogamy genes and psychological tricks doesn't even compare to actually experiencing love. Only literature, religion and spiritual philosophy have come close to understanding that. Science is good for understanding physics, chemistry, and biology. But it stops there.

And this is where your argument really goes off the rails. Science's only job is to find out how things work. As evolutionarily produced animals, we are subject to every law that governs how the rest of the universe works. That would include every emotion, every sensation, every motivation. All of it is governed by physical laws. Why should we be any different?

What you seem to be thinking, is that because evolution, brain chemistry and electrical impulses explain love, that somehow knowing how and why we experience love takes away from it's truth, meaning or beauty. Why would you think that? No matter the reasons behind love, the fact is we all still feel it and feel it strongly. It still means the same to us. We are what we are; deeply emotional beings who care for each other. Love is real and powerful and beautiful. Science does not attempt to substitute the feeling. How could it? Why do you think it wants to?

You say: "Science is good for understanding physics, chemistry, and biology. But it stops there", and I agree. Love is explained by physics, chemistry and biology, but it doesn't speak to its value outside of the direct base survival-related benefits. We make our own meaning.

Sociology is not a science. Science-based psychology is a load of crap - just look at how simple BF Skinner's work was. Anthropology? Where's the scientific method there?

Now this just leaves me flabbergasted. Would you care to expound what your definition of science is and why these disciplines do not fit your description?

Neurology? Can neurology tell you how to live meaningfully?

ITS NOT SUPPOSED TO.

How to live happily without the use of drugs?

Huh? Care to explain how on earth we can survive without medicinal drugs? Mind power? Prayer?

I studied neurology, evolutionary psychology, and the endocrine system for YEARS and it got me nowhere. Two years studying different religions, spiritual philosophies, literature, personal reflection and REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE did.

Why are you conflating science and philosophy again?

Science in the humanities? That's nothing more than feigned autism in order to understand human truths that don't take a purely logical, analytical mind to understand - it takes the human heart. Something of yours that is clearly underdeveloped.

The human heart pumps blood. I don't understand why you think science, the understanding of natural laws, tries to make any kind of philosophical claims. It studies the physical. Do you think love is based on anything other than physical interactions? Does your love and mind fade away when you die? Everything points towards a strong "yes".

I went ahead and also removed the original spam links from their signature. Some people just don't get it. I consider anyone who posts links that somehow generate personal revenue to be spammers. They want to drive traffic to their sites and even have the nerve to mention they make money if people click on links, buy yet they don't consider this spamming. I think they were more upset about being caught so quickly when anything else. SkinWalker was being very nice in my opinion.

IS