Religion and Science Unification

DeeElf · Post by **DeeElf** » December 4th, 2012, 3:07 am

Rederic wrote:Illuminism 1. (l.c.) the claim to possess superior knowledge. 2. the beliefs or claims of certain religious groups or sects that they possess special religious enlightenment.

Which has nothing to do with the Scientific Illuminism of Aleister Crowley et al.

Skakos · Post by **Skakos** » December 7th, 2012, 8:13 pm

Actually many scientists today believe they also have a kind of "special" enlightenment also...

DeeElf · Post by **DeeElf** » December 15th, 2012, 5:09 pm

Skakos wrote:Actually many scientists today believe they also have a kind of "special" enlightenment also...

How many scientist have you actually interviewed?

How did you divine the consensus opinion of so many scientists?

Skakos · Post by **Skakos** » December 23rd, 2012, 12:37 pm

DeeElf wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

How many scientist have you actually interviewed?

How did you divine the consensus opinion of so many scientists?

Do I count? Does my professor counts? Should I be a journalist in order to be eligible for interviewing? So many questions... What I was trying to say is that many scientists today feel religious or believe in some kind of spirituality. Those beliefs do not stop them from being scientists too. There are gallops related to religiosity among scientists (have posted some at harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2012 ... ppression/ and at the end of harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011 ... lazj6wq-2/).

But what is your opinion? What is your personal experience?

Rederic · Post by **Rederic** » December 23rd, 2012, 4:45 pm

DeeElf wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Which has nothing to do with the Scientific Illuminism of Aleister Crowley et al.

You can try & change the definition of illuminism to suit your & others theories, but then most of the literate people in the world won't have a clue what your talking about. As for Crowley, I wouldn't describe his ideas as scientific but more fantasy.

Skakos · Post by **Skakos** » December 23rd, 2012, 5:48 pm

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

You can try & change the definition of illuminism to suit your & others theories, but then most of the literate people in the world won't have a clue what your talking about. As for Crowley, I wouldn't describe his ideas as scientific but more fantasy.

So what actually IS scientific illuminism? I haven't heard of it.

DeeElf · Post by **DeeElf** » December 26th, 2012, 2:12 am

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

You can try & change the definition of illuminism to suit your & others theories, but then most of the literate people in the world won't have a clue what your talking about. As for Crowley, I wouldn't describe his ideas as scientific but more fantasy.

Which of Crowley's ideas are you referring to?

-- Updated December 25th, 2012, 11:22 pm to add the following --

Skakos wrote:So what actually IS scientific illuminism? I haven't heard of it.

Google it. And while you're at it, google "the is of identity" too.

Rederic · Post by **Rederic** » December 27th, 2012, 8:24 am

Rederic wrote:(Nested quote removed.)

You can try & change the definition of illuminism to suit your & others theories, but then most of the literate people in the world won't have a clue what your talking about. As for Crowley, I wouldn't describe his ideas as scientific but more fantasy.

Which of Crowley's ideas are you referring to?

I'm referring to the man himself. I think he & his ideas were divorced from reality.

Syamsu · Post by **Syamsu** » December 27th, 2012, 10:29 am

Skakos wrote:Some time ago I wrote an article about the philosophy of religion and science (see "Religion and Science unification - Towards religional science"). What I would like to do is discuss here about the main points of my beliefs which are:

Exact science is good for many things, mainly things which are measurable and can be experimentally tested.

Exact science has limits. There are many things which cannot be measured or written down using mathematics. And these things are the most important things in life.

Intuition is as much as good a tool for learning about "reality" (if such thing even exists), as is logic. And there are many great scientific theories that have come out of the blue based on instinct.

The logic of many people (including many great mathematicians) tell them that a First Cause exists. The fact that the logic of other people does not lead to the same conclusion, does not negate the logic of the abovementioned people. Religion should learn its limitations and scope, but so must Science...
And Science should stop from being dogmatic as it is now. Everything in science is based on axioms. And axioms are based on instinct and change constantly (see what happened with Eucledian Geometry). Stating that ideas like "materialism" are "scientifically correct" is pure and crude DOGMATISM.

If you think "logic" is the way to go and that logic is against God, think twice. Aristotle (the founder of Logic) and Godel (the second greatest logician after Aristotle) had logical arguments IN FAVOR of God...

Science and Religion are both tools to reach the "truth" (if such thing even exists) and should be used together to understand the cosmos.

I would love to hear comments or your opinions.

Science and religion were already in perfect harmony at the start of the scientific revolution with creationism. Take for instance the creationist research into the species of wasp whose larvae eats it's host while alive. This kind of wasp seemed heinous to the creationists who researched them. And because there were so many different species of wasp which did this, it shook their belief in God the creator. So in response they researched this wasp with a particular eye to any possible pain involved in the larvae eating it's prey alive. So they found that the larvae anestesize it's prey somewhat, and found out all sorts of other things about this wasp, which is fairly significant in the ecosystem. So on the one hand we get a lot of facts, on the other hand we get a comprehensive subjective judgement on the wasp.

Now if you find such a wasp in your garden, you are reasonably guided by creationism on whether you should treat it as a pest to get rid of, or that you should welcome it.

Compare that to evolutionists who went yuck over the wasp, and then concluded from the wasp that nature is reasonless, which means whatever. It means then that evolutionists are likely to kill the wasp, because of failing to make a comprehensive subjective judgment on the wasp. Because of the purported reasonlessness in nature, there is simply nothing to build a subjective judgement with.

Rederic · Post by **Rederic** » December 27th, 2012, 10:55 am

Nonsense. Reasonlessness has never been the tenet of evolutionists. Everything in nature has a reason for existing. I think you're confusing reason with indifference. Nature is indifferent to pain, cruelty and emotion.

Syamsu · Post by **Syamsu** » December 27th, 2012, 11:03 am

Rederic wrote:Nonsense. Reasonlessness has never been the tenet of evolutionists. Everything in nature has a reason for existing. I think you're confusing reason with indifference. Nature is indifferent to pain, cruelty and emotion.

That's the same thing. You don't have a cultivated subjective opinion on the wasp because you treat it all as rooted in indifference.

Rederic · Post by **Rederic** » December 27th, 2012, 1:42 pm

Syamsu wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

That's the same thing. You don't have a cultivated subjective opinion on the wasp because you treat it all as rooted in indifference.

No it's not. Reason has nothing to do with indifference. It's nature that's indifferent to life, an evolutionist's main interest is life.

Skakos · Post by **Skakos** » December 27th, 2012, 2:03 pm

Rederic wrote:Nonsense. Reasonlessness has never been the tenet of evolutionists. Everything in nature has a reason for existing. I think you're confusing reason with indifference. Nature is indifferent to pain, cruelty and emotion.

What would be that reason according to ToE?

Syamsu · Post by **Syamsu** » December 27th, 2012, 3:06 pm

Rederic wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

No it's not. Reason has nothing to do with indifference. It's nature that's indifferent to life, an evolutionist's main interest is life.

It's all the same in the sense that it precludes you from forming a subjective opinion. Anything you say is worthwhile is "really" indifferent. There is no subjective judgment in the sense of subjectively relating to the spirit of decisions by which it was created and is preserved, which means there is no subjectivity at all.

Rederic · Post by **Rederic** » December 27th, 2012, 3:52 pm

Skakos wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

What would be that reason according to ToE?

Reason, is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, for establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information.[/quote wikipedia.

There are many reasons for the countless life forms that exist.

-- Updated December 27th, 2012, 4:23 pm to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

A subjective opinion is unnecessary in view of the masses of evidence for evolution. You only need a subjective opinion if you discount the evidence. There aren't many people left who disbelieve the Theory of Evolution.