Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[t'Sade]

I agree. For me, God is kind of a placeholder for "Everything You Don't Understand" and the more we understand the universe, the rules, and science, the closer we get to knowing God.

[Ludovico]

I agree. For me, God is kind of a placeholder for "Everything You Don't Understand" and the more we understand the universe, the rules, and science, the closer we get to knowing God.

The question is, once we unlock the secrets, and understand the intelligence of the universe in purely empirical, scientific terms - what will all the religions do who have a personal God?

 It won't be a problem for Buddhists, or even Hindu's and Taoists, but will the western religions ever let go of their Authoritarian Master who they need to blindly obey?

[t'Sade]

Well, I'm hoping at that point it will be obvious. But I won't be around when that happens.

[Ludovico]

Well, I'm hoping at that point it will be obvious. But I won't be around when that happens.

Trouble is, it's obvious now! Hope your around for a real long time.

[LT]

I agree. For me, God is kind of a placeholder for "Everything You Don't Understand" and the more we understand the universe, the rules, and science, the closer we get to knowing God.

The thing is, that isn't science.  Science is all about finding logical explanations that are emperical to what can be observed in the physical universe.  This is why ID is not a valid scientific theory has no place in a science curriculum.  This isn't even dipping into the Constitutional issue of respecting the establishment of a religion that requiring ID to be taught in public schools would violate.

[t'Sade]

That part you and I can agree on. Philosophy doesn't belong in the science room. It belongs in debates and arguments. I full admit that my view of ID isn't based on science, but I know eventually science will explain everything.

[KK]

No idea how curriculae work in America, but I argue that Philosophy is a science too. It is not a natural science, but a social science, as much as law or economics are. So Philosophy does belong in the science room.

Of course, it's not as easy to validate a thesis in such sciences as it is in the natural sciences, but still these sciences work on the application of logic. (Well, slightly harder in law, as my constitutional law prof put it: law is like mathematics, 1 + 1 = 2. Except when in mathematics, there is no argument about it, in law you have argue whether 1 really means 1, a + is a +, a = really is a = and whether 2 as a result really is acceptable).

In contrast to this, religion does not work on the application of logic, but the application of a dogma, mostly founded on the existence of some supernatural being or planes of existence.

So, I see ID as something of a borderline thing, but in its essence it says that there's "something out there" that "made everything work as it does". That shoves it quite a bit in the religions corner.

[MariusVI]

"Philosophy," as a word, switches meaning all the time. As an academic discipline it comprises formal logic, which may have its place in a science class, and the philosophy of language, which in my view is certainly very important to science. Too often I'm seeing scientists doing great claims that aren't really supported by their research - mosttimes this stems from a misunderstanding of language. Science does work with language, in the end, so it would be nice if scientists understood language, especially the way in which it sabotages any big claims about intelligence, life, god, religion, freedom, determinism, et cetera. Please teach the scientists to understand the scope of their own research... and favor science and logic over drama, world view and philosophical anthropology.

[LT]

Philosophy is its own subject, as is theology, and it is taught at most colleges.  It does not belong in a science classroom, especially not a high school classroom.

[Ludovico]

Philosophy is its own subject, as is theology, and it is taught at most colleges.  It does not belong in a science classroom, especially not a high school classroom.

I have to disagree. One whole area of philosophy is called The Philosophy of Science. An example is Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle, another Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

In England, they have the International Baccalaurate Diploma, and advanced high school degree. One of the requirments is the Theory of Knowledge, a philosophical study of what exactly knowlege is. It can be taught separately, but also included in every class, especially science classes.

No matter what subject you are studying, history, math, art, science, etc., you must include the philosophical aspect. Otherwise, you are only regurgitating information. This is especially true for high school kids, who must be taught to think critically and deeply!

[t'Sade]

Bah, completely forgot about that area. No fair complicating the non-argument.

[KK]

Well, in Germany it's all considered science, including religion.
Just different from natural sciences in many aspects of course.

However, it might just be a different usage/meaning of the word science that causes confusion:

Science in German =Wissenschaft; derives from Wissen = knowledge und schaffen = to accomplish, to make, to work on
So the word essentially means "making of knowledge".

[der Wandersmann]

One of the few comp courses left at the University of Chicago when I attended (note: the term "attended" should be construed very loosely) was called O.M.P. ... "Organisation, Methods, and Principles of Knowledge". It was a three-quarter course, i.e., an entire year, and one's grade was based upon a 6-hour comprehensive (hence "comp") exam given at the end of the year. It was Philosophy. I believe it was later dismantled and rebuilt as Philosophy 101, 102, 103. Anyway, as Huck Finn says about The Pilgrim's Progress, the statements in it were "interesting, but tough". Fact is, I don't think any one really understood it. I know I didn't. So we bullshitted our way through the course and the exam, then we went out and got drunk, as any proper student should. So I don't really know much about Philosophy, but I think I know what's right and what's wrong, and that'll have to do, because I'm not going back in there. Hell, no!

I sort of go by the Tentmaker's words:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

[LT]

I guess then if religion is scientific enough for school then science is spiritual enough for church, right?  Again, completely ignoring the Consititution here...

[Ludovico]

One of the few comp courses left at the University of Chicago when I attended (note: the term "attended" should be construed very loosely) was called O.M.P. ... "Organisation, Methods, and Principles of Knowledge". It was a three-quarter course, i.e., an entire year, and one's grade was based upon a 6-hour comprehensive (hence "comp") exam given at the end of the year. It was Philosophy. I believe it was later dismantled and rebuilt as Philosophy 101, 102, 103. Anyway, as Huck Finn says about The Pilgrim's Progress, the statements in it were "interesting, but tough". Fact is, I don't think any one really understood it. I know I didn't. So we bullshitted our way through the course and the exam, then we went out and got drunk, as any proper student should. So I don't really know much about Philosophy, but I think I know what's right and what's wrong, and that'll have to do, because I'm not going back in there. Hell, no!

I sort of go by the Tentmaker's words:

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

..don't know much about philosophy?  Hey, that could be a song! 

The problem is modern philosophy has been made so technical it goes beyond the comprehension of most folks. Some think no one knows what they are talking about, kinda like just a game of verbal diahrea.

To really understand the philosophy of science, you have to understand stuff like relativity and quantum mechanics.

However, if students aren't introduced to the theory of knowledge, they may wind up thinking that science is concrete empirical fact, and write everything else off as religion.

In actuality, at the highest level, scientific truth is deeply philosophic, the universe not the machine of Newton.