I don't understand the idea of "this is not a scientific claim." I would think that the scientific method is the way to obtain knowledge. If you have no observations, no evidence, you have no argument. Your claim has become on par with a claim that fairies exist. Right?
It's called "revealed knowledge", as opposed to knowledge derived from evidence. Revealed knowledge comes from prophets, and has no foundation in reality other than some people "feel" that it is right.
It is the opposite of science, which is only based on evidence and is always open to challenge when new evidence is presented.
So yes, it is on par with a claim that fairies exist.
>> ^brain: I don't understand the idea of "this is not a scientific claim." I would think that the scientific method is the way to obtain knowledge. If you have no observations, no evidence, you have no argument. Your claim has become on par with a claim that fairies exist. Right?
First, the rabbi didn't say that it's a knowledge claim, either--at least, not in this clip. One can make claims that are nonetheless not knowledge claims. A faith claim would seem to be in this category.
Second, it's not the case that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. History, for example, provides us with knowledge. Through the study of history, we can know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and became the Emperor of Rome. Yet history is not strictly speaking scientific. Yes, it's highly empirical, but there is a great deal of interpretation involved as well.
Surely literature and poetry have unique contributions to make, insights to provide. And yet these insights are in no way scientific.
Science itself is nonsensical without certain philosophical underpinnings--justifications for and articulations of empirical knowledge-gathering, an understanding of what kind of knowledge can be gathered, etc. These considerations take place before any scientific endeavor can be made, whether they are consciously made and clearly articulated, or subconscious and confused. If science leads to knowledge, then surely the study of philosophy on its own leads to a certain kind of knowledge.
So no, science is not the only way to gain knowledge.
You're missing the point a bit, dude. The rabbi is making claims that enter into the realm of science. His comment on consciousness, for example. There have been a ton of advances in neuroscience over the past half century that completely contradict the concept of an immaterial soul. Also, I'm not sure literature and poetry can be categorized as knowledge. At least not in the way Harris and this rabbi are using the term.
Science is a tool. And it is the best tool that we have for understanding the world around us.
Science is the best way to get knowledge. The reason history, philosophy and any social sciences have any results (knowledge) is because the scientific knowledge is applied to them. There is no empirical evidence at all in metaphysical claims, and thus they can easily be dismissed as false.
There is nothing inherently wrong with making a metaphysical claim. The problem occurs when that claim is taken as knowledge without any factual check. It invites circular reasoning and putting the cart before the horse.
As when proponents of intelligent design say the world was made for man, because if it was a bit different we wouldn't be able to survive on it. When in reality, the world wasn't made for us, but we were made for the world. This just happens to be one place where life can form, so it formed. The metaphysical claim of "meaning" is brought into view under the subject of "sustainability." Thus, a metaphysical idea has a foundation built upon a scientific principle. It is not knowledge, because it cannot be verified without the use of the scientific method. It is simply an idea, like believing that Elvis is still alive.
"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "Ah," says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway . . . "
There's also a double standard that religious people often have for scientific knowledge. When science goes against their views, the response is that it is outside the realm of faith. But if some of their claims (miracles, virgin births, etc) were proven scientifically do you think they would ignore those results?
Knowledge is just a humanistic term for data... data points organized into patterns at a level of summary that's useful to the conscious mind.
Philosophy and introspection are fine, just so long as they're not claimed to trump science. Legislating their trumping of science is particularly going too far.
>> ^smooman: Do you love someone? Could you prove it? Guess you dont love that someone then =(
"Proving" is something you can do in math, and only math. For everything else we ask: Is there enough evidence? And it is easy enough collecting evidence of love, simply measure peoples pulse and body heat when they are touched by a loved one, or even see their picture, next to pictures of other random people.
So does love exist? Yes, the evidence clearly suggests it does.
Does sincere religiosity exist? Definitely, the evidence suggests it does.
Can you love Jesus or other imaginary gods with all your heart? Quite probably yes,my guess is that a similar pulse/picture test could measure that too.
Does God exist? Probably not, we have no evidence that suggests he does.
>> ^chilaxe: Knowledge is just a humanistic term for data... data points organized into patterns at a level of summary that's useful to the conscious mind.
Philosophy and introspection is fine, just so long as it's not claimed to trump science. Legislating its trumping of science is particularly going too far.
No, knowledge is word which we use to denote "state of mind" a psychological and mental faculty, which we do not fully understand. I know that I exist, bu I don't knoew exactly how it is that this knowledge occurs Data is something utterly different. YOu can say a magazine article has data but it doesn't have "knowledge" Only when conscious (or semi-conscious) beings apply their mental faculties to "data" do we have knowledge.
MaxWilder argue me this (as an exercise...without picking on me) This may be what he meant in the debate. "I know God exists because it is consistent with everything I know from the world around me.
The jew is making an argument from ignorance. never a good argument. .......................................................................................................
"Do you love someone? Could you prove it? Guess you dont love that someone then "
Love exists as an subjective exsperance Within the next 50 years through science we will be able to understand the roots of that subjective exsperance in the mind. that's fine
Religion Exists as a subjective exsperance and no doubt we will be able to prove the roots of that fealing as will in due course.
The important thing to note is just Because you have a sertain fealing because you belive in a concept dose not then make something else exsist in reality , Because i feal a sertain way when i think about the concept of religoin dose not then Prove that A God Exsists ore that what is written in a religious txt is true. In the same whay that just because i love sumone or feal love dose not then mean that Choculet tasts nice or that there is a factory that produces love in tin cans.
In my mind religion is a false explanation ( not based on any fact) that was developed to describe feelings of wonderment that you can get in varouse situations or the feelings you get when you meditate.
You use science to help check that the explication you give for a certain observable thing is true , Religion,s r normally unfalsifiable and this is why they are like a cancer (literally a thought cancer) thay r simply useless to the development of human understanding.
Stumble This
It is the opposite of science, which is only based on evidence and is always open to challenge when new evidence is presented.
So yes, it is on par with a claim that fairies exist.
Was one trying to influence the other to believe in God?
Or the other way around?
Or did it have to do with the impact of a forced, or coerced religion on our culture?
Bam, found it: http://www.ajula.edu/Content/ContentUnit.asp?CID=1766&u=7037&t=0
I don't understand the idea of "this is not a scientific claim." I would think that the scientific method is the way to obtain knowledge. If you have no observations, no evidence, you have no argument. Your claim has become on par with a claim that fairies exist. Right?
First, the rabbi didn't say that it's a knowledge claim, either--at least, not in this clip. One can make claims that are nonetheless not knowledge claims. A faith claim would seem to be in this category.
Second, it's not the case that all knowledge is scientific knowledge. History, for example, provides us with knowledge. Through the study of history, we can know that Caesar crossed the Rubicon and became the Emperor of Rome. Yet history is not strictly speaking scientific. Yes, it's highly empirical, but there is a great deal of interpretation involved as well.
Surely literature and poetry have unique contributions to make, insights to provide. And yet these insights are in no way scientific.
Science itself is nonsensical without certain philosophical underpinnings--justifications for and articulations of empirical knowledge-gathering, an understanding of what kind of knowledge can be gathered, etc. These considerations take place before any scientific endeavor can be made, whether they are consciously made and clearly articulated, or subconscious and confused. If science leads to knowledge, then surely the study of philosophy on its own leads to a certain kind of knowledge.
So no, science is not the only way to gain knowledge.
Science is a tool. And it is the best tool that we have for understanding the world around us.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-vs-Rabbi-David-Wolpe
*books for writers.
As when proponents of intelligent design say the world was made for man, because if it was a bit different we wouldn't be able to survive on it. When in reality, the world wasn't made for us, but we were made for the world. This just happens to be one place where life can form, so it formed. The metaphysical claim of "meaning" is brought into view under the subject of "sustainability." Thus, a metaphysical idea has a foundation built upon a scientific principle. It is not knowledge, because it cannot be verified without the use of the scientific method. It is simply an idea, like believing that Elvis is still alive.
"Ah," says man, "but the Babel Fish is a dead giveaway . . . "
Philosophy and introspection are fine, just so long as they're not claimed to trump science. Legislating their trumping of science is particularly going too far.
Do you love someone? Could you prove it? Guess you dont love that someone then =(
"Proving" is something you can do in math, and only math. For everything else we ask: Is there enough evidence? And it is easy enough collecting evidence of love, simply measure peoples pulse and body heat when they are touched by a loved one, or even see their picture, next to pictures of other random people.
So does love exist? Yes, the evidence clearly suggests it does.
Does sincere religiosity exist? Definitely, the evidence suggests it does.
Can you love Jesus or other imaginary gods with all your heart? Quite probably yes,my guess is that a similar pulse/picture test could measure that too.
Does God exist? Probably not, we have no evidence that suggests he does.
Knowledge is just a humanistic term for data... data points organized into patterns at a level of summary that's useful to the conscious mind.
Philosophy and introspection is fine, just so long as it's not claimed to trump science. Legislating its trumping of science is particularly going too far.
No, knowledge is word which we use to denote "state of mind" a psychological and mental faculty, which we do not fully understand.
I know that I exist, bu I don't knoew exactly how it is that this knowledge occurs
Data is something utterly different. YOu can say a magazine article has data but it doesn't have "knowledge"
Only when conscious (or semi-conscious) beings apply their mental faculties to "data" do we have knowledge.
This may be what he meant in the debate.
"I know God exists because it is consistent with everything I know from the world around me.
.......................................................................................................
"Do you love someone? Could you prove it? Guess you dont love that someone then "
Love exists as an subjective exsperance Within the next 50 years through science we will be able to understand the roots of that subjective exsperance in the mind. that's fine
Religion Exists as a subjective exsperance and no doubt we will be able to prove the roots of that fealing as will in due course.
The important thing to note is just Because you have a sertain fealing because you belive in a concept dose not then make something else exsist in reality , Because i feal a sertain way when i think about the concept of religoin dose not then Prove that A God Exsists ore that what is written in a religious txt is true. In the same whay that just because i love sumone or feal love dose not then mean that Choculet tasts nice or that there is a factory that produces love in tin cans.
In my mind religion is a false explanation ( not based on any fact) that was developed to describe feelings of wonderment that you can get in varouse situations or the feelings you get when you meditate.
You use science to help check that the explication you give for a certain observable thing is true , Religion,s r normally unfalsifiable and this is why they are like a cancer (literally a thought cancer) thay r simply useless to the development of human understanding.
The jew is making an argument from ignorance. never a good argument.
You mean 'the Jew,' Sam Harris? That one? Or the other one?
>> ^westy:
The jew is making an argument from ignorance. never a good argument.
You mean 'the Jew,' Sam Harris? That one? Or the other one?
The westy is trolling. Don't feed him please.
Demon_ix the Irony is your a bigger troll and your compleatly ignorant to the fact.