Do you have any spiritual beliefs, river?No it doesn't , actually .
Do you have any spiritual beliefs, river?No it doesn't , actually .
As I mentioned a few posts up or pages back...I'm having title regret. I thought ''could'' would have been a more appropriate word than ''should,'' but now I'm not so sure. What would have been a better title? Hmm.
Do you have any spiritual beliefs, river?
Ah, I know. Is it possible for religion to be replaced by science?
Yep, that would have been better. Oh well.
Refer to the image of the Auditors, above, analyzing the elements of an oil painting.I can’t think of a better process to analyze the elements of usefulness in any case better than science. With sufficient information science can perspectively describe the value of anything, including instances of sentimentality.
Refer to the image of the Auditors, above, analyzing the elements of an oil painting.
The "sufficient information" required by a scientific investigation of the value - to a human, presumably - of something like sentiment, would include an overarching and governing "whole picture" aesthetic/ spiritual etc framework of the role of sentiment in human life. This would have to be supplied from outside the frame in which the scientific - aka rational - analysis takes place. The rational analysis cannot frame itself.
I think my struggle is with the word ''should.'' Should seems obligatory, like we are obligated to change from one thing to the other. Nah, that wasn't my intent. I'm unsure now as to what my intent was with starting this thread. Hmm.Why ?
I understand the Universe , not as any science or religion .
But as it is .
Where were you 28 pages ago, when we so desperately needed it explained?No it doesn't , actually .
The psychological expressions you note can all be related to the neurology and existential conditions that produced them, scientific investigation of those and any other aspect of reality is the only useful way to ultimately understand them.That would include love, respect, pride, etc I assume?
What value does science grant love do you think?
I don’t doubt that scientists will at some point be able to associate detailed neural states with their associated psychological expressions. We make detailed descriptions of the function and behavior in other forms of machinery, it’s only a matter of time until we can do it more effectively with the human variety.Refer to the image of the Auditors, above, analyzing the elements of an oil painting.
The "sufficient information" required by a scientific investigation of the value - to a human, presumably - of something like sentiment, would include an overarching and governing "whole picture" aesthetic/ spiritual etc framework of the role of sentiment in human life. This would have to be supplied from outside the frame in which the scientific - aka rational - analysis takes place. The rational analysis cannot frame itself.
Sure, but how does that relate to value?The psychological expressions you note can all be related to the neurology and existential conditions that produced them, scientific investigation of those and any other aspect of reality is the only useful way to ultimately understand them.
That first word underlies the problem with your conclusion.If .....
Can science replace religion?
Value is a condition of usefulness, so the more that is known about a subject, the better the assignment of usefulness can be determined, and correspondingly its value.Sure, but how does that relate to value?
Sure, we practice it on livestock all the time. To some degree we are inherently and conditionally predisposed to practice eugenics on a personal level. Selecting reproductive partners based on their physical appearance, intelligence and state of health could be considered such a personal form of eugenics. Should we discourage such practices?Are you familiar with the ethical dilemma posed by the field of Eugenics?
By who's criteria do you determine usefullness?Value is a condition of usefulness, so the more that is known about a subject, the better the assignment of usefulness can be determined, and correspondingly its value.
Sure, we practice it on livestock all the time. To some degree we are inherently and conditionally predisposed to practice eugenics on a personal level. Selecting reproductive partners based on their physical appearance, intelligence and state of health could be considered such a personal form of eugenics. Should we discourage such practices?
We don't need religion.Which is why it needs a religion.
Fixed that for you."I" don't need religion.
You want religion. If you were rational you wouldn't need religion.Fixed that for you.
You are still merely talking about your values as if they encompass something broader than your self.You want religion. If you were rational you wouldn't need religion.
Fixed that for you.
Reported.I like altering direct quotes of other members.
LOL, this from a god man.You are still merely talking about your values as if they encompass something broader than your self.