[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Only religious idealism is true = reality is both matter and mind , the latter that's irreducible to the physical or to the material ,once again = that's the only conception of nature out there that does make sense in fact .

You seem to have an almost primitive view that anything that does not have mass requires a mystical, dualist explanation

.


So "primitive indeed " that science itself did originate from the very womb of a particular religion .
There is in fact nothing more primitive , absurd , surreal, stupid , sorry ...you name it , than that false materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " mainstream "scientific world view " .
I said many times , that since the mental is more fundamental than matter can ever be , (we still do not know even what matter exactly is , matter that's not just matter , simply put , let alone that we can pretend to know anything about the mental that's irreducible to the physical or to the material ) ,and since the mental has more fundamental causal effect than matter can ever have (Quantum mechanics has been showing the causal effect of the mind of the observer on matter ) , then, it's pretty logical to assume that there might be more fundamental forms of causation out there = non-physical or non-material forms of causation .

That design, as in the arrangement of things, is not a physical reality, that states do not matter, that interactions between things do not matter, that energetic processes do not matter, that changes over time do not matter or are not part of physical reality, every bit as much as mass.

Who said that ? Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?

[cheryl j]

the mental is more fundamental than matter

How do you know this? Do you believe that before there were humans to think about the universe, nothing existed or could exist?

[alancalverd]

Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?

Only the prejudiced and ignorant think so. Please don't ask those who know better, to accept your bizarre assertion as fact.

[cheryl j]

Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?

I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Religious dualism has its own metaphysical explanations of consciousness that are unfalsifiable = unscientific , but not necessarily false

So much for Popper.

And "not necessarily false" is not the same as "true," so your statement "Only religious idealism is true" isn't proven and can't be proven according to you.

Popper hismelf did realise the falsehood of materialism .


To me at least , religious dualism is true , but unfalsifiable = unscientific .

What is not unfalsifiable , is not necessarily false , as materialism is .

Which does mean that science cannot be the ultimate authority or the ultimate source of knowledge : that's beyond both science's realm and jurisdiction .

Materialism has been going in fact beyond the scientific method and beyond science thus = beyond science's realm and jurisdiction ,by stating that "all is matter " .

Worse : materialism has been imposing that false unfalsifiable metaphysical theory of nature of his ,for so long now , as "the scientific  world view " = how about that ?


I did post a long article from another forum on the subject , you seem to have dismissed,for no reason

 In short :

You did call my world view as being primitive , without realising the fact that the current " scientific world view " has just been the materialist metaphysical false one = the materialist outdated superseded false secular religion in science , that has been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view ",since the 19th century at least  .

Materialism that's just a lower and a degenerate form of ...christianity in fact , as Nietzsche used to say regarding ...humanism .

Who's the one here with a primitive view of the world , you or i , that's no question, obviously .

Congratulations, lady .

[cheryl j]

Popper hismelf did realise the falsehood of materialism .

Funny, I don't recall him saying that in the articles you posted.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?

I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

That's just a materialistic belief assumption extension of the  materialist "all is matter , including the mind " mainstream false "scientific world view " : irrelevant .

The conflict between science and religion has been just an Eurocentric problem , not universal ,not in the absolute sense at least .

There is no conflict between my faith and proper science without materialism, and there can be none  :
They complete each other , they are necessary to each other , they are the both sides of the same coin.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Folks :

Try to be civil : and i promise that it will be easy , a piece of cake , to demolish , so easy in fact that i cannot take any credit or glory for , to demolish your materialist mainstream  false  'scientific world view " sand castle ,in front of your own very lovely eyes :

a false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has absolutely nothing to do with science proper , the latter i do love so much , you have no idea thus .

Which also means that i will be just trying to make you realise what science proper is or should be in fact , and what is no science = the materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " : i am not and i will be not "evangelising " thus .

I see that some people here who have been conditionned ,brainwashed and indoctrinated by materialism for centuries now , to the point where they have been taking the false materialist conception of nature for granted and without question, as "the scientific world view " , i see that they will become hysteric in no time : very predictable indeed .

So, just get a grip ,and i will deliver .

[cheryl j]

What is not unfalsifiable , is not necessarily false , as materialism is .
Which does mean that science cannot be the ultimate authority or the ultimate source of knowledge : that's beyond both science's realm and jurisdiction .
Materialism has been going in fact beyond the scientific method and beyond science thus = beyond science's realm and jurisdiction ,by stating that "all is matter " .
Worse : materialism has been imposing that false unfalsifiable metaphysical theory of nature of his ,for so long now , as "the scientific  world view " = how about that ?

What "materialism " are you talking about , there is no such a thing. There is only the scientific method.

[cheryl j]

Folks :

Try to be civil : and i promise that it will be easy , a piece of cake , to demolish , so easy in fact that i cannot take any credit or glory for , to demolish your materialist mainstream  false  'scientific world view " sand castle ,in front of your very eyes :

a false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has absolutely nothing to do with science proper , the latter i do love so much , you have no idea thus .

I see that some people here who have been conditioned ,brainwashed and indoctrinated by materialism for centuries now , to the point whare they have been taking the false materialist conception of nature for granted and without question, as "the scientific world view " , i see that they will become hysteric in no time .

So, just get grip ,and i will deliver .

Great. I can hardly wait! I shall go make some popcorn.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What is not unfalsifiable , is not necessarily false , as materialism is .
Which does mean that science cannot be the ultimate authority or the ultimate source of knowledge : that's beyond both science's realm and jurisdiction .
Materialism has been going in fact beyond the scientific method and beyond science thus = beyond science's realm and jurisdiction ,by stating that "all is matter " .
Worse : materialism has been imposing that false unfalsifiable metaphysical theory of nature of his ,for so long now , as "the scientific  world view " = how about that ?

What "materialism " are you talking about

Oh, no : amazing : what is the meta-paradigm or the conception of nature that has been dominating in all sciences for that matter , since the 19th century at least , as to become the false mainstream "scientific world view " ? and hence , a lot of what you have been taking for granted as science , was no science = just materialist belief assumptions which have been just extensions of the materialist false conception of nature , materialist belief assumptions such as "the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, life or nature are mechanical ...." ...

there is no such a thing.

There is: what do you think i have been talking about all along ?  .
Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious .

There is only the scientific method.

I wish there were .

Fact is : The materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " has been just the false materialist conception of nature , science proper has absolutely nothing to do with , and hence fact is also :

science has been deluded by materialism  into assuming  that "all is matter ,including the mind " = just a materialist false conception of nature ,no empirical fact .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Folks :

Try to be civil : and i promise that it will be easy , a piece of cake , to demolish , so easy in fact that i cannot take any credit or glory for , to demolish your materialist mainstream  false  'scientific world view " sand castle ,in front of your very eyes :

a false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has absolutely nothing to do with science proper , the latter i do love so much , you have no idea thus .

I see that some people here who have been conditioned ,brainwashed and indoctrinated by materialism for centuries now , to the point whare they have been taking the false materialist conception of nature for granted and without question, as "the scientific world view " , i see that they will become hysteric in no time .

So, just get grip ,and i will deliver .

Great. I can hardly wait! I shall go make some popcorn.

That's the fair play civil spirit , girl :

I will do the same , good idea indeed .

Bon appetit , and good luck .

This promises to turn out to be entertaining , educational, inspiring ....after all , as i have been hoping it would do .

Which also means that religions are unfalsifiable = unscientific , but not all necessarily false = they cannot all be proven to be true of course ,as the materialist secular religion can be proven to be false .

In short :

I will telling you about what science proper is , and what is it not ,that's all .

In other words :

You have to be mentally or psychologically prepared as to have to deal with the fact that you will have to throw a lots of your presumed 'scientific " knowledge out of the window, by breaking free from your own materialist indoctrinations brainwash or conditionning  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Popper hismelf did realise the falsehood of materialism .

Funny, I don't recall him saying that in the articles you posted.

Just wait and see , my pretty charming lady :
I will be looking for those specific quotes in my digital library .

Later , alligator .

[cheryl j]

What "materialism " are you talking about

Oh, no : amazing : what is the meta-paradigm or the conception of nature that has been dominating in all sciences for that matter , since the 19th century at least , as to become the false mainstream "scientific world view " ? and hence , a lot of what you have been taking for granted as science , was no science = just materialist belief assumptions which have been just extensions of the materialist false conception of nature , materialist belief assumptions such as "the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, life or nature are mechanical ...." ...

Oh, that materialism - you mean your conspiracy theory involving scientists who chose to study some aspect of chemistry and physics instead of, say, elves.

There is: what do you think i have been talking about all along ?  .
Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious .

Uh, yes actually I do deny it. Hope that clarifies things.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What "materialism " are you talking about

Oh, no : amazing : what is the meta-paradigm or the conception of nature that has been dominating in all sciences for that matter , since the 19th century at least , as to become the false mainstream "scientific world view " ? and hence , a lot of what you have been taking for granted as science , was no science = just materialist belief assumptions which have been just extensions of the materialist false conception of nature , materialist belief assumptions such as "the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, life or nature are mechanical ...." ...

Oh, that materialism - you mean your conspiracy theory involving scientists who chose to study some aspect of chemistry and physics instead of, say, elves.

Be serious , please :
That's no conspiracy :
Materialism is just an outdated 19th century false and superseded conception of nature ideology  that was based on Newton's  classical  physics  .
Physicists thought at that time that there was nothing left to discover regarding the laws of physics ,and that there remained only details to be filled in.

There is: what do you think i have been talking about all along ?  .
Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious .

Uh, yes actually I do deny it. Hope that clarifies things.

How can you deny that ? Be serious .

[dlorde]

Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious .

Uh, yes actually I do deny it. Hope that clarifies things.

How can you deny that ? Be serious .

If you've been involved with science or scientists for any length of time, you can see it's obviously not the case.
 
But there are always a few people with an agenda who'll throw accusations around, perhaps because their pet hypothesis has been ignored, rejected, or falsified - or perhaps for religious reasons.

[RD]

How can you deny that ? Be serious .

Searching ... https://www.google.com/search?q=DonQuichotte+%22Be+serious%22+site:thenakedscientists.com , gives "about 60 results".

Someone seriously needs some new material.

[dlorde]

Someone seriously needs some new material.

Never mind the casual expressions, he seriously needs material to provide some evidence or argument for his assertions.

[cheryl j]

I think, perhaps, it would help to explore some examples to clarify what we're talking about. I would expect mammals to have some sense of self, and insects little or none (they can detect others and act accordingly, but this appears reflexive or 'hard-coded'). But what about, say, a frog? does a frog need to conceptualize? It shows little adaptability, problem-solving, or forward planning, so I would think not...

It's complicated too, somewhat, in that there often seems to be more than one way to skin a cat in nature. In the same way there are different engineering designs for flight in the wings of insects, birds, bats and gliding mammals, there may be different structures that accomplish learning, even consciousness or self awareness. Or perhaps the information will be useful in the opposite way, in showing what kinds of learned intelligent behavior are possible without consciousness.

 Below is an article about crows, and one about face recognition and learning in wasps.

Crows Are No Bird-Brains: Neurobiologists Investigate Neuronal Basis of Crows' Intelligence
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131128103835.htm

Insects Recognize Faces Using Processing Mechanism Similar to That of Humans
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=insects-recognize-faces-using-processing-mechanism-similar-to-that-of-humans

[cheryl j]

Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?

I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.

That's just a materialistic belief assumption extension of the  materialist "all is matter , including the mind " mainstream false "scientific world view " : irrelevant .


The conflict between science and religion has been just an Eurocentric problem , not universal ,not in the absolute sense at least .

There is no conflict between my faith and proper science without materialism, and there can be none  :
They complete each other , they are necessary to each other , they are the both sides of the same coin.

There doesn't have to be a conflict between any religion and science. One question religion asks that science doesn't, is what  should we do? What's morally right? Some branches of ethical philosophy raise this question, but moral principles can't be derived from physical facts. Perhaps that is one reason Ethos does not see a conflict between his faith and science, although I don't wish to put words in his mouth.

But the "conflict" only seems to arise when people try to prove religious beliefs scientifically, substitute religious doctrine for empirical evidence, or try to derive moral beliefs from physical facts.

Your assertion that materialism is a degenerate form of Christianity has no basis logically or historically, and I don't see how any particular religion "gave birth to" any area of science, even if some early scientists were also theists, or had the time and literacy skills to pursue science because of their religious occupation.