It is deliciously ironic Aqvarvis attacking science as a failure on the internet a successful product of science which has conquered more of the globe than any single religion. Science is learning, learning is progress and understanding. Science has effected the entire globe its benefits always quick to spread, world wide communications, transport and has enabled agriculture to feed millions more than could exist in virgin nature. Science has extended our life expectancy. No religion has ever been as great or as universal as science. Science just does not support religion and that is why Christians are angry at science and claim to reject it but will still line up for bird flu vaccine. Science can only describe reality and with that description we are given that how to.

A baby has to learn how to breast feed , its first attempts are clumsy it has to discard its biologically bred hypothesis to purse its lips or move its head away before it can learn that the way to feed is to grip onto the nipple and suck. Even a year down the track it is doing the same with hand eye co-ordination to stick a spoon in its mouth. Every species with a cognitive brain from the moment it is born is a scientist practicing science.

Olivers apparent existence here not proof enough he exists? Aqvarvis I bet you don’t believe that post modernist mumbo jumbo I guarantee you hold reality absolute too you live in a physically real house and would even have abstract realities like bank accounts. You would not give them up to demonstrate your faith in post modernism.

Ok I admit that science has failed to ask why Tinkerbelle needs a magic wand and doesn’t wiggle her nose. Aqvarvis since religion has succeeded in such questions of importance and you are so well informed by the authority of god please answer that important question. Why wand over wiggle?

Alas scientists- psychologists, psychiatrists, neurologists and anthropologists have already answered the questions you claim science has failed to ask, you just don’t want to know the answer.

Aquarivs,

"What I see is you equally dependent on someone else's work, someone else's thinking for your opinions and then use them to attempt to defeat someone else and their opinion based on someone else's thinking."

Thanks for your comment.

On whom, am I dependent, specifically? Certainly, I am influenced by Polanyi and Lakatos. Popper is an evergreen but not quite what see, either. But OWN position isn't a direct match.

Argument from "authority" can be posited as a logical fallacy. But, what is one to do? Not accept the contemporary dictionary meaning of the words you used in your last post? Difference is scientific authorities are malliable, but, religious traditionalism more static. The former seeks progress, the later langsyne affinities.

On matters of Science vs Tecchnology, the outline prided was no more than what pretty much anyone from the History of Science Society or PhD course curricula would state. To go into depth would take thousands of words.

God is a separate construct to religion. Religions and priesthoods are seemly [based on history] political and organizational instrumentalies. The God construct is separate to this call. God could exist [even in form totally unknown], or, subsist does as a character [like Louis Lane], independent to existence/non existence [Russell/Meinong]. A hypothetical God could have created the Universe then forgot about it.

My thing with religionists/denominationalists is, that, Sells, e.g., in the search for God, wont look beyond "indwelling" in worship [Polanyi]. One might not be able to prove/disprove whether or not God exists/does exist. But, one CAN study the theocrasia of divinities in history and draw conclusions, beyond the self-referencing & self edifying claims of scripture. Sells has chosen Jesus without investigating God. Contrarily, a Cosmologist [pride aside] would re-visit a theory given counter evidence

Now Oliver don't get upset with me. That sentence wasn't supposed to come off like a personal attack as such but, rather to highlight that our beliefs and perceptions are not inclusive or exclusive to the individual. We are dependent on many authorities.

I once read a thesis based on mans probable outcome had he not accepted natures gift of fire. The end of the story doesn't have us here today with all the comforts of our society and scientific advances. We would have very little of it. Man never would have had a comfortable moment to contemplate ideas not directly related to immediate survival.

I understand your argument with Sellick because I myself dislike his approach. Especially his "the Church above the individual". And this last statement that monotheism is mans "normal" spiritual direction is a statement totally blind to mans history and beliefs. Polytheism was predominate in both theory and practice before being beaten out of many cultures world wide by a richer more aggressive mono(theism)culture.

"Religion" itself in the absents of spirituality is much like our government and our education centres. They have forgotten their purpose and have sought to fortress their "authority" and increase their size so that people become dependent on the institution rather than independent of thought and free of mans baser instincts. Our culture is not free it is heavily institutionalized.

West, Has science proven there is no God?
You true motives are apparent with your constant bashing use of the word Christian.
Reality as an absolute. I loved that. Thanks. Do I have to adopt your contemptuous reality or can I continue with my own hedonistic dance picking among life's smörgåsbord of offerings. I'm way too hedonistic to be throwing any human experience out of consideration for some artificially pure ideology that is supposed to be the manifestation of existence. Science is man made. Religion is man made. Democracy is man made. Communism is man made. Choosing one does not nullify the others.
I'll take my freedom over your self imposed constraints. You lack imagination dude.

aqvarivs,

No offence taken. But SCience treat information and knowledge discovery in the same way, as a religionist [often denominationalist]. Scientists will admit to be perpetually in the "twighlight" [Locke] of knowledge. Sells believes, he has found the light, stop. (a) an untexted a priori assumption and (b) the Church is not about informaton exchange, but experiencial "indwelling" [Polanyi] in a perfomance, like a play of indoctrination. What " authority" is, differs between science and religion.

If Sells honesty studied theocracia, it is possible would findds a less doctrinaire God, if there is such a thing, based on the many manifestations through history. In the Middle East some not dissimililar to Christianity.

I thought my earlier post suggested an answer to your quest to West. That is, one cannot "prove" the existence or non-existence of Dod. But one can see theocrasia operate and how huuman devised gods played their roles in societies.

Yes, these religions are linked to governments throughout history.

Sells and other religionists have a medieval approach to knowledge discovery,rather than reaching their conclusions in a more seasoned manner. It is how they think nbot so much their conclusions, I feel odd.

You mention reality. I don't a some knowledge of ONE reality. Rather, I place [tentative] probabilities for many different realities, based on the prevailing evidence,

Donnie and Kerein,

Will address your matters soon.

Philo,

Thanks again for your contributions. We still have the matter of your sources, regarding the alleged Greek god, "Demon" and according to you Woodhouse being WRONG [Your emphasis]the Greek meaning of "Demon".

Closest I can find is Deimos [nasty character]. What source do you have in educated [Attic] Greek that questions Woodhouse (1910, page 210)? As you know, translating from the Vulgar Latin into Koine Greek is less reliable, i.e., poorer vocabulary and greater chance of "Chinese Whispers".

West and Keiran,

Note Sells the Silent, remains silent. His right, I guess, but, it strange behaviour for Forum author initiating the topics. Philo does and, hidtorically, George and Aslan did engage.

Thanks aqvarivs for making it clear that I don't need to take any further notice of your posts, since you clearly don't intend them as contributions, just a bit of "lookitme, lookitme."

Fair enough, we all have hobbies.

But before I go I'd like to understand whether you are doing it deliberately to get a rise out of your fellow-posters, or out of a lack of balance in your personality... you know what I mean.

>>Scientist may shout from amongst their beakers, "It's alive. it's alive." But not the why. Since science has failed to answer mans most pressing question since day one and had several thousands of years to come up with an answer. At least the same amount of time as religion. Science ought to be abandoned as a tool of human exploration and understanding.<<

To which I responded that it is not the task of science to tell us "why", but to tell us "how". In reply, you said...

>>Pericles, it's not my logic. I'm merely pointing out to those who claim their non-belief is superior, by using their logic.<<

Leaving aside the straw man "who claim their non-belief is superior" (who they?), what exactly were you "pointing out?"

Or did you deliberately leave that part out of the sentence so that we could fill in the blank from our own imagination?

Mind you, I have to confess I really love the idea that you are unable to prove your own existence to yourself.

It must make breakfast at your place an absolute hoot.