Science is a conglomerate of knowledge, it has no shameful stigma, it is bipartisan, it teaches what we have learned and seen as humans throughout the years. Science attempts to unveil the truths without bias, whereas The Holy Bible teaches guilt, fear, and further segregates humanity as a whole. I'm not saying Christianity is irrational, it has just cause much pain to many people. Religion is not the answer to peace. I'm not very smart, these are just the truths I hold to be relevant.
Also, I agree that science cannot teach us about many things (i.e. Music, Comedy, Emotion) but I don't think religion can either. Reality is fickle though, so I can't truly say I have much of a substantial opinion. I just think The Bible is a manipulative tool created by elitist bastards who wish to herd us like sheep.
WOol, you stated that "the truth is there is no truth." This is a self-refuting position in that in affirms a truth statement. If you are going to use methodism to feed all knowlege to deconstructionalism then you must feed deconstructionalism to its self. Telemantros is obviously not against science or reason for goodness sake, he isn't saying we should abandon science, he is saying science is not the mother of knowlege. Philosophy is.
If we abandon the scientific method, we are left with pure unwarranted speculation.
What you propose will not help us advance scientifically, it will bring us back to the days when humans believed spirits controlled the rain and crop growth.
We could justify absolutely anything. For the sake of our longevity as a species, be thankful of the scientific method.
I think you misunderstand my message. I'm fine with the scientific method and science as a methodology. What I object to, however, is the idea that science is exclusive in its description of our world. Science cannot prove all things and to hold to such a position would be ignoring such truths as ethical, aesthetic, mathematical, logical and metaphysical truths.
Science does not claim that it can (dis)prove all things. No scientist is stating that. Even the die-hardest atheist will give you as much as saying that he doesn't know for sure that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but that he'll find it very reasonable to assume so. And btw, there is no such thing as an "etical, aesthetic, mathematical, logial and metaphsyical truth". Simply put, the truth is that there is no truth. All we can do is to believe in something based on information of our enviroment.
As our senses are limited, we might get a wrong impression of "reality" and if you see a tiger, there isn't really that being standing there, but you only see and abstraction created by your brain, but if that piece of information doesn't make you run away, well, then you are a dead monkey.
Well, whats confusing to me is why do you try to understand the ultimate meaning of the universe when the proximate meaning already explains how life works. I fill that trying to say that there has to be a meaning to everything, like how intelligent design is trying to say that life is to complicated to have evolved step by step from natural selection. Your theology is complicating the simplicity of science and biology. But ID is not science, evolution is.
...yeah, that's how science works; it evolves as new evidence is discovered. This dynamic nature isn't somehow a failing of science, it is one of its strengths. If it were to stay the same even if new evidence was discovered which refuted it then it wouldn't be very useful to us. We can't operate under the assumption that every principle is going to eventually be overturned though or we would stagnate.
And it would be more accurate to say that you accept the current theories explaining gravity and magnetism because those phenomenon are true whether you believe in them or not; if you stopped believing in gravity you wouldn't suddenly fly off into space.
I was pointing to the problem of induction. From Karl Popper "in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth."
Mathematic knowledge evolves, because it accumulates. Science can't do that.
The same could be said of any body of knowledge. They're all based on the assumption that what we have seen or reasoned is true everywhere. Its even possible that we might make a discovery some day that overturns the laws of logic or mathematics.
Scientific knowledge does accumulate; new principles build upon older, proven principles. The Scientific theories don't stay the same as when they are introduced either, modern versions are more robust and complete than they were originally.
While a precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution, overturning a mathematical proof is impossible.
When someone claims in a math-textbook "Since Euklid, mathematicians have constructed dozens of proofs that a biggest prime number is a contradiction in terms", would you argue: "Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe 1+1 equals 3, maybe there are married bachelors somewhere, maybe 7 is the biggest prime number."?
We are talking about unknown future possibilities which contradict known, logical explanations; they are almost necessarily ridiculous. The possibility of finding a Precambrian rabbit is no more ridiculous than the possibility that we might make a discovery which counters current laws of logic or mathematical theorems.
Its also similar to what people say about the possibility that 1+1 might not equal 2.
We can't live under the assumption that everything we know is in fact a lie, so since there is no objective sign to let us know when we're correct or not we have to operate under the assumption that what we currently know about life, the universe, and everything is correct until it is shown otherwise. As far as scientific knowledge goes, it has to be verified and stand up to much scrutiny before its accepted.
That people would deny the impossibility of square circles to make science look less inferior when it comes to achieveing knowledge that implies finality is over my head.
That's the problem when talking about theoretical possibilities; if you ignore all evidence pertaining to the likelihood of a possibility occurring (as you were doing with scientific theories), all possibilities become equally likely to occur.
I think there is an even bigger problem with science. An article from "Atheism is dead" linked me to an article from "Atheism dissected" (blogs critical of atheism can be as informative as Holding's "tektonics"-site), in which they point to the fact that the knowledge we get from science constantly changes.
I have a question: you say "science only can discover physical matter of the brain and not the aboutness or the thought of the brain."
However, one might counter that psychology, which, though debated, has many theories about thought and aboutness. What would you say to that? I would like to know what your thoughts are.
um...well,no, I don't have one in mind. However there is the Freudian, the Humanistic, the Cognitive, the Biochemical and many others that all have views about why people think they way they do.
I'll be honest and say that I'm not as familiar with psychology as perhaps I should be, however, with that being said I am under the impression that psychology proposes theories to the factors that lead to thought but can't physically or manually tell another what someone is thinking and that's the distinction.
Those against dualism attempt to take consciousness or experience within the mind and explain it in third person, which, is impossible in my mind. I'll pause here.
I understand. It surprised me since OblivionMon correctly pointed out that the related videos are titled 222222, which is why I wondered if I had problems with my internet.
Science is a conglomerate of knowledge, it has no shameful stigma, it is bipartisan, it teaches what we have learned and seen as humans throughout the years. Science attempts to unveil the truths without bias, whereas The Holy Bible teaches guilt, fear, and further segregates humanity as a whole. I'm not saying Christianity is irrational, it has just cause much pain to many people. Religion is not the answer to peace. I'm not very smart, these are just the truths I hold to be relevant.
universalsingularity 1 year ago
@universalsingularity
Also, I agree that science cannot teach us about many things (i.e. Music, Comedy, Emotion) but I don't think religion can either. Reality is fickle though, so I can't truly say I have much of a substantial opinion. I just think The Bible is a manipulative tool created by elitist bastards who wish to herd us like sheep.
universalsingularity 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
has this guy come to terms with his homosexuality? Jesus this guy is gay
Daishi03 1 year ago
has this guy come to terms with his homosexuality? Jesus this guy is gay
Daishi03 1 year ago
Yes, of course.
I could also be daydreaming, or you could be daydreaming me -- the possibilities are endless and there is just no use in thinking about it.
I have no way of telling if I my brain is or is not in that jar and it wouldn't change much for me.
Tell me, what other "choice" than to live this life would I have?
wOoL87 2 years ago
Science works.
thisnameisuniq 2 years ago
WOol, you stated that "the truth is there is no truth." This is a self-refuting position in that in affirms a truth statement. If you are going to use methodism to feed all knowlege to deconstructionalism then you must feed deconstructionalism to its self. Telemantros is obviously not against science or reason for goodness sake, he isn't saying we should abandon science, he is saying science is not the mother of knowlege. Philosophy is.
52blades 2 years ago
The speed of light is not an assumption.
Brianwulf 2 years ago
So basically, you are saying, there is no reason. So how come you are arguing in seemingly reasonable terms? Why don't you just make random noises?
wOoL87 2 years ago
If we abandon the scientific method, we are left with pure unwarranted speculation.
What you propose will not help us advance scientifically, it will bring us back to the days when humans believed spirits controlled the rain and crop growth.
We could justify absolutely anything. For the sake of our longevity as a species, be thankful of the scientific method.
leftlanetheory 2 years ago
I think you misunderstand my message. I'm fine with the scientific method and science as a methodology. What I object to, however, is the idea that science is exclusive in its description of our world. Science cannot prove all things and to hold to such a position would be ignoring such truths as ethical, aesthetic, mathematical, logical and metaphysical truths.
telemantros 2 years ago
Science does not claim that it can (dis)prove all things. No scientist is stating that. Even the die-hardest atheist will give you as much as saying that he doesn't know for sure that Santa Claus doesn't exist, but that he'll find it very reasonable to assume so. And btw, there is no such thing as an "etical, aesthetic, mathematical, logial and metaphsyical truth". Simply put, the truth is that there is no truth. All we can do is to believe in something based on information of our enviroment.
wOoL87 2 years ago
As our senses are limited, we might get a wrong impression of "reality" and if you see a tiger, there isn't really that being standing there, but you only see and abstraction created by your brain, but if that piece of information doesn't make you run away, well, then you are a dead monkey.
wOoL87 2 years ago
Well, whats confusing to me is why do you try to understand the ultimate meaning of the universe when the proximate meaning already explains how life works. I fill that trying to say that there has to be a meaning to everything, like how intelligent design is trying to say that life is to complicated to have evolved step by step from natural selection. Your theology is complicating the simplicity of science and biology. But ID is not science, evolution is.
pbrskater26 2 years ago
testing
hilbert54 2 years ago
Hey man, your vids are awesome. Christianity needs more intelligent christians, your doing a great job bro :)
valuecard2 3 years ago 4
We have educated ourselves into imbecility...Muggridge
DittoGlen 3 years ago
Keep it up man! These naturalists and hyper-empiricists need to understand the presuppositional (made that up) nature of science.
This has backfired on me though and turned a person into a huge skeptic (a la solipsism) within minutes.
gCuezy 3 years ago
So, you live in your own reality. Figures.
wOoL87 2 years ago
I live in my own reality?
gCuezy 2 years ago
yeah...cool
stubowl1 3 years ago
For example: I believe in gravity and magnetism. They are strongly supported scientific theories in the area of ühysics.
But when Max Planck discovered something odd about the radiation of black bodies, the building of classical physics collapsed.
The same could inded happen with the theory of gravity and magnetism.
Deliratio 3 years ago
An excellent point, one that could easily have a video of it's own sometime down the road *hint hint*
telemantros 3 years ago
...yeah, that's how science works; it evolves as new evidence is discovered. This dynamic nature isn't somehow a failing of science, it is one of its strengths. If it were to stay the same even if new evidence was discovered which refuted it then it wouldn't be very useful to us. We can't operate under the assumption that every principle is going to eventually be overturned though or we would stagnate.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
And it would be more accurate to say that you accept the current theories explaining gravity and magnetism because those phenomenon are true whether you believe in them or not; if you stopped believing in gravity you wouldn't suddenly fly off into space.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
I don't think that has anything to do with the problem of induction. Scientific theories are no placebos.
Deliratio 3 years ago
I was pointing to the problem of induction. From Karl Popper "in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth."
Mathematic knowledge evolves, because it accumulates. Science can't do that.
Deliratio 3 years ago
The same could be said of any body of knowledge. They're all based on the assumption that what we have seen or reasoned is true everywhere. Its even possible that we might make a discovery some day that overturns the laws of logic or mathematics.
Scientific knowledge does accumulate; new principles build upon older, proven principles. The Scientific theories don't stay the same as when they are introduced either, modern versions are more robust and complete than they were originally.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago 2
While a precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution, overturning a mathematical proof is impossible.
When someone claims in a math-textbook "Since Euklid, mathematicians have constructed dozens of proofs that a biggest prime number is a contradiction in terms", would you argue: "Maybe they are all wrong. Maybe 1+1 equals 3, maybe there are married bachelors somewhere, maybe 7 is the biggest prime number."?
Deliratio 3 years ago
We are talking about unknown future possibilities which contradict known, logical explanations; they are almost necessarily ridiculous. The possibility of finding a Precambrian rabbit is no more ridiculous than the possibility that we might make a discovery which counters current laws of logic or mathematical theorems.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
What you say about precambrian rabits sounds similar to what people once said about heliocentrism.
Deliratio 3 years ago
Its also similar to what people say about the possibility that 1+1 might not equal 2.
We can't live under the assumption that everything we know is in fact a lie, so since there is no objective sign to let us know when we're correct or not we have to operate under the assumption that what we currently know about life, the universe, and everything is correct until it is shown otherwise. As far as scientific knowledge goes, it has to be verified and stand up to much scrutiny before its accepted.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
That people would deny the impossibility of square circles to make science look less inferior when it comes to achieveing knowledge that implies finality is over my head.
Deliratio 3 years ago
That's the problem when talking about theoretical possibilities; if you ignore all evidence pertaining to the likelihood of a possibility occurring (as you were doing with scientific theories), all possibilities become equally likely to occur.
ArcanaKnight 3 years ago
I think there is an even bigger problem with science. An article from "Atheism is dead" linked me to an article from "Atheism dissected" (blogs critical of atheism can be as informative as Holding's "tektonics"-site), in which they point to the fact that the knowledge we get from science constantly changes.
Deliratio 3 years ago
Really good video.
lilchrizz123 3 years ago
Excellent video telemantros. Your videos are always thought provoking. Good job.
lightspeed52 3 years ago
Great video btw!
isin17123 3 years ago
I have a question: you say "science only can discover physical matter of the brain and not the aboutness or the thought of the brain."
However, one might counter that psychology, which, though debated, has many theories about thought and aboutness. What would you say to that? I would like to know what your thoughts are.
isin17123 3 years ago
Do you have a specific psychological theory in mind isin?
telemantros 3 years ago
um...well,no, I don't have one in mind. However there is the Freudian, the Humanistic, the Cognitive, the Biochemical and many others that all have views about why people think they way they do.
isin17123 3 years ago
sorry, I meant "the way they do."
isin17123 3 years ago
I'll be honest and say that I'm not as familiar with psychology as perhaps I should be, however, with that being said I am under the impression that psychology proposes theories to the factors that lead to thought but can't physically or manually tell another what someone is thinking and that's the distinction.
Those against dualism attempt to take consciousness or experience within the mind and explain it in third person, which, is impossible in my mind. I'll pause here.
telemantros 3 years ago
Alright, thank you very much. An excellent video btw.
isin17123 3 years ago
is this video tagged with "22222222"?
Deliratio 3 years ago
a default till I add my sources and description. hope you are well deliratio.
telemantros 3 years ago
I understand. It surprised me since OblivionMon correctly pointed out that the related videos are titled 222222, which is why I wondered if I had problems with my internet.
Good video as always.
Deliratio 3 years ago
lol, I wondered the same. The more interesting part is that the related videos are titled 222222. :-P Nonetheless well done.
OblivionMon 3 years ago