Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Our Modern Scientific Philosophy.

That is a nonsensical statement Rev but I sort of understand what you mean :-)

However strictly speaking some of the Dirac stuff simply isn't science even though he may have believed it.

To be science it has to be testable.

It's the reason Intelligent Design was rejected as being any sort of science because it isn't testable a view upheld by the US federal court and the science community.

There are many who find ID explains the world for them and believe in it and that is perfectly fine but the lack of testability makes it not science.

I get the impression at times you wish that science would widen out it's acceptance and study of things but it simply can not based upon the testability criteria.

The testability criteria is there as the ultimate decision as to who is right and wrong because we don't have a designated authority to decide who is correct ... as I am prone to say science isn't a democracy or a popularity contest.

In science you are correct so long as your explaination is consistant and meets all the known facts it takes only one falsification of your theory or idea for it to fall. That is why every theory or idea in science has a requirement to be objectively testable.

Much of your area of interest has no way of being objectively tested.

Most of us harder scientists also draw the line on pschology as not being a science although it is most definitely an area of study.

I saw an article a little while ago ... here
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

You can see the reasoning is the same as above



So please don't feel offended that some of your interests don't really get considered by science it is not because of the religious nature that it isn't but simply that it fails the criteria as do many other things.

ORAC:Thanks for the dialogue.

BTW, I will be away from Toronto, until next Friday. The Kings will be on a visit to New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island--a wedding of a relative there. My wife and I attended university and met, in NB, over 50 years ago: www.mta.ca

I am never offended by the sharing of valuable information, especially the facts revealed by hard science about things with dimensions.

As Tesla said, "God has no dimensions". Like him, I do not believe that there is a god with dimensions. With respect for all sincere faith and opinion, I always ask theists for any measurable evidence they may have that god exists:

About my opinion of the god-idea, which I write as G~O~D: It includes the dimensions which we call existence, which are being revealed by science. But G~O~D is beyond the dimensions of existence--beyond the reach of science.

With a background in psychology, I agree with your comment about it. This is why I like to use the term 'pneumatology'--a scientific approach to the spirit; that which is still in the realm of mystery and religion.

Oh hope the trip and wedding go well .. sounds wonderful.

I didn't realise you had a background in psychology which although I don't consider a science I have huge respect for because I have a sister who suffers from depression courtesy of treatment in my homeland. They have worked wonders with her and she is much improved and for the first time a very long time positive about her future.

So which came first chronologically psychology or religion?

I actually find your religion one of the more friendly (hmmm not my best choice of word) that I have found and hence why I am doing a bit of reading on it.

By the way don't forget my morality question if you get a chance.

IMO, subjects, including religion, do not need to be sciences themselves in order to be approached with a scientific attitude, which is what I do with philosophy, pneumatology, psychology, religion and the like. I do this to avoid superstition. You ask:Thanks for your interest in having this dialogue. Generally speaking, I agree with the following: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20111122133058AAfEkg5 Also, I am in general agreement with the idea that, all science began as a philosophy/a religion. This ispires us to do art and take action. For example, in response to your comment I will say: Anyone who reads what I say about "god" and religion should know by now that I do not believe in a "god" in the same way that young children believe in the Santa-Claus story--a Fairy Tale.
A NEW WAY OF VIEWING REALITY
Unitheism, see www.unitheist.org is about looking at what we call reality in a new way. All I ask of people is this--and this is what I do: As a unitheist, I think of the reality, which we call nature, as the raw material of life, which started to evolve, unfold--unconsciously--about 13 billions of years.

IMO, the highest point was reached when some of our first ancestors--probably the first clergy--became aware of being conscious and aware and wanted to share this gift with others. What we today call pre-history probably began when they made pictures on rocks and in caves. They used this as a way of telling stories--for exampling about hunting--and of passing on such stories to those who came after them. This led to the invention of writing.

Eventually, they were able to write down myths and legends about the gods they saw in their dreams, which became part of what we today call the sacred books. Much of the Bible is made up of such stories. As I understand it, nature and human nature, is still evolving. I know you will understand that this is an oversimplification.

BTW, I will not forget your request: