Anyone here actually religious?

Though I actually disagree with some of the expressions of disdain leveled at the social sciences in this thread, that quote doesn't help anything. Besides being from Wikipedia, the fact that the disciplines bear the name "social science" don't really have anything to do with whether they are of equal value/reliability to natural sciences, which is the question being debated.

 

Speaking as a mathematician your disciplines are all soft! SOFT AS A TEDDY BEAR'S UNDERBELLY!

 

wiki can eat it.

Ramza: mathhysics::mastubation:sex

 

So math is like physics without all the performance anxiety?

 

[image=http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20111012.gif]

 

Not to mention the foreplay.

 

I'm glad I have a degree that's solidly on the unscientific side.

 

Your BA in pessimism?

 

I'll have you know that my degree is in the prestigious field of snarky jackassery.

 

And that's not even counting all his Associates degrees.

 

or all of his Associates' degrees.

 

Grammar fail.

 

Ohh, slow down there Popper, your antiquated view on "science" (more accurate would be "the sciences", plural) is around 50 years behind. Get with the times gramps.

 

On math v physics, math's all well and good as an exercise, but without application, I don't see the point. When math is explaining how math works, it's no longer productive, imo. It's applications that make the difference.

That social science means science isn't very persuasive to the same people that define a dwarf planet as not a planet. Also see: alternative medicine is medicine. The question is all about how to interpret the adjective.

 

precisely.

 

Antiquated does not mean wrong, nor does current mean right.

On a side note, Popper didn't say that the social sciences were not science, necessarily. Rather he advocated that we appreciate the limitations of the social sciences. It is frustrating in the extreme when people treat the prognostications of social scientists as if they have the same level of certitude as predictions by general relativity. Recently, an otherwise intelligent person I know suggested that macroeconomic theories were as well-supported as our understanding of antibiotics or evolution theory. What does one say to that?

 

Having a Bachelor of Science degree in economics doesn't make it a science. You aren't exactly going to get an Arts degree in it are you?

 

In this case it does. Popper's falsification theory is far too simplistic and actual research shows that it's not the way sciences advance or how we improve our knowledge of varied types of phenomenons. It's also quite frustrating to see people try and place "exact" science on some sort of pedestal that it doesn't deserve. What the hell are you even trying to say with that first line? It's edgy, but it's also completely and utterly wrong. If you want to talk about science demarcation, go ahead, but please try and read up on it first.

Your entire argument in the other thread was rather mystifying, as you seem to be edging towards a complete relativism on the part of economics and other social sciences, while apparently storming off into the sunset of positivism when we're talking about physics and the like. Duhem-Quine might be a little harshly worded, but it puts the finger on the wound of the gaping hole that is absolute belief in the truth value of any exact science.

Personally, I favour Laudan's account, if it works, it works and if it doesn't, it doesn't. Sometimes it seems like secular America is going of the deep end science-wise just because they're confronted with total analphabetism on the other side. Science demarcation, usually much ado about nothing, more to score some sort of political point than anything else. If you all want to re-define what "science" means to score a victory over creationism, I'd advise you think long and hard over what you're doing. Economics isn't an exact science, it's still a science, the same way Academic History is a science. The whole argument you're making here is utterly and totally irrelevant and to be honest, it's an attack that serves no purpose.

 

Yeah, I'm not sure which is funnier here: people arguing vehemently about science in a religion thread, or using the academic pursuit of history as an example of a science.

I'm so torn! I don't know whether to laugh or to cry.

 

Lapsed agnostic.
I don't know whether or not there is a diety, and I don't care.
If there is, and it wants to communicate with me, it will. If not, it won't.
So far, it hasn't.
I am not going to spend my time telling it how wonderful it is or asking for favors I can't repay.

I suspect that any such entity that did exist would be from the complex gestalt of so many people believing for so long that they altered reality rather than a being that existed from the beginning.

 

Wow, that went right over your head didn't it? Not sure if I should laugh or cry at the fact that you think that was an intelligent comment.

 

While you're all doing that, GAJ I'm not Popper because I didn't say all social sciences aren't science. I said economics isn't science.

 

Guys, I am actually really gratefulthat we could have this conversation. I understand that not everyone has, or will have, the same views as me, but I'm glad we have this forum to share thoughts.

As for me, since some were asking about these specific happenings in my life that led me to this vehement belief, I'll say I'm like someone else in this thread (forget who) who said he felt like God was haunting him, like everywhere he went he would see another sign from Him. And that's just how I feel. I can't deny the existence of God, because I've seen His presence in so many ways.

First off, To claim evidence He's not real, as someone did in this thread, because Jesus shares some similarities with some other religious figures (a claim which he greatly exaggerated, even lying about) doesn't deride from that because 1) once I've definitively SEEN something is real, so that doesn't really matter, and 2) Some of those ones he WASN'T just plain lying about were scarce enough to be coincidental, and 3) I feel like certain divine, holy things are put in stories because they've always been known to be holy and divine. Just like the hero's journey, as they quoted, that many characters in various stories go through, doesn't mean that real people don't go through that, but rather, it's BECAUSE that's just the sort of thing that, WHEN it happens, yeah, it's a cool tale to tell. So some other religous figure said to have died and been resurrected, or to have healed the sick. Oh yeah, Jesus was just a total copy of that! No, it's because that's the sort of thing that a holy, divine being WOULD do!

 

Sorry about the back-to-back post.

Now, here's my story: Why I really believe:

So many people talk about how their prayers were answered in such sudden ways, like a tumor suddenly disappearing, or a grievous, irreparable injury getting better. But I didn't think God would answer my own calls in such sudden ways. The first way I was surprised was that while I was reading a couple of little prayer books for guidance, there was a reading for each day. And it would so often seem like whatever the theme was for that day correlated to what I was going through. I know, I know, it sounds like I'm stretching it like maybe I twisted it in my mind to relate to me, but no, some of these were SO specific. One day I was wondering about not being close enough to god, not htinking about Him enough, and pretty soon I got a very specific reading about not worrying about such things.

Two more good examples: A few days ago, I was feeling quite miserable, missing home (a lot of my friends moved away, so now I'm often going home to see my folks), feeling like I'd not be cheerful again. Then I realized I had put on these blinders on myself, not letting myself see all the ways I could find happiness right here in town. The next day, the priest chose a homily all about how God takes blinders away from us so we can see things in perspective. He was using the same terms as I was, even.
Like just recently I was suffering a panic attack, worrying about a few different things. It's the most anxious I've been in a loooong time, so much so I felt I couldn't face teh day. That day, that specific reading in the book was about those who live in fear and anxiety, and how trust in God can save them. And the day before that, the priest had gone off about the

But the weirdest one was just a little while ago, when I decided to give money to charity, something I was grudging to do, since I was wantign to save up for a car so I could visit home more often, which I desperately wanted. I had heard of peple giving to charity and then "getting it back," meaning they find some reward in their lives, but I was just upset, as I got my paycheck, that, giving this money to charity, I wouldn't ahve a car for a long time. But I was going to do it anyway, to make that sacrifice. Then my friend picked me up from getting my paycheck and, as I got into his car, he said "Man, I got to sell this car!" and mentioned he would let it go for around $700. That's really just a few instances of really amazing things that have happened to me in my life. There's another one I want to tell, but this post is long enough for now.

Now, some of you, this may strike as awesome, some may write it off as coincidence, and that's your opinion. But it's been a real powerful experience for me, and I wanted to share this for those who wanted to hear.

 

Cool story bro.