Posts Tagged ‘natural’

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?

April 1, 2017

I started a thread on the above topic in my most cherished discussion forum Religious Forums

I give here my posts mentioning the post numbers without giving the names of persons in response to whose posts I wrote my comments. Please click the post numbers to get to know the persons.

#1 paarsurrey, 

Is the Scientific Method really Scientific?
All methods are philosophical so must it be. Please

Regards

#2 S……….. said:

“In other words, is the method used by those who claim to be good at gathering knowledge truly something that can be considered knowledge by those who claim to be good at gathering knowledge?”

Of course not. 

Paarsurrey Comments:

  1. Does one mean that science is circular in reasoning? Please
  2. Those who gather knowledge do it on faith  of it being useful. Had they no faith they won’t have gathered it? Right? Please

#3 i…….. said:

Scientists do have values. Scientists value:

– logic and critical thinking
– evidence
– verifiability and repeatability
– discovering new things

If you don’t value those things, you probably won’t value science. BUT, you probably DO value those things, you just haven’t thought about it.

If you use any technology from cars to computers, then you value the things that science values, because none of those things are possible without those values.

#4 S.…….said in response:

Thus, if I like using my cell phone, I must believe in tectonic plate subduction?

Paarsurrey comments on #3 above:

  1. Science is under discussion please, not the scientists. Please
  2. Value of a thing is finite, and is limited by its scope that is clearly defined; it has no value out of its scope. It will be just irrelevant.

#5 l.……. wrote in response to #1 :

The scientific method is the basis of science. So, it would be absurd to claim that the scientific method is not scientific.

sci·ence
ˈsīəns/
noun

  1. the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Paarsurrey comments:

  1. Please quote from a textbook of science that scientific method is not a philosophical method. If that would have been the case the science need not have had a discipline called “Philosophy of science”, in fact science was not a separate subject but was a branch of philosophy in the past.
  2. The scientific method is the basis of science. So, it would be absurd to claim that the scientific method is not scientific.
  3. Does one agree that science is limited to the “physical and natural” and has no value out of these realms?

 

Nature, natural and supernatural

October 19, 2015

The etymology thereof:

na·ture
Origin
Middle English (denoting the physical power of a person): from Old French, from Latinnatura ‘birth, nature, quality,’ from nat- ‘born,’ from the verb nasci .
nat·u·ral
Origin
Middle English (in the sense ‘having a certain status by birth’): from Old French, from Latin naturalis, from natura ‘birth, nature, quality’ (see nature).
https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=natural%20etymology
supernatural (adj.) Look up supernatural at Dictionary.comearly 15c. “of or given by God,” from Medieval Latin supernaturalis “above or beyond nature, divine,” from Latin super “above” (see super-) + natura “nature” (see nature (n.)). Originally with more of a religious sense, “of or given by God, divine; heavenly;” association with ghosts, etc., has predominated since 19c. Related: Supernaturalism.

That is supernatural, whatever it be, that is either not in the chain of natural cause and effect, or which acts on the chain of cause and effect, in nature, from without the chain. [Horace Bushnell, “Nature and the Supernatural,” 1858]

supernatural (n.) Look up supernatural at Dictionary.com1729, “a supernatural being,” from supernatural (adj.). From 1830 as “that which is above or beyond the established course of nature.”

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=supernatural

Origin and history of the term (Supernatural)

The term “supernatural” itself did not come to be used until the 15th century and means, when translated literally from the Latin roots, “above nature.”

In the original sense of the coinage, though, it had the connotation of something that was “of or given by god.” By the 19th century, its usage had expanded to include other non-material mythical beings such as ghosts, demons, etc.[5] It is, however, worth noting that the natural/supernatural distinction is not universal. Some cultures such as the Nayaka (of India) and the Ojibwe do not have a concept of the supernatural.[6]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supernatural

Paarsurrey notes:

The word “supernatural” has no relation with Quran, everything created, being created and that which will be created by G-d is natural.

Regards

Did Islam spread by sword?

May 31, 2014

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3788374-post42.html

paarsurrey

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooGirl02

Hi everyone. Some people say that Islam was spread by the sword. Others say that it was not. The Koran says that there is to be no compulsion in religion so it would seem that Islam’s sacred text would condone religious freedom. But was this really the case historically? Here is the reference from the Koran which I am referring to.
Quote:

[2.256] There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

paarsurrey’s response:

Islam did not spread with sword or because of sword.
Islam spread for its natural, rational and peaceful teachings.

Regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3790428-post76.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZooGirl02

“You know, I am thinking that perhaps it was just that Islamic empires were spread by the sword but not the religion itself was spread by the sword historically. Now, granted, there have been cases in recent times in which people were forced to convert to Islam or die such as in Syria but I am speaking historically. Also, the actions of a few should not be blamed on the entire group that the few are a member of. That’s my opinion anyway. I mean, you wouldn’t say that Atheists endorse murder just because some Communist Atheists murdered people in Soviet Russia, right?”

Unquote

Paarsurrey says:

I agree with you.

Regards

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/163547-islam-spread-sword-13.html#post3792169

Paarsurrey wrote:

I have checked many countries;it just happened like that.
If one likes; I could give examples.

For example:

Peaceful spread of Islam in Maldives:

The islands converted from Buddhism in the 12th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/islam_in_the_maldives

There was no subjugation by sword.

Regards

Belief in existence of God is natural; like belief in existence of parents or belief in my own existence

March 12, 2014

Please view Paarsurrey comments on the blog “UNCONFIRMEDABSOLUTES” for your valuable opinion, even if you differ.
“WHOSE BURDEN IS IT?”

http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/
http://unconfirmedabsolutes.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/whose-burden-is-it/comment-page-1/#comment-114

paarsurrey says:
March 11, 2014 at 10:56 pm

@unconfirmedabsolutes : February 26, 2014 at 12:26 pm

I will try to reply your queries or questions one by one; it may take some time. Thanks for reminding me.

Paarsurrey wrote:

“I believe in the One-True-God very naturally; like I believe in my own existence or my parents’ existence; and I don’t need any evidence or proof for that for my own self. This is my open standpoint; and this has come to me very naturally.”

unconfirmedabsolutes wrote:

“I understand where this is coming from, but I have to remind you, that I have seen my parents, I have heard from them, and everyone else cannot dispute that they do not exist. It is not that you do not need prove for your parent’s existence. But you actually do have the evidence that your parents exists.”

Paarsurrey explains:

By my words “for my own self”; I meant for my own satisfaction. One believes one’s parents as one’s own parents for the natural love, affection and care they take of one, never needing to go after the possibly available DNA proofs etc.

And for my own existence; I don’t even need that. I am because I have the consciousness that I am; that is ample proof for my own existence.

Does it help?

Thanks

Atheists! My belief in One-True-God is very natural

January 20, 2014

I wrote following comment on http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/on-the-origins-of-gods/

@ archaeopteryx1 January 20, 2014 at 21:33

paarsurrey says: January 21, 2014 at 02:07

Further to my comments where I requested you “Now come to the arguments; please”; I have to add that I believe in the One-True-God very naturally; like I believe in me and my mother and father. I am an ordinary man in the street; with no claim to piety or scholarship. I do have a right to live my life as others have theirs. It is quite natural and reasonable for me to continue believing as such till somebody convinces me otherwise with observations and evidences.

If you have any evidences that the One-True-God does not exists; and that I and my mother and father never existed; you may like to present such evidences.

I therefore request you again to present just one argument; not a list of arguments, in this connection.

Others could also give the argument, please.

Thanks and regards

http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/on-the-origins-of-gods/comment-page-1/#comment-10549

Buddha has got nothing to do with Atheism or Skepticism.

December 23, 2013

I re-blogged the following post in my blog one could view it at the following link:
“The Garden of Eden was in Congo ”
http://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2013/12/18/the-garden-of-eden-was-in-congo/

The comments exchanged are also given below:

paarsurrey says:
December 18, 2013 at 10:49

Reblogged this on paarsurrey and commented:
??
Reply

archaeopteryx1 says:
December 18, 2013 at 11:35

Hello, Paarsurrey, I don’t believe I’ve met you yet – how are you? I look forward to your comments from a Muslim perspective. I have a number of former Muslim friends, from Egypt, who post on the thinkatheist.com website, who are now atheists. As you are a peaceful Muslim, so we are peaceful atheists, mostly.
Reply
paarsurrey says:
December 18, 2013 at 11:58

Yes;we have never met before; but it is never late when two humans meet and share their experiences.
I like the post “The Garden of Eden was in Congo”. How do we know which one is the original; the Bible version or the Congo version.
Reply
makagutu says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:00

Good question. The Congo one is independent of the bible one and may be older than the bible one just as there are many stories in the bible told after the fact but passed as prophecy.

How have you been? I haven’t heard from you in quite a while.
Reply
paarsurrey says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:09

Thanks for remembering me.
May be both the stories in origin have been revealed to both the people independently by the One-True-God Allah Yahweh.

makagutu says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:08

Thanks for that insight. I haven’t read the book either and I honestly must say I haven’t read much anthropology too. But as you say, the stories, if true would challenge beliefs held by many people.
Reply
paarsurrey says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:16

There is no challenge in it. I believe that the One-True-God Allah Yahweh conversed with ever people; since the source is common hence the commonalities of stories.
Reply
makagutu says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:17

I agree with you the source is common and that is human minds.
Reply
paarsurrey says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:23

I don’t agree with you here.
makagutu says:
December 18, 2013 at 12:25

I am fine with that.
archaeopteryx1 says:
December 18, 2013 at 18:50

“I believe that the One-True-God Allah Yahweh conversed with ever people; since the source is common hence the commonalities of stories.”

Most cultures, Paarsurrey, around the world, have flood stories, and many religious apologetics cite this as proof of Noah’s universal flood, which we now know was plagiarized from a minor Mesopotamian river flood of 2900 BCE. There is no evidence for a global flood to be found. Each culture has had a flood happen to their people at some time in their history, but that doesn’t mean their floods didn’t happen at widely different times.

Both Islam and Christianity evolved from Judaism, and there is no evidence for either of their magical claims, nor to believe that some supernatural being chose a family of nomadic goatherders to be his chosen people and carry his message to the world. I say this with all due respect to your own beliefs, I am merely expressing mine.
Reply
paarsurrey says:
December 18, 2013 at 21:04

Of course you could express your opinion freely but I don’t see it to be correct.
archaeopteryx1 says:
December 18, 2013 at 21:34

I never, for a moment, Paarsurrey, entertained the hope that you would. Sadly, most of us are never able to free ourselves from the philosophical system – and that’s exactly what all religions are – in which we are indoctrinated as children. Fortunately, on the other hand, some of us are able to move into the 21st century, and you will find a small collection of us here.

Because I can’t imagine this conversation going much further, let me leave you with this advice to consider:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
– Buddha –

Pax vobiscum – or, as you might more readily say, As-Salaam Alaikom –
paarsurrey says:
December 18, 2013 at 21:42

Wa Ulaikumus Salam
Thank you.
Please do not doubt unless it is reasonable to doubt; it is unnatural to doubt to start with.
archaeopteryx1 says:
December 18, 2013 at 21:49

With Humankind, it is natural to question.
paarsurrey says:
December 18, 2013 at 21:55

Yes; if it is reasonable otherwise it would by cynical; please don’t mind.
archaeopteryx1 says:
December 18, 2013 at 22:04

Who decides what “reasonable” is? Question, then decide for yourself if the answer, not the question, is “reasonable.”

“If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood, or persuaded of afterward, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it…the life of that man is one long sin against mankind.”

– William Kingdon Clifford –

And against himself, I would hasten to add.
makagutu says:
December 18, 2013 at 22:56

Doubt, my friend is the beginning of wisdom. Be wary of anyone who discourages you from doubt.
paarsurrey says:
December 21, 2013 at 20:16

If one starts with doubt; one can never get any knowledge; one could end in cynicism.
archaeopteryx1 says:
December 21, 2013 at 21:11

“”Question with boldness even the existence of god.”
– Thomas Jefferson –

I’m not sure how you can believe that Paarsurrey – beginning with doubt leads to the collection of evidence, which leads to resolution of the doubt, but based on facts, not suppositions.

Your belief system teaches you to fear questioning ANYthing – I can’t even imagine living like that, nor would I want to. I’m free to follow the evidence, your fear forbids you that luxury.
paarsurrey says:
December 22, 2013 at 04:56

When one sees an anomaly; then it is natural to doubt, question and find the solution; not otherwise..
archaeopteryx1 says:
December 22, 2013 at 06:22

“When one sees an anomaly; then it is natural to doubt, question and find the solution” – I can agree with you about this, but not about this: “not otherwise…” Always question.

“anomaly: something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected”

Now I’ll be quick to admit that my knowledge of the Quran is very limited, and I have no idea how knowledgeable you are with the Bible, as I know that the Quran is supposed to be based on the Biblical Patriarchs, but I also know that a number of the Biblical tales have been significantly changed, or omitted entirely by the authors of the Quran.

The Bible, however, is loaded with anomalies, as is, I suspect, the Quran as well. Examples:
1. An invisible spirit who lives in the sky, magically assembled all of the material in this inconceivably vast universe, from nothing, and created everything.
2. The planet was covered with water, to the point of 15 cubits (22.5 feet) above the highest mountains, despite the fact that there isn’t even half enough water in, on, under, and above the earth to accomplish that, and of the water that IS available, 90% of that is already at or below sea level, and thus unavailable for flooding purposes.
3. How about the Red Sea magically parting, while a million and a half men, women and children walked the 18 miles (at it’s very narrowest point), to get to the other side?

There’s no point in going further, the Bible is riddled with anomalies, including the fact that there is no evidence that any of the Patriarchs, including Moses, upon whom Judaism, Islam and Christianity are based, ever existed.

Oh, and how about old Mo flying from Mecca, to Jerusalem, to heaven, and back to Mecca on a winged horse, in a single evening, getting home in time for breakfast? Anomaly!
paarsurrey says:
December 22, 2013 at 19:10

I an an ordinary man in the street with no claims of any piety or scholarship of any kind.

Krishna, Buddha,Zoroaster, Moses,Jesus, Muhammad, the founders of great revealed religions; they or their Word of Revelation in origin never claimed to writing down any text books of science. They guided humanity in ethical, moral and spiritual realms.
archaeopteryx1 says:
December 22, 2013 at 22:56

“I an an ordinary man in the street with no claims of any piety or scholarship of any kind.”
Sounds very much like you’re one of us, yet I sense that you are defending religion. You clearly stated, on your own website, that you are Muslim.
They guided humanity in ethical, moral and spiritual realms.
Some more successfully than others – Yahweh, for example, told the Israelis to commit mass genocide, that rape was ok as long as you married the girl eventually, and many, many other abominable pieces of advice.

I actually quoted you Buddah, but you seemed to reject his opinion:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
– Buddha –
Possibly you will find this a little more to your liking:
“Custom, tradition, and intellectual laziness lead men to follow their religious leaders blindly. Religions have been the sole cause of the bloody wars that have ravaged mankind. Religions have also been resolutely hostile to philosophical speculation and to scientific research. The so-called holy scriptures are worthless and have done more harm than good, whereas the writings of the ancients like Plato, Aristotle, Euclid, and Hippocrates have rendered much greater service to humanity.”
– Abū Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyā al-Razi –
paarsurrey says:
December 23, 2013 at 04:56

“Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.”; then why should one believe in Atheism?
archaeopteryx1 says:
December 23, 2013 at 05:12

“…why should one believe in Atheism?”

No wonder you’re so critical of atheism, Paarsurrey, you clearly don’t understand it! It’s not about believing, it’s about not believing, and it follows the tenets of Buddah’s advice entirely, in that it depends on evidence – not emotional, irrational belief systems, but rather observation and analysis.

paarsurrey says:
December 23, 2013 at 05:49

Buddha has got nothing to do with Atheism or Skepticism.
Paarsurrey says:
December 25,2013

@archaeopteryx1
The following quote given by you from Buddha is already in my knowledge and I have read it several times:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
– Buddha –

It is a general teachings and is already included in the teachings of the Truthful Religion; there is nothing in it which specifically supports Atheism/Skepticism. Please quote something from Buddha where he supported Atheism/Skepticism specifically.

Thanks

Theists and Atheist are both faith based

December 21, 2013

I started a thread in one of my favorite discussion forum the Hubpages titled “Atheism is a psychological construct of doubt ; not a reality” :

http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/118999

Following posts may be read in this connection:

Paarsurrey wrote:

Belief in One-True-God Allah Yahweh is very natural and is a reality; yet those who very unnaturally doubt it they are in no compulsion to believe it.

HowardBThiname wrote:

Ok, “atheism is a psychological construct of doubt ; not a reality”. I’ll agree with that.

But, by the same token, “Theism is a psychological ideation ; not a reality”.

What is real cannot be threatened. What is false, therefore, does not exist, except in the minds of the deluded.

wilderness posted:

As only a quite small percentage of people throughout the history of mankind have expressed a belief in Allah (and even fewer actually had such a belief), it doesn’t seem very “natural”, does it?

paarsurrey posted:

Natural is that what exists irrespective of humans believing or not believing and their numbers.

Wilderness posted:

Ah. Then both Allah and God are very unnatural as neither actually exists.

Why did you say the one was natural?

And why would you say that “Belief in One-True-God Allah Yahweh is very natural” if “natural” is irrespective of belief?

HowardBThiname wrote:

Ok, “atheism is a psychological construct of doubt ; not a reality”. I’ll agree with that.

But, by the same token, “Theism is a psychological ideation ; not a reality”.

What is real cannot be threatened. What is false, therefore, does not exist, except in the minds of the deluded.


Paarsurrey wrote:

You mean the minds of Atheists are free from being deluded?

JMcFarland posted:

no. Not all atheists are skeptics. Some atheists believe ridiculous things with no good reason. In other words, they have faith.

paarsurrey posted:

So the Theists and the Atheists both are faith based.

JMcFarland posted:

No. .. just atheists that believe something without a good reason and without evidence. That’s what faith is. Not all atheists are identical, just like not all theists are identical. Skepticism and atheism are not the same. I wish they were.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Paarsurrey says: one may like to comment in the hubpages or here in this blog.
Everybody is welcome to comment; even those who differ with me.

How old was Jesus Christ when he died?

June 10, 2013

Jesus was though put on Cross, yet he was delivered from the cross in near-dead position.
There are some Muslim traditions which say Jesus died a natural and peaceful death in Srinagar, Kashmir, India, at the age of 120/125 years.

Jesus got a new life after the tribulations faced by him on the Cross. By the grace of God Allah YHWH he survived a cursed death on Cross. Without dying Jesus got a new life; this is a metaphoric usage, in my opinion, in all the language of the world. If one is sick with a deadly disease or faces a trauma in real life, when there is no hope for survival, it is commonly said that that person has got a new life. It is never taken as literal or physical life from the actually dead.

Please see the following documentaries which show that Jesus did not die on the Cross; he migrated to India.

BBC Documentary

Jesus dying as substitution of others’ sins is just mythical and superfluous

May 3, 2013

Hank Kimball says:

(In reply to my post:”Did Jesus himself claim that he was sent for the atonement of sins of others?”)

There is NO sin that cannot be forgiven. I did not know that at one time, but I believe the bible is the word of God. Isaiah 1;18:”Come, now, ​YOU​ people, and let us set matters straight between us,” says Jehovah. “Though the sins of ​YOU​ people should prove to be as scarlet, they will be made white just like snow; though they should be red like crimson cloth, they will become even like wool”.

Paarsurrey says:

I think Jesus words should be understood in the light of the Isaiah 1; 18:

Jesus words narrated in NT seem to be doctored by Paul and or the Church.

If sins can be washed off with repentance, asking forgiveness from one true God and resolve not to commit the sin anymore in the time of Isaiah and before him and after him to Jesus’ time; and that is a very reasonable and natural approach; there is no need of any human ransom.

Jesus did not die on the Cross in the first place; so the theory of Jesus dying for the sins of others or anybody else as substitution is just mythical and superfluous.

You may like to read answer to Question-1 from the following book by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad- the Promised Messiah:

http://www.alislam.org/library/browse/volume/Ruhani_Khazain/book/Sirajuddin_Esai_ke_Char_Sawalon_ka_Jawab/?l=English#page/-9/mode/1up

I give a facsimile of the page-one from the same; please view it at the end of the post.

One may read the whole answer to the question.

Of course you may have your own opinion.

Truthful religion is natural; simple and beautiful

May 19, 2012

Truthful religion which the founders of religion bring from the Creator God is very natural; simple and beautiful as we find in the nature; one knows from a glance whether a things is artificial or natural

Atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, communism are artificial or man-made, everybody knows it.

One such truthful religion was brought by Buddha from the Creator God. It was not man-made.