3 ms·

I like the optimistic and practical approach of your response, and agree on the you separate from chemicals abstraction idea. However: >>"Free Will" is not a s

I like the optimistic and practical approach of your response, and agree on the you separate from chemicals abstraction idea. However: >>"Free Will" is not a scientific concept, it's a concept from spirituality. It is a scientific concept! I agree it's not always about science, and the concept has different implications depending on context. But it has it's place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approaches https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Scientific_approache... >>can very well fit with all of the science that is known Let's be clear here. There is no scientific consensus that free will exists, however you want to define it. Aliens landing in my backyard last night could also fit with all of the science that is known. So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. >>[good video by Jordan Peterson reconciling science and religion] I may take a look if I can build up the courage to be disappointed, but it seems strange to try and reconcile the natural with the supernatural. What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans.

Capt-RogerOver 9y ago
>> So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. My claim was referring to the following: many "science" people have a hard time developing their spiritual side, because of what they learn about the scientific models of the universe. Lacking proper guidance to place those models in proper places in their mind, they often end up believing (even subconsciously) that believing in "science" collides with with having a spiritual experience. I was pointing out that there are very good ways to combine the two. But yes you have a point and I get it. >> What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans. There is nothing wrong with anything ;). But seriously, I think that reconciling some parts of those just leads to a deeper and more profound understanding of life. Not only being able to see either a particle or a wave, but even the deeper underlying phenomena combining the both.

Capt-RogerOver 9y ago

>> So you may be technically correct but the claim is so weak as to be nearly meaningless. My claim was referring to the following: many "science" people have a hard time developing their spiritual side, because of what they learn about the scientific models of the universe. Lacking proper guidance to place those models in proper places in their mind, they often end up believing (even subconsciously) that believing in "science" collides with with having a spiritual experience. I was pointing out that there are very good ways to combine the two. But yes you have a point and I get it. >> What's wrong with keeping them separate? Science is falsifiable and religion is not. One sometimes advances the knowledge of humanity and one sometimes allows us be happier humans. There is nothing wrong with anything ;). But seriously, I think that reconciling some parts of those just leads to a deeper and more profound understanding of life. Not only being able to see either a particle or a wave, but even the deeper underlying phenomena combining the both.