Which is a more important part of scientific research: studying reality or

[Boojatta]

studying models of reality?

Which is a more important part of theological research: studying God or studying the scriptures of various religions?

[SteppingRazor]

1. Studying reality is more important to science. But since you can't "study God"...

you've gotta go with the next best thing if you're a religious person :shrug:

[Boojatta]

3. How much of science is concerned with the causes of events?

If, to say that a given kind of event causes another kind of event is to make a statement about reality, then what aspect of reality is being discussed?

Some people say that a statement of that kind is merely a statement about models of reality and is not actually a statement about reality, except in the sense that one's dreams about the future are part of reality, because one is actually dreaming. Of course, while dreaming, one is not actually receiving transmissions of information from the future.

[Warpy]

Models are also important to science

as in climate change models, sub particle physics models, models of the universe (big bang,crunch vs. steady state).

[SteppingRazor]

8. Granted, but they'd be meaningless without an observable reality...

I'm not saying models are not important. I'm saying they're only important in so far as they explain reality. Thus, reality itself is more important than the models.

But the God question isn't comparable, because no one can "study God" as it were — God is not observable to human beings.

[kiahzero]

14. Is reality directly observable?

I tend to think not. Science, through empiricism, gives us a very useful model for understanding reality, but only that. If you claim that we can observe reality directly, you have to somehow account for the objections of epistemological skeptics.

[patrice]

2. False Dichotomies. nm

[Boojatta]

6. Are you suggesting that they are of absolutely equal importance?

In other words, you are not talking about 50.002% versus 49.998%. You are talking about 50.00000% versus 50.00000%?

[damntexdem]

11. It's not a matter of percentages --

both are 100% important.

[Boojatta]

19. Can you conceive of ranking importance not using whole ordinal

numbers, but using a more refined scale?

[Boojatta]

22. You could start a subthread to discuss your view with Evoman, who wrote:

"Obviously studying reality is more important..."

[Evoman]

4. Hmmm....interesting question.

Obviously studying reality is more important.....models are really only tools to help us understand reality, when reality is a little too complex. There certainlty is a danger in making the mistake that a model completely represents reality, and I think scientists need to be really careful about expanding model based studies and observations into larger systems (and I think they are very careful, from personal experience). No scientist would claim that a model is a perfect or near perfect represenation of reality...i.e. if you look at Daltons model of the atom, scientists knew that electrons didn't really "act that way" (although the Dalton model is completely obsolete now).

As to theological research...well, honestly, I don't know. First of all, I don't even know how you go about doing theological research. I don't recognize it as real research....either studying god or studying scripture "theologically". Studying the history of scripture is different, because I think there are interesting things we can use scripture for (studying the minds of the writers, and the mythology of an ancient people). But I don't recognize theology as a legitimate field of study. So I would be hard pressed to say which is more important...although, to be cheeky, I will say this: How do you study something directly that doesn't exist?

[theoldman]

5. I think it is important to study other religions to learn the

commonality between theirs and ours. Perhaps this would reduce some of the conflict. Of course it is important to learn your own religion first. It appears that very few people do this.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. A mystic would say neither

what is most important is experience. Everything else is looking at concepts. However if you are interested in finding out why people of various cultures think the way they do, it would behoove you to find out about the religions that are predominant in that culture.

[More Than A Feeling]

9. what does that mean?

Could you explain a little better the difference between experience and concepts, and how they relate?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. I'll quote Murshid Samuel L. Lewis,

who, in the documentary "Sunseed" was asked his concepts of spirituality.

"Concepts about spirituality have nothing to do with spirituality. They only deal with concepts."

The reporter then asked, "Then what is spirituality?"

"Experience."


Another way to sort of get at it is to tell a story. There was once a walled town, and the people therein didn't leave the area--except every once in a while, a person would jump over the wall and never be seen again. The town fathers decided to find out what was beyond the wall, and tied a rope to a volunteer, who went over the wall. When they pulled him back, they were filled with questions--but the volunteer was mute, and only had a smile on his face.

And finally, in the words of the San Francisco mystic Joe Miller--
"It can't be bought, it can't be taught--but it can be caught."

[Silent3]

20. But it can be caught?

Kind of like a disease? :evilgrin:

[Silent3]

21. The emphasis on "experience" means...

...elevating mere personal perception above anything that can be clearly corroborated. It's the convenient blurring of any differences between "it is true that I experienced X" and "X is true".

[damntexdem]

10. Science studies nature and develops models. It tests those models against nature.

Both are essential to science.

Now, how does one "study" God? I'm sure science would like to know where it could get a theometer. ;-)

[Boojatta]

18. Various math axioms are used as assumptions to deduce theorems of

number theory. Where do those math axioms come from?

[saltpoint]

12. Wouldn't it depend on how the studies were worded, or which scriptures

are examined, and what the intent and goal of the study/reading is?

We don't know if there is a cure for cancer; we know efforts are made to find one.

We don't know if there is a god or gods; we know that others believe so and have said so on scrolls.

An excellent question but unanswerable until the definitions and parameters are established. Then things could get interesting.

[kiahzero]

13. Science, by its very nature, studies useful models of reality.

I see the analogy you're trying to make, though... I don't think you mean the same thing by "model" as I do. :shrug:

[Random_Australian]

16. Ah, I've got something to say: Science ultimately studies reality -

however, the way it does this is the construction of models that are so close to reality that there is (eventually hopefully going to be) a zero information difference.

That is, while reality could be very different to the models, everything that has any interactions with anything else at all will be put into those models, making those models describe reality (eventually hopefully) to near the limit of perfection.

[cyborg_jim]

17. Models may be irrelevant

It is perfectly possible to construct a model of something in which derived properties are simply not in line with observed ones. Hence one can study properties of a model that are perfectly true but irrelevant to reality of the thing being modelled.