Well, the approach to answer the question is different, and it's usually strongly implied by the way the question is phrased whether a scientific or epistowhatsit answer is expected. The way you look for an answer affects the answer you'll find in these matters. I don't think it's in science's power or its remit to find out what happens before time or outside existence; religion tries to goad it that way because it likes to think it's winning on that count. Science, good science anyway, has no problem with people speculating about things it cannot know.

i was thinking more of religion occupying a different world. "finding out what happens" depending on the world you're examining

another example would be lit crit where to ask "is it true?" means something utterly different than in science, where the answer (when asked of say a novel) would often be "no it's fiction".

does scienctific materialism/naturalism have the monopoly on examining/understanding reality. obviously not, because we allow art to do this too.

it's funny because if sophia asked this question i'd say "yes" followed by "piss off", but if someone like gould asks it it's different

No thats what I meant. Everything that FJG was is explained by = Jew.

I see your point, although to be honest, if they're asking "is it true?" about something other than the grammar, they're asking for trouble even in a lit crit context. But I see your point.

If you wanted a snappy answer/definition, I'd say it'd be that science allows us to know things, and that religion, morality, and other societal forces allow us to understand them, to put them in a context where they are not just numbers and neutrons. "Understand" isn't exactly when I mean, but it allows us to know that we are all made up of clumps of atoms, but still see each other as human, rather than just as clumps of atoms. We can know or even just suspect that time is a continuum and its passage is merely our feeble attempt to comprehend a vast multi-dimensional whole, but it's faith or whatever you'd call it that allows us to carry on as we did before, rather than cancel all our appointments until we're sure we're seeing time from every angle.

So yeah, I'd say science has the monopoly on examining reality, in gathering data and such, but that to understand that data and make use of it, we need more than just science to guide us.

I wonder if, had we left it up purely to science, reason, analysis etc., whether we'd ever have bothered with the atom bomb. I'm pretty sure that, to even begin scientific investigation, you need some kind of moral impetus or some justification for looking in one direction rather than another, for thinking that we need a more powerful weapon than the spear or a faster mode of transport than the horse or whatever. To me, religion is a mode of interpreting what exists and deciding how to proceed, just like culture, society, morality and a hundred other things of that type (hence my media atheism there), and while those things are crucial to the process of understanding the world, they can be problematic if they get involved in the process of collecting the data that they interpret, because they tend to only look for what they want to find.

"F"? don't you like sharing a name with him? anyway hatred of jewish science cost hitler the war

oph. i believe art examines, as well as understands. a lot of artists describe the process as one of experiment and discovery. i'll probably post a longer response later, but you know at work

Same here, but I recently discovered "hot desking". It's something the CEOs do a lot, but I found out anyone is allowed to do it, even crappy temps. So basically I can bugger off across the building for hours just to use the computer.

And love of Jewish 'science' has cost_____you fill in the blank xxxx.

the baby jesus his life

Now that God is dead, it's time to ask the important question: if a dude hit on you using alliteration, would you be seduced or aroused?

I TRIED ASKING WHILE GOD WAS ALIVE AND HE JUST WOULDN'T QUIT WITH THE INTERRUPTIONS.