Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 346 of 456 (557506)
04-26-2010 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by kbertsche
04-23-2010 12:18 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Hi kbertsche,
So I was following a link that Modulous provided on another thread and look what I found...
kbertsche writes:
I also see it in Dawkins' "God Delusion." He insists on a simplistic, literalistic interpretation of Genesis so that it will conflict with science and he can ridicule it.
and the reality;
Richard Dawkins writes:
...no serious theologian takes the Old Testament literally any more ... An awful lot of people think they take the Bible literally but that can only be because they’ve never read it. If they ever read it they couldn’t possibly take it literally...
From http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by kbertsche, posted 04-23-2010 12:18 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by kbertsche, posted 04-27-2010 8:01 PM Granny Magda has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 347 of 456 (557514)
04-26-2010 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 337 by Granny Magda
04-24-2010 9:36 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
quote:
This anti-religious literalistic interpretation among can be traced back at least to the classic "hatchet-job" books which insisted that science and religion are always in conflict: John Draper's "History of the Conflict between Religion and Science" in 1874 and Andrew Dickson White's "History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom" back in 1896.
Bet you a dollar Dawkins has never read those books. It hardly matters where you think you can trace it to, when you can't even find it in TGD.
Yes, it is irrelevant whether or not Dawkins ever read these books. My point was that Draper and White popularized the claim that science and religion are always in conflict, and that this false claim has infected much of western society. Most don't know where the claim originated.
quote:
quote:
But Dawkins certainly DOES insist on a conflict perspective between science and religion. This unwavering commitment permeates The God Delusion. He is strongly critical of any attempts to harmonize science and religion.
Yes. Good chap that Dawkins. Always liked him.
Seriously; Dawkins is right here. Science and religion are fundamentally opposed ways of trying to understand. They are not compatible.
How can any intelligent person actually believe this? Talk about "projection" and "blind faith!" But in this case, it is not faith without evidence, it is faith in opposition to evidence!
Invariably, those who make such claims are not non-religious, but anti-religious. They critique that which they neither believe nor understand. They are like a geocentrist who critiques astronomy.
Gould made an honest observation when he said, Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs and equally compatible with atheism. The claim that science and religion are incompatible is falsified by surveys of religious belief among scientists.
And the history of modern science falsifies this claim. Modern science arose in Christian Europe (mainly in Puritan England). The founders and early developers of modern science (e.g. Bacon, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, van Leeuwenhoek, Dalton, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin, Maxwell) did not merely absorb the religion of their culture; they were devout believers themselves. Newton wrote more about the Bible than about science. Bacon wrote the following (reproduced by Darwin on the flyleaf of Origin of Species):
Francis Bacon writes:
To conclude therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill applied moderation think or maintain, that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both.
These men pursued science because they held the first metaphysical perspective that I described earlier. They believed that God is consistent and trustworthy; He is the operator of His universe; therefore His universe can be studied and "natural laws" can be discerned, analogous to God's "moral laws" revealed in Scripture. Historians of science agree that Christianity was a major contributor, not an impediment, to the development of modern science.
The ridiculous claim that science and religion inherently conflict or are incompatible with one another is not born out in history nor in the lives of modern scientists who are religious. It only exists as a figment of the imagination of those who hate religion.
Edited by kbertsche, : updated sig

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 337 by Granny Magda, posted 04-24-2010 9:36 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by Granny Magda, posted 04-26-2010 4:16 PM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 348 of 456 (557516)
04-26-2010 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Taq
04-24-2010 1:05 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
quote:
Dawkins, Hitchins, Stenger, and other "scientific atheists" reject the personal God of the Bible, but replace Him in their metaphysics with the impersonal god of the universe itself.
Or is it possible that one doesn't need other gods to replace a belief in your God?
I thought I was clear in e.g. Message 335, but perhaps I wasn't since both GM and you seem to have misunderstood.
I was not claiming that you, GM or anyone else has "replaced" God with the universe in your own personal history. Rather, I note that the metaphysical conception of the universe is very different under the two views I have suggested. Attributes which are classically attributed to God under view 1 are placed on nature in view 2. The universe has replaced God as the thing which is uncaused, self-existent, self-operating. Most atheists, like you, would strongly object to calling the universe a "god," but in rejecting traditional gods you must ascribe divine attributes to nature.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Taq, posted 04-24-2010 1:05 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by Taq, posted 04-26-2010 3:09 PM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 349 of 456 (557518)
04-26-2010 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by subbie
04-24-2010 5:27 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
kbertsche writes:
The question of why (in a non-mechanistic sense) the earth follows gravitational laws is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question. I will suggest two possibilities:
1) The earth does this because God causes it to do so. God is the one who controls, operates, and upholds the universe every milisecond. He normally operates His universe in a consistent way. We identify this consistency as "natural laws." These natural laws have no independent existence on their own, they are merely descriptive of God's activity. This metaphysical perspective was held by nearly all of the founders of modern science: Kepler, Galileo, Boyle, Newton, Maxwell, etc.
2) The earth does this because gravitational behavior is built into the fabric of nature. These laws are part of the universe itself. Nature runs like a clock with these built-in laws governing it, independently of any gods. This metaphysical perspective is that of Deism and of many modern scientists, especially atheists. (This is what I meant by the metaphysical position of the so-called "scientific atheists.")
quote:
I reject your classification of the two possibilities that you offered as being metaphysical. They are statements that purport to describe reality. As such, they are subject to scientific investigation the same as any other statement that describes reality.
This doesn't make sense. Of course these statements "purport to describe reality"; God is real, the spiritual world is real. But how does this make them subject to scientific investigation? If you believe that they are, can you suggest a scientific test that would distinguish between the two positions?
Your claim doesn't make sense even with the metaphysical positions that you describe as your own. Is your claim that "There is an actual reality external to us that exists." a metaphysical claim? (yes) Does it "purport to describe reality?" (yes) Is it "subject to scientific investigation?" (no)
quote:
quote:
Second, the universe is very different under the two metaphysical positions above.
You say that, yet you fail to propose any observational distinction that anyone could use to be able to tell which of the two universes we are in. Can you propose such a distinction?
No; I don't believe any observational distinction exists. The difference is metaphysical, not observational.
quote:
Or, can you explain why we should care about which of two statements that have no observational distinctions between them are true?
Perhaps you don't care about anything that is not amenable to scientific investigation? If this is the case, then perhaps you shouldn't care about this any more than you care about beauty, or truth, or morality, or altruism. (See the Schroedinger quote in my sig)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by subbie, posted 04-24-2010 5:27 PM subbie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Taq, posted 04-26-2010 3:19 PM kbertsche has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 350 of 456 (557541)
04-26-2010 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by kbertsche
04-26-2010 11:48 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
The universe has replaced God as the thing which is uncaused, self-existent, self-operating. Most atheists, like you, would strongly object to calling the universe a "god," but in rejecting traditional gods you must ascribe divine attributes to nature.
So you are saying that meteorology incorporates divine attributes because it describes thunder using natural mechanisms that were once ascribed to Thor? That doesn't make any sense.
If the facts show that the universe is self existing then it is self existing. The problem here seems to be that theists incorrectly inserted their god into gaps in our knowledge. It is not the fault of science that those gaps are filled with knowledge instead of blind faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by kbertsche, posted 04-26-2010 11:48 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by kbertsche, posted 04-27-2010 8:26 PM Taq has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 351 of 456 (557544)
04-26-2010 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by kbertsche
04-26-2010 12:04 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
This doesn't make sense. Of course these statements "purport to describe reality"; God is real, the spiritual world is real. But how does this make them subject to scientific investigation? If you believe that they are, can you suggest a scientific test that would distinguish between the two positions?
Is there any scientific test that you would accept as a valid test of whether or not God is real?
Just on the face of it, I see no reason why science could not test for God other than not wanting to falsify the existence of God. The supernatural is nothing more than an invented realm that, conveniently, is said to be impenetrable to science. By making the existence of God unfalsifiable you have done nothing more than demonstrate your dogmatism and lack of reason or logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by kbertsche, posted 04-26-2010 12:04 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by kbertsche, posted 04-27-2010 8:42 PM Taq has replied

Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 352 of 456 (557552)
04-26-2010 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by kbertsche
04-26-2010 11:33 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Hi kbertsche,
Yes, it is irrelevant whether or not Dawkins ever read these books. My point was that Draper and White popularized the claim that science and religion are always in conflict, and that this false claim has infected much of western society. Most don't know where the claim originated.
It doesn't really matter to me where the claim originated. I just happen to agree with it.
How can any intelligent person actually believe this?
Intelligent people are capable of believing all sorts of surprising things. Whenever a scientist attempts to bring their supernatural beliefs into their professional life, they necessarily violate methodological naturalism. The two approaches, natural and supernatural are incompatible. Science, by your own admission, can only address the natural, so what possible place cols there be within scientific practise for a belief system that includes the supernatural?
Invariably, those who make such claims are not non-religious, but anti-religious.
Probably only fair to note that this category does include myself. My animus for religion doesn't mean I'm wrong though...
They are like a geocentrist who critiques astronomy.
Thanks. Has it occurred to you that I might understand religion better than you allege? Of course, if I have failed to understand religion, perhaps you could help me out by explaining how it is based upon logic and reason?
Gould made an honest observation when he said, Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs and equally compatible with atheism.
Gould's religious colleagues were not stupid. It is possible, indeed common, for intelligent people to hold foolish beliefs. Nonetheless, this quote does not quite address what I am trying to say. Just because a person can be a scientist and a theist, does not mean that the two beliefs are compatible. They are completely incompatible, as is made clear by the fact that they cannot be pursued simultaneously, as a single combined effort as it were. A scientist must set aside her attachment to supernatural beliefs when she dons her scientist hat. Nor can a religious claim about a supernatural entity claim scientific backing. The two methods are mutually exclusive.
All that is proved by a person being both religious and also a scientist is that even highly intelligent people are capable of cognitive dissonance. Just because a person engages in two activities does not mean that those activities are compatible. The BTK serial killer was an active member of his church. George Tiller was murdered by a professed Christian. Does this mean that theism and murder are compatible?
People are capable of holding mutually exclusive ideas in their heads and believing just as fervently in both. In my view, this is what theist scientists are doing. It's nothing to be ashamed of, we all do it. I just think that religious scientists are doing it a little more than non-religious ones. Please let me be clear that I have no problem with theist scientists, so long as they keep their supernatural beliefs out of their work. Trying to practise both at once is guaranteed to lead to disaster. In fact there is a name for this particular disaster; creation science.
The claim that science and religion are incompatible is falsified by surveys of religious belief among scientists.
As I hope I have made clear, this is not really relevant to what I'm trying to say. I do not dispute the existence of theist scientists.
Newton wrote more about the Bible than about science.
He also wrote about alchemy. Is alchemy compatible with science? With Christianity?
Bacon wrote the following... {quote omitted}
I don't particularly disagree with Bacon. My point is that the two methods must, in practise, be compartmentalised. To do otherwise is to open science up to the supernatural and thus weaken it fatally. The naturalistic assumptions of science need only be methodological remember, so there is no reason why a scientist cannot also be a theist. It does mean though, that the theist must leave their beliefs at the laboratory door.
These men pursued science because they held the first metaphysical perspective that I described earlier. They believed that God is consistent and trustworthy; He is the operator of His universe; therefore His universe can be studied and "natural laws" can be discerned, analogous to God's "moral laws" revealed in Scripture.
This is precisely the point I have been trying to get across to you about the essential difference between science and religion and the extra assumptions that religion makes. The scientists you note had to make all the same assumptions about reality as any other scientist (as very clearly expressed by Subbie in Message 341), but the theist adds on a whole raft of extra assumptions; that God is consistent and trustworthy, etc. There is no logical justification for this extra raft of beliefs, they hang in mid-air, quite unsupported by reason. When practising science, such beliefs, however pleasing, must be placed to one side.
The ridiculous claim that science and religion inherently conflict or are incompatible with one another is not born out in history nor in the lives of modern scientists who are religious. It only exists as a figment of the imagination of those who hate religion.
So can you cite any examples of scientists bringing their religious beliefs into the lab, so to speak, and having a net positive effect? Because all the religious scientists I know of tend to believe in the supernatural, but practise methodological naturalism in their work. When religious scientists try to combine the two (Newton's alchemical work serving as a good example), they tend to... not produce their best efforts.
From Message 348;
I was not claiming that you, GM or anyone else has "replaced" God with the universe in your own personal history. Rather, I note that the metaphysical conception of the universe is very different under the two views I have suggested. Attributes which are classically attributed to God under view 1 are placed on nature in view 2.
Okay, I think I see where you're coming from. Still, this is hardly the fault of atheists. Rather, it is caused by theists making shit up over the years. If religion did not make erroneous claims of divine causality for what later turn out to be natural phenomena, it would not find it's gods restricted to lurking in such tiny gaps.
The universe has replaced God as the thing which is uncaused, self-existent, self-operating.
Personally, I'm not very interested in first causes. I am more interested in what we can say with at least some degree of certainty. That lets us look back to a split second after the Big Bang. Further back than that, I am content to admit complete ignorance. Sure we can speculate beyond that, but to be honest, it just doesn't matter that much to me.
Most atheists, like you, would strongly object to calling the universe a "god," but in rejecting traditional gods you must ascribe divine attributes to nature.
You have it exactly backwards. The problem here is that religion has always been content to attribute responsibility for purely natural phenomena to deities, as seen with countless sun gods and earthquake gods. It is not a case of atheists attributing divine qualities to nature, but one of generations of theists attributing natural phenomena to gods. They were in error and they have been called on it. That is not the fault of atheists.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : Removed unloved apostrophe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by kbertsche, posted 04-26-2010 11:33 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2010 11:03 AM Granny Magda has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 353 of 456 (557754)
04-27-2010 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 342 by Taq
04-25-2010 12:38 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
What we keep asking for are christian beliefs that are reached through reason and logic that are demonstrably true. If you can't demonstrate that something is true but still dogmatically believe it to be true how is this anything other than blind faith?
And I keep answering the same way:
1) You are proposing an extended apologetics discussion which doesn't belong in this thread (or in any "Is it science?" thread, since it is not science.)
2) If you can't find a good apologetics-related thread, I'd be happy to recommend websites, books, etc for anyone who really is serious about investigating God and faith. (But I think most here just want to argue against God instead of honestly investigating Him.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 342 by Taq, posted 04-25-2010 12:38 PM Taq has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 354 of 456 (557755)
04-27-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by Otto Tellick
04-25-2010 10:32 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
quote:
Anyway, I'm still puzzled: how do you figure that when someone says "I don't know why the universe/life/mankind exists," this constitutes a metaphysical position about existence?
No, I don't think this constitutes a metaphysical position about existence. It sounds more like an honest agnosticism. But this is not Dawkins' position, nor is it the position of most of my critics here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-25-2010 10:32 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 355 of 456 (557757)
04-27-2010 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by Woodsy
04-26-2010 8:42 AM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
quote:
If a proposed explanation cannot be investigated in any way, is it even meaningful?
Perhaps not. This gets close to the "blind faith" that Dawkins and company allege.
quote:
Surely it is dishonest to take any position on a question which cannot even be investigated.
Perhaps, but what about the question of whether or not we are "in the matrix?" This can't really be investigated, yet most of us take a position on it.
And don't conflate "investigated" with "scientifically investigated." Science is limited to the physical universe, and to a specific methodology of investigating it.
quote:
"Faith" is just an inability to admit ignorance.
Near the beginning of this thread I provided numerous definitions of "faith," and this was not among them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by Woodsy, posted 04-26-2010 8:42 AM Woodsy has not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 356 of 456 (557760)
04-27-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by Granny Magda
04-26-2010 10:52 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
kbertsche writes:
I also see it in Dawkins' "God Delusion." He insists on a simplistic, literalistic interpretation of Genesis so that it will conflict with science and he can ridicule it.
and the reality;
Richard Dawkins writes:
...no serious theologian takes the Old Testament literally any more ... An awful lot of people think they take the Bible literally but that can only be because they’ve never read it. If they ever read it they couldn’t possibly take it literally...

If you've read The God Delusion you will know that Dawkins' opinion of theologians is extremely low. His comment on how the Bible actually is interpreted by theologians doesn't tell us how he thinks it should be interpreted, which was my claim.
But perhaps I should table this claim for the time being, until/unless I find a better quote from Dawkins to support it. My main point was that Dawkins sees science and faith as intrinsically incompatible and in conflict with one another. He certainly believes this, and it permeates his book.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Granny Magda, posted 04-26-2010 10:52 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by slevesque, posted 04-27-2010 8:06 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 357 of 456 (557762)
04-27-2010 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by kbertsche
04-27-2010 8:01 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Oh but of course the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic?! Jesus had himself tortured and executed for a symbolic sin by a non-existent individual. Nobody not brought up in the faith could reach any verdict other than barking mad!
This reflects a bit Dawkins view that he disagrees with the way that liberal scholars interpret Genesis.
Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by kbertsche, posted 04-27-2010 8:01 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 358 of 456 (557768)
04-27-2010 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by Taq
04-26-2010 3:09 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
quote:
The universe has replaced God as the thing which is uncaused, self-existent, self-operating. Most atheists, like you, would strongly object to calling the universe a "god," but in rejecting traditional gods you must ascribe divine attributes to nature.
So you are saying that meteorology incorporates divine attributes because it describes thunder using natural mechanisms that were once ascribed to Thor? That doesn't make any sense.
Interesting question. Perhaps someone from your perspective could say that meteorology incorporates Thor-like attributes? From my perspective, of course, God has the attributes that were ascribed to Thor.
quote:
If the facts show that the universe is self existing then it is self existing. The problem here seems to be that theists incorrectly inserted their god into gaps in our knowledge. It is not the fault of science that those gaps are filled with knowledge instead of blind faith.
Scientific facts can never show this one way or the other. The question is metaphysical.
Have I suggested a "god of the gaps" anywhere in this thread? I certainly hope not, because I reject that sort of a god as much as Dawkins does. My position is very different:
1) Science has fundamental philosophical limits to what it can investigate and how it can do so (see the Schroedinger quote in my sig). This is fundamentally very different from a "gap" in our scientific knowledge which may someday be filled as we collect more scientific data.
2) The theistic metaphysical position that I outlined earlier doesn't try to place God in the "gaps" of our scientific knowledge, but it does the opposite; it puts Him in the science that we do understand! The more we understand about the laws of nature, the better appreciation we have for how God actually operates His universe on a minute-by-minute basis. Scientific advances don't push God into the corner; they bring Him more into the open.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by Taq, posted 04-26-2010 3:09 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 378 by Peepul, posted 04-30-2010 11:27 AM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 359 of 456 (557771)
04-27-2010 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by Taq
04-26-2010 3:19 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
quote:
Is there any scientific test that you would accept as a valid test of whether or not God is real?
I can't think of any scientific test that could be done. Any suggestions?
quote:
Just on the face of it, I see no reason why science could not test for God other than not wanting to falsify the existence of God.
You sound like Dawkins; he wants to believe the same thing. But he ends up assuming specific, naive conceptions of god and showing that these gods do not exist. I agree--I don't believe in those gods, either. I don't think there is any way of scientifically testing for God, in general.
quote:
The supernatural is nothing more than an invented realm that, conveniently, is said to be impenetrable to science. By making the existence of God unfalsifiable you have done nothing more than demonstrate your dogmatism and lack of reason or logic.
Here you seem to be taking a couple of metaphysical positions:
1) the physical world is all that exists
2) there is no knowledge outside of science
This position is "scientism" or "metaphysical/philosophical/ontological naturalism." It goes far beyond the "methodological naturalism" that we use in science. (And as you should know, it is "methodological naturalism," not I, which explicitly makes God scientifically unfalsifiable.)

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by Taq, posted 04-26-2010 3:19 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 361 by Taq, posted 04-28-2010 12:18 PM kbertsche has replied

kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 360 of 456 (557867)
04-28-2010 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by Granny Magda
04-26-2010 4:16 PM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
quote:
quote:
How can any intelligent person actually believe this?
Intelligent people are capable of believing all sorts of surprising things. Whenever a scientist attempts to bring their supernatural beliefs into their professional life, they necessarily violate methodological naturalism.
I agree that a scientist should not refer to the supernatural in doing science; it should be done according to methodological naturalism (MN). But this doesn't mean that a scientist should not hold any religions beliefs.
quote:
The two approaches, natural and supernatural are incompatible. Science, by your own admission, can only address the natural, so what possible place cols there be within scientific practise for a belief system that includes the supernatural?
Yes, science can only address the natural world, not the supernatural. But this doesn't mean the two approaches are incompatible, it just means that they are different. They use different methods and ask different questions. Perhaps they are orthogonal to one another, but not incompatible. A scientist can be religious without any fundamental conflict between these two approaches to truth.
quote:
Gould's religious colleagues were not stupid. It is possible, indeed common, for intelligent people to hold foolish beliefs. Nonetheless, this quote does not quite address what I am trying to say. Just because a person can be a scientist and a theist, does not mean that the two beliefs are compatible. They are completely incompatible, as is made clear by the fact that they cannot be pursued simultaneously, as a single combined effort as it were.
But I don't see how this implies incompatibility. For example, a chemist can analyze the paper and ink of a book and describe it in as much detail as desired. A literary scholar can describe the content and meaning of the same book in as much detail as desired. Both are describing the same book, but in different ways with very different approaches. They are asking different questions about the same book. Their approaches are different and orthogonal, but what is "incompatible" about this?
quote:
A scientist must set aside her attachment to supernatural beliefs when she dons her scientist hat.
If by "set aside" you mean "not appeal to in scientific explanations", I agree. But if you mean "not believe" I disagree.
quote:
Nor can a religious claim about a supernatural entity claim scientific backing. The two methods are mutually exclusive.
But if they can make no claims about the other, how can they exclude one another? They are orthogonal, but not mutually exclusive.
quote:
All that is proved by a person being both religious and also a scientist is that even highly intelligent people are capable of cognitive dissonance. Just because a person engages in two activities does not mean that those activities are compatible. The BTK serial killer was an active member of his church. George Tiller was murdered by a professed Christian. Does this mean that theism and murder are compatible?
People are capable of holding mutually exclusive ideas in their heads and believing just as fervently in both. In my view, this is what theist scientists are doing. It's nothing to be ashamed of, we all do it. I just think that religious scientists are doing it a little more than non-religious ones. Please let me be clear that I have no problem with theist scientists, so long as they keep their supernatural beliefs out of their work. Trying to practise both at once is guaranteed to lead to disaster. In fact there is a name for this particular disaster; creation science.
How are religious scientists practicing "cognitive dissonance" or believing "mutually exclusive" ideas any more than a person who does both a chemical and a literary analysis of the same book?
I agree with your view of creation science, of course.
quote:
I don't particularly disagree with Bacon. My point is that the two methods must, in practise, be compartmentalised. To do otherwise is to open science up to the supernatural and thus weaken it fatally. The naturalistic assumptions of science need only be methodological remember, so there is no reason why a scientist cannot also be a theist. It does mean though, that the theist must leave their beliefs at the laboratory door.
I am a firm believer in MN. The MN approach was followed by Newton, Kepler, Boyle, etc, who were devout believers. The term MN was coined (in its modern usage) by a Christian philosophy professor. It lays out groundrules and limits for science; science can only appeal to naturalistic mechanisms, and science can only speak to the natural, not the supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by Granny Magda, posted 04-26-2010 4:16 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Granny Magda, posted 04-29-2010 10:39 AM kbertsche has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024