Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation, Evolution, and faith
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 361 of 456 (557881)
04-28-2010 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by kbertsche
04-27-2010 8:42 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
I can't think of any scientific test that could be done.
Why not?
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.
So the only god that can exist is one that is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist?
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.)
My point is that without some sort of risky prediction of what we should and should not see in reality then how can one arrive at a belief except through blind faith?
I will freely admit that there may be more to reality than what we have discovered. That is the hope of every scientist, atheist and theist alike. What I want to know is how one goes from saying "there could be something else" to "there is something else"? How does one go from "there could be a god" to "there is a god" without reference to anything resembling reason and logic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by kbertsche, posted 04-27-2010 8:42 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2010 8:33 PM Taq has replied

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


(1)
Message 362 of 456 (557956)
04-28-2010 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Taq
04-28-2010 12:18 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
quote:
quote:
I can't think of any scientific test that could be done.
Why not?
I suppose it's because God is inherently supernatural, but science is restricted to natural explanations for the natural world. The idea of a "scientific test for God" violates the concept of "methodological naturalism."
If you disagree, can YOU propose any scientific test for God?
quote:
So the only god that can exist is one that is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist?
Not quite; He is indistinguishable by science from a god that doesn't exist.
quote:
What I want to know is how one goes from saying "there could be something else" to "there is something else"?
By applying reason and logic to non-scientific evidence, e.g. philosophy, history, personal experience, perhaps some of the so-called "social sciences." (Apologies to the social scientists, but I consider these fields to be only quasi-scientific.)
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
Edited by kbertsche, : grammar edit

"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 361 by Taq, posted 04-28-2010 12:18 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 363 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 8:50 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 364 by Taq, posted 04-29-2010 10:18 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 370 by Stile, posted 04-29-2010 2:41 PM kbertsche has replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 363 of 456 (557996)
04-29-2010 8:50 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by kbertsche
04-28-2010 8:33 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
quote:
quote:What I want to know is how one goes from saying "there could be something else" to "there is something else"?
By applying reason and logic to non-scientific evidence, e.g. philosophy, history, personal experience, perhaps some of the so-called "social sciences." (Apologies to the social scientists, but I consider these fields to be only quasi-scientific.)
How do any of these yield reliable evidence about gods?
I disagree about the social sciences; those folk are trying hard to deal with difficult subjects. I do not see how they give evidence about gods anyway.
History is pretty much like science: conclusions must be based on demonstrable evidence.
Personal experience is notoriously unreliable.
Remember, if propositions cannot be checked against reality, their truth cannot be ascertained, so much of philosophy is ruled out.
I don't think there is any such thing as this "non-scientific evidence" that is in any way reliable.
Would you care to give examples?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2010 8:33 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2010 10:29 AM Woodsy has replied
 Message 374 by kbertsche, posted 04-29-2010 10:05 PM Woodsy has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 364 of 456 (558005)
04-29-2010 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 362 by kbertsche
04-28-2010 8:33 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
I suppose it's because God is inherently supernatural, but science is restricted to natural explanations for the natural world. The idea of a "scientific test for God" violates the concept of "methodological naturalism."
What line of reasoning and logic lead to the conclusion that God is inherently supernatural? What line of reasoning and logic lead to the conclusion that there is a supernatural realm?
If you disagree, can YOU propose any scientific test for God?
No more than I can propose a scientific test for Leprechauns and Santa Claus, and for the same reason.
Not quite; He is indistinguishable by science from a god that doesn't exist.
What's the difference?
By applying reason and logic to non-scientific evidence, e.g. philosophy, history, personal experience, perhaps some of the so-called "social sciences."
So what is that reasoning and logic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2010 8:33 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 375 by kbertsche, posted 04-29-2010 10:19 PM Taq has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 365 of 456 (558009)
04-29-2010 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 363 by Woodsy
04-29-2010 8:50 AM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
How do any of these yield reliable evidence about gods?
That's beside the point...
The reliability of it, or lack thereof, doesn't negate the fact that reason and logic are being employed.
Smart theists don't just pick some god willy-nilly and then have faith in it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 8:50 AM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 12:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 366 of 456 (558011)
04-29-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 360 by kbertsche
04-28-2010 11:03 AM


Re: Tracing back to early comments...
Hi kbertsche,
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.
Well that's not quite what I'm saying. I do think though that it is deeply inconsistent for a scientist to hold religious beliefs. To hold one set of scientific beliefs which are logical, reasoned and evidenced, whilst simultaneously holding beliefs that are devoid of logic, reason and evidence will always be inconsistent and contradictory.
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.
This would be true if religion limited itself to the metaphysical or philosophical. It doesn't though. Religion blithely makes claims about the natural world, mostly without evidence. That is incompatible with a scientific approach.
Perhaps they are orthogonal to one another, but not incompatible.
They are not orthogonal. Religious claims about the physical world overlap with science's area of utility. If religion were to drop these claims, perhaps you would have a point, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
A scientist can be religious without any fundamental conflict between these two approaches to truth.
Yes. By ignoring the contradiction and just not worrying too much about it. Like I said, cognitive dissonance.
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?
Well for a start, it's not a valid metaphor. As I have said, religion makes physical claims. Your example would be valid only if the literary critic attempted to tell the chemist how literary criticism had led him to understand features of the chemistry of ink that the chemist had missed.
Further, the two approaches you present, literary criticism and chemistry are absolutely incompatible. No amount of literary criticism is ever going to help us better understand the chemistry of ink. No amount of chemistry is ever going to illuminate a narrative. The methods employed by literary criticism (a branch of the arts or humanities) could never be accepted in science. Nor would scientific methods benefit the literary world. Art is not science. The two are completely incompatible.
Another major problem is the claim to accuracy and reality that religion makes, a claim that is not made on anywhere near the same scale in the arts. Religion makes great claims to truth. Literary criticism can only ever offer opinion.
The best you can claim here is that the two strands of thought, religion and science, are mutually complimentary. But what exactly does religion bring to the table? Any value that religion might have as a guide to philosophy is fatally undermined by its ridiculous truth-claims, its constant attempts to overstep its bounds and its complete lack of any visible logical grounding. It is, at best, an irrelevance, in practise, a hindrance.
Again, I must ask; do you consider serial murder to be compatible with Christianity? There have been Christian serial killers. Is serial killing "orthogonal" with Christianity? Just because a person is capable of practising both does not mean that they should be considered complimentary. Some things are just not a very good fit for each other.
If by "set aside" you mean "not appeal to in scientific explanations", I agree. But if you mean "not believe" I disagree.
I mean the former. Although I can't help but see a gaping logical hole in the practise of basing one set of beliefs about the physical world upon reason and observation, only to cast that reason aside when it comes to religious beliefs. It is that gulf between the two different ways of thinking about things that I feel lies at the heart of the incompatibility.
But if they can make no claims about the other, how can they exclude one another? They are orthogonal, but not mutually exclusive.
Again, they are not orthogonal, they are not separate. Religion is constantly treading on science's toes.
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?
Because they are holding two sets of beliefs about the universe, one based on evidence, the other based on... whatever it is that you religious chaps base your ideas on... that you refuse to tell me about...
Placing two sets of ideas on roughly level pegging (as religious scientists such as Francis Collins do) despite the fact that one is evidenced and the other is not is cognitive dissonance.
Of course, you will say that the religious beliefs are supported. But you won't say what by, so I can only conclude that religion is not supported by logic or reason.
I agree with your view of creation science, of course.
I am a firm believer in MN.
Well I'm glad we agree on something at least. Perhaps you could start a movement to campaign for Methodological Super-Naturalism; under MS-N religion would only be able to make supernatural claims, with no more pesky interfering in our understanding of the physical world. You never know, it might catch on.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 360 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2010 11:03 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 377 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2010 11:27 AM Granny Magda has replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 367 of 456 (558031)
04-29-2010 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2010 10:29 AM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
quote:
How do any of these yield reliable evidence about gods?
That's beside the point...
The reliability of it, or lack thereof, doesn't negate the fact that reason and logic are being employed.
Smart theists don't just pick some god willy-nilly and then have faith in it.
I gather that most theists inherit their god from their parents.
Also, it doesn't matter if logic and reason are being employed. They are useless without good inputs from reality.
What are these inputs that are used? Let's see them so we can judge the validity of the outputs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2010 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 368 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2010 1:55 PM Woodsy has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 368 of 456 (558035)
04-29-2010 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by Woodsy
04-29-2010 12:56 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
I gather that most theists inherit their god from their parents
I'd say they inheret their religion from their parents... My concept of god is different from my parents' and I think most peoples' are.
Also, it doesn't matter if logic and reason are being employed.
It matters to me for my beliefs and faith.
They are useless without good inputs from reality.
I find them useful. I'm more comfortable with a belief that I've come to through reason and logic better than one I just pulled out of a hat.
What are these inputs that are used? Let's see them so we can judge the validity of the outputs.
I'll pass... I'd rather not share my intimacies, It'd be a lot to type, and I don't think we're going to get anywhere with the judgement of the output (that is, I already realize they're not reliable or anything like that and I don't think they can be shown to be actually wrong so I don't see the point in it).
I think the point kb was making was that some people who have faith do get there with reason and logic. I don't see any reason to get into whether or not what they have faith in is accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 12:56 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 2:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 369 of 456 (558043)
04-29-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2010 1:55 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
I'd say they inheret their religion from their parents... My concept of god is different from my parents' and I think most peoples' are.
That's interesting. Does the religion not determine the god concept, then? I had no idea!
I would like your opinion of something, since you clearly think about such matters. My brother is a member of what I take to be a fundamentalist christian church. The other day, he used the phrase "I choose to believe." Do you think this is legitimate?
He has surprised me before by saying something along the lines of "I know that isn't true, but, because my religion says it is true, I believe it."
Edited by Woodsy, : changed wording

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2010 1:55 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 371 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2010 2:44 PM Woodsy has replied

Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 370 of 456 (558045)
04-29-2010 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 362 by kbertsche
04-28-2010 8:33 PM


Testing for Objective Faith
kbertsche writes:
I can't think of any scientific test that could be done.
Taq writes:
Why not?
I suppose it's because God is inherently supernatural, but science is restricted to natural explanations for the natural world. The idea of a "scientific test for God" violates the concept of "methodological naturalism."
If you disagree, can YOU propose any scientific test for God?
Let's take a look at some categories:
Things that are collectively agreed to exist within objective reality.
-there is always a scientific test that can be done, and has been done, to show that the idea in question actually exists within objective reality
-mountains, trees, animals, planets, stars, cars, computers, scientific theories... all manner of things that are the same for everyone, regardless of personal belief
Things that are are collectively agreed to exist within subjective reality.
-there is never a scientific test that can be done to show that the idea in question actually exists within objective reality
-dreams, feelings, thoughts, imagination... all manner of things that are different for different people
Things that are unknown to be objective or subjective.
-there is a scientific test that can be done, but doing the test is currently restricted so it cannot be done right now
-currently untestable scientific hypotheses, urban legends, crack-pot ideas, conspiracy theories... all manner of things that cannot currently be tested
I would just like to point out that if you are acknowledging that God cannot be scientifically tested (not just can't-right-now, but actually cannot-ever). Then you are also acknowledging that God is exactly the same as all things humans have ever come into contact with and labelled as "Subjective". Which would lead us to believe that this God idea is different for different people... in which case there's not much point in trying to persuade others to accept your personal vision of what God does. Who cares? It's just your personal imagination anyway. There's certainly no point in trying to get other people to accept your personal God-idea as "correct" or "right" for anyone else.
You could go ahead and imagine an alternate-reality which includes some sort of "supernatural realm" (again, something that would fit perfectly into the Subjective category) to help explain this anomaly. But adding more subjective ideas does not do much to help force a God idea into anything objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 362 by kbertsche, posted 04-28-2010 8:33 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 379 by kbertsche, posted 04-30-2010 11:38 AM Stile has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 371 of 456 (558046)
04-29-2010 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Woodsy
04-29-2010 2:32 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
That's interesting. Does the religion not determine the god concept, then? I had no idea!
Somewhat... It provides the framework, but much of the details comes form the individual. (although I'm speaking from a Catholic persepective [which is funny because everyone thinks the church just determines all that stuff for us, which they technically do, but if you polled a church I bet you find all kinds of different answers for what people actually believe for themselves]).
I would like your opinion of something, since you clearly think about such matters. My brother is a member of what I take to be a fundamentalist christian church. The other day, he used the phrase "I choose to believe." Do you think this is legitimate?
I'm torn on that one... Most believers will say that they do choose to believe (we had a thread on that once and I went home and asked my girlfriend if she chooses to believe and she was all: "Uh, yeah... duh, of course.")
On one hand, I'd argue that you are unable to choose a belief because something either convinces you or it doesn't. But for matters of faith I think its different. I think the phraseology of it is a little off. Its not like they're actually choosing to actually believe, its that they've decided to accept it with insufficient reason and they're purposefully resistant to opposition. Or something like that.
He has surprised me before by saying something along the lines of "I know that isn't true, but, because my religion says it is true, I believe it."
That's a fundamentalist attitude, of which I am certainly not. And some of them might very well have their god concept determined for them. I'm just too honest with myself to be like that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 2:32 PM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 372 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Woodsy
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 301
From: Burlington, Canada
Joined: 08-30-2006


Message 372 of 456 (558049)
04-29-2010 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 371 by New Cat's Eye
04-29-2010 2:44 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
Thanks for a very helpful reply.
Its not like they're actually choosing to actually believe, its that they've decided to accept it with insufficient reason and they're purposefully resistant to opposition. Or something like that.
I must admit that this baffles me (I am sure that you are right). Is it something more like a political position adopted because of party affiliation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 371 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-29-2010 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by Natural_Design, posted 04-29-2010 3:32 PM Woodsy has not replied

Natural_Design
Junior Member (Idle past 5081 days)
Posts: 12
From: Flint, Michigan, USA
Joined: 04-27-2010


Message 373 of 456 (558061)
04-29-2010 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by Woodsy
04-29-2010 2:57 PM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
'' Personal experience is notoriously unreliable. ''
I have a personal experience that is very unique. It basically comes down to this -- Either I am insane or everything that happened was an Amazing Set of Coincidences or It is Reality. I believe that latter.
I'll give you the quickest version I've ever given anyone before. This is also the shortest version. I am not a liar either nor am I insane.
October 7th 2007 ( 11:00 AM ) -- I come to the realization that I am in '' Heaven '' ( All praises due to Allah ) -- It was like being touched by an Angel. I never left my body or anything and I've never talked to God. All I can tell you was that I was in fact touched by something that is greater that us humans.
k... 1 hour after making it to '' Heaven '' -- I turn on my favorite news channel FOX NEWS! And guess what happens? Page Hopkins is the news anchor. I see her put her hands together in a '' praying '' manner. I think it's odd as I have never seen her do this before. She does it again. Again, I think this is very odd. In fact, her putting her hands together became so odd that her co-anchor was like ''Wow, I have no idea what's going on right now! '' -- Anyway, a few mins later -- in my head -- I THINK : Page put your hands together. She does. Couple mins later I THINK it again and she follows this thought. 1 more time ? Of course.
To make a long story short -- later that same night of Sunday, October 7th, 2007 -- I'm in Midland Michigan. I get pulled over by some cops. They tackle me put me in handcuffs ect. Put me in the back of the cop car. Well, this is where it gets really good. While I'm in the back of the Cop Car I notice the cop began to drop his head and close his eyes. Well, this scared the hell out of me. He snaps out of it and resumes writing me my ticket. Then he drops his head again and closes his eyes. At any rate -- While he has his head dropped and eyes closed -- Some Human Being crawls on top of the Cop Car -- and I know they are on top of the roof because I could hear the metal bending under the pressure of their body weight. Anyway, after this person crawls on top of the COP CAR -- they begin to '' slowly tap '' their '' hands '' on the roof of the car. Now, remember what happened with me and Page earlier that day? heh... it's no coincidence; it's a sign.
That is literally about 15% of the story and all I went through that fateful night. I saw a man lose his free will and that is something I will never forget. Allah Akbar.
Any thoughts ? a bit off topic I know but my personal encounter with God is definitely unlike any other and you'll never hear another story like mine ever again. Perhaps one day I'll post the whole story which has more than just one Grand '' Coincidence ''....
heheheh =)))

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 2:57 PM Woodsy has not replied

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


(1)
Message 374 of 456 (558125)
04-29-2010 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Woodsy
04-29-2010 8:50 AM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
quote:
How do any of these yield reliable evidence about gods?
I disagree about the social sciences; those folk are trying hard to deal with difficult subjects. I do not see how they give evidence about gods anyway.
History is pretty much like science: conclusions must be based on demonstrable evidence.
Personal experience is notoriously unreliable.
Remember, if propositions cannot be checked against reality, their truth cannot be ascertained, so much of philosophy is ruled out.
You seem to be evaluating all of these endeavors according to how similar they are to science. It seems that to you, "evidence" must essentially be "scientific evidence."
quote:
I don't think there is any such thing as this "non-scientific evidence" that is in any way reliable.
Your position seems to be that of the ontological naturalist. Either the natural, physical world is the only thing that exists at all (Carl Sagan's position) or it is the only thing that matters to you (Dawkins' position).
quote:
Would you care to give examples?
Why? What's the point? If you have already rejected non-scientific evidence, why do you want detailed examples of such non-scientific evidence?
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 363 by Woodsy, posted 04-29-2010 8:50 AM Woodsy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Woodsy, posted 04-30-2010 6:21 AM 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


(1)
Message 375 of 456 (558128)
04-29-2010 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by Taq
04-29-2010 10:18 AM


Re: Metaphysics in Science?
quote:
quote:
Not quite; He is indistinguishable by science from a god that doesn't exist.
What's the difference?
You had previously said that a scientifically untestable God "is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist." I replied with the above.
Surely you can see the difference: the words "by science." Do you think this difference is insignificant? If so, does this imply that scientific evidence is the only type of evidence that you will accept? Do you operate from a position of ontological naturalism, assuming that the supernatural either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to you? This would be assuming your conclusion, an a priori ruling out of the possibility of God and the supernatural.
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 364 by Taq, posted 04-29-2010 10:18 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 392 by Taq, posted 05-01-2010 12:08 PM kbertsche has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024