|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creation, Evolution, and faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
That isn't what "same" normally means.
But why can they not have the same dream in the same way that they can both consistently identify "red"? Straggler writes:
Actually, no, it doesn't. That it does is a commonly held hypothesis, but it is not something we can show. In particular, Berkeley's idealism suggests something very different. While most modern philosophy rejects idealism, it does not disprove it.
It tells us we are consistently talking about the same aspect of reality that exists external to our own minds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Surely you can see the difference: the words "by science." Do you think this difference is insignificant? Yes, I do think it is insignificant. The only thing put forward thus far for God existing is faith that God exists. That's it. It doesn't matter if you put "by science" in that sentence or not.
Do you operate from a position of ontological naturalism, assuming that the supernatural either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to you? I am operating from the position that the natural is all that can be shown to exist. If you can demonstrate the existence of the supernatural I would be all ears.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
You don't quite understand my perspective. Please look back at Message 328 to see my description of it.
quote:Yes, exactly. quote:No, it is very different. Almost the opposite, in fact. The "God of the gaps" perspective invokes God for physical phenomena which have no present-day scientific explanation. As our scientific understanding grows, God gets "smaller." My perspective is that scientific law is a manifestation of God's consistent character. As our scientific understanding grows, our appreciation of God's activity also grows. quote:Correct. quote:Yes, but the word "intervening" has the wrong connotation. "Directing" is better. quote:No, this is exactly where God is directing the universe--through the physical laws that we understand. We DO notice, and we call His direction "physical law." quote:No, absolutely not. He's doing it very plainly, out in the open. quote:Yes, that's the idea. quote:I would maintain that this is impossible in principle, because it is a metaphysical question rather than a scientific question. Does my position put God in a different sort of gap, perhaps a metaphysical gap rather than a scientific gap? I don't believe so; no more than the ontological naturalist position puts nature in a gap. I outlined two metaphysical positions in Message 328; God is in the center of the first, nature is in the center of the second. I would say that neither God nor nature are in "gaps," they are both central to their respective metaphysical positions. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2161 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
quote:But "objective reality" is a metaphysical/philosophical notion, not a scientific notion. quote:"Collective agreement" is a sociological notion, neither a physical science nor a metaphysical notion. I don't think it is a good way to do science or to find truth. quote:It's not that I don't like it. I reject it because it is an improper mixing of science and metaphysics. quote:No. Science addresses nature, not necessarily all of "objective reality." And it addresses nature in a specific, limited way. As in Message 313 I again recommend Helen Quinn's description of science, which is very good, and should be acceptable irrespective of one's metaphysical position. Here again is what she wrote about science and religion: Helen Quinn writes:
In everyday usage the question Why? can be either about the mechanism by which something occurred or about the reasons for or purposes behind an action. Thus the distinction between reason and mechanism, or between effect and purpose, is often blurred. Religion and philosophy are interested in reasons and purposes, but science cares only about mechanisms. That apparent reduction of the goal is a powerful step that separates modern science from its ancestor, natural philosophy. Modern science focuses our attention on just those questions that can have definitive answers based on observations. Where science does find a path to compare theory with observations, the theories so developed provide a powerful way to understand the world and even to make some predictions about the future. Science offers us new options that may be appliedfor example, in technology and medicineto change the way we live and extend our capabilities. However, scientists tend to forget that issues of reason and purpose are central to many people’s questioning, so the answers they get from science seem inadequate. "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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are you simply saying that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively? If so that is so inarguable as to be almost inane.
While most modern philosophy rejects idealism, it does not disprove it. Oh Christ - Not another proof merchant. Are you saying that objective reality doesn't exist? What are you saying here exactly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
HI kbertsche,
Granny writes: 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. kbertsche writes: How is this inconsistent? I don't see inconsistency, but difference. Is it inconsistent for someone to believe that a chemical analysis and a literary analysis of the same book are both true? This is the same sort of thing. It isn't. A book is merely a book. Objective reality is a different matter. Both science and religion lead people to hold beliefs about what is real. No-one takes the contents of any secular book as being a definition of reality, but religion does claim to describe reality. These are two very different kinds of belief. The problem, the inconsistency, is that both science and religion lead people to certain beliefs about reality. The scientist theist ends up with two sets beliefs, some supported by evidence, logic and reason, one unsupported. On the one hand, they must justify scientific ideas in a detailed and logical way, but the religious beliefs seem unsupported. I have never seen the kind of logical proof of something like the existence of God that such an idea would require were it a physical, natural claim. The mere definition of something as "supernatural" seems to be used to excuse ideas such as God from rational examination and logical justification. This kind of behaviour requires that two separate strands of beliefs are held at once, but with both making claims about what is real.
Religions DO make some silly, indefensible claims from time to time, as do scientists (e.g. Dawkins). But can you give a specific example of "claims about the natural world" which are central to Christianity but are "incompatible with a scientific approach?" I can't think of any. Things like the existence of a soul, a claim which clearly implies that the existence of brains is somehow inadequate to explain the existence of minds. Claims like yours earlier in the thread, where you insisted that natural phenomena like the origin of the universe should be thought of as being within the realm of theology. In claiming that natural explanations are insufficient, religion is overstepping it's bounds. A good example of this kind of thing is the Catholic idea that the soul was inserted into humanity at a certain point in our evolution (an idea that Francis Collins is keen on I believe). This is completely unsupported and the evidence from our primate cousins is against it. But it fits the religious biases of its supporters, so it gets a free pass. It is an attempt to push the supernatural into an area where natural explanations are far better supported. In my opinion, most of the claims of religion that are contrary to science are of this nature; forcing supernatural explanations into explainable natural phenomena.
I deny that there is any cognitive dissonance in my views of science and religion. Absolutely none. Can you explain where you think I have cognitive dissonance? In demanding logical evidence for scientific ideas, but waiving all such requirements for supernatural ones. All ideas about what is real and what is not, however tentatively held, need some kind of evidence. I don't think that you can support your religious beliefs with logic and evidence. In fact, you have pointedly refused to do so. With respect, I suspect that you believe that your ideas are more logically based than they actually are, something that you would share with most theists of my experience. Of course I may be wrong, but that is what I suspect. Certainly, you support your scientific arguments (against the creation science folks) rather better than you do your explicitely Christian arguments.
It appears that you and I are using the words "compatible" and "incompatible" differently. I agree with the gist of what you say here, but I would call this a difference rather than an incompatibility. So let's avoid the word "incompatible" and use the word "contradictory." What I mean is that the two approaches do not contradict one another. They can both be held without contradiction or conflict. Look at it this way; could we ever base a scientific conclusion upon an artistic analysis? Of course not. Similarly, one could never (or at least should never) base a scientific principle upon a religious analysis. The "soul-insertion" idea takes exactly this form, with its implicit claim that the mind is insufficient to support human conciousness. It bases an essential scientific claim upon a religious grounding.
Can you explain exactly where you see "cognitive dissonance" in Francis Collins' position? I've not read Collins' book - I acquire books randomly from charity shops mostly - but I have read some articles by him. I have some familiarity with the kinds of argument that he makes. An example of the kind of claim that he makes would be that God has used evolution to groom us into his chosen species and that having just about got it right, that's it for human evolution.
quote: Now that is crazy talk. Collins seems to believe that the ToE is sufficient to explain all creatures other than humanity, but it somehow falls short when it comes to us. This is bizarre and unsupported by any evidence. He believes some things to be fact because they are supported by logical evidence. He believes other things for no apparent reason other than his religiously founded desire to believe it. Tome, the dissonance is clear. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
I did not think I was saying that.
Are you simply saying that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively? Straggler writes:
Actually, ,no. I was simply pointing out that your conclusion claimed too much.
Oh Christ - Not another proof merchant. Straggler writes:
I have not been hinting at any hidden mystical meaning. I suggest you take me as saying what I actually said.
Are you saying that objective reality doesn't exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You seem to be doing your usual thing of randomly posting disagreement without actually taking a coherent position of your own.
Nwr writes: I suggest you take me as saying what I actually said. I can only ask again - What are you saying here exactly? What exactly is your position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
Well, excuse me. However, this particular ridiculous subthread began at Message 384 where you interjected a random (and in my opinion, inane) question.You seem to be doing your usual thing of randomly posting disagreement without actually taking a coherent position of your own. Presumably you disagreed with something that I said, but you have never clearly stated what was your objection.
Straggler writes:
What I was saying, before your interruption at Message 384, was that people were making objections to religion that would also apply to many other areas - I mentioned mathematics, but I could also have mentioned Shakespearean drama or rock music.I can only ask again - What are you saying here exactly? What exactly is your position? I was implicitly asking that people be a little more careful in their wording. I suspect that is not what you are asking about here. But since you have never clearly stated your position on whatever it is that you take to be at issue, it is not clear to me what you are asking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
What I was saying, before your interruption at Message 384, was that people were making objections to religion that would also apply to many other areas - I mentioned mathematics, but I could also have mentioned Shakespearean drama or rock music. Such as? Any in what sense would we expect science and rock music to meet comparable criteria anyway?
But since you have never clearly stated your position on whatever it is that you take to be at issue, it is not clear to me what you are asking about. My objection is to what you seem to be saying here:
Nwr writes: Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway. As per Message 384 I will ask (yet again) what exactly do you mean by this? Do you even know what you mean? For example - If a number of people independently claim to have had wholly subjective experiences of Allah does this mean that Allah has been objectively evidenced as far as you are concerned? Is this an example of "shared subjectivity" or not? If not then what is? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
We wouldn't.Any in what sense would we expect science and rock music to meet comparable criteria anyway? Similarly, we should not expect science and religion to meet comparable criteria. And that was my point. To say it differently, we should not criticize religion for not being science. It is, however, fair to criticize religion for making scientific claims based only on religious grounds. As I said, we should be careful with our criticisms.
Straggler writes:
I am wondering what the objection is. I have use the expression "shared subjectivity" before, though perhaps not at evcforum, and it did not seem to be controversial.
My objection is to what you seem to be saying here: Nwr writes: Some (including me) would argue that objectivity is just shared subjectivity anyway. Straggler writes:
Our experience with the world is subjective. We use the term "objective" for those aspects of that experience over which there seems to be widespread agreement.
I will ask (yet again) what exactly do you mean by this? Straggler writes:
No.
If a number of people independently claim to have had wholly subjective experiences of Allah does this mean that Allah has been objectively evidenced as far as you are concerned?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
To say it differently, we should not criticize religion for not being science. It is, however, fair to criticize religion for making scientific claims based only on religious grounds. Is the claim that god exists external to ones own mind a claim about objective reality? If it is does it require objective evidence?
I am wondering what the objection is. I have use the expression "shared subjectivity" before, though perhaps not at evcforum, and it did not seem to be controversial. My objection is to the ambiguity. Which you still have not rectified. Yet again - What exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"? Can you give an example? I still don't even know whether your position accepts or rejects the existence of objective reality.
Our experience with the world is subjective. We use the term "objective" for those aspects of that experience over which there seems to be widespread agreement. In which case you once again appear to be making the inarguable and largely inane observation that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively.
Straggler writes: If a number of people independently claim to have had wholly subjective experiences of Allah does this mean that Allah has been objectively evidenced as far as you are concerned? No. Well on that we agree. But you still seem happier stating what you don't mean than specifying what you do mean.
Straggler writes: Are you simply saying that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively? I did not think I was saying that. So what exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"? Can you give an example that is not just subjective perception of objective reality?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Our experience with the world is subjective. We use the term "objective" for those aspects of that experience over which there seems to be widespread agreement. I think that's a poor way to define "objective." It means any claim of fact boils down to an appeal to popularity, and it would also mean (as written) that if sufficient people agree that blue is superior to red, then blue is "objectively" the superior color. It's true that each of us experiences the world individually, and thus subjectively. However, many of those experiences are the result of realities that appear to be independent of the observer. We determine this by comparing our individual subjective experiences, but it's not simply a matter of "we all agree that there is a building here, therefore the building's existence is objective." Disagreement that the building exists, for instance, does not stop us from taking pictures of it, or even going inside. Whether most people agree that I have two cats or not, my cats exist independent of prevailing opinion and continue to eat surprising amounts of food. Shared subjective experiences, however, still allow for considering mass hallucinations and just plain being wrong (see: flat Earth, Creationism, etc) to be considered "objective" when they are nothing of the sort. So while we do share subjective experiences of objective reality, you cannot simply say that subjective experiences are objective simply because of "widespread agreement." Objective reality consists of that which exists independent of the observer; widespread agreement is not required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Straggler writes:
Presumably, that would depend on one's concept of god.
Is the claim that god exists external to ones own mind a claim about objective reality? Straggler writes:
I see that you have not explained what ambiguity.My objection is to the ambiguity. Which you still have not rectified. Just about every word in our language is ambiguous. You might as well get used to a little ambiguity. I shall ignore your objection.
Straggler writes:
But what does that even mean?I still don't even know whether your position accepts or rejects the existence of objective reality. I disagree with Berkeley's idealism, if that is what you are asking.
Straggler writes:
No, that is not what I have been saying.In which case you once again appear to be making the inarguable and largely inane observation that objective reality is necessarily perceived subjectively. Incidently, you seem to be taking this way off topic for the thread.
Straggler writes:
See Message 401.
So what exactly do you mean by "shared subjectivity"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Rahvin writes:
I was not attempting to define "objective."
I think that's a poor way to define "objective." Rahvin writes:
No, it does not mean that at all. My explanation was about experience, not about opinion.
It means any claim of fact boils down to an appeal to popularity, ... Rahvin writes:
If you consider only those aspects of experience for which there is widespread agreement, then that pretty much guarantees that what is thereby considered will appear to be independent of the observer. That appearance of independence is thus an expected result of the methodology. It would be a mistake to jump to conclusions beyond that.
However, many of those experiences are the result of realities that appear to be independent of the observer. Rahvin writes:
"There is a building there" is not an experience. It is an interpretation of experience. My comment was about experience, not about interpretation.
We determine this by comparing our individual subjective experiences, but it's not simply a matter of "we all agree that there is a building here, therefore the building's existence is objective." Rahvin writes:
Taking pictures and going inside are some of the things we do that are part of our experiencing the world.
Disagreement that the building exists, for instance, does not stop us from taking pictures of it, or even going inside.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024