Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Science Versus Religion! The Contest that isn't really there.

123468

Comments

  • #152
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    NB to you and Mods: This is not personal, and I don't mean it, I'm just using it for a point.

    'You are an @sshole'

    Is that how it works now .. well not to be personal but your mother is a gurble and your father smelt of elderberries :pac:

    Anyway ... where were we ... oh yes, yes that statement is, aside from being nonsensical, anti-science if you actually meant it literally. Which most people don't.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    It would become scientific, if I was to set up a model to see if you were in fact an @sshole.

    Yes, and claiming it without first doing that is anti-science because you are doing what science says you shouldn't, making a claim about reality without the models to back it up or test. That goes against scientific principle. It is doing something that is diametrically opposed to science, it is doing exactly what science says you shouldn't do.


  • #153
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    But that isn't the point though.

    I know what you are saying that God (as defined by Christians) is non-testable, I said the same thing way back in this post here

    But that means there definition of "God" is irrelevant. It should be thrown out. Science is not in the job of testing thing that are imaginary. The definition of "God" is imaginary even if God exists because we imagined it with no way of testing if it is anything to do with reality. But some fluke it could totally match reality, but that is irrelevant.

    God is a question for science and we don't know is a perfectly valid answer. It is the answer. There isn't another answer. God gets lumped into the set of all the other stuff we don't know, from invisible unicorns to the FSM

    There is a reason why you keep getting thanked by all the Christians here, and I think it is because they all think you are saying that the answer lies outside of science and therefore we must use other things to learn about him. God is not a question for science so lets use this instead. God is a question for science and the answer is we don't know. That answer shouldn't be ignored simply because it is not pleasing to Christians.

    I know you are not saying that, but I think you are not getting that point.

    We are discussing whether or not the question of the existence of God can be investigated with the scientific method. A scientific investigation must incorporate experimentation and testing. It is very very very specific, and if we are not specific about what we allow to be considered science then we run into trouble. If you want to argue that, because the scientific method cannot be applied to God, we can't know whether or not God exists, then go right ahead. But that is an entirely different matter. The fact of the matter is that Christians (creationists excluded) do not claim that they arrive at their religious belief with scientific investigation, so you cannot say they are being anti-scientific. You can say their faith is unscientific, but it is no more anti-scientific then the satement "1+1=2" or "Heaney is a decent poet."


  • #154
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    Morbert wrote: »
    We are discussing whether or not the question of the existence of God can be investigated with the scientific method. A scientific investigation must incorporate experimentation and testing. It is very very very specific, and if we are not specific about what we allow to be considered science then we run into trouble. If you want to argue that, because the scientific method cannot be applied to God, we can't know whether or not God exists, then go right ahead. But that is an entirely different matter. The fact of the matter is that Christians (creationists excluded) do not claim that they arrive at their religious belief with scientific investigation, so you cannot say they are being anti-scientific. You can say their faith is unscientific, but it is no more anti-scientific then the satement "1+1=2" or "Heaney is a decent poet."

    So belief in god is a personal preference based on nothing more than liking it to be so. Not believing in god due to lack of evidence, while not stating for certain god does not exist is also a personal preference I take it. In the same fashion that not believing in reiki is also a personal preference and so is not believing in the flying spaghetti monster.


  • #155
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    We are discussing whether or not the question of the existence of God can be investigated with the scientific method.
    No, not really. At least I wasn't, TBH I haven't really been following the discussion you are having with sink.

    We were discussing whether or not the question of God's existence is a question for science. As opposed to say theology.

    As I said in post 77
    If God exists he exists. Anything that exists is within the realms of science, as in this is what science is to be used for. .

    If we can't test or model God then that is that.

    It doesn't mean that God is outside science and we should start using other things like theology to come up with ideas about God and such.

    As I already said "We don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific answer.
    Morbert wrote: »
    The fact of the matter is that Christians (creationists excluded) do not claim that they arrive at their religious belief with scientific investigation, so you cannot say they are being anti-scientific.

    But that is how they are being anti-scientific. If they arrived at their conclusions through scientific investigation they wouldn't be being anti-scientific at all.


  • #156
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, not really. At least I wasn't, TBH I haven't really been following the discussion you are having with sink.

    We were discussing whether or not the question of God's existence is a question for science. As opposed to say theology.

    By all means, argue (in another thread) that theology hasn't answered the question either. I will happily agree. The trouble is you are claiming that a question that cannot be investigated with the scientific method is a question for science. Basically, you can either assert that everything that exists is obliged to be investigatable with the scientific method (Which is obviously untrue; you won't, nor will you ever, find a reputable science department investigating the existence of God) or you can argue that, because the scientific method cannot shed light on the issue, we should say we don't know.

    The only relevant point to this thread is that the scientific method cannot shed light on the issue of God, so a Christian does not have to oppose any scientific theory to have faith in God. Call Christians bad philosophers all you want. But do not call them bad scientists unless they actively manipulate the scientific method for their own purposes.
    As I said in post 77

    As I already said "We don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific answer.

    I am certianly not going to subscribe to the idea that a question is scientific even if it cannot be investigated by any scientist. Scientific investigation must incorporate experimentation and testing. It is very very very specific, and if we are not specific about what we allow to be considered science then we run into trouble when it comes to publishing time.

    And to reiterate: You can argue that "Because we cannot apply the scientific method to God, we must resign ourselves to saying we don't know, as there is no other reliable means of investigation" if you like, and argue why it is prudent to do so. But that is not what this thread is about.
    But that is how they are being anti-scientific. If they arrived at their conclusions through scientific investigation they wouldn't be being anti-scientific at all.

    I did not say they arrived at their conclusions through the scientific method. I said they (creationists) believe that they have arrived at their conclusion with the scientific method. By distorting the practise and definition of science, and by asserting beliefs that are in direct contradiction to experimentally established scientific theory, any by belittling the hours of research that go into answering scientific questions, they are being anti-scientific. You can say I'm using a personal definition of anti (opposed to) if you like but the labelling of what is and is not anti-science is beside the point. The point is religious belief does not have to be in conflict with scientific theories, as there is no scientific theory of God. A christian scientists can be just as accomplishes in ANY field of science as an atheist scientist.
    So belief in god is a personal preference based on nothing more than liking it to be so. Not believing in god due to lack of evidence, while not stating for certain god does not exist is also a personal preference I take it. In the same fashion that not believing in reiki is also a personal preference and so is not believing in the flying spaghetti monster.

    I never said nor implied anything of the sort.


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    By all means, argue (in another thread) that theology hasn't answered the question either. I will happily agree. The trouble is you are claiming that a question that cannot be investigated with the scientific method is a question for science.

    The limits of what we can know, what we can discover, what we can verify and measure, are all questions for science.

    If there are methods outside science that allow us to explore more then they should in turn be incorporated back into science. Science deals with exploring reality. Everything in reality is within the bounds of science. If some other methodology or philosophy has figured out a better way to explore reality than science has so far come up with this is still of interest for science and should be incorporated back into science. That is the goal of science.

    There is nothing to do with exploring reality that should lie outside of science. There is nothing where we should go "Well we can't explore that with science, but we should explore it with X"

    If science says "We don't know" and some other methodology has figured out how to know then that is of great interest to science. It is still a question for science. Science doesn't take a back seat and say "Well that isn't of interest to us".
    Morbert wrote: »
    The only relevant point to this thread is that the scientific method cannot shed light on the issue of God, so a Christian does not have to oppose any scientific theory to have faith in God.

    They do though have to oppose what the philosophy of science has determined to be the limitations of what we can know.

    Again, if a Christian thinks they have come up with a better way to know something that goes beyond what the philosophy of science says are the limitations, by all means put that forward because again that is of great interest to science. If science is wrong about what we can know then it should be correct and updated (so long as it still adhers to the high standards, not a Creationist tactic of simply lowering the standards until their beliefs fit into them)
    Morbert wrote: »
    Call Christians bad philosophers all you want. But do not call them bad scientists unless they actively manipulate the scientific method for their own purposes.
    I've no interest in calling them scientists at all, they aren't doing science. Again if that was the case then what they are doing wouldn't be anti-science.
    Morbert wrote: »
    I am certianly not going to subscribe to the idea that a question is scientific even if it cannot be investigated by any scientist.
    I'm not sure what you mean by that. How is a question "scientific"? Surely it is the answer that is scientific or not, and "We don't know" is a valid scientific answer.
    Morbert wrote: »
    The point is religious belief does not have to be in conflict with scientific theories, as there is no scientific theory of God.

    That is irrelevant. 500 years ago if I said the smallest thing that exists is an atom that would not contradict any scientific theory. It would be anti-scientific though, because I have disregarded the scientific method when making such a conclusion.

    It is not current theories (something that is temporal) that Christians disregard when they say "God exists", it is the method itself, the philosophy itself.

    Even if we just had the method, and no theories at all, if we came up with the method and then went off and did something else without ever formulating a single theory about the natural world based on that method, it would still be anti-scientific.

    Science is not simply a collection of theories. It is the principles that these theories are formulated with. That is what is anti-scientific about religion.


  • #158
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The limits of what we can know, what we can discover, what we can verify and measure, are all questions for science.

    If there are methods outside science that allow us to explore more then they should in turn be incorporated back into science. Science deals with exploring reality. Everything in reality is within the bounds of science. If some other methodology or philosophy has figured out a better way to explore reality than science has so far come up with this is still of interest for science and should be incorporated back into science. That is the goal of science.

    There is nothing to do with exploring reality that should lie outside of science. There is nothing where we should go "Well we can't explore that with science, but we should explore it with X"

    If science says "We don't know" and some other methodology has figured out how to know then that is of great interest to science. It is still a question for science. Science doesn't take a back seat and say "Well that isn't of interest to us".

    You are completely redefining science to include every possible means of investigation. Science is an application of methodological naturalism, and should not be redefined as you have done so.
    They do though have to oppose what the philosophy of science has determined to be the limitations of what we can know.

    You're confusing science with epistemology.
    Again, if a Christian thinks they have come up with a better way to know something that goes beyond what the philosophy of science says are the limitations, by all means put that forward because again that is of great interest to science. If science is wrong about what we can know then it should be correct and updated (so long as it still adhers to the high standards, not a Creationist tactic of simply lowering the standards until their beliefs fit into them)

    The scientific methodology is very strict. You can't assume a new methodology would be incorporated, and even if new methodologies could be incorporated then *shrug* we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
    I've no interest in calling them scientists at all, they aren't doing science. Again if that was the case then what they are doing wouldn't be anti-science.

    I was referring to Christian scientists.

    I'm not sure what you mean by that. How is a question "scientific"? Surely it is the answer that is scientific or not, and "We don't know" is a valid scientific answer.

    A question/hypothesis/idea is scientific if it can be investigated and established/falsified with science. The question "Does God exist?", just like the question "What are the properties of the real number system?", cannot be investigated with the scientific method.
    That is irrelevant. 500 years ago if I said the smallest thing that exists is an atom that would not contradict any scientific theory. It would be anti-scientific though, because I have disregarded the scientific method when making such a conclusion.

    It is not irrelevant. There are a distinct set of predictions associated with atomic structures. There is no such set of predictions associated with God.
    It is not current theories (something that is temporal) that Christians disregard when they say "God exists", it is the method itself, the philosophy itself.

    Don't confuse the methodology (science) with the philosophy it is built from (naturalism).
    Even if we just had the method, and no theories at all, if we came up with the method and then went off and did something else without ever formulating a single theory about the natural world based on that method, it would still be anti-scientific.

    Then you have defined anti-scientific as "not scientific". *shrug*
    Science is not simply a collection of theories. It is the principles that these theories are formulated with. That is what is anti-scientific about religion.

    Try this as an experiment; use the phrase "unscientific" and see if as many people on the thread disagree with you. I don't particularly mind what you call it, providing the meaning is clear.

    Here is a very important question: Do you accept that a Christian is just as capable of becoming an excellent scientist, in any scientific field, as an atheist scientist.


  • #159
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Interesting points from apologeticsorg.blogspot.com which I think deserves mention here:

    "In a debate between Peter Atkins (a Darwinist) and William Lane Craig (a Christian), there was an interesting exchange on the limit or limitlessness of science. Atkins says there weren't any. Craig pointed out the following 5 areas that science cannot give a scientific explanation of:

    1. Mathematics and logic (science can't prove them because science presupposes them)

    2. Metaphysical truths (such as, there are minds that exist other than my own)

    3. Ethical judgments (you can't prove by science that the Nazi's were evil, because morality is not subject to the scientific method)

    4. Aesthetic judgments (the beautiful, like the good, cannot be scientifically proven), and , ironically

    5. Science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth cannot be proven by the scientific method itself)"

    I watched this debate, Atkins was stumped.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1Y6ev152BA


    More here enjoy ;)


  • #160
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    You are completely redefining science to include every possible means of investigation. Science is an application of methodological naturalism, and should not be redefined as you have done so.

    I'm not redefining anything. Science has always been defined as the exploration of reality.

    Scientific methodology, the philosophy of science, has been redefined in the past, look at the work of Karl Popper, and my point is that we redefine science to allow us to better explore the natural world, we don't stick science where it is and then go off exploring with something else because science is rigid.
    Morbert wrote: »
    You're confusing science with epistemology.
    I'm not confusing anything. Science, the philosophy of science, is concerned with epistemology. In fact it is very concerned with it.

    I think possibly you are confusing the scientific method with science (the whole shabang, from the philosophy of science down to the methodology it produces). Where do you think the method comes from in the first place?
    Morbert wrote: »
    The scientific methodology is very strict.
    Each version of the scientific method is very strict. But it has evolved over the years as the philosophy of science has evolved. 150 years ago falsification was not considered a central part of the scientific method. Now it is, it is considered crucial. Some still disagree with that.
    Morbert wrote: »
    You can't assume a new methodology would be incorporated, and even if new methodologies could be incorporated then *shrug* we'll cross that bridge when we get to it.
    I'm not assuming they will be at all, though they have in the past. But that is a question for science

    Someone wouldn't say "Well we have a better methodology for learning about reality but sure that doesn't concern science so we are going to go over here and do it, you guys don't need to worry about it because it is not an issue for science"
    Morbert wrote: »
    I was referring to Christian scientists.
    Again, if they aren't doing science (and I don't think any Christian here would say they arrived at the conclusion that God exists from science) I've no interested in calling them bad scientists. As I said already, if they were doing science then this wouldn't be an issue.
    Morbert wrote: »
    A question/hypothesis/idea is scientific if it can be investigated and established/falsified with science. The question "Does God exist?", just like the question "What are the properties of the real number system?", cannot be investigated with the scientific method.
    Yes, so to put forward an answer other than "we don't know" is anti-scientific.
    Morbert wrote: »
    It is not irrelevant. There are a distinct set of predictions associated with atomic structures. There is no such set of predictions associated with God.
    That doesn't matter. 500 years ago I had no way to determine scientifically that there was nothing smaller than an atom. Stating as such would have been anti-scientific.

    Flip it the other way and it is still true. Stating 500 years ago that we definitely is something smaller than an atom would be equally anti-scientific.

    I can't, scientifically, know this. Stating something as fact that I cannot know scientifically is anti-scientific. It is going against the principles of science.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Don't confuse the methodology (science) with the philosophy it is built from (naturalism).
    No, the methodology is the scientific method. Don't confuse science with the scientific methodology. Science encompasses the methodology as well as the philosophy that produced the methodology.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Then you have defined anti-scientific as "not scientific". *shrug*
    I've defined anti-scientific as being opposed to science. That is what anti means.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Try this as an experiment; use the phrase "unscientific" and see if as many people on the thread disagree with you. I don't particularly mind what you call it, providing the meaning is clear.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Here is a very important question: Do you accept that a Christian is just as capable of becoming an excellent scientist, in any scientific field, as an atheist scientist.

    You have to define "excellent scientist" for me. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that a Christian can carry out work using the scientific method to great a degree as any other person. Following a methodology does not depend on religious beliefs, any more than driving a car does.

    I think though that a scientist, excellent or otherwise, should recognise when they hold beliefs that diametrically opposed to the philosophy of science they work with every day.

    If they say they believe God exists but they cannot demonstrate that in any way scientifically I would hope that they properly consider how they could know that. This is where the compartmentalisation that is often discussed comes in, where a person may apply different standards to different areas of their lives.

    I don't want to single out Christians, this is just human. A statistician could understand the odds of winning the lottery yet still play it week believing this week they are going to win.

    That doesn't mean he is a bad statistician, but equally it does mean that he compartmentalizes his knowledge based on his life.


  • #161
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    enjoy ;)

    I never quite understood why Christians seem to think the limits of science some how help religious belief.

    The limits of science are simply the limits of human discovery. Science pushes as far as we can go into determining things about reality. It certainly has limits, but these limits effect everything, including religion. There is no methodology we have come up with that is less limited than science. It is not like science runs into a wall so we can use theology to go beyond science. Theology is far more limited than science is, it hit its own wall well before science did.

    The limitations of science make religious proclamation even less tenable than before.


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,471 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    In a debate between Peter Atkins (a Darwinist) and William Lane Craig (a Christian), there was an interesting exchange on the limit or limitlessness of science.
    I'm not going to watch 110 minutes of this when there's a warm bed waiting for me but honestly, with the possible exception of Alistair McGrath, I've never seen anybody produce such a load of obscurantist, mushy, thoroughly inaccurate and splendidly misleading, sophistical waffle in all my life.

    Craig ought to be ashamed of himself :)


  • #163
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Is that how it works now .. well not to be personal but your mother is a gurble and your father smelt of elderberries :pac:

    I said I didn't mean it, It was just used to make a point. It was the first thing that came to mind though:):pac:

    Yes, and claiming it without first doing that is anti-science because you are doing what science says you shouldn't, making a claim about reality without the models to back it up or test. That goes against scientific principle. It is doing something that is diametrically opposed to science, it is doing exactly what science says you shouldn't do.

    So this just comes down to merely 'your opinion' of what constitutes 'anti' science. Thats ok then. I'm sure that the atheists that wish to hold this opinion will agree with you. Its the atheist evangelising like this I'm hoping not everyone falls for. I think that there's been enough in the thread to show the flaws of your reasoning, so I'm happy with that.


  • #164
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    So this just comes down to merely 'your opinion' of what constitutes 'anti' science

    As opposed to what?

    "science" means one thing, "anti" means one thing. To me it is clear what anti-science is, but yes it is my opinion.

    If you don't agree that is your opinion. You haven't convinced me I'm wrong and I certainly don't follow your argument (which seems to basically just be changing science until there is no long a conflict)

    But sure this is the Christianity forum on Boards.ie, we should be well used to that by now :pac:


  • #165
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm not redefining anything. Science has always been defined as the exploration of reality.

    Science is the systematic exploration of reality under the assumptions associated with methodological naturalism. It is naturalistic.
    Scientific methodology, the philosophy of science, has been redefined in the past, look at the work of Karl Popper, and my point is that we redefine science to allow us to better explore the natural world, we don't stick science where it is and then go off exploring with something else because science is rigid.

    It has not been redefined. It has always tied to the assumptions of naturalism. It has always been naturalistic. It has certainly has been improved upon, but not in the manner you are suggesting.
    I'm not confusing anything. Science, the philosophy of science, is concerned with epistemology. In fact it is very concerned with it.

    I think possibly you are confusing the scientific method with science (the whole shabang, from the philosophy of science down to the methodology it produces). Where do you think the method comes from in the first place?

    The scientific method is 'informed' by epistemology, but it is not the same regardless of how connected they are. Essentially, science stems from epistemology, and incorporates the assumptions of naturalism. God cannot be investigated under those assumptions, so science cannot be applied.
    Each version of the scientific method is very strict. But it has evolved over the years as the philosophy of science has evolved. 150 years ago falsification was not considered a central part of the scientific method. Now it is, it is considered crucial. Some still disagree with that.

    The very reason falsification became important was because people better understood the assumptions scientists use. It is precisely because science relies on repeatable experimentation with natural phenomena that falsification was recognised as important.
    Someone wouldn't say "Well we have a better methodology for learning about reality but sure that doesn't concern science so we are going to go over here and do it, you guys don't need to worry about it because it is not an issue for science"

    If the new methodology abandoned the assumptions of science, and was not naturalistic, then it would not be science. And it is certainly not what science is regarding this thread.
    Yes, so to put forward an answer other than "we don't know" is anti-scientific.

    In the sense that it is not scientific.
    That doesn't matter. 500 years ago I had no way to determine scientifically that there was nothing smaller than an atom. Stating as such would have been anti-scientific.

    It does matter. An atom, even when the relevant experimental apparatus is not available, is assumed to be subject to a uniform set of natural laws, so it will always be within the realm of scientific investigation. God, however, is not.
    I can't, scientifically, know this. Stating something as fact that I cannot know scientifically is anti-scientific. It is going against the principles of science.

    Again, it would be unscientific, but it would not be opposed to science. If you stated something as fact that had been refuted by science, then that would be anti-science. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge the distinction.
    No, the methodology is the scientific method. Don't confuse science with the scientific methodology. Science encompasses the methodology as well as the philosophy that produced the methodology.

    Science is not a philosophy. Science is a methodology, a means/system of investigation, motivated by methodological naturalism (a philosophy I enthusiastically subscribe to). There is a philosophy 'of' science. It explores the assumptions and limitations of the scientific method, as well as the motivation behind applying the scientific method to certain questions, but science does not equal the philosophy of science, nor does the philosophy of science equal naturalism.
    I've defined anti-scientific as being opposed to science. That is what anti means.

    You have actually defined anti-scientific as 'not scientific'. Something that does not adopt the assumptions of science is not inherently opposed to science. Anti-scientism, or anti-naturalism maybe, but not anti-science.
    I think though that a scientist, excellent or otherwise, should recognise when they hold beliefs that diametrically opposed to the philosophy of science they work with every day.

    If they say they believe God exists but they cannot demonstrate that in any way scientifically I would hope that they properly consider how they could know that. This is where the compartmentalisation that is often discussed comes in, where a person may apply different standards to different areas of their lives.

    You can accuse them of compartmentalisation, but that is not the same as holding a belief that is opposed to science.
    I don't want to single out Christians, this is just human. A statistician could understand the odds of winning the lottery yet still play it week believing this week they are going to win.

    That doesn't mean he is a bad statistician, but equally it does mean that he compartmentalizes his knowledge based on his life.

    But the practise of statistics can be applied to the lottery. A better comparison would be a statistician who compartmentalises his knowledge based on when he can use statistics and when he can't.


    I have a great respect for methodological naturalism; it is a position I personally hold. In fact, it is one of the reasons I chose to become a scientist. But you cannot conflate science with naturalism. One is a great discipline, the other is a philosophical position. If a theist chooses to commit himself and his career to science, they do not have to also commit their entire set of beliefs to naturalism. If they wish to limit their naturalistic attitude to what can be tested with the scientific method then they can do so with a clear conscience, even if I disagree with their faith and philosophy. This is why, even though I am a rabid atheist, I must agree with the title of this thread.


  • #166
    Soul Winner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,534 ✭✭✭Soul Winner


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I never quite understood why Christians seem to think the limits of science some how help religious belief.
    And I never quite understand why atheists think that science should somehow hinder religious belief.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It certainly has limits, but these limits effect everything, including religion.

    How do the limits of science affect religion?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    There is no methodology we have come up with that is less limited than science.

    That a typo? :confused:
    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is not like science runs into a wall so we can use theology to go beyond science.

    Theology is simply the study of God. Science is the study of what can be observed in nature. In what way are these two disciplines incompatible? If God is the creator of all that is seen then how can such a Being (been unseen) ever be studied by science? With all its limitations already outlined above how can science ever be relied on to observe what is unobservable? To prove God’s existence by the scientific method one must be able to test God scientifically. Assuming He does actually exist how would one go about testing such a Being by the scientific method? It is something that science will never be able to do. But how can that limitation of science have a bad baring on religion? Why does religion get blamed for science’s short comings?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Theology is far more limited than science is, it hit its own wall well before science did.

    This wall is imaginary. As already said, Theology is the study of God. How can the study of God be more limited that the study of nature? That is like saying that going to the cinema is more limited than going swimming. Going to the cinema can only be more limited than going swimming if when one gets to the cinema one wants to swim. But who in their right mind goes to the cinema in order to swim?
    Wicknight wrote: »
    The limitations of science make religious proclamation even less tenable than before.
    How so?


  • #167
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Soul Winner wrote: »
    And I never quite understand why atheists think that science should somehow hinder religious belief.
    Because religious belief requires believing you know stuff you really can't know
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    How do the limits of science affect religion?
    Because the limits of science are simply the limits of humans, of human understanding and learning. They don't just apply to scientists, they apply to everyone, including religious people.

    Religion relies on forms of learning that are far far more limited than science, such as personal revelation and assessment. You guys don't see this as limiting you simply because you ignore the limitations of these.

    Which is why it is bizarre to see a religious people talking about the limits of science as if they are failings. It is like a Creationist attacking evolution by quoting Gould, without realising that if they accepted what Gould said they wouldn't be Creationists in the first place.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    That a typo? :confused:
    No. Religious methods of learning, such as theology, are far more limited in what they can assess as true than science. But you guys simply ignore these limitations.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    Theology is simply the study of God. Science is the study of what can be observed in nature. In what way are these two disciplines incompatible?
    Because theology asserts that God exists and then attempts to study God.

    How can it do that if science cannot establish in the first place that God is even there?

    To say that science is limited in this regard means humans are limited in this regard. How can humans study (theology) something they can't even determine is real, let alone what properties it has

    And before you say there are other ways apart from science to determine that God is real, that was my original point, all these ways are servilely limited, much much more so than science. But these limitations are simply ignored by believers as getting in the way of their faith.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    If God is the creator of all that is seen then how can such a Being (been unseen) ever be studied by science?
    He most likely can't. The point you are missing though is that by saying he cannot be studied by science what we are actually saying is he cannot be studied by humans using the best methodology we have so far come up with.

    Which means something like theology is pointless. What is the point of theology if you can't actually determine anything about God, you can't even determine if he actually exists.
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    But how can that limitation of science have a bad baring on religion? Why does religion get blamed for science’s short comings?

    Because the short comings of science are the short coming of the ability of humans to study things. Religion simply ignores this.

    It would be like a person trying an experiment once and taking the result as fact. The scientist goes "You should probably run the experiment again because you can't rely on the results just once"

    That is the scientific way of doing it, but it is the scientific way precisely because this is a limitation human learning. We (humans) need to verify things more than once because we know that single results can be misleading. We know that personal assessment can be misleading. We know that assessment of once off events can be misleading etc etc.

    Now the person can ignore this, ignore the limitation of relying on single results, and ignore the fact that science realises this limitation and tries to work around it. He can proclaim his results as fact without verifying them. He can do all this, but that is not overcoming the limitations of science which says he shouldn't do this. It is simply ignoring them. And 5 months later someone else runs the experiment a number of times and find out that the person's results are way off.

    This is what religion is doing. It isn't over coming the limitations of science, the limitations of human learning, it is simply ignoring them.

    Recognising the limitations is far better than simply ignoring them. Saying that science has short comings because it recognises the inherent limits on what humans can learn and know is silly when the alternative methodologies simply ignore these limitations and wind up with a whole lot of unconfirmed nonsense. There is a reason why there is one theory of electro-magnetism and 40 major world religions (and thousands of minor ones).
    Soul Winner wrote: »
    This wall is imaginary. As already said, Theology is the study of God. How can the study of God be more limited that the study of nature?
    It isn't, it is limited by the ability of humans to learn and know. God is supposed to be a produce of nature, ie something that actually exists. All the same problems of learning about protons or waterfalls or moons also apply to God.


  • #168
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    Science is the systematic exploration of reality under the assumptions associated with methodological naturalism. It is naturalistic.
    It has not been redefined. It has always tied to the assumptions of naturalism. It has always been naturalistic. It has certainly has been improved upon, but not in the manner you are suggesting.

    I've never said it is not tied to naturalism? :confused:
    Morbert wrote: »
    The scientific method is 'informed' by epistemology, but it is not the same regardless of how connected they are.

    I never claimed they were the same, you claimed that the issues of epistemology had nothing to do with science, which is inaccurate.
    Morbert wrote: »
    The very reason falsification became important was because people better understood the assumptions scientists use. It is precisely because science relies on repeatable experimentation with natural phenomena that falsification was recognised as important.
    I know.

    But that is a shift in focus of the methodology as we better understood epistemology.
    Morbert wrote: »
    If the new methodology abandoned the assumptions of science, and was not naturalistic, then it would not be science.

    I never claimed it should. :confused:

    Look Morbert I'm not sure what you have assumed I'm saying, but perhaps you need to take a step back and look at what I'm actually saying. You seem to have an idea in your head that [EDIT]that sounded ruder than I meant it to be[/EDIT] I get the impression you think I'm saying that science should abandon the scientific methodology and the philosophy behind it all together so it can go off exploring God. Which is, needless to say, not in anyway what I'm saying.
    Morbert wrote: »
    In the sense that it is not scientific.
    In the sense that it contradicts what science says about what we can know.
    Morbert wrote: »
    It does matter. An atom, even when the relevant experimental apparatus is not available, is assumed to be subject to a uniform set of natural laws, so it will always be within the realm of scientific investigation. God, however, is not.

    It isn't about that. What I am declaring is unimportant, the point is that I'm declaring knowledge and understanding of something that science says I shouldn't be able to know about.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Again, it would be unscientific, but it would not be opposed to science. If you stated something as fact that had been refuted by science, then that would be anti-science.
    No, you don't need to wait for it to be refuted by scientific theory. It might never be refuted by a theory. If I am declaring knowledge about something that the philosophy of science says I really shouldn't be able to know since I have not explored it using the scientific method, then I am being anti-scientific.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Science is not a philosophy. Science is a methodology, a means/system of investigation, motivated by methodological naturalism (a philosophy I enthusiastically subscribe to). There is a philosophy 'of' science. It explores the assumptions and limitations of the scientific method, as well as the motivation behind applying the scientific method to certain questions, but science does not equal the philosophy of science, nor does the philosophy of science equal naturalism.

    Well that is just semantics. You are using the term "science" to mean the scientific method. I'm using it to mean the philosophy and the assumptions and the method that are produced by the philosophy. Which is why I have been refering to "science" and "scientific method" separately.
    Morbert wrote: »
    You have actually defined anti-scientific as 'not scientific'. Something that does not adopt the assumptions of science is not inherently opposed to science.

    But then what is?

    A creationist proclaiming the earth is 6,000 years old despite scientific theories conflicting that is also simply not adopting the assumptions of science.
    Morbert wrote: »
    But the practise of statistics can be applied to the lottery. A better comparison would be a statistician who compartmentalises his knowledge based on when he can use statistics and when he can't.
    And science can be applied to God. "We dont know" is the answer.

    So when a religion person says "I know God exists", to be scientific they should say to themselves I can't actually know this, can I. In the same way that the statistician should say it is very unlikely I'm going to win. But they don't.
    Morbert wrote: »
    If a theist chooses to commit himself and his career to science, they do not have to also commit their entire set of beliefs to naturalism.

    They don't have to do anything they don't want to.

    But think about what they are actually saying when they compartmentalise one aspect of their beliefs from the other

    science is good enough for studying protons etc, but when it comes to God I've come up with a better way to know he exists and is real. Science says that I'm limited in what i can know about God. The scientific answer is that I can't know he even exists. But I do. I'm going to ignore the limitations science says I have because I've figured out a way to know about God that over comes the limits that science says exist.

    that is being anti-science. It is saying that science is basically wrong.

    whether you think this makes them a bad scientist or not is some what irrelevant. I'm not arguing they are bad scientists, I'm arguing that it is anti-scientific.


  • #169
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    I've snipped the redundant parts of our conversation.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    I've never said it is not tied to naturalism.

    -

    No, you don't need to wait for it to be refuted by scientific theory. It might never be refuted by a theory. If I am declaring knowledge about something that the philosophy of science says I really shouldn't be able to know since I have not explored it using the scientific method, then I am being anti-scientific.

    -

    Well that is just semantics. You are using the term "science" to mean the scientific method. I'm using it to mean the philosophy and the assumptions and the method that are produced by the philosophy. Which is why I have been refering to "science" and "scientific method" separately.

    It is not simply a case of semantics; there is a very very important difference between science and naturalism.

    If some question, theory, or hypothesis is scientific, then one is able to apply the scientific method to it. We cannot apply the scientific method of observation, prediction based on induction, experimentation, affirmation/falsification to God, so he is not a scientific issue. Naturalism, on the other hand, refers to a spectrum of beliefs associated with nature and with science. There are strong versions of naturalism (Only nature exists) and there are weak versions (Science is the only reliable means of investigation, and any question about the objective world that cannnot be answered by science, cannot be answered by anything). To engage in science, you only need to adopt a kind of methodological naturalism, where you work under the assumptions of science even if you do not fully accept the more metaphysical versions of naturalism. So it is perfectly consistent to fully appreciate science and to have faith in a supernatural entity.

    Also, naturalism is not the same as the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science deals with the various interpretations of science, and the appropriate assumptions one must adopt when practsing science.

    AS for your other important point:
    A creationist proclaiming the earth is 6,000 years old despite scientific theories conflicting that is also simply not adopting the assumptions of science.

    They are not simply refusing to adopt the assumptions of science. They are trying to change the assumptions of science themselves to incorporate new means of investigation, and they are trying to declare that scientific theories are wrong, even under the traditional assumptions of science.


  • #170
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    It is not simply a case of semantics; there is a very very important difference between science and naturalism.

    I agree, I'm not debating that. I'm not claiming that God can be explained through science. As I already said "We don't/can't know" is a valid answer. It is the only valid answer if God is actually how Christians claim he is.
    Morbert wrote: »
    If some question, theory, or hypothesis is scientific, then one is able to apply the scientific method to it. We cannot apply the scientific method of observation, prediction based on induction, experimentation, affirmation/falsification to God, so he is not a scientific issue.

    No, I disagree with that. He is not explainable through science, but that does not mean that is not a scientific issue. It is a scientific issue and the scientific answer is that we don't know.

    Contrast this with apply science to say ethics. That is an example of something that is not a scientific issue. Saying "scientifically we don't know" to the question of whether humans have a right to execute criminals is a nonsensical answer, because the right to execute criminals is not an issue of reality, or what exists or doesn't exist. That is something that is genuinely outside the realm of science. It isn't that we don't know, it is that he question doesn't make sense to begin with. It isn't that we can't model "ethics", it is that ethics don't physically exist, they are not part of the set of things that exist in reality.
    Morbert wrote: »
    To engage in science, you only need to adopt a kind of methodological naturalism, where you work under the assumptions of science even if you do not fully accept the more metaphysical versions of naturalism.
    That is to physically carry out the work, but that is not the same as not being anti-science. A Creationist can physically carry out scientific work while believing the entire time that the whole thing is utter nonsense.

    That is one of the good things about science, it doesn't actually require that the scientists themselves believe in what they are doing. It is a methodology, robots could do it if we designed robots that good.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Also, naturalism is not the same as the philosophy of science.
    I didn't claim it was. I didn't bring up naturalism. Given that there are a number of branches of naturalism I'm not sure what you think I was implying. Do you mean ontological naturalism, which if I understand correctly is the assertion that nothing exists beyond what we can model and test.

    If ontological naturalism was science then the answer to the question of God's existence wouldn't be "We don't know", but rather "No, he doesn't"
    Morbert wrote: »
    They are not simply refusing to adopt the assumptions of science. They are trying to change the assumptions of science themselves to incorporate new means of investigation, and they are trying to declare that scientific theories are wrong, even under the traditional assumptions of science.

    Show me a religious person who isn't doing that when they say "I know God exists and that is totally compatible with scientific thinking"

    Scientifically you can't say "I know God exists". To say that while still maintaining that you are not contradicting the philosophy of science you must change the philosophy of science, which is what a lot of Christians on these forums have been trying to do.


  • #171
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    I agree, I'm not debating that. I'm not claiming that God can be explained through science. As I already said "We don't/can't know" is a valid answer. It is the only valid answer if God is actually how Christians claim he is.

    "We don't know" means science is inconclusive. It means that, if I assert that there is a God, or that I have faith in God, science neither agrees nor disagrees. You must extend yourself to the realm of naturalism to decide that, because science inconclusive and because science is the only valid means of investigation, we should reject other answers.
    No, I disagree with that. He is not explainable through science, but that does not mean that is not a scientific issue. It is a scientific issue and the scientific answer is that we don't know.

    You missed this part

    Naturalism, on the other hand, refers to a spectrum of beliefs associated with nature and with science. There are strong versions of naturalism (Only nature exists) and there are weak versions (Science is the only reliable means of investigation, and any question about the objective world that cannnot be answered by science, cannot be answered by anything).
    Contrast this with apply science to say ethics. That is an example of something that is not a scientific issue. Saying "scientifically we don't know" to the question of whether humans have a right to execute criminals is a nonsensical answer, because the right to execute criminals is not an issue of reality, or what exists or doesn't exist. That is something that is genuinely outside the realm of science. It isn't that we don't know, it is that he question doesn't make sense to begin with. It isn't that we can't model "ethics", it is that ethics don't physically exist, they are not part of the set of things that exist in reality.

    Ethics cannot be determined by science for the same reason that the existence God cannot be determined by science; the methodology cannot be applied. To say that science extends to everything that exists is a form of naturalism. Theists are opposed this, but not science.
    That is to physically carry out the work, but that is not the same as not being anti-science. A Creationist can physically carry out scientific work while believing the entire time that the whole thing is utter nonsense.

    That is one of the good things about science, it doesn't actually require that the scientists themselves believe in what they are doing. It is a methodology, robots could do it if we designed robots that good.

    By "engage" I mean fully appreciate science.

    As an aside; what is your opinion of instrumentalists? Do you believe they are anti-science?
    I didn't claim it was. I didn't bring up naturalism. Given that there are a number of branches of naturalism I'm not sure what you think I was implying. Do you mean ontological naturalism, which if I understand correctly is the assertion that nothing exists beyond what we can model and test.

    If ontological naturalism was science then the answer to the question of God's existence wouldn't be "We don't know", but rather "No, he doesn't"

    I am talking about the versions which say that science is the only useful means of investigation into the objective existence and behaviour of things.
    Show me a religious person who isn't doing that when they say "I know God exists and that is totally compatible with scientific thinking"

    Scientifically you can't say "I know God exists". To say that while still maintaining that you are not contradicting the philosophy of science you must change the philosophy of science, which is what a lot of Christians on these forums have been trying to do.

    Well if they say they know something exists then they are running into trouble regardless of whether or not that thing can be investigated with the scientific method. If they profess a faith (informed or not) in God, and accept that such a faith cannot be validated with science, then they they aren't stepping on the toes of science. And remember that the philosophy of science is not a philosophical position, but rather an field of philosophical 'investigation'. Scientific realism or naturalism, would be two examples of philosophical positions.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Scientifically you can't say "I know God exists".

    Correct. Unless one has a model etc to base it on. Similarly you can't say Scientifically, 'I know God does not exist'. So what we have is you being a contradiction of yourself.
    To say that while still maintaining that you are not contradicting the philosophy of science you must change the philosophy of science

    You are moving the goal posts. ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. I'm not applying, or claiming to apply science to the claim. I can still be completely scientific in the realm of science, and hold this non-scientic view. You are claiming its 'anti' science, i.e. 'opposed to' science. However, you have nothing in science that it actually opposes. So 'IN REALITY', there is NO conflict.
    which is what a lot of Christians on these forums have been trying to do.

    LOL.
    Show me a religious person who isn't doing that when they say "I know God exists and that is totally compatible with scientific thinking"

    I don't know if you are trying to decieve, or if you actually don't see the point here. The line you said above is deceptive in its presentation. 'God exists but that is not a scientific declaration.' Would be what we are actually saying.


  • #173
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    "We don't know" means science is inconclusive. It means that, if I assert that there is a God, or that I have faith in God, science neither agrees nor disagrees.

    Yes but it also means that science is telling you that you can't know. If you could know then the scientific answer wouldn't be "we don't know"

    This is the point you are some what missing. There is a reason why science says "we don't know", it is because such knowledge is beyond human study. If it wasn't then it would be part of the scientific method and this wouldn't be an issue.

    The scientific method is a philosophical position on how humans can and should learn. It is not simply a methodology that someone came up with randomly with no consideration for how we learn and how we can guide learning.
    Morbert wrote: »
    You must extend yourself to the realm of naturalism to decide that, because science inconclusive and because science is the only valid means of investigation, we should reject other answers.

    No you don't. Science says itself it is the only valid means of investigation.

    There is no scientist alive who would be allowed seriously enter facts or models into the work he is doing if they came from another non-scientific methodology, such as theology.

    Have you not wondered why that is the case? Do you think someone just randomly decide that this would be the way the scientific method was?

    Whether this is a form of naturalism or not is irrelevant. It is part of the philosophy of science, the principles of science.
    Morbert wrote: »
    As an aside; what is your opinion of instrumentalists? Do you believe they are anti-science?
    I don't know enough about instrumentalists beyond glancing over the wikipedia article.
    Morbert wrote: »
    And remember that the philosophy of science is not a philosophical position, but rather an field of philosophical 'investigation'. Scientific realism or naturalism, would be two examples of philosophical positions.

    I don't know what you mean by that.

    You seem to be trying to pull the scientific method apart from the philosophical positions and principles that created it as if the the two have nothing to do with each other.

    It is like following the rule that you should keep fire doors closed, with considering why the rule is there in the first place. And then when someone leaves a fire door open on purpose, saying that they are simply being unfire door conscious, not that they are being anti-fire safety because fire doors being closed dont' have anything to do with fire safety, it is just a rule someone randomly came up with.


  • #174
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Correct. Unless one has a model etc to base it on. Similarly you can't say Scientifically, 'I know God does not exist'. So what we have is you being a contradiction of yourself.

    No, what you have is me saying "I know God does not exist" and being anti-scientific.

    I tend not to say that, but I have in the past and when I was doing it I was being anti-scientific. In fact it was thinking about how anti-scientific that statement was, and how good the principles of science are, that lead me to conclude that this statement is not a sensible one to make.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    You are moving the goal posts. ITS NOT A SCIENTIFIC POSITION TO BEGIN WITH.

    I swear if someone says that to me again ....

    My entire point is that it is not a scientific position to begin with. If it was then how could it be anti-scientific?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I'm not applying, or claiming to apply science to the claim.
    So?

    You are making a statement about the nature of reality that, according to science, you shouldn't be able to know. To ignore what the principles of science are saying to you is to be anti-scientific.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I can still be completely scientific in the realm of science
    There is no "realm of science" ... all of reality is the realm of science. The idea that you have to use science over here, but not over there, is nonsense


  • #175
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    No, what you have is me saying "I know God does not exist" and being anti-scientific.

    I tend not to say that, but I have in the past and when I was doing it I was being anti-scientific. In fact it was thinking about how anti-scientific that statement was, and how good the principles of science are, that lead me to conclude that this statement is not a sensible one to make.

    Like I said, you are a contradiction of yourself.
    I swear if someone says that to me again ....

    My entire point is that it is not a scientific position to begin with. If it was then how could it be anti-scientific?

    Your point has been that it 'is' a scientific topic, i.e. Gods existance, and that any view held other than I don't know is 'anti' science. What we have been trying to tell you, is that it simply is NOT A SCIENTIFIC CLAIM!!! You have presented a rhetorical scenario, that maybe one day it will be. I can say God exists, and still say, Scientifically speaking though, we don't know. You just pigheadedly want to wallow in your contradiction of yourself for whatever reason and are adamant that if I believe in God I'm opposed to science. An idiotic declaration that seems to have legs among 'certain' atheist quarters.
    You are making a statement about the nature of reality that, according to science, you shouldn't be able to know.

    No, according to science I don't 'scientifically' know.
    To ignore what the principles of science are saying to you is to be anti-scientific.

    Only in your head WN. Only if I am oposing science, am I anti science. I can't oppose science in this matter, because its simply not a scientific matter. As I said, I can say, 'God exists' and still say, 'Scientifically, we don't know'. The issue is exactly as Morbert put it. You are conflating a form of Naturalism with science. You are merely giving 'your' philosophy, not actually representing science. It is clear that one can have faith in God and not be anti-science. That you don't see this, or refuse to, does not make any difference to either science or reality.
    There is no "realm of science" ... all of reality is the realm of science. The idea that you have to use science over here, but not over there, is nonsense


    Precisely. You are talking a form of Naturalism. I'm talking about the very specific realm of science. Thank you and good night. Hopefully Morbert can talk some sense into you, before you manage to bludgeon his senses into submission. As I said before, I think there's enough in this thread to show up your faulty reasoning. The fact that you embrace your contradiction I hope is the final nail.


  • #176
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Yes but it also means that science is telling you that you can't know. If you could know then the scientific answer wouldn't be "we don't know"

    Science is not telling you that you can't know. Science cannot make any assertion about God because science cannot be applied to God. You have been corrected on this many times now and your insistence on conflating naturalism with science is stopping the discussion from progressing. Science is motivated by methodological naturalism in that someone adopts the assumptions of naturalism when practising or learning about science without having to make any statement of belief. Methodological naturalism says nothing about the existence of the supernatural. Science therefore cannot be for or against the belief regarding the existence of God even if scientists adopt the assumptions of naturalism.

    If you want to argue that the scientific method of investigation is the only one we can trust, or that methodological naturalism leads to philosophical naturalism then do so elsewhere. It is entirely irrelevant. What is relevant is because science says nothing about the existence of the supernatural, it cannot be used to support or refute any statement about the supernatural. We must move to the realm of naturalism to make that argument. I, for example, believe it is quite easy to make a good argument for philosophical naturalism (i.e. atheism/agnosticism) but that is not what this thread is about.
    This is the point you are some what missing. There is a reason why science says "we don't know", it is because such knowledge is beyond human study. If it wasn't then it would be part of the scientific method and this wouldn't be an issue.

    Again, you are making an irrelevant philosophical argument. Science does not say what is and isn't beyond human knowledge. Epistemology deals with the limits of human knowledge, and a good argument can be made for the more pragmatic forms of naturalism, but we are not debating epistemology.
    The scientific method is a philosophical position on how humans can and should learn. It is not simply a methodology that someone came up with randomly with no consideration for how we learn and how we can guide learning.

    The scientific method is not a philosophical position even if it is closely tied to philosophy. It is a refined discipline; a means of investigation. The various interpretations and motivations behind science are philosophical issues. Whether you are an instrumentalist, a realist, a naturalist or a solipsist, you can still fully appreciate science.
    No you don't. Science says itself it is the only valid means of investigation.

    No it doesn't. Again, you are confusing science with naturalism.
    There is no scientist alive who would be allowed seriously enter facts or models into the work he is doing if they came from another non-scientific methodology, such as theology.

    Have you not wondered why that is the case? Do you think someone just randomly decide that this would be the way the scientific method was?

    Whether this is a form of naturalism or not is irrelevant. It is part of the philosophy of science, the principles of science.

    To reiterate what I said above; science is methodological, not philosophical, in that assumptions are not used to make any claims about 'truth'. What someone personally believes to be true is irrelevant. You only need to acknowledge the results of science, not any underlying fundamental truth about the universe, or about what we can know.
    You seem to be trying to pull the scientific method apart from the philosophical positions and principles that created it as if the the two have nothing to do with each other.

    It is you that are conflating them. I have already made clear the link between science and naturalism (in that scientists adopt the assumptions of naturalism when investigating phenomena). You are not only claiming they are linked, but are claiming that a belief in the supernatural is therefore against science.
    It is like following the rule that you should keep fire doors closed, with considering why the rule is there in the first place. And then when someone leaves a fire door open on purpose, saying that they are simply being unfire door conscious, not that they are being anti-fire safety because fire doors being closed dont' have anything to do with fire safety, it is just a rule someone randomly came up with.

    Again, you're making false analogies by misrepresenting science. If science is illustrated as the practise of opening and closing fire doors then a belief in God is the belief that someone is starting the fires, ontological naturalism is the belief that the fires occur naturally, and epistemic naturalism is the belief that we can never know if someone is starting fires because the best we can do is open and close fire doors.


  • #177
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You just pigheadedly want to wallow in your contradiction of yourself for whatever reason and are adamant that if I believe in God I'm opposed to science.

    Do you accept that based on scientific principles of human learning, you cannot determine that God exists, and any claim otherwise is baseless?

    If you do accept this, then how are you claiming he does exist?

    If you don't accept that, if you believe that the scientific principle is wrong, that you can determine that God exists without having to follow the scientific method, then you are being anti-scientific because science says you can't. You are saying that science is wrong, you have a better system that contradicts the limits that science places on human understanding.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    No, according to science I don't 'scientifically' know.

    There is no "scientifically know" Jimi, you either know or you don't know.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    As I said, I can say, 'God exists' and still say, 'Scientifically, we don't know'.
    Yes but if you follow the principles of science "scientifically we don't know" is the same as "we don't know". There is no other way to know something.

    Its like Chinese food in China is simply called food. If you are following science there is no "scientifically we don't know", there is just "we don't know"

    The only way to say you know something but not scientifically is to contradict and abandon science. And naturally abandoning science, saying it is wrong, is anti-scientific.

    Thinks of it this way. Can a scientist introduce a fact or claim about reality into his theories that he "knows" is true from some where else other than science? Can you introduce "God" into your science on the principle that you know it true?

    No, of course not. Science says you cannot do that, because with out establishing your model scientifically it is no trustworthy knowledge. You don't know it is accurate. Science is telling you that it is not accurate.

    You believing it is irrelevant. You cannot introduce it into scientific models because it is untrustworthy.

    Now you can say you aren't trying to introduce it into theories or models, but that is missing the wood for the trees, it is ignoring why you can't even if you wanted to. You can't do that because scientific principles say it is of no value in learning.


  • #178
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    Science is not telling you that you can't know.

    Yes it is.

    As I asked Jimi, can a scientist introduce a fact that they "know" from some other area such as theology? No, they can't. That goes against scientific principles.

    Why?

    Because science considers that fact or information worthless unless it has passed scientific standards. Science is decreeing that you cannot know it as being true, and as such introducing it into scientific models is worthless.

    If you could know it then you could introduce it into your scientific models and take the models from that onwards.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Science cannot make any assertion about God because science cannot be applied to God.

    I don't understand why you keep saying that as if I have suggested otherwise?

    Science cannot make an assertion about God means humans cannot make an assertion about God without abandoning the principles and limits science puts on human learning.

    Again, why can't a scientist introduce a fact about reality that they "know" from an area outside of science into a scientific model? And the answer is not just that this goes against scientific method. Why does it go against the scientific method? What is the harm in doing this? If a person can know something about the universe is true outside of science then why can they not introduce that fact into scientific modelling?

    That answer is of course that as far as scientific principle is concerned they can't know this as a fact about the universe.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Science is motivated by methodological naturalism in that someone adopts the assumptions of naturalism when practising or learning about science without having to make any statement of belief.

    Yes but why does science require them to do that? What is it saying about human learning that this is required to do scientific work?

    Once you understand that you should understand my point.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Science therefore cannot be for or against the belief regarding the existence of God even if scientists adopt the assumptions of naturalism.
    Again I'm confused because I have never suggested otherwise and in fact that point is crucial to my point. Can you please point out where I have suggested otherwise because I'm really not following why you keep saying that to me? :confused:
    Morbert wrote: »
    If you want to argue that the scientific method of investigation is the only one we can trust, or that methodological naturalism leads to philosophical naturalism then do so elsewhere. It is entirely irrelevant.
    It is not irrelevant at all. Scientific philosophy has already determined it is the only one we can trust. Again, it is the reason why a scientist cannot introduce "knowledge" into scientific models that was not gained through scientific exploration.

    A scientist cannot say "well I know God exists so I'm going to put that into my model, and explain I know he does because of reason X, Y, Z". Science say sorry you can't do that because such knowledge is unreliable and untrustworthy and impossible to verify so you cannot "know" it is true.

    Now you can disagree with science all you like about this. A Christian can proclaim that science is dead wrong, you can know God exists or ghosts are real to the same degree as you know something that is scientifically modelled. But in doing so they are opposing science.
    Morbert wrote: »
    What is relevant is because science says nothing about the existence of the supernatural, it cannot be used to support or refute any statement about the supernatural. We must move to the realm of naturalism to make that argument.
    I'm not making that argument. I'm not saying science supports or refutes any statement about the supernatural?? In fac that is my whole point. That is why claims either way are anti-scientific. Science is saying you can't know that and people are ignoring this and saying they can actually. :confused::confused::confused::confused:
    Morbert wrote: »
    Again, you are making an irrelevant philosophical argument. Science does not say what is and isn't beyond human knowledge. Epistemology deals with the limits of human knowledge, and a good argument can be made for the more pragmatic forms of naturalism, but we are not debating epistemology.
    The scientific method is based on epistemology, as I already said. That is why it exists in the first place, the purpose of the scientific method is to learn within the limits that epistemology has determined about how humans can learn and determine things are true or not.

    Again why can a scientist not introduce knowledge determine outside the scientific method into scientific models?
    Morbert wrote: »
    The scientific method is not a philosophical position even if it is closely tied to philosophy. It is a refined discipline; a means of investigation.
    It is a means of investigation based on a philosophical position about how human learn.

    If you believe otherwise explain to me the rational of the various element of the scientific method. Why do scientists bother with things like repeatability, or falsifiability?

    What purpose do these elements of the methodology serve if science is making no judgement about how humans can learn?

    If science is not saying you need these things because of the limits of human learning and the failings of other methodologies, why do they exist at all in the scientific method? Did someone just randomly make them up?

    This is what I mean by missing the wood for the trees. You appear to be asserting that the scientific method is just the way it is, it isn't the way it is because of philosophical discussion about how humans learn and epistemology. And therefore science says nothing about this, the scientific method just is the way it is for no particular reason.
    Morbert wrote: »
    If science is illustrated as the practise of opening and closing fire doors then a belief in God is the belief that someone is starting the fires, ontological naturalism is the belief that the fires occur naturally, and epistemic naturalism is the belief that we can never know if someone is starting fires because the best we can do is open and close fire doors.

    Not at all.

    In the analogy the scientific method is keeping fire door closed.

    You are claiming that the scientific method is making no judgement about epistemology, or the limits of human understanding.

    Which is like claiming that the requirement to keep all fire doors closed is making no judgement about fire being bad. The requirement to keep the fire doors closes just is the way it is. Where it came from is irrelevant. A person can be an arsonist and still be not be anti-firedoor simply be following this and keeping the fire doors closed, while they run around the place lighting fires, because the directive to close fire doors is not making any claims that fires are bad or to be avoided.

    Which of course is nonsensical.

    The reason we are told to keep fire doors closes is because fire is bad and we don't want it. Keeping fire doors closes was not something someone just randomly came up with. It was done for a reason.

    The directive to keep fire doors closes is making a statement about fire being bad. Someone who closes fire doors but starts fires in the build is anti-that sentiment, even if they close all the fire doors in the hotel as they go.

    The same is true about science. The scientific method is the way it is because of the philosophy behind it, in the same way the fire door directive is the fire door directive because of the notion behind it that fires are bad. It wasn't just randomly made up. It exists for a reason

    Someone can follow the scientific method all they like, in the same way that someone can close all the fire doors, but if they then go against the principle behind that they are opposing them, in the same way that setting a fire goes against the principle behind the directive to close the fire doors in the first place.


  • #179
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Wicknight... you keep selectively ommitting important parts of my post, you keep misusing the term "scientific philosophy" (confusing it with scientism), you keep making unhelpful comparisons and analogies, you keep doing lots of things which suggest that you are only interested in a generic and tiresome atheism/agnosticism vs. theism argument. But I'm not going to bite (I'm an atheist afterall). I'm going to continue to highlight the distinction between science and naturalism, even if the only people who will acknowledge it will be lurkers.

    Science refers to both the scientific methodology and the body of knowledged gained from applying that methodology. When science is practised, the assumptions of naturalism are adopted because these assumptions produce a reputable, useful, and reliable body of scientific knowledge. The existence of God is not part of that body of knowledge because such a hypothesis cannot be investigated with science.

    You are arguing that we must therefore accept that we cannot know whether or not God exists, and that by dropping the assumptions of naturalism to put faith in God, or by believing in the existence of God, people are being inconsistent and compartmentalising their attitude towards reality.

    Now that may be the case. This behaviour is certainly anti-naturalism. But the fact remains that, regardless of our opinion of such inconsistent behaviour, neither the method of science, nor the body of knowledge gained from employing that method, is affected. A Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Solipsist, Nihilist etc. can pick up a book on cosmology, or geology, or any field of scientific investigation and accept the findings of science.

    This would go soooooooo much smoother if you would phrase your objection to theism by saying it is inconsitent to adopt naturalism for some things (such as scientific investigation), and to reject naturalism for other things. You could start a thread about it and I'm sure some people would love to debate the issue. But by saying things like 'God is a question for science', you are not helping matters at all.


  • #180
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    I am enjoying the debate but there is something fundamental both of you are missing Wicknight moreso than Morbert.

    The whole argument hinges more on semantics than substance. Wicknight when you mention anti-science you are defining it as including the philosophy of science, and when Morbert mentions it he is defining it purely as the scientific method. Both of you are correct and you essentially arguing different issues without really listening to each other.

    If you include the philosophy of science, it's raison d'etre in the definition of anti-science as per Wicknights argument, someone who espouse beliefs which can't be confirmed by science are indeed being anti-scientific. But if you use a narrower definition of anti-science being anti-scientific method alone than someone who espouse beliefs which can't be confirmed by science, can preform science adequately and so the position is not anti-scientific method.

    Where I think the argument really stems from is that people who reject the philosophical position which the scientific method stems from can still be good scientists and be beneficiaries of it. The scientific method is so good at eliminating personal biases, you can be biased against science and still be a scientist.

    Metaphorically it's as if they are robbing our system and receiving all the benefits and at the same stage rejecting our beliefs. They are stealing our cake and eating it too and they're getting away with it and it drives us mad!:mad: But we really should pity them for they are conducting an elaborate exercise in doublethink like something out of '1984.'


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    The problem is 'the philosophy of science' is not the same as naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that we can only hope to understand what we can investigate under the assumptions of natural law (i.e. uniformitarianism etc.) and that science is therefore our greatest tool when it comes to understanding reality. The philosophy of science, on the other hand, is a term for the set of ideas and considerations used to define what constitutes science and non-science, and how to interpret scientific results. It is clear from the philosophy of science that the question of God is not a science question. More importantly, philosophy of science tells us that we must adopt the assumptions of naturalism when we are practising science, but it does not tell us that we must adopt assumptions of naturalism when we aren't.

    In otherwords, the philosophy of science tells us what is science and what isn't. Naturalism tells us how we should regard what isn't science.

    Here's a good article on the Philosophy of science.

    http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/528804/philosophy-of-science


Advertisement