Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

nagirrac wrote: »

We as humans can answer right or wrong questions because we have something called human cognition.

And scientists don't?

nagirrac wrote: »

So, apologies for the long answer, but the answer is science cannot answer right or wrong questions that humans can because we do not know how humans developed this ability.

What?

If humans can answer these questions why can science not answer them. Science after all is simply a structured human endeavor, and last time I checked scientists were humans.

You basically said you cannot answer these questions unless you understand what human cognition is, and science doesn't. But then that is just another way of saying we don't understand what human cognition is (again science is, at least at the moment, a human process done by humans).

So how can we answer this if you have to understand human cognition in order to answer it?

Your answer is like saying humans can answer these questions but Belgians cannot.

Zombrex wrote: »

Why can science not answer right or wrong questions if we as humans can?

Particularly the bit where Feynman goes into why a true scientist would not believe in concepts like God in the way that a traditional religious person does precisely because science compels him to admit to what he does not and cannot know or answer.

We as humans can answer right or wrong questions because we have something called human cognition. To try to understand "right" or "wrong" answers to moral questions, we would need to understand how human cognition emerged. This is the question for science, how did human cognition emerge?

The honest answer is we know very little or as Richard Lewontin put it "Despite the fact that there is a vast and highly developed mathematical theory of evolutionary processes in general, despite the abundance of knowledge about living and fossil primates, despite the intimate knowledge we have of our own species' phiosiology, morphology, psychology and social organization, we know essentially nothing about the evolution of our cognitive capabilities, and there is a strong possibility we will never know anything about it".

We can't go back and study early hominids from 500,000 years ago, nor our distant ancestors, and have to rely on what has been written over the past several thousand years, long after cognitive functions were established. The best we can do is observe humans today and how they develop and learn, but that tells us nothing about how cognitive functions developed. There are basically three theories (generic meaning of theory, not scientific) on how a cognitive function such as morality developed, all of which have little to no scientific evidence to support them.

1) Morality came from God and was communicated to humans either directly by God or through messagers from God i.e. advanced spiritual figures.
The evidence for this lies in the teachings of these spiritual leaders. The basic cognitive functions would obviously have to have been there already in the human mind to absorb such morality.

2) Evolutionary Psychology theory which says that all human intelligence inlcuding cognitive functions and morality were "selected in response to adaptive problems faced by our distant ancestors". In short, for each problem faced, a distinct cognitive "device " was adapted. Although this sounds in step with Darwinian evolution, there is no scientific evidence that I am aware of to support it, and it has huge problems to overcome to even sound credible, not the least of which is the rapid pace of cognitive development in humans, and how integrated our mental functions appear, rather than having specific algorithms for each problem we face.

3) The alternative evolutionary theory is that propsed by Sterelny which is based on cooperation and plasticity of the human brain adapting to specific environments. This actually sounds quite plausible given we now know how plastic the human brain is, but again there is no evidence that I am aware of how cognitive functions or morality emerged. It is as speculative as the EP theory above, but seems more consistent with what occurs today in humans.

So, apologies for the long answer, but the answer is science cannot answer right or wrong questions that humans can because we do not know how humans developed this ability. It is one of the many mysteries of the human mind. Science cannot consider the God answer, and we have no means, at least currently, of studying how cognitive functions evolved historically in humans. That is not to say that science cannot solve this in the future.

As for Fehnman (the quote you posted is from the book I recommended, so I have read it), I find myself almost in full agreement with him. Where I would quibble is his claim that scientists do not think of God the way religious people do, that they cannot have the absolute certainty religious people do. Although I am in the category he refers to (a scientist who is not religious as such but has a belief in God), I don't think his claim stands up to scrutiny. I have never met anyone who was certain beyond doubt in their belief in God, when you actually examine their beliefs. I think most religious people have lots of doubts about God, their faith, etc., if they are being honest. Francis Collins explains this really well, I will try and find a quote, but basically although he is an evangelical Christian he says he doubts his faith all the time. Clearly there are fundamentalists who appear to have absolute belief, but even there I would question whether they are being honest or truly examine their beliefs.

nagirrac wrote: »

You are correct as to why science limits itself, but imo you are wrong on why science does not explore subjects like philosophy and spirituality. I don't think it has anything to do with methodology, science does not explore these areas because science cannot answer right or wrong questions. For example, science may be able to explore the predicted outcome of an action but it cannot tell you whether you should take an action or not.

Why can science not answer right or wrong questions if we as humans can?

Science is after all just a human endeavor. If we can answer these questions why can science not (and again please don't just say because science limits itself, I'm asking why you think it limits itself)

nagirrac wrote: »

So the question I have is why is it that an atheist scientist like Fehnman sees no inherent conflict between science and religion as they ask completely different questions, and although not a believer himself can have such strong regard for the value of religious ethics?

Well that is the wrong question to ask, given that I doubt Feynman would say that he knows objectively that it was wrong to work on the bomb.

But for a more detailed discussion of Feynman's views on religion read this

Particularly the bit where Feynman goes into why a true scientist would not believe in concepts like God in the way that a traditional religious person does precisely because science compels him to admit to what he does not and cannot know or answer.

http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/607099009/richard-p-feynman-on-the-conflict-between-science

FISMA wrote: »

I am not sure I follow you Zombrex. You believe that our memories do not work properly? Please provide an example for further discussion.

Well ultimately it depends on what definition you are using for "properly" (properly according to what exactly?)

But if you mean "record our experiences to a high level of accuracy as they physically happened without missing detail or inventing fiction" then no our memories don't work properly.

FISMA

FISMA wrote: »

I am not trying to question our forgetfulness, absentmindedness, or things along those lines. Rather, I am questioning the fundamental mechanism that we refer to as memory.

FISMA wrote: »

There is no scientific test to demonstrate that our memory works properly.

Again, as you know, I am not talking about forgetfulness, mental illness, or the plethora of issues that cause us to forgetf. Rather, a far more fundamental question. How can we test that what we think we remember is correct?

Zombrex wrote: »

This has come up before, either by yourself or another poster I can't remember. And the answer was we already know our memory doesn't work "properly"

I am not sure I follow you Zombrex. You believe that our memories do not work properly? Please provide an example for further discussion.

Zombrex wrote: »

If I'm wrong you are perfectly free to explain the alternative reason why science doesn't explore these things and limits itself in this way. But of course neither you nor nagirrac have done that. Because there isn't another answer. That is the answer, that is why science does this.

You are correct as to why science limits itself, but imo you are wrong on why science does not explore subjects like philosophy and spirituality. I don't think it has anything to do with methodology, science does not explore these areas because science cannot answer right or wrong questions. For example, science may be able to explore the predicted outcome of an action but it cannot tell you whether you should take an action or not.

From other posts I know you like to quote Richard Fehnman. If you have not, I would recommend you read "The meaning of it all" where he explores these questions. As someone who worked on the Manhatten project, he is well equipped to discuss ethical and moral questions. Science can tell you how to build a nuclear bomb but cannot tell you whether you should or not. The latter question is just as important as the first or perhaps more important. Although he was an atheist, he states clearly that Christian ethics along with scientific endevour were the two great heritages of Western civilization. He even references Pope John XXIII in the conclusion of his book, saying "I can find no better expression of my beliefs of morality, of the duties and responsibilities of mankind, people to other people, than is in that encyclical".

So the question I have is why is it that an atheist scientist like Fehnman sees no inherent conflict between science and religion as they ask completely different questions, and although not a believer himself can have such strong regard for the value of religious ethics? Why would this view not be more influential on atheists than say a Dawkins or Hitchens who foster conflict between science and religion and essentially blame religion for all evil.

nagirrac wrote: »

If one were about to be on the receiving end of murder they surely would say the statement "murder is wrong" is a statement about the real world:rolleyes:.

According to empiricism, they would be wrong. Instead, it is an expression of what we think of murder.

lmaopml wrote: »

Zombrex, sometimes you speak like as if you 'own' science! ..and believe that it should own people.

So you keep saying Imaopml. What you don't say (and I asked you a few months ago), is what purpose you think the restrictions science places on itself serve if we can discover all these other things using no scientific methodologies.

People who like religion, superstition and pseudo-science have retreated into this notion that science does not allow itself to attempt to answer these questions. But you ignore why science does not allow itself to attempt to answer these questions.

So you get people saying science cannot explore the question of God, which is correct, but then the same people go on to say other things can, as if science just woke up this morning and decided that instead of exploring the question of God it would rather go get a doughnut :rolleyes:

The reason science doesn't explore these questions is because we (humans) have not come up with any methodology that allows us to have any confidence in the accuracy or truth of a claim made about these questions. All science is is the best methodologies we have so far come up with to have confidence about claims about reality. That is all science is. There is absolutely no reason not to include a methodology in the scientific method if we can have confidence in the answer that methodology gives us

Science is not limited to things like empirical measurement, falsifiability and testable claims simply because someone woke up one morning and said Hey I like a challenge :rolleyes:. Science limits itself to those things because philosophers worked out that we have to limit methodologies to those things in order to have any confidence in the conclusions that methodology provides.

If I'm wrong you are perfectly free to explain the alternative reason why science doesn't explore these things and limits itself in this way. But of course neither you nor nagirrac have done that. Because there isn't another answer. That is the answer, that is why science does this.

At the very least have a think about why you cannot explain these things to me before lecturing me on how much I "own" science. I'm just representing how science is. You don't like how science is because you want to believe in invisible deities. That is your problem, not mine. The universe is under no obligation to be comfortable and easy to you. Science limits itself in this way because we can't know these things, or have any confidence in claims about them (1 theory of electricity, 40,000 religions). The fact that you don't like that because you really want to believe that you can know these things, is irrelevant.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

The question is the same as it was 5 days ago nagirrac

I'm asking you why something is not included in science and you are just answering that question by saying it isn't included in science because it isn't included in science. I ask why science cannot do this and you say it can't do it because it is restricted. I ask why is science restricted and you say it is restricted because it cannot do this. :rolleyes:

I know that nagirrac, I'm asking you why it can't do that. That is not an arbitrary restriction, it is imposed on science by the scientists. Why do they impose this restriction?

You say we can know the accuracy of value judgements, that we can get close to the truth of what is right and wrong. We can say that killing in circumstance X is wrong, that this statement is an accurate reflection of reality.

Ok, so why isn't that included in science? If this methodology works as a method of discovering the accuracy of claims about reality why is it not included in science.

And please don't just answer this question by saying it isn't included in science because science does not include it.

Zombrex, sometimes you speak like as if you 'own' science! ..and believe that it should own people.

I don't think that you ever considered that yours is simply a philosophy of life that you derive from the method? You don't think that this is 'religous' in nature? ....but hey that's not unusual I guess. Don't be too shocked when actual people think you are religious however? Especially when you are so dedicated to your philosophy as the one and only method of living and being human and knowing anything? No?

nagirrac wrote: »

If you keep changing the question Zombrex, it indicates that your argument is a house of cards.

The question is the same as it was 5 days ago nagirrac

nagirrac wrote: »

The answer to this question is because science cannot make value judgments. It cannot tell you what is right and wrong.

I'm asking you why something is not included in science and you are just answering that question by saying it isn't included in science because it isn't included in science. I ask why science cannot do this and you say it can't do it because it is restricted. I ask why is science restricted and you say it is restricted because it cannot do this. :rolleyes:

I know that nagirrac, I'm asking you why it can't do that. That is not an arbitrary restriction, it is imposed on science by the scientists. Why do they impose this restriction?

You say we can know the accuracy of value judgements, that we can get close to the truth of what is right and wrong. We can say that killing in circumstance X is wrong, that this statement is an accurate reflection of reality.

Ok, so why isn't that included in science? If this methodology works as a method of discovering the accuracy of claims about reality why is it not included in science.

And please don't just answer this question by saying it isn't included in science because science does not include it.

Morbert wrote: »

Empiricism is a little stronger than that. It asserts that the senses (i.e. careful observation and measurement), are the only way to gain knowledge about the real world. An empiricist would say value judgements (E.g. murder is wrong), are not statements about the real world. They are instead human constructs.

If one were about to be on the receiving end of murder they surely would say the statement "murder is wrong" is a statement about the real world:rolleyes:.

nagirrac wrote: »

I have answered this question repeatedly, but here goes again:"Scientific study is the only way to gain knowledge about the world we observe with our senses".

Empiricism is a little stronger than that. It asserts that the senses (i.e. careful observation and measurement), are the only way to gain knowledge about the real world. An empiricist would say value judgements (E.g. murder is wrong), are not statements about the real world. They are instead human constructs.

Zombrex wrote: »

But then that isn't the issue. The only question I'm asking you, and the only question you haven't answers, is why do you believe science doesn't want to know about all these areas you say we have methodologies that work pretty well.

After all science is just the systematic study of claims about reality. Why would it not want to know about all the areas you have mentioned?

If you keep changing the question Zombrex, it indicates that your argument is a house of cards.

If you go back to post #6678 you asked "If scientific study is not the only source of knowledge about the world around us, why are these other methodologies that give as good results as the one's science uses not themselves included in the scientific method"?

I have answered this question repeatedly, but here goes again:
"Scientific study is the only way to gain knowledge about the world we observe with our senses".

Now let's move on to your latest question above: "Why does science not want to know about all these areas you say we have methodogies that work pretty well?"

The answer to this question is because science cannot make value judgments. It cannot tell you what is right and wrong. As an example eugenics was based on scientific study and seriously investigated and proposed during the latter half of the 19th century and early 20th century. It became scientism when governments thought what a good idea it was and started to implement it, leading to 50,000 sterilizations in the US and hundreds of thousands in Germany in the 1930s, and that's before the Nazis started herding all the undesirables into gas chambers.

The human mind is what makes value judgments, based on experience and accumulated wisdom and on rare occasions great mental breakthroughs. Of course ideas can be wrong, but over time good/right ideas replace bad/wrong ideas. In terms of how to live one's life, both individually and as members of society, the good/right ideas come from the great spiritual teachers in history from Guatama Buddha through Jesus Christ to the Dalai Lama.. and guess what, when you study them they are all saying the same thing, and it isn't round up the gays and put them in a gas chamber.

nagirrac wrote: »

I have been answering your question Zombrex, it is just not the answer you believe in so you continue to ask the question.

If you have answered that question I haven't seen it. Can you quote the specific part where you explain the reasoning why these methodologies are not included in the scientific method even though they work at accurately sorting fact from fiction.

nagirrac wrote: »

The issue here is how science is defined. If you define science narrowly in terms of the modern scientific method as I have done in an earlier post you get a completely different answer compared to defining science broadly as you do.

Use what ever definition of science makes it possible for you to answer the question nagirrac, just include that definition in the answer.

nagirrac wrote: »

Scientism is broadening science to include every field of human inquiry and the claim that if something cannot be examined by the scientific method it is unreliable.

Yes you have stated that a number of times. I don't think there is any confusion about what you think scientism is.

But again you have no answered the question of why you think science is not be extended to these other areas of human inquiry if we have methods in these fields that produce reliable accurate knowable information.

nagirrac wrote: »

The vast majority of great advances in human knowledge were made by inspirational breakthroughs, something we do not understand well by the way, and not diligently following the scientific method.

Which surely makes the scientific standards unnecessary? So why do you think we still have them?

nagirrac wrote: »

While it is true that experiment adds great confidence in a hypothesis being provisionally correct, it is the idea itself that is the basis of knowledge.

Even if the idea is false or inaccurate? So if you know the Earth is flat you possess knowledge, even if that concept is not in anyway a close representation of how the universe really is?

You seem to put a lot of weight on someone having an idea, and very little weight on whether that idea is actually an accurate reflection of reality or not.

Surely that would make the most ignorant person in the world the most knowledgeable?

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not arguing against or belittling science, it is the only way we can approach truth about our observed natural world. However scientific truth is only one type of truth. There is also mathematical truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, spiritual and religious truth, emotional truth, etc.

Ok ... so AGAIN why (in your opinion) does science not care about any of these truths. Why if we have methods to discover and assess the accuracy of claims in these fields does science not care about that?

Someone arbitrarily decided in the 1800s that science was only going to care about X,Y,Z and was going to ignore all these other areas where humans search for methods to asssess the truth of claims?

nagirrac wrote: »

These use critical and abstract thinking only and not experiment. From my perspective they are as valuable in informing us about our reality as science.

As valuable but not included in science itself.

nagirrac wrote: »

If you don't believe critical and abstract thinking, meditation,etc. are reliable avenues to truth that's fine, you are as entitled to your opinion as is everyone. However, you cannot apply the scientific method to thinking as you cannot measure a thought. How do you "know" the scientific method is the best avenue to truth? Did you use the scientific method to establish that? That is what's called a circular argument. If there is some method of knowing that the scientific method is the best avenue to truth, then there must be some other method that establishes that fact that is better than the scientific method. What method could that be?

I don't know why people keep saying this. Leaving aside the metaphysics, you can actually apply the scientific method to the study of the scientific method. And in fact scientists do this in the study of the future accuracy of scientific claims.

Science itself is a form of experiment.

But then that isn't the issue. The only question I'm asking you, and the only question you haven't answers, is why do you believe science doesn't want to know about all these areas you say we have methodologies that work pretty well.

After all science is just the systematic study of claims about reality. Why would it not want to know about all the areas you have mentioned?

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't know why people find memes so difficult.

Firstly, most of the people who object to memes seem to not understanding what Dawkins was talking about (not including you in this, but more objections out on the web)

Secondly it was just a curious aside by Dawkins, a way of showing people Darwinian processes at work that are far easier to see and understand that biological evolution.

It is like someone explaining how airplanes fly who says "Hey, notice how when it is hot you find flags blowing upwards, that is the same principle" and everyone goes "This guy is clearly CRAZY!" :pac:

So he used it as a metaphor?
The problem is that he became evangelical about that time and like his evangelical Christian counterparts, that kinda thing is a big turn off!
Oh and he got the selfish gene idea wrong, but in fairness it suited the zeitgeist of the time so getting caught up in that is forgivable. Going on a crusade against a straw-man God isn't.

Zombrex wrote: »

Can you explain the process by which it does that, and then explain why this process is not incorporated into the scientific method.

You have just repeated that science cannot explore these things, but you haven't explain why you think that is true.

I have been answering your question Zombrex, it is just not the answer you believe in so you continue to ask the question. The issue here is how science is defined. If you define science narrowly in terms of the modern scientific method as I have done in an earlier post you get a completely different answer compared to defining science broadly as you do. Scientism is broadening science to include every field of human inquiry and the claim that if something cannot be examined by the scientific method it is unreliable.The vast majority of great advances in human knowledge were made by inspirational breakthroughs, something we do not understand well by the way, and not diligently following the scientific method.

The clearest way to see through this is how scientism refers to critical thinking. Critical thinking has been around for many thousands of years prior to the development of the scientific method and science as we know it today. To claim that critical thinking belongs to the scientific method is nonsense, it is used by the scientific method, but is not the key component of the scientific method. The key component of the scientific method is that it relies on experiment. While it is true that experiment adds great confidence in a hypothesis being provisionally correct, it is the idea itself that is the basis of knowledge.

I am not arguing against or belittling science, it is the only way we can approach truth about our observed natural world. However scientific truth is only one type of truth. There is also mathematical truth, legal truth, philosophical truth, spiritual and religious truth, emotional truth, etc. These use critical and abstract thinking only and not experiment. From my perspective they are as valuable in informing us about our reality as science. That is a philosophical position and one I am sure is different to yours, but arguing over it is similar to arguing which flavor of ice cream is better.

If you don't believe critical and abstract thinking, meditation,etc. are reliable avenues to truth that's fine, you are as entitled to your opinion as is everyone. However, you cannot apply the scientific method to thinking as you cannot measure a thought. How do you "know" the scientific method is the best avenue to truth? Did you use the scientific method to establish that? That is what's called a circular argument. If there is some method of knowing that the scientific method is the best avenue to truth, then there must be some other method that establishes that fact that is better than the scientific method. What method could that be?

Jernal wrote: »

Oh I hate to step it in, but

"Does she love me?"

What do you observe?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Indeed, one of the great science writers. Dawkins used to be that good but he lost the plot about the time he came up with the whole meme thing.

I don't know why people find memes so difficult.

Firstly, most of the people who object to memes seem to not understanding what Dawkins was talking about (not including you in this, but more objections out on the web)

Secondly it was just a curious aside by Dawkins, a way of showing people Darwinian processes at work that are far easier to see and understand that biological evolution.

It is like someone explaining how airplanes fly who says "Hey, notice how when it is hot you find flags blowing upwards, that is the same principle" and everyone goes "This guy is clearly CRAZY!" :pac:

tommy2bad

Zombrex wrote: »

As ever, I'll hand you over to the great Richard Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

Indeed, one of the great science writers. Dawkins used to be that good but he lost the plot about the time he came up with the whole meme thing.

nagirrac wrote: »

Correct, I am not making the point that a non scientific method, such as philosophy, can give a definitive answer or "truth". The best it can do is bring us closer to the truth or reduce uncertainty.

Can you explain the process by which it does that, and then explain why this process is not incorporated into the scientific method.

nagirrac wrote: »

It's not that something is necessarily unknowable, from my perspective its that knowledge is an ongoing endevour and there are no absoute truths.

There are no absolute truths in science either. So surely the lack of absolute knowable truths in these fields would not block them from being assessed in a scientific manner if these methodologies can actually do as you say, reduce uncertainty and increase accuracy.

nagirrac wrote: »

The discussion Zombrex and I are having is on theories of knowledge or epistemology, and the difference of opinion is based on where you lie on the absolute realism to pragmatic realism spectrum.

You haven't answered the question yet, so how can you say you know where the difference of opinion lies!

You have not provided your explanation for why these methods that increase understanding, reduce uncertainty and bring us closer to truth (while acknowledging we cannot reach absolute certainty), are not included in the scientific method, a process concerned with increasing understanding about reality, reducing uncertainty about reality and bringing us closer to the truth of the reality that we find ourselves living in.

You have just repeated that science cannot explore these things, but you haven't explain why you think that is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbFM3rn4ldo

tommy2bad wrote: »

Mars bars never had that effect on me tbh of course at my age Viagra might be better than chocolate.
Yes, science can measure chemical and electromagnetic phenomena and then say that this effect is what happens when we are in what we call 'love'. It's not much help and doesn't scan or rhyme like Shakespeare's sonnets.

As ever, I'll hand you over to the great Richard Feynman

keane2097 wrote: »

You don't seem to be making any argument for philosophy or any other non-scientific methods being able to answer questions like "How should man behave" definitively, isn't that the point?

Otherwise what he's saying is correct - that if science can't answer a question then it's unknowable.

Correct, I am not making the point that a non scientific method, such as philosophy, can give a definitive answer or "truth". The best it can do is bring us closer to the truth or reduce uncertainty. It's not that something is necessarily unknowable, from my perspective its that knowledge is an ongoing endevour and there are no absoute truths.

The same is true of science. No scientist would ever will claim the "truth" or that a question is answered definitively. A scientific theory is the "best available explanation for some aspect of the natural world based on observation and experiment". There may be several equally compelling theories that are all equal in terms of "best available explanation" to a specific question.

The discussion Zombrex and I are having is on theories of knowledge or epistemology, and the difference of opinion is based on where you lie on the absolute realism to pragmatic realism spectrum. As such we will likely never agree as we are probably on opposite ends of the spectrum. My core belief is that we live in a constantly evolving and dynamic reality and that "truth" is whatever works best at present.

tommy2bad

nagirrac wrote: »

Apparently (according to science) it depends on how long you have been together Jernal. The region of the brain that lights up when you see your beloved is the same as when you eye up a Mars bar. Scientists have found that this effect that we call romantic love lasts on average 12 - 18 months. After that, apparently, whatever it is, its not romantic .

Mars bars never had that effect on me tbh of course at my age Viagra might be better than chocolate.
Yes, science can measure chemical and electromagnetic phenomena and then say that this effect is what happens when we are in what we call 'love'. It's not much help and doesn't scan or rhyme like Shakespeare's sonnets.

Jernal wrote: »

Oh I hate to step it in, but

"Does she love me?"

Apparently (according to science) it depends on how long you have been together Jernal. The region of the brain that lights up when you see your beloved is the same as when you eye up a Mars bar. Scientists have found that this effect that we call romantic love lasts on average 12 - 18 months. After that, apparently, whatever it is, its not romantic

Turtwig

Oh I hate to step it in, but

"Does she love me?"

keane2097

nagirrac wrote: »

The statement "we cannot know the answer to that question unless we apply science to the question" is scientism. I have been answering your question, you just don't like the answer because it does not fit your world view.

Methods of inquiry such as spirituality and philosophy are not included in the scientific method as they are based on mental processes and not external empirically observed processes. Let's take a question that science cannot answer as an example: "How should man behave"? To say the answer to that question is unknowable because it cannot be studied by the scientific method is ludicrious. We have thousands of years of human experience, advice from spiritual teachers and philosophers, and the long history of human behavior to draw on. I would turn there for guiedelines on how to live one's life as opposed to what the current scientific interpretation is of neurons firing in the brain. Not that the latter is not useful and helpful, but the value of the former cannot be discounted.

At the end of the day it comes down to value. If for example ever human believing in God were to result in a peaceful and just society (and I fully agree it has not in the past due to religion) then the value of that belief far exceeds the risk of the belief being wrong.

You don't seem to be making any argument for philosophy or any other non-scientific methods being able to answer questions like "How should man behave" definitively, isn't that the point?

To counter what Zombrex is saying I think you need to be able to make an argument for a question that can be definitively by a non-scientific method that can't be definitively answered by the scientific method.

Otherwise what he's saying is correct - that if science can't answer a question then it's unknowable.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Can you give an example? The criticisms I've heard are always about this part of his book. It's not so much "the science bit" that has gotten people hot and bothered, it's the (apparent) metaphysics in sheep's clothing.

I can provide more quotes, but it is evident from these that he makes it clear what he means by nothing, and what questions he is specifically answering.

From the preface:

"A century ago, had one described "nothing" as referring to purely empty space, possessing no real material entity, this might have received little argument. But the results of the past century have taught us that empty space is in fact far from the inviolate nothingness that we presupposed before we learned more about nature works. Now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as "nothing", but rather as a "quantum vacuum" to distinguish it from the philosopher's or theologian's idealized nothing.

So Be it. But what if we are then willing to describe nothing as the absence of space and time itself. Is this sufficient? Again, I suspect, it would have been ... at one time. But, as I shall describe, we have learned that space and time can themselves spontaneously appear, so now we are told that even this is not really the nothing that matters. And we're told that the escape from the real nothing requires divinity, with nothing thus defined by fiat to be that from which only God can create something.

It has also been suggested by various individuals with whom I have debated the issue that, if there is the potential to create something, then that is not a state of true nothingness. And surely having laws of nature that give such potential takes us away from the true realm of nonbeing. But then, if I argue that perhaps the laws themselves arose spontaneously, as I shall describe might be the case, then that too is not good enough, because whatever system in which the laws may have arisen is not true nothingness."

From the chapter "Nothing is Something":

"We have to be particularly cautious about why questions. So [in answering the question] I am going to assume what this question really means to ask is "How is there something rather than nothing?". I hope you will forgive me if I sometimes fall into the trap of appearing to discuss the more standard formulation when I am really trying to respond to the more specific how question.

Even here, from the perspective of actual understanding, this question has been supplanted by a host of operationally more fruitful questions, such as "What might have produced the properties of the universe that most strikingly characterize it at the present time?""

nagirrac wrote: »

The statement "we cannot know the answer to that question unless we apply science to the question" is scientism. I have been answering your question, you just don't like the answer because it does not fit your world view.

Methods of inquiry such as spirituality and philosophy are not included in the scientific method as they are based on mental processes and not external empirically observed processes. Let's take a question that science cannot answer as an example: "How should man behave"? To say the answer to that question is unknowable because it cannot be studied by the scientific method is ludicrious.

It is the other way around. That question cannot be studied by science precisely because it is unknowable, or more specifically we have developed no method capable of distinguishing a true answer from a false answer to that question. You can give your opinion, but that is a completely different thing.

If we had a method to distinguish fact from fiction in this regard it would be part of the scientific method all ready.

And no nagirrac you haven't answered my questions. You have just repeated the same thing, that there are areas we can discover but that are outside of science, but you haven't dealt with the issues of why that is, why does science restrict itself or why these other methods are not included in science.

Morbert wrote: »

Nagirrac, just so that we can be clear about definitions, do you believe someone can be an empiricist (believe that everything we can only know about the real world through observation and measurement), and simultaneously not subscribe to scientism?

Yes, absolutely. Scientism to me is metaphysics and very poor metaphysics at that.The only slight modification I would make to your definition is empiricism is the knowledge gained of our "observed" world rather than necessarily the "real" world. I am not sure we have much of a clue yet regarding the real world.