Can science continue without a belief in God?

[SelfSim]

That's a coincidence - my philosophy discussion group were considering the question, 'Is Everything Socially Constructed' this week,

Thanks for the link .. will have a listen when I get the chance.
Oh .. and, for what its worth, I can report (to both yourself & to all) that I am in no way connected with your philosophy group. (So it does looks like a co-incidence .. with yourself and this conversation, being the 'link', of course).

.. and we came to the conclusion that, especially as far as communication is concerned, it is necessarily the case, because in order to talk about the world, we must be able to distinguish things and types of things...

Communication (language) is our way of conveying our meanings. Its evidence of our mind trying to make sense of its observations and its perceptions (an objectively evidenced position).. and ultimately, perhaps, even of our mind trying to make sense of itself (with the latter being a personal belief).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks for the link .. will have a listen when I get the chance.

To be honest, I didn't think it was a particularly good podcast - too short to do more than introduce the idea. But it was a good stepping off point for a discussion.

Communication (language) is our way of conveying our meanings. Its evidence of our mind trying to make sense of its observations and its perceptions (an objectively evidenced position).. and ultimately, perhaps, even of our mind trying to make sense of itself (with the latter being a personal belief).

Yes. It occurred to me that the common antipathy, confusion, and suspicion concerning behaviours and ideas that cross or blur the boundaries of our categories is partly because they subvert those categories and threaten to upset our neatly pigeonholed and stereotyped worldviews. This seems particularly true of human qualities like gender, sexuality, race, culture (e.g. immigration), beliefs, etc.

 

[SelfSim]

... Yes. It occurred to me that the common antipathy, confusion, and suspicion concerning behaviours and ideas that cross or blur the boundaries of our categories is partly because they subvert those categories and threaten to upset our neatly pigeonholed and stereotyped worldviews. This seems particularly true of human qualities like gender, sexuality, race, culture (e.g. immigration), beliefs, etc.

Sure .. science adjusts its theories .. and even its definitions .. with new objective data.
Our mind dependent reality, (traceable to the meanings within our descriptions), also shifts over time, (albeit at perhaps, at a slower pace).
Exclusion of beliefs using other beliefs, to create 'a reality', is a process which stands quite distinct from the scientific process.
Tracking the dependencies of a claim (or description) back to its roots, is often a very useful exercise.

 

[quatona]

Einstein said this He did not believe in a personal God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings, a view which he described as naïve.->but then Einstein also believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."
Einstein understand and take conclusion not believing as personal GOD but that is base on his understanding that time and ofc with that limited minds, he know he can be wrong but since live must go on, someone like him knows, he have to hold at something or being an atheist... so it's better to hold on something than being an atheist..
He preferring to call himself an agnostic or a "deeply religious nonbeliever." if you notice, He still have no faith in GOD since he can't tell for sure what kind of GOD and ofc if you notice again as scientist it is hard to have faith since the rule of scientist is to understand something and proof it then believe it else it is just delusions.. so in that case, He tried to proof GOD is exist according to His limited mind and He did it because He chooses to be better hold on something as scientist then to be an atheist..
also if you notice, He is actually seeking the truth about GOD and since he is still not yet understand that he said this at the end of his life "I want to go when I want. It is tasteless to prolong life artificially. I have done my share; it is time to go. I will do it elegantly."-> did you notice when he said done his share it is actually was his whole life struggling to understand GOD and explain it to a simple languages and yet he still cannot explain it..
Everything is connected, just because u haven't understand it or proof it then don't quickly said it is irrelevant unless u can proof it.. A scientist, when you said something, u must take responsibility for what you are claim.. If you said it is irrelevant then proof it... We are intelligent beings, We shouldn't too quick to make a conclusion when have not fully understand the problems and still cannot proof it right or wrong.. else when someone can proof it relevant then the one who said irrelevant will be like a fools, When I said it is relevant is because when science is not introduce GOD or being an atheist(GODLESS) then it is simply not a science anymore...

Irrelevant to my post.
Einstein just did not introduce a God into science. Don´t confuse his private religious convictions with his scientific work.

 

[Tolworth John]

we have evolved empathy for others

Do you have evidence to show that people in the 1940's thought and felt differently from people today.

From an evolutionary point hitler was trying to improve humanity by removing what he consider unfit from the breeding stock. As an argument it is far more valid than saying the holocast was wrong because we have empathy.
Tell me how does empathy tell you that the abortion holocaust happening today is wrong.

God ordered genocide.
Are you aware that noone has recieved such a command since the times of King David.

Morality if it is not an absolute then empathy has nothing to do with right or wrong but everything to do with what one feels is right.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you have evidence to show that people in the 1940's thought and felt differently from people today.

From an evolutionary point hitler was trying to improve humanity by removing what he consider unfit from the breeding stock. As an argument it is far more valid than saying the holocast was wrong because we have empathy.
Tell me how does empathy tell you that the abortion holocaust happening today is wrong.

God ordered genocide.
Are you aware that noone has recieved such a command since the times of King David.

Morality if it is not an absolute then empathy has nothing to do with right or wrong but everything to do with what one feels is right.

Not "one." Morality is a social phenomenon. The alternative to "biblical" morality is not just individual whim. For Christians the basis of morality is Christ's command to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" a succinct summary of the empathy under discussion. But this command is not unique to Christ nor even original with Him. It is found even in secular moral philosophies.

 

[Tolworth John]

Not "one." Morality is a social phenomenon. The alternative to "biblical" morality is not just individual whim. For Christians the basis of morality is Christ's command to "love your neighbor as you love yourself" a succinct summary of the empathy under discussion. But this command is not unique to Christ nor even original with Him.

Interesting viewpoint from an anglican. That God hasn't spoken about morality, it just appeared as people lived together.

So Jesus is not God, not part of the trinity, the one by whom all things were created.
If Jesus didn't give the 10C who did.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If Jesus didn't give the 10C who did.

The Caananites who invented Judaism during the Babylonian captivity.

 

[Speedwell]

Interesting viewpoint from an anglican. That God hasn't spoken about morality, it just appeared as people lived together.

So Jesus is not God, not part of the trinity, the one by whom all things were created.
If Jesus didn't give the 10C who did.

I never said any of those things, of course. All I did was reject your assertion that there are either divinely ordained moral precepts or nothing but individual whim.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Morality if it is not an absolute then empathy has nothing to do with right or wrong but everything to do with what one feels is right.

Empathy is understanding another person's thoughts, feelings, and condition from his or her point of view, rather than from one's own. It isn't about morality or what one feels is right, although it may inform your view of that person or their actions in those respects.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People can lack a firm belief in God without being an atheist

That makes no sense.

So I'd say don't call yourself an atheist if you are not sure, or just lacking belief.

Why? Does the word scare you?

I'm very sure that I don't accept theistic claims of the supernatural.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It specifically refers to esoteric, or mystical knowledge, not knowledge as generally understood. Everyone knows things, that doesn't make them gnostics.

It makes them gnostics with respect to the things they know.

For example, Java is a programming language that uses a JIT (Just In Time compiling).
Let's clarify, for those who don't know anything about programming languages...

There are several operating systems (windows, macOS, linux, iOS, Android, etc).
A lot of them support Java. But each platform runs applications in different ways. An application needs to be compiled for a specific platform or it won't work.

A language like Java, can run on multiple platforms thanks to the JIT. The code is compiled pretty much at runtime, in function of the platform it runs on. The end result of the compiled code will be different on windows then it is on mac.

You know what we call such programming languages?

Platform-agnostic languages.
Because the language "does not know" on which platform it will be running.

(a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge (about anything). And while the most common useage is in context of religion, it most definatly isn't about religion.

(a)theism pertains to religious beliefs. Theistic beliefs to be exact.

Do you at least understand that asking someone "do you know?" is NOT the same as the question "do you believe?"?

(a)gnosticism is the answer to the first question.
(a)theism is the answer to the second question.

The first can qualify the second.

I, for example, am an agnostic atheist.

I don't claim to know.
I don't believe.

 

[dms1972]

It makes them gnostics with respect to the things they know.

"Gnosis" is a simply a greek word meaning knowledge, akin to the Sanscrit jnana but it generally is used to in the context of claiming esoteric knowledge, secret knowledge. And you'll find most dictionaries state that.

The normal way of speaking in English however is simply to say so and so is knowledgeable on such and such a subject. Gnosis on the other hand is knowledge or insight into spiritual mysteries, not intellectual knowledge of a subject.

There are in many languages two words for knowledge:

in French: connaître, and savoir
in Spanish: conocer, and saber
in German: kennen, and wissen

This is because there are two ways of knowing. One is personal knowledge, the other more abstract - knowledge about some subject.

It might be possible to use the term "agnostic" loosely, and say something like "I am agnostic on that (a non-religious) matter", but that often means "I don't wish to express an opinion on that"

But we don't say we have gnosis of physics, chemistry or computer programming, or medicine. We say we know about physics, computer programming, medicine etc.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have evidence to show that people in the 1940's thought and felt differently from people today.

We sure can take the nazi motivations and beliefs concerning "aryan superiority" and anti-semitism and show how they are insanely wrong and unfounded.

Let's flip the script here....
If Hitler were commanded by your god to exterminate an entire group of people, then what he did would have been not only good, but a moral duty in your warped view of "morality".

And it's not like we don't have biblical precedents of your god commanding genocide......

So really, you don't really get to lecture us on morality. Because your "morality" consists of no more or less then obedience to a perceived authority. That's no morality at all. That's just obedience.

From an evolutionary point hitler was trying to improve humanity by removing what he consider unfit from the breeding stock.

Evolution is a description of processes that life is subject too.
It is not a description of how to organize a society.

As an argument it is far more valid than saying the holocast was wrong because we have empathy.

Empathy and social interdependence, is the very foundation of human morals.

Tell me how does empathy tell you that the abortion holocaust happening today is wrong.

I just read an article the other day about a woman in Tenessee (if memory servers right, might have been another place in the US). She was raped when she was 17. She got heavily traumatized and didn't dare to mention it to anyone. She barely ate after that and was extremely stressed out. After a good 7 months, she got really unwell.
An examination revealed that she was pregnant. Not only was she pregnant, the baby had a very rare, very serious condition. Babies with this condition don't live to see their second birthday. In Europe, this condition is a valid and legal reason for late term abortion. Not only that, doctors that diagnose this condition literally advice aborting it.

But not so in Tenessee. The woman had the option to go elsewhere for an abortion, but it would have taken her several months to get the money together and find a place abroad to get it done. Birth would have already taken place by then.

So she gave birth to said baby. It had periods of non-stop seizures. Every couple days they needed to rush to the hospital. It could barely eat. It could barely sleep. That kid never knew anything else but suffering and didn't have the mental capacities for anything but suffering. Eventually it died after 14 months or something.

So.... here we have a 17 year old girl going through a very traumatizing rape.
Then she finds out she's pregnant.
Then she finds out the baby won't last 2 years.
Then she finds out that it's illegal for her to abort and will be forced to witness 1 to 2 years of pure suffering for that baby + the suffering she goes through from having to witness that day in, day out.
All that adds further to trauma.

Her studies suffered as well.

The majority of this suffering would have been completely avoidable.
Because of people like you, people like her are forced to undergo such monstrous things, because people like you are stuck in this black and white medieval religious belief, that you can't even demonstrate to be accurate to any degree.


To conclude: I have much, much, much empathy for people in her situation. And I consider it nothing short of completely immoral, brutal and downright disgusting to force people in her situation to suffer even more.

You'ld call her a "murderer" for aborting that kid?

God ordered genocide.
Are you aware that noone has recieved such a command since the times of King David.

1. such a commandment being given ONCE, at any time, is already once too many.

2. how the heck would you know?

Morality if it is not an absolute then empathy has nothing to do with right or wrong but everything to do with what one feels is right.

No.

Empathy is the very basis for the golden rule.

 

[dms1972]

(a)gnosticism is the answer to the first question.
(a)theism is the answer to the second question.

The first can qualify the second.

I, for example, am an agnostic atheist.

I don't claim to know.
I don't believe.

Do you want to know if there is a God? What is it you do believe?

Do you believe it is possible to know, or that some people know there is a God?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Gnosis" is a simply a greek word meaning knowledge, akin to the Sanscrit jnana but it generally is used to in the context of claiming esoteric knowledge, secret knowledge. And you'll find most dictionaries state that.

The normal way of speaking in English however is simply to say so and so is knowledgeable on such and such a subject. Gnosis on the other hand is knowledge or insight into spiritual mysteries, not intellectual knowledge of a subject.

There are in many languages two words for knowledge:

in French: connaître, and savoir
in Spanish: conocer, and saber
in German: kennen, and wissen

This is because there are two ways of knowing. One is personal knowledge, the other more abstract - knowledge about some subject.

It might be possible to use the term "agnostic" loosely, and say something like "I am agnostic on that (a non-religious) matter", but that often means "I don't wish to express an opinion on that"

But we don't say we have gnosis of physics, chemistry or computer programming, or medicine. We say we know about physics, computer programming, medicine etc.

None of this counters anything I said.

Java is a platform-agnostic programming language.
I can't prove that there is no easter bunny, so I am agnostic about the easter bunny.
I can't prove that there is no god, so I am agnostic about god.

Yet I don't believe in the easter bunny.
I also don't believe in god.

It's not hard.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What is it you do believe?
Do you believe it is possible to know, or that some people know there is a God?

Every single time that a theist tried to define what the supernatural (including God) is, I was given an unfalsifiable, unverifiable, untestable definition.

Things that are unfalsifiable, unverifiable, untestable,.... are unknowable by definition.
I have zero reason to believe claims about such things, because by definition there is no reason to believe it.

 

[dms1972]

That makes no sense.


Why? Does the word scare you?

I'm very sure that I don't accept theistic claims of the supernatural.

Horatio:
O day and night, but this is wondrous strange!

Hamlet:
And therefore as a stranger give it welcome.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

 

[dms1972]

None of this counters anything I said.

Java is a platform-agnostic programming language.
I can't prove that there is no easter bunny, so I am agnostic about the easter bunny.
I can't prove that there is no god, so I am agnostic about god.

Yet I don't believe in the easter bunny.
I also don't believe in god.

It's not hard.

All you're saying is that it doesn't perform a check what platform its on. its on some platform, it doesn't function without a platform and it also requires an interpreter for the particular system, which is not platform agnostic. To put the same in context of religious agnosticism would be to say you don't bother to check which God is there.

Is anyone saying you believe in God, or the Easter Bunny? I certainly wasn't.

Are you claiming that its not possible for anyone to know there is a God?

For myself I know that giant bunnies that deliver eggs at Easter do not really exist, not agnostic about it in the least.

By the way there can't be a infinite regress of causation, there has to be a first cause, and that must be non-physical. This can be shown by logic. Physicalism is false.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Why?

Because they are not convincing. It's not hard.