Carefull to not turn Atheism into science, as its not, science is agnostic. Which means christians and theists can be scientists too.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Continual Creation
- Thread starter juiblex
- Start date
from: Lucaspa
Quote:
And why does this all happen? God! Occasionally God changes an organism in order to make it change like he wants it to.
"Now you went over the line. You stated a belief as a fact. Yes, evolution COULD be the means by which God creates.
Also, it is possible that God occasionally introduces a mutation into the gene pool. God can do this without getting "caught" by science. But both of these are beliefs, not facts. You can defend your statement as a belief, but you cannot state it as fact."
Lucaspa,
I don't understand why you disallow belief since we all have beliefs. What your comment implies is that what we believe cannot ever line up with fact. Of course you've not defined your terms rather just stated them so it's hard to know precisely what you mean.
I believe both the Sears tower and Empire State buildings to be real buildings. Yet I've only visited the former. So are you telling us that existence of the Empire State building is not an established fact of reality? If it is, if they both are realities it's not because I believe them to be but because they exist. Likewise for one who proposes God's existence. How about you explaining why there isn't a first Cause? Do you have a reasonable explanation? If you attempt to say evolution is the cause of all being then you must explain how a process can initiate itself and where the material this process involved came from?
I have no problem with evolution as the means by which the first human body (bodies) were formed but I do have a problem with the "belief" that matter has always existed or that this process now called the "big bang" just happened without a cause outside itself! Let's get serious here, you hold beliefs unsubstantiated too and this is the crux of our dialogue. But I say you must substantiate by reason and not necessarily by the scientific method which is limited to only directly observable phenomenon. Was the big bang directly observed by anyone... you for instance?
How can your coveted scientific method say anything about the human soul? How is it you dismiss the soul as the principle of life yet have not explained why genes and DNA have the power to do what they do? You insist on "fact" which is another way of saying only what can be known by our five senses is valid knowledge, still you don't explain how what is visible accounts for itself except to say IT accounts for itself! That is circular reasoning if I've ever heard it. Your god is just as unbelieveable as the Christian concept of God, if not more so because it violates reason itself with explanations the beg the very question being answered.
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
Quote:
And why does this all happen? God! Occasionally God changes an organism in order to make it change like he wants it to.
"Now you went over the line. You stated a belief as a fact. Yes, evolution COULD be the means by which God creates.
Also, it is possible that God occasionally introduces a mutation into the gene pool. God can do this without getting "caught" by science. But both of these are beliefs, not facts. You can defend your statement as a belief, but you cannot state it as fact."
Lucaspa,
I don't understand why you disallow belief since we all have beliefs. What your comment implies is that what we believe cannot ever line up with fact. Of course you've not defined your terms rather just stated them so it's hard to know precisely what you mean.
I believe both the Sears tower and Empire State buildings to be real buildings. Yet I've only visited the former. So are you telling us that existence of the Empire State building is not an established fact of reality? If it is, if they both are realities it's not because I believe them to be but because they exist. Likewise for one who proposes God's existence. How about you explaining why there isn't a first Cause? Do you have a reasonable explanation? If you attempt to say evolution is the cause of all being then you must explain how a process can initiate itself and where the material this process involved came from?
I have no problem with evolution as the means by which the first human body (bodies) were formed but I do have a problem with the "belief" that matter has always existed or that this process now called the "big bang" just happened without a cause outside itself! Let's get serious here, you hold beliefs unsubstantiated too and this is the crux of our dialogue. But I say you must substantiate by reason and not necessarily by the scientific method which is limited to only directly observable phenomenon. Was the big bang directly observed by anyone... you for instance?
How can your coveted scientific method say anything about the human soul? How is it you dismiss the soul as the principle of life yet have not explained why genes and DNA have the power to do what they do? You insist on "fact" which is another way of saying only what can be known by our five senses is valid knowledge, still you don't explain how what is visible accounts for itself except to say IT accounts for itself! That is circular reasoning if I've ever heard it. Your god is just as unbelieveable as the Christian concept of God, if not more so because it violates reason itself with explanations the beg the very question being answered.
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
the difference is, that you can go and visit the empire state building.
the process can initiate itself chemicaly, the very first "lifeE2 was probably nothing more that a few bits is self reproducing chemicals.
so you have a problem with how the universe came into being. that's nice, but there is no need to ascribe a God to the answer. it is not the scientific "belief" that this is how it happened, it has been arrived at by looking at the universe and modelling it mathematically, and that is the answer that you get. everything is just so right, from the proportion of hydrogen and helium in the stars, right down to the cosmic microwave background. Granted we don't have the complete picture yet, but remembe ralso that if science finds that the big bang is wrong, science will not be afraid to discard the hypothesis.
It is like if you see someone from a distance walking towards you on a foggy day, it looks like a friend of yours (perhaps because of clothes and size) so you start walking towards them to say hi.... you think it is a friend, but you don't know, only when you get closer and you can see the fine details such as their face and so on will you eventually arrive at your answer, and nobody in their right minds would continue to think that this is their friend if it has a different face. You know that you could be wrong when the person is at a distance and you can't see them so well, so you discard your earlier hypothesis without any problem at all when you realise yo uare wrong.
We know completely how genes and DNA have the power to do what they do, it is simple. but arriving at a soul is just an ad hoc assumption, since there could be a multitude of other reasons, when it comes to intelligence we haven't even see anyone in the distance yet.... maybe a slight shape in the fog, but nothing more.
the process can initiate itself chemicaly, the very first "lifeE2 was probably nothing more that a few bits is self reproducing chemicals.
so you have a problem with how the universe came into being. that's nice, but there is no need to ascribe a God to the answer. it is not the scientific "belief" that this is how it happened, it has been arrived at by looking at the universe and modelling it mathematically, and that is the answer that you get. everything is just so right, from the proportion of hydrogen and helium in the stars, right down to the cosmic microwave background. Granted we don't have the complete picture yet, but remembe ralso that if science finds that the big bang is wrong, science will not be afraid to discard the hypothesis.
It is like if you see someone from a distance walking towards you on a foggy day, it looks like a friend of yours (perhaps because of clothes and size) so you start walking towards them to say hi.... you think it is a friend, but you don't know, only when you get closer and you can see the fine details such as their face and so on will you eventually arrive at your answer, and nobody in their right minds would continue to think that this is their friend if it has a different face. You know that you could be wrong when the person is at a distance and you can't see them so well, so you discard your earlier hypothesis without any problem at all when you realise yo uare wrong.
We know completely how genes and DNA have the power to do what they do, it is simple. but arriving at a soul is just an ad hoc assumption, since there could be a multitude of other reasons, when it comes to intelligence we haven't even see anyone in the distance yet.... maybe a slight shape in the fog, but nothing more.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
Ratjaws said:
atheism is not science. you are talking your argument to such an extreme that it is almost a strawman. No normal people think like that, only philosophers, Sure there could be nothing in the world apart from me sat here in this room, the walls being the edge of the universe, but I can go and check by opening the curtains or the door. I can go and find out about einstein, by looking up his papers, seeing photographs. I couf find out about my great great grandparents by looking through family records, digging them up and doing a DNA test, but it would be stupid of me to assume that they did not exist, for the simple fact that there are so many tests I can do to verify that they do. That is what science is about; being testable (or stricltly speaking, falsifiable). atheism has nothing to do with this, except of course one could demonstrate that atheism was wrong by proving that their is a god. but then the opposite is obviously true too.
Upvote
0
from: Arikay
Carefull to not turn Atheism into science, as its not, science is agnostic. Which means christians and theists can be scientists too.
__________________
Arikay,
I disagree with you on this statement since science points to God's existence indirectly. This is because all that sciences studies begs of a cause. So in effect what I've just said is a science which is blind may be agnostic but that would be a science without the human mind behind it... which is not science at all. Science is a tool that cannot exist except for a rational being using it therefore to say "science is agnostic" is to claim we cannot know of God's existence by science alone. It's to say human beings don't have minds. That science points to God simply means the existence of all being it studies begs for a cause. With our five senses we cannot find any visible being in this universe that has not its cause in something else and so we ask the next questions... what and/or who is the first Cause, IE. God? The answer gives us our definition of God even for the atheist whose claim is matter and energy cause themselves, a completely irrational proposition. God by definition is self-sufficient. Atheistic materialism by definition says matter came from matter. Somehow! But how? This is what we seek to explain by our scientific endeavours but we find it impossible to explain since science cannot work with an infinitely self-sufficient being who is pure spirit. That is the Christian definition of God atheism seeks to do away with. But what is more unreasonable to assume: that matter came from nothing or that matter always existed? In light of the scientific method I say both are since observation cannot tell us either is true or false. Now again, is it unreasonable to assume God is the cause of matter whether eternally existing or created out of nothing? The former proposition is irrational since again it proposes matter is the cause of it's own being or God. The latter is not since an omnipotent being would have no trouble with causing something from nothing.
Also, your dictum:
"The more you think the less you know,
the more you know the less you think."
...leaves a lot to be desired since to think is to know. What we know we think about and what we don't know we can't think about. The more we think upon the more we must have embedded in our memory already known. Knowledge builds on itself. We were created to know. Apart from our ability to know we cannot be rational creatures who are thereby the image and likeness of God.
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
Carefull to not turn Atheism into science, as its not, science is agnostic. Which means christians and theists can be scientists too.
__________________
Arikay,
I disagree with you on this statement since science points to God's existence indirectly. This is because all that sciences studies begs of a cause. So in effect what I've just said is a science which is blind may be agnostic but that would be a science without the human mind behind it... which is not science at all. Science is a tool that cannot exist except for a rational being using it therefore to say "science is agnostic" is to claim we cannot know of God's existence by science alone. It's to say human beings don't have minds. That science points to God simply means the existence of all being it studies begs for a cause. With our five senses we cannot find any visible being in this universe that has not its cause in something else and so we ask the next questions... what and/or who is the first Cause, IE. God? The answer gives us our definition of God even for the atheist whose claim is matter and energy cause themselves, a completely irrational proposition. God by definition is self-sufficient. Atheistic materialism by definition says matter came from matter. Somehow! But how? This is what we seek to explain by our scientific endeavours but we find it impossible to explain since science cannot work with an infinitely self-sufficient being who is pure spirit. That is the Christian definition of God atheism seeks to do away with. But what is more unreasonable to assume: that matter came from nothing or that matter always existed? In light of the scientific method I say both are since observation cannot tell us either is true or false. Now again, is it unreasonable to assume God is the cause of matter whether eternally existing or created out of nothing? The former proposition is irrational since again it proposes matter is the cause of it's own being or God. The latter is not since an omnipotent being would have no trouble with causing something from nothing.
Also, your dictum:
"The more you think the less you know,
the more you know the less you think."
...leaves a lot to be desired since to think is to know. What we know we think about and what we don't know we can't think about. The more we think upon the more we must have embedded in our memory already known. Knowledge builds on itself. We were created to know. Apart from our ability to know we cannot be rational creatures who are thereby the image and likeness of God.
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
Ratjaws said:
science is incomplete, it is very incomplete. are you saying that with your knowledge of quantum mechanics, general relativity and other theories such as string theory, that science will not come up with an answer?
Upvote
0
from: Arikay
The problem with sticking god into science is that you need to now find evidence for god. Have fun.
Arikay,
The problem with your assertion is that you start with assumptions too, and this is precisely what you are rejecting... assumptions. The atheist position assumes "no God." The Christian position assumes "God." Which is true? That's what the evolution/creation debate is about. But let us be open and present what our assumptions are. The atheist assumes only a strict observation is allowed to admit evidence for any proposition. I would ask why this assumption? The fundamentalist assumption is that the bible is true in terms of the science it presents and I would ask them too why this assumption?
I say neither assumption is good in and of itself. I say we need other criteria to go along with these assumptions and order them in their proper place. I say the bible does not present science but it does give principles that hedge in scientific propositions. Beyond these limits science is outside its area of expertise or proposes error as truth. Science cannot confirm nor falsify the existence of a soul. The proposition is outside its authority. If science assumes no soul in it's explanations it errors in reasoning. To work with the soul requires a metaphysics that popularizers of scientific theory won't allow just as they disallow knowledge of a soul. Yet they have no basis in science to disallow either. The propositions themselves have a basis in reason just as surely as Aristotle proposed them both outside of a Christian context.
You say find evidence for God and I present the universe of being which cannot account for itself. You say the universe has it's cause in a primordial event and I ask you to explain the cause of this event? I want to know where the matter and energy which this event is about came from? Did it preexist? How do you know? Surely not with the scientific method which requires our observation. You therefore should prove the human person has a body but no soul. You should provide evidence the human body can exist this moment without an ongoing cause. Call it a soul which begs God's existence or call it God the ultimate and uncaused Cause... but call it the reason why! God exists out of necessity, we do not! Matter and energy do not! God is self-sufficient by definition, are you or the matter that forms your body or any of the matter in this universe sufficient for yourself/itself? Please tell me why? How do you know?
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
The problem with sticking god into science is that you need to now find evidence for god. Have fun.
Arikay,
The problem with your assertion is that you start with assumptions too, and this is precisely what you are rejecting... assumptions. The atheist position assumes "no God." The Christian position assumes "God." Which is true? That's what the evolution/creation debate is about. But let us be open and present what our assumptions are. The atheist assumes only a strict observation is allowed to admit evidence for any proposition. I would ask why this assumption? The fundamentalist assumption is that the bible is true in terms of the science it presents and I would ask them too why this assumption?
I say neither assumption is good in and of itself. I say we need other criteria to go along with these assumptions and order them in their proper place. I say the bible does not present science but it does give principles that hedge in scientific propositions. Beyond these limits science is outside its area of expertise or proposes error as truth. Science cannot confirm nor falsify the existence of a soul. The proposition is outside its authority. If science assumes no soul in it's explanations it errors in reasoning. To work with the soul requires a metaphysics that popularizers of scientific theory won't allow just as they disallow knowledge of a soul. Yet they have no basis in science to disallow either. The propositions themselves have a basis in reason just as surely as Aristotle proposed them both outside of a Christian context.
You say find evidence for God and I present the universe of being which cannot account for itself. You say the universe has it's cause in a primordial event and I ask you to explain the cause of this event? I want to know where the matter and energy which this event is about came from? Did it preexist? How do you know? Surely not with the scientific method which requires our observation. You therefore should prove the human person has a body but no soul. You should provide evidence the human body can exist this moment without an ongoing cause. Call it a soul which begs God's existence or call it God the ultimate and uncaused Cause... but call it the reason why! God exists out of necessity, we do not! Matter and energy do not! God is self-sufficient by definition, are you or the matter that forms your body or any of the matter in this universe sufficient for yourself/itself? Please tell me why? How do you know?
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
ratjaws:
EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS ATHEISM, Arikay has said it at least once, and I have said it twice.
read, learn, profit.
EVOLUTION AND SCIENCE IS NOT THE SAME AS ATHEISM, Arikay has said it at least once, and I have said it twice.
read, learn, profit.
Upvote
0
J
Jet Black
Guest
Ratjaws said:
you made a whole ton of assumptions that science never makes there, how do you know?
Upvote
0
"The atheist position assumes "no God." The Christian position assumes "God." Which is true?"
But since there is no evidence for or against, science can not say, thats why science is agnostic.
"That's what the evolution/creation debate is about."
This is a common misconception, that is propogated by creationist organizations.
Evolution Is Not Atheism.
However creationism often seems to be theism.
So the creationists pretend evolution is atheism, however that is a false assumption, as evolution is not a religion nor is it dirrectly part of a religion, but part of science.
Unfortunatly the rest of your argument is fighting Atheism vs Theism.
Science is agnostic as there is no way to prove or disprove god. If you believe god can be part of science, show me a way to falsify him, there is a large chance that you cant.
An example, If i were to make a hypothesis that says:
"God created the earth in 6 days."
I actually have two hypothesis,
1) God created.
2) The earth was created in 6 days.
#2 is falsifiable, but #1 isnt. Thus god is not allowed into science, and for the same reason, science doesnt say god doesnt exist, because you cant prove or falsify god.
But since there is no evidence for or against, science can not say, thats why science is agnostic.
"That's what the evolution/creation debate is about."
This is a common misconception, that is propogated by creationist organizations.
Evolution Is Not Atheism.
However creationism often seems to be theism.
So the creationists pretend evolution is atheism, however that is a false assumption, as evolution is not a religion nor is it dirrectly part of a religion, but part of science.
Unfortunatly the rest of your argument is fighting Atheism vs Theism.
Science is agnostic as there is no way to prove or disprove god. If you believe god can be part of science, show me a way to falsify him, there is a large chance that you cant.
An example, If i were to make a hypothesis that says:
"God created the earth in 6 days."
I actually have two hypothesis,
1) God created.
2) The earth was created in 6 days.
#2 is falsifiable, but #1 isnt. Thus god is not allowed into science, and for the same reason, science doesnt say god doesnt exist, because you cant prove or falsify god.
Ratjaws said:
Upvote
0
Jet Black said:
think
Jet Black,
Ok, let's think about this. In what sense is science incomplete? In it's method? I don't think so because it does what it does very well. Science observes the visible world and orders each being into categories. In this endeavor science is not complete but at the same time it has done enormous work in categorizing things on this planet. Our understanding has thereby grown in leaps and bounds as evidenced by our technological progress. Technology is the artificial use of nature in ways that should benefit mankind as well as nature. Yet there is so much more to know concerning each being that exists in nature that science cannot tell us anything about. Both of these prospects are true at the same time.
But I think you misunderstand my comment. I'm not saying science will not come up with answers, rather that there is a specific kind of question and therefore answer it deals with. Science need not answer the question of whether God exists or not because it assumes this already. We know we have scientific study precisely because Christians who saw God as orderly, reasoned having created an ordered universe, they should be able to know God better if they studied the work of creation. And assumed in this actual historic condition that laid the groundwork for discovering the scientific method is the fact that God created, therefore creation points back to it's cause.
My answer which you cite, was directed toward Arikay who stated "science is agnostic." I was merely telling him what I have just said to you in another way above. Science is not blind and does know about God indirectly. As for your question science does tell us specific things about the created order in relation to it's changeableness. The scientific method cannot tell us about the essence of each being it studies rather it indirectly points to it's most substantial nature (as it does with God). Science uses the field of mathematics to study being in terms of quantity and also classifies qualities that adhere in each being. We call these qualities the accidens (accidents) of being. What science does is classify these attributes of nature so as to identify being. We know a particular being's cause through it's effects. The rose plant does not have local motion but has movement within itself (called growth). It's accidens are the red color of each petal, the green in the stem, the shape each part takes, the way it takes nutrients from the soil and process them with water and sunlight in order to make food which eventually becomes the plant itself. A plant ingests matter that is not itself, but like it's own matter, and makes it act in the way red rose acts. Science discovers this goes on constantly and micro-cosmic scientific study, like that of quantum physics, tell us this constant changing in that being called red rose gives it an uncertainty. Yet this being is the one we study and not some other so every being has something permanent and abiding within it which the scientific method can only indirectly point to. We know this through the process of reasoning in first principles of being which is a philosopy or way we think about the world of sensible being.
So we both can and cannot know being with science depending on how deep into nature we attempt to penetrate. Our certainty is not as firm using the scientific method as when we reach down into being with metaphysics and "see" first principles. We move from the changeable attributes of nature to what is immutable within nature. At this level we find the soul or animating principle of life. At this level we have left scientific observation in favor of the mind's power to reason and know what is inherent and unchanging within being. In this sense we know each being more firmly and "see" it's cause as well as we are pointed to the ultimate Cause of all being. And notice we have not spoken of divine revelation, religious dogmas or theology yet.
And now you should see that ideas like the three you listed above are not strictly scientific propositions. They are more certainly philosophic in nature because they seek to explain why nature acts in the way it does beyond some classification in the scientific sense. Especially in the case of string theories do we move to from mathematical speculation to metaphysical propositions which go beyond any strict observation and classification of nature's changing accidental properties.
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
tof said:
1. It is also scientifically acceptable that some of the mutations are casued by deity. See below for quote from Dawkins about this.
2. It is also scientifically acceptable that theistic evolution replaces "random" by "God ordained". See Eugenie Scott at the end of the post.
3. Theistic evolution does not make God directly responsible for genetic diseases, because not ALL mutations have to be caused directly by God.
First Dawkins. (note that Dawkins in the last sentence also mistakenly uses evolution as being atheism)
"Darwinism is widely misunderstood as a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian process is indeed a chance process -- mutation. Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection and it usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss that they do about the "randomness" of mutation only in order to contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the process. It is not necessary that mutation should be random in order for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that, by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random. It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and the non-randomness of selection has led people to think that the whole theory is a theory of chance. ...
One could imagine a theoretical world in which mutations were biased toward improvement. Mutations in this hypothetical world would be non-random not just in the sense that mutations induced by X-rays are non-random: these hypothetical mutations would be systematically biased to keep one jump ahead of selection and anticipate the needs of the organism ...
Darwinians wouldn't mind if such providential mutations were provided. It wouldn't undermine Darwinism, though it would put paid to its claims for exclusivity: a tailwind on a transatlantic flight can speed up your arrival in an agreeable way, and this doesn't undermine your belief that the primary force that got you home is the jet engine." R Dawkins, Climbing Mt. Improbable, pp 80- 82.
"...scientists can be more careful about how they use terms. For example, evolutionists sometimes confuse the evidence we have for considerable contingency during the course of evolution with evidence for a lack of ultimate purpose in the universe. Fuytuma writes, 'Perhaps most importantly, if the world and its creatures developed purely by material, physical forces, it could not have been designed and has no purpose or goal...Some shrink from the conclusion that the human species was not designed, has no purpose, and it the product of more material mechanism -- but this seems to be the message of evolution.' (20) GC Simpson is regularly quoted with dismay by creationists as saying 'Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind. He was not planned.' (21) A theist might respond that we do not know what God's purpose is or what he planned. It is possible that if there is an omnipotent, omniscient deity, it was part of its plan to bring humans and every other species about precisely in what seems to us the rather zig-zag, contingency-prone fashion that the fossil record suggests. Of course, this would be a theological statement, but that, indeed, is the point. Saying that 'there is no purpose to life' is not a scientific statement. We are able to explain the world and its creatures using materialist, physical processes, but to claim that this then requires us to conclude that there is no purpose in nature steps beyond science into philosophy. One's students may or may not come to this conclusion on their own; in my opinion, for a nonreligious professor to interject his own philosophy into the classroom in this manner is as offensive as it would be for a fundamentalist professor to pass off his philosophy as science." Eugenie Scott in the essay Creationism in The Flight from Science and Reason, New York Academy of Sciences, volume 775, 1995, pg 519.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Ratjaws said:
I know what you are trying to say in your essay, but the point is not being made clearly. First, let me congratulate you on at least defining that you are dealing with the atheims vs theism debate and that the atheists in the thread are mistakenly equating science and atheism. That has to be understood.
ALL knowledge is personal experience. Science deals with a SUBSET of personal experience called "intersubjective". That is, it is personal experience that is the same for EVERYONE under approximately the same circumstances. What the atheists are doing is defining ONLY intersubjective experience as valid. This is what you states as: "The problem with the atheist perspective is that the evidence required is so strict that most of what the average person knows is disqualified by the method."
All scientists know that they live most of their lives, and most of the knowledge they have, outside science. As we sit around and discuss music, art, sports, politics etc. we know we are not discussing science but our personal experience. That doesn't mean we automatically label each other experience as "invalid" because it is not intersubjective. My colleague claims Thai food takes great. I think it tastes terrible. Different data, obtained by our different personal experiences.
"When it comes down to definition only an immediate observation by a person is permissable which means common knowledge such as the existence of Galileo, Newton or Einstein's is disallowed."
Actually, the atheists aren't being this strict, since they are admitting that past events not under immediate observation -- such as evolution -- are valid. What they do say is that the past event must have intersubjective evidence today. For these three individuals that is available in the form of historical documents. For your grandparents, that may or may not be true depending on record keeping and all the evidence may be only your memories and your personal experience.
Two different thoughts here.
1. Personal experience is allowed in the personal lives of atheists and they do indeed consider it reliable enough to base decisions on it.
2. Personal, not intersubjective, experience is allowable in science. Wrong. It doesn't HAVE to be nor is it. However, the conclusion to draw here is that science CANNOT pronounce on the reliability of claims based SOLELY on personal experience.
The position that is valid is not that science should accept personal experience, but rather that the atheist cannot claim scientific backing for their position.
What we show from this is that the HYPOTHESIS of the existence of God is reasonable. That is, when you ask the question "Why does the universe exist?" a reasonable answer is "Because God created it". But this is not PROOF of God because there are other possible answers. Since none of the possible answers have been falsified, all are considered by science as viable answers. God CAN exist by science, but science won't tell you that God DOES exist. Science is still agnostic on the question.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Ratjaws said:
I did not "disallow" belief. I explicitly said it could be stated as such. I simply said it couldn't be stated as FACT.
What I am saying is to have a clear distinction between what you KNOW and what you BELIEVE. The two can line up. I personally believe the earth is not flat. That lines up perfectly with knowledge. However, since it does line up, I dont' state "the earth is not flat" as a belief, but as a fact -- which it is.
You COULD visit the Empire State Building. What you are confusing here is intersubjective knowledge with you personally replicating the knowledge. Both are "fact" in science because everyone will experience both buildings IF they are in that physical location. That is, IF you try to duplicate the personal experience of visitors to the ESB you will. That you have not duplicated the experience due to time, finances, lack of interest, etc. does not say that the experience is not intersubjective.
Now, in a practical sense, you are trusting all those who have experienced the building. But that is only in a PRACTICAL sense. You COULD experience the building if you chose to.
The difference with God and religious experiences is that it is NOT possible for each of us to have the experience. You and I can't go back in time and put our hands in the nailholes or spear wound of the risen Jesus like Thomas did. You are not forced to trust the experiences of those who have seen the ESB, but we are forced to trust that the account of Thomas' experience in the gospel. Another example, we can each of us go to the Red Sea, raise our arms, and call upon God to part the waters. We, like everyone since Moses, will fail. Therefore, our experience will contradict Moses' and the Hebrews of the time. Does that make Moses' experience false? No. But it means his experience can't be OUR experience. Now we are faced with a choice: do we trust Moses' experience or our own? If we trust our own, we have a further choice. There are several hypotheses that will explain our experience. ONE of them is that God does not exist. We can CHOOSE to believe that hypothesis is correct. If so, then we believe that God does not exist and are atheists.
I gave the extent hypotheses for First Cause in a thread of that name.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Jet Black said:
With all respect, your posts have convinced me that you think atheism is science. Your continued statements that God is an "unnecessary" ad hoc hypothesis is indeed saying that science is atheistic, because science won't consider the POSSIBILITY of God's existence or a role of God as creator.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Ratjaws said:
Science points to the POSSIBILITY that God exists. But it doesn't do so as fact.
It's saying that RIGHT NOW there is no scientific data to support or, more importantly, to falsify the existence of God. What worse, because of how we do experiments -- methodological materialism -- science CAN'T test directly for God's existence.
But the cause does NOT HAVE TO BE GOD. That is your embedded assumption -- God as ultimate cause. That MAY be true, but we don't KNOW it is true. There are other candidates for First Cause and they aren't God.
Yes, we can. Quantum events don't have their cause in something else. They are inherently uncaused. What allows the illusion of cause on the macroscopic level is that quantum events in the aggregate are predictable. That is, shine a light on a mirror and always 95% of the photons will be reflected and 5% will pass thru the mirror. So, events LOOK like they have a cause. However, for each individual photon, there is no cause as to which one will reflect and which will pass thru. Experiment after experiment have been done on this, because we couldn't believe that the events didn't have a cause. However, the data is clear and incontrovertible. Quantum events are not caused.
Or quantum fluctuation, or mathematical and logical necessity, or there was no "first" and the universe just IS (No-Boundary.
Upvote
0
Jet Black said:
Jet Black,
Yes I did! Precisely because assumptions are not the evil materialists would have us believe. My fundamental point was that atheists who hold predominately to a material only view of the world make assumptions too. So let's all be open and honest with our assumptions rather than hiding behind the guise of being assumption free. Scientific inquiry and the scientific method base themselves on the assumption that this world is knowable. It also assumes laws discovered in this part of the universe hold true in another part where we have not physically been. Science insists that for every effect we find there must be a cause. That is except for ultimate cause which materialists delegate to the effects itself. Matter causes matter is one hypothesis in the atheist evolutionary scheme. Matter came from a "big bang" is another hinting at (assuming) an event which started with an extremely condensed ball of matter and extremely potent point of energy. If this were not assumed then we end up with the idea that this primordial matter/energy just appeared out of nothing in the beginning... another assumption implied in some contemporary science accounts. Science assumed for years laws in the physical universe did not change only to find out from brilliant men like Einstein that at micro and macro levels these physical laws become untrustworthy and relative to the observer. The Galelian/Newtonian assumptions were shattered!
Fortunately they were shattered not to the degree that some scientists have concluded, like J.Bronowski who says in his book: "There is no absolute knowledge. And those who claim it, whether they are scientists or dogmatists, open the door to tragedy." (The Ascent Of Man, Little Brown publ., C1973, pg.353) No, our certainty depends upon how we come about our knowledge of this world, of nature and of being itself. Dr. Bronowski goes on in his book to deliberate on the use of atomic bombs during WWII on Japan. He claims it is not science that caused these horrible events but that "It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge, with no test in reality, this is how they behave. This is what men do when they aspire to knowledge of gods." (ibid pg.374)
I agree it was arrogance, dogma and ignorance that caused this evil but the question becomes who's? Furthermore what? He alludes to the "fact" that it was the result of those who "aspire to knowledge of gods" clearly implicating the religious. Yet which dogma is he pointing to? He never exposes this but eventually sets forth pseudo-religious dogma himself when he states: "We have to cure ourselves of the itch for absolute knowledge and power. We have to close the distance between the push-button order and the human act. We have to touch people." (ibid. pg.374) Now I would ask has the university he taught at produced Mother Theresa's or St. Francis of Assissi's???
The problem is all scientific endeavor must be guided by ethical principles which come not from scientists but a moral understanding of human nature and this is inherently religious! Today we have the same atrocities committed with legalized abortion and euthanasia as during the Nazi holocaust. Adolf Eichmann was convicted of war crimes that included his cooperation with these crimes against humanity and individual human beings deemed not human. Today this has proliferated into medical experimentation on living human beings in the form of embryonic stemcell research (not adult), human cloning, genetic engineering other than to "fix" nature, etc... all sanctioned by scientists who have no fixed point of reference and laws not based in moral absolute. Of course why should they have any stable reference point when men teach there is no such thing as truth... or at least if there is we cannot know it! The whole ideology is absurd if you ask me.
My point? Science is not the only means of knowledge and as scientists like Dr. Bronowski admit it's certainity is suspect not because of what he proposes but precisely because of what I've been explaining. The scientific method works with only what is mutable in nature and so as we look closer at the surface of nature we have to be ready to throw out old theories for new ones. You admit as much. But nature itself is not just it's changing qualities and this is the assumption both Dr. Bronowski and you make! I can go on and on describing the assumptions both sides have but my point is neither are free from assumptions as you imply. And dogma can be scientific, philosophical or theological... make no mistake about it! The problem again is when we condemn dogma as though we are free of it ourselves. This is far from the truth and this goes for the arrogance and ignorance that Dr. Bronowski hints at too.
As for evolution and science not being the same as atheism, I've never made the claim they were. If you reread what I've said carefully you will see I claim atheists put forth a world view that makes science and the hypothesis of evolution purely materialistic in nature (call it naturalism if you will). On the contrary fundamentalist Christians try to move away from this imperfect worldview by claiming the bible contains scientific knowledge as though written to scientists. It does NOT! This is yet another flawed world view, a philosophy of nature that like strict atheism is not in accord with reality. The truth subsists in a world view that recognizes science studies the changing properties of nature, that are secondary so to speak, while carefully obtained philosophical (metaphysical) thought studies the unchanging essence of nature. BOTH are needed as being has both a substantial and accidental aspect to it's nature that we can perceive with our senses and know with our mind.
This is why I ask you again to explain how and why your view is in better accord with reality than that of say a Thomist Realist who does not reject the findings of modern science (those that do not relegate the wisdom of classical and ancient philosophers to fiction, fantasy or the world of myth and fairy tales!). Why don't you explain why there is no soul and since science cannot tell us anything about "soul" then you have to use another method. But, since you reject all other means to knowledge apart from science itself then maybe you need to start by explaining why? Why is this world only it's visible components? How do you explain concepts such as thought, love and justice which are spiritual in nature? (hint: you can transform thoughts to scratches on a piece of paper or sounds from your oral cavity but these only represent thought; it's substance is much more than mere firings of neurons in the physical brain) How can you dismiss them when science cannot apprehend them? If you try to reduce them to some material function of our brain then I'll ask you to isolate one thought and send it to me in a test tube so I can study independently of you. After all isn't this is how science proceeds?
Sincerely, Tim (alias Ratjaws)
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Ratjaws said:
This is one of those places that convinces us you are saying that science is atheism. You have apples and oranges here, but you tie them together.
1. You have statements of faith ("assumptions") by atheists.
2. You have beliefs about the nature of the universe necessary to do science. \
Those are NOT the same things, yet you linked them together in your paragraph.
What's more, you downgrade theism to an ASSUMPTION. Theism is a CONCLUSION based upon personal experiences. Not an assumption.
Now, let's take them in order. Yes, philosophical materialists (atheists) have the statement of faith that there are ONLY material causes.
Eugenie C. Scott in review of Johnsons's book. On the WWW at http://natcenscied.org/aladont.htm
Science as practiced today is methodologically naturalistic: it explains the natural world using only natural causes. Science cannot explain (or test explanations about) the supernatural. There is also an independent sort of naturalism, philosophical naturalism, a belief (not science, but belief) that the universe consists only of matter and energy and that there are no supernatural beings, forces, or causes.
see also http://www.naturalism.org/ and the "definition" of naturalism at http://www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm "This version of naturalism, what might be called inclusive naturalism, asserts that the world is of a piece; that everything we are and do is included in the material continuum whose most basic elements are those described by physics. ... There exist no immaterial souls, spirits, mental essences, or disembodied selves which stand apart from the physical world. "
That's a faith or belief.
Now, what science does is something different. It turns out in ANY search for truth there are statements that you must assume are true but may never be able to prove are true. The basic ones are 1 I exist. and 2. I am sane. Both Judeo-Christianity and science SHARE the basic assumptions about the nature of the universe. So you cannot separate science from Christianity on that concept or disparage science for it. I like the way Kitty Ferguson says this, so I will use her:
"There is a further element of risk for anyone on a search for the truth. You cannot start in a vacuum. You must begin by trusting some ideas about the universe that have never been proved, may never be proved, and might turn out to be wrong. To be simplistic about it, you have to assume that you exist and that you are sane. Those may not be such difficult assumption. Common sense supports them. Of course, you have to believe they are true in order to trust your common sense. You see what sort of mental mess we get ourselves into!
"The search for truth in science is based on agreement concerning just such basic assumptions. It is a gamble, if you will; a gamble that certain articles of faith which cannot be proved by science are nevertheless well-founded enough to provide a springboard for all scientific investigation. It is intriguing to find that religion shares much of science's basic view of reality. How is it that two approaches, science and religion, both claiming to be avenues of truth but in many ways reputed to clash with one another, should be in agreement on so basic a level? ...
"Scientists of the seventeenth century, most but not all of whom had religious views closer to my grandparents that to Hawking ... developed a procedure that would systematically separate what is true from what is not true. That is the procedure that we call the scientific method. It has served us splendidly ever since its birth and made our spectacular technology possible. Whatever the scientific method's origins or its philosophical foundations, we have no cause to doubt its usefulness.
"Depending upon whether we believe in God, you or I might leave God out of the following." (I put the comments related to deity in [ ] to separate them.)
"1. The universe is *rational*, [reflecting both the intellect and the faithfulness of its Creator]. It has pattern, symmetry, and predictability to it. Effect follows cause in a dependable manner. For these reasons, it is not futile to try to study the universe.
"2. The universe is *accessible* to us, not a closed book but one open to our investigation. [Minds created in the image of the mind of God can understand the universe God created.]
"3. The universe has *contingency* to it, meaning that things could have been different from the way we find them, and chance [and/or choice] played a role in making them what they are. Whether this is contingency in the sense that chance [and choice] play an on-going role within the universe, or merely in the sense that there was a initial chance occurrence [or choice] which brought about this universe instead of a different one or none at all, one cannot learn about the universe by pure thought and logic alone. Knowledge comes by observing and testing it.
"4. There is such a thing as *objective* reality. [Because God exists and sees and knows everything, there is a truth behind everything.] Reality has a hard edge to it and does not cave in or shift like sands in the dessert in response to our opinions, perceptions, preferences, beliefs, or anything else. Reality is not a democracy. There is something definite, some raw material, out there for us to study.
"5. There is *unity* to the universe. There is an explanation -- [one God], one equation, or one system of logic -- which is fundamental to everything. The universe operates by underlying laws which do not change in an arbitrary fashion from place to place, from minute to minute, or even millenium to millenium. There are no loose ends, no real contradictions. At some deep level, everything fits."
"Divorced from the assumption that there is a God, these five assumptions about the universe, these five articles of faith, if you will -- rationality, accessibility, contingency, objectivity, and unity -- continue to underlie the practice of science. Some would argue that upon them depends all possibility of doing science as we know it. The best argument for their validity is not that they are obvious but that the scientific method seems to work so well! The proof (dangerous word) is in the pudding." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations pg. 8-9
Wrong terminology. Galileo/Newton had a THEORY of gravity and motion. Einstein showed that the THEORY was partially false.
Bronowski is in error on two counts.
1. Some knowledge IS CERTAIN. Those statements that are falsified we know for certain. "The earth is not flat" is known for certain. "Proteins are not the hereditary material" is known for certain. Bronowski simply looked at the wrong statements.
2. In terms of the atomic bombs, Bronowski is not talking about knowledge but about ethics and morality. Was it moral to drop the bombs? He may be saying that there are no moral absolutes and it is arrogance to think so. But notice that he is imposing his own moral judgement on events when he categorically states that dropping the bombs was "wrong". Was it? Bronowski, and you in your statement "this evil" commit the same arrogance you are trying to warn us against! Pot. Meet Kettle.
But maybe Albert Schweitzer or Albert Einstein. Both powerful humanists but neither holding to a theistic concept of God.
Science must not guided that way. But rather the USE of the knowledge gained by science must be determined by ethical principles that do not come from science. Science is simply the search for knowledge. By itself it is neither good nor evil nor is the knowledge gained either good nor evil. Knowing fission was neither good nor evil. Deciding to use that knowledge to make a bomb was when you enter the realm of ethics. But ethics can be derived independently of religion. After all, is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?
Back to your arrogance again. Abortion depends on when people decide other people have political rights. We agree that such rights confer upon a person AFTER they are born. We do not agree whether they confer before birth and there is no science to guide us. It is arrogance on your part to say this is absolute.
As to euthanasia, the Nazis murdered their victims. Euthanasia depends on the CHOICE OF THE PERSON involved. They decide THEIR fate. Nazis decided other people's fates.
Apples and oranges again. Embryonic stem cells are by no means "living human beings" and it is very doubtful that the blastocyst can be called a "living human being". Again, the embryonic stem cells have their capabilities no matter what we do with them, so what you are objecting to is not the knowledge, but how the knowledge will be USED.
And people have consensus that spina bifida, Tay Sach's, ALL, and other genetic disorders are mistakes in genetic makeup that should be fixed. What you are arguing about extension of the use of the knowledge into other areas such as manipulating intelligence, strength, agility, etc.
Of course why should they have any stable reference point when men teach there is no such thing as truth... or at least if there is we cannot know it! The whole ideology is absurd if you ask me.
I agree that science is not the only way of knowing. But this is not your point. Your point is that you want to impose your view of ethics on science to limit what knowledge we find. What you object to, however, is not the knowledge, but how it will be used. So your correct approach is to look at that and discuss the ethics of the USES of scientific knowledge and not impose censorship on what science looks at or on particular theories or data.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
