Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on January 05, 2017, 06:05:45 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Atheism today seems to be inseparable from Science. Though there are some scientists who are also theists, most scientists are atheists. And it is also probably true that most atheists are science enthusiasts.
But this is a western phenomenon. In India and other eastern, middle eastern countries, science has flourished in the form of astronomy and medicine. Even genetics was not unknown in most parts due to which cross breeding of crops and animals was carried out commonly. But in spite of this, spirituality was always an integral part of life and efforts were always ongoing to understand the mind and the inner processes. No conflict was ever seen between scientific principles (Vigyan) and wisdom (Gyan).
Vi- means 'specific' and gyan means knowledge. So Vigyan means specific knowledge, usually used to indicate science. Whereas, Gyan means knowledge or wisdom pertaining to life principles.
As I have mentioned in another thread, very often spirituality was itself treated as a science and methodical and systematic studies have been carried out in spiritual matters.... and many principles have been highlighted in Yoga and other systems.
Even in the west, science was not inevitably atheistic in earlier centuries. Many top scientists were agnostic, if not actually religious....including Newton, Darwin and Einstein.
Only in recent decades it has become fashionable to use science as a reason to hold atheistic views.
Scientific findings may conflict with certain mythology and beliefs, but they do not conflict with the idea of a spirit (Self), reincarnation, after-life or even a supreme intelligence of some kind.
So...science and atheism don't necessarily have to go together unlike what some people seem to believe.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
You are absolutely right Sririam and I'm glad you mentioned the science involved in farming as well as astronomy and medicine, in ancient times. I have a recollection of a previous discussion about such science spoken of in the Bible.
-
Science does not tell us whether God or gods exist or not but can be used to examine the claims made about God or gods by religions or the religious.
-
Science isn't atheistic because it's "fashionable"; it's a necessary and logical consequence - at least while doing science - of the methodological naturalism inherent in the endeavour, as Maeght has said.
This doesn't mean that you have to be an atheist outside of the day job, but nevertheless most scientists see no need and no worth in compartmentalising their brains such that they are in effect a 9-5 atheist and a weekend godist, which religious scientists (Francis Collins etc.) patently are. This is the epitome of doublethink straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four*, but how people manage this sort of thing is their problem. The great geneticist J. B.
S. Haldane wrote:
My practice as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world."
(Fact and Faith, 1934).
By the way, you seem to have gone out of your way to pick about the three worst examples to shore up your case that you could find, and that's quite apart from the inherent appeal to authority fallacy in doing so. Newton was an alchemist; Darwin lost all vestige of godism by the age of 40 and died an agnostic at least (in his autobiography he wrote of his disbelief in a god being "complete"**); and Einstein, though giving diffuse and contradictory views on his religious stance, regarded belief in a personal god as childish and a primitive superstition born out of human weakness. His words, not mine***.
* Orwell: "... to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them."
** "... I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
*** "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." Einstein to Eric Gutkind, January 3rd 1954.
-
Atheism today seems to be inseparable from Science.
Modern life is inseparable from science, surely. With televangelists, religious denominations having to address issues like IVF, the possibilities of extra-terrestrial life, the variations between literal interpretations of scripture and the archaeological and cosmological findings of the modern era, theism is inseparable from science without becoming irrelevant.
Though there are some scientists who are also theists, most scientists are atheists.
There does seem to be a confluence, yes, but I suspect that it's not causative. Partly there's a commonality, in that both can have a solid grounding in scepticism, but more importantly the forefronts of science tends to happen in first-world democracies where there is an atheist majority in the general population, and in an academic culture where individual religious beliefs are considered unimportant. I'd suggest that, as a culture, science and scientific research is secular rather than atheist.
And it is also probably true that most atheists are science enthusiasts.
Again, I'd suggest that most PEOPLE are science enthusiasts - science, after all, has massively improved the human lot.
But this is a western phenomenon. In India and other eastern, middle eastern countries, science has flourished in the form of astronomy and medicine. Even genetics was not unknown in most parts due to which cross breeding of crops and animals was carried out commonly. But in spite of this, spirituality was always an integral part of life and efforts were always ongoing to understand the mind and the inner processes. No conflict was ever seen between scientific principles (Vigyan) and wisdom (Gyan).
Is that a particularly Eastern phenomenon? How many of those atheist scientists you refer to are 'atheist but spiritual'?
As I have mentioned in another thread, very often spirituality was itself treated as a science and methodical and systematic studies have been carried out in spiritual matters.... and many principles have been highlighted in Yoga and other systems.
Much as astrology and alchemy were treated as part of what became science in earlier times.
Even in the west, science was not inevitably atheistic in earlier centuries. Many top scientists were agnostic, if not actually religious....including Newton, Darwin and Einstein.
Whether any given individual scientist is religious or atheist is independent of whether science is religious or atheist, surely?
Only in recent decades it has become fashionable to use science as a reason to hold atheistic views.
Really? So Darwin's worries that his theory of evolution by natural selection spelt problems for religious thinking were that far ahead of their time?
Scientific findings may conflict with certain mythology and beliefs, but they do not conflict with the idea of a spirit (Self), reincarnation, after-life or even a supreme intelligence of some kind.
That rather depends on your specific claim. Whilst, currently, there are some areas of reality that are beyond our scientific capacity, there is no reason to think that anything in reality is intrinsically beyond scientific investigation. If there is a part of our selves that recycled back into the living world, why should it be beyond inspection; if it is beyond our ability to in any way detect, what reason do we have for thinking that it happens?
O.
-
Hi everyone,
But how has life changed due to science? It has not.
Maybe science and technology have made life a little easier and provided conveniences....but the things that are fundamental and of real importance to people...Life and Death... have not been solved. There are only attempts to avoid the issue if anything. And the limitations of science have only become more apparent.
Real issues such as happiness, right & wrong, relationships, duties and responsibilities etc. are still more important to people than the size of the universe, the Singularity, Higgs Boson and other such.
To put it simply...where one is going is more important than the shape, speed and color of the car one is travelling in!
Subjective experiences are still far more important and meaningful to each one of us than some 'objective reality' out there. Science regards almost all subjective experiences as of no importance at all in understanding life and reality in general. This is a major reason for the divide between science people and the Others.
Problem is not with science itself or what it is meant to do. It is the attitude and extreme stance taken by people of science that is the problem.
Science (in the west particularly) has divided humanity into two groups. The elite, intellectual and knowledgeable science group 'who know what life really really is all about' .....and the naive and ignorant 'common man'...who does not understand science and is therefore led to believe in such things as spirit, after-life and other such 'silly' things.
It is this divide and scientific snobbery that is the problem. People of science believe that 'science' has changed everything in recent times and that such things as spirit, after-life etc are only pre-science beliefs. The point is that there is nothing that we can call 'pre-science times'.
Science has always been there from ancient times and people have always been thinking rationally to solve their many problems and have even had some fairly sophisticated ideas of the human body, cosmos and the world.
But there was never this great divide that exists today between the science people and the so called 'ordinary' people. It is an attitude deliberately cultivated in recent decades and centuries.
This is my point. In the east however, science has never (even today) created this divide that is so apparent in the west. Science and scientists have always had their own realm of discovery while the spiritualists have always had their own and there has been no conflict between the two. One never considers the other as wrong or irrelevant. Both gyan and vigyan are paths to discovery.....with the former being considered as more relevant to subjective experiences and therefore of greater value.
Of course I do concede that this divide in the west could be because of both the lofty attitude adopted by the science people and the rather fanatical stance taken by religious people.
If centuries ago, the west had been familiar with spirituality in its secular form instead of associating it only with popular Christianity and Islam....it is possible that science would have taken a more humble and more integrative path which might have been much more productive and meaningful and far less alienating than it is now.
But it is never too late!
Cheers.
Sriram
-
But how has life changed due to science? It has not.
Life expectancy moved from somewhere around 45 in Biblical times (discounting child mortality) to around 46 in 1907, 66 in 1957 and around 76 in 2007. Infant mortality moved from 43% of children dying before the age of 5 in 1800 to around 4.5% in 2015. That's a massive change in our lives, in our communities. Increase life expectancy is changing family structure, our work patterns, economics.
The ubiquity of transport and communication links has changed what it means to have national borders, the significance of geographical boundaries, the extents of labour markets...
Maybe science and technology have made life a little easier and provided conveniences....but the things that are fundamental and of real importance to people...Life and Death... have not been solved.
Life and death are not problems to be solved, they are facets of existence that fashion how we live - when we massively change how many people live, and for how long, we change how we function as people and cultures.
There are only attempts to avoid the issue if anything.
What 'issue'?
And the limitations of science have only become more apparent.
That's a good thing - a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, after all.
Real issues such as happiness, right & wrong, relationships, duties and responsibilities etc. are still more important to people than the size of the universe, the Singularity, Higgs Boson and other such.
Yes, but science isn't just cosmology. Science is weather forecasting, genetically adjusting crops, future-proofing communications networks so that communities can reliably develop economic capacities, providing educational resources to remote places to improve the lot of rural communities, antibiotics. Science might not intrinsically make you happy, but it's a hell of a lot easier to be happy when your children aren't dying before they're adults, when you have food to eat and clean water to drink; it's easier to judge right and wrong when you can see examples of the same situations from other places, read people's accounts of the effects of policies and decisions on them.
Subjective experiences are still far more important and meaningful to each one of us than some 'objective reality' out there.
Perhaps, but what is it that you think you're having a subjective experience of? How much more of it can you experience with the right understanding of it?
Science regards almost all subjective experiences as of no importance at all in understanding life and reality in general.
I suspect you don't know enough science or scientists.
This is a major reason for the divide between science people and the Others.
I wasn't aware, as one of the 'science people' that there was such a divide.
Problem is not with science itself or what it is meant to do. It is the attitude and extreme stance taken by people of science that is the problem.
I can think of very, very few 'scientific extremists'.
Science (in the west particularly) has divided humanity into two groups. The elite and knowledgeable science group 'who know what life really really is all about' .....and the naive and ignorant 'common man'...who does not understand science and is therefore led to believe in such things as spirit, after-life and other such 'silly' things.
What an incredibly ignorant and reductive view. There are any number of religious and/or spiritual scientists, any number of religious and spiritual people with an appreciation for science, and the findings of science. There are some people who aren't interested, at both ends, but they are a representative segment of a spectrum, not binary camps.
It is this divide and scientific snobbery that is the problem. People believe that 'science' has changed everything in recent times and that such things as spirit, after-life etc are pre-science beliefs. The point is that there is nothing that we can call 'pre-science times'.
I think you misunderstand. They aren't seen as 'pre-science' beliefs, they are seen as merely beliefs. There is a growing body for whom 'I believe...' has not importance, just as it seems for you that 'the evidence shows us that...' seems not to mean very much.
Science has always been there from ancient times and people have always been thinking rationally to solve their many problems and have even had some fairly sophisticated ideas of the human body, cosmos and the world.
Sophisticated, though, doesn't necessarily intersect with 'justifiable'. Tolkien's metaphysics, cosmology and history/mythology of middle-Earth is undoubtedly sophisticated, but that's not sufficient basis for thinking that any of it is true.
But there was never this great divide that exists today between the science people and the so called 'ordinary' people. It is an attitude deliberately cultivated in recent decades and centuries.
Where it has been cultivated, it's been cultivated not by scientists, in general, but by social activators: politicians, business interests and the media they buy. Donald Trump doesn't want anyone to understand climate science, he wants an active hostility to 'crooked' climate scientists; Michael Gove wants us to disregard 'experts'. Scientists really, really want you understand, but they don't control the means of communications that science has given us.
This is my point. In the east, science has never (even today) created this divide that is so apparent in the west. Science and scientists have always had their own realm of discovery while the spiritualists have always had their own and there has been no conflict between the two. One never considers the other as wrong or irrelevant. Both gyan and vigyan are paths to discovery.....with the former being considered as more relevant to subjective experiences and therefore of greater value.
And here in the West we have driven science, technology, discovery, economics, learning and social development in recent centuries, as we progressively moved further away from spiritualism towards rationalism.
If centuries ago, the west had been familiar with spirituality in its secular form instead of associating it only with Christianity and Islam....it is possible that science would have taken a more humble and more integrative path which might have been much more productive and meaningful and far less alienating than it is now.
I don't what sort of 'alienation' you're thinking of. I'm not 'alienated' by science or technology at all. We're having a discussion by internet, here, two people who most likely would never have had the chance to even be aware of the existence of the other without science discovering and developing electricity, semi-conductors, electro-magnetism, fluorescence, light-emitting diodes, encryption... Science is neither a gift nor a curse, it's merely a tool, and what determines how 'good' it is, is how people choose to use it.
Typically they use it for medicine, for communication, for economics, for industry, for time-saving, for reliability. If people apply those in the interests of greed, then that greed is likely to me more successful than it would have been in the past, and if people apply them in the interests of co-existence, then that's likely to be more successful. Science has a history of trying to separate and delineate, but that's because people apply science, and people have a much longer history of trying to do the same thing.
Science doesn't make us any better or any worse than we've ever been, but it does give us more opportunity to look at ourselves critically, more opportunity to determine whether we want to be any better or worse, and a better chance of making that desire come true.
O.
-
Sriram
its obvious you feel inferior to 'scientists' because they don't take your beliefs seriously and this seems to upset you .
There is a simple solution to this, raise the funds to pay someone (if you are incapable of doing it yourself) to investigate the phenomena you mention in a proper fashion and present your findings to the world .
We might be missing something very important.
Its that simple, we are all children of the universe trying to understand it .
-
btw,
if you don't want to avail yourself of the benefits of what science has done for us I can recommend the Australian Outback where I spent a couple of months last year. NO ONE EVEN KNOWS YOU'RE THERE
-
Outrider,
I agree that science is a tool. But it is a tool with limited application and with clear boundaries. It cannot be used everywhere.
As I keep saying....you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope.
With the limited boundaries and applicability....science (scientists) also tend to pontificate about what can and cannot exist. This is what creates the divide I am referring to.
-
I agree that science is a tool. But it is a tool with limited application and with clear boundaries. It cannot be used everywhere.
Why? If you have something with an effect then, in principle, science can be used to study it. It's only when you have claims for which there's no evidence at all that science can't be used... and then you have a sort of Emperor's New Clothes situation if you try to claim anything at all.
As I keep saying....you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope.
I'm not sure that there's any great movement in science to suggest that science can be used everywhere. I think there's a bit of a push-back from people who suggest that unsubstantiated claims are somehow the equal of rigorous science because belief has some sort of inherent worth or validity; I think that attitude is perfectly valid.
With the limited boundaries and applicability....science (scientists) also tend to pontificate about what can and cannot exist.
Not normally. They might question what you do or do not have a basis for thinking exists, but to predictively claim what can or cannot exist is poor science; what might or might not, to a limited extent, is at the forefront of science.
This is what creates the divide I am referring to.
I can't help but feel that this 'divide' is at least in part due to your misunderstanding of the position of 'science' and scientists (which is, entirely plausibly, not dissimilar to the misunderstanding people from outside a given religious or spiritual view have of the position of people inside it.)
O.
-
It's because of science that we can see stars with a telescope, and study very small things with a microscope. Isn't it?
-
As I keep saying....you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope.
We can can't we?
-
... not with your head up your backside.
-
Hi everyone,
Atheism today seems to be inseparable from Science. Though there are some scientists who are also theists, most scientists are atheists. And it is also probably true that most atheists are science enthusiasts.
That's not my understanding, Sri. Yes, many may have no religious belief, but then many don't have an atheist 'belief' either.
-
That's not my understanding, Sri. Yes, many may have no religious belief, but then many don't have an atheist 'belief' either.
What is an "atheist belief", please?
(*rubs hands* Oh, I'm looking forward to this next round of butchery ;D ).
-
That's not my understanding, Sri. Yes, many may have no religious belief, but then many don't have an atheist 'belief' either.
tumbleweed
-
Science does not tell us whether God or gods exist or not but can be used to examine the claims made about God or gods by religions or the religious.
Can it be used to examine such claims, Maeght? After all, science is naturalistic, religion is - more often than not - non-naturalistic. The rubbish written here by folk on both sides of the debate over the 'evidence' for God shows how little science is able to take part in the debate.
-
Can it be used to examine such claims, Maeght? After all, science is naturalistic, religion is - more often than not - non-naturalistic. The rubbish written here by folk on both sides of the debate over the 'evidence' for God shows how little science is able to take part in the debate.
Begging the question fallacy. Next.
-
What is an "atheist belief", please?
(*rubs hands* Oh, I'm looking forward to this next round of butchery ;D ).
Good to see you falling into your own trap, Shakes. As you will have noticed - I assume - I put the word 'belief' in inverted commas when applying it to atheism. In other words, I was acknowledging the belief held by many that atheism isn't a belief system. However, as Sri had used the terms 'religious' and 'atheism' in an apparently synonymous way - so I was highlighting the error of this.
Mind you, the vigorous denials that we get from some on your side of the debate often lead me to wonder whether there is more truth to the suggestion than you would care to admit ;)
-
Begging the question fallacy. Next.
OK, Shakes, perhaps you could break the silence of 2000+ years and explain how science explains God?
-
It's because of science that we can see stars with a telescope, and study very small things with a microscope. Isn't it?
Is it only because of science, wiggi? How do we know that sages and wise men of old weren't able to see stars, etc. before telescopes appeared on the scene? After all, didn't the ancients log the movements of the stars and other celestial bodies with only their unaided eyes?
-
OK, Shakes, perhaps you could break the silence of 2000+ years and explain how science explains God?
You don't actually know what begging the question means, then ;D
-
Is it only because of science, wiggi? How do we know that sages and wise men of old weren't able to see stars, etc. before telescopes appeared on the scene?
And there goes another negative proof fallacy for the list ;)
-
You don't actually know what begging the question means, then ;D
I know exactly what begging the question means, but since I don't agree that my post was any more begging the question than any of yours, I thought I'd ask you to outline your means of using science to provide evidence for or against religion. I understand that this has been being attempted for centuries, but so far without success.
-
Can it be used to examine such claims, Maeght? After all, science is naturalistic, religion is - more often than not - non-naturalistic. The rubbish written here by folk on both sides of the debate over the 'evidence' for God shows how little science is able to take part in the debate.
'Evidence' is naturalistic though, being an aspect of method: the basis for identifying, describing, categorising, measuring etc etc 'evidence' that is appropriate to whatever it is that is being studied.
You seem to be saying that there can be 'evidence' for the non-natural but, so far, the term 'evidence' applies only to the natural in methodological terms. So it seems incongruous to cite evidence on the non-natural without an alternative method that is specifically suited to non-naturalistic claims - and so far none has been proposed.
-
Is it only because of science, wiggi? How do we know that sages and wise men of old weren't able to see stars, etc. before telescopes appeared on the scene? After all, didn't the ancients log the movements of the stars and other celestial bodies with only their unaided eyes?
Just those that are visible to the naked eye, obviously: for example, they had no notion of how many moons orbited Jupiter - that would have to await until the science of optic progressed.
-
And there goes another negative proof fallacy for the list ;)
No, Shakes, the ancients were able to track and study the celestial bodies long before the telescope was invented.
Then the mid-18th century Jantar Mantar, in Delhi, is referred to as 'an observatory without telescopes'. Yes, part of its purpose was related to astrology, but it was also used as an astronomical observatory.
-
Just those that are visible to the naked eye, obviously: for example, they had no notion of how many moons orbited Jupiter - that would have to await until the science of optic progressed.
So, our ability to study the stars has never relied purely on telescopes, Gordon. They have helped, but never been the sole means.
-
OK, Shakes, perhaps you could break the silence of 2000+ years and explain how science explains God?
Ironically you're begging the question here, by assuming the conclusion 'God'.
-
I know exactly what begging the question means
So demonstrate that you know exactly what begging the question means.
I ask because you're a hopeless case with every other logical fallacy you deploy on an almost daily basis, so I've no high hopes in this instance.
I don't agree that my post was any more begging the question
Well of course you don't. You never agree that you've ever committed any logical fallacy of any kind, anywhere, ever, despite the fact that you do it constantly.
than any of yours
Provide examples/instances/evidence.
You won't. Obviously. How do I know? History. Experience. I ask you a question with the expectation of your backing up your assertions - especially with regard to what you assert are my assertions -; you run away, clam up and act as though the challenge never even existed in the first instance. That's because, while you're happy to spit out questions, allegations and assertions of your own, you're a woeful, snivelling and laughable coward when it comes to backing up those of yours. That's the way it has always played out, and the way it always will be with you and your kind. Always.
I thought I'd ask you to outline your means of using science to provide evidence for or against religion. I understand that this has been being attempted for centuries, but so far without success.
Because that's a beautiful demonstration of begging the question - you know, that philosophical concept that you can't understand yet. Which is, I think, where we came in.
-
So, our ability to study the stars has never relied purely on telescopes, Gordon. They have helped, but never been the sole means.
So before telescopes and more sophisticated (i.e. technologically advanced) means of scrutiny, "studying the stars" means "looking at the sky when it's dark", right? Lots of us do that, the more so if we live in comparatively rural areas with relatively little light pollution. Is this "studying", and in what sense?
-
So, our ability to study the stars has never relied purely on telescopes, Gordon. They have helped, but never been the sole means.
Never said they were, but the scope for astronomical knowledge based on vision alone was, compared to today, clearly primitive. Of course the Christian church doesn't have a great historical record in accepting astronomical findings once science provided the means to understand a little better (ask Copernicus or Galileo)!
-
So, our ability to study the stars has never relied purely on telescopes, Gordon. They have helped, but never been the sole means.
Hope
after constant daily batterings from 'the other side of the debate ' as you like to call it , what motivates you to carry on?
Even banging your head against a brick wall becomes painful after a while.
-
Hope
after constant daily batterings from 'the other side of the debate ' as you like to call it , what motivates you to carry on?
Even banging your head against a brick wall becomes painful after a while.
Not for the truly ivory-skulled.
-
Hi everyone,
Atheism today seems to be inseparable from Science. Though there are some scientists who are also theists, most scientists are atheists. And it is also probably true that most atheists are science enthusiasts.
But this is a western phenomenon. In India and other eastern, middle eastern countries, science has flourished in the form of astronomy and medicine. Even genetics was not unknown in most parts due to which cross breeding of crops and animals was carried out commonly. But in spite of this, spirituality was always an integral part of life and efforts were always ongoing to understand the mind and the inner processes. No conflict was ever seen between scientific principles (Vigyan) and wisdom (Gyan).
Vi- means 'specific' and gyan means knowledge. So Vigyan means specific knowledge, usually used to indicate science. Whereas, Gyan means knowledge or wisdom pertaining to life principles.
As I have mentioned in another thread, very often spirituality was itself treated as a science and methodical and systematic studies have been carried out in spiritual matters.... and many principles have been highlighted in Yoga and other systems.
Even in the west, science was not inevitably atheistic in earlier centuries. Many top scientists were agnostic, if not actually religious....including Newton, Darwin and Einstein.
Only in recent decades it has become fashionable to use science as a reason to hold atheistic views.
Scientific findings may conflict with certain mythology and beliefs, but they do not conflict with the idea of a spirit (Self), reincarnation, after-life or even a supreme intelligence of some kind.
So...science and atheism don't necessarily have to go together unlike what some people seem to believe.
Cheers.
Sriram
But then science was at a nascent stage and so the conflict was not present or realised. Now we know a lot more and the conflict is therefore more apparent. In the end spirituality, whatever the definition of that is, is a personal matter not a collective one per se. So personally many scientists have used their trade to back up their atheist stance. The fact that many are "gathering together" to do this is probably neither here nor there and is no doubt some social, tribal thing - which is instinctual.
-
Hope
after constant daily batterings from 'the other side of the debate ' as you like to call it , what motivates you to carry on?
Even banging your head against a brick wall becomes painful after a while.
You described yourself thus, Walter ;)
-
Never said they were, but the scope for astronomical knowledge based on vision alone was, compared to today, clearly primitive. Of course the Christian church doesn't have a great historical record in accepting astronomical findings once science provided the means to understand a little better (ask Copernicus or Galileo)!
The RCC, perhaps. I've never been sure about the Orthodox.
-
The RCC, perhaps. I've never been sure about the Orthodox.
No, Copernicus's work was attacked by most of the prominent members of the Reformation.
-
So before telescopes and more sophisticated (i.e. technologically advanced) means of scrutiny, "studying the stars" means "looking at the sky when it's dark", right? Lots of us do that, the more so if we live in comparatively rural areas with relatively little light pollution. Is this "studying", and in what sense?
The ancients seemed to write a fair amount about the stars and celestial bodies. I acknowledge that in some parts of the world, the more important issue was astrology, but there are materials from Egypt, Babylon, Central America - among others.
-
The ancients seemed to write a fair amount about the stars and celestial bodies. I acknowledge that in some parts of the world, the more important issue was astrology, but there are materials from Egypt, Babylon, Central America - among others.
Nice for you I'm sure, but is not an answer to the question I asked. A "fair amount" of what?
-
No, Copernicus's work was attacked by most of the prominent members of the Reformation.
But his ideas were also supported by members of the Reformation like Erasmus Rheinhold.
-
Nice for you I'm sure, but is not an answer to the question I asked. A "fair amount" of what?
You asked "Is this "studying", and in what sense?", to which I responded in the way I did. If you can't make the logical connection, ...
-
But his ideas were also supported by members of the Reformation like Erasmus Rheinhold.
and? They were attacked by Luther, Calvin and Melanchthon amongst others. You implied it was only the RCC, for any one with even a basic knowledge of the development of science in the period of time, that is incorrect.
-
You asked "Is this "studying", and in what sense?", to which I responded in the way I did. If you can't make the logical connection, ...
... it's up to you to clarify exactly what meaning you intended.
-
The ancients seemed to write a fair amount about the stars and celestial bodies.
Even so their scope for study was severely limited by their methodological limitations. Sure they recognised stars and came up with various permutations of constellations etc, and they recognised the detail of changing seasonal patterns with precision, but they had no understanding of the stars or galaxies, or distances or ages etc.
We do now, and will no doubt know more as the science supporting astronomy progresses.
-
Even so their scope for study was severely limited by their methodological limitations. Sure they recognised stars and came up with various permutations of constellations etc, and they recognised the detail of changing seasonal patterns with precision, but they had no understanding of the stars or galaxies, or distances or ages etc.
Is there any reason why you are so defensive about the prowess of modern science?
]You do seem very keen to dismiss ancient wisdom, Gordon. Sadly, if it hadn't been for their interest, just how far would we have been by now. Their role in our current place brings back the idea of 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
-
Is there any reason why you are so defensive about the prowess of modern science?
I'm not, just correcting your rosé-tinted view of antiquity that ignored the limitations of those times in terms of methods of acquiring new knowledge.
You do seem very keen to dismiss ancient wisdom, Gordon. Sadly, if it hadn't been for their interest, just how far would we have been by now. Their role in our current place brings back the idea of 'standing on the shoulders of giants'.
Yet more straw: for some reason you raised astronomy in antiquity. I didn't dismiss their contribution, as you wrongly suggest, but noted that this was unavoidably minimal given the limitations of those times.
Try reading for comprehension.
-
I'm not, just correcting your rosé-tinted view of antiquity that ignored the limitations of those times in terms of methods of acquiring new knowledge.
Yet more straw: for some reason you raised astronomy in antiquity. I didn't dismiss their contribution, as you wrongly suggest, but noted that this was unavoidably minimal given the limitations of those times.
Try reading for comprehension.
I think what is happening here is Hope knows he is loosing an intellectual battle with himself . Any person reading this thread can see him unravelling and he knows it too. He says he was a school teacher and that requires a certain level of reasoning ability but what he displays here could be accomplished by a teenager
He is so full of dogma rather than knowledge he is incapable of letting go of it but internally he knows he should and that shows up in his daft remarks on here.
I feel there is little point in continuing in the same vain 'there are none so blind as those who will not see'
good luck Hope
-
Yesterday, except for once briefly in the morning, I had, 'This page can't be displayed,' so did not see this topic. It is therefore very interesting to be able to read the OP calmly :) and admire the patience and skill of others' arguments set out against it - really nice to see Outrider back, by the way - knowing that I can applaud from the sidelines.
Outrider,
I agree that science is a tool. But it is a tool with limited application and with clear boundaries. It cannot be used everywhere.
It certainly can be used anywhere, not only on this world but throughout the universe! Where it cannot be used is where there are zero observations on which to base a hypothesis. As I keep saying....you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope.
I have never seen a scientist, or any other rational thinker, suggest that you can.
-
OK, Shakes, perhaps you could break the silence of 2000+ years and explain how science explains God?
As you can see, I'm working my way through this topic. I'm sure you must realise that science does not, cannot, 'explain God' since there are zero observations to start with. It can, however, explain that all imagined ideas come from our evolved, human brains.
-
..
Only in recent decades it has become fashionable to use science as a reason to hold atheistic views.
Scientific findings may conflict with certain mythology and beliefs, but they do not conflict with the idea of a spirit (Self), reincarnation, after-life or even a supreme intelligence of some kind.
I don't see what fashion has to do with it.
A scientific understanding of the nature of life is not remotely consistent with ideas of spirits or reincarnation. Science reveals life to be a process of replicating metabolism in line with the principles of energy and thermodynamics. Science reveals mind and consciousness to be rare emergent products of these biochemical processes not the founding causes of them. That ancient ideas persist into the modern age is more down to the nature of human culture and the psychological dispositions of their adherents rather than their viability as alternate science ideas. A 'supreme intelligence' defies logic, rather than mere science.
-
Can it be used to examine such claims, Maeght? After all, science is naturalistic, religion is - more often than not - non-naturalistic. The rubbish written here by folk on both sides of the debate over the 'evidence' for God shows how little science is able to take part in the debate.
When people make various claims about the physical world - Young Earthers, faith healers, bleeding statues, miraculous healing powers of holy waters, historicity of Christ - those claims can be investigated.
The concept of gods is perhaps outside of science, but any claim of a divine influence on real life events is, presumably, within the remit of science. Even - though probably beyond our current science - purely mental experiences of the divine.
O.
-
~Apologies for typing 'Outlook' instead of 'Outrider' in #49!!!
-
~Apologies for typing 'Outlook' instead of 'Outrider' in #49!!!
It had already been changed by the time I got back here - but then, who doesn't like to have access to their e-mails :)
Probably only going to be around for a few days - filling in time waiting for baby #3 to arrive, he was due on the 3rd.
O.
-
Can it be used to examine such claims, Maeght? After all, science is naturalistic, religion is - more often than not - non-naturalistic. The rubbish written here by folk on both sides of the debate over the 'evidence' for God shows how little science is able to take part in the debate.
Depends what those claims are of course.
-
Is it only because of science, wiggi? How do we know that sages and wise men of old weren't able to see stars, etc. before telescopes appeared on the scene? After all, didn't the ancients log the movements of the stars and other celestial bodies with only their unaided eyes?
It is because of science that we can see stars through a telescope. Nowhere in that statement does it say we can only see stars through a telescope.
-
I don't see what fashion has to do with it.
A scientific understanding of the nature of life is not remotely consistent with ideas of spirits or reincarnation. Science reveals life to be a process of replicating metabolism in line with the principles of energy and thermodynamics. Science reveals mind and consciousness to be rare emergent products of these biochemical processes not the founding causes of them. That ancient ideas persist into the modern age is more down to the nature of human culture and the psychological dispositions of their adherents rather than their viability as alternate science ideas. A 'supreme intelligence' defies logic, rather than mere science.
By fashion I meant trends. Most people in the world like to follow trends. If people in the news have a certain thought process...many people tend to follow it. This is common. Very few people think originally.
About 'logic'...we have discussed in another thread. Logic and reason are not absolute. There is nothing called 'logic' out there that we can use as an absolute yardstick.
-
Hi everyone,
Why is the microscope analogy being taken out of context?! I used that as an example of a tool that is very useful for certain type of investigations but is useless for certain others. You can also think of a hammer that is useful for certain functions but not for others. You can't use it everywhere.
Science is similar. It is a tool with its own boundaries, scope and limitations. Outside that, it is useless. So...insisting that science should investigate all personal experiences without which they have no veracity.....is over emphasizing the importance and capability of science.
-
Hi everyone,
Why is the microscope analogy being taken out of context?! I used that as an example of a tool that is very useful for certain type of investigations but is useless for certain others. You can also think of a hammer that is useful for certain functions but not for others. You can't use it everywhere.
That does not come across in what you wrote which was 'you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope'.
-
That does not come across in what you wrote which was 'you cannot insist that we should be able to see stars with a microscope'.
What does it come across as...according to you?!
-
Science is similar. It is a tool with its own boundaries, scope and limitations. Outside that, it is useless. So...insisting that science should investigate all personal experiences without which they have no veracity.....is over emphasizing the importance and capability of science.
The 'Science is a tool' analogy, though, is being pushed here as well. Science is a methodology, and whilst there are some things that are beyond the remit of science, certainly for the moment, there is an enormous swathe of human existence that is well within its remit; basically, anything that has a discernible effect on the world falls within the remit of science in principle, though there are complexities (for instance, within human thinking) that are beyond our current capabilities.
O.
-
The 'Science is a tool' analogy, though, is being pushed here as well. Science is a methodology, and whilst there are some things that are beyond the remit of science, certainly for the moment, there is an enormous swathe of human existence that is well within its remit; basically, anything that has a discernible effect on the world falls within the remit of science in principle, though there are complexities (for instance, within human thinking) that are beyond our current capabilities.
O.
All true, I agree. We have though, I would suggest, to guard against any idea of science being anything other than an arbiter of fact, and since so much of our lives, indeed the most interesting parts for me, are not fact but subjective judgement, then be clear that science can never at base give us a reason to act in any particular way.
-
It had already been changed by the time I got back here - but then, who doesn't like to have access to their e-mails :)
I wish I could still use 'Outlook for e-mails! I have got used to Windows Live Mail, but can't say I like it much!Probably only going to be around for a few days - filling in time waiting for baby #3 to arrive, he was due on the 3rd.
Excellent news and what a lovely start to a New Year. Do let us know of his safe arrival.
-
What does it come across as...according to you?!
It's obvious if you read that sentence on its own. Try it. ANd its not just me - or else you wouldn't have needed to have posted asking why people were taking it the wrong way.
-
All true, I agree. We have though, I would suggest, to guard against any idea of science being anything other than an arbiter of fact, and since so much of our lives, indeed the most interesting parts for me, are not fact but subjective judgement, then be clear that science can never at base give us a reason to act in any particular way.
Is anyone here challenging that understanding?
Generally it seems to be those who think we have been supplied with some a-priori moral framework or purpose who insist we should or must act in one way or another, with or without free will.
I suppose there is the "this is natural so must be right" school and also the Sam Harris approach - but I wouldn't say that those are actually "scientific" or even consistent.
-
All true, I agree. We have though, I would suggest, to guard against any idea of science being anything other than an arbiter of fact, and since so much of our lives, indeed the most interesting parts for me, are not fact but subjective judgement, then be clear that science can never at base give us a reason to act in any particular way.
you are welcome to your subjective judgment , but not your own facts ;)
-
you are welcome to your subjective judgment , but not your own facts ;)
Indeed, again I agree but facts cannot at base be the reason for any decision unless you have already decided what you want to acgphieve, and that isn't a decision based on fact.
-
Is anyone here challenging that understanding?
Generally it seems to be those who think we have been supplied with some a-priori moral framework or purpose who insist we should or must act in one way or another, with or without free will.
I suppose there is the "this is natural so must be right" school and also the Sam Harris approach - but I wouldn't say that those are actually "scientific" or even consistent.
I think there are occasional posts here which stray in that direction. I have seen a number that state that 'all problems' will eventually be solved by science but my point was a general one, and something to borne in my mind by those who make the often false accusation of others of 'scientism' on here.
And while I agree with your opinion on Sam Harris, making the point still seems value because obviously Harris doesn't agree and again he is often cited with approbation on here.
-
I think there are occasional posts here which stray in that direction. I have seen a number that state that 'all problems' will eventually be solved by science but my point was a general one, and something to borne in my mind by those who make the often false accusation of others of 'scientism' on here.
And while I agree with your opinion on Sam Harris, making the point still seems value because obviously Harris doesn't agree and again he is often cited with approbation on here.
I'm sure Sam Harris can defend himself but for me , I like his honesty and his approach. Having said that I haven't read any of his books only watched many interviews and debates on YouTube, he seams to tell it like it is from what I can see.
-
I'm sure Sam Harris can defend himself but for me , I like his honesty and his approach. Having said that I haven't read any of his books only watched many interviews and debates on YouTube, he seams to tell it like it is from what I can see.
There is much I agree with Sam Harris on, and much I disagree with. In this specific case, it's his idea that you can apply science to derive a morality rather than as I would approach it, that you can use science to get to moral outcomes, though even that has to be highly qualified, based on what your morality is.
-
There is much I agree with Sam Harris on, and much I disagree with. In this specific case, it's his idea that you can apply science to derive a morality rather than as I would approach it, that you can use science to get to moral outcomes, though even that has to be highly qualified, based on what your morality is.
Yes I tend to agree with much of that and you have caused me to , once again , to think about my own moral values as I tend to be somewhat leaning towards the psychopathic end of 'the scale' when I have taken online tests to evaluate myself.
I think it should be left to the philosophers and psychologists to attempt to use science (I don't know how they would do that because they are not scientists)to come up with some conclusions on deriving morality from a particular starting point.
Until we have a ToE , in the main philosophers will continue to 'split hairs'
-
Yes I tend to agree with much of that and you have caused me to , once again , to think about my own moral values as I tend to be somewhat leaning towards the psychopathic end of 'the scale' when I have taken online tests to evaluate myself.
I think it should be left to the philosophers and psychologists to attempt to use science (I don't know how they would do that because they are not scientists)to come up with some conclusions on deriving morality from a particular starting point.
Until we have a ToE , in the main philosophers will continue to 'split hairs'
I think it's up to us all to use the facts to determine how we want to achieve what we want but in the end it will be what we want. Despite posting a number of articles which are philosophically based, I don't have a lit of time for academic philosophy. How we think and how we examine what we each believe is much more important. We all "do' philosophy and that doing is in the end for me the most interesting of subjects.
Don't get me wrong, I find science in all its guises fascinating and crucial to what we understand of the world but its the subjective world of desires and wants that drive us.
As an aside on our discussion of facts vs opinions, I was just reading this on the impacts of ocean acidification and I think it illustrates that often it isn't that easy to untangle fact from opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/05/james-delingpole-article-calling-ocean-acidification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog?CMP=fb_gu
ETA just wanted to add that if I can cause someone to think or think again about something, that's brilliant. I take that as a huge compliment and it's not about people changing their mind but about having better understanding and reasons. I much prefer discussions where there are not simple dichotomies but an exploration of issues. We live in a time where even getting facts seems to be harder and harder, and any truth we might cling to is almost certainly an illusion
-
I think it's up to us all to use the facts to determine how we want to achieve what we want but in the end it will be what we want. Despite posting a number of articles which are philosophically based, I don't have a lit of time for academic philosophy. How we think and how we examine what we each believe is much more important. We all "do' philosophy and that doing is in the end for me the most interesting of subjects.
Don't get me wrong, I find science in all its guises fascinating and crucial to what we understand of the world but its the subjective world of desires and wants that drive us.
As an aside on our discussion of facts vs opinions, I was just reading this on the impacts of ocean acidification and I think it illustrates that often it isn't that easy to untangle fact from opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/05/james-delingpole-article-calling-ocean-acidification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog?CMP=fb_gu
ETA just wanted to add that if I can cause someone to think or think again about something, that's brilliant. I take that as a huge compliment and it's not about people changing their mind but about having better understanding and reasons. I much prefer discussions where there are not simple dichotomies but an exploration of issues. We live in a time where even getting facts seems to be harder and harder, and any truth we might cling to is almost certainly an illusion
re the link you provided ,
apart from the fact Delingpole is not qualified to make judgment on any scientific findings the article just highlights that Ipso doesn't have a clue about such matters either and that is a danger in somuch that the general public become misinformed.
As you and I know science is not based on opinion but the general public don't know this . And so the confusion continues . Especially if the BBC has anything to do with it .
-
I think it's up to us all to use the facts to determine how we want to achieve what we want but in the end it will be what we want. Despite posting a number of articles which are philosophically based, I don't have a lit of time for academic philosophy. How we think and how we examine what we each believe is much more important. We all "do' philosophy and that doing is in the end for me the most interesting of subjects.
Don't get me wrong, I find science in all its guises fascinating and crucial to what we understand of the world but its the subjective world of desires and wants that drive us.
As an aside on our discussion of facts vs opinions, I was just reading this on the impacts of ocean acidification and I think it illustrates that often it isn't that easy to untangle fact from opinion.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/05/james-delingpole-article-calling-ocean-acidification-alarmism-cleared-by-press-watchdog?CMP=fb_gu
ETA just wanted to add that if I can cause someone to think or think again about something, that's brilliant. I take that as a huge compliment and it's not about people changing their mind but about having better understanding and reasons. I much prefer discussions where there are not simple dichotomies but an exploration of issues. We live in a time where even getting facts seems to be harder and harder, and any truth we might cling to is almost certainly an illusion
Nearly Sane....your 'other' perception of reality (whenever it surfaces) is commendable! :)
Problem is that you tend to see-saw quite a bit and one cannot be sure which hat you are wearing at any point of time. ;) ???
Like the guy in your thread with his birds (mind of other animals...)....we cannot keep turning a blind eye to experiential reality just because we are doing science. We could develop a split personality. If anything, science has to accommodate or at least acknowledge the 'other' reality.
And that in essence, is what I am talking about in this thread (and in most other threads I think).
-
Nearly Sane....your 'other' perception of reality (whenever it surfaces) is commendable! :)
Problem is that you tend to see-saw quite a bit and one cannot be sure which hat you are wearing at any point of time. ;) ???
Like the guy in your thread with his birds (mind of other animals...)....we cannot keep turning a blind eye to experiential reality just because we are doing science. We could develop a split personality. If anything, science has to accommodate or at least acknowledge the 'other' reality.
And that in essence, is what I am talking about in this thread (and in most other threads I think).
just to be clear, please make a list of things that comprise this 'other' reality
-
Nearly Sane....your 'other' perception of reality (whenever it surfaces) is commendable! :)
Problem is that you tend to see-saw quite a bit and one cannot be sure which hat you are wearing at any point of time. ;) ???
Like the guy in your thread with his birds (mind of other animals...)....we cannot keep turning a blind eye to experiential reality just because we are doing science. We could develop a split personality. If anything, science has to accommodate or at least acknowledge the 'other' reality.
And that in essence, is what I am talking about in this thread (and in most other threads I think).
You seem to be getting yourself confused by reading stuff into my posts that I haven't written, like stuff about some 'other' reality. Talking about subjective issues such as morality is not talking about other realities.
-
re the link you provided ,
apart from the fact Delingpole is not qualified to make judgment on any scientific findings the article just highlights that Ipso doesn't have a clue about such matters either and that is a danger in somuch that the general public become misinformed.
As you and I know science is not based on opinion but the general public don't know this . And so the confusion continues . Especially if the BBC has anything to do with it .
Science cannot be fully devolved from opinion because it has to be interpreted. The issue with ocean acidification here is the interpreting of something as disastrous or important are not scientific judgements, they are value judgements.
-
You seem to be getting yourself confused by reading stuff into my posts that I haven't written, like stuff about some 'other' reality. Talking about subjective issues such as morality is not talking about other realities.
Spirituality, life, death, happiness, morality are all about subjective experiences. Even the Self is about the ultimate 'subject' remember?!
-
Spirituality, life, death, happiness, morality are all about subjective experiences. Even the Self is about the ultimate 'subject' remember?!
And? This does not cover the idea of other realities. Again read what is written.
-
And? This does not cover the idea of other realities. Again read what is written.
Read my post no 5. I am talking about the same subjective experiences.
-
Read my post no 5. I am talking about the same subjective experiences.
What would a post of your's have to do with you reading things into my posts which aren't there? What does the 'same subjective experience' mean? By the definition a subjective experience is not the same.
-
Spirituality, life, death, happiness, morality are all about subjective experiences. Even the Self is about the ultimate 'subject' remember?!
It seems to me that all you are talking about is having a different approach to whatever reality is, rather than the existence of other realities...which of course is fine, just as it is for those who have a different approach to yours.
-
It seems to me that all you are talking about is having a different approach to whatever reality is, rather than the existence of other realities...which of course is fine, just as it is for those who have a different approach to yours.
Yes...there is no such thing as 'other realities'. They are all part of the same reality. Different facets. Its only in a relative sense that we can talk of other realities.
-
Science cannot be fully devolved from opinion because it has to be interpreted. The issue with ocean acidification here is the interpreting of something as disastrous or important are not scientific judgements, they are value judgements.
David Nutt and Anne Glover come to mind .
When politicians get involved in making those judgments I despair . What with their PPE degrees they obviously know best, don't they? I mean what would a scientist know about evidence, Mr Gove?
-
David Nutt and Anne Glover come to mind .
When politicians get involved in making those judgments I despair . What with their PPE degrees they obviously know best, don't they? I mean what would a scientist know about evidence, Mr Gove?
This relates back to the use of science to achieve aims, what the actual outcome you should aim for though is not a scientific one. And in the area of large scale public policy not something that easily lends itself to if we do x, then y will happen.
Though I will point out that much of the reaction to fracking as something that is just 'bad' annoys me.
-
This relates back to the use of science to achieve aims, what the actual outcome you should aim for though is not a scientific one. And in the area of large scale public policy not something that easily lends itself to if we do x, then y will happen.
Though I will point out that much of the reaction to fracking as something that is just 'bad' annoys me.
coincidently I just clicked on an item about fracking and it downloaded a spyware programme (TWATS) so have spent 20 minutes trying to get rid of it Beware my friend
Yes, the fracking thing is a source of amusement to me now, Greenpeace have been at it again!
-
It's unavoidable that a thread like this should become to scientism what the Broad Street pump was to cholera.
As for quoting a bit of sanctimony from JBS Haldane, I don't know if Haldane was the first man to confuse what he did as a day job for the way the world is but i'm sure he wasn't the last.
-
I don't see what fashion has to do with it.
A scientific understanding of the nature of life is not remotely consistent with ideas of spirits or reincarnation. Science reveals life to be a process of replicating metabolism in line with the principles of energy and thermodynamics. Science reveals mind and consciousness to be rare emergent products of these biochemical processes not the founding causes of them. That ancient ideas persist into the modern age is more down to the nature of human culture and the psychological dispositions of their adherents rather than their viability as alternate science ideas. A 'supreme intelligence' defies logic, rather than mere science.
No it hasn't, it is still an iffy hypothesis. Nothing has been revealed. It's this disingenuous, hubristic assertions which are wholly annoying and sound like those pushy theists.
-
It's unavoidable that a thread like this should become to scientism what the Broad Street pump was to cholera.
As for quoting a bit of sanctimony from JBS Haldane, I don't know if Haldane was the first man to confuse what he did as a day job for the way the world is but i'm sure he wasn't the last.
The way the world is was his day job.
-
No it hasn't, it is still an iffy hypothesis. Nothing has been revealed. It's this disingenuous, hubristic assertions which are wholly annoying and sound like those pushy theists.
eh?
-
eh?
What I said!
-
The way the world is was his day job.
You mean they pay people to confuse science with atheism?
-
What I said!
you make no sense, try again.
-
No it hasn't, it is still an iffy hypothesis. Nothing has been revealed. It's this disingenuous, hubristic assertions which are wholly annoying and sound like those pushy theists.
Hardly iffy, it is what the evidence suggests; science doesn't do proof, remember, but that does not justify us in not following the evidence.
-
you make no sense, try again.
They are seeing things in the data which aren't there because of their ideology in their materialistic assumptions. The data/evidence doesn't show anything either way on the possible conclusions; everything is still in the air.
-
Hardly iffy, it is what the evidence suggests; science doesn't do proof, remember, but that does not justify us in not following the evidence.
But how one follows the evidence is governed by a person's biases and ideological assumptions. In this case materialism. We see these types of things in all walks of life past and present. Someone's mind set at the start guides how they perceive things that follow on from that position. Most scientists are atheists and monists and so they see this before the evidence and data truly shows it. As I said on another thread correlation is not necessarily causation and in this case it is not clear which one is the "horse" and which one is the "cart" at the moment.
-
But how one follows the evidence is governed by a person's biases and ideological assumptions. In this case materialism. We see these types of things in all walks of life past and present. Someone's mind set at the start guides how they perceive things that follow on from that position. Most scientists are atheists and monists and so they see this before the evidence and data truly shows it. As I said on another thread correlation is not necessarily causation and in this case it is not clear which one is the "horse" and which one is the "cart" at the moment.
That is absolutely true.
Christian mythology is wrong about the 6 day creation > Science is fairly correct about Big Bang > All spiritual ideas are wrong > All science is correct > Scientific methodology is the only way to any knowledge > All personal experiences are subjective > All subjective experiences are irrelevant to reality >........and so on and so forth!
The 'logic' is terrible!!
-
But how one follows the evidence is governed by a person's biases and ideological assumptions. In this case materialism. We see these types of things in all walks of life past and present. Someone's mind set at the start guides how they perceive things that follow on from that position. Most scientists are atheists and monists and so they see this before the evidence and data truly shows it. As I said on another thread correlation is not necessarily causation and in this case it is not clear which one is the "horse" and which one is the "cart" at the moment.
This is mostly nonsense. Clearly scientists are human and as individuals subject to the range of human biases but I don't think we can extrapolate to a sort of racism-like group bias for the scientific community as a whole. 'Materialism' is largely a strawman hurled by theists at non theists for not believing in the supernatural. What scientists would admit to is 'naturalism', that being what science is all about, the study of what is natural, clearly anything supernatural would not be amenable to investigation by definition. When we follow what the evidence suggests we are following the evidence not some 'ideology', that is just conspiratorial thinking.
-
This is mostly nonsense. Clearly scientists are human and as individuals subject to the range of human biases but I don't think we can extrapolate to a sort of racism-like group bias for the scientific community as a whole. 'Materialism' is largely a strawman hurled by theists at non theists for not believing in the supernatural. What scientists would admit to is 'naturalism', that being what science is all about, the study of what is natural, clearly anything supernatural would not be amenable to investigation by definition. When we follow what the evidence suggests we are following the evidence not some 'ideology', that is just conspiratorial thinking.
And the explanation for almost all 'natural' phenomena is 'emergence'....right?!
-
This is mostly nonsense.
Generous of you.
-
This is mostly nonsense. Clearly scientists are human and as individuals subject to the range of human biases but I don't think we can extrapolate to a sort of racism-like group bias for the scientific community as a whole. 'Materialism' is largely a strawman hurled by theists at non theists for not believing in the supernatural. What scientists would admit to is 'naturalism', that being what science is all about, the study of what is natural, clearly anything supernatural would not be amenable to investigation by definition. When we follow what the evidence suggests we are following the evidence not some 'ideology', that is just conspiratorial thinking.
You're really having to clutch at straws to fight back, aren't you. And you should note I'm an atheist.
But that is one of my points that the sum of the individual scientist's biases is a collective ideological bias because they have pretty much all come from the same school and culture. A kind of tribal chant. To pick on the word materialism is sad. It is a word that clearly conveys a general idea of what is being expressed and has no invidious overtones to it, when applied to a group - people understand the gist of what is being said - but I can use naturalism if you want.
There's no such thing as supernatural as everything is natural, unless one provided a restrictive definition of what is natural.
You can't follow the evidence because it does not go anywhere as it is not capable of leading. One goes where one thinks it is pointing to based on ones education and world view. We see this when young children come up with odd conclusions, to us, to situations they are presented with or come across.
-
And the explanation for almost all 'natural' phenomena is 'emergence'....right?!
Emergence is ubiquitous and fundamental throughout nature; every incremental level of complexity only persists because of its emergent properties
-
You can't follow the evidence because it does not go anywhere as it is not capable of leading. One goes where one thinks it is pointing to based on ones education and world view.
Well, yes, obviously, this applies to everyone. Learning to think outside the box of our inherited culture is a process. Einstein had to think outside the Newtonian box to account for the constancy of the speed of light. We shed our cultural inherited biases slowly - we cannot adopt a policy of not following what the evidence appears to suggest - that would be counterproductive in the long run.
-
Emergence is ubiquitous and fundamental throughout nature; every incremental level of complexity only persists because of its emergent properties
Which does not explain anything at all. It is just a label.
-
Jack Knave
being atheist is separate from understanding science , which is what you appear to show in some of your posts
-
Emergence is ubiquitous and fundamental throughout nature; every incremental level of complexity only persists because of its emergent properties
incremental? How incremental? so incremental there isn't a real distinction between levels of complexity so what we have is a clever way of preserving reductionism?
Where is the novelty here on which emergence is defined? Where is the saltatory essence of emergence?
-
Well, yes, obviously, this applies to everyone. Learning to think outside the box of our inherited culture is a process. Einstein had to think outside the Newtonian box to account for the constancy of the speed of light. We shed our cultural inherited biases slowly - we cannot adopt a policy of not following what the evidence appears to suggest - that would be counterproductive in the long run.
I notice you now include the term "appears" which your previous statement didn't have and was almost categorical in nature.
-
Jack Knave
being atheist is separate from understanding science , which is what you appear to show in some of your posts
Or which you fail to understand the nuances and perspicacity of them.
-
Or which you fail to understand the nuances and perspicacity of them.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt this time. We'll see.
-
I notice you now include the term "appears" which your previous statement didn't have and was almost categorical in nature.
Well, to be pedantic, that is true of all things. My wife appears to be a sentient being with inner conscious experience and not a zombie. So I run with the most reasonable assumption, that she is in fact sentient. So it is with brain science, all the evidence suggests that mind and brain are the same thing experienced from different aspects, so that is the most reasonable assumption to work with. It is nothing to do with ideology, there is no other viable hypothesis to rival it currently.
-
Well, to be pedantic, that is true of all things. My wife appears to be a sentient being with inner conscious experience and not a zombie. So I run with the most reasonable assumption, that she is in fact sentient. So it is with brain science, all the evidence suggests that mind and brain are the same thing experienced from different aspects, so that is the most reasonable assumption to work with. It is nothing to do with ideology, there is no other viable hypothesis to rival it currently.
But a GOOD scientist will be motivated to look beyond the appearance. In the case of humans, whether we are really a unitary conscious self or a biological mechanism which JUST gives that impression.
Your method seems to avoid investigation of that.
-
But a GOOD scientist will be motivated to look beyond the appearance. In the case of humans, whether we are really a unitary conscious self or a biological mechanism which JUST gives that impression.
Your method seems to avoid investigation of that.
That's a good one.
-
Well, to be pedantic, that is true of all things. My wife appears to be a sentient being with inner conscious experience and not a zombie. So I run with the most reasonable assumption, that she is in fact sentient. So it is with brain science, all the evidence suggests that mind and brain are the same thing experienced from different aspects, so that is the most reasonable assumption to work with. It is nothing to do with ideology, there is no other viable hypothesis to rival it currently.
So following on from Vlads last post. If there was something like a soul, or something, involved in the process of consciousness what would you scientists expect to see in the data and evidence that you aren't seeing now? Considering you haven't the methods or means or framework for looking for such things and so even if it was there your whole focus and approach is geared to have a blind spot. Shouldn't science come up with a hypothesis on what to see if a soul, or something of that kind, was helping to create and form consciousness?
-
But a GOOD scientist will be motivated to look beyond the appearance. In the case of humans, whether we are really a unitary conscious self or a biological mechanism which JUST gives that impression.
Your method seems to avoid investigation of that.
I think that is unavoidable ultimately, at heart it is the 'problem of other minds', it is the problem of subjectivity, it is the Turing test, and we cannot ever really truly bridge the objectivity/subjectivity gap. The only way to know what it is like to be a bat is to be that bat; the only way to be certain that my wife is not a p-zombie is to be my wife and I cannot be her as I am busy being me. All I can do is observe her manifest behaviours and I assume some correlation of her inner experience to my inner experience when I do those same behaviours. In the lab we can be more scientific about it for instance we can measure subconscious signals like galvanic skin response or heart rate or pupil dilation but even so this is still not providing 100% certainty that she is not a zombie, merely it would rule out her deliberately trying to skew any results. So I just live with the most reasonable assumption that she is sentient like me, and that is essentially what we do in neuroscience in assuming that the apparent correlation between subjective experience and objective measurement of brain activity is real. It is the least fantastic assumption we can make under the circumstances.
-
So following on from Vlads last post. If there was something like a soul, or something, involved in the process of consciousness what would you scientists expect to see in the data and evidence that you aren't seeing now? Considering you haven't the methods or means or framework for looking for such things and so even if it was there your whole focus and approach is geared to have a blind spot. Shouldn't science come up with a hypothesis on what to see if a soul, or something of that kind, was helping to create and form consciousness?
That rather hinges on how you define soul. If we define it as supernatural then that would eliminate any scientific investigation by our own definition. If we define it as immaterial, then, really, what is meant by immaterial ? We can't look for something when we don't know what it is we are looking for. If it is not immaterial, but just some undiagnosed force of nature, then we would need some sort of hypothesis to work with so that we can devise a testing framework. It might just be that we need to up our understanding of what we already know about; physics has some profound gaps in understanding and it may be that brain science and the drive to understand consciousness and research in artificial intelligence will all overlap with developments in fundamental physics. For my money, I don't see a strong case for new fundamental forces, and certainly not for some ephemeral being distinct from the body but 'inhabiting' it somehow, such ideas are way over the top imv, rather we just need to better understand many things that we are just starting to understand now - subjectivity, emergence, quantum biology, proprioception, information theory as well the classical neurobiology (clearly).