Faith

hephzibah,

My thumbnail sketch of "scientific revolutions" has perhaps given you too simplistic an impression of scientists as a social group. I would refer you to Thomas Khun's book (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) for clarification. (Wikipedia gives a brief reference to his impact on the sociology of knowledge)

I put it to you that it is theists who require "God" as "the big controller".....most scientists don't have such a requirement. They don't "deny the existence of God" ...they are simply not interested in theoretical entities which neither explain nor yield empirical data. The difference between "God" and "a gluon" is precisely on that principle. Note that concepts of "existence" (ontology) are closely related to concepts of "knowledge" (epistemology).

0 Replies

fresco wrote-

Quote:

I put it to you that it is theists who require "God" as "the big controller".....most scientists don't have such a requirement.

I put it to you that scientists only think they don't have such a requirement.

Have you ever heard of psuedomorphesis? It's a term used in geology but can reasonably be applied to history if only as an aid.

0 Replies

Spendius.

I only found "pseudomorphosis" on Google and it looked slightly off target, but if this is what you mean I will read it.

I would disagree on scientists "only thinking they don't need God" because it now generally accepted that "a prime mover" is NOT a requirement to explain either evolution or the Big Bang. This is even said by theistic scientists such as Polkinghorne who evoke instead a "non-interventionist deity". (I am sure you and I have already discussed the non-linear view of systems which can explain spontaneous complexity such as "life".)

0 Replies

Spemdius,

Having scanned the Google/Spengler reference on pseudomorphosis it seems to more meaningfully apply to a resistance by scientists to atheism than to theism. Evidence for this is can be found in the positions of both Newton (e.g. "absolute" reference frames) and Einstein ("God does not play dice..."). An interesting departure came with quantum theory which whilst deconstructing "causality" and thereby "control", left the door open for spirituality (e.g. Bohr's leaning towards Taoism). A more substantial shift from away from theism comes with "systems theory" as mentioned above which although non-materialistic still manages to deflate "consciousness" and "linguistic concepts" to aspects of "the general life process".

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

hephzibah,

My thumbnail sketch of "scientific revolutions" has perhaps given you too simplistic an impression of scientists as a social group. I would refer you to Thomas Khun's book (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) for clarification. (Wikipedia gives a brief reference to his impact on the sociology of knowledge)

I put it to you that it is theists who require "God" as "the big controller".....most scientists don't have such a requirement. They don't "deny the existence of God" ...they are simply not interested in theoretical entities which neither explain nor yield empirical data. The difference between "God" and "a gluon" is precisely on that principle. Note that concepts of "existence" (ontology) are closely related to concepts of "knowledge" (epistemology).

That's not true though fresco. This "theoretical entity" explains as well as yields mostly empirical data. That is the so called problem I hear from most people. Because it's based on observation and experience on a personal level, which seems to make it invalid to those who have not had similar observations or experiences. It's not so much that theists require a "God" as "the big controller" as it is they too are trying to explain our existence. Just like science. Science just had different "controlling factors" which are counted by most as being more credible because it is seen as something tangible that offers tangible "results" (for the most part) where "God" is not tangible and does not offer tangible results.

0 Replies

hephzibah,

I have no problem with "intangible gods" only with the "tangible directives" which believers say eminate from such personal entities!
BTW, scientists are not so much interested in "explaining existence" as investigating the meaning of such a concept. This is an important distinction because the first view is one of "naive realism".

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

Consensus of public observation? Come on fresco... You make it sound like you all are a bunch of "groupies" following around these scientific theory's and because you all have decided that's the right way, you are therefore right. Sounds rather "cultish" to me... So tell me then why does faith need public "evidence" while science merely needs public "observation"?

So what I'm getting from this is exactly what I thought I might.

What you "get" is driven, even dictated by, prejudiced preconceptions. You choose to twist what is there into conformation with that which you would prefer to see be there.

Quote:

It boils down to one simple factor. Prediction and control. Science can't predict or control God or the "supernatural", therefore science deny's the existence of God. Yep, makes sense to me.

Obviously, what "makes sense" to you boils down beyond simple, it concentrates into misapprehension and outright ignorance. Science does not deny the existence of a god, gods, or the like; science by definition does not address the supernatural, it neither confirms nor denies the supernatural. Science, drawing from the observed and confirmed, has no concern with religion, while religion, having naught but faith and belief from which to draw, perceives itself threatened by science.

Quote:

Blind Faith? Hmm... Well I'm not a big fan of "blind faith". I've walked that road, been burned several times, and IMO "blind faith" as defined by the church is nothing more than the simple way of saying, "Look, I know you don't understand what I want you to do (ie: giving $1000 to my church), but you don't need to "understand it" to have faith. Just trust "God" that He's going to work it all out." Actually when you think about it it's more along the lines of what you were saying with the whole science thing. Except it's people using the method to control people. That's just my opinion though. Might not be worth much...

In any religious sense or context "Blind Faith" amounts to a redundancy, and your attempt to correlate the concept with some imagined intent or effect on the part of science to "control people" is at the very most charitable disingenuous; science controls nothing, it merely describes that for which it has data. Religion, despite having no data by which to describe anything, claims it is the explanation for that which it, religion, purports to predicate and control everything. Religion asserts, science demonstrates. There is a huge and definitionally foundational difference.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

hephzibah,

I have no problem with "intangible gods" only with the "tangible directives" which believers say eminate from such personal entities!
BTW, scientists are not so much interested in "explaining existence" as investigating the meaning of such a concept. This is an important distinction because the first view is one of "naive realism".

Well... that's fair enough. However, I have heard it said several times out of the mouth of those heavily influenced by science, that is a specific purpose of science (to explain existence). So, please just try to understand that my perspective on this comes mostly from the way others have presented their views on it to me. :wink:

0 Replies

timber,

Some wise words there.

I suppose part of the attraction of the word "faith" is its association with the idea "timeless constancy". Freud's angle on this was "the death wish" whereby the individual had been disturbed from, and had an urge to return to some quiescent state. It is interesting to speculate here on the association of religious faith with "martyrdom" and "an afterlife". I've just posted elsewhere on Harris's view that religious moderates of all religions unwittingly prepare the ground for fanatics by supporting the "irrational" belief in "the afterlife". The "clash with science" may be more serious than mere debate!

0 Replies

hephzibah,

It is the case that some scientists are (still) naive realists so I should should perhaps qualify my remarks about the nature of existence by saying they refer especially to those scientists working at the frontiers of cosmology and quantum physics.

0 Replies

From the point of view of the religionists, science is the threat of the very destruction of all that they believe and cherish. The indifference of science to contentions of the supernatural probably spook the faithful the most--so, religious demagogues, beginning in the late 19th century, have been fighting a rear-guard action against an opponent which ignores them. Darwin and Wallace's work clearly indicated a world far older than the standard young earth view of Bishop Ussher's exegesis. Geology as a systematized study of physical data, and without reference to scriptural pronouncement actually predates Darwinian and Wallacian views of descent with modification by natural selection from common ancestors. Therefore, when battle was joined, those who accepted a theory of evolution had natural allies among the geologists, and biblical literalists saw another "enemy" in the ranks of the "opposition." Ironically Darwin seriously considered a career as a minister, and was a devoutly religious man--he, and the geologists were the intellectual descendants of those devout believers of the 17th and early 18th centuries who set out to investigate in minute detail all the aspects of god's wonderful creation.

Religous leaders are never slow to see and react to threats to doctrinal authority. But those who engaged in scientific pursuits were not classic heretics who denied doctrinal principles. Their threat was inferential--biological research flew in the face of the assertion of a direct creation, and geological research undermined both a young earth viewpoint (never before known as young earth because never before seriously questioned) and a world-wide flood story. But since science is an investigative method, and not a person who can be tied to a stake to be burned, the traditional remedy for heresy was not available. Therefore, it became evident to religious leaders (whose theology stipulated biblical literalism and therefore precluded compromise or doctrinal revision) that science must become "Science," a living, breathing demon, and must be portrayed as bent on denying the existence of god. This contention is so common (especially if not exclusively among fundamentalist religious believers) that it is quite common to see people making their first contribution to online discussions of scientific concepts with the assertion that "Science" is atheistic and intent on disproving the existence of god.

I mentioned before that the young earth concept had never before been seriously questioned. However, the inferential evidence is strong that a healthy skepticism has always been with us. Reverend Paley published his "watchmaker" analogy in 1802--but he had been preceded in the "argument from complexity" by Voltaire, and Hooke, 150 years earlier, had used the same watchmaker analogy (Paley was likely familiar with that as well, but insufficiently honest to acknowledge his source). But more than 2000 years ago, the Roman orator Cicero, in a defense of his conception of a polytheistically-created cosmos, wrote:

When you see a sundial or a water-clock, you see that it tells the time by design and not by chance. How then can you imagine that the universe as a whole is devoid of purpose and intelligence, when it embraces everything, including these artifacts themselves and their artificers?

So, i suspect that there have been skeptics for at least as long as there have been religionists, and that whenever and wherever the religionists can seize the ultimate power, or successfully appeal to the ultimate power, "heretics" have been hunted down and executed.

Were the world subject to theocracy in our times, we might the targets of the heretic hunters.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

hephzibah wrote:
Consensus of public observation? Come on fresco... You make it sound like you all are a bunch of "groupies" following around these scientific theory's and because you all have decided that's the right way, you are therefore right. Sounds rather "cultish" to me... So tell me then why does faith need public "evidence" while science merely needs public "observation"?

So what I'm getting from this is exactly what I thought I might.

What you "get" is driven, even dictated by, prejudiced preconceptions. You choose to twist what is there into conformation with that which you would prefer to see be there.

Daaaaang timber...

Ok mister man, I was stating my opinion here of how things sounded to me based on what he said. However, please note that I do realize that just because it's my opinion does not mean that makes it the absolute truth of a matter. Yet, stating my opinion on the matter often times will draw out a deeper answer with more substance which is what I was looking for, and basically what he gave. If I want to understand something outside of my "prejudiced preconceptions" as you call it, should I not state what they are so they can be addressed and corrected if necessary?

P.S. I notice neither of you even addressed my question here.

Quote:

Quote:
It boils down to one simple factor. Prediction and control. Science can't predict or control God or the "supernatural", therefore science deny's the existence of God. Yep, makes sense to me.

Obviously, what "makes sense" to you boils down beyond simple, it concentrates into misapprehension and outright ignorance.

Alrighty then... So let me ask you this: If I am functioning in misunderstanding and outright ignorance here would it not then be much more productive to actually explain what it is I am so ignorant about to help me understand better? Rather than merely pointing out my "shortcomings"? This kind of thing is exactly what I just called someone else on the other day... Attacking the arguer rather than the argument. It's pointless, completely unproductive, unless a persons purpose here is not much more than to argue about things they don't have or want answers for. That, timber, is not my purpose in being here.

Quote:

Science does not deny the existence of a god, gods, or the like; science by definition does not address the supernatural, it neither confirms nor denies the supernatural. Science, drawing from the observed and confirmed, has no concern with religion, while religion, having naught but faith and belief from which to draw, perceives itself threatened by science.

Again... Please just try to understand that my perspective on this comes mostly from the way others have presented their views on it to me. However, at no time do I ever remember stating that, that makes my perception absolutely right. Believe it or not I am actually willing to listen and hear the other side of this from different perspectives. Even if I do come off as a bit snotty at times about it, which I will apologize for because that's not my intent. I do know I'm not the end all source of knowledge on any particular subject. Nor will I ever be. Thanks for the reminder though...

Quote:

Quote:
Blind Faith? Hmm... Well I'm not a big fan of "blind faith". I've walked that road, been burned several times, and IMO "blind faith" as defined by the church is nothing more than the simple way of saying, "Look, I know you don't understand what I want you to do (ie: giving $1000 to my church), but you don't need to "understand it" to have faith. Just trust "God" that He's going to work it all out." Actually when you think about it it's more along the lines of what you were saying with the whole science thing. Except it's people using the method to control people. That's just my opinion though. Might not be worth much...

In any religious sense or context "Blind Faith" amounts to a redundancy, and your attempt to correlate the concept with some imagined intent or effect on the part of science to "control people" is at the very most charitable disingenuous; science controls nothing, it merely describes that for which it has data. Religion, despite having no data by which to describe anything, claims it is the explanation for that which it, religion, purports to predicate and control everything. Religion asserts, science demonstrates. There is a huge and definitionally foundational difference.

Science never asserts? Interesting...

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

hephzibah,

It is the case that some scientists are (still) naive realists so I should should perhaps qualify my remarks about the nature of existence by saying they refer especially to those scientists working at the frontiers of cosmology and quantum physics.

Thanks Fresco. I'll get back with you on this one later.

0 Replies

Science is a method for investigation naturalistic phenomena, Miss Eppie. Science does not assert one damned thing--scientists, or worse yet, "science reporters" for print or broadcast media make assertions.

Think of science as you do multiplication or division. Those are means of deriving an arithmetic conclusion. Would you say that Multiplication is atheistic, or that Division denies the existence of god?

You have written: Science can't predict or control God or the "supernatural", therefore science deny's the existence of God.

To repeat, science is a method of investigation of the naturalistic world. To the extent that it is a method for arriving at an answer, it is no different than multiplication or division as methods for arriving at mathematical answers. Science does not seek to control anything, and predictive ability is just one of the aspects of the successful establishment of a thesis using the scientific method. Gods and devils are supernatural, and no part of the naturalistic world to which the investigative method known as science is applied. So, the statement that "Science" denies the existence of god is not simply a silly non-sequitur, it is a propagandistic statement deriving from the fear of the increasing body of data revealed by the scientific method which inferentially overturns the literalist views embodied in scripture.

Some religionists whose points of view are inflexibly literalist are frightened by the implications of the information revealed by the contemporary application of the scientific method. Therefore, they make up a concept of Science as some sort of demon determined to destroy god. That would simply be hilariously silly, were it not for the very real danger that fundamentalist religious believers always pose to the world.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

. . . Some religionists whose points of view are inflexibly literalist are frightened by the implications of the information revealed by the contemporary application of the scientific method. Therefore, they make up a concept of Science as some sort of demon determined to destroy god. That would simply be hilariously silly, were it not for the very real danger that fundamentalist religious believers always pose to the world.

Qualifying word here is 'SOME'.

0 Replies

Setanta,

Good synopsis above ! I like your comments on heretic hunters.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/script.html Smile

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Setanta wrote:
. . . Some religionists whose points of view are inflexibly literalist are frightened by the implications of the information revealed by the contemporary application of the scientific method. Therefore, they make up a concept of Science as some sort of demon determined to destroy god. That would simply be hilariously silly, were it not for the very real danger that fundamentalist religious believers always pose to the world.

Qualifying word here is 'SOME'.

Of course--when MOAN or Snood foam at the mouth, i have always pointed out that my beef is with the fanatical. I have never asserted that every one of the religiously convinced are fanatical.

***********************************
Thanks for the Monty Python, Fresco, i always loved that schtick . . .

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Science is a method for investigation naturalistic phenomena, Miss Eppie. Science does not assert one damned thing--scientists, or worse yet, "science reporters" for print or broadcast media make assertions.

Think of science as you do multiplication or division. Those are means of deriving an arithmetic conclusion. Would you say that Multiplication is atheistic, or that Division denies the existence of god?

You have written: Science can't predict or control God or the "supernatural", therefore science deny's the existence of God.

To repeat, science is a method of investigation of the naturalistic world. To the extent that it is a method for arriving at an answer, it is no different than multiplication or division as methods for arriving at mathematical answers. Science does not seek to control anything, and predictive ability is just one of the aspects of the successful establishment of a thesis using the scientific method. Gods and devils are supernatural, and no part of the naturalistic world to which the investigative method known as science is applied. So, the statement that "Science" denies the existence of god is not simply a silly non-sequitur, it is a propagandistic statement deriving from the fear of the increasing body of data revealed by the scientific method which inferentially overturns the literalist views embodied in scripture.

Some religionists whose points of view are inflexibly literalist are frightened by the implications of the information revealed by the contemporary application of the scientific method. Therefore, they make up a concept of Science as some sort of demon determined to destroy god. That would simply be hilariously silly, were it not for the very real danger that fundamentalist religious believers always pose to the world.

Mr. Setanta... I did not say that science DOES assert anything. All I said was "Interesting". However, it seems that as of late people are reading much more into what I say than is intended. However, let me explain... Considering my "prejudiced preconceptions" that were so kindly pointed out by timber, I was merely acknowledging, "Hey, look, here's another "prejudiced preconception" of mine." So rather than arguing something that is so blatantly inarguable I chose to just say, "Interesting", and leave any questioning I may have for that at a later time when I'm not in such a pissy mood. However, I do appreciate your explanation. Thank you.

0 Replies

Ok, one last thing before I sign off for a while:

First: Timber, I want you to know I meant you no disrespect by my previous post to you. I hold a lot of respect for you which is why the way you addressed me hurt my feelings. No, I'm not here to whine about it, however I felt the things you said were completely unmerited and unnecessary, which in essence is what ticked me off. However, it's nothing I intend on holding on to or allowing to effect any future encounters with you. I just want to apologize because I over-reacted a bit there simply because you hurt my feelings and that was wrong of me.

Second: Setanta, I apologize for being harsh with you. You did not deserve that either. You were just in the wrong place at the wrong time and well... you caught the overflow. I'm sorry.

Catch you guys later.

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
hephzibah wrote:
Consensus of public observation? Come on fresco... You make it sound like you all are a bunch of "groupies" following around these scientific theory's and because you all have decided that's the right way, you are therefore right. Sounds rather "cultish" to me... So tell me then why does faith need public "evidence" while science merely needs public "observation"?

So what I'm getting from this is exactly what I thought I might.

What you "get" is driven, even dictated by, prejudiced preconceptions. You choose to twist what is there into conformation with that which you would prefer to see be there.

Daaaaang timber...

Ok mister man, I was stating my opinion here of how things sounded to me based on what he said. However, please note that I do realize that just because it's my opinion does not mean that makes it the absolute truth of a matter. Yet, stating my opinion on the matter often times will draw out a deeper answer with more substance which is what I was looking for, and basically what he gave. If I want to understand something outside of my "prejudiced preconceptions" as you call it, should I not state what they are so they can be addressed and corrected if necessary?

P.S. I notice neither of you even addressed my question here.

Quote:
Quote:
It boils down to one simple factor. Prediction and control. Science can't predict or control God or the "supernatural", therefore science deny's the existence of God. Yep, makes sense to me.

Obviously, what "makes sense" to you boils down beyond simple, it concentrates into misapprehension and outright ignorance.

No, your question was answered; science does not concern itself with the supernatural. Period. The notion that science so much as notices, let alone stands in any way in opposition to religion is simply, and nothing more or other than, yet one more illogical, irrational, ignorant, superstitious religionist construct. It just plain, flat out ain't so.

Quote:

Alrighty then... So let me ask you this: If I am functioning in misunderstanding and outright ignorance here would it not then be much more productive to actually explain what it is I am so ignorant about to help me understand better? Rather than merely pointing out my "shortcomings"? This kind of thing is exactly what I just called someone else on the other day... Attacking the arguer rather than the argument. It's pointless, completely unproductive, unless a persons purpose here is not much more than to argue about things they don't have or want answers for. That, timber, is not my purpose in being here.

No one is attacking your person; what is demonstrated to be an afoundational absurdity is the proposition that science stands in opposition to religion.

Quote:

Science does not deny the existence of a god, gods, or the like; science by definition does not address the supernatural, it neither confirms nor denies the supernatural. Science, drawing from the observed and confirmed, has no concern with religion, while religion, having naught but faith and belief from which to draw, perceives itself threatened by science.

There's your answer again, whether you choose to recognize it or not. Science is unconcerned with religion, while some religionists perceive science to be a threat to cherished belief sets. Science is not about faith or belief, science is about reasoned, logical, testable, multiply-cross-corroborational, independently validatable conclusions developed through objective analysis of observed and derived data.

Quote:

Again... Please just try to understand that my perspective on this comes mostly from the way others have presented their views on it to me. However, at no time do I ever remember stating that, that makes my perception absolutely right. Believe it or not I am actually willing to listen and hear the other side of this from different perspectives. Even if I do come off as a bit snotty at times about it, which I will apologize for because that's not my intent. I do know I'm not the end all source of knowledge on any particular subject. Nor will I ever be. Thanks for the reminder though...

Once again, some religionists have a beef with science, but science cares not a whit for or about religion beyond that religion is a subject of study as an attribute of anthropologic development.

Quote:

Quote:
Blind Faith? Hmm... Well I'm not a big fan of "blind faith". I've walked that road, been burned several times, and IMO "blind faith" as defined by the church is nothing more than the simple way of saying, "Look, I know you don't understand what I want you to do (ie: giving $1000 to my church), but you don't need to "understand it" to have faith. Just trust "God" that He's going to work it all out." Actually when you think about it it's more along the lines of what you were saying with the whole science thing. Except it's people using the method to control people. That's just my opinion though. Might not be worth much...

In any religious sense or context "Blind Faith" amounts to a redundancy, and your attempt to correlate the concept with some imagined intent or effect on the part of science to "control people" is at the very most charitable disingenuous; science controls nothing, it merely describes that for which it has data. Religion, despite having no data by which to describe anything, claims it is the explanation for that which it, religion, purports to predicate and control everything. Religion asserts, science demonstrates. There is a huge and definitionally foundational difference.

Quote:

Science never asserts? Interesting...

That is correct; science asserts nothing, science observes, studies, and strives to explain. Scientists as individuals may present assertions, in which case those assertions are subjected to the meatgrinder of scientific inquiry, debate, testing, and study. Some assertions survive, some do not, and others evolve. Science concludes, science proposes,science submits to and increases precision through analysis. Science demonstrates. Religion does not observe, religion does not study, religion does not propose, religion does not explain, religion does not build upon, revise, and improve itself, religion does not demonstrate, religion asserts. Among the patently absurd assertions of religion is that science be in opposition to religion, and another is that science seeks to prove or disprove anything; science deals in probabilities (though some of which, to current understanding, all but indistinguishably do approach certainty), for authority drawing on analysis of and consistency with humankind's accumulated, assembled, ever increasing body of knowledge, religion purports to deal only in certainties, drawing only on itself for authority. Religion plays games, science works.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know