| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/25/2007 11:11:35 PM · #626 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even on a debating level, science is no worse than religion, or any other topic really. |
No it's not. But you can run into trouble when you use Science to answer a philosophical question just as you can run into trouble trying to answer a scientific question with philosophy.
That was the whole point of my post. The two disciplines have some overlap, but they are generally exclusive of each other. At least that's my view of them and I live firmly in both worlds.
Message edited by author 2007-11-25 23:11:58. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 02:13:48 AM · #627 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even on a debating level, science is no worse than religion, or any other topic really. |
No it's not. But you can run into trouble when you use Science to answer a philosophical question just as you can run into trouble trying to answer a scientific question with philosophy.
That was the whole point of my post. The two disciplines have some overlap, but they are generally exclusive of each other. At least that's my view of them and I live firmly in both worlds. |
You can also run into trouble using science to answer science questions and philosophy to answer philosophical questions.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 06:21:49 AM · #628 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even on a debating level, science is no worse than religion, or any other topic really. |
No it's not. But you can run into trouble when you use Science to answer a philosophical question just as you can run into trouble trying to answer a scientific question with philosophy.
That was the whole point of my post. The two disciplines have some overlap, but they are generally exclusive of each other. At least that's my view of them and I live firmly in both worlds. |
Doc is really hitting the nail on the head here, flippant replies notwithstanding.
Science is excellent at answering questions like "What am I?", but worthless on the questions like "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?"
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 08:04:59 AM · #629 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even on a debating level, science is no worse than religion, or any other topic really. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No it's not. But you can run into trouble when you use Science to answer a philosophical question just as you can run into trouble trying to answer a scientific question with philosophy.
That was the whole point of my post. The two disciplines have some overlap, but they are generally exclusive of each other. At least that's my view of them and I live firmly in both worlds. |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Doc is really hitting the nail on the head here, flippant replies notwithstanding.
Science is excellent at answering questions like "What am I?", but worthless on the questions like "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?" |
Which is why I maintain that science and theology can co-exist.
If you're sentient, you kinda have to believe that, IMO.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 08:39:42 AM · #630 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Science is excellent at answering questions like "What am I?", but worthless on the questions like "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?" |
Which is why I maintain that science and theology can co-exist.
If you're sentient, you kinda have to believe that, IMO. |
Right. If you don't ever ponder these questions, then science is all you need, pretty much. If you DO think about things like this, science is inadequate to the task of finding answers, and theology & philosophy are the obvious avenues down which to search.
R.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 10:30:20 AM · #631 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Science is excellent at answering questions like "What am I?", but worthless on the questions like "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?" |
Understandably so, since both questions start with an implied assumption that there must be some grand purpose or intent for humans. Remove that assumption, and science can offer all sorts of answers about the "purpose" and individual characteristics of a fruit bat or crocodile. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 10:35:26 AM · #632 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Even on a debating level, science is no worse than religion, or any other topic really. |
No it's not. But you can run into trouble when you use Science to answer a philosophical question just as you can run into trouble trying to answer a scientific question with philosophy.
That was the whole point of my post. The two disciplines have some overlap, but they are generally exclusive of each other. At least that's my view of them and I live firmly in both worlds. |
Doc is really hitting the nail on the head here, flippant replies notwithstanding.
Science is excellent at answering questions like "What am I?", but worthless on the questions like "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?"
R. |
Science has answers for "Who am I?" and "Why am I here?"
You are the sum of your genetic components and you are here to reproduce and in doing so, propagate the species.
Not very emotionally fulfilling, I know, but science isn't concerned with feelings. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 11:17:23 AM · #633 |
Science without philosophy is a monster. We can do big things with science, but without philosophy we can't answer questions such as "should we do this?"
I know you guys are just debating though, because I can't imagine that either of you (spazmo or Shannon) truly live in a world devoid of philosophy. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 11:25:52 AM · #634 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know you guys are just debating though, because I can't imagine that either of you (spazmo or Shannon) truly live in a world devoid of philosophy. |
The answers I gave for science's answer to the "Why am I here?" and "Who am I?" questions do reflect a philosophy. Although it's probably not one to which you, personally, subscribe.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 11:52:33 AM · #635 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know you guys are just debating though, because I can't imagine that either of you (spazmo or Shannon) truly live in a world devoid of philosophy. |
The answers I gave for science's answer to the "Why am I here?" and "Who am I?" questions do reflect a philosophy. Although it's probably not one to which you, personally, subscribe. |
No, I'm not interested in making you see the world through my eyes exactly. I'm more interested in the larger debate about the role of science and the role of philosophy (or faith). How about answers to "Should I do this?" or "Is this moral?" Can science get at these? |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 12:06:02 PM · #636 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know you guys are just debating though, because I can't imagine that either of you (spazmo or Shannon) truly live in a world devoid of philosophy. |
The answers I gave for science's answer to the "Why am I here?" and "Who am I?" questions do reflect a philosophy. Although it's probably not one to which you, personally, subscribe. |
No, I'm not interested in making you see the world through my eyes exactly. I'm more interested in the larger debate about the role of science and the role of philosophy (or faith). How about answers to "Should I do this?" or "Is this moral?" Can science get at these? |
The problem is that you are equating philosophy with faith. They are not the same thing. Science can have a part in philosophy, for that matter, so can faith, but that fact does not make either one philosophy. Philosophy does not require faith or science to exist. Answering the question regarding right or wrong truthfully doesn't either.
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 12:08:27. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 12:37:54 PM · #637 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He further contends that Science takes on faith that the answer does not involve a Supreme Being. |
I don't recall reading that in the article. Please point it out. In any event, it is an oxymoron to not believe the unscientific claim of something "on faith". For example, I don't take it on faith that a giant turtle does not support the universe. Rather, in order for such a preposterous claim to even begin to make any sense to me, it's going to have to be tangibly demonstrated that it in fact does. |
It was in the bolded text and it was implied, but I am fairly confident of the implication. "it only means we don't have the answer (but we firmly believe the answer will fall in the scientific domain)." I know enough scientists to know that implication was firmly there. |
Personally I think it's an unfounded assumption, and I'm not inclined to let you get away with it merely because you "know a lot of scientists". In any event, it remains an oxymoron. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 12:39:18 PM · #638 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
The problem is that you are equating philosophy with faith. They are not the same thing. Science can have a part in philosophy, for that matter, so can faith, but that fact does not make either one philosophy. Philosophy does not require faith or science to exist. Answering the question regarding right or wrong truthfully doesn't either. |
Theology is a subset of philosophy as physics is a subset of science. I'm just taking baby steps here. I've run across too many people online who are so thoroughly entrenched in science that they believe that all knowledge and wisdom falls under its domain. I'm pointing out this isn't true. If you don't feel it's true either, then just say so and we can be agreed. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 12:41:36 PM · #639 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Personally I think it's an unfounded assumption, and I'm not inclined to let you get away with it merely because you "know a lot of scientists". In any event, it remains an oxymoron. |
Are you refering to Coyne's quote as an oxymoron or something else? I'm not clear. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 12:44:47 PM · #640 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Theology is a subset of philosophy as physics is a subset of science. |
BZZZT! Theology rests on faith. Philosophy rests on reason. They are not equivalent or subsets of one another. From good ol' Wikipedia:" Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial... it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy." If anything, philosophy was the precursor to scientific method, and often at odds with theology (as Socrates would attest).
Nice try, though. ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 12:50:15. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 12:52:30 PM · #641 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Theology is a subset of philosophy as physics is a subset of science. |
BZZZT! Theology rests on faith. Philosophy rests on reason. They are not equivalent or subsets of one another. From good ol' Wikipedia:" Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial... it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy." If anything, philosophy was the precursor to scientific method, and often at odds with theology (as Socrates would attest).
Nice try, though. ;-) |
I thoroughly disagree. Philosophy is the study of knowledge. Theology is the study of knowledge about God (or gods or whatever).
Check out your definition in the dictionary:
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.
1 and 2 sound like philosophy to me.
But you go on to really hit on my ultimate point (and Davies'). Certain branches of science, such as cosmology, ultimately rest on assumptions (I think that's the scientific term for faith). In other words, certain concepts such as origins, while sounding like they fall within the domain of science, do not. It is entirely possible their answer is completely unanswerable by the scientific method (be it the multiverse or a supreme being as the root for our Goldilocks universe).
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 12:57:02. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 01:13:30 PM · #642 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How about answers to "Should I do this?" or "Is this moral?" Can science get at these? |
There are no general or universal answers to these questions in theology either, as the answers seems to depend on the particular brand of theology invoked, and the political environment in which it's practiced.
However, applying scientific principles can certainly help bring fairness and rationality to some social issues, as in applying equal penalties for similar offenses, such as the recent revision in the wildly unequal sentencing laws regarding powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine, for which there was no medical or scientific rationale. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 01:17:06 PM · #643 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Philosophy is the study of knowledge. Theology is the study of knowledge about God (or gods or whatever). |
Philosophy is the study of knowledge. Theology is the study of belief. Believing is something does not make it knowledge. There's an interesting article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about villagers near Calcutta who "know" the only cure for a cobra bite is a ritual performed by a local priest, and that seeing a doctor will surely kill you. Amazing. :-/ |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 01:24:28 PM · #644 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Personally I think it's an unfounded assumption, and I'm not inclined to let you get away with it merely because you "know a lot of scientists". In any event, it remains an oxymoron. |
Are you refering to Coyne's quote as an oxymoron or something else? I'm not clear. |
Originally posted by Louis:
...it is an oxymoron to not believe the unscientific claim of something "on faith". |
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 01:32:22 PM · #645 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Certain branches of science, such as cosmology, ultimately rest on assumptions (I think that's the scientific term for faith). |
I'm gonna have to disagree with that one, too. I can't think of any branch of science that RESTS on faith. Cosmology doesn't start with a Big Bang origin and work from there. We observe all galaxies expanding away from us, and draw the logical conclusion that they must have originated at a common point. All evidence, from physics models to observed background radiation matching predictions, confirms that conclusion, so to call it faith (implying pure conjecture) would be a gross exaggeration. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 01:51:54 PM · #646 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Theology is a subset of philosophy as physics is a subset of science. |
BZZZT! Theology rests on faith. Philosophy rests on reason. They are not equivalent or subsets of one another. From good ol' Wikipedia:" Though no single definition of philosophy is uncontroversial... it is generally agreed that philosophy is a method, rather than a set of claims, propositions, or theories. Its investigations are based upon rational thinking, striving to make no unexamined assumptions and no leaps based on faith or pure analogy." If anything, philosophy was the precursor to scientific method, and often at odds with theology (as Socrates would attest).
Nice try, though. ;-) |
I thoroughly disagree. Philosophy is the study of knowledge. Theology is the study of knowledge about God (or gods or whatever).
Check out your definition in the dictionary:
1. The study of the nature of God and religious truth; rational inquiry into religious questions.
2. A system or school of opinions concerning God and religious questions: Protestant theology; Jewish theology.
3. A course of specialized religious study usually at a college or seminary.
1 and 2 sound like philosophy to me.
But you go on to really hit on my ultimate point (and Davies'). Certain branches of science, such as cosmology, ultimately rest on assumptions (I think that's the scientific term for faith). In other words, certain concepts such as origins, while sounding like they fall within the domain of science, do not. It is entirely possible their answer is completely unanswerable by the scientific method (be it the multiverse or a supreme being as the root for our Goldilocks universe). |
Philosophy is the study of knowledge based in reason it requires no faith. Theology requires faith, the belief in something that flies in the face of reason. To accept theology as truth, reason, the foundation of philosophy, must be set aside.
Scientific assumptions are not blind faith, they are based in reason, observation and known fact. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 01:53:34 PM · #647 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
However, applying scientific principles can certainly help bring fairness and rationality to some social issues, as in applying equal penalties for similar offenses, such as the recent revision in the wildly unequal sentencing laws regarding powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine, for which there was no medical or scientific rationale. |
Don't really know much about that one, do you?
World of difference, and the degrees that crack is worse are night and day with its powdered originator.
It is absolutely worse, and both the purveyors and users of crack stoop to unbelievable levels not generally even remotely consideed in the others' world.
|
|
|
|
11/26/2007 01:59:32 PM · #648 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
However, applying scientific principles can certainly help bring fairness and rationality to some social issues, as in applying equal penalties for similar offenses, such as the recent revision in the wildly unequal sentencing laws regarding powder cocaine vs. crack cocaine, for which there was no medical or scientific rationale. |
Don't really know much about that one, do you?
World of difference, and the degrees that crack is worse are night and day with its powdered originator.
It is absolutely worse, and both the purveyors and users of crack stoop to unbelievable levels not generally even remotely consideed in the others' world. |
Hmmmmmm. I totally disagree.
There's little or no chemical difference between the two drugs.
Other than the predominant race and economic status of the offenders involved there really is little difference between what a crack addict and a powder cocaine addict will stoop to. Both would likely sell their kids for a fix.
Message edited by author 2007-11-26 14:52:52. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 02:32:17 PM · #649 |
OK, this is the point where I take a step back and decide, hmmm, do I really want to do this again? We've had this argument before with the exact same people (well I can't remember is spaz was there, but Louis and Shannon were).
I'll just throw a few things out and we'll see where this goes.
1) Belief does not need to be irrational. Belief in God does not need to be irrational either. One can conclude a Supreme Being exists based on rational argument. (No, I'm not saying these arguments are unassailable, just rational.)
2) Arguing about whether or not theology counts as a branch of philosophy is not worth our time. We're just using the world differently. You use it to mean anything which you consider irrational regarding religion. I use it to mean only the rational parts. We're both picking and choosing. Let's just move on.
3) Science does not start with faith, as Shannon states, but it does ultimately move that direction. We have problems which we do not have scientific answers for (the strong anthropic principle, for example). We (as scientists), assume (or take on faith), the answer will fall within the scientific domain and keep looking for it. I don't think this is bad, I just take it as it is, a worldview which one chooses to believe. My best analogy (which I've used before), is to consider truth to be like a quarry of sand. We dig as we discover scientific truth. If we dig deep enough we will get to the answer for whatever problem we are exploring. We assume (on faith) that there is not an impregnable barrier of concrete between us and the answer. It is possible the barrier truly exists. If we take the anthropic principle as an example we assume that if we work hard enough we will understand why our universe seems suited for life. Others have started to abandon that idea and utilize principles such as the multiverse or a supreme being. Both of those concepts assume that impregnable barrier exists. It seems like futilistic thinking, but it may still be the truth. |
|
|
|
11/26/2007 02:35:08 PM · #650 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Philosophy is the study of knowledge based in reason it requires no faith. Theology requires faith, the belief in something that flies in the face of reason. To accept theology as truth, reason, the foundation of philosophy, must be set aside. |
This is not correct. The best definition I have seen of Theology is this: "the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth"
Note "rational" and "systematic", both of which terms are definitive of modern approaches to theology.
R.
|
|
