Science and Theology, the sequel

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/09/2010 09:42:13 PM · #976

I'll also add from Ross' post that "atheist" is clearly not equivalent to "non-religious". We all know that. Also, no country is likely to be truly "atheist majority" outside possibly North Korea (which isn't even on the list for some odd reason) and I doubt anybody would contend is "peaceful".

Message edited by author 2010-02-09 21:43:09.

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

02/09/2010 11:16:37 PM · #977

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

North Korea isn't on the video because it's 131 out of 144 on the peace index list. This of course refutes the claim the YouTube video is trying to make, so obviously they wouldn't include it.

02/09/2010 11:29:50 PM · #978

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I am not saying they amass some "proof of God", but rather are reasonable questions that too often are simply struck down as the rantings of a theological stick-in-the-mud.

You're right they don't amount to proof. Philosophy alone is incapable of producing proofs of any kind. I suspect if someone dismisses these questions it's because of how they are being used (i.e. as potential proofs).

Philosophy is quite capable of producing proofs of logic.

Can you give me a real world example? In other words, some knowledge we hold today that has been proven to be true (and thus never false) by philosophy alone?

02/09/2010 11:30:18 PM · #979

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll also add from Ross' post that "atheist" is clearly not equivalent to "non-religious". We all know that. Also, no country is likely to be truly "atheist majority" outside possibly North Korea (which isn't even on the list for some odd reason) and I doubt anybody would contend is "peaceful".

North Korea isn't on the video because it's 131 out of 144 on the peace index list. This of course refutes the claim the YouTube video is trying to make, so obviously they wouldn't include it.

I actually was referring to the real list at visionsofhumanity.org rather than the YouTube video, but I did, indeed, find North Korea (don't know why my search didn't find it before). You are right. It's near the bottom.

02/09/2010 11:44:12 PM · #980

Originally posted by yanko:

Can you give me a real world example? In other words, some knowledge we hold today that has been proven to be true (and thus never false) by philosophy alone?

It's probably easiest just to point out that I believe you are using a far too narrow (and generally incorrect) interpretation of "philosophy". The most understandable branch of philosophy to the person who is too used to the Scientific viewpoint is mathematics. "All planar triangles have angles which sum 180 degrees." is something proved through logic (philosophy) rather than empiricism.

I'm guessing you are going to quibble about that, but my definition is quite mainstream. If you don't accept it as an answer I would contend that your statment "Philosophy alone is incapable of producing proofs of any kind." is purely teleological because you were likely defining proof as "empirical proof" or "scientific proof" or obviously "non-philosophical proof". I'm just rebelling against the notion that the Science camp feels they own the term "proof".

Maybe you can feel a bit more satisfied with the classic, "cognito, ergo sum".

02/10/2010 12:56:08 AM · #981

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
Can you give me a real world example? In other words, some knowledge we hold today that has been proven to be true (and thus never false) by philosophy alone?

It's probably easiest just to point out that I believe you are using a far too narrow (and generally incorrect) interpretation of "philosophy". The most understandable branch of philosophy to the person who is too used to the Scientific viewpoint is mathematics. "All planar triangles have angles which sum 180 degrees." is something proved through logic (philosophy) rather than empiricism.

I'm guessing you are going to quibble about that, but my definition is quite mainstream. If you don't accept it as an answer I would contend that your statment "Philosophy alone is incapable of producing proofs of any kind." is purely teleological because you were likely defining proof as "empirical proof" or "scientific proof" or obviously "non-philosophical proof". I'm just rebelling against the notion that the Science camp feels they own the term "proof".

Maybe you can feel a bit more satisfied with the classic, "cognito, ergo sum".

I would feel more satisfied if you just answered the question before trying to defend it. :)

ETA: Was "cognito, ergo sum" your example of something that was proven?

Message edited by author 2010-02-10 00:58:33.

02/10/2010 01:19:38 AM · #982

Originally posted by yanko:

I would feel more satisfied if you just answered the question before trying to defend it. :)

ETA: Was "cognito, ergo sum" your example of something that was proven?

The triangle bit was the real example. But, I came up with cognito, ergo sum as a backup. On one hand it's more of what you likely envision to be "philosophy", but on the other hand the "proof" is not as visceral as the triangles.

These conversations take waaayyy too long if you don't make some assumptions in your posts.

Message edited by author 2010-02-10 01:20:32.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

02/10/2010 03:30:45 AM · #983

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

I would feel more satisfied if you just answered the question before trying to defend it. :)

ETA: Was "cognito, ergo sum" your example of something that was proven?

The triangle bit was the real example. But, I came up with cognito, ergo sum as a backup. On one hand it's more of what you likely envision to be "philosophy", but on the other hand the "proof" is not as visceral as the triangles.

These conversations take waaayyy too long if you don't make some assumptions in your posts.

Well I never got the impression you were ever going to use mathematics to prove your arguments so lets cut to the chase. How does one go about proving something like "I think therefore I am"? Does merely stating it make it self evident? Do the right people or a majority of people have to agree on it to be consided "proven", in your opinion?

Message edited by author 2010-02-10 03:32:22.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

02/10/2010 08:23:16 AM · #984

Originally posted by yanko:

Do the right people or a majority of people have to agree on it to be consided "proven", in your opinion?

Anyone that doesn't believe it get's a square punch in the nose and that usually settles the whole debate.

02/10/2010 09:46:39 AM · #985

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

I would feel more satisfied if you just answered the question before trying to defend it. :)

ETA: Was "cognito, ergo sum" your example of something that was proven?

The triangle bit was the real example. But, I came up with cognito, ergo sum as a backup. On one hand it's more of what you likely envision to be "philosophy", but on the other hand the "proof" is not as visceral as the triangles.

These conversations take waaayyy too long if you don't make some assumptions in your posts.

Well I never got the impression you were ever going to use mathematics to prove your arguments so lets cut to the chase. How does one go about proving something like "I think therefore I am"? Does merely stating it make it self evident? Do the right people or a majority of people have to agree on it to be consided "proven", in your opinion?

Just do a little exploring on wiki. I suggest terms like "logic" or "proof" or even general ones like "philosophy" for the idea behind it all. It probably isn't worth me taking a long time to formulate a response because our difference may simply lie in the term "philosophy" or the term "proof".

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/10/2010 01:04:43 PM · #986

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It probably isn't worth me taking a long time to formulate a response because our difference may simply lie in the term "philosophy" or the term "proof".

To the average person trying to establish what is true, isn't the scientific approach not apt to persuade them more than the philosophical approach?

I read this quote somewhere recently and can't say I argue with it: "We have to believe the experts who tell us it has been, because we can't tell for ourselves".

Ray

02/10/2010 01:29:20 PM · #987

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It probably isn't worth me taking a long time to formulate a response because our difference may simply lie in the term "philosophy" or the term "proof".

To the average person trying to establish what is true, isn't the scientific approach not apt to persuade them more than the philosophical approach?

I read this quote somewhere recently and can't say I argue with it: "We have to believe the experts who tell us it has been, because we can't tell for ourselves".

Ray

Dang. I just erased my whole post. I'll try to say it again.

What you say, Ray, is true for lots of important questions we ask in everyday life. Is the climate being changed by human activity? What is the best medicine for my ailment? Should I wear a helmet when I ride a bike?

BUT (and this is a critical but)

It is not the best tool for answering many other important questions. In fact, it may be the completely wrong tool. Who am I? What is my purpose? What does it mean to "act rightly"? Is there anything beyond us (ie. God)?

These questions cannot be addressed by Science and I have spent a lot of energy trying to get people to understand philosophy and rational thought as tools to access a whole other body of knowledge.

Science has been so successful in the last 400 years (since the Renaissance) that we look to it to answer everything, or even worse, dismiss as unimportant any question that cannot be addressed by it. In the past rhetoric and logic were two legs of the three-legged stool that was the basis for a liberal arts education. Two parts of the trivium (the third being grammar). We probably sorely lack this in our education system today. The truth is the body of Science could not exist without the underpinnings of epistemology and logic. Philosophy, however, could exist without Science (although we'd be much poorer for it).

Message edited by author 2010-02-10 13:30:43.

02/10/2010 01:48:08 PM · #988

Louis has graciously agreed to allow me to quote a portion of conversation we had on IM. I am NOT trying to make him look the fool, but I do think it is an example of exactly the mindset I'm talking about. Organic, live conversations also provide much more depth and texture to a point.

DrAchoo maybe i'm arguing with a one-world guy. Do you think there are important questions that lie outside the realm of scientific endeavor?
Louis All of this, I'm guessing, simply leads to the origin of morality.
DrAchoo I'm just trying to show the two worlds.
DrAchoo some questions lie in one world. some lie in the other.
Louis Understand that I do get the issue.
DrAchoo ok. I believe you.
Louis I'm trying to answer (or understand) your one-world question.
DrAchoo ok
Louis wanna help me understand it?
DrAchoo yes.
DrAchoo help me understand what you don't get?
DrAchoo I'll try to rephrase
Louis Just what you mean by "one world"
DrAchoo "one world" means science only. All questions worth asking can only be answered through scientific investigation.
Louis I do think that. However...
Louis No. I have to say I think that.
DrAchoo Here is where I would feel you are incorrect (obviously). I do not understand how Science can answer questions of morality or philosophy or religion.
Louis It can answer the question of the origin of those things.
DrAchoo but that is quite different.
DrAchoo tackle this question
DrAchoo or questions
Louis Not really. If I know why morality exists, I can extrapolate that explanation to real-world examples, usually with the same answer.
DrAchoo What are basic human rights? When should a human be granted such rights? Are there circumstances where such rights should be removed?
DrAchoo How are you going to approach that with scientific endeavor?
DrAchoo I'm humming the Jeopardy theme in my head... ;)
Louis haha
Louis See, in Rant, I can sit in front of my computer screen for as long as I like while I compose my thoughts. ;)
DrAchoo lol
DrAchoo that doesn't seem to always help me....

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/10/2010 02:07:16 PM · #989

As Doc is alluding, mathematics is at LEAST as much a philosophy as it is a science. This is simply a fact, it's not debatable. And "logic" is taught in philosophy departments in universities, not in science departments.

All the underpinnings of science grow out of philosophy. This is a fact.

One-world people, people who believe that science can answer all questions of significance, people who rank the *significance* of a question by whether or not it is subject to something they call "empirical proof", are, in my opinion, the most dangerous humans in existence, collectively.

The tail is wagging the dog, and the dog is so ecstatic about it he's forgotten what it was like to be in charge of his tail...

R.

Message edited by author 2010-02-10 14:07:55.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

02/10/2010 02:25:34 PM · #990

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

One-world people, people who believe that science can answer all questions of significance, people who rank the *significance* of a question by whether or not it is subject to something they call "empirical proof", are, in my opinion, the most dangerous humans in existence, collectively.

One slight flaw in this......

One-world people, people who believe that God can answer all questions of significance, *DESPITE* scientific proof to the contrary are even more dangerous IMNSHO. When their answers close the door entirely on legitimate proof, that's just scary. I don't know as I know any true one-world science people simply because the reasonable, logical people I know are perfectly okay with some things in life just being inexplicable, or not capable of comprehension by us from what we've learned to date.

I, for one, am just not one of those people who requires an answer for all of the mysteries......and I certainly don't have to tag something with a theory, or divine explanation. I can be content with just not knowing.

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/10/2010 02:26:53 PM · #991

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

As Doc is alluding, mathematics is at LEAST as much a philosophy as it is a science. This is simply a fact, it's not debatable....people who believe that science can answer all questions of significance...are, in my opinion, the most dangerous humans in existence, collectively.

What's with all the ridiculous hyperbole? If we're going to talk like this, than it seems patently obvious to me that people who believe mythology is true are the most dangerous humans in existence. Believers in science don't expect the world to end at the Temple Mount, and don't organize their lives, their politics, and the lives of future generations accordingly.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/10/2010 02:40:34 PM · #992

Guys, guys....

You're acting as if ALL we believers are one-worlders, and that's absurd. Doc's a bona-fide scientist, and I believe in God but am not a practicing Christian. I'm fine with the scientific method, and so forth and so on.

No, the problem we're having here is that over on YOUR side some of y'all are having a hard time accepting that science isn't the be-all and end-all of human existence. Neither Doc or I are claiming that religion, any religion or all religions collectively, has the all "answers", whatever they may be.

So Jeb, we're not part of that problem you're describing, and I'm not sure why you're acting as if we are. YOU seem to be willing to accept that there are many paths to enlightenment. We're having problems with the "rationalists" amongst us who insist that if it can't be measured it isn't real.

R.

Message edited by author 2010-02-10 14:44:09.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

02/10/2010 02:50:38 PM · #993

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

So Jeb, we're not part of that problem you're describing, and I'm not sure why you're acting as if we are.

Didn't mean that you were. I'm speaking of zealots in general, whether they be fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, or whatever. I'm inherently suspicious of *anyone* who thinks they have it all figured out.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

YOU seem to be willing to accept that there are many paths to enlightenment. We're having problems with the "rationalists" amongst us who insist that if it can't be measured it isn't real.

I am on board with that stated so.....

johnnyphoto

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8L USM

02/10/2010 02:55:37 PM · #994

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
One-world people, people who believe that science can answer all questions of significance, people who rank the *significance* of a question by whether or not it is subject to something they call "empirical proof", are, in my opinion, the most dangerous humans in existence, collectively.

One slight flaw in this......

One-world people, people who believe that God can answer all questions of significance, *DESPITE* scientific proof to the contrary are even more dangerous IMNSHO. When their answers close the door entirely on legitimate proof, that's just scary. I don't know as I know any true one-world science people simply because the reasonable, logical people I know are perfectly okay with some things in life just being inexplicable, or not capable of comprehension by us from what we've learned to date.

I, for one, am just not one of those people who requires an answer for all of the mysteries......and I certainly don't have to tag something with a theory, or divine explanation. I can be content with just not knowing.

Most Christians don't shrug off science. And by the way, there is no scientific evidence that disproves the Bible. If you know of some, please share :)

You know, the word "science" really just means "knowledge". Up until the nineteenth century philosophy and theology (among other disciplines) were considered "science". For thousands of years human beings believed that knowledge could come from studying the immaterial and metaphysical. The notion that "science" or "knowledge" can only come from studying what is physical is a relatively new invention. This is why the term "natural science" was created. Natural Science is a whole new category that is extremely narrow and limiting. For that reason, I agree with Bear_Music. People who look to natural science as the only source of true knowledge are very narrow people due to the very nature of the discipline they hold fast to. On the other hand, nearly all modern day theologians incorporate all the traditional sources of "knowledge" into their studies. Theologians incorporate philosophy, natural science, social sciences, history, etc. into their work, and as a result, theologians are very colorful and open-minded people. The average Christian doesn't have the privilege of dedicating their life to full-time theological study, but that doesn't mean they are any more close-minded and dangerous than your average evolutionist.

02/10/2010 03:00:36 PM · #995

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

I would feel more satisfied if you just answered the question before trying to defend it. :)

ETA: Was "cognito, ergo sum" your example of something that was proven?

The triangle bit was the real example. But, I came up with cognito, ergo sum as a backup. On one hand it's more of what you likely envision to be "philosophy", but on the other hand the "proof" is not as visceral as the triangles.

These conversations take waaayyy too long if you don't make some assumptions in your posts.

Well I never got the impression you were ever going to use mathematics to prove your arguments so lets cut to the chase. How does one go about proving something like "I think therefore I am"? Does merely stating it make it self evident? Do the right people or a majority of people have to agree on it to be consided "proven", in your opinion?

Just do a little exploring on wiki. I suggest terms like "logic" or "proof" or even general ones like "philosophy" for the idea behind it all. It probably isn't worth me taking a long time to formulate a response because our difference may simply lie in the term "philosophy" or the term "proof".

I agree we have different opinions hence why I'm asking for your proof to the term, "I think, therefore I am". What makes it a proof, in your opinion? It's unfortunate that one cannot separate the mind from the body because I suspect you're inclined to believe that statement is true not because of philosophy but because you're relying on other evidence to support it (i.e. your own self awareness, your other senses and personal experiences of others). Absent of that evidence can the statement still hold true on purely philosophical grounds? I say no. In the first part of the statement (i.e. I think,) the *I* is already implied otherwise the statement would be false. So the first part is not proof of the second. It would be like saying I exist, therefore I exist.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/10/2010 03:04:31 PM · #996

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Neither Doc or I are claiming that religion, any religion or all religions collectively, has the all "answers", whatever they may be.

Jason, Johnny and others have claimed to know the answers to a great number of questions. It is in those answers where the disputes rests.

Message edited by author 2010-02-10 15:04:48.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/10/2010 03:18:54 PM · #997

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

At the risk of placing myself into the "most dangerous humans in existence" category:

I would say that "science" - defined as a process demanding testability (meaning the possibility of falsification), reproducibility and the collection and production of observable/empirical information) - is the only process by which reliable answers about the world may be drawn.

Answers (and questions) may be formulated by non-scientific means, but if philosophy does not conform to reality (meaning, it is not subject to being currently or later falsified on the acquisition of new and better evidence), then it is nothing more than mental masturbation.

The mathematics example is a perfect illustration of this. Many empirical facts about the universe were first "discovered" through mathematic proofs. As our understanding of the world advanced, our mathematical tools advanced as well. There have been, and currently are, certain instances where our best understanding of mathematics demands that the universe work in a certain, explicit way, even if we did not have the current technological ability to empirically test whether the mathematically derived hypothesis was true. However, the goal is always to derive some method by which such "pure" mathematical proofs can be empirically tested. If a mathematical proof is actually incapable of being tested then it is ultimately rejected.

Which is not the same as saying that the proof is wrong, let's be clear. It is instead, unhelpful or un-useful as without the ability to test the hypothesis, there can be no way to know if the proof is accurately describing reality - that is, it very well may be an accurate expression of the "philosophy" of our current level of mathematical understanding, but a scientific approach means that it must also be entirely possible that the "philosophy" (the current understanding of mathematics) is itself wrong.

Mathematic "proofs" - like philosophical hypotheses generally - may be entirely internally consistent, and at the same time entirely wrong.

Einstein's theory of relativity is an example of a mathematically derived description of the physical nature of the universe that only opened itself up to testing later, once the technology was developed to do so. Einstein's math was irrefutable (under the current understanding of the philosophy of mathematics at the time), but it was only once methods were developed to allow the proof to be empirically verified that the "proof" could be said to conform to reality. (It is also interesting to note that as our scientific methods have increased, modern scientists are beginning to nibble away at the edges of the supposedly iron-clad theory of relativity, and we may see an overturning of some aspects of Einstein's theory just as Einstein displaced portions, but not all of Newtonian physics.)

A modern example of a mathematic proof for which we have no current ability to test or empirical proof in support is string theory. All the math points to this being correct (if hopelessly confusing to a layman, like myself). But the inability to come up with some way of empirically testing the theory for the many decades it has been around is beginning to wear, and beginning to make some scientists doubt the viability and/or accuracy of the math itself. People are trying to figure out ways to test the theory, but the inability to formulate such a test (so far) calls the very validity of the theory into question.

So what the heck does this have to do with questions of "morality or philosophy or religion"?

I would argue that these questions are, ultimately, claims as to the true nature of the universe, humanity, etc. To say x is moral/immoral; or religion y is true/false is to make a claim about the reality of the world. If such claims are not testable, then they are useless (not wrong, necessarily - just not useful in making any reliable conclusions about the universe).

Even to ask the question "what is morality?" is to make an empirical inquiry into the nature of reality.

To (accurately) say that science does not have all the answers, does not cede the field to non-scientific methods of inquiry. Indeed, to abandon the scientific process (most broadly construed) is to abandon any hope of acquiring reliable and accurate answers.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/10/2010 03:22:14 PM · #998

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You know, the word "science" really just means "knowledge".

This is an entirely wrong description of science. Science is a process, not a collected body of knowledge.

And it is more accurate to say that all that is now "science" was once considered "philosophy." Whenever the methods employed became sufficiently reliable in the production of information, the philosophical discipline became a scientific endeavor. (Again, mathematics being a seminal example.)

02/10/2010 03:24:48 PM · #999

Originally posted by yanko:

I agree we have different opinions hence why I'm asking for your proof to the term, "I think, therefore I am". What makes it a proof, in your opinion?

It isn't a proof, it's an axiom.

"At the beginning of the second meditation, having reached what he considers to be the ultimate level of doubt â�� his argument from the existence of a deceiving god â�� Descartes examines his beliefs to see if any have survived the doubt. In his belief in his own existence he finds it is impossible to doubt that he exists. Even if there were a deceiving god (or an evil demon, the tool he uses to stop himself sliding back into ungrounded beliefs), his belief in his own existence would be secure, for how could he be deceived unless he existed in order to be deceived?

'But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I too do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all] then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who is deliberately and constantly deceiving me. In that case I too undoubtedly exist, if he is deceiving me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind.' (AT VII 25; CSM II 16â��17)

There are three important notes to keep in mind here. First, he only claims the certainty of his own existence from the first-person point of view â�� he has not proved the existence of other minds at this point. This is something that has to be thought through by each of us for ourselves, as we follow the course of the meditations. Second, he is not saying that his existence is necessary; he is saying that if he's thinking, then necessarily he exists (see the instantiation principle). Third, this proposition "I am, I exist" is held true not based on a deduction (as mentioned above) nor on empirical induction, but on the clarity and self-evidence of the proposition."

Wiki has a very good introductory discussion on the Cogitp, which is frequently misunderstood and misapplied. The above quote is from the Wiki article.

Cogito, Ergo Sum

R.