Absolute Definitions in Religion and Science - A Clarification

[lightgigantic]

A lot of discussion on the nature of Absolutes seems to be quite tough going because of unclear definitions - I encountered this table by Dr T Singh who has a special interest in examining the paradigms that science and religion work out of and I am curious to see if theists and atheists alike agree to it
(of course there are many discussions about exactly what is the substance of the absolute truth, but this is more to establish what criteria such an absolute substance would have to meet)

Basic Features of ............................The View of ................. The View of
Absolute Truth .............................. Modern science............. Religion


1. The Absolute truth exists,
but is not fully conceivable ..................Yes .............................Yes
by the human mind

2. It exists invariantly throughout
space ..............................................Yes .............................Yes


3. It does not change with time ..........Yes .............................Yes


4. It controls and is the source of
all manifestations ..............................Yes .............................Yes


5. It exists as a unified whole .............No.............................Yes


6. It possesses the attribute of
consciousness
(thinking, feeling, willing) .....................No.............................Yes

7. It corresponds with fixed
mathematical expressions....................Yes .............................No

8. The perception of the absolute truth
is limited to matter and materia.............Yes .........................No
energy only


I guess one can argue that there are no absolutes in science, but that is not very helpful, just as religion without philosophy is useless

He explains all these points, but perhaps the most contentious for the material scientist is point 4 so Singh explains ....

....Point 4 should ideally be "yes" in both columns. We should expect the ultimate cause to determine all phenomena completely. The natural laws of modern science, however, must be supplemented by initial conditions describing the state of affairs in nature at some arbitrary point in time. This is a rather unsatisfactory feature of the modern science view, and theories such as Darwinian theory of evolution and the "Big Bang" theory of cosmology may be viewed as attempts to circumvent it ......


Any further ideas .....????

 

[Prince_James]

I would argue that Modern Science has always assumed the intelligibility of all truth, therefore, 1 is wrong for science.

 

[lightgigantic]

I would argue that Modern Science has always assumed the intelligibility of all truth, therefore, 1 is wrong for science.

You couldn't make that statement unless you are currently omniscient

 

[lightgigantic]

For instance we cannot imagine how a force can work to cross empty space and pull one object towards another, yet the law of gravity postulates that such a force exists.

In other words we can see that the law has some unexplainable features if it is actually fundamental - if the law can be explained by other laws it cannot , by definition , be fundamental

 

[lightgigantic]

perplexity

Your two queries are actually quite closely related

If it possesses the attribute of willing then it is logically not absolute, as otherwise proposed.

The concepts of thought and will are meaningless except as something that changes through time. (c.f. 3.)

N.B. that the holy Bible postulates that it took some time to do the job, the 7 days and all that.

Consciousness as a quality of the absolute is offerred as the principle that material science is neglecting in its search for a "unified field theory" (the unifying principle between all the fundamental and irreducable laws of physics)

You seem to be saying that since god changes his mind (ie he desired to build one universe one day and decided to stop building 7 days later) indicates he would be changing with time - he could however keep with the same thought (or activity) for eternity - that is his activites could be constantly unfolding in unlimited material creations, so the one "moment" of god is experienced for eternity as he goes to other material cosmos to another in an infinite number of cosmoses to experience the same moment (and being omniprsent he doesn't suffer a reduction of self) - admittedly it requires a bit of headspace to grock, but then god and the living entity are not equal on all levels- this is the vedic standpoint anyway

How do you justify that?

Science proceeds on the strength of the a priori assumption that the same natural laws apply universally, eternally.

--- Ron

But they don't accept that these natural laws are unified - at least they have no evidence that they are unified, despite the best efforts of einstein and others (that one mathematical rule from which we could derive all the other laws of physics is not available - hence the absolute is not unified by material estimation)

 

[Gordon]

A lot of discussion on the nature of Absolutes seems to be quite tough going because of unclear definitions - I encountered this table by Dr T Singh who has a special interest in examining the paradigms that science and religion work out of and I am curious to see if theists and atheists alike agree to it
(of course there are many discussions about exactly what is the substance of the absolute truth, but this is more to establish what criteria such an absolute substance would have to meet)

Basic Features of ............................The View of ................. The View of
Absolute Truth .............................. Modern science............. Religion


1. The Absolute truth exists,
but is not fully conceivable ..................Yes .............................Yes
by the human mind

2. It exists invariantly throughout
space ..............................................Yes .............................Yes


3. It does not change with time ..........Yes .............................Yes


4. It controls and is the source of
all manifestations ..............................Yes .............................Yes


5. It exists as a unified whole .............No.............................Yes


6. It possesses the attribute of
consciousness
(thinking, feeling, willing) .....................No.............................Yes

7. It corresponds with fixed
mathematical expressions....................Yes .............................No

8. The perception of the absolute truth
is limited to matter and materia.............Yes .........................No
energy only


I guess one can argue that there are no absolutes in science, but that is not very helpful, just as religion without philosophy is useless

He explains all these points, but perhaps the most contentious for the material scientist is point 4 so Singh explains ....

....Point 4 should ideally be "yes" in both columns. We should expect the ultimate cause to determine all phenomena completely. The natural laws of modern science, however, must be supplemented by initial conditions describing the state of affairs in nature at some arbitrary point in time. This is a rather unsatisfactory feature of the modern science view, and theories such as Darwinian theory of evolution and the "Big Bang" theory of cosmology may be viewed as attempts to circumvent it ......


Any further ideas .....????

I would say that I personally agree with Dr. Singh's conclusion (apart from item 7 about which later) and I certainly doubt that any christian would argue with column 2 in regard to the view of the christian God (I cannot really speak for the views of other religions).

In respect of column 1, item 8 this would not have applied much in the past as many scientists accepted an absolute truth beyond what they considered as science. Today there are still some who do (principally of course those who also have a strong faith in a transcendant God) but the number is less as many more are atheists than in the past.

In regard to item 7, I do not believe that 'absolute truth' can correspond with fixed mathematical expressions, irrespective of a belief or not in a god. Mathematical expressions are designed to show how different things are related to each other. They cannot possibly therefore define 'Absolute Truth' which has to be a start point rather than based on something else (otherwise it would be 'relative truth' and would not be 'absolute truth'). So here I believe Dr. Singh's logic fails.

This is I believe one of the problems of atheistic materialism. If the physical universe is all there is, then it absolute truth (and indeed everything else) should be able to be defined in this way.

However truth, love and many other things are not able to be defined thus.

Even more basic physical questions such as what is gravitational/electro magnetic/atomic force etc. and why do they exist cannot be defined in this way. We can use mathematics to describe their properties (i.e. how they relate to other features of the universe) but ultimately these things 'just are'. They are absolute (and not relative) physical forces in the same way as absolute truth is not relative and whilst some may argue whether absolute truth actually exists, there is not much doubt about gravity etc.


Since clearly there are currently things that exist (which are not physical) that cannot be measured and other (physical) things that cannot be defined in any mathematical sense, the concept that the universe can now only be physical and natural and have no supernatural element is logically a very flaky proposition!

An eternal existence of these 'supernatural' elements and absolutes would seem to suggest some form of 'god' so presumably as an atheist you have to assume that at some time, they somehow originated from natural physical things and by natural physical processes. Anyone out there wish to suggest a suitable paradigm?

regards,



Gordon.

 

[lightgigantic]

perplexity

My problem is rather that none of the gods let me in on what they are up to, elusive bitches, all of them.

It is all gossip, rumour and hearsay.

Maybe your standards are too high

Indeed, they struggle endlessly to make it all fit together only to be cheated at the last minute by some irksome little particle that refuses to behave itself.

My argument is therefore that the supposed universality, the ultimate truth they presuppose but never absolutely prove is a religious belief, much the same as any other, and should in all honesty be presented as such.

--- Ron.

lol -point taken

 

[Cris]

Light,

You imply in your opening post that absolute truth is ill-defined. It follows then that until you establish a clear definition all attempts to assign it properties will be largely pointless.

And science certainly has no position regarding this. Science is about the discovery of knowledge so until something is observed science will be indifferent to your philosophical perspective. All 8 points regarding science are without foundation, science simply can make no comment regarding this issue.

The issue of absolutes is something that theism likes to impose because it suits its agenda. But at this point in our journey of discovery we do not know enough to say one way or another if there is such a thing as absolute truth, whatever that means.

I guess one can argue that there are no absolutes in science, but that is not very helpful,…

This is incorrect in every detail. Science doesn’t know if there are any absolutes and makes no assumptions either way. And it is only unhelpful for those that prematurely assume that absolute truth exists, but why should it?

Point 4 should ideally be "yes" in both columns. We should expect the ultimate cause to determine all phenomena completely.

This is fallacious reasoning. There is no reason to suppose there is an ultimate cause. Again science has no position on this and it is misleading to imply it.

 

[lightgigantic]

Cris

You imply in your opening post that absolute truth is ill-defined. It follows then that until you establish a clear definition all attempts to assign it properties will be largely pointless.

Absolute - distinct from relative
Science accepts many fundamental laws - gravity is one, the uniformity of time and space is another - - you may have personal views on science but your views are certainly not indicative of the wider scientific community - like for instance if the uniformity of time and space was not accepted as an absolute then there would be no basis for knowledge gained by contemporary astronomy, since virtually none of it is acquired by sticking the naked eye on a telescope

And science certainly has no position regarding this. Science is about the discovery of knowledge so until something is observed science will be indifferent to your philosophical perspective. All 8 points regarding science are without foundation, science simply can make no comment regarding this issue.

Once again - your personal views certainly do not reflect the wider scientific community - to say the least einstein disagreed

The issue of absolutes is something that theism likes to impose because it suits its agenda. But at this point in our journey of discovery we do not know enough to say one way or another if there is such a thing as absolute truth, whatever that means.

Thats not an absolute statement is it?

Molecular evolutionists operate out of numerous absolute premises

 

[Cris]

Light,

Can you quote any science paper that claims its findings as absolute truth? I don't think so, science isn't that arrogant.

You are trying to interchange the terms "absolute truth" with "axiom" and they are different concepts. The laws of science are assumed true (axiomatic) as a basis for further study, but nowhere will you find science stating these are absolute.

 

[Cris]

An assumption of truth doesn't mean it is true, but does instead offer a starting point. Science operates within that paradigm. I.e. science doesn't assume there are absolutes - that is a healthy perspective.

 

[lightgigantic]

An assumption of truth doesn't mean it is true, but does instead offer a starting point. Science operates within that paradigm. I.e. science doesn't assume there are absolutes - that is a healthy perspective.

I can understand what you are saying - but if science accepts constants - ie phenomena that is not relative to any other known relative -how is that not an absolute?
You may call them the fundamentals of science (which plays an important role in reductionism) - dr singh may call them absolutes - but for practical purposes there is no distinction.

You didn't actually address Ron's point
- If one axiomatic truth is uncovered to be contingent on a superior axiomatic truth, the former loses its axiomatic status (the status of which gets transferred to the newly arrived at axiom) - but nevertheless you will still be acting out of the constant paradigm of a reality that innvolves axioms. - the parameters of the constant nature of changing axioms in science is the absolute dr singh is indicating.

For instance you would be hard pressed to elaborate on what the gravitational constant is relative to, but even if you could it would still fulfill the criteria established in the column for material science.

There will no doubt be some future developments of the axiomatic truths of science, but despite all the "advancement" that seems to indicate "changing axiomatic definitions", one can see that all the axioms of material science are constant, hence operating out of the same paradigm, hence they can be labelled "absolute"

 

[Cris]

Light,

Your usage of "absolute" with regard to science is incorrect. An absolute means it cannot be wrong, i.e. is perfect. Science makes no such assumptions. An axiom is not an absolute but a working position on which other knowledge can be built. As I said the concepts are quite different.

And the opposite of an absolute truth is falsity, not "relative". Absolute and relative are again different concepts.

 

[lightgigantic]

Light,

Your usage of "absolute" with regard to science is incorrect. An absolute means it cannot be wrong, i.e. is perfect. Science makes no such assumptions. An axiom is not an absolute but a working position on which other knowledge can be built. As I said the concepts are quite different.

And the opposite of an absolute truth is falsity, not "relative". Absolute and relative are again different concepts.

OK so suppose we replace the word "absolute truth" with "axiomatic truth" - what then?
How does this stand?

"Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience. " - einstein

 

[Cris]

It is the strength of science that it leaves everything open to question. The only way we could declare anything an absolute is when we know absolutely everything there is to know. Until then we cannot be absolutely sure that whatever we declare as an absolute does not have a flaw no matter how subtle.

 

[lightgigantic]

It is the strength of science that it leaves everything open to question. The only way we could declare anything an absolute is when we know absolutely everything there is to know. Until then we cannot be absolutely sure that whatever we declare as an absolute does not have a flaw no matter how subtle.

Thats fine - but still the axioms of science operate out of constants - and if the axioms are revealed to actually not be axioms, then the "new" axiomatic truth operates out of the same paradigm

We could even assemble a list of such fundamental constants of the universe such as
the speed of light
magnetic constant
electric constant
charge of electron or proton
electronic radius
Rydberg constant
etc etc

The question is do all these fundamental constants of material science fulfill the criteria in Dr Singh's chart (if we change the word absolute with axiomatic)???

 

[Cris]

Whether you do or not it does not matter since the answer to each of the 8 questions regarding science is the same - unknown.

And the answers regarding religion are whatever you choose to imagine since religions are based purely on the imagination.

 

[lightgigantic]

Whether you do or not it does not matter since the answer to each of the 8 questions regarding science is the same - unknown.

And the answers regarding religion are whatever you choose to imagine since religions are based purely on the imagination.

So in otherwords you cannot venture any common qualifying elements behind the fundamental axiomatic truths of material science like

the speed of light
magnetic constant
electric constant
charge of electron or proton
electronic radius
Rydberg constant
etc etc

Like for instance you cannot answer whether the current axiomatic foundations of these things are held to be

1.existing but not fully conceivable by the human mind (you don't know whether we fully understand these axiomatic truths or not)

2. consistent through out space and ....

3. ... Time


4. bearing any influence on other phenomena deemed relative


5. existing in a unified scheme


6. possessing consciousness

7. mathematically expressed

8. defined by matter and material energy



I am sure that this isn't the principles you advocate whenever you post regarding science - at the very least it certainly isn't the "strength of science" you are alluding to

 

[lightgigantic]

Gordon

In respect of column 1, item 8 this would not have applied much in the past as many scientists accepted an absolute truth beyond what they considered as science. Today there are still some who do (principally of course those who also have a strong faith in a transcendant God) but the number is less as many more are atheists than in the past.

Material science views axiomatic truths as absolute - and they are not fully comprehensible.

For instance we cannot imagine how a force can work to cross empty space and pull one object towards another, yet the law of gravity postulates that such a force exists.

This is why when the law of gravity was first proposed by Newton european philosophers rejected it as "occultism" -lol
Now of course we can see that if a law is fundamental it must have some unexplainable features

In other words if the law can be explained by other laws it cannot , by definition , be fundamental.

In regard to item 7, I do not believe that 'absolute truth' can correspond with fixed mathematical expressions, irrespective of a belief or not in a god. Mathematical expressions are designed to show how different things are related to each other. They cannot possibly therefore define 'Absolute Truth' which has to be a start point rather than based on something else (otherwise it would be 'relative truth' and would not be 'absolute truth'). So here I believe Dr. Singh's logic fails.

I think the Dr's point was that all the fundamental laws of material science can be expresssed mathematically

This is I believe one of the problems of atheistic materialism. If the physical universe is all there is, then it absolute truth (and indeed everything else) should be able to be defined in this way.

They would counter this by saying that they have not done enough research yet to explain everything - despite the fact that the more they research about the origin of the universe the more it seems to suggest that the origins are outside the material universe - anyway maybe one day both views will meet

However truth, love and many other things are not able to be defined thus.

To this they would say love is a molecular process to enabling the success of evolution

Even more basic physical questions such as what is gravitational/electro magnetic/atomic force etc. and why do they exist cannot be defined in this way. We can use mathematics to describe their properties (i.e. how they relate to other features of the universe) but ultimately these things 'just are'. They are absolute (and not relative) physical forces in the same way as absolute truth is not relative and whilst some may argue whether absolute truth actually exists, there is not much doubt about gravity etc.

But nonetheless the law of gravity can be qualified mathmatically - the point of the doctor is that god cannot be

Since clearly there are currently things that exist (which are not physical) that cannot be measured and other (physical) things that cannot be defined in any mathematical sense, the concept that the universe can now only be physical and natural and have no supernatural element is logically a very flaky proposition!

To this they will respond "some time in the future we will be able to ...."
or alternatively "Where is the evidence of this supernatural element (demanding that it be qualified by materialist expressions of thought (ie th eproblem is that the absolutes in material science are fixed in poit 8 - so whatever peg doesn't fit down the square hole is automatically disregarded - quite a paradox eh?)

An eternal existence of these 'supernatural' elements and absolutes would seem to suggest some form of 'god' so presumably as an atheist you have to assume that at some time, they somehow originated from natural physical things and by natural physical processes. Anyone out there wish to suggest a suitable paradigm?

regards,

I would like to suggest that the future of science lies in the examination of consciousness - inother words looking at what we are looking with

 

[lightgigantic]

What a shame that nobody had an answer to such a simple, emminently reasonable question.

Is there not even so much as an historical example of an updated axiom to discuss?

Suppose for instance that I propose that there is not one truth, but two or more laws of the Universe to apply,
and that at any given time one may actually choose between the two?

Because of what then if not a matter of religious faith, is the one truth axiom any better than mine?

--- Ron.

I guess there are further issues to examine - namely if the axioms are independant or if one is actually relative and the other is axiomatic - in the absence of a practical example it is a bit nebulous to ponder