superluminal said:
I beg to differ.
Religion: Proposition - There is an actual god(s) (not a psychological construct)with the following attributes... Bla, bla, bla... Do some tests and measurements... Nope. Postulate unsupported. Toss postulate.
Morality: Proposition - Morality stems from evolutionary roots and is part of many other species. Do some comparitive studies on other species, pose moral "tests" of other species (been done). Observe moral development across species... Likely. Postulate likely. Keep studying.
Heh
Well, let's try to answer a few questions given the specific information you have provided. (Remember, no going back to reword what you have said. Only use the 'objective' descriptions provided):
Science
Please name a couple of "tests and measurements" which validate the 'proposition' that God is the creator of the universe.
Morality
Please name a couple of "comparitive studies on other species" or "tests and measurements" which determine whether or not abortion is moral or immoral.
Category error. Bzzzz.
Philosophy is a general method of thinking, not in the same category as religion and morality. You HAVE a religious philosophy or you HAVE a moral philosophy.
Did you happen to know that the definition of philosophy you have given is not the only definition available? I think you should look in the dictionary.
In fact, simply to prove you wrong, all I need to do is provide this comment from Wikipedia:
What philosophy is, or should be, is itself a philosophical question that philosophers have understood and treated differently through the ages.
Sorry, but science is incapable too of determining what philosophy is. I don't know why we should linger so much on what science can and can't do. The objections I have raised and their like do not even meet Karl Popper's falsifiability criterion, nor are the issues resolvable by physical experimentation. I have already told you that I am prepared to adhere to your own definition of 'natural' and it's relation to science. Now, only if you are too, we can go on.
The question of life. That's pretty damn vague. Science is not about subjctive phenomena - "I love chocolate" - and will never have anything to say about the specific interactions of people. But it can tell us in general why we do what we do, where we came from, and where we may be headed, if we don't modify certain behaviors.
Ok, we will keep this limitation of science in mind then in order to give our discussion some direction.
Of course they don't. Most behavior is based on intuition and emotion, and usually works just fine. What's the problem with that?
Did I say there was a 'problem'?
"What is god": Of course not. Science already tosses the god postulate as being superfluous. Therefore questions about "it" are meaningless.
"What are good and evil" : Yes it does. Morality is a valid field of evolutionary biology and behaviorism.
"What is my purpose in life": Again, purely subjective. Science has no say. I agree.
Aah..
Here is the loaded terminology again. Science doesn't "toss" any 'god postulate'.
By the definition of 'natural' you gave me, science does NOT have anything to do with the supernatural. I would hope you understand the explicit declaration of your own definition. Therefore to say science tosses God out is to say "as being superfluous" implies that there have been
physical experiments to test for something which is not physical.
This is
obviously nonsensical and very contradictory with your original statement. It is simpler to just stick with your own definition and say science deals only with the physical. Agreed?
As for the questions on morality, surely you recognize that, if at all, evolutionary biology and behaviorism deal with the
physical (again, we are sticking to your own definition of 'natural'). The aspects of morality which Kant, Tolstoy and other minds grappled with are not physically testable - again, by your own definition. (See Encylopaedia Britannica's entry on Kantian Ethics and Tolstoy's 'A Confession')
We are always talking about science. I have already shown you how science disambiguates:
faith - Acceptance without proof. Useless in ascertaining the objective truth of a subject.
God - Proposition superfluous
good, evil - Biological propensities
How about naming a few physical experiments by which science can objectively determine what faith is and what God is, for starters? Failure to provide these will indicate that science has not provided disambiguation of them. Remember, give
physical experiments and not definitions taken from a dictionary (this is only in accordance with the definition of 'natural' you gave and it's relation to science).
(*The good and evil bit is addressed above)
Of course not as these are purely subjective choices made for subjective reasons. Which conversation are we talking about? Science has nothing to say about the subjective choice to believe in a god. Science has everything to say about claims of the objective existence of god.
Ok.. I am going to ask you for the umpteenth time.
List physical experiments by which science can determine
a) "the objective existence of god"
b) whether or not god is "superfluous"
Again, remember the condition. You can't weasel your way out and change what you said because I have you quoted as specifically saying "Science has everything to say about claims of the objective existence of god."
Ok.
I think you need to look up what a strawman argument is. The above is an analogy comparing the objective reality of god(s) and vampires.
Duh. It was an analogy, not an argument.
Heh.. when a flaw in argument has been exposed, always go back and make up an excuse. In other words, what you are telling me by "Duh. It was an analogy, not an argument." is that your analogy was not meant to corroborate your general argument (concerning "the objective reality of god"), ie. your analogy had nothing to do with your argument. We all know that's a lie because I can go back and quote you word for word.
Who said I was nice?
Anyway, squirm I will. Consensual reality as I am using it (and I'm sure is commonly understood) refers to the objective, observable universe, not ideas. Ignoring your upcoming qualia comments (philosophical clap-trap) my red hat is real insofar as we both can see it, touch it, smell it, put it under a spectroscope to determine that the reflected wavelength is indeed 750nm which we indeed have agreed to call "red", and that, as a covering for my head certainly qualifies it as a "hat".
If 5.5billion people insist that god exists, I will ask them to pull out this god, show it to me, let me touch it, smell it, and shove it under a spectroscope. If this cannot be done, then god is just an idea, and therefore not part of consensual reality.
Ok.
By your very own definition of 'natural', we can see that God cannot be tested physically. You are now just going back on your very own definition of 'natural' and contradicting yourself by irrationally asking for physical proof of something which is, by definition, not even physical. That is therefore an illogical request.
As for the qualia comment, I said quite clearly that it did not have anything to do with the discussion. This is evinced unmistakably by the parentheses used to separate it from the rest of the post as well as "but that's an interesting philosophical,
but non religious, topic." It is therefore irrational for you to include it in your polemic as if I ever endorsed the concept of qualia. I only mentioned it as a sidenote of interest, for your information. That's what parentheses indicate in the English language normally.
Qualia Schmalia.
I think a refocusing of the issue here might be in order. I get lost when things become so broadly generalized.
Umm.. you started talking to me about the applicability of science to certain domains, although I never mentioned anything about science in my original post. Hell, I didn't even say the word science.
It's interesting though that you think I'm a theist. Have I ever endorsed or exhibited anything theistic? And if so, could you quote me?
This amuses me since most people who have been here long enough know where I've come from..
I'm not at all a theist, but used to be a Christian way back in the day but one day I saw the light. Now I'm just searching for a satisfactory epistemology to wallow in, by use of my internal consistency criterion (see the ongoing conversation with James R in 'bad religion')
