The absurdity of philosophical conclusions wrt religion

[Ivan Seeking]

The Greeks thought truth could be discovered through intellect and logic. Then we found that discovery requires experimentation and the scientific method. But, alas, even for science the truth of God's existence, or not, is beyond its scope. So, given that even science can't address the question of God, why would one logically conclude that pure philosophy, which has a track record of zero successes in the real world, could be used to address questions that even go beyond the ablity of science to address?

To my knowledge, pure philosophy has never correctly predicted anything.

 

[wynn]

pure philosophy, which has a track record of zero successes in the real world

What are you talking about??

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What are you talking about??

I'm not going to play socratic method games with you. What about the statement don't you understand. I thought it was pretty clear: Philosophy has never correctly predicted anything. It was discarded long ago as an ineffective method of discovering "truth".

 

[wynn]

I'm not going to play socratic method games with you. What about the statement don't you understand. I thought it was pretty clear: Philosophy has never correctly predicted anything. It was discarded long ago as an ineffective method of discovering "truth".

You do realize that you need to utilize philosophy to assert what you have just asserted above?

 

[Rav]

But, alas, even for science the truth of God's existence, or not, is beyond its scope.

Consider the following question:

Was the 'scope' of science, 300 years ago, any different than it is now?

If the answer is yes, then we are clearly talking about the current scope of science. It follows then that 300 years from now (or 3000), it will almost certainly be providing answers to questions that were previously said to be beyond it's scope to address, as it has always done.

If the answer is no, then we are clearly talking about the scope of science in the sense of what it is, in principle, capable of discerning, no matter how many advances we make over no matter how many thousands of years.

In either case, I am curious to know how you could possibly be qualified to make statements about what does and doesn't fall within a scope that has yet to be fully defined, and may in fact extend well beyond anything we can currently imagine.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You do realize that you need to utilize philosophy to assert what you have just asserted above?

That is partly correct.

I am the first to argue that math and physics both are extensions of philosophy, but I don't need philosophy to ask for a list of success predictions that don't rely on a strict adherence to the scientific method.

It is not a philosophical question. Where is the evidence for success?

I think philosophy plays a valuable role in helping to translate the cold abstractions of high-level mathematics into human terms, but prediction is another matter entirely. When philosophy can explain ball lightning, or rogue waves, or earthquake lights, and provide testable predictions, we can talk about God.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Consider the following question:

Was the 'scope' of science, 300 years ago, any different than it is now?

If the answer is yes, then we are clearly talking about the current scope of science. It follows then that 300 years from now (or 3000), it will almost certainly be providing answers to questions that were previously said to be beyond it's scope to address, as it has always done.

If the answer is no, then we are clearly talking about the scope of science in the sense of what it is, in principle, capable of discerning, no matter how many advances we make over no matter how many thousands of years.

In either case, I am curious to know how you could possibly be qualified to make statements about what does and doesn't fall within a scope that has yet to be fully defined, and may in fact extend well beyond anything we can currently imagine.

I think there are two issues in play. Firstly, one can never prove a universal negative. So no matter how advanced science may one day be, one can never prove there is no God. While I think this point must be recognized - that no ultimate proof of God's non-existence is possible - the more meaningful question is whether science can ever provide a model for all of existence that eliminates the mysteries. For example, the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants has always been a perplexing issue for me. It’s not that I need to invoke divine providence here, but it is certainly a mystery and far too unlikely for me to accept as chance given accepted models for the cosmos. I know there are various ideas to explain this, but until we have an accepted and well-tested model that accounts for this and many other mysteries, in my view, science can hardly claim the high ground. “A miracle occurred and then we had the Big Bang”, doesn’t quite cut if for me.

I’m not about to put limits on what might be possible. For all I know, physics may be nearly complete, or we may have barely just begun. I would tend to bet we have a lot to learn. Over the course of my life, about a half century now, it seems that things have just gotten more and more interesting. Is it possible that we might advance to such a degree that even the notion of God becomes pedestrian? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

 

[Rav]

I think there are two issues in play. Firstly, one can never prove a universal negative. So no matter how advanced science may one day be, one can never prove there is no God.

Especially not if one defines God as something that will always be beyond the reach of science. It's kind of like claiming that there is some as yet undiscovered chemical element that has properties that prevent it from ever being detected. No matter how many new chemical elements we discover, none of them will qualify simply because we were able to discover them. This isn't so much an example of something that is beyond the scope of science as much as it is an example of the foolishness of making statements about what does and doesn't fall within it's scope before we even understand what it's true scope really is. Perhaps one of those newly discovered chemical elements was the one we were looking for, but we failed to recognize it for what it was because we were clinging to an idea about it that was formulated during a time of relative ignorance.

In other words, I wasn't suggesting that science could ever prove that any and all definitions of God can't possibly exist in reality, only that it's possibly a mistake to suggest that science wont ever be able detect something like that if it's actually 'there'.

While I think this point must be recognized - that no ultimate proof of God's non-existence is possible - the more meaningful question is whether science can ever provide a model for all of existence that eliminates the mysteries. For example, the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants has always been a perplexing issue for me. It’s not that I need to invoke divine providence here, but it is certainly a mystery and far too unlikely for me to accept as chance given accepted models for the cosmos. I know there are various ideas to explain this, but until we have an accepted and well-tested model that accounts for this and many other mysteries, in my view, science can hardly claim the high ground.

Science hasn't provided definitive answers regarding the mysteries you speak of, and as such I would never suggest that it can claim the high ground in that respect.

“A miracle occurred and then we had the Big Bang”, doesn’t quite cut if for me.

Heh. Personally I find the idea that the universe sprang forth as a result of the quantum instability of 'nothingness' beyond absurd, in light of what comes out of a philosophical inquiry into what nothingness actually is (or somewhat more correctly, everything that it is not). But I'm not about to be responsible for turning this discussion into yet another rehash of the many similar discussions that have previously unfolded around here many times over however, so I wont share any further thoughts on this issue. Suffice it to say that I typically don't insert such 'miracles' into any of my metaphysical musings.

 

[Yazata]

The Greeks thought truth could be discovered through intellect and logic.

Aristotle made fundamental contributions to topics ranging from pure logic (which he more or less invented as a subject of study) to the reproductive behavior of intertidal invertebrates.

Then we found that discovery requires experimentation and the scientific method.

What "scientific method"? What's that all about?

Once again, Aristotle more or less pioneered discussion of the philosophy of science, when he extended his ideas on the nature of valid inference and explanation to the question of what form successful science should take. The point being that the whole idea that there's a "scientific method" in the first place is philosophy.

But, alas, even for science the truth of God's existence, or not, is beyond its scope.

Yeah, I agree with that one. The scope of science is objects, events and their interconnections here in the physical world. I'm not sure what the word "God" means, but it typically seems to refer to some hypothetical divine entity that lies outside and transcends the physical world entirely. So by definition, it would seem to lie beyond the range of science.

So, given that even science can't address the question of God, why would one logically conclude that pure philosophy, which has a track record of zero successes in the real world

Do you use logic? Does science? Think about it.

And your phrase "real world" seems to suggest some kind of ontology, some theory about the kind of things do and don't exist. That's philosophy too. (You can run but you can't escape it.)

I'm not sure if philosophy is necessarily as restricted in its scope as physical science is. It addresses more abstract entities as well, such as mathematical objects like numbers.

But yeah, I agree that there's a major problem of how, if transcendental realms of being do exist, how human being like us could ever know about them and obtain any information about them. (That's epistemology, the theory of knowledge, and that's philosophy too.)

To my knowledge, pure philosophy has never correctly predicted anything.

Try to explain why you think that predicting things is important, without lapsing into philosophy while you're doing it.

 

[spidergoat]

The Greeks thought truth could be discovered through intellect and logic. Then we found that discovery requires experimentation and the scientific method. But, alas, even for science the truth of God's existence, or not, is beyond its scope. So, given that even science can't address the question of God, why would one logically conclude that pure philosophy, which has a track record of zero successes in the real world, could be used to address questions that even go beyond the ablity of science to address?

To my knowledge, pure philosophy has never correctly predicted anything.

Your misunderstanding is common, the question of God is certainly not outside of the ability of science to analyze.

http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2008/06/god-failed-hypothesis-how-science-shows.html

 

[lightgigantic]

Your misunderstanding is common, the question of God is certainly not outside of the ability of science to analyze.

http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2008/06/god-failed-hypothesis-how-science-shows.html

On the contrary, your misunderstanding is common ....

At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/science.html

 

[spidergoat]

 

[lightgigantic]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Excellent example of how science tackling subsidiary aspects of religion has absolutely no bearing on the essential question of god.

or as the link says ...

Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism.

 

[wynn]

On the contrary, your misunderstanding is common ....

At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/science.html

But the theist who believes that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to theism
is doing the same -
he too simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion.


For example, there are academic Christians who claim that the archaeological findings around biblical events and personalities are the basis for their faith in God and Jesus Christ, that the Bible is true and right, and should be for everyone.

Basically, they want us to believe that some old pots and documents and some conjecture about them should be the sufficient basis for belief in the transcendental, and not just any such belief, but belief in the Bible.

Or they argue that since DNA etc. are so complex, it must be that they have been made by God, and that therefore, the Bible is true and right.



Using science as a justification for one's theism or atheism just seems backwards to me - an attempt to retroactively justify a choice that was probably arrived at by some other avenue.

 

[spidergoat]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Excellent example of how science tackling subsidiary aspects of religion has absolutely no bearing on the essential question of god.

or as the link says ...

Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism.

It's mostly the subsidiary aspects of religion that are the worst parts. The simple existence of a God doesn't come with any specifics. It still remains for religious people to prove not only that God may exist, but that they know what God wants from you.

 

[Yazata]

I am the first to argue that math and physics both are extensions of philosophy, but I don't need philosophy to ask for a list of success predictions that don't rely on a strict adherence to the scientific method.

But why are you taking predictions as your indicator of success? And what's up with this "scientific method" that you speak of? My point is that you're already taking positions in the philosophy of science. Philosophy simply examines the kind of moves that you're already making (and no doubt can't help making), makes them explicit and examines their logic and conceptual structure.

It is not a philosophical question. Where is the evidence for success?

Philosophical success would be better understanding the questions that we are asking, clarifying our idea of whatever it is that we think that we're seeking, and coming closer to determining whether or not our choice of methods is appropriate to finding it.

I think philosophy plays a valuable role in helping to translate the cold abstractions of high-level mathematics into human terms, but prediction is another matter entirely. When philosophy can explain ball lightning, or rogue waves, or earthquake lights, and provide testable predictions, we can talk about God.

Now you've added the concept of explanation to that of prediction. What's explanation? You're slipping deeper and deeper into philosophy all the time, Ivan. It isn't something that an intelligent person can escape.

 

[Yazata]

Your misunderstanding is common, the question of God is certainly not outside of the ability of science to analyze.

If "God" is supposed to be a transcendent entity, separate from and outside our physical reality entirely, a resident of some disjoint 'plane of being', then what relevance would natural science have to determining whether or not such an entity exists? Natural science is a naturalistic pursuit simply by definition.

Having said that, I agree with you that natural science might be relevant to addressing purported miracles and interventions by this hypothetical being into the natural order on this plane.

While science might have considerable difficulty proving conclusively that an 'out of nowhere' supernatural intervention didn't take place, it might have considerably more success in providing an alternative account of ostensibly miraculous occurances, an account that's consistent with the observed natural order and hence more probable on its face. I think that history shows that happening over and over, and it's one reason why science and religion have sometimes appeared to be on a collision course.

 

[spidergoat]

Science can work on the problem of whether there really is anything other than the physical. You can't just assert that there is a "transcendent entity" without evidence. Science is not naturalistic by definition, that is also a common misunderstanding.

 

[Yazata]

Science can work on the problem of whether there really is anything other than the physical.

But how could it ever know that?

You can't just assert that there is a "transcendent entity" without evidence.

Sure you can, people do it all the time. The history of religion (and philosophy) is filled with examples. The question then becomes -- why should other people believe it too?

Science is not naturalistic by definition, that is also a common misunderstanding.

Can you give an example of a non-natural science?

And wouldn't the denial that science is naturalistic by definition open the door to weird things like "creation science"? If supernatural "explanations" become acceptably 'scientific', then what's wrong with that old favorite: "God willed it"?

 

[spidergoat]

Can you give an example of a non-natural science?

Not yet.

And wouldn't the denial that science is naturalistic by definition open the door to weird things like "creation science"? If supernatural "explanations" become acceptably 'scientific', then what's wrong with that old favorite: "God willed it"?

The doors are already open, that's my point. It's just that nothing has walked through.

Science can also sidestep or undermine the premises of the debate by suggesting evolutionary reasons for both the perception of the supernatural and our cultural ability to create and believe in religions.