The only thing science needs to win the debate

[Bridge]

The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable .

As I perused some of the older threads here, it has become painfully obvious that some people are desperate to prove that deductive reasoning is somehow less valuable, trustworthy or logical than inductive reasoning.

For example, a scientist may say "according to the scriptural accounts, Moses, through God, parted the Red Sea. We theorize that what may have actually occurred is.......", meaning, of course, the parting of that body of water is an obvious myth.

They start with the unproven assumption that miracles cannot happen and based on that presupposition (not anything observable) may attempt to formulate another explanation, ie. tidal movement, earthquake, drought, etc. This is a disguised form of deductive reasoning.

The entire evolution vs. creation debate revolves around deuctive versus inductive reasoning. The neo-Darwinists belief that more complex forms of life like humans evolved from lower, less complex life forms and that all life itself came about solely through the random chance gatherings of matter and energy in the correct ratios, etc. The creationists take the opposite tact, a higher form, namely God, inspired and created life. A higher form creating a lower form. Subsequently their belief is heaven is the higher place, earth the lower.

I believe science is useful for many things but I don't think science will ever help the human race overcome evil, save my soul or yours, let alone prove to be a foundation for all truth.

 

[Persol]

Originally posted by Bridge
I believe science is useful for many things but I don't think science will ever help the human race overcome evil, save my soul or yours, let alone prove to be a foundation for all truth.

Religion has also failed to do these things (except for maybe the soul thing, you can say 'I told you so' when we die).

 

[Cris]

Bridge,

As I perused some of the older threads here, it has become painfully obvious that some people are desperate to prove that deductive reasoning is somehow less valuable, trustworthy or logical than inductive reasoning.

Desperate? Both forms of logic have their appropriate use and are equally valid where used correctly. It makes no sense to say all conclusions must be deductive since that would invalidate 99% of scientific discovery and we know science operates very well. The only way you could remove the need for inductive reasoning is if you become all powerful and know everything.

The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable.

But the foundation of all knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable. That is how knowledge is defined. Science doesn’t have to prove anything else. And what is meant by true knowledge? Do you want to claim that knowledge introduced through inductive reasoning is false? If so, then you should realize that most of physics and modern technology operates very well based on those ‘false’ scientific conclusions.

But science is incapable of caring about debates with religion. Perhaps if religion could prove a single case where knowledge could be based on something other than the material, empirical, and quantifiable, then that might cast doubt on science. But to do that you will have to redefine what we mean by knowledge and science.

For example, a scientist may say "according to the scriptural accounts, Moses, through God, parted the Red Sea. We theorize that what may have actually occurred is.......", meaning, of course, the parting of that body of water is an obvious myth.

More accurately it is a conclusion based on a preceding 100% record that everything known has a natural cause. There is no precedent that indicates there is value in the consideration of any other approach.

They start with the unproven assumption that miracles cannot happen

No that is not true. If they are using the scientific method, which they must be doing if they are scientists then they will make no assumptions but will look for evidence. If they cannot find anything to support the claim then they could form a theory that explains the event through known and proven causes. The theory will stand until someone can show something more plausible or can show additional evidence.

Note that your story is not describing a scientist but perhaps an uninformed philosopher. I.e. you seem to be trying to discredit science by inaccurately portraying scientists.

and based on that presupposition (not anything observable)

But if it not observable then only hypothesis or theory is possible.

may attempt to formulate another explanation, ie. tidal movement, earthquake, drought, etc. This is a disguised form of deductive reasoning.

Not to a real scientist.

The creationists take the opposite tact, a higher form, namely God, inspired and created life. A higher form creating a lower form.

But again there is no precedent for something intelligent creating/designing something complex. Everything evolves, even computers evolve. Man is the only being we know that is intelligent. Everything man has created/designed has been based on previous simpler discoveries. If a higher form (man) could create something complex (say a modern computer) then cavemen should have been able to create a modern computer. They didn’t because the evolutionary steps that have led to the modern computer had not occurred.

All evidence indicates that everything that exists has evolved, i.e. there is no precedent that would validate the hypothesis for a God creator.

Your conclusions for a God are not deductive since you have no evidence. The only conclusions that can be reached must be based on what is known and since we do not know everything then our conclusion will be inductive.

What we can discuss is the strngth of the inductive arguments, perhaps in terms of probabaility. Yours has zero evidence so the probability must be zero or close to zero, whereas mine has overwhelming evidence and must be close to certainty.

 

[Bridge]

Persol said:

Religion has also failed to do these things (except for maybe the soul thing, you can say 'I told you so' when we die).

At least you realize the potential for spiritual knowledge exists.




Cris said:

It makes no sense to say all conclusions must be deductive since that would invalidate 99% of scientific discovery and we know science operates very well.

I didn't claim that all conclusions must be deductive, you're reading far more into my statement than is there.

But the foundation of all knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable. That is how knowledge is defined.

True knowledge. Do we know all truth through science? Your next question acknowledges the answer is no.

And what is meant by true knowledge?

Defining truth can be slippery but lets state it as being "ACTUALITY" or "FACT"....ie. Webster's

1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

Knowledge is being aware of something.

But science is incapable of caring about debates with religion.

You wouldn't know it reading the posts on this forum

But again there is no precedent for something intelligent creating/designing something complex. Everything evolves, even computers evolve. Man is the only being we know that is intelligent. Everything man has created/designed has been based on previous simpler discoveries. If a higher form (man) could create something complex (say a modern computer) then cavemen should have been able to create a modern computer. They didn’t because the evolutionary steps that have led to the modern computer had not occurred.

All evidence indicates that everything that exists has evolved, i.e. there is no precedent that would validate the hypothesis for a God creator.

Your conclusions for a God are not deductive since you have no evidence. The only conclusions that can be reached must be based on what is known and since we do not know everything then our conclusion will be inductive.

It's fine that you make those observations about modern man and ancient man. I'll even accept that we have evolved (from our earlier selves) but you have already contradicted yourself. If all "evidence" indicates everything that exists has evolved but yet we do not "know" everything; then you just used deduction to reach that conclusion, not induction.

If I asked you to commit to answering the following questions would your answers be based purely on inductive reasoning and science?

Did the universe arise out of nothing?

How does science answer the problems of the infinite and the finite?....the eternal and the temporal, the absolute and the relative; the continuous and discrete; the simple and the complex?

If so, how did you ascertain that your answer is the truth?

 

[James R]

The difference between science and religion is that science starts with problems and looks for solutions, whereas religion starts with a solution (God), and seeks to fit that solution to every aspect of the unknown.

 

[James R]

Bridge:

<i>Did the universe arise out of nothing?</i>

I don't know. Nobody knows - yet.

There's a response you'll never get from a religious fundamentalist. They have all the answers already.

<i>How does science answer the problems of the infinite and the finite?....the eternal and the temporal, the absolute and the relative; the continuous and discrete; the simple and the complex?</i>

You'll have to be more specific. What problems of the infinite and finite? What problems with the eternal and temporal? etc.

<i>If so, how did you ascertain that your answer is the truth?</i>

If what is so?

 

[Cris]

Bridge,

but you have already contradicted yourself. If all "evidence" indicates everything that exists has evolved but yet we do not "know" everything; then you just used deduction to reach that conclusion, not induction.

It would have been a deductive claim had I said ‘all evidence proves that everything exists has evolved’. The term ‘indicates’ is an inductive assertion.

 

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by James R
I don't know. Nobody knows - yet.

Another notyetter.

James R - what gives you hope, or indication, of ever knowing? The advancement of science? And when you are convinced either way, whether the universe was created out of nothing, or out of something, what will you know?

You say: at least I do not propose to have all the answers. Why has ignorance such a precious commodity? You don't propose to have any answers because you are growing up in a post-modern, relativistic society where it is simply non-PC to claim anything. I call it the 'counter-enlightenment': What we have gained through reason, we are losing by reason.

Aside from what you perceive, there is no reality, right? Then what is history? Why don't we say: "we can't know history - not yet"? We can't trust anybody - not those who report the past, neither those who report the future. We can only trust ourselves, right? Do you see how small our world has become? We have an illusion of unlimited information and accessibility, yet it has desensitized us to such a degree that we can't recognize any truth anymore. We are, truly, caught in the Matrix. Have you ever wondered why the movie had so many Christian imagery? How was Neo resurrected from death? By Trinity's love.

It's alright to be dead. It's OK to believe. Science cannot afford such certainty, because to science, certainty is death. You can't say "you cannot know", because that defies the purpose of science. You can't say "you know" because you aren't permitted. Therefore all you have is "not yet".

God is the elusive knowledge. Why does all wisdom come from God? Because only He "knows". What we know is what we see and experience. The first Christians saw and experienced the fulfilment of Jewish scripture and the resurrection of Jesus. That has become my history and my future. Instead of "not yet", all I can say is "already". It has already been made known, and therefore I know. The only "not yet" is what has not yet happened, not what I do not yet know.

What we know or will know is not even relevant, really. If your existence depends on it, sure - that is why the gospel was preached. But your existence will never become more real or more valid than it already is. In retrospect you might understand more, be able to attribute more meaning, but nothing will change.

God does not exist simply to answer all our petty questions and fill the gaps in our knowledge. That is the atheist god, the god of science - the One Who Fills All Gaps - not Christ, who reconciled us with God, and definitely not his and my Father.

 

[one_raven]

So, not being sure about something yet because it hasn't been proven is somehow worse than being completely sure of something that hasn't been proven?

 

[Jenyar]

It's neither better nor worse. It's the "yet" I have a problem with. How can you put your hope in something that can never satisfy that hope?

If it isn't hope, then you are simply dodging the issue by saying "we can't know - yet". You are putting the ball in God's court and hope He doesn't get a shot in.

All I'm pointing out is that my belief is based on something that can't be proven because it won't happen again - past knowledge. Your disbelief is based on something that will never be resolved, because you 'can't know' - future knowledge.

 

[Bridge]

It would have been a deductive claim had I said ‘all evidence proves that everything exists has evolved’. The term ‘indicates’ is an inductive assertion.

In that case, if the evidence only "indicates" everything evolved, then the case for ToE is much weaker than we have been lead to believe isn't it? Would it be an inductive or deductive assertion for me to say all evidence indicates that everything that exists has been designed?

Is it an inductive or deductive claim when science takes apart the DNA molecule, studies it, makes models of the double helix, translates the coded language contained within it and claims it somehow evolved?

Everything evolves, even computers evolve.

Was that an inductive or deductive claim? Suppose someday we build a computer with artificial intelligence that can actually design and assemble more computers. Are we to assume that new computational program enhancements will occur through disk errors, mutations and viruses and these will provide some new functionality that didn't exist before? Ha! That's what we are assuming with evolution isn't it? The evidence for this is what?

Lets assume, for the sake of arguement, everything we've been told about the theory of evolution is true. The probabilities associated with life evolving through random naturalistic coincidences, unguided by any intelligence is so infinitesimally small that it would be treated as an impossibility in any other branch of science or math.

Science is a gift of God, it's just that some of us haven't said thank you yet.

Religion and science are opposed . . . but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp everything.

~Sir William Bragg

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by Bridge
Science is a gift of God, it's just that some of us haven't said thank you yet.

Cute. Baseless and vacuous, but cute.

 

[Bridge]

Cute. Baseless and vacuous, but cute.

Thank you, coming from you I take it as a compliment. I designed that statement just to lure you out of hiding.

 

[Voodoo Child]

Lets assume, for the sake of arguement, everything we've been told about the theory of evolution is true. The probabilities associated with life evolving through random naturalistic coincidences, unguided by any intelligence is so infinitesimally small that it would be treated as an impossibility in any other branch of science or math.

How would you know? Such values are incalculable.

They start with the unproven assumption that miracles cannot happen and based on that presupposition (not anything observable) may attempt to formulate another explanation, ie. tidal movement, earthquake, drought, etc. This is a disguised form of deductive reasoning.

I'd say its inductive reasoning. We have observed absolutely no evidence for the existence of the supernatural, absolutely no evidence suggesting the ability of the supernatural to cause or shape events. From this we formulate the more general theory that there is no supernatural.

 

[spacemanspiff]

The only thing science really needs to prove in order to win the debate over religion is show that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable .

oh is that it? i can do that before lunch.

science will never disprove god. maybe they can disprove some tidbits about whether there was a flood or something, but religion will just adapt to any new informantion and create some sort of spin or story. do you really think that thosands of pious believers will just drop something they hold so dearly based on what science says?


and are we talking about God in the general sense or the christain version?

 

[Bridge]

Spacemanspiff regarding a presentation proving the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable.

oh is that it? i can do that before lunch.

Better hurry, you have a lot of information to present.

do you really think that thosands of pious believers will just drop something they hold so dearly based on what science says?

What does science say?

and are we talking about God in the general sense or the christain version?

Actually, we were talking about science being able to prove that the foundation of all true knowledge is material, empirical, and quantifiable. Why are you asking so many damn questions if you claim you can spit out the answer before lunch, I'm starving over here.

Voodoo Child regarding probabilities associated with life evolving through random naturalistic coincidences:

How would you know? Such values are incalculable.

Try Bayes Theorem, even someone as clueless as myself could figure it out.

I'd say its inductive reasoning. We have observed absolutely no evidence for the existence of the supernatural, absolutely no evidence suggesting the ability of the supernatural to cause or shape events. From this we formulate the more general theory that there is no supernatural.

We haven't observed any blackholes either, should we rule them out too?

 

[James R]

Jenyar:

I would have thought it to be a very obvious statement that we don't know everything right now. Similarly, it seems to me to be quite obvious that there are some things we don't know now but which we will know some time in the future.

Take the weather three weeks from now. None of our current climate models can accurately predict the weather that far in advance, but we will nevertheless know exactly what that weather will be in exactly three weeks time. More to the point, as our computational power and climate modeling improves, we will most likely gain the ability to predict the weather 3 weeks in advance at some stage in the future.

So, what will the weather be like in three weeks - I don't know - yet. That is a perfectly reasonable response, given my current knowledge.

So, maybe God knows right now what the weather will be like in 3 weeks time. He's omniscient, right? How does that help me, a lowly human being? Answer: not at all. God won't tell me the answer. I have to either wait and see, or develop methods to find out for myself.

The same thing applies to the start of the universe, which led to this conversation in the first place. Did the universe come from something or nothing? Suppose there is a God, and he knows the answer. That doesn't help me in the slightest. The best I can do is to refine my scientific models of the early universe until I can find the answer for myself.

The bottom line is: unless you have a direct line to this God of yours, you're in the same position as the Godless. You must search for answers to practical questions yourself. It's irrelevant that God knows everything if he doesn't tell you everything.

Now, to your post...

<i>what gives you hope, or indication, of ever knowing? The advancement of science? And when you are convinced either way, whether the universe was created out of nothing, or out of something, what will you know?</i>

Yes, the advancement of science does give me hope. Science has shone a candle through the darkness in a way that religion has never done. The practical knowledge we have from science far outweighs anything religion has provided.

<i>You say: at least I do not propose to have all the answers. Why has ignorance such a precious commodity? You don't propose to have any answers because you are growing up in a post-modern, relativistic society where it is simply non-PC to claim anything.</i>

This is a straw man. I have never claimed that we cannot know anything, or that we don't have <b>any</b> answers. We have lots of answers - just not <b>all</b> the answers.

<i>Aside from what you perceive, there is no reality, right?</i>

That's a philosophical argument. Actually, whilst I appreciate both sides of this one, I tend to come down on the side of the realists, but that is neither here nor there.

<i>It's OK to believe.</i>

Is it ok to believe anything you like, or just some things? Because if I can believe anything I like, that's just another form of extreme relativism. I can believe in my purple dragon Herbert, who lives in my garage. Why is your belief in your God more justified than my belief in Herbert?

I argue that it is ok to believe <b>provided that belief is well-founded</b>. By well-founded, I mean there should be objective evidence which supports the belief.

<i>Science cannot afford such certainty, because to science, certainty is death. You can't say "you cannot know", because that defies the purpose of science. You can't say "you know" because you aren't permitted. Therefore all you have is "not yet".</i>

Wrong. Many things are as certain as they can be in science. It is a practical certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, at the time predicted by science. There probably are certain things which cannot be known in a scientific way, and many scientists who have thought about such things would agree with this.

<i>God does not exist simply to answer all our petty questions and fill the gaps in our knowledge. That is the atheist god, the god of science - the One Who Fills All Gaps - not Christ, who reconciled us with God, and definitely not his and my Father.</i>

So, you agree that God can't help answer our questions, then, and we're on our own. Well, that clears that up.

 

[James R]

Bridge:

You seem confused about induction and deduction and the difference between the two. Would you like me to explain it to you? I don't want to waste my time if you're not interested.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Bridge, all knowledge is probably not quantifiable(what do you mean by that? If you mean impossible for our human brains to understand than I agree with you) but some things are known, and from those things we can gather that the bible was a bunch of beloney.
All you need is a little more knowledge about the planet. Having us type derogatory things at you probably won't sway your beliefs.
I seriously think that learning about animals is the best indication of exactly how wrong the bible was. How wrong the very concept of organised religion is.
If you can read the book "the trials of life" by sir david attenborough and still believe the bible than I will have to hand it to you.
That book is what made me suspicious of christianity when I was 10 and I still have it today and think of it as my bible.

 

[boygenius]

Originally posted by Cris
"
But again there is no precedent for something intelligent creating/designing something complex. Everything evolves, even computers evolve. Man is the only being we know that is intelligent. Everything man has created/designed has been based on previous simpler discoveries. If a higher form (man) could create something complex (say a modern computer) then cavemen should have been able to create a modern computer. They didn’t because the evolutionary steps that have led to the modern computer had not occurred.

All evidence indicates that everything that exists has evolved, i.e. there is no precedent that would validate the hypothesis for a God creator.
"
Computers "evolving" and the theory of evolution are incredibly different things. People had ideas, tried different things, and created them. Your argument is completely invalid unless you are arguing for a God who created us in different ways to see what worked.