Why it is silly to look for evidence of God

[gmilam]

Isn't science supposed to be considered authoritative?

Not if you're looking for the meaning of a poem.

 

[gmilam]

Economic, social, educational etc. systems and policies are still based on scientific theories, or at least aspire to be, or people try to make them that way in retrospect.

Do they?

For all practical intents and purposes, we can equate theories, worldviews and philosophies of life, as in practice, they are generally considered the same way.

Can we?

Your total lack of logic makes my brain hurt...

 

[wynn]

CC -

I need to think about something, I'll reply to your post tomorrow.

 

[LIGHTBEING]

Economic, social, educational etc. systems and policies are still based on scientific theories, or at least aspire to be, or people try to make them that way in retrospect.
For all practical intents and purposes, we can equate theories, worldviews and philosophies of life, as in practice, they are generally considered the same way.

I can also study an Algebra text book for an American Literature exam but chances are I will fail. The final outcome will not consider my feelings and the way I equate the two.

In post 103, it was pointed out that there is a problem in how we explain things such as war, famine etc. and whether a theory like the TOE can set our mind at ease.

The TOE doesn't set out to provide answers to war, violence, famine etc any more then gravity does. Your only criteria should be the truth value of the theory itself.

 

[Jan Ardena]

What are you talking about? Satanists would seem to acknowledge the mythical figures of Christianity in a way that atheists would not.

There are aspects of ''satanism'' that do not acknowledge in form of supernaturalism.

LaVeyan Satanism does not involve the literal worship of any being other than the self, but rather uses "Satan" as a symbol of carnality and earthly values, of man's inherent nature, and of a cosmos which Satanists perceive to be permeated and motivated by a force that has been given many names by man over the course of time.

jan.

 

[spidergoat]

They are just idiots.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

This is what is so problematic about scientific theories as we are used to them in modern times. According to those theories, a percentage of the population - in practice, this means quite large numbers - are waste, fodder for evolution, with nothing more to their lives.

Are they really scientific theories?
Or are they philosophical ideologies lead by the reality of the nature of science?

Our bodies are made to work in order to survive.
Our bodies will be discarded when it ceases to be of use.
Once the fuse runs out, the body decays.
The body is connected to the world.

This can be very comforting to those who do not believe in anything other than what they directly percieve. Indeed it is becoming a very potent force, and will be the dominent one in time, if the description of kali-yuga holds water.

This should make us stop and reconsider whether to give the usual scientific theories the credence we are often expected to give them.

If we can connect to the theory, and it explains something, I think we should.
If it is seemingly unconnected, and uncomprehensible, then we can render it as such, or believe it.
Truth can't really hurt us, and as science is a way to find truth, through it's eyes, it is obviously useful.

How can one be happy in this world while believing it is allright that millions of beings just like oneself are living in misery, and that this is just what life is, and that's it? One can't.

For people who think like this, that IS how life is.
If you follow the points I made earlier, it's easy to see how we could think like this.
What you are describing, is the reality of a God-less consciousness in which there can be no happy outcome. The only happiness you are entitled to, is that which you have earned, and enjoyment of the world becomes the goal of life.


jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

They are just idiots.

Why are they ''just idiots''?

jan.

 

[wynn]

No, in most cases we'd surely be straying into category error, using "ought" there.

Or perhaps not. If we look at how some neuroscientists are ready to accept that there is no free will, or that our personalities, our "who we are" is basically biochemical mishmash with nothing more substantial to it, then there is no category error to be made, because for them, "us" and "atoms" aren't really any separate categories to begin with ...

Back in '07, Paul Davies (minimal quote at bottom) brought up from the depths of history that it was monotheism that inspired the seeking of "universal law" in physical science (but eliminating the personhood of God) so as to go about actually understanding the natural world. Rather then merely indexing its contents. The effects of which he contends still linger to this day, regarding laws (or at least those of physics and cosmology).

However, I'd regard that more recent influence (divine order) as merely reinforcing what was inherited from the Greeks. Their fixation with the intellect, of how understanding comes about, and explaining this with the concept -- the generalization, the sorting of particulars under universals. This in turn leading to the development of the intelligible world of the ancients, and its "forms". Which are really just the global schemes or rules that spatial things or particular entities obey and derive their perceived manner of existence from (the organizing "will" that phenomenal or physical stuff conforms to). In the case of a triangle, for instance, there is its graphic or empirical depiction as an extended object; and then there are the geometrical rules or mathematical description for how to produce it (which they took to be non-spatial or ultimately purely of intellectual, spiritual origin).

Whether the influence is from (Christian) monotheism or ancient Greeks, there is another driving force behind the ought: our one-lifetime conception.

In cultures that operate with concepts of karma and reincarnation, moral imperatives seem to play a different role than in our one-lifetime culture.

Paul Davies ... The orthodox position (and the one I set out to challenge in my book) is that the universe is governed by a fixed set of laws in the form of infinitely precise mathematical relationships imprinted on the universe from its birth. In addition, it is assumed that the physical world is affected by the laws, but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe — they are immutable.

It is not hard to see where this picture comes from: it is inherited from monotheism, which asserts that a rational being designed the universe according to a set of perfect laws. And the asymmetry between immutable laws and contingent states mirrors the asymmetry between God and nature: the universe depends utterly on God for its existence whereas God's existence does not depend on the universe. Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries believed that in doing science they were uncovering the divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical order.

I am depressed that reminding scientists of this well-known historical fact should elicit such a shock-horror response. As Scott Atran points out, the argument that science is based on faith is not new. Evidently Western society is so steeped in monotheism that the monotheistic world view, which was appropriated by science, is now regarded as "obvious" and "natural." As a result, many scientists are unaware of its theological origin. Nor do they stop to think about the sweeping hidden assumptions they adopt when they subscribe to that scientific/theological world view, assumptions that are in fact are not shared by most other cultures.

Not all scientists envisage the laws of nature in the theological manner I have described, however. One person who evidently doesn't is P.Z. Myers, who declares his a lack of faith in science and simply takes science "as it comes." I have found that his is a familiar position among biologists, for whom contingency as opposed to law looms so large in explanation.

Unfortunately, Myers goes on to attribute to me precisely the point of view I am seeking to refute: "That Davies seems to believe that order must rule everywhere and at every level is a stronger presupposition than is warranted by a scientific approach, and sounds remarkably theological." Well, yes, that's the whole point of my article! It is theological — but it is nevertheless the orthodox view among theoretical physicists, especially those working on the search for a unified theory. Such physicists believe there are perfect laws "out there", existing in some Platonic realm, even if the laws we find in our textbooks today are merely approximations to what Steven Weinberg calls "the final theory".

And that is the position that, contrary to Myers' statement, I seek to challenge in my book. In doing so, I encountered fierce opposition from my physics colleagues.
--Responses to Taking Science On Faith, with counter-response from Davies; Edge, The Reality Club (edge.org)

But unless we take for granted that such perfect laws exist, how can we do science at all? We can't.

 

[wynn]

I can also study an Algebra text book for an American Literature exam but chances are I will fail. The final outcome will not consider my feelings and the way I equate the two.

A capitalist treats his capitalist policies with the same regard and gives them the same relevance
as a scientist treats his scientific theories,
or as an artist his artistic principles.

That doesn't mean that the three are interchangeable; just that for all practical intents and purposes, it makes no difference whether something is a scientific theory, a worldview or a policy. People can consider something to be normative, in its respective field of application, regardless whether it is a scientific theory, a worldview or a policy.

The TOE doesn't set out to provide answers to war, violence, famine etc any more then gravity does. Your only criteria should be the truth value of the theory itself.

Science eventually cannot say anything about the truth value of a theory, given the criterion of falsifiability and the continuity of scientific pursuits.

 

[wynn]

Are they really scientific theories?

According to which criteria of "science"?

Or are they philosophical ideologies lead by the reality of the nature of science?

To be sure, there are controversial debates on the nature of science even among scientists.

For people who think like this, that IS how life is.
If you follow the points I made earlier, it's easy to see how we could think like this.

Well, I can't relate to this worldview.

 

[LIGHTBEING]

A capitalist treats his capitalist policies with the same regard and gives them the same relevance
as a scientist treats his scientific theories,
or as an artist his artistic principles.

That doesn't mean that the three are interchangeable; just that for all practical intents and purposes, it makes no difference whether something is a scientific theory, a worldview or a policy. People can consider something to be normative, in its respective field of application, regardless whether it is a scientific theory, a worldview or a policy.

Not exactly, a capitalist may prefer his own policies in certain applications but understands that it's a matter of opinion. Same with an artist....they may prefer their own principles but it's not a matter of fact. Scientific Theories explain facts, they do not describe opinions and predictions based on preferences.

Science eventually cannot say anything about the truth value of a theory, given the criterion of falsifiability and the continuity of scientific pursuits.

Sure it can....it depends on the theory you are referring to. But in every case it's the best thing to describe what we observe to be true. Does that not have value?

 

[wynn]

Sure it can....it depends on the theory you are referring to. But in every case it's the best thing to describe what we observe to be true. Does that not have value?

If it makes us miserable and doesn't give us reason to hope for a brighter future?

 

[spidergoat]

Why are they ''just idiots''?

jan.

Because they use the highly charged rhetoric of theism to refer to a religion or philosophy that basically has nothing to do with it. If they are atheists they should stop implying that they believe in Satan, a supernatural mythological figure.

 

[LIGHTBEING]

If it makes us miserable and doesn't give us reason to hope for a brighter future?

Yes, since the scientific method is based on empirical evidence. If empiricism
happens to lead to ones misery, perhaps the person needs to be examined, not the theory itself.

 

[wynn]

Yeah, along with the Stalinist

No man, no problem.

 

[LIGHTBEING]

Yeah, along with the Stalinist

No man, no problem.

That is where the disconnect is and perhaps why you keep entertaining your argument. Stalinism is an ideology. Again, I would agree that a good ideology is one that makes everyone "eventually happy". However, this has no relevance to a scientific theory.

 

[wynn]

No. Scientific theories are free to kill.

 

[LIGHTBEING]

not sure where you are going with this but scientific theories, something that explains and predicts phenomenons, do not kill. They ummm, explain and predict. The phenomena may in fact Kill.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Yeah, along with the Stalinist

No man, no problem.

Fallacy of equivocation!
Let me contribute to the fallacy -
What's the alternative? God solves all problems?

I wonder what this guy -

Would say to these -

Especially when [his thinking patterns and abilities are] -

Ain't much of a solution for everyone's happiness, is it Wynn?

Fallacies aside, only a rationalistic and a naturalistic theory/ideology has a good chance to be a fair, unbaised and objective model of reality and based on that must come our decisions and policies - the disconnect between scientific worldview and the human condition is and can be bridged by secular humanism. When people make and stick to make-believe, subjective and incorrect and wishful ideologies, problems occur [hitler, stalin]. Only a proper, precise, explanatory and predictively applicable, realistic worldview can give us the best and most accurate representation of the world and its problems. From that comes the data to be used by humanistic and humanitarian efforts to make objective and correct decisions for the greater good of mankind. Divinded, individual or subjective solutions often lead to cross-cultural problems. The only real and sustainable solution is scientific humanism.