Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Feser - Problems with his view of science and religion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Feser - Problems with his view of science and religion

    Dr. Edward Feser is considered one of the prominent Theologians of contemporary Christianity. He has recently published Scholastic Metaphysics where provides considerable detail concerning his view of the problems of the relationship between science and Religion. In this explanation he attacks atheism, but unfortunately misuses science in this misdirected attack. The following is from an interview with Dr. Feser. His unfortunate use of the concept of 'Scientism' further clouds the issues. I believe he makes some of the similar mistakes as Plantinga makes concerning a theological view of science.

    BRANDON: You spend several pages engaging scientism. How do you define this notoriously controversial term? Why is scientism popular today, and why do you think it's self-defeating?

    Source: http://www.strangenotions.com/scholasticism-vs-scientism-an-interview-with-dr-edward-feser/



    DR. EDWARD FESER: This too is addressed in the book at length. Briefly, scientism is the view that science alone gives us knowledge of reality. Of course, that just raises the question of what we mean by “science.” One problem with scientism is that if you define “science” narrowly -- so that it includes physics and chemistry, say, but not philosophy or theology -- then scientism ends up being self-refuting, because it is not itself a scientific claim but a philosophical one. On the other hand, if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology, or pretty much anything else adherents of scientism want to be able to dismiss without a hearing as “unscientific.”

    A second problem with scientism is that science cannot in principle give us a complete description of the world, both because science takes for granted certain assumptions it cannot justify in a non-circular fashion (such as that perception is reliable, that there is order in the world that is really there and not just projected onto it by the mind, etc.), and because the methods of science of their nature can obscure as much as they reveal. For example, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell -- who was no friend of Scholasticism or of religion -- often emphasized, the methods of physics give us only the abstract mathematical structure of physical reality, but do not and cannot tell us the intrinsic nature of whatever is the underlying reality that has that structure.

    A third problem is science cannot in principle provide a complete explanation of the phenomena it describes. Science explains things by tracing them down to ever deeper laws of nature. But what it cannot tell you is what a “law of nature” is in the first place and why it operates. It really is amazing how unreflectively atheists and advocates of scientism appeal to the notion of “laws,” given how deeply philosophically problematic the very notion is. Earlier generations of scientists were aware of the philosophical puzzles raised by the nature of scientific explanation, and some contemporary scientists (such as Paul Davies) are also sensitive to the puzzles raised by the very idea of a “law of nature” (which is actually a holdover from an idiosyncratic theology to which Descartes and Newton were committed, but which Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophers reject just as much as atheists do).

    But most contemporary scientists tend not to have the general education that figures of the generation of Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg did. They don’t know philosophy well, and they also don’t know what they don’t know. This goes double for the more aggressively atheistic ones among them -- people like Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. Hence they repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them.

    Anyway, the main reason scientism has the following it does is probably that people are, quite rightly, impressed with the technological and predictive successes of modern science. The trouble is that this simply gives us no reason whatsoever to believe scientism -- that is to say, it gives us no reason to believe that science alone gives us knowledge. To draw that conclusion you need to assume that if something is real, then it will be susceptible of a precise mathematical description that will make strict prediction and technological application possible. Now that is itself a philosophical or metaphysical assumption, not a scientific one. But it is also an assumption that there is not only no reason to believe, but decisive reason to reject, as I argue in the book.

    What the mathematically-oriented methods of modern physics do is to focus on those aspects of nature which can be strictly predicted and controlled and to ignore anything that doesn’t fit that method. As a result, physics tends brilliantly to uncover those aspects of reality that fit that method, and which can therefore be exploited technologically. But it simply does not follow that there are no other aspects of reality. To think otherwise is like the drunk’s fallacy of assuming that his lost car keys must be under the street lamp somewhere, because that is where the light is.

    © Copyright Original Source



    I will open the discussion with what I see as problems right off in the first paragraph: "Briefly, scientism is the view that science alone gives us knowledge of reality. Of course, that just raises the question of what we mean by “science.” One problem with scientism is that if you define “science” narrowly -- so that it includes physics and chemistry, say, but not philosophy or theology -- then scientism ends up being self-refuting, because it is not itself a scientific claim but a philosophical one. On the other hand, if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology, or pretty much anything else adherents of scientism want to be able to dismiss without a hearing as “unscientific.”

    First, it is false to assume that many or even considerable scientists consider 'science alone gives us knowledge of reality.' In reality only some if not only a few scientists believe this. In reality his description of 'scientism' is not popular today at all. It represents only the extreme of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which represents only a minority of scientists, and the population in general. Most scientists believe in a diverse variety of beliefs, which do not directly influence their basic philosophical view of science.

    I do believe that theological and philosophical considerations are important in the 'technology and application of science for the benefit of humanity.'

    Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology. In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

    I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

    Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-01-2015, 08:35 AM.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

  • #2
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Dr. Edward Feser is considered one of the prominent Theologians of contemporary Christianity. He has recently published Scholastic Metaphysics where provides considerable detail concerning his view of the problems of the relationship between science and Religion. In this explanation he attacks atheism, but unfortunately misuses science in this misdirected attack. The following is from an interview with Dr. Feser. His unfortunate use of the concept of 'Scientism' further clouds the issues. I believe he makes some of the similar mistakes as Plantinga makes concerning a theological view of science.

    BRANDON: You spend several pages engaging scientism. How do you define this notoriously controversial term? Why is scientism popular today, and why do you think it's self-defeating?

    Source: http://www.strangenotions.com/scholasticism-vs-scientism-an-interview-with-dr-edward-feser/



    DR. EDWARD FESER: This too is addressed in the book at length. Briefly, scientism is the view that science alone gives us knowledge of reality. Of course, that just raises the question of what we mean by “science.” One problem with scientism is that if you define “science” narrowly -- so that it includes physics and chemistry, say, but not philosophy or theology -- then scientism ends up being self-refuting, because it is not itself a scientific claim but a philosophical one. On the other hand, if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology, or pretty much anything else adherents of scientism want to be able to dismiss without a hearing as “unscientific.”

    A second problem with scientism is that science cannot in principle give us a complete description of the world, both because science takes for granted certain assumptions it cannot justify in a non-circular fashion (such as that perception is reliable, that there is order in the world that is really there and not just projected onto it by the mind, etc.), and because the methods of science of their nature can obscure as much as they reveal. For example, as the philosopher Bertrand Russell -- who was no friend of Scholasticism or of religion -- often emphasized, the methods of physics give us only the abstract mathematical structure of physical reality, but do not and cannot tell us the intrinsic nature of whatever is the underlying reality that has that structure.

    A third problem is science cannot in principle provide a complete explanation of the phenomena it describes. Science explains things by tracing them down to ever deeper laws of nature. But what it cannot tell you is what a “law of nature” is in the first place and why it operates. It really is amazing how unreflectively atheists and advocates of scientism appeal to the notion of “laws,” given how deeply philosophically problematic the very notion is. Earlier generations of scientists were aware of the philosophical puzzles raised by the nature of scientific explanation, and some contemporary scientists (such as Paul Davies) are also sensitive to the puzzles raised by the very idea of a “law of nature” (which is actually a holdover from an idiosyncratic theology to which Descartes and Newton were committed, but which Aristotelian and Scholastic philosophers reject just as much as atheists do).

    But most contemporary scientists tend not to have the general education that figures of the generation of Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg did. They don’t know philosophy well, and they also don’t know what they don’t know. This goes double for the more aggressively atheistic ones among them -- people like Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. Hence they repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them.

    Anyway, the main reason scientism has the following it does is probably that people are, quite rightly, impressed with the technological and predictive successes of modern science. The trouble is that this simply gives us no reason whatsoever to believe scientism -- that is to say, it gives us no reason to believe that science alone gives us knowledge. To draw that conclusion you need to assume that if something is real, then it will be susceptible of a precise mathematical description that will make strict prediction and technological application possible. Now that is itself a philosophical or metaphysical assumption, not a scientific one. But it is also an assumption that there is not only no reason to believe, but decisive reason to reject, as I argue in the book.

    What the mathematically-oriented methods of modern physics do is to focus on those aspects of nature which can be strictly predicted and controlled and to ignore anything that doesn’t fit that method. As a result, physics tends brilliantly to uncover those aspects of reality that fit that method, and which can therefore be exploited technologically. But it simply does not follow that there are no other aspects of reality. To think otherwise is like the drunk’s fallacy of assuming that his lost car keys must be under the street lamp somewhere, because that is where the light is.

    © Copyright Original Source



    I will open the discussion with what I see as problems right off in the first paragraph: "Briefly, scientism is the view that science alone gives us knowledge of reality. Of course, that just raises the question of what we mean by “science.” One problem with scientism is that if you define “science” narrowly -- so that it includes physics and chemistry, say, but not philosophy or theology -- then scientism ends up being self-refuting, because it is not itself a scientific claim but a philosophical one. On the other hand, if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology, or pretty much anything else adherents of scientism want to be able to dismiss without a hearing as “unscientific.”

    First, it is false to assume that many or even considerable scientists consider 'science alone gives us knowledge of reality.' In reality only some if not only a few scientists believe this. In reality his description of 'scientism' is not popular today at all. It represents only the extreme of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which represents only a minority of scientists, and the population in general. Most scientists believe in a diverse variety of beliefs, which do not directly influence their basic philosophical view of science.

    I do believe that theological and philosophical considerations are important in the 'technology and application of science for the benefit of humanity.'

    Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology. In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

    I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

    Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.
    You've misread what Feser is saying. Try again.
    ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
      You've misread what Feser is saying. Try again.
      Not at all, read it again and respond intelligently from the text. If you object, be specific.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MaxVel View Post
        You've misread what Feser is saying. Try again.
        Shuny misreads nearly everything of what everyone is saying.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
          Shuny misreads nearly everything of what everyone is saying.
          Still waiting for an intelligent response.
          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

          go with the flow the river knows . . .

          Frank

          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            Source: http://www.strangenotions.com/scholasticism-vs-scientism-an-interview-with-dr-edward-feser/



            ... On the other hand, if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology, or pretty much anything else adherents of scientism want to be able to dismiss without a hearing as “unscientific.” ...

            © Copyright Original Source



            ... Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology. In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

            I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

            Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.
            I generally agree with you about 'scientism', however this part of your critique (quoted above) does seem to be based on a misunderstanding. Feser does not say 'science should include philosophy and theology', at least not in what you have quoted, but rather pretty much the opposite, ie, that 'if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology'. Obviously he does not think that science should be vacuous so does not think that science should be defined so broadly that it would include theology or philosophy.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #7
              I like these 'anyways' some use to lead to false argument. In the following citation Feser appeals to a false sense of popularity of scientism. Popularity is a fallacy regardless.

              There is no such popularity of 'scientism' in the general public impressed with the success of science. Philosophical Naturalism is not a popular choice where 'science gives us all the answers.' Even among scientists where a higher percentage believe in Philosophical Naturalism, they do not believe so, because they are 'impressed with the success of science.'

              "Anyway, the main reason scientism has the following it does is probably that people are, quite rightly, impressed with the technological and predictive successes of modern science. The trouble is that this simply gives us no reason whatsoever to believe scientism -- that is to say, it gives us no reason to believe that science alone gives us knowledge. To draw that conclusion you need to assume that if something is real, then it will be susceptible of a precise mathematical description that will make strict prediction and technological application possible. Now that is itself a philosophical or metaphysical assumption, not a scientific one. But it is also an assumption that there is not only no reason to believe, but decisive reason to reject, as I argue in the book."
              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

              go with the flow the river knows . . .

              Frank

              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                I generally agree with you about 'scientism', however this part of your critique (quoted above) does seem to be based on a misunderstanding. Feser does not say 'science should include philosophy and theology', at least not in what you have quoted, but rather pretty much the opposite, ie, that 'if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology'. Obviously he does not think that science should be vacuous so does not think that science should be defined so broadly that it would include theology or philosophy.
                Your point is well taken, but his accusation of the belief that 'scientism' dominates science is problematic. I will propose that he desires science to take philosophy more into consideration, and scientists should have more of a background in philosophy. This sort of a mixed blessing of a requirement. It would be nice, but most scientist are nuts and bolts sort and the research itself is based on established Methodological Naturalism.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                  Your point is well taken, but his accusation of the belief that 'scientism' dominates science is problematic. I will propose that he desires science to take philosophy more into consideration, and scientists should have more of a background in philosophy. This sort of a mixed blessing of a requirement. It would be nice, but most scientist are nuts and bolts sort and the research itself is based on established Methodological Naturalism.
                  I suspect he thinks philosophers can handle the philosophy of science, presumably with input from scientists, and that scientists should be open to the philosophical questions without themselves needing to do the work of philosophers. That seems to be the common approach.
                  βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                  ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                  אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                    I suspect he thinks philosophers can handle the philosophy of science, presumably with input from scientists, and that scientists should be open to the philosophical questions without themselves needing to do the work of philosophers. That seems to be the common approach.
                    "But most contemporary scientists tend not to have the general education that figures of the generation of Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg did. They don’t know philosophy well, and they also don’t know what they don’t know. This goes double for the more aggressively atheistic ones among them -- people like Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. Hence they repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them."

                    Feser's aggressive attack against atheist scientists is unwarranted and smells of a theological agenda, because despite their atheist belief there science is right on at the cutting edge of modern physics, cosmology and others. The philosophy concerning religion is not the philosophy that scientists need for the future. Favoring Paul Davies, a theist, does not advance his case as to how philosophy plays a role in science. As to how the philosophy works in science there is no significant difference between how Paul Davies does the science of the Quantum world than the atheists he listed.

                    I believe Feser's nostalgia of philosopher scientists of the past is misplaced for what would be called a background in philosophy. There are science/philosophers today that do deal with these issues. The problem is most philosophers cannot handle the philosophy of science, which requires a specialized scientist/philosopher. The need in the future developments in the philosophy of science is physics and cosmology of the Quantum World beyond our universe where the nature of the evidence and investigation procedures change from the standard Methodological Naturalism Science of our Universe. There are scientist/philosophers that are addressing the issues like Bernard d'Espagnat, and Roland Omnès.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      "But most contemporary scientists tend not to have the general education that figures of the generation of Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg did. They don’t know philosophy well, and they also don’t know what they don’t know. This goes double for the more aggressively atheistic ones among them -- people like Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. Hence they repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them."

                      Feser's aggressive attack against atheist scientists is unwarranted and smells of a theological agenda, because despite their atheist belief there science is right on at the cutting edge of modern physics, cosmology and others. The philosophy concerning religion is not the philosophy that scientists need for the future. Favoring Paul Davies, a theist, does not advance his case as to how philosophy plays a role in science. As to how the philosophy works in science there is no significant difference between how Paul Davies does the science of the Quantum world than the atheists he listed.

                      I believe Feser's nostalgia of philosopher scientists of the past is misplaced for what would be called a background in philosophy. There are science/philosophers today that do deal with these issues. The problem is most philosophers cannot handle the philosophy of science, which requires a specialized scientist/philosopher. The need in the future developments in the philosophy of science is physics and cosmology of the Quantum World beyond our universe where the nature of the evidence and investigation procedures change from the standard Methodological Naturalism Science of our Universe. There are scientist/philosophers that are addressing the issues like Bernard d'Espagnat, and Roland Omnès.
                      I have no doubt that Feser has a theological agenda, but then again so do you, in your belief that the Baha'i faith provides some kind of guidance to the modern world of science and technology, right? I've yet to see you quote Feser criticizing the quality of scientific work of atheist scientists so it seems kind of out of place for you to protest that 'there is no significant difference between how Paul Davies does the science of the Quantum world and the atheists he listed'. Does Feser say anywhere that atheist scientists do poorer quality science than theist scientists? That would indeed surprise me. It seems to me that he is criticizing the philosophical positions of some atheist scientists, right? As for his nostalgia for Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg, I see nothing wrong with advocating the value of a "general education". Do you yourself agree with the philosophical worldviews of Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne? If you did not, would it not also be OK for you to express your disagreement with their philosophical views?
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        I have no doubt that Feser has a theological agenda, but then again so do you, in your belief that the Baha'i faith provides some kind of guidance to the modern world of science and technology, right? I've yet to see you quote Feser criticizing the quality of scientific work of atheist scientists so it seems kind of out of place for you to protest that 'there is no significant difference between how Paul Davies does the science of the Quantum world and the atheists he listed'. Does Feser say anywhere that atheist scientists do poorer quality science than theist scientists? That would indeed surprise me. It seems to me that he is criticizing the philosophical positions of some atheist scientists, right? As for his nostalgia for Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg, I see nothing wrong with advocating the value of a "general education". Do you yourself agree with the philosophical worldviews of Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne? If you did not, would it not also be OK for you to express your disagreement with their philosophical views?
                        I obviously disagree with their religious world views as I do not believe the view of Einstein nor Schrödinger, because I do not believe in Philosophical Naturalism. The difference is I do not aggressively condemn them as Feser does below, which I consider unwarranted. Actually, I believe atheists have a stronger philosophical position than 'Old School Theists.' I do not believe the 'general education' resolves the issues Feser believes to be a problem concerning the problem of 'philosophy.'

                        "But most contemporary scientists tend not to have the general education that figures of the generation of Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg did. They don’t know philosophy well, and they also don’t know what they don’t know. This goes double for the more aggressively atheistic ones among them -- people like Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. Hence they repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them."

                        I personally approve more of the middle ground of agnosticism, like Einstein, where there is a better objective understanding of the extreme theological and philosophical views such as Old School Traditional Theism and Atheism.

                        I am not sure why Feser considers Schrödinger any different from the other atheists he lists. His philosophy concerning religion, science and how science works is no different. Heisenberg is his only ally as Christian physicist, but again his view toward science was 'Methodological Naturalism,' not significantly different than the atheists Feser lists, Einstein and Schrödinger.
                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-01-2015, 09:55 PM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Ok, I have time for a longer reply...

                          Firstly, you need to be very clear about the difference between 'science' and 'scientism' (which Feser defines in your citation) - they are not the same thing, and he is not arguing against science in some general manner, but against scientism. I think you may have conflated the two

                          Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                          I will open the discussion with what I see as problems right off in the first paragraph: "Briefly, scientism is the view that science alone gives us knowledge of reality. Of course, that just raises the question of what we mean by “science.” One problem with scientism is that if you define “science” narrowly -- so that it includes physics and chemistry, say, but not philosophy or theology -- then scientism ends up being self-refuting, because it is not itself a scientific claim but a philosophical one. On the other hand, if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology, or pretty much anything else adherents of scientism want to be able to dismiss without a hearing as “unscientific.”

                          First, it is false to assume that many or even considerable scientists consider 'science alone gives us knowledge of reality.' In reality only some if not only a few scientists believe this. In reality his description of 'scientism' is not popular today at all. It represents only the extreme of 'Philosophical Naturalism,' which represents only a minority of scientists, and the population in general. Most scientists believe in a diverse variety of beliefs, which do not directly influence their basic philosophical view of science.

                          Feser doesn't say what you argue against here (in the bolded above). In what you've quoted, and in his chapter on science in Scholastic Metaphysics, AFAICT he makes no claim about how many scientists hold to scientism. So you're attacking a straw man here.



                          Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                          I do believe that theological and philosophical considerations are important in the 'technology and application of science for the benefit of humanity.'

                          Second, he makes the statement that science should include philosophy and theology.

                          No he doesn't. Here is the relevant portion.

                          Originally posted by Feser
                          One problem with scientism is that if you define “science” narrowly -- so that it includes physics and chemistry, say, but not philosophy or theology -- then scientism ends up being self-refuting, because it is not itself a scientific claim but a philosophical one. On the other hand, if you define “science” broadly enough so that it avoids being self-refuting, then it becomes vacuous, because it now no longer rules out philosophy, theology, or pretty much anything else adherents of scientism want to be able to dismiss without a hearing as “unscientific.”

                          Note that he is comparing two hypothetical definitions of science that a proponent of scientism might use, and pointing out that they are both problematic for that position. Feser is not stating his own position, but giving possible positions of someone who holds to scientism.



                          Originally posted by Shunyadragon
                          In reality science is based on the philosophy of science that has evolved over the centuries on dealing with the nature of 'How science can best interpret and understand the nature of our physical existence. Over the years philosophers like Popper have contributed to the 'Philosophy of Science.'

                          I do not see any constructive contribution for the advancement of science in the writings of the ancient philosophers, nor theologians. Many contemporary Christian Theologians including Feser and Plantinga offer nothing constructive toward advancing the independent Investigation of Truth in science.

                          Third, including Theology in science is dangerous turf. The foundation of science is 'Methodological Naturalism,' which fortunately does not make any theological assumptions nor 'belief' considerations in science. This separation includes the rejection of any assumptions of atheism, nor the existence nor non-existence of Gods.
                          Again, the bolded above is not something Feser is arguing for in what you cited. (Nor anywhere else, AFAIK). He is arguing that scientists should be aware of the need for an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of their own worldview before making pronouncements on what science can tell us about all of reality.

                          Also, he is not attacking 'atheist scientists' as a group, but people who use science credentials or background as a platform for making poorly informed public attacks on things that they don't know enough about or for making broad philosophical claims that science doesn't by itself show to be true - people like Coyne, Krauss, Rosenberg, Dawkins and so on.


                          Happy now? You've mischaracterized all that Feser said, and triggered by his use of your pet word 'science', pumped out an attack on a straw Feser.

                          Now try again.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I am not sure why Feser considers Schrödinger any different from the other atheists he lists. His philosophy concerning religion, science and how science works is no different. Heisenberg is his only ally as Christian physicist, but again his view toward science was 'Methodological Naturalism,' not significantly different than the atheists Feser lists, Einstein and Schrödinger.
                            He says it right in your citation.

                            Originally posted by Feser
                            But most contemporary scientists tend not to have the general education that figures of the generation of Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg did. They don’t know philosophy well, and they also don’t know what they don’t know. This goes double for the more aggressively atheistic ones among them -- people like Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. Hence they repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them.
                            (1) They don't have the general education that Schrödinger et al had. (This would presumably include studying things like philosophy, logic, and classic works.)

                            (2) They don't know philosophy well (Schrödinger et al had a better understanding)

                            (3) They lack intellectual humility - especially 'the more aggressively atheistic ones'.

                            You can disagree with Feser's reasons or reasoning, but to say that you are not sure why he "...considers Schrödinger any different from the other atheists he lists." shows that you lack basic reading skills, since Feser says why, right in the text you cited.
                            ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              I obviously disagree with their religious world views as I do not believe the view of Einstein nor Schrödinger, because I do not believe in Philosophical Naturalism. The difference is I do not aggressively condemn them as Feser does below, which I consider unwarranted. Actually, I believe atheists have a stronger philosophical position than 'Old School Theists.' I do not believe the 'general education' resolves the issues Feser believes to be a problem concerning the problem of 'philosophy.'

                              "But most contemporary scientists tend not to have the general education that figures of the generation of Einstein, Schrödinger, and Heisenberg did. They don’t know philosophy well, and they also don’t know what they don’t know. This goes double for the more aggressively atheistic ones among them -- people like Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, Richard Dawkins, and Jerry Coyne. Hence they repeatedly commit very crude philosophical mistakes but also refuse to listen or respond when these mistakes are pointed out to them."

                              I personally approve more of the middle ground of agnosticism, like Einstein, where there is a better objective understanding of the extreme theological and philosophical views such as Old School Traditional Theism and Atheism.

                              I am not sure why Feser considers Schrödinger any different from the other atheists he lists. His philosophy concerning religion, science and how science works is no different. Heisenberg is his only ally as Christian physicist, but again his view toward science was 'Methodological Naturalism,' not significantly different than the atheists Feser lists, Einstein and Schrödinger.
                              So it seems you agree that Feser is not criticizing the quality of scientific work of atheist scientists, correct?
                              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                              160 responses
                              508 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post JimL
                              by JimL
                               
                              Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                              88 responses
                              354 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                              21 responses
                              133 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X