Is science 'anti-God'? Really?

[pancreasman]

Hey PMan,

Sorry for the quick reply without quotes (just pressed for time and don't want to dive back into the thread right now).

What I mean is science is meant to be open to enquiry science is supposed to never "be settled". Yes there are things I consider to be proven scientifically, but the whole point of the scientific method is that if new evidence arises that question what we thought was proven, we need to investigate it and either demonstrate the evidence to fit or change what we thought we knew.

For example, if some evidence arose that supported John Martin's whacky Geocentricism we need to try and explain how that is explained with our current scientifically accepted model, or if it can't we need to change our model. Likewise if someone discovered the edge of the earth, we would have to change our understanding of the shape of the world (yes both of those are never going to happen....but if it happened we can't just shrug and say "the science is settled so you didn't fall over the edge")

However for those who hold the the Scientism philosophical world view, they (and yes I am generalising about the group here before Chris31 accuses me of generalising) will declare that something has it's Science settled and therefore needs to accepted as Dogma.
They have taken things which are true, under our current scientific knowledge, and placed them on the same level as we Christians place our Religious beliefs. They have effectively made Science their Religion without realising it, and made men in lab coats into their Priests.

This is why I say that the Scientism Philosophical view point is incompatible with the Christian Philosophical view point.

This is not to say that science is incompatible with Christianity in the slightest. Some scientific findings may arise that we Christians need to explain how they fit within our Philosophical view point, but then the same is true for those who hold to Scientism.

I agree with all that. I just don't know anyone who I would class as advocating scientism. Let's imagine some scientists take scientific knowledge and place it 'on the same level as Christians place their religious beliefs'. We agree that would be bad. Why isn't it just as bad if Christians raise their beliefs to a level of epistemological certainty? Please note, this is not to attack Christian beliefs. I go along with Ansgar in his notion of warranted belief. I can accept a perspective that finds Christian beliefs warranted. I'm just unclear why Christian beliefs should be regarded as superior in quality to scientific knowledge.

[Xru]

Look you guys/gals . . . . I'm tired and cranky so please excuse me.

If you all do not know or cannot understand or learn that there are other ways of knowing this frackin' Universe other than using machines to measure changes and tolerances and then read them out in digital or whatever form then you are all hopeless IDIOTS and I don't have the time nor inclination to try and explain basic philosophy of cognition and perceptions to a bunch of naturo-materio-epistimologically constipated knot heads.

Good Night

God help up from the materialistic epistemologically constipated people of TWeb!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pancreasman]

Look you guys/gals . . . . I'm tired and cranky so please excuse me.

If you all do not know or cannot understand or learn that there are other ways of knowing this frackin' Universe other than using machines to measure changes and tolerances and then read them out in digital or whatever form then you are all hopeless IDIOTS and I don't have the time nor inclination to try and explain basic philosophy of cognition and perceptions to a bunch of naturo-materio-epistimologically constipated knot heads.

Good Night

A lovely rational argument. Burning strawmen must keep you warm at night. Jorge-esque, even.

[Ansgar Seraph]

Theological claims are have a basic qualitative difference in substance than truth claims in science.

Theology strikes at spiritual issues. How are those going to be measured.

For God's sake people . . . the stuff measure by science, by instruments and recorded in numeric for is not the ONLY way information, and knowledge is gained.

You all are so habituated to thinking of evidence as a measured number you cannot see past your noses. Come on!!!!!

How do you know you love someone. How do you know how MUCH you love someone. By sticking a pair of electrods on your nuts and measuring an electrical differential between the left and rigfht nut.

No0 . . . you know it by how much you feel it in your heart. Can you measure that . . . . COME ON!

Not sure where you're going with this, Xru. We all seem to be in agreement that theological evidences are different from scientific evidences and I thought we were in agreement that the former were less certain than the latter.

Part of the problem is that you seem to be using the term "knowledge" loosely in a place where it ought to be used more strictly. For instance, we commonly say "I love you." But this statement's truth value is less certain than the statement "e=mc^2." I do not, in fact, know with as much certainty that I love my parents as I know the energy equivalency for a given mass. The latter law has never been broken, as far as we know — I can look back on countless circumstances when I appeared to act contrary to the statement "I love my parents." That statement can be justified — and I'm quite sure that it's warranted — but it's by no means as certain as a scientific law.

So when we're talking about different paths to knowledge than empiricism, you are correct — there are different paths to what we commonly call "knowledge." But we have to understand that empiricism gives us a level of certainty that most of those other pathways cannot provide. And that is, by no means, to the detriment of other paths to knowledge. Uncertainty and doubt are traits of a mature mind — resolve and faith are immature without doubt. One need only read posts, blogs or articles from individuals who lack any sort of meaningful doubt to see this truth.

Thomas wasn't wrong to doubt Christ's resurrection; he was wrong because he didn't believe in spite of his doubt. The other apostles surely lacked certainty of Christ's return but their faith was strong because they overcame doubt. So when we're talking about "knowledge," I see little need in elevating warranted belief to the level of empirical certainty or even roughly equating the two things: our faith is appreciated because of doubt and uncertainty.

—Sam

[Ansgar Seraph]

A lovely rational argument. Burning strawmen must keep you warm at night. Jorge-esque, even.

Ah, he's just cranky. He'll sleep it off.

As for me, it's high time to sleep next to a nine year-old influenza factory so I can wake up tired and sickly.

'Night, all.

—Sam

[JimL]

Not sure where you're going with this, Xru. We all seem to be in agreement that theological evidences are different from scientific evidences and I thought we were in agreement that the former were less certain than the latter.

Part of the problem is that you seem to be using the term "knowledge" loosely in a place where it ought to be used more strictly. For instance, we commonly say "I love you." But this statement's truth value is less certain than the statement "e=mc^2." I do not, in fact, know with as much certainty that I love my parents as I know the energy equivalency for a given mass. The latter law has never been broken, as far as we know — I can look back on countless circumstances when I appeared to act contrary to the statement "I love my parents." That statement can be justified — and I'm quite sure that it's warranted — but it's by no means as certain as a scientific law.

So when we're talking about different paths to knowledge than empiricism, you are correct — there are different paths to what we commonly call "knowledge." But we have to understand that empiricism gives us a level of certainty that most of those other pathways cannot provide. And that is, by no means, to the detriment of other paths to knowledge. Uncertainty and doubt are traits of a mature mind — resolve and faith are immature without doubt. One need only read posts, blogs or articles from individuals who lack any sort of meaningful doubt to see this truth.

Thomas wasn't wrong to doubt Christ's resurrection; he was wrong because he didn't believe in spite of his doubt. The other apostles surely lacked certainty of Christ's return but their faith was strong because they overcame doubt. So when we're talking about "knowledge," I see little need in elevating warranted belief to the level of empirical certainty or even roughly equating the two things: our faith is appreciated because of doubt and uncertainty.

—Sam

Appreciated by whom?

[Jorge]

The way YOU define science is anti-religion.

Science is simply an effort to describe objective reality. If any given religion conflicts with that, it's not because science is anti-religion, it's because that religion is anti-reality.

***********************************************************************

You don't know what you're talking about ... so, what else is new?

"Science" today is limited to MATERIAL explanations. Why else do you think
that Intelligent Design is regarded as NOT "science"?

Like I said, you do not know what you're talking about. The good news is
that you have tons and tons of people to keep you company.

Jorge

[princesa]

My apologies; it's been a long day. Let me try to clarify what I meant by "empirically-testable," which is where I think I tripped up; if that's not what you're referring to, lemme know.

All testing is empirical but not all claims are testable. So there are some claims that require empirical tests to determine their truth values and some claims that do not require empirical tests to determine their truth value. For instance, "God exists" can be assigned a truth value based on logic, intuition, or even taken as a basic belief. "A global flood covered the earth" could also be assigned a truth value in such fashion but, as such an event would actually be falsifiable, that truth value would still be contingent upon the results of testing.

So I would say that the "tests" applicable to theological claims are logical, intuitive, existential and historical. We can logically establish that God might exist, we can intuit that one God should be supremely powerful over other gods or creatures, we can existentially relate to such a God and we can examine history to help reason out aspects of that God. By such methods it might be possible to preference one religion or a set of religions over others, by virtue of their theological claims.

Did that help or did I just confuse my phrasing even further?

—Sam

helpful, good explanation. I look forward to reading the next 3 pages i missed since my last post. off to a boring meeting now.

[Xru]

A lovely rational argument. Burning strawmen must keep you warm at night. Jorge-esque, even.

I got plenty of straw just like everyone else around her;)

But wasn't that more an ad mominem.

[KBertsche]

My apologies; it's been a long day. Let me try to clarify what I meant by "empirically-testable," which is where I think I tripped up; if that's not what you're referring to, lemme know.

All testing is empirical but not all claims are testable. So there are some claims that require empirical tests to determine their truth values and some claims that do not require empirical tests to determine their truth value. For instance, "God exists" can be assigned a truth value based on logic, intuition, or even taken as a basic belief. "A global flood covered the earth" could also be assigned a truth value in such fashion but, as such an event would actually be falsifiable, that truth value would still be contingent upon the results of testing.

So I would say that the "tests" applicable to theological claims are logical, intuitive, existential and historical. We can logically establish that God might exist, we can intuit that one God should be supremely powerful over other gods or creatures, we can existentially relate to such a God and we can examine history to help reason out aspects of that God. By such methods it might be possible to preference one religion or a set of religions over others, by virtue of their theological claims.

Did that help or did I just confuse my phrasing even further?

—Sam

Here's a different perspective:

I see a much closer analogy between science and Christian theology. In science, we take nature as "given" and try to understand, explain, and interpret it. We test our theories by checking whether or not they are consistent with the real behavior of nature.

In Christian theology, we take the biblical text as our "given". As we develop our biblical interpretations and our theologies, we check whether or not they are consistent with the entire biblical text.

The empiricism and methodologies are very similar in the two endeavors.

[Wally]

***********************************************************************

You don't know what you're talking about ... so, what else is new?

"Science" today is limited to MATERIAL explanations. Why else do you think
that Intelligent Design is regarded as NOT "science"?

Like I said, you do not know what you're talking about. The good news is
that you have tons and tons of people to keep you company.

Jorge

Thanks for proving my point.

[Wally]

If you all do not know or cannot understand or learn that there are other ways of knowing this frackin' Universe other than using machines to measure changes and tolerances and then read them out in digital or whatever form then you are all hopeless IDIOTS and I don't have the time nor inclination to try and explain basic philosophy of cognition and perceptions to a bunch of naturo-materio-epistimologically constipated knot heads.

Sorry, but this is factually wrong. There are many ways to speculate about the characteristics of the universe, but to KNOW any thing about it you have to "using machines to measure changes and tolerances and then read them out in digital or whatever form"

[Ansgar Seraph]

Appreciated by whom?

God, of course!

[Ansgar Seraph]

helpful, good explanation. I look forward to reading the next 3 pages i missed since my last post. off to a boring meeting now.

Shout "Books!" in the middle of it and it'll become less boring.

[Xru]

Not sure where you're going with this, Xru. We all seem to be in agreement that theological evidences are different from scientific evidences and I thought we were in agreement that the former were less certain than the latter.

Part of the problem is that you seem to be using the term "knowledge" loosely in a place where it ought to be used more strictly. For instance, we commonly say "I love you." But this statement's truth value is less certain than the statement "e=mc^2." I do not, in fact, know with as much certainty that I love my parents as I know the energy equivalency for a given mass. The latter law has never been broken, as far as we know — I can look back on countless circumstances when I appeared to act contrary to the statement "I love my parents." That statement can be justified — and I'm quite sure that it's warranted — but it's by no means as certain as a scientific law.

So when we're talking about different paths to knowledge than empiricism, you are correct — there are different paths to what we commonly call "knowledge." But we have to understand that empiricism gives us a level of certainty that most of those other pathways cannot provide. And that is, by no means, to the detriment of other paths to knowledge. Uncertainty and doubt are traits of a mature mind — resolve and faith are immature without doubt. One need only read posts, blogs or articles from individuals who lack any sort of meaningful doubt to see this truth.

Thomas wasn't wrong to doubt Christ's resurrection; he was wrong because he didn't believe in spite of his doubt. The other apostles surely lacked certainty of Christ's return but their faith was strong because they overcame doubt. So when we're talking about "knowledge," I see little need in elevating warranted belief to the level of empirical certainty or even roughly equating the two things: our faith is appreciated because of doubt and uncertainty.

—Sam

God help me I lost 30 minutes of work when TWeb logged me out out after I typed so long. GRRRRRRR.

I agree theological evidences are different from scientific evidences. I'm not so sure we agree that the former are less certain the latter.

I'm using knowledge as a greater set of experiences so to speak, certainly, with empirical knowledge as a sub-set. You love Jesus. Do you love Jesus in a way any less certain than e=mc²? Maybe you could become an atheist, or agnostic. But right now I am certain that you love Jesus and are as sure as it as you are sure e=mc², at lest if I can assume that your love for Jesus is the same as my love for Jesus.

But since emotions are of a different nature and knowledge of emotions of a different nature, emotions can change. If you started to hate Jesus (heaven forbid), still the statement I hate Jesus would be a true statement as much as again e=mc². Qualitatively, then, emotions are of a stuff that is not as enduring as a true equation of mathematics (although some people say that there are contradictions at the most basic theory levels of math that make the truth of mathematics unprovable, but lets not get into that).

How certain are you that you exist? How certain am I that you are a real person and not an IBM 370/60 computer in sub-basement b in the old computer building at UCLA?

Theory of knowledge is not a simple thing. Take a look at what the WikiMonkey found at Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_...28IB_course%29

This is a educational course for children 3-19 sponsored by the International Baccalaureate (IB).


Look at "Ways of knowing."

"Ways of knowing: (sense perception, reason, emotion, authority and language/tone/symbols/nomenclature)."

"Areas of knowing"

"Areas of knowledge (mathematics, natural sciences, human sciences, history, the arts and ethics): their distinct natures and methods of gaining knowledge, the types of claim each makes and the issues to consider (e.g. "How do you know that the scientific method is a valid method of gaining knowledge?", "What is the reason for having historical knowledge, and how is it applied in life?").
Factors that transcend individual ways of knowing and areas of knowledge:

Nature of knowing: what are the differences between information, data, belief, faith, opinion, knowledge and wisdom?
Knowledge communities: what is taken for granted in a community? How can we decide which beliefs we ought to check further?
Knowers' sources and applications of knowledge: how do age, education, culture and experience influence selection of sources and formation of knowledge claims? If you know something, or how to do something, do you have a responsibility to use your knowledge?
Justifications of knowledge claims: why should claims be assessed critically? Are logic, sensory perception, revelation, faith, memory, consensus, intuition, and self-awareness equally reliable justifications? Use of coherence, correspondence, pragmatism, and consensus as criteria of truth."


Or just Theory of Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_knowledge

So I agree, the knowledge that you love Jesus is of a certainty of a different nature and quality than the knowledge expressed in e=mc².

Yes there is a very high confidence level in the certainty of type of knowledge gained by empiricism although there are those of academic standing that would not agree . . . and if one ignores the unprovable assumptions science is based on.

In psychology we learned about muscle memory . . . that fine and gross motor skills were actually learned and the muscles had "memory" of those movements. Walking and running . . . muscle memory. When was the last time you forgot how to walk or fell down spontaneously with out tripping, being drunk or whatever. Pretty certain you could get up and walk across the room without falling down, or forgetting how to do it. It's why athletes like pitchers spend hours perfecting their "mechanics" . . . so when they get out on the mound in a game they don't have to think about the mechanics because it's in memory in their muscles.

Excluding something such as a stroke, or a head injury do you ever think you will forget how to walk?

At the same time, I agree completely that there are some types of knowledge so amorphous and ambiguous and hard to define that there is a question as to how certain such knowledge is.

Certain that the empirical results of science are really so much certain and objective than knowledge claims by Christians who refer to the Bible as a reference standard of Truth?

Einstein predicted that light would bend when it passed through a gravitational field. And so someone, can't remember their name, measured how much light was bent when it past through the gravitational field of the sun and . . . . . . . it did. Yet what told the scientist that the light bent. Instruments that were engineered, produced and calibrated with all the assumptions and knowledge of the scientific community . . . in other words by their rules and book of . . . well Dogma (btw, you are aware that science is full of unproven assumptions . . . aren't you). If you aren't I have a YouTube debate between Craig and Lain where he mentions 5 or 6 basic and important assumptions in science that remain unproven.

I agree that uncertain and doubt are the traits of a mature mind. Too bad so many materialistic imperialists don't have mature minds . . . mature enough to have reasonable doubts about what they are measuring and studying by using the empirical method.

If you frame my contention as one that " [raises belief in the Bible] . . , to the level of empirical certainty or even roughly equating the two things: our faith is appreciated because of doubt and uncertainty . . . " you misunderstand my argument and assertions. I don't equate the two because they are of a different stuff qualitatively so giving them no common basis for comparison other than both propose to show knowledge.

I fear your choice of words I reveal your opinion about the relative merit of the two different types of knowledge. " . .. elevating warranted belief to the level of empirical certainty . . . " Most people would take such an unconscious position if that is the position you take . . . empiricism is a level of knowledge superior to theological or spiritual knowledge. I forgive you;)

God Bless and Glory to God and or Beloved Jesus Christ