Book Plunge: Why Science Does Not Disprove God

[Apologiaphoenix]

Philosophies god fathers where really Anaximenes, Thales, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and company. Lets not forget the later greats like Hume and Kant though. Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Hooke, and Newton founded physics and astronomy - and really science as a whole. Then came the formation of biology with Darwin, Crick, Morgan, Watson, Crick etc. Then we had the theories of electrodynamics, relativity, cosmology, atomic theory, and quantum mechanics by Bohr, Maxwell, Hoyle, Hubble, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, and company.

Yeah there's overplay but that's really how I would put it.

I agree with the start, but it looks like you went straight from B.C. to the Enlightenment period. What about in the middle with people like Plotinus and Boethius and Augustine and Anselm and Aquinas? Even before we get to Hume and Kant, we have people like Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and others.

I also notice your list doesn't include medieval science. Even Copernicus and others were standing on those that went before them.

Mathematics is a quantitative way of describing relationships in the universe (science) but uses proofs that are grounded in logical philosophy. Historiography is a crossover between scientific testing to establish facts and epistemology to form reconstructive frameworks with those facts.

No problem.

If you liked Sagans work you should try The Myth of the Framework: Karl Popper or The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: Thomas Kuhn. Both are very dry reads but give a great intro to the philosophy of science.

I've read Kuhn. I'd like to read Popper some day, but the to-read list is extensive and I'm always adding to it.

[Sea of red]

I agree with the start, but it looks like you went straight from B.C. to the Enlightenment period. What about in the middle with people like Plotinus and Boethius and Augustine and Anselm and Aquinas? Even before we get to Hume and Kant, we have people like Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, and others.

I also notice your list doesn't include medieval science. Even Copernicus and others were standing on those that went before them.

I wasn't trying to make the list extensive and in headlight I'd replace Kunt (lovely name for an even lovelier guy) with Leibniz and Descartes. I know far more about the 19th and 20th centuries than other periods. You can always nit-pick about relativity for example and say Newton, Galileo, Lorentz had inertial frames and their own relativity before Einstein. But at the end of the idea Einstein was the one the ultimately put the idea out in full to be tested.

I've read Kuhn. I'd like to read Popper some day, but the to-read list is extensive and I'm always adding to it.

It's another very dry read and it helps to understand some of the science of the day they are both referring to.

[Gary]

The issue is, the existence of God is not a scientific question. It's a philosophical question, and has to be discussed on those grounds.

Exactly. The existence of a Creator is a philosophical question. But the existence of Yahweh-Jesus is not because Yahweh-Jesus claims to have interacted with the physical/material world, and these physical interactions with a physical world should therefore be open to scientific investigation.

[Gary]

I think psstein did great and said much of what I would say. As for authors that write against God using science, consider books like Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis."

And as for what is being said against philosophy, it is simply thinking about thinking and learning to think well. If you're opposed to that, it says a lot about you. It amazes me when so many talk about how science is so superior, they never use science to demonstrate that. It's always philosophical.

As the philosopher and author of the article I quoted implied, most philosophical discussions are simply a pissing contest: Each pompous know-it-all trying to outwit and humiliate his opponent, and the issue in question is usually no further advanced at the end of the debate than it was in the beginning. That is why I prefer science. Philosophy is really just personal opinion. Science is based on evidence, not opinion.

Our modern world views the field of philosophy with more and more disdain as the past-time of frivolous dreamers. The study of philosophy will soon be at the same level as an art class. That may not be pleasant news to philosophers, or aspiring philosophers, but that is what the evidence demonstrates.

[One Bad Pig]

Why do Conservative Christian Apologists rely so heavily on Philosophy to defend their beliefs?

It always drives me nuts when I debate a conservative Christian about the supernatural claims of the Bible and he or she immediately wants to steer the discussion into a philosophical mindfield, attempting to trip me up with such irritating and preposterous statements such as, "How do you know, Gary, that you even exist? How do you know that you are not just a figment in someone else's imagination."

Good grief. What nonsense.

I'm a science man. Philosophy to me is the wishy-washy past time of eighteenth and nineteenth century spoiled, upper class, aristocratic, daddy's-boys; guys who never had to do an honest day's work in their entire lives; living on a chateau in southern France; mooching off of daddy's bank account.

Get a real job, for Pete's sake!

So why do conservative Christian apologists rely so heavily on philosophy to defend their beliefs, and at the same time, usually prefer to shun, or belittle, the hard sciences? Is it just coincidence? Actually, no. At least that is what one philosopher has to say regarding the relationship between philosophy and religion.

[Thinks philosophy is worthless.]

Here are some excerpts from his intriguing article:
<snip>About the author: Mark English holds a PhD in philosophy from Monash University, and blogs at Language, Life and Logic.

[Cites a philosopher to make his point, praising his work as "intriguing."]



It's transparently clear that you think anything which supports your POV is "intriguing."

[Boxing Pythagoras]

The downside is that the work is largely a defensive work in that sense and thus does not really touch on the positive arguments for the existence of God.

I haven't read the book, yet, but Dr. Aczel wrote a complementary article by the same name, some time back, and I commented about that article on my blog. I got a little reply from Dr. Aczel, himself, in the comments of that post, which was certainly cool.

Generally, it seemed to me that he was attempting to straddle the fence, in his article, and your description of the book sounds like he did similarly in that work. He doesn't seem to want to take a strong stand in either direction, and that makes it feel a bit weak to those of us who do take stronger stances.

[Gary]

[Thinks philosophy is worthless.]

[Cites a philosopher to make his point, praising his work as "intriguing."]



It's transparently clear that you think anything which supports your POV is "intriguing."

When having a discussion with people who believe that the sun rises and sets with what philosophers say, one is forced to use a philosopher to show these people how very wrong they are.

If I quoted an archeologist, geologist, geneticist, or other scientist you would only snicker. Now, that I have presented you a statement by a philosopher that challenges your position, you are forced to admit that maybe you are wrong, or, that the philosopher with a PhD doesn't know what he is talking about and that all of you aspiring philosophers with BA's in general education know more than he does.

[JonathanL]

Maybe if you took more interest in philosophy you wouldn't sound as stupid as you currently do, Gary.

[Gary]

Maybe if you took more interest in philosophy you wouldn't sound as stupid as you currently do, Gary.

Thank you for the suggestion, but actually I think that the reverse would be best: people should stop making fools of themselves using silly philosophical mind games for the purpose of propping up preposterous ancient superstitions.

[JonathanL]

Thank you for the suggestion, but actually I think that the reverse would be best: people should stop making fools of themselves using silly philosophical mind games for the purpose of propping up preposterous ancient superstitions.

QED

[Jedidiah]

Exactly. The existence of a Creator is a philosophical question. But the existence of Yahweh-Jesus is not because Yahweh-Jesus claims to have interacted with the physical/material world, and these physical interactions with a physical world should therefore be open to scientific investigation.

Gary, how do you suggest we investigate the physical interactions of Jesus with the world using the scientific method?

[Gary]

Gary, how do you suggest we investigate the physical interactions of Jesus with the world using the scientific method?

I would suggest that you not believe extra-ordinary claims without extra-ordinary evidence.

I recommend that you demand the same quality of evidence for the claim of a first century resurrection/reanimation of a dead man in Palestine, as you would demand for the claims of a group of religious zealots today claiming to have interacted with little green Martians on a farm in Iowa forty years ago.

[One Bad Pig]

When having a discussion with people who believe that the sun rises and sets with what philosophers say, one is forced to use a philosopher to show these people how very wrong they are.

If I quoted an archeologist, geologist, geneticist, or other scientist you would only snicker. Now, that I have presented you a statement by a philosopher that challenges your position, you are forced to admit that maybe you are wrong, or, that the philosopher with a PhD doesn't know what he is talking about and that all of you aspiring philosophers with BA's in general education know more than he does.

You don't know me NEARLY as well as you think you do. I was merely pointing out the supreme irony contained in your post.

In reality, I don't go in much for philosophy, but I do have a minor in astrophysics to go with my engineering degree. Feel free to keep making yourself look stupid.

[Jedidiah]

I would suggest that you not believe extra-ordinary claims without extra-ordinary evidence.

I recommend that you demand the same quality of evidence for the claim of a first century resurrection/reanimation of a dead man in Palestine, as you would demand for the claims of a group of religious zealots today claiming to have interacted with little green Martians on a farm in Iowa forty years ago.

In other words you have no suggestions for a scientific examination of Jesus interaction with the physical world except, "don't believe it."

[Gary]

You don't know me NEARLY as well as you think you do. I was merely pointing out the supreme irony contained in your post.

In reality, I don't go in much for philosophy, but I do have a minor in astrophysics to go with my engineering degree. Feel free to keep making yourself look stupid.

I understand your anger and contempt. However, I believe that what I am doing is necessary and a social good: I believe the world will be a much better place when all supernatural claims are debunked.