The Assumptions of Science

[Jim B.]

The practice of science has many assumptions such as the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our senses and cognitive facilities, moral values, and so on. Does God have to exist in order to be justified in believing that these assumptions are true?

I would say no, but the fact that there are these traits such as rational order, reliability of our sense and rational faculties, an unconditioned norm of truth, etc are indicative of things we would expect to find if there were a God. This is not logically coercive but circumstantial at best.

[metacrock]

The practice of science has many assumptions such as the uniformity of nature, the reliability of our senses and cognitive facilities, moral values, and so on. Does God have to exist in order to be justified in believing that these assumptions are true?

science has no0thing to do wi9th moral valu8es. God and science are in separate mago9steroia they don't impede upon each other's function

[metacrock]

There is, of course, no proof, because science cannot prove anything. Of course, God is not likely the sum of everything, and I do not believe this is what panentheism proposes. This is more the view of pantheism. Whitehead assumes a form of 'Intelligent Design' (ID) in his philosophy concerning science. This, "can be found in the ordering we find within nature, something he sometimes calls the “primordial nature of God”, it is a subjective assumption not based on science. The ID movement today faces the same problems when hit the wall and ID cannot be falsified by scientific methods.

Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/#WM

Later, Whitehead introduces a new metaphysically primitive notion which he calls an actual occasion. For Whitehead, an actual occasion (or actual entity) is not an enduring substance, but a process of becoming. As Whitehead puts it, actual occasions are the “final real things of which the world is made up”, they are “drops of experience, complex and interdependent” (1929c, Pt 1, Ch. 2, sec. 1, p. 27).

Whitehead saw between his metaphysics and traditional theism. According to Whitehead, religion is concerned with permanence amid change, and can be found in the ordering we find within nature, something he sometimes calls the “primordial nature of God” (1929c, 31, 32; cf. Pt 5, Ch. 2, secs 1-7).

© Copyright Original Source

ridiculous non answer this is, i said you haven't proven that Whitehead says God is the sum total of all things, you say science doesn't prove things, it's not a matter of science but of reading, read Whithead!

[shunyadragon]

ridiculous non answer this is, i said you haven't proven that Whitehead says God is the sum total of all things, you say science doesn't prove things, it's not a matter of science but of reading, read Whithead!

Nothing here is proven, but since Whitehead is a Theist this is what he would believe. White head in his own words supports Intelligent Design specifically, and this is an philosophical assumption that is not supported by science. The Theistic belief in ID obviously concludes 'God is the [origin] sum total of all things' supported by science.

I included the word [origin] here as more reflecting the Theist position. The statement of belief that 'God is the sum total of all things' is something I never proposed, and reflect more a pantheists view, which would likely not be whitehead's beliefs.

[shunyadragon]

I would say no, but the fact that there are these traits such as rational order, reliability of our sense and rational faculties, an unconditioned norm of truth, etc are indicative of things we would expect to find if there were a God. This is not logically coercive but circumstantial at best.

I propose that these properties of nature, and human nature are neutral to the argument fr the existence of God, and secualr sciencce provides a natural explanation for the nature of our physical existence and humanity.

I believe in god, but not constructed artificial arguments such as these to justify my belief in God.

[shunyadragon]

ridiculous non answer this is, i said you haven't proven that Whitehead says God is the sum total of all things, you say science doesn't prove things, it's not a matter of science but of reading, read Whithead!

I have read Whitehead and cite him specifically in his own words. Correct. science does not prove things. I never proposed any such thing. I never said, Whitehead said nor believed 'God is the sum of all things.'

I did say Whitehead supports Intelligent Design, which is a subjective assertion without falsifiable evidence.

[shunyadragon]

Process thought has it's draw backs but nothing you said proves what I asked for. You have no proof it posits God as sum total of all things. I think it was panenthyeism I said that about.

I do not propose Process Thought posits 'Gd is the sum of all things.'