No. I just acknowledged that I said it poorly in the first place. Having both studied with an read a pretty good swath of theologians, mathematicians, scientists, and philosophers, my contention is merely much *broader* in their knowledge base. This makes them far less parochial than some of the arguments we hear coming from the Rationalist/empiricist camp (as demonstrated in this thread in spades).
Which is as it still should be. If you don't know *why* you "know" things, you will never understand the limits of the system you're using. Science - whether scientists like it or not - is the handmaiden of philosophy. It does not stand on its own except as a purely utilitarian discipline - i.e. The auto mechanics of knowledge.
There is some truth to this. But I still maintain that if you do not understand the philosophical foundations of your knowledge system, you cannot ever understand its limits and pretty soon everything starts to look like a nail for your hammer - much as we've seen in this thread.
I've never disputed the utility value of science.
And this is the sort of thinking that is productive, useful, and interesting even though it is not amenable to empirical confirmation.
It cannot - not now, not in principle, not ever. Science examines the mechanical minutae of the *observable* universe. But if the root cause of it all isn't "observable" then science will never see it. Moreover, whether or not there is a root cause - observable or not - isn't likely to be answered by the methods of science as we currently understand them.
Here's a thought experiment for you: Try to understand deep passion (love, hate, aesthetics sense, the joy of a great pet) in solely scientific terms. I don't mean measure whether that passion exists or not - you can do that empirically. I mean *understand* it so well you can convey it objectively to others.
You can't know by science what is unknowable by science. You can "know" things in other ways though. Every time you are deeply moved by beauty/sadness/a great movie/a rare wine ... you have an experience which cannot be objectively conveyed to others, at least not completely. Yet what you "knew" in that existential moment was very real - it just isn't open to pure empiricist deconstruction.
Since when is "right" the only metric of interest? What if the metric is, "is it real to me at that moment in time?" There are lots of things that are existential in nature, and cannot be shared with the class - they are personal, transcendent, and not possible to share correctly/completely with anyone else. I have one of these moments every time my cat goes to sleep in my lap purring. There isn't an empirical method you could define - even in principle - that could measure what the *means to _me_* yet is is quite real.
Yes I should. But it would not fundamentally change my contention that science is correct where it applies but not remotely complete.
Snipped for brevity, not rhetorical effect. No concessions, just eliminating sidebars no longer germane.
More done below.
You may not "view" it that way, but you *behave* that way when you disallow even the possibility of knowing things by means other than science.
More auto mechanics. I have no question and do no dispute that science will make progress *up to the limits of it's philosophical boundaries*. You understand science well, you barely seem to have a handle on the philosophy that underpins it ... or you wouldn't be so confident of it's boundless applicability.
Ad hominem. All human knowledge - of ANY kind - hinges on one or more assumed starting axioms. There are no counterexamples. What you "know" always ends up depending on what you believed in the first place. Science is not immune from this fact.
Not my theory, but one of several possible answers to your question.
This is what I call really misunderstanding the larger discussion.
Why is this more plausible? The universe at-large is the most complex "machinery" of which we are aware. All other "machinery" is therefore and by definition *less* complex. When presented with this "lesser" machinery, pretty much all rational/functional humans understand that the machine in question got put together or "built" somehow, by some intelligent agent. Yet, somehow, when we rise to the level of the highest level of complexity ever observed, we're just supposed to take it on "faith" that "it always existed" and there is no intelligent cause. Astonishing. Just because I cannot explain the intelligent cause isn't prima facia evidence that it cannot/does not exist. It's an absurd line of reasoning found only in the strict Rationalist/empiricist camp. Honest scientists acknowledge that science must be mute on the question and that the question is legitimate. But you worshipers of empiricism to the exclusion of all other forms of thought simply cannot bring your self to do this. Like I said, Astonishing.
But I am not trying to prove anything. My contention here is- and has been - that science is not complete enough to discover all True Things. This makes you roil with discomfort and either: a) Attack the messenger or b) Try to diminish the question so as not to have to address it at all since your system cannot. I haven't said that I *know* the answer to all the transcendent questions. I've just said that the questions are important.
You have just stated your theological position. It is "theological" because it: a) Cannot be empirically demonstrated, even in principle. and b) Takes a position about deity. Like I keep saying, you're at least as religious as any theologian I ever met, you just don't like admitting it.
I never once left reason or logic behind. I'm just honest enough with myself to realize that reason and logic have real limits. I know you sneer at mathematicians - as all scientists are taught to do from the first day - but you might want to spend some time with Kurt Goedel who laid to waste the infinite sufficiency of logic back in the 1930s. In doing so, he destroyed the house of cards that Russell, Whitehead, et al had been trying to construct for decades. In short: Logic itself is not self-consistent and has very real limits. This is innate to ALL of the disciplines that depend on logic.
Only because you don't understand it.
So ... if the questions are not open to empirical examination and you refuse the metaphysical approach to thinking about ... you are effectively ignoring the questions thereby denying how "interesting and important" you find them.
I dispute the conclusion and contend that with the "width" comes inevitably the "shallow", particularly in the sciences.
...
That is _precisely_ the self-righteous pontification of the liberal education major of which you smear the scientific community... :(
It is the d-d rare eminent scientist who lacks such founding.
...
But the same is true from the other direction -- if you do not understand the _depth_ of scientific theory, how can you possibly pontificate meaningful upon its meaning (or lack thereof)?
I contend it is like clashing cymbals...
...
[snippage above repaired to retain context]
Utility aside, the ultimate ability of "a theory of everything" to understand the "how" of "what" may prove there was no "why" or at least what the "why" had to do.
It is at least as significant to me you ignore the point that scientific thought would be thrown into a tizzy and completely regenerated if such an event as hypothesized were to actually be observed. As opposed to purely philosophical arguments, the necessity to meet reality is key and whatever modifications to the axioms of science required would be promptly created and adopted to meet the revised state of knowledge.
That's a reality folks on your side have as difficult a time of grasping as the most ardent creationist does of the possibility of more than seven literal days.
"Productive and useful" I don't know about...interesting, perhaps.
And, as I've alluded to on numerous occasions (which I note you adroitly avoid even acknowledging), the former is seeming to be likely to be either what we find or at least a prelude.
On Jan 6, 3:48=A0pm, Tim Daneliuk wrote: [severe snippage]
I understand that the paragraph I quoted, came from a much larger context, but at what point do deduction and observable science connect? When, as humans, we stumbled upon the scene of our existence, we picked up a rock and concluded that 'somebody' put it there. We still don't know who, or if it was 5 billion years ago...or was it
6000 years ago that somebody created a 4.999994e+9 year-old rock and put it there. Surely if we can attribute the entire universe to a Creator, what's the big deal of that Creator making a few 5 billion- year-old rocks? Hell, even stick a few fossils in there to throw the unbelievers off for a bit. How often do we see the phrase: "Scientists believe that it was a meteor...blah, blah." How can that be?
But that brings us around to what my physics teacher in Holland used to quote: "one fool can ask more questions than a thousand wise men can answer."
r
PS, I'm enjoying the back-n-forth going on in here.
There's where we part company (again). It's certainly no there yet, but the objective is a "theory of everything". Intimations of what this might look like are beginning to appear and one of these is that there may well be a self-generating beginning out of what looks like nothing. If this proves out to be so, then we will, in essence, be able to observe that beginning and find out the constraints that are in place. Again, read more modern expositions than those with which you apparently are familiar.
...
...
Who knows where our understanding of physiology and biology will lead in another century or millenia? To say it is impossible only leaves it as "impossible now", not that it is inherently unknowable.
Why, because I admit more than one single way to know things? I am "absolutist" only in the sense that I accept that systems have limits, therefore you need more than one system to learn the maximum possible number of True Things.
If it's not observable either directely or by inference, then anything we say about it is just someone's opinion.
This business of aesthetics, which Tim seems to think is beyond the domain of science, is likely to surprise him one day. What value do these "moving experiences" have when they can be generated to order in the laboratory?
I agree that it is not "inevitable". It's just common. When I hear scientists insist that science demonstrates the lack of need for a deity, I think they make my case for me.
1) None of my edication was primarily in liberal arts, it was in applied technology, science, and mathematics. I was just lucky to go to schools that insisted that *everyone* have a good grounding in liberal arts.
2) I was not attempting to "smear" science or its practitioners. The fact that you took it as such is just another indication of how insular science has become as its adherents elevate it to being the sole font of useful knowledge. The idea that science - indeed *all* epistemic systems - are the handmaidens of philosophy is historically unremarkable and certainly (until the last 100 years or so) would never have been read as polemic.
Maybe. But this thread alone demonstrates my claim in this area. The moment someone (me) injects doubt about the sufficiency of science, insists that philosophy is germane, and suggests that there is a place (in human knowledge, not science proper) for metaphysics, the howling begins. Y'all may have that "founding" but you don't seem to respect it much. I, OTOH, *do* respect the methods and value of science, I just don't give it sole authority to discover True Things in my life.
First of all, I have not once in this set of threads commented upon what science "means". I've commented primarily on its sufficiency to apprehend (in principle) all the True Things that are important to humans. Big difference.
Secondly, I do not have to be versed in every detailed area of science to have a pretty good sense of its limits. Why? Because I have a reasonable understanding of the philosophy that underpins and enables science. So, for instance, I know that science depends in some direct way on both empirical observation and logical deduction about what is observed (I'm not saying this is *all* there is to science here, BTW). So, science is necessarily limited to stuff we can observe and reason about. But there are limits to logic (cf Goedel). There are real limits to what can be observed - even in principle. So, without having a clue about any of the high complexity details of modern string theory, I can say things about the limits of what those theorists will ever be able to do. This is not some assault on science, it is innate in its very *structure*. But, these days, science has been given religion-like status in the popular culture, and good many scientifically literate people have begun to believe their own P.R. in the matter. Simply put, I know the limits of any system from its foundational axioms not by putting together a laundry list of every single fact in the system.
Hmm, I do not understand the last clause of this paragraph.
This is true but unremarkable.
Eh? The only thing I'm having trouble grasping here is the flow of your argument.
Even if we ever did run into questions that science could not answer, that's no excuse to simply make up answers like religion routinely does. "I don't know, make something up" is never a rational solution.
That's ridiculous, students aren't there to come to their own conclusions, they're there to learn. There is one, and only one reality and any conclusions in this area need to match said reality. Otherwise, it's about as worthless as letting students reach the conclusion that 2+2=5.
That's all well and good, he can teach whatever he wants to in his home and in his church, but when it comes to school, the kids are going to learn and be expected to understand evolution. If they choose to reject it after the test, that's fine with me. Pathetic, but fine.
I'd say it has a lot to do with it. Having a President who rejects reality in favor of his own religious belief is just asking for trouble. You cannot run a country based on the belief that you can get on your knees and pray and some imaginary friend in the sky will solve all your problems. In a practical world, you have to exercise practical solutions.
Since no one has ever demonstrated a reason to accept that there is anything beyond the empirically observable physical universe, what's your point? The reality is, having faith in mumbo-jumbo magical bullshit doesn't make it so. Science is the only way we currently have of evaluating the world around us in a rational, logical and objective manner. Just because science cannot currently answer a question is no reason to just make up an answer like religion does. There is no reason to take anything religion says seriously, it's just invented out of whole cloth and makes claims based on nothing but wishful thinking.
When that actually happens, fine. Until then, assuming it will happen is foolish. To date, there's no reason to think that a deity exists at all, therefore making assumptions based upon the existence of a deity is silly.
No, there isn't a single shred of objective evidence to support the existence of a deity, therefore there is no reason to posit one. The same is true of dragons. Science has no belief that there are no dragons, it simply sees no reason to think that there are.
Come up with evidence for God and science will accept God and not until.
Believers, sure. Christians? No. The majority of the founding fathers had little good to say about Christianity and most of them had pretty much nothing good to say about organized religion in general.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.