Pope warns: West seems 'tired' of faith

getz

if the pope wishes to know why,i would tell him,read the bible and start over again,i do not believe that any of the apostles,would recognize the church of to-day,as being christian,the reason most people are tired of the faith is because of the way it is being practiced

Zombrex

Donatello wrote: »

Scientism is its own religion - it's dogma is that only what can be scientifically verified is true and there is therefore required faith in this belief

Actually science (or Scientism as you some what inaccurately put it) states that we can never know if a model about the physical world is actually true or not, only build up support for its accuracy.

You can call it dogma or religion if you like, but what it doesn't have in common with religion is that this was worked out in philosophy, not stated by those claiming authority from a god.

IE, you can if you like argue that it is wrong, and if you produce a convincing enough argument you may even get people to change their minds.

On the other hand it is some what difficult to argue that God is wrong, and thus by proxy those claiming to represent God are wrong.

Donatello wrote: »

But the supernatural is beyond the competence of science, for the most part. Science has its limits - it is not the be all and the end all of everything.

Science's limits are there because we have limits. Science is simply a methodology we use. If these limits did not exist for us they wouldn't bind science either. Science is a reflection of our issues with accurately assessing information about the world around us.

The idea that scientific philosophy says that we have limits when only doing science is a falsehood, most commonly presented by religious people unhappy with the limits scientific philosophy says we have.

Donatello wrote: »

Science cannot explain love any more than it can explain the origins of the various Eucharistic miracles.

You cannot explain these things either, not the the standard science says is necessary.

You confuse having an explanation and having an explanation you can confidently show is likely to be correct. You can put forward an explanation, or any explanation you like. You can choose to believe this explanation if you like.

But scientific philosophy says that because you cannot assess this explanation in any meaningful manner you cannot state anything about its accuracy.

Or to put it another way, you have zero way of showing if you are right or wrong. This is brilliantly demonstrated by the fact that after only a few decades scientists created a theory of electro-magnatism that is universally accepted throughout the world, where as religions have been arguing and fighting over which is the true religion for thousands of years and there are still thousands of competing religions.

You can choose to believe you are right, but that means nothing in scientific philosophy, because having an explanation, any explanation, is not as important as having an accurate one.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

What you have presented above is not Science, but a philosophy built on science.

Science is a methodology build upon the philosophy of science. Scientists didn't arbitrarily make up things like repeatability, fallibility. They exist because of the conclusions reached through the philosophical process. There is a long history of philosophy about human knowledge shaping modern scientific methodology.

You can disagree with it if you choose. But you are disagreeing with science, and thus are in conflict with it.

JimiTime wrote: »

However, Christianity is not incompatible with ACTUAL Science. Saying the supernatural exists, is not science. Its not incompatible with science, its simply NOT science.

If you genuinely believe that you don't understand why science says what it says.

There is nothing in science or the philosophy of science that says the limitations of human assessment disappear by simply not using science. Such an idea itself is ridiculous, if that were the case science itself would be unnecessary. Everyone would become a lot better at assessing the accuracy of statements about the world around us by not using science, rather than the reality which is the exact opposite.

Science says that you should not be able to say anything with any accuracy about a supernatural claim because you cannot assess that claim using scientific methodology.

If you disagree you disagree with science. Pure and simple.

It says that because if it didn't say that then science would be pointless. If you could say something about a claim that did not require assessment to the scientific method then what would be the point of the scientific method.

Scientific standards do not exist in a vacuum. They were not simply made up on whim. They are a reflection of the limitations humans, limitations that do not simply disappear because you turn your attention to studying God.

stephendevlin

Religion is based on belief of the unknown and rewards in a place after your death (if you are good).


If this wasnt preached what kind of people would we be? Religion seems to be the foundations of nearly all our laws/culture/morality

There are still tribes in parts of south america that have never seen a TV / Car . But if we told them that something exists like this (religion) they more or likely would believe us. And we continued to "groom" them for Religion they would do the same and preach to others.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Science is a methodology build upon the philosophy of science.

Science is a discipline for observing and modelling the natural.

Scientists didn't arbitrarily make up things like repeatability, fallibility. They exist because of the conclusions reached through the philosophical process.

And it makes no pronouncements about things that are outside of its realm. It takes another step to do that. That step being naturalism. Science is what it is, and some people use it in building a life philosophy. this life philosophy is where the conflict lies, not in anything Scientific.

You can disagree with it if you choose. But you are disagreeing with science, and thus are in conflict with it.

Again, I understand that this rhetoric is rife among anti-theists. I recognise that, all I'm saying, is that rhetoric is all it is.

If you genuinely believe that you don't understand why science says what it says.

Scientists 'say', People 'say', Science is a discipline of observation and modelling which anyone can follow. You go beyond science, and elevate it to a life philosophy.

There is nothing in science or the philosophy of science that says the limitations of human assessment disappear by simply not using science.

And? Whats that got to do with anything?

Science says that you should not be able to say anything with any accuracy about a supernatural claim because you cannot assess that claim using scientific methodology.

No, a person who believes that science is all there is to decipher truth says this. Again, this is beyond science. Its a pseudo-scientific claim based on a religious like world-view that says science is all we have.
Science is simply the method of observing and modelling.

If you disagree you disagree with science. Pure and simple.

And as i said, rhetoric abounds the topic. i don't doubt you believe what you are saying, but as i am a Christian, I have an issue with your particular religious claims:)

It says that because if it didn't say that then science would be pointless. If you could say something about a claim that did not require assessment to the scientific method then what would be the point of the scientific method.

Your objection above makes no sense. The point of the scientific method is not made pointless by supernatural claims. Firstly, the effects of the supernatural CAN be measured. For example, 4 women with cancer are healed by the holy spirit. This CAN be measured, but science will be limited to observing the natural. The model will probably only be able to conclude in this incidence either a) the women had cancer and still have cancer or b) the women had cancer and now don't have cancer. The effects of the supernatural (or not) can be measured by Science, but if the supernatural occurs, it as a cause will likely be beyond the realm of scientific measurement. Does that make the supernatural incompatible with science? Of course not, it makes it beyond the realm of science. This is incompatible with the religious-like view that anything outside of science is not real, but thats not surprising. thats simply a conflict of two religious views.

I think this explains the difference between ACTUAL science, and holding up science as a religious-like world view.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Science is a discipline for observing and modelling the natural.

..base on a philosophy underpinning how the decisions of the scientific methodology. IE what is the best way to go about modeling

JimiTime wrote: »

And it makes no pronouncements about things that are outside of its realm.

It says that you cannot make pronouncements about things outside of its realm. That is the point of science. If it didn't say that then there would be no scientific standards in the first place.

Or put it another way, why can't a scientist not simply insert "God did it" into any scientific theory he thinks would be better with such a statement?

"God did it" is obviously outside of the scientific realm, but science is not simply neutral to such a statement. It actively says you canot include it in a scientific model. That rule is not simply arbitrary. It says that because the philosophy underpinning science says you cannot have confidence in its accuracy.

JimiTime wrote: »

Science is what it is

And where the heck do you think this came from in the first place? You think people just made up arbitrary rules?

JimiTime wrote: »

Again, I understand that this rhetoric is rife among anti-theists. I recognise that, all I'm saying, is that rhetoric is all it is.

And I understand that this idea that science does say anything about these supernatural claims is rhetoric rife among theists. I recognize that, all I'm saying, is that rhetoric is all it is, based on either ignorance of the ideas behind science or simply willful misrepresentation.

JimiTime wrote: »

Scientists 'say', People 'say', Science is a discipline of observation and modelling which anyone can follow. You go beyond science, and elevate it to a life philosophy.

And it is not a discipline that people just arbitrarily made up. There is a philosophy of why certain things are in science and why they aren't, why you have to model things a particular way and not a different way.

You treat science as if it is something that just popped into existence and the rules of science were just arbitrarily chosen.

JimiTime wrote: »

And? Whats that got to do with anything?

That is your claim, that science says its rules only apply when doing science, but when looking at something outside of science these standards become irrelevant. Scientific philosophy, the reason these rules exist in the first place, does not say that, quite the opposite in fact.

JimiTime wrote: »

No, a person who believes that science is all there is to decipher truth says this. Again, this is beyond science.

Whether it is "beyond" science is irrelevant. Science itself says that you must follow its standards or you are not able to confidently state things about reality.

It says this precisely to stop the introduction of non-scientific statements into scientific theory.

If there was a way to "decipher truth" beyond science that still reached these standards then that wouldn't be beyond science, it would just be science. There is no reason for science to exclude methods that produce accurate descriptions of reality that maintain scientific standards.

The reason these methods are not included in the scientific process if because they fail scientific standards. And as such science says you shouldn't be able to have confidence in the output of these methods.

You can, of course, disagree. But you are in conflict with science when you do.

JimiTime wrote: »

Science is simply the method of observing and modelling.

That requires specific standards. If a system meets these standards it is include in science. If it doesn't it is excluded precisely because science says you cannot have confidence in information gain from it.

JimiTime wrote: »

Your objection above makes no sense. The point of the scientific method is not made pointless by supernatural claims. Firstly, the effects of the supernatural CAN be measured. For example, 4 women with cancer are healed by the holy spirit. This CAN be measured, but science will be limited to observing the natural.

It cannot be measured to scientific standards. As such scientific philosophy says you cannot have confidence in the explanation ("healed by the holy spirit").

It is not simply that science is neutral to such a claim. Science specifically says you cannot have confidence in the claims accuracy. You can believe if all you like, but if you assert confidence in the claim that cannot be supported to a scientific level, you are contradicting the philosophy of science.

Which is why no scientific theory in the world includes "healed by the holy spirit".

Imagine the alternative. Science said you can actually be confident in such a claim, or at the very least said it makes no judgement either way.

If that was the case why not simply include it in the scientific model of these patients. You are confident of it, you some how conclude that the Holy Spirit did something. So why not just pop it into the model? Why would scientific philosophy say you shouldn't do that?

JimiTime wrote: »

The model will probably only be able to conclude in this incidence either a) the women had cancer and still have cancer or b) the women had cancer and now don't have cancer. The effects of the supernatural (or not) can be measured by Science, but if the supernatural occurs, it as a cause will likely be beyond the realm of scientific measurement. Does that make the supernatural incompatible with science?

The issue is not the supernatural, it is claims by humans about the supernatural.

For all we know an invisible Jesus was walking around healing all these people. Science can't, by definition, ever assess if that is the case or not.

But that is not all that is happening with religion. What is also happening is someone is claiming "A supernatural Jesus is walking around healing all these people! I know this to be true!"

Scientific philosophy says you can't make that claim with any level of confidence. You cannot say that happened and you cannot say it didn't happen, any more than any other claim about the supernatural.

The problems comes when people don't say "Ah good point science, I should probably stop asserting that claim as accurate" and instead say "Well I used something other than science to work out that this is in fact what happened, so I'm sticking to the story"

That is in conflict with science. Asserting claims as having a high level of accuracy that cannot be supported by science is anti-science. It doesn't matter what the claim is, unless you have modelled it using science science says you should not be able to know if that model is accurate or not.

It is not something science is neutral on, it is something science actively says you should not be able to do. And it says this for very specific reasons.

prinz

Science versus religion. This is new ground.

CerebralCortex

prinz wrote: »

Science versus religion. This is new ground.

No it's not science won.

Fanny Cradock

If this thread is going the way of willy waving then it's getting locked.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If this thread is going the way of willy waving then it's getting locked.

I make it a point in my life never to do that both figuratively and literally. As I always say it's only rational to put your money on the horse that always wins, the horse being science in the race for truth.

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

..base on a philosophy underpinning how the decisions of the scientific methodology. IE what is the best way to go about modeling

Thats fine. Still no conflict.

It says that you cannot make pronouncements about things outside of its realm.

No it doesn't. It says that you cannot make scientific pronouncements outside of its realm. As i said, it is up to the person to then decide whether to actually go beyond that and say that science is all we have. That there is no 'outside' of science. That is NOT ACTUAL science, but a philosophy based on the naturalistic world-view.

Or put it another way, why can't a scientist not simply insert "God did it" into any scientific theory he thinks would be better with such a statement?

A 'scientist' can say anything he likes. 'God did it' would not be a scientific pronouncement though. just like the pronouncement that 'God doesn't exist' is not a scientific pronouncement.

"God did it" is obviously outside of the scientific realm, but science is not simply neutral to such a statement. It actively says you canot include it in a scientific model.

I agree with this. Science observes and models, if it can't observe and model God scientifically, it cannot make a pronouncement on God.

And where the heck do you think this came from in the first place? You think people just made up arbitrary rules?

No, I can see how useless it would be to just say 'God did it' any time one gets stuck etc.

And I understand that this idea that science does say anything about these supernatural claims is rhetoric rife among theists. I recognize that, all I'm saying, is that rhetoric is all it is, based on either ignorance of the ideas behind science or simply willful misrepresentation.

Again, you are still presenting positions beyond Science. Your position is religious, not scientific.

And it is not a discipline that people just arbitrarily made up. There is a philosophy of why certain things are in science and why they aren't, why you have to model things a particular way and not a different way.

You treat science as if it is something that just popped into existence and the rules of science were just arbitrarily chosen.

No I don't, I completely understand the need to keep science free of religious statements, which is why I'm not making any. Whereas you on the other hand ARE.

That is your claim, that science says its rules only apply when doing science, but when looking at something outside of science these standards become irrelevant. Scientific philosophy, the reason these rules exist in the first place, does not say that, quite the opposite in fact.

I don't actually say that. It is YOU who demand we disregard anything that does not enter the realm of science. I am saying, if science cannot, or does not make a pronouncement on something, then you can't call it science to make a pronouncement about it either positive or negative. Again, your philosophy, is that if its not science, it can be disregarded. That is beyond science. You may feel that this is the best way of thinking, and thats fair enough. Its when you then progress to the rhetoric of making your religious view oppose Christianity, but subsequently call your religious view Science, that the issue begins.

Whether it is "beyond" science is irrelevant. Science itself says that you must follow its standards or you are not able to confidently state things about reality.

Science says NOTHING close to such rhetoric. Scientists use science to observe and model. The process they follow is science. Your philosophy insists that this methodology is the only means of deciphering reality. That there is no reality outside the scientific is what it says. That is not a scientific view, but rather a religious or philosophical view.

It says this precisely to stop the introduction of non-scientific statements into scientific theory.

It is rather simple to leave non-scientific statements outside of doing science. Which is why there in no intrinsic incompatibility between Science and Christianity.

It cannot be measured to scientific standards.

As I said, the effects most certainly can, its just the cause that can't.

As such scientific philosophy says you cannot have confidence in the explanation ("healed by the holy spirit").

Well its not a scientific statement. Science can merely conclude that 4 people had cancer, a laying on of hands in prayer happened and after, they didn't have cancer. Of course it can't say, it was Holy Spirit. Thats precisely my point. Though if this became repeatable, it could observe and model that when such a such a person says, 'You're cured', that these people got cured. It still could not conclude it was Holy Spirit, but if repeatable, could show that in reality, there is a link between this guy saying 'you're cured' and people not having cancer anymore.

It is not simply that science is neutral to such a claim. Science specifically says you cannot have confidence in the claims accuracy.

No it doesn't! Science observes and models, and leaves aside unscientific claims. It says that you cannot have 'scientific' confidence in a claims accuracy, until you can observe and model it. You take it beyond that to the philosophical position.

You can believe if all you like, but if you assert confidence in the claim that cannot be supported to a scientific level, you are contradicting the philosophy of science.

But not science. The philosophy of science is not ACTUAL science. I can follow the philosophy of science within the realms of science, and be a Christian. You espouse the notion that one must follow such a philosophy throughout ones life. THAT is a religious position.

Which is why no scientific theory in the world includes "healed by the holy spirit".

Of course not.

Imagine the alternative. Science said you can actually be confident in such a claim, or at the very least said it makes no judgement either way.

It does make no judgement. It says that without a scientific backup, it is not scientific. That is no surprise is it? it is not science that makes these statements you espouse, its people who apply the scientific principals to all their lives. Again, its religious not scientific. Again, fine if you hold this world-view, but don't call it science.

If that was the case why not simply include it in the scientific model of these patients. You are confident of it, you some how conclude that the Holy Spirit did something. So why not just pop it into the model? Why would scientific philosophy say you shouldn't do that?

Because, if only an effect can be observed and measured, it should not be assumed that the cause is what someone says it is. The best science could do is try build a repeatable model in a controlled environment that observes when subject A says 'you're cured' then the cancer from subject B disappears. The cause being the Holy Spirit is not a scientific statement. Science can only continue to observe. So the statement, 'there is an observed phenomenon between the 'healer' and the cancer patients where when the healer says 'You're cured' the cancer patient is cured' is scientific. 'Its the Holy Spirit' is not a scientific statement.

The problems comes when people don't say "Ah good point science, I should probably stop asserting that claim as accurate" and instead say "Well I used something other than science to work out that this is in fact what happened, so I'm sticking to the story"

That is in conflict with science. Asserting claims as having a high level of accuracy that cannot be supported by science is anti-science.

That statement is non-science. Its a religious statement.

It doesn't matter what the claim is, unless you have modelled it using science science says you should not be able to know if that model is SCIENTIFICALLY accurate or not.

FYP. As I said saying that knowledge does not exist outside of science is a religious position, not a scientific one.

Zombrex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I make it a point in my life never to do that but figuratively and literally. As I always say it's only rational to put your money on the horse that always wins, the horse being science in the race for truth.

It should be pointed out that people can disagree with science all they like. I think the are wrong, but I think they are wrong about a lot of things.

The thing that gets my goat though is pretending science doesn't say what it says, while still praising and reaping the benefits of what science produces.

Science is as successful as it is precisely because it does opposite of what Jimi claims it does. And that is what produces it successes. Pretending otherwise does a disservice, and distorts what makes science such a successful methodology.

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I make it a point in my life never to do that but figuratively and literally. As I always say it's only rational to put your money on the horse that always wins, the horse being science in the race for truth.

The issue is that they are two different races, and while both you AND I are on the saddle with science in the Grand National. You haven't even entered the Monaco Grand Prix with Christ. Don't worry though, he'll still pick you up if you just hail him down;)

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

It should be pointed out that people can disagree with science all they like. I think the are wrong, but I think they are wrong about a lot of things.

The thing that gets my goat though is pretending science doesn't say what it says, while still praising and reaping the benefits of what science produces.

Science is as successful as it is precisely because it does opposite of what Jimi claims it does. And that is what produces it successes. Pretending otherwise does a disservice, and distorts what makes science such a successful methodology.

You are the only one distorting science here WN. You've yet to give anything beyond your religious view, and I have represented science accurately as a discipline for observing and modelling the natural world/universe.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

The issue is that they are two different races, and while both you AND I are on the saddle with science in the Grand National. You haven't even entered the Monaco Grand Prix with Christ. Don't worry though, he'll still pick you up if you just hail him down;)

No there really isn't, however it would be extremely convenient for your world-view if there was? For example there isn't one thing about the human condition that can't be explained by science and that pattern follows into the environment and universe.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

You are the only one distorting science here WN. You've yet to give anything beyond your religious view, and I have represented science accurately as a discipline for observing and modelling the natural world/universe.

Well look at it from the perspective of rationality. It's wrong to make the assumption of something other than nature(that which exists for want of a better term) what is is for you have very weak grounds for asserting what is without science/scientific method.

theg81der

Not tired of faith, tired of a church that clearly hates women and has no humility.

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

No there really isn't, however it would be extremely convenient for your world-view if there was. For example there isn't one thing about the human condition that can't be explained by science and that pattern follows into the environment and universe.

More rhetoric:)

prinz

theg81der wrote: »

Not tired of faith, tired of a church that clearly hates women and has no humility.

Hates women so much they are oft accused of deifying and worshipping one.

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Well look at it from the perspective of rationality. It's wrong to make the assumption of something other than nature(that which exists for want of a better term) what is is for you have very weak grounds for asserting what is without science/scientific method.

Thats an entirely different debate though, and nothing to do with Christianity being incompatible with science.

CerebralCortex

JimiTime wrote: »

More rhetoric:)

So you found it persuasive but hollow? If the pope wants to get more adherents he'd do well to study cognitive science as religion in general seems to play on peoples biases, but in the process he'd probably become an atheist(maybe he is already?).

theg81der

prinz wrote: »

Hates women so much they are oft accused of deifying and worshipping one.

Right thats one what about the rest of us?! Do you actually know what they did to women and the attitude they have?

prinz

theg81der wrote: »

Right thats one what about the rest of us?! Do you actually know what they did to women and the attitude they have?

Hive brain, love it. I also know what they didn't do. A topic for another thread perhaps.

hinault

The point that Jimi is trying to make, I think, is that there are some in the scientific community who see science and faith as being mutually exclusive.
They're not mutually exclusive, despite the repeated attempts by some to portray them as such.


Which is all way off topic anyway.:)

theg81der

prinz wrote: »

Hive brain, love it. I also know what they didn't do. A topic for another thread perhaps.

What are you talking about? Thats not funny, its tastless. They won`t let women be priests, not to long ago women were not allowed into the church during their period or after they`d given birth without a blessing - these are not signs of a less than healthy attitude to women? Women can`t be priests because Jesus choose men as apostles but things were different then I don`t see them go without cars or central heating because Jesus did it. Jesus would be ashamed of all these men in there little group thinking that things don`t apply to them.

hinault

I wonder how/why Pope Benedict has now arrived at this conclusion?

Is it his view that the West's attitude to faith is borne out of arrogance on the part of the West?
Or perhaps ignorance on the part of the West?

prinz

theg81der wrote: »

What are you talking about? Thats not funny, its tastless..

Perhaps you should wait until you know what it is I am talking about bfore you start describing the flavour?

theg81der wrote: »

They won`t let women be priests...

..and? They allow women become nuns. Anywho it is a topic for debate. Not a closed shop.

theg81der wrote: »

not to long ago women were not allowed into the church during their period or after they`d given birth without a blessing - these are not signs of a less than healthy attitude to women?

They gave women a blessing? The monsters. By the by are you basing this on the Catechism of the Catholic Church or what?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

You are the only one distorting science here WN.

You can keep saying that all you like Jimi but until you show how that is the case it means very little. I've explained, in detail, my position and what science says and why.

The best you can come up with is an unsupported claim I'm distorting science.

JimiTime wrote: »

I have represented science accurately as a discipline for observing and modelling the natural world/universe.

Science is a discipline for observing and modeling. And as such it has something to say about what you can and cannot have confidence in.

You consistently ignore this point, probably because you at some point in the discussion realized that Oh yeah that actually makes sense.

Have you ever wondered why, despite some people being really confident it is true, "God did it" is not found in any scientific theory?

Not simply because science cannot measure God, but why that matters in the first place in relation to sticking it in a scientific theory.

Why can't you put something in a scientific theory that wasn't established by science? Why does science not let you do this?

When you realize the answer to that you will realize the point I'm making.

Morbert

Again, I have to point out a subtle but important distinction. It is empiricism which says we can only know things through measurement and observation. Science, being the application of empiricism, doesn't make philosophical statements about what we can and cannot know.

To help the conversation break new ground, people should be asking whether or not it is consistent to adopt an empirical standard for some areas of knowledge (the natural world), but to adopt a different set of standards for knowledge claims about morality, the supernatural, etc.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Again, I have to point out a subtle but important distinction. It is empiricism which says we can only know things through measurement and observation. Science, being the application of empiricism, doesn't make philosophical statements about what we can and cannot know.

You would agree that there is a philosophy under pinning science. You can't place "God did it" into a scientific theory. Science is not simply neutral with regard to whether you can or cannot do that, it actively says you cannot, for specific reasons.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

You would agree that there is a philosophy under pinning science. You can't place "God did it" into a scientific theory. Science is not simply neutral with regard to whether you can or cannot do that, it actively says you cannot, for specific reasons.

That's true. You cannot, by definition, have an unscientific scientific theory (which is what ID proponents would like).

But are you and Jimi talking about the insertion of unscientific ideas into scientific theories, or the the consequences of not being able to investigate supernatural claims with science? I inferred it was the latter, in which case you should be discussing empiricism and epistemology.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

To help the conversation break new ground, people should be asking whether or not it is consistent to adopt an empirical standard for some areas of knowledge (the natural world), but to adopt a different set of standards for knowledge claims about morality, the supernatural, etc.

That certainly would be a more interesting area to explore.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

That's true. You cannot, by definition, have an unscientific scientific theory (which is what ID proponents would like).

But are you and Jimi talking about the insertion of unscientific ideas into scientific theories, or the the consequences of not being able to investigate supernatural claims with science?

The former (at least for me)

More specifically I'm talking about the principle behind the idea that you should not insert unscientific ideas into scientific theories. This is not an arbitary rule. It isn't simple a case of well one is science the other isn't and you can't cross the streams like in Ghostbusters :pac:

It is to do with confidence, confidence in the accuracy of claims about reality. Scientific principle says that scientific ideas cannot be build on unscientific ideas because you cannot have confidence in them if they are.

If someone says Well its ok, I personally have great confidence in this new theory about X even if it is completely unscientific, so its ok to use this as a basis for further research that person would be told to hit the road. It is not simply the science is neutral with regard to claims about unscientific areas (emphasis on the claim, not the actual reality). It is that science says you cannot have confidence in these claims.

This does not change if you simply don't bother trying to get your unsupported theory into science. Saying Ok well we won't treat this as science does make the principle disappear.

This gets back to heart of the matter. Religions (among other systems) make claims that in no way can be supported scientific, but which those making the claims have a very high degree of confidence in the correctness of these claims.

The justification of this is that these claims are not in an area that science looks at, so this is all ok. They have high degree of confidence in these ideas but that causes no conflict with science so long as you simply don't attempt to do science with them. That is missing the wood for the trees. The principle doesn't evaporate because someone says they won't try and insert it into science. Creationism for example doesn't become any more of an accurate idea because Creationists stop trying to get it into the science class room.

Why does science not tackle these areas? It doesn't tackle them because you cannot determine the accuracy of claims about these areas. So how are religious people doing it? Well they are doing it by simply ignoring this principle. And thus the conflict.

himnextdoor

I think the term 'unknowable' is a cop-out. It is the equivalent of shrugging shoulders at a problem and justifying not thinking about it any further.

I think I can know anything, I just need to have the right thoughts.

Science is a process of reverse engineering really, 'scientific knowledge' is based on observations of reality. There is no mechanism in the scientific process that can refer to unobservable and undetectable supernatural phenomena.

Science works by making an assumption and testing it.

Religion works the other way around; observe a phenomenon, assume a supernatural cause then justify the assumption; regard only evidence that appears to support the assumption.

Yes, faith is losing its grip on Western society but I think that things such as the Discovery Channel and the internet are as much to blame as the behaviour of the clergy.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

The former (at least for me)

More specifically I'm talking about the principle behind the idea that you should not insert unscientific ideas into scientific theories. This is not an arbitary rule. It isn't simple a case of well one is science the other isn't and you can't cross the streams like in Ghostbusters :pac:

It is to do with confidence, confidence in the accuracy of claims about reality. Scientific principle says that scientific ideas cannot be build on unscientific ideas because you cannot have confidence in them if they are.

If someone says Well its ok, I personally have great confidence in this new theory about X even if it is completely unscientific, so its ok to use this as a basis for further research that person would be told to hit the road. It is not simply the science is neutral with regard to claims about unscientific areas (emphasis on the claim, not the actual reality). It is that science says you cannot have confidence in these claims.

This does not change if you simply don't bother trying to get your unsupported theory into science. Saying Ok well we won't treat this as science does make the principle disappear.

This gets back to heart of the matter. Religions (among other systems) make claims that in no way can be supported scientific, but which those making the claims have a very high degree of confidence in the correctness of these claims.

The justification of this is that these claims are not in an area that science looks at, so this is all ok. They have high degree of confidence in these ideas but that causes no conflict with science so long as you simply don't attempt to do science with them. That is missing the wood for the trees. The principle doesn't evaporate because someone says they won't try and insert it into science. Creationism for example doesn't become any more of an accurate idea because Creationists stop trying to get it into the science class room.

Why does science not tackle these areas? It doesn't tackle them because you cannot determine the accuracy of claims about these areas. So how are religious people doing it? Well they are doing it by simply ignoring this principle. And thus the conflict.

Yes, but it is empiricism which says that, because we can't investigate claim X with science, we can't have confidence in it. It would be interesting to see a debate about empiricism, as the term is clearly defined. "Science says" implies some hypothesis or theory.

JimiTime

For the record, i never argued that 'you can insert unscientific ideas into scientific theories'. I think my posts here have been clear on that. I have defended science as science, and attacked WN's view that the philosophy of naturalism is science. I have stood by what science is, and categorically stated that saying 'God did it' etc is not science.

himnextdoor

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, but it is empiricism which says that, because we can't investigate claim X with science, we can't have confidence in it. It would be interesting to see a debate about empiricism, as the term is clearly defined. "Science says" implies some hypothesis or theory.

JimiTime wrote:

For the record, i never argued that 'you can insert unscientific ideas into scientific theories'. I think my posts here have been clear on that. I have defended science as science, and attacked WN's view that the philosophy of naturalism is science. I have stood by what science is, and categorically stated that saying 'God did it' etc is not science.

But empiricism can be applied to unscientific theories too.

My problem with religion is the notion of a 'Divine Plan', a meticulous method that produces individual and unique entities, a carefully conceived set of stipulations analogous to mixing the ingredients for a recipe for the new creation.

The problem is, according to the Bible, I think that God is not a very good baker.

For instance, God created everything but did not create evil. Now, to me that means that either Evil is another uncreated entity like God which would mean two Gods or that God inadvertantly created evil, even if only vicariously by providing a means through which evil could exist. So, either God created everything or God and Evil created everything.

If God created everything and evil developed by accident, an unexpected consequence, then why can't that same train of thought be applied as; God created everything and evolution developed by accident, an unexpected consequence?

Why assume that evil is the only thing uncreated by God? Anyway, it appears that sometimes things go wrong in God's kitchen and on occasion He has decided to pull the plug... then changed His mind.

There may be a plan but it doesn't appear to work according to plan.

And if there are two Gods, God and Evil, then Evil is always going to be sabotaging God's work and the plan can't work anyway.

It is safe to treat the Bible as empirical evidence for two reasons; if the Bible can withstand scientific, and historical, geopraphic, etc., scrutiny then it can be caterogised as plausible and can be regarded as a competing theory, and secondly, if it fails those tests the hypothesis can be safely rejected.

The Bible itself indicates how it can all go wrong but it goes wrong because God's plan relies on free-will; God's plan relies on men. Oh oh! We empirically know the nature of men, don't we? God made man in His own image; we are slaves to war. Did God design mankind for war? Well according to the Bible, God directed a war campaign through the Israelites; God had to school them in war. So, can't blame evil for that.

Also, did Satan desire that the crucifixion and resurrection were successful? He tried to tempt Christ to abandon His mission, didn't he? Why then didn't Satan just not let Judas betray Jesus? That would have thrown a spanner in the works. Satan could have influenced Pilate to refuse to condemn Jesus and arrest Ciaphus for rabble-rousing. But in fact, according to the Bible, evil co-operated with God and brought about the fulfillment of prophecy; the procedure went without a hitch, practically. Everybody played their part in God's plan; Ciaphus, the Sanhedrin, Pilate, Judas; who of them are evil when they were nothing more than ropes and pulleys in God's plan. If Judas hadn't betrayed Jesus, God's will would not have been done; had Pilate been a little more assertive, the plan could have failed. Would that be good? Who sinned?

Anyway, Jesus' sacrifice was the solution to the unfortunate not act of God problem of sin; it was a 'repair job'. This suggests that God does not have total control of creation except to the extent that either He can let it continue or, some think, He can destroy it all and start again. Well, the universe can do that on its own. Empirically, all observed phenomena would operate just as they do without a Divine Plan, the sun would rise, apples would fall and men would wage war. The only real area of mystery now concerns the first cause and that is now the only space occupied by God. First cause; origin of species, origin of the universe.

Western society knows about Schrodinger's cat; they are realising more and more that this life is not a rehearsal; be human now because you're a long time dead.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, but it is empiricism which says that, because we can't investigate claim X with science, we can't have confidence in it.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that it is only empirical science that says we cannot put a non-scientific theory into a set of scientific theories, but if we were doing non-empirical science we could?

Morbert wrote: »

It would be interesting to see a debate about empiricism, as the term is clearly defined. "Science says" implies some hypothesis or theory.

Well by science says I mean the principles of the scientific philosophy, for example Science says your theory needs to be falsiable or Science says your theory needs to be repeatably observable or Science says Creationism isn't science

Perhaps that is the confusion?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

For the record, i never argued that 'you can insert unscientific ideas into scientific theories'.

Yes I realize that. My position is that you some how think this means it is then ok to assert confidence in such an unscientific idea so long as you just say Well I'm not doing science and there is no conflict.

Do you understand why you cannot insert an unscientific idea into a scientific theory, why science says you cannot do that in the first place?

It is because the principles of science philosophy (specifically empiricism as Morbet points out) say that you cannot have confidence in such an idea. Yet religious people proclaim confidence in the accuracies of these claims all the time.

Thus, conflict between the two concepts.

Saying Well we aren't doing science so of course we can have confidence in these claims is missing the point of why this rule exists in the first place.

CerebralCortex

himnextdoor wrote: »

...This suggests that God does not have total control of creation except to the extent that either He can let it continue or, some think...

Elephant in the room. Why call him God?

himnextdoor

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Elephant in the room. Why call him God?

Why call it 'Him'?

God is as good a name as any for the first cause.

Morbert

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that it is only empirical science that says we cannot put a non-scientific theory into a set of scientific theories, but if we were doing non-empirical science we could?

You will have to define non-empirical science, as a number of definitions come to mind. I am suggesting that it is empiricism which says we can only know things through our senses, as opposed to deduction or revelation. Science is the practice of making formal inductive statements and performing tests to affirm or falsify those statements under the standards of empiricism.

For the record, I am effectively an empiricist, as I believe any knowledge not gained through the senses, such as mathematics, ethics, etc. is suppositional.

Zombrex

Morbert wrote: »

Science is the practice of making formal inductive statements and performing tests to affirm or falsify those statements under the standards of empiricism.

Would you agree that the philosophy that defines what is or isn't science makes certain propositions about the confidence we can have in the accuracy of any particular claim based on how supported the claim is by the scientific method.

If so we are basically saying the same thing, though possibly it is an issue of terminology.

For example I would define "science" not just the practice but the rational behind the practice, so when I say "science says" I don't mean just a conclusion reached by the scientific method, but the philosophy that determines what the scientific method is in the first place.

Ultimately my objection is to the religious idea that the philosophy that underpins the scientific method makes no judgement about the quality of the claims that come about through religious experience or theology.

CerebralCortex

himnextdoor wrote: »

Why call it 'Him'?

God is as good a name as any for the first cause.

My point being, that such a being would not worthy of any kind of respect that the religious give to it.

StudentDad

If for arguments sake there is a god, trying to put a gender or other definition on such an entity is merely a human definition that by it's very nature limits this being. It lessens it, so that we may better understand. However, this limiting necessarily prevents our ultimate understanding and therefore, trying to understand god is an exercise in futility.

So for me, if there is a god, great! I'm not going to waste my life in futile searching trying to understand something that by definition is beyond my comprehension. Life is far too short.

SD

Fanny Cradock

And why do you assume that it is a futile search or that the search is somehow a waste of your time? The whole point of Christianity is that God makes part of himself known to us and that our relationship with him is the most important aspect of our lives.

Robert ninja

Christianity is not the only thing saying such things though, Fanny.

Fanny Cradock

Did I say otherwise?

StudentDad

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And why do you assume that it is a futile search or that the search is somehow a waste of your time? The whole point of Christianity is that God makes part of himself known to us and that our relationship with him is the most important aspect of our lives.

I have no problem with the concept of a single 'god' or a panoply of 'gods' or whatever variation floats your boat. If a given credo allows an individual to feel safe when they're alone that's fine by me.

Where I draw the line is where a church or cult or other quasi-religious body tries to exert it's influence on the governance of a particular society, be that by using it's influence mould policy and legislation that favour their dogma and use that same unelected influence to prevent legislation or policy that is contrary dogma.

They (the church etc etc) are perfectly entitled to their beliefs and do not have to avail of these things within the market-place of civil society. However, they (religous groupings) do not have the right in my opinion to foist those beliefs on a given society.


SD

Robert ninja

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did I say otherwise?

Nope.

@StudentDad

The only way a religion can remain strong and infuential is by doing all the things you listed it has no right to do.