Contra Scientism

[Dan_Defender]

If scientists can call such things mysteries, then I can call God a mystery, evil a mystery, etc. There is no observable, measurable difference.

 

[Nicene]

String theory as an objectively justified belief is humorous (not dismissing it, just funny for a scientist to believe it) Stephen Hawking comes immediately to mind.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Neithan]

Just going by the results so far, God is losing that competition and science is winning

There is no competition. That’s an assumption in scientism: that our natural observations are somehow an explanation of nature. Actually we still need God to explain nature, while science is our accumulated knowledge of what nature looks like today, and what it will probably look like tomorrow.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

‘We can find no natural explanation, therefore it must be supernatural’.

Not must but maybe.

I have no problem with that.

 

[Freddy]

I agree with the OP. It should also be noted that science, even in its own realm, cannot explain everything. Take dark matter and dark energy. Take the supermassive black holes at the center of every galaxy. They are all ‘mysteries’.

The fact that you put mysteries in scare quotes says something. That something being that ‘mysteries’ can only be described as such until we find out the science behind them. For dark matter and black holes read thunder and lightning.

 

[Veritas6]

So a real miracle would be something that violates some or more of these laws / principles. Not some questionable medical event.

The rearrangement of the stars to display the Bible in every language. That would be a real miracle, and it would also prove that the Christian religion is the one and only true religion.

A miracle is not something that violates any principle of physics because God and physics are not competing causes. God is the underlying cause of all that exists (including physics), He is causing you to exist right now!

It seems that would be your personal opinion of a miracle that might prove Christianity for you, which is great, but it is not essential for everyone. The only miracle that Christians must believe is the Resurrection of Jesus. People might not accept it, but to be considered Christian you must believe the Resurrection. Other miracles help, but they are not necessary for belief.

 

[Veritas6]

Pattylt:

Just going by the results so far, God is losing that competition and science is winning

There is no competition. That’s an assumption in scientism: that our natural observations are somehow an explanation of nature. Actually we still need God to explain nature, while science is our accumulated knowledge of what nature looks like today, and what it will probably look like tomorrow.

It is essential for God to explain nature because science cannot even prove its own method is valid, much less answer important questions such as does every effect have a cause.

 

[Veritas6]

Strangely enough the so-called “miracles” at Lourdes and other places are touted as “miracles” to prove God. The point is that those are not miracles. However, an event that contradicts the known laws of physics would be a very strong arguments for the existence of the supernatural.

In your personal opinion. I would wager the supernatural is a nonsense word when we talk philosophy. We use the word to help believers understand how God works as He does not work as a result of nature, but as the very Author of nature and Existence Itself.

We do not need miracles to prove some “supernatural” out in the void, I would say the existence of my dog is a stronger argument for God’s existence (seriously). As the dog in of itself does not have a sufficient explanation for its own existence.

 

[Veritas6]

I almost spilled my coffee when I read this remark. And then I laughed uproariously. Thanks for the entertainment.

This reminds me of two exclamations:

1. Look, here is a miracle! That is a proof for God’s existence.
2. Look, there is no miracle here. That is a proof for God’s existence.

If you would like to be funny that’s fine, and I agree my comment sounds absurd, but what I meant was serious

Here is a stepwise rendering of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Third Way to prove God exists. Ask me for clarification and I can DM you:

1. We find in reality some things that are capable of existing and not existing, because they are found to be generated and to corrupt.
2. We call such beings possible beings (my dog Gabi is a possible being).
3. A possible being cannot be the cause of its own existence.
4. This is so for two reasons: (1) It would already have to exist in order to cause its own existence , but if it already exists then it does not need to cause its own existence , and (2) If it caused its own existence then it would be both prior to itself and also not prior to itself , which is a contradiction and thus impossible.
5. Therefore, a possible being must get its existence from a cause that exists external to it.
6. It is impossible that everything which exists is a possible being.
7. The reason is that nothing could have begun to exist in reality if everything were a possible being because a possible being only comes to exist through an already existing cause external to it, which would not exist if everything were a possible being.
8. But if nothing could have begun to exist in reality then nothing would have existed in the past and nothing would exist now, because “from nothing, nothing comes.”
9. But this is absurd because things exist now.
10. Thus, not all things are possible beings—at least one necessary being must exist.
11. There are 2 ways for a being to be necessary: (1) it can get its necessity from another; (2) it can get its necessity from itself (per se).
12. If it has its necessity from another, then it requires a cause external to it.
13. An infinity of beings that get their necessity from another would not explain how anything came to exist, just as it is clear from the above that an infinity of possible beings would not explain how anything came to be.

Conclusion : There must be a cause that has of itself (per se) its own necessity (i.e., it does not receive necessity from another), and on which all other beings are, ultimately, dependent for their existence. And this we call God.

But of course this is way off topic and miracles were not the original intent of this thread. If you believe in scientism we can talk here, but if you want to discuss God and miracles, we can DM.

 

[Dan_Defender]

The fact that you put mysteries in scare quotes says something. That something being that ‘mysteries’ can only be described as such until we find out the science behind them. For dark matter and black holes read thunder and lightning.

If you want to put your faith in the type of science that will tell you this and that happened by chance or has always been this way there is no first cause, that is your choice. I put my faith in God.

 

[FiveLinden]

I read atheists committed to science who advocate the idea of “scientism” which has many variations.

Really? Who? Where? When?

 

[Veritas6]

Really? Who? Where? When?

Yes it seems quite unbelievable, but I know many atheists who respect and adore philosophy.

I’m talking about those such as Alex Rosenberg who consciously supports scientism. Others just don’t know philosophy and wish to remain vincibly ignorant and hold unbelievable standards to a self-refuting idea.

I trust you’re not one of the few who aren’t ignorant

 

[Veritas6]

There are couple of errors in it.

What is the STEM universe and I am not referring to the universe as a whole.

1. Does this have anything to do with the argument?
2. Even if the universe had an infinite past, this argument still works.
3. Even if that’s true it doesn’t change anything about the argument.
4. How so?
5. Even so, the fact that at least one thing needs a cause supports this argument.
6. How do you prove this?
7. I am only stating what we observe in the universe are things being generated (born) and corrupted (die and decay). Do you deny this?
8. How would you prove this?
9. The very fact that something can possibly exist proves that it needs some explanation for its existence. Are you telling me my dog has simply existed forever or something?
10. And the goal is not to prove all the features of our God. It is to prove a necessary being exists (which is one feature of the Christian God ).

This is not the Kalam argument, I am not arguing for a “divine cause” of the universe.

I am not arguing that because one thing needs a cause, the whole set needs a cause, no. What I’m saying is the fact that at least one possible being doesn’t have a sufficient explanation for its own existence proves that God exists.

The so called PSR (principle of sufficient reason) is just another unsubstantiated claim.

That sounds like an unsubstantiated claim, unless you can prove it.

Not to mention, that if there would be a rational way to prove God’s existence, it would make “faith” unnecessary. (Hebrews 11.1)

In order to have faith in God, God needs to exist first! We can’t have faith in something we don’t know exists. That’s why we can use reason to prove He exists before we place our trust in Him.

By the way, the concept of “necessary” and “contingent” existence relies on the concept of “possible worlds”. And it is easy to prove (!) that there is no necessary being. If you are interested, I can explain.

Please, how can this be proven?

And your bio says Catholic, I’m not sure why you’d want to refute my argument unless you really don’t like whatever you think I argued.

 

[IWantGod]

Even if that’s true it doesn’t change anything about the argument.

Trust me, he didn’t even see your argument much less spend any time to understand it.

 

[FiveLinden]

I trust you’re not one of the few who aren’t ignorant

Well yes I am. You said there are atheists who advocate the idea of ‘scientism’. I know of this word only as an eponym, that is a word used by one group to describe another, but not by the described group. Atheists who adopt the term are doing so in the same way as a gay person might adopt the word ‘queer’ - to rob it of its force.

Science is just science. Once you add beliefs needed to make it an ‘-ism’ it is no longer science.

 

[StudentMI]

I recall Nietzsche had a passage critiquing what we would nowadays refer to as scientism. I’ll have to find it.