Does Science Support Atheism?

[Touchstone]

Touchstone -

Please don’t be coy. I watched Richard Dawkins on television. Soft-spoken, English accent and all. “We no longer believe in the Greek and Roman gods, I’m simply adding one more.”

Now don’t put on your science hat and play “Simon says.” And then say, “Oh, Simon didn’t say.”

Scientists remove, whole, science from their laboratory-cathedrals, and then, using the entire weight of their titles and scientific standing, present it - packaged for public consumption, with the impramatur of scientific legitimacy. You are essentially doing the same.

Peace,
Ed

I don’t dispute that folks like Dawkins offer metaphysical conclusions that they openly attribute to their scientific knowledge and training – I do that very same thing. But that is patently NOT “ex cathedra”, science qua science. as a way to demonstrate this, you might go looking through Richard Dawkins’ curriculum vitae; when you review the scholarly articles Dawkins has published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, you’ll fin a conspicuous ABSENCE of such talk, such conclusions.

Why? Because its not in the domain of science itself. Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. And “there is no God” is the kind of gross violation of scientific standards as the most sleazy Intelligent Design advocate trying to slip in Designer metaphysics at the end of an article in some journal of biology.

No doubt about it, Dawkins, others, and myself (I’m a nobody, but am trying to make clear I’m not trying to gerrymander around my own case) all point to an understanding of science as an important factor in concluding there is no God or gods. But right or wrong, that kind of claim cannot pass muster as scientific conclusions. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it’s not; it’s the difference between what science says and claims, and what the witness of science means in terms of metaphysics.

If you should find something in Dawkins’ peer-reviewed publications that argues like Dawkins does in his popular books and lectures, than I think you have a very good point.

-TS

 

[edwest2]

TS -

Science is a method, a way of doing things. It does not occur by itself. It comes into existence only by the actions of human beings.

So I ask that you end the charade. “Science” is a method - only humans bring it into existence. Nothing metaphysical in the peer reviewed papers?

When a man with a title, and peer reviewed papers, enters a room and is introduced with his title and with mention of his great scientific background and his voice and image are transmitted to millions of people – and he makes a statement linking science to his atheism – he is preaching. As most certainly as any preacher who ever lived. He is preaching.

The current messages?

There are no gods.

Religion is a primitive mechanism that has (somehow) come into existence but it needs to go.

You are an animal. Nothing special.

You were created by a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.

Science and man can kill human embryos for the greater good.

Doctors can kill patients (remember, first do no harm?) as a sign of compassion or simply allowing for the patient’s wishes.

All sex is permissable. Scientific studies are just backing it all up.

Ray Kurzweil advocates the elimination of the human species by replacing it with dead, inorganic constructs.

Peace,
Ed

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, Christianity doesn’t provide a “feedback loop”, some objective way you can test your ideas and beliefs, to see if the comport with reality. In scientific inquiries, you devise an experiment to test your hypothesis, and you give it a go. Then you look at the results. Maybe you try again several times to reduce the risk of bad data, or execution problems. But you can see for yourself, or most importantly, bring in outside, disinterested third parties, and have them confirm the results for you, in support or rejection of your hypothesis.

With Christianity, you can develop the hypothesis (“man is saved by grace alone”), but you can’t falsify it, or test it. You can believe it or not, but you have no independent feedback to rely on. You can excommunitcate, or be excommunicate, splinter of into your own sect, or burn those who disagree at the stake. Or just do nothing at all. But you do not have the feedback loop that makes science so productive in building knowledge.

we do have a feedback loop, we call it the judgement, where in your hypothesis will be tested. the time scale is larger than you may wish for, but we do believe that such a mechanism exists.

that aside, why is a feedback loop important? it seems like an overly intellectual way of complaining that G-d hasn’t given one a sign.

G-d isn’t acting as one wishes, so to speak.

Sure there are, supposedly anyway. The Christian God is a transcendent deity who interacts with us via revelation, right?

you’ll have to explain how this counts as authority in regard to metaphysics?

Human organizations stand as proxies for such a God, delivering revealed Truth by virtue of the authority invested in them by God (keys, Matt 16:18, etc.)

yes that is the theological authority.

Understand. I think one’s position on that would turn on their view of rationalism, and the value and durability of “performative knowledge”.

im not sure that knowing how matters, it would seem to be contingent on the situation.

None in principle, but as a matter of practice, supernatural propositions fail as a matter of rational analysis. Maybe it helps to stress the “intellectual” emphasis of rationalism, as opposed to sensory/intuitive/emotional warrants, which are where the supernatural beliefs obtain (and I use ‘sensory’ here in a charitable way to include ‘mystical’ or ‘supernatural’ experiences, which I understand to be imaginative, but others see as veridical).

you should save the mysticism, its not my bag.

You do? Well, that’s good to hear. Where do we find empirical evidence for anything supernatural/non-physical. Just reading that back, it sounds a trick question, as “evidence” connotes physical, to my mind. But make of that what you will

physical matter cannot cause itself, therefore first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

that is the evidence for the existence of the non-physical. as for many things not immediatley observable, we know it from its effects, same way as an electron, or other particles.

Here’s a common "start’: I just look around at the world around me and I see God, I know that something must have created that.

That’s a highly cynical take on “starting with empirical evidence”. Not saying this is how you start, but that’s an immediately recognizable opening for any Christian. Even reading Paul, one hears the same basic intuition at work.

Aquinas was a genius. but take one step at a time.

There you go. As a Christian, rationalism was sharp edge I could not deny or defeat. I’ve not heard your arguments,

rationalism is my sword. it is my friend.

but a lot of what I wanted to call rationalism was more euphemism than actual rationalism, and the ‘rationalism’ of many of my Christian peers was more of a winking label than an apt description. Once one arrives at some basic principles of rationalism (and this can be difficult in hostile contexts, admittedly), the breakdown emerges as a matter of just applying the method.

setting epistomological rules favoring one outcome over another, is as much a method of bias, as it is subtle. i know you think it need be complicated, but in my experience it can really be rather simple.

the more you complicate it, the less convinced people are. but that is just my opinion.

Well, I’m sure that happens. For me, I think I can say I don’t assume such, but having been a Christian trying to rectify my faith with rationalism, and engaging many other Christians in efforts to do the same, the conclusion (as opposed to my assumption) is that it’s a very difficult proposition. At some point, supernaturalism demands that rationalist requirements be suspended, ignored.

then let us continue the first cause debate and see.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You are saying you don’t have faith until you die?

of course not, rather that the obvious impending death of the individual is a goad to religious thought, in the most basic sense.

I think it admits both evidence that isn’t rationally counted as evidence (e.g. msytical experiences/revelation, or simple intuition), and it indulges in inferences and inductions that have no warrant (e.g. I can’t imagine there not being a God, so there must be one). But each theist is different, so it’s difficult to give a good answer across the board. Much better to look at the argument for beliefs from a specific supernaturalist, and go from there. That way, we avoid speaking in abstracts and stereotypes.

those things really have no place in the rational discussion with atheists, among ourselves they are fine, but they aren’t in my atheist tool kit.

as to abstracts and stereotypes, “supernaturalist” implies a belittlement of our theism, intentional or not, it draws fire.

Well, lots of things, but here’s an example. I used to believe, uncritically, that there was historical support for the Resurrection. Taking a good look at both the actual evidence, the nature of hearsay, and hearsay from a disillusioned band of apocalyptic-minded followers of a recently-executed Jesus, and the basic implausibility of a claim of resurrection in contrast to alternative explanations, I had to admit that my “rational belief in a historial Resurrection” was bure bunk, digested baloney from Christian apologists.

Of course, it matched what I wanted to believe, and sure felt I needed to believe, else I should take on the “scarlet letter” of “unbeliever”. That explains part of the disingenuous support I claimed for a historical Resurrection. Looking at other historical claims with similarly fantastic features and a similar poverty of objective evidence, and how quickly and efficiently I dispensed with those, I was confronted with my own pretense to rationalist approaches to the issue of the Resurrection.

You might think of it as coming to the honest realization that William Lane Craig is a complete con-artist, maybe.

That’s one where the more distance I put between me and the analysis emotionally, and the more I processed the question in terms that were fair and objective (less personal and subjective), the more stark became the problem, the *supernaturalism" masquerading as rationalism in my mind. I know there are people who don’t try to defend the Resurrection in historical/evidential terms, but that is something I did embrace on “rationalist” grounds. Whoops!

Live and learn.

-TS

i dont have problems with the history of it in those terms, for me its foretelling is mathematical proof enough.

that aside as im sure we will disagree for the moment.

i find it hard to believe that the apostles accepted lives of deprivation, disrespect, imprisonment, derision, and eventual torture, decades afgter the ressurection, when they could have simply walked away. why suffer such lives with anything less than complete knowledge?

i suspect that i would not take long to find another path unless i was convinced beyond any doubt. i would have to be a witness to it. they were.

not only they, but their apostles, having only the apostles miracles as evidence, they were also martyrs. these people saw something, experienced something, worth dying for.

there is an unfortunate tendency to assume that people in the “old days” were less intelligent of sophisticated than us, thats not true, in fact i opine that they would have ceratin advantages that we lack today. specifically their socialization was intense in comparison to ours, they had no tv and few books, they lived by their wits, struggling to wrest a living from the earth and the sea, they were master traders, and sharper than we are today, because of these factors.

these were not people easily fooled, or given to hucksterism, yet they, and several generations of their disciples gave their lives, i dont see how this would be done under anything less than the actual events occuring.

 

[Touchstone]

TS -

Science is a method, a way of doing things. It does not occur by itself. It comes into existence only by the actions of human beings.

So I ask that you end the charade. “Science” is a method - only humans bring it into existence. Nothing metaphysical in the peer reviewed papers?

As above, science is predicated on a metaphysical proposition: reality is real, and intelligible to some extent.

That’s implicit in anything science does. But what I was referring to were metaphysical proposition that lie beyond the scope of sciene – *there are no gods, *for example. There’s no way one can keep up with the mountain of new published scientific literature every month, but I do my fair share of reading in the journals, and you just don’t see conclusions like that being drawn, or anything approaching it, even.

When a man with a title, and peer reviewed papers, enters a room and is introduced with his title and with mention of his great scientific background and his voice and image are transmitted to millions of people – and he makes a statement linking science to his atheism – he is preaching. As most certainly as any preacher who ever lived. He is preaching.

Sure! And I’m advocating in a similar way, albeit with more modest honoraria and a fraction of the knowledge Dawkins has of biology. The more I learn about science, the more coherent atheism appears, and the less compelling, and more superfluous theism seems. That’s the effect my knowledge of science has on my metaphysics.

But even so, I was a theistic evolutionist for a very long time, and there are a number of theological overlays on top of science that are unfalsifiable and compatible with the science (God manages telic end at the quantum level – looks ‘random’ to us, but it’s not, etc.).

To me, based on what I know about science, atheism is commended by it. But that “commendation” does occur in a vacuum, but rather in the context of a much larger “internal dialog” about knowledge, belief, evidence, desire and priorities. Your mileage may vary, and that’s the point of the distinction between atheism-informed-by-science and science.

The current messages?

There are no gods.

Religion is a primitive mechanism that has (somehow) come into existence but it needs to go.

You are an animal. Nothing special.

You were created by a cold, uncaring universe that did not have you in mind.

Science and man can kill human embryos for the greater good.

Doctors can kill patients (remember, first do no harm?) as a sign of compassion or simply allowing for the patient’s wishes.

All sex is permissable. Scientific studies are just backing it all up.

Ray Kurzweil advocates the elimination of the human species by replacing it with dead, inorganic constructs.

Peace,
Ed

That doesn’t sound like any Dawkins’ sermon I’ve ever heard, and I’ve heard a bunch. But nevertheless, if there are no gods, and the supernatural is a fiction, a lot of theistic ideas are misgiven, on a variety of topics. Dawkins would say – does say – that being an animal, especially the human kind, makes on very special indeed.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

we do have a feedback loop, we call it the judgement, where in your hypothesis will be tested. the time scale is larger than you may wish for, but we do believe that such a mechanism exists.

OK, but you’ve anticipated my objection. Having the feedback loop come after death isn’t any help at all. The utility of a feedback loop is for error correction and verification while were here, alive, wrestling with this stuff!

that aside, why is a feedback loop important? it seems like an overly intellectual way of complaining that G-d hasn’t given one a sign.

G-d isn’t acting as one wishes, so to speak.

Well, a “sign” as in “miracle” or “wonder” really wouldn’t suffice compared to a system that provided regular feedback, like the analysis of a science experiment – ooh, this failed badly to match our predictions, but this over here was pretty close! A “sign” again begs all the wrong questions – authority, veracity, falsifiability, etc.

In any case, a feedback loop is a strategic advantage in knowledge-building. It provides a means to identify, and therefore correct errors. If you can check your math at points along the way, you can approach a solution with much greater confidence than if you had to just turn it all in at once. One mistake way back at the beginning, and your whole enterprise is shot! A feedback loop (this matches closely, this other thing is way off) is essential in making predictable progress toward better models, and more performative knowledge.

you’ll have to explain how this counts as authority in regard to metaphysics?

Well, I mentioned Matthew 16:18 upthread a bit. This realization was “revealed” to Cephas. In verse 17, Jesus tells Cephas that this was not revealed “by flesh and blood”, but “by my Father in heaven”… revelation as supernatural interaction.

I hit “submit” by accident, so will end here and continue in another post.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

you should save the mysticism, its not my bag.

Well, do you embrace the message of Matthew 16:17-18? If so, I would say you are embracing a mystical phenomena (revelation to Peter), on mystical terms (belief in God/scripture through supernatural means – faith).

physical matter cannot cause itself, therefore first cause must necessarily be non-physical.

On what grounds do you say this? This sounds as capricious as Aquinas!

Handwaving assertions.

Whence this assertion that matter cannot cause itself?

that is the evidence for the existence of the non-physical. as for many things not immediatley observable, we know it from its effects, same way as an electron, or other particles.

Well, that’s serious trouble then. You’re in same pit Aquinas fell into, if so. What’s the rational basis for any of that?

Aquinas was a genius. but take one step at a time.

Uh oh. This bodes ill. Aquinas??? Ayiyi.

rationalism is my sword. it is my friend.

But you’re a fan of Aquinas? Something’s quite wrong, here!

setting epistomological rules favoring one outcome over another, is as much a method of bias, as it is subtle. i know you think it need be complicated, but in my experience it can really be rather simple.

The bias is what makes it simple. It’s warding of bias, and setting up provisions that guard against that makes things hard work. For example, simply asserting that matter cannot cause itself – a major problem right there! If that’s how things go, it’s going to be a long, hard slog, because that’s not even qualified to call “lazy”, standing on its own.

the more you complicate it, the less convinced people are. but that is just my opinion.

Could be, but maybe we can focus first on being rigorous and methodical, however painful that may be for us or anyone else reading. Then we might worry about how digestable or winsome the results may be, OK?

then let us continue the first cause debate and see.

Well, let’s see. Aquinas hardly seems worth the trouble. But point me where you’re interested, and let’s see where it goes. I can only deal with naked assertions stacked on top of each other for so long, then my head starts to feel like it will explode. So I will pull back on the Aquinas at that point.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

those things really have no place in the rational discussion with atheists, among ourselves they are fine, but they aren’t in my atheist tool kit.

as to abstracts and stereotypes, “supernaturalist” implies a belittlement of our theism, intentional or not, it draws fire.

Ok. In these conversations, even on a sectarian board, if I say “Catholic”, inevitably a Baptist pipes up in protest. If I say “Christian”, a muslim will object. Supernaturalist is as wide a net as I can think to apply, and I don’t consider it perjorative with respect to “Catholic” or “theist”. But if you do, I’m certainly willing to use terms your prefer over that.

i dont have problems with the history of it in those terms, for me its foretelling is mathematical proof enough.

OK. But the foretelling is only verified if the Resurrection was actual, right? If so, it seems the historicity becomes crucial, all the same, for you.

that aside as im sure we will disagree for the moment.

i find it hard to believe that the apostles accepted lives of deprivation, disrespect, imprisonment, derision, and eventual torture, decades afgter the ressurection, when they could have simply walked away. why suffer such lives with anything less than complete knowledge?

I think they believed that Jesus had been resurrected. I don’t think he had been, but such a mistake would go far to explain their missionary zeal unto martyrdom, no?

i suspect that i would not take long to find another path unless i was convinced beyond any doubt. i would have to be a witness to it. they were.

I missed something. Who exactly was a witness to the Resurrection?

not only they, but their apostles, having only the apostles miracles as evidence, they were also martyrs. these people saw something, experienced something, worth dying for.

I think if you accept that as is, you are bound to accept the claims of people like Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Jr. and a bunch of others. If your credulity is such that you would accept that testimony for that kind of fantastic claim on those terms, you’ve not got any basis for rejecting any number of similarly fantastic, flimsy claims (many of which have contradictory implications for the resurrection account).

there is an unfortunate tendency to assume that people in the “old days” were less intelligent of sophisticated than us, thats not true, in fact i opine that they would have ceratin advantages that we lack today. specifically their socialization was intense in comparison to ours, they had no tv and few books, they lived by their wits, struggling to wrest a living from the earth and the sea, they were master traders, and sharper than we are today, because of these factors.

Incredulity at resurrection claims doesn’t demand any such disparagement of the people involved. 21st century America has plenty of evidence that otherwise bright, resourceful and dynamic people are liable to endorse all sorts of crazy ideas. One brilliant programmer friend of mine really believes crystals have magic healing powers. Another really, really believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, and Obama is the AntiChrist. These people are technology professionals making a good living. So stories like those in the NT, coming out of the apocalyptic mindset of the era and setting generally, and the tutelage of Jesus specifically, demands no discounting of the basic skills and faculties of the players in the story.

these were not people easily fooled, or given to hucksterism, yet they, and several generations of their disciples gave their lives, i dont see how this would be done under anything less than the actual events occuring.

That you find “fooled by hucksterism” – not the most plausible alternative I think, but no matter – to be LESS plausible than a three-day-dead man coming back to life is absolutely stunning. I can see that being embraced in mystical terms, as a matter faith borne of desire, etc. But to claim that under the aegis of rationalism, that’s positively scandalous.

-TS

 

[Leela]

In this post you aren’t using the term “science” as it is commonly used, especially in this forum, even in this thread.

The dictionary application on my laptop returns this as a definition of science:

science |ˈsīəns|
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology.
• a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences.
• a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology.
• *archaic* knowledge of any kind.

People don’t generally limit science to the study of the “pysical and natura world” otherwise we would be excluding history, anthropology, and psychology from science.

Dictionary.com yields:

Science
Sci"ence, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.]

1. Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.
3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and functions of living tissues, etc.; – called also natural science, and physical science.
4. Any branch or department of systematized knowledge considered as a distinct field of investigation or object of study; as, the science of astronomy, of chemistry, or of mind.
5. Art, skill, or expertness, regarded as the result of knowledge of laws and principles.

The existence of God is provable. The fact that philosophers aren’t unanimous in accepting or rejecting the argument from causality has no bearing on the validity of the argument.

You are not merely asserting that the existence of God is proveable, but that it has already been proven by the First Cause argument. I agree that whether or not anyone recognizes that this really is proof has nothing to do with the validity of the proof. But my question remains. Why do you suppose that this proof is not generally accepted among scientists and philosphers if it is indeed a valid proof? It seems to me that if we actually had proof of the existence of God, then the existence of God would be a settled issue like a mathematical theorem. Why is God not a part of science as science is defined above? The obvious answer is that we simply do not have good reasons to believe in God let alone what any particular religion says about God.

Best,
Leela

 

[Sair]

Well, that doesn’t help at all. If the universe had to be caused (made by God say), you just invoke a regress by one more level. If that’s the rule, that anything that exists must have a cause, then God is in the same boat, and we immediately ask: “Who made God? What caused God to exist?”.

If you respond with " God doesn’t need a cause, and is uncaused", then you’ve just added an unnecessary layer. If something can be uncaused (God, in your view, possibly), then we might save ourselves the trouble of a superfluous entity and say the universe itself is uncaused. If you can end the causal chain with God, why not just end it with the universe itself?

If God is uncaused, then all you’ve done is point questions back at a meta-god, That Which Created God.

That would depend on the idea of physical causality being extruded back into the metaphysical plane. It’s certainly a possibility that our universe was “caused”, but we have no evidence to work with in saying what metaphysics obtain. Saying that “every effect has a cause” is a powerful statement in this universe, but it’s totally parochial. For all we know “cause” is not a functional concept beyond the context of our universe. When you push back to just before the Big Bang, all bets are off as to what rules and dynamics apply, if any apply.

Theortetical physicist Leonard Susskind from Stanford has a good discussion of this in his book The Cosmic Landscape and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.

OK, but that nets out (to me) as mistaking phyics for metaphysics (the unvierse must have a cause because everything in it has a cause), and a good dose of confirmation biasing (convergent prophecy).

If God were wholly imaginary, your position would hold in the same way it does now – as a matter of subjective preference (and possibly confusion about the difference between physics and metaphysics).

Sure. The atom was conjectured before Jesus was born. But two important features of those inferences stand out from the “God inference” you are apparently making. First, the inference is falsifiable, at least in principle. That is, if our inference is incorrect, we have some recourse to becoming aware of that, some way in principle we might reject the idea if it is, indeed, incorrect.

Second, and the more important, we are dealing with phenomena in our physical context. Dark matter, neutrinos, Higgs bosons, etc. are inferences made about phenomena inside of our universe, where we understand through evidence and observation that physical laws do apply. But the “First Cause” idea is wholly different, jumping out of our physical context and into the metaphysic, yet bringing along our notions of physics, and applying them where we’ve no basis for supposing they apply, and where an infinite regress would result even if they did.

The Higgs bosons, for example, is the only particle in the Standard Model that has yet to be instrumentally detected (if I’m current with the science). It is “inference-able”, due to their context. They are supposed to operate in a physical universe according to physical law, and as such are amenable to methods of inference that have proven effective in that context.

But, if you have been following the story of the Large Hadron Collider, you know that it held out the prospect of providing just such experimental support, or rejection. It’s disappointing that logistical problems have caused big delays in these tests, but the inference made in proposing the Higgs boson is on the verge of experimental testing that can support the idea as more than inference, or possibly provide experimental evidence that the inference is incorrect.

If you can’t falsify it, even in principle, there’s not much meaning to calling it “true”, except as a tautology (e.g. “all bachelors are unmarried”). If there’s no way, in principle to falsify the idea of a First Cause (or Susskind’s “cosmic landscape” for that matter), saying it’s “true” doesn’t mean very much beyond an expression of desire.

That’s the disabling weakness of supernaturalism, though. It doesn’t have any way to distinguish between ‘true’ or ‘false’, ‘real’ and ‘unreal’ except as a matter of subjective preference. That’s its greatest asset, too, as it allows one to believe whatever one desires. But ‘falsifiability’ as an objective term is a non-starter for the supernatural. As soon as ‘falsifiable’ means something obejctively, you’ve made the proposition a natural one!

-TS

I just knew there was something suspect about the notion of an objective, logical “proof” of God, but I lacked sufficient knowledge to be able to articulate it precisely. Thanks for your words I maintain my personal conviction that any proof of God that purports to be ‘scientific’ or ‘logical’ actually begins from a postion of faith. As long as the jury is still out, then the possibility remains, as you say, of choosing subjectively to believe or disbelieve in a supernatural god.

 

[The_Barbarian]

People don’t generally limit science to the study of the “pysical and natura world” otherwise we would be excluding history, anthropology, and psychology from science.

All of those investigate only the physical universe.

The supernatural is beyond science, but not the physical side of humans. History, of course, is not a science and has never been part of science.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I mentioned Matthew 16:18 upthread a bit. This realization was “revealed” to Cephas. In verse 17, Jesus tells Cephas that this was not revealed “by flesh and blood”, but “by my Father in heaven”… revelation as supernatural interaction.

I hit “submit” by accident, so will end here and continue in another post.

-TS

im not sure im willing to take a statement of revelation as some authority on metaphysics, simply because it mentions an interaction.

 

[Leela]

All of those investigate only the physical universe.

The supernatural is beyond science, but not the physical side of humans. History, of course, is not a science and has never been part of science.

I don’t know what “supernatural” (or “subnatural”) is supposed to mean so I would never think of trying to study it. It’s sounds like you are making an effort to be contary here, but I guess that’s what barbarians do. All I’m saying is that if the First Cause argument really were proof of the existence of God, then God’s existence would be part of our rational understanding of the universe. Obviously, the existence of God is not something that is part of accepted human knowledge. I’m wondering why that would be if the First Cause argument really is proof of God. Proponents of the argument around here get angry and claim that their opponents simply do not understand the argument. Yet the average person doesn’t understand a lot of what is accepted as fact by those who specialize in a given area. It would seem to me that specialists in philosophy would agree if the First Cause argument were really proof in the way that mathematicians agree about proofs of the Pythagorean Theorem.

Best,
Leela

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, do you embrace the message of Matthew 16:17-18? If so, I would say you are embracing a mystical phenomena (revelation to Peter), on mystical terms (belief in God/scripture through supernatural means – faith).

thats theology, not metaphysics.

On what grounds do you say this? This sounds as capricious as Aquinas!

Handwaving assertions.

Whence this assertion that matter cannot cause itself?

please then, show me some self causing matter.

Well, that’s serious trouble then. You’re in same pit Aquinas fell into, if so. What’s the rational basis for any of that?

the same rational basis that was used to infer subataomic particles, logical inference from effect

But you’re a fan of Aquinas? Something’s quite wrong, here!

we’ll see, just keep talking to me.

The bias is what makes it simple. It’s warding of bias, and setting up provisions that guard against that makes things hard work. For example, simply asserting that matter cannot cause itself – a major problem right there! If that’s how things go, it’s going to be a long, hard slog, because that’s not even qualified to call “lazy”, standing on its own.

quentin smith made that argument of denying the obvious premise. then he stated that it was a weak dodge.

so if you have an example of self causation, then present it.

Could be, but maybe we can focus first on being rigorous and methodical, however painful that may be for us or anyone else reading. Then we might worry about how digestable or winsome the results may be, OK?

how ever you like it.

Well, let’s see. Aquinas hardly seems worth the trouble. But point me where you’re interested, and let’s see where it goes. I can only deal with naked assertions stacked on top of each other for so long, then my head starts to feel like it will explode. So I will pull back on the Aquinas at that point.

-TS

that sounds surprisingly tlike the opening of an escape hatch.

 

[1holycatholic]

People don’t generally limit science to the study of the “pysical and natura world” otherwise we would be excluding history, anthropology, and psychology from science.

Dictionary.com yields:

Science
Sci"ence, n. [F., fr. L. scientia, fr. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know. Cf. Conscience, Conscious, Nice.]

As I indicated that is an archaic usage.

I’m no fan of Wikipedia, but the article on science spells it out at the beginning:

In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) refers to any systematic knowledge or practice.** In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research**.

You are not merely asserting that the existence of God is proveable, but that it has already been proven by the First Cause argument. I agree that whether or not anyone recognizes that this really is proof has nothing to do with the validity of the proof. But my question remains. Why do you suppose that this proof is not generally accepted among scientists and philosphers if it is indeed a valid proof? It seems to me that if we actually had proof of the existence of God, then the existence of God would be a settled issue like a mathematical theorem. Why is God not a part of science as science is defined above? The obvious answer is that we simply do not have good reasons to believe in God let alone what any particular religion says about God.

How can you prove your assertion? I know many scientists and philosophers and your assertion is simply not the case. A small number are atheists (generally from officially atheist states.) The matter is settled, the five ways have never been disproved. You are implying that dissent implies error, which is simply not the case.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

OK. But the foretelling is only verified if the Resurrection was actual, right? If so, it seems the historicity becomes crucial, all the same, for you.

not really, i have several dozen prophecies to pick from. the historicity of anything is questionable, its a poor standard because of that, you know unfounded assertion and all.

I think they believed that Jesus had been resurrected. I don’t think he had been, but such a mistake would go far to explain their missionary zeal unto martyrdom, no?

they saw him die, saw the tomb sealed, with posted guards, saws Him later, had already witnessed many miracles, saw more miracles after the ressurection. i dont think its reasonable to believe that they were all fooled.

I missed something. Who exactly was a witness to the Resurrection?

im refering to the trotality of his ministry.

I think if you accept that as is, you are bound to accept the claims of people like Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Jr. and a bunch of others. If your credulity is such that you would accept that testimony for that kind of fantastic claim on those terms, you’ve not got any basis for rejecting any number of similarly fantastic, flimsy claims (many of which have contradictory implications for the resurrection account).

mohammed and smith, showed up with revealed texts, you just have to trust them, they benefitted from their action, i.e. multiple wives, power, etc.

Jesus had none of these things.

i think thats a pretty good start on accepting those claims over the others, but this is comparative theology, not metaphysics.

Incredulity at resurrection claims doesn’t demand any such disparagement of the people involved. 21st century America has plenty of evidence that otherwise bright, resourceful and dynamic people are liable to endorse all sorts of crazy ideas. One brilliant programmer friend of mine really believes crystals have magic healing powers. Another really, really believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, and Obama is the AntiChrist. These people are technology professionals making a good living. So stories like those in the NT, coming out of the apocalyptic mindset of the era and setting generally, and the tutelage of Jesus specifically, demands no discounting of the basic skills and faculties of the players in the story.

your friends hold their beliefs on the basis of surrounding society, religion, education. the apostles were actual physical witnesses.

That you find “fooled by hucksterism” – not the most plausible alternative I think, but no matter – to be LESS plausible than a three-day-dead man coming back to life is absolutely stunning. I can see that being embraced in mystical terms, as a matter faith borne of desire, etc. But to claim that under the aegis of rationalism, that’s positively scandalous.

-TS

if i personally knew superman, i wouldn’t be shocked when he picked up a car. i would have already seen many irrational feats.

in the same way the apostles had been present for many miracles, ressurection would be the icing on the cake to them.

something strange, but in line with the previous miracles they witnessed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I just knew there was something suspect about the notion of an objective, logical “proof” of God, but I lacked sufficient knowledge to be able to articulate it precisely. Thanks for your words *** I maintain my personal conviction ***that any proof of God that purports to be ‘scientific’ or ‘logical’ actually begins from a postion of faith. As long as the jury is still out, then the possibility remains, as you say, of choosing subjectively to believe or disbelieve in a supernatural god.

seems that you have been having to do a lot of that lately, you know, with no evidence or rational argument to back your positions.

but, if you insist on stalking me from thread to thread, please try to offer something to the conversation, not just backhanded insults from the wings.

 

[JDaniel]

Well, that doesn’t help at all. If the universe had to be caused (made by God say), you just invoke a regress by one more level. If that’s the rule, that anything that exists must have a cause, then God is in the same boat, and we immediately ask: “Who made God? What caused God to exist?”.

If you respond with " God doesn’t need a cause, and is uncaused", then you’ve just added an unnecessary layer. If something can be uncaused (God, in your view, possibly), then we might save ourselves the trouble of a superfluous entity and say the universe itself is uncaused. If you can end the causal chain with God, why not just end it with the universe itself?

Not so. What you have done is to continue the infinite regress ad infinitum, which is exactly the thing that we, and Aquinas, are saying can’t be done. There is either an infinite (number) of cause-effect events, or, there’s a finite number of cause-effect events. “Infinite” cannot be thought of as any sort of completed, or, attained thing as it is not a whole number. If you do, then the result is one – and only one. If it is a one out there, would it move? If you insist that it moves, where would it move? Since motion is relational, in relation to what would it move? Would it just move around in space? But, an infinite would consume all of space, so, again where would it move, and, in relation to what? Would the one cause? Where would it cause? In relation to what? Where would any effect appear? What would it cause? How would it cause? Remember, it is physical.

You might insist that this one might “contain” motion (and cause). An infinite can contain parts, obviously. But, our senses and our sciences tell us that we are able move about freely, sort of inside of it, in (a) “space”, which is a near-nothingness. If there are space/near-nothingness gaps within this universe, or, within simultaneous universes, then the one is not infinite. It is finite. An attained infinite number of cause-effect events would take up everything. There could be no “space”. There could be no nothingness gaps.

The multiverse theory that postulates a universe generating model assumes the existence of other simultaneous universes. It’s either that no other simultaneous universes. In what, or, in relation to what, does our universe, or all of the simultaneous universes exist? Outside of space? What is outside of space? More space? If more space, then we haven’t reached the attainment of infinite yet. And, the universe(s) never will. Because, we can always postulate a little more, or another one, therefore what we have is an existing finite perhaps tending towards infinity; perhaps not. If we have an existing finite – at this very moment – then we haven’t reached the beginning of causing. Since we still have a beginning of causing, then we still have a First and Uncaused Cause - at the beginning.

jd

 

[Leela]

As I indicated that is an archaic usage.

That’s why I was always so careful to explain what I mean by “science in the broadest sense of the term.”

How can you prove your assertion? I know many scientists and philosophers and your assertion is simply not the case. A small number are atheists (generally from officially atheist states.) The matter is settled, the five ways have never been disproved. You are implying that dissent implies error, which is simply not the case.

The issue is not about whether there are scientists and philosphers who believe in God. The question is whether or not they believe that the existence of God has been PROVEN and is a settled fact. I don’t think you’ll find many who agree, and I’m amazed that you think it is.

The five ways are all easily disproved. I know you’ll disagree and claim that I must not understand them to say so, but I’m far from alone. The consensus among philosphers is that the ontological arguments do not stand up to rational scrutiny. If they did, the existence of God would be something that we wouldn’t even need to be discussing on this forum.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

That would depend on the idea of physical causality being extruded back into the metaphysical plane. It’s certainly a possibility that our universe was “caused”, but we have no evidence to work with in saying what metaphysics obtain. Saying that “every effect has a cause” is a powerful statement in this universe, but it’s totally parochial. For all we know “cause” is not a functional concept beyond the context of our universe. When you push back to just before the Big Bang, all bets are off as to what rules and dynamics apply, if any apply.

Theortetical physicist Leonard Susskind from Stanford has a good discussion of this in his book The Cosmic Landscape and the Illusion of Intelligent Design.

I have noticed, in your other posts that you are an intelligent theoretician/mathematician. But, you may just be too darn close to the math. You tend to view math models as though they already fully explain all of reality. In some cases, they may explain parts of it, but, in others, they do not. Physicists and mathematicians must continue to modify their existing models as things they’ve “missed” come into view. Years ago, when I played with math models with a relative who was a physics instructor, I noticed that we could play god, in a way. He showed me that we could alter a variable and solve the equation. There was nothing that said that we couldn’t alter that variable in that way – at least according to him and he was the instructor. I even enjoyed it. But, deep down I always knew it was just barely above being nothing more than tinker toys – not meaning any offense towards the endeavors.

The existence of numerous theories of quantum particles and gravity tells me that more of the same may well be taking place currently, regardless of the power of such things as QCD theory, for example. M-theory takes us up to 11 dimensions. Well, perhaps we’ll be able to postulate a twelfth one soon, if the constant pulls us towards potentially necessary increases. Or, maybe, m-theory will be replaced by an even stronger coupling theory. In fact, Edward Witten has proposed the possibility that a new language for the mathematics underlying the theory may be necessary in order to better understand it.

My point is that it is all so vague and so subject to non-absolutes that it is extraordinarily difficult to concur with you that we can replace something as vast as reality created by God with something else less complicated. Even if a Theory of Everything is finally postulated, I doubt it will be the last.

jd