God should be kept out of scientific Questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter MindOverMatter2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MindOverMatter2 said:
The empirical method has nothing to say about that which cannot be measured. So what if science cannot yet explain some phenomena according to a natural cause? That does not mean that we should therefore include purpose in something that is designed specifically to find natural causes. The scientific method functions on methodical naturalism. What you are giving here is a philosophical argument.
Click to expand...
Should methodological naturalism be guided or unguided?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
I’ve seen it, and quite frankly its a caricature of the scientific method.
Click to expand...
OK let’s rip it apart.

How is the method deficient if you eliminate:
  1. observable
  2. repeatable
  3. predictable
What happens to the reasoning with any one of the above missing? What about two?
 
buffalo said:
OK let’s rip it apart.

How is the method deficient if you eliminate:
  1. observable
  2. repeatable
  3. predictable
What happens to the reasoning with any one of the above missing? What about two?
Click to expand...
“All bachelors are unmarried”.

This is observable, repeatable, and predictable. Is this therefore a scientific statement?
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
“All bachelors are unmarried”.

This is observable, repeatable, and predictable. Is this therefore a scientific statement?
Click to expand...
Seems to be - it is empirical and added to our knowledge.

Let us remove 1 of these and what happens.

Let’s remove observable.

So “All Bachelors are Unmarried” but we never saw one. etc… so how do we know?
 
buffalo said:
Let us remove 1 of these and what happens.

Let’s remove observable.

So “All Bachelors are Unmarried” but we never saw one. etc… so how do we know?
Click to expand...
We know that all bachelors are unmarried because it follows necessarily from the concept of a bachelor.
 
MindOverMatter2 said:
guweb2.gonzaga.edu/faculty/calhoun/socratic/tkacz_aquinasvsid.html

Thomism vs Intelligent design.

You might find this interesting.
Click to expand...
Yes - Thomists do not like the idea of an intervening God.

However, IDvolution posits something more akin to St Augustine’s idea of potentia.

IDvolution, (not the same as Intelligent Design) based on the latest science makes St Thomas happy, St Augie happy, and is in conformance with the constant teaching and understanding of the Church.
Code: 
 	 IDvolution - God "breathed" the super language of DNA into the "kinds" in the creative act.  This accounts for the diversity of life we see.  The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the "kind" that they began as.  Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
 
buffalo said:
OK let’s rip it apart.

How is the method deficient if you eliminate:
  1. observable
  2. repeatable
  3. predictable
What happens to the reasoning with any one of the above missing? What about two?
Click to expand...
One of the key – the key? – elements of modern science is conspicuously missing in the discussion here, and this seems a good place to bring it up: falsifiability.

That is the sine qua non for modern empirical science, and is the razor that cuts away theology and other forms of philosophy, separating it into an epistemic class of its own.

And this is what I identify as the principle MindOverMatter is getting at. God doesn’t belong because the Catholic understanding of God, to pick an example, is perfectly unfalsifiable.

Unfalsifiability is the black mark of death for ideas and hypotheses that aim to be scientific in the modern sense. It’s not just a filter for religious credulity (although it’s highly effective in that regard), major secular ideas like string theory also fall under the knife of falsifiability (perhaps string theory is falsifiable in principle, but the high energy demands are so far out from where we are, it is at least practically unfalsifiable even allowing for fantastic technology gains for the foreseeable future).

And falisifiability is the missing piece to your puzzle, above. Why is “all bachelor’s unmarried” unscientific? Why, because it’s unfalsifiable, of course, and it’s easily exposed as a tautology, a trivial truth, rather than a scientific one, once we include the key concept of falsifiability in our thinking.

It’s a remarkably powerful criterion, and a profound innovation in knowledge building, the idea that knowledge is essentially the “left overs from negation” rather than some object we might pursue in a positivist sense.

It’s worth noting that some (supposed) gods would be quite amenable to empirical science, and subject to falsifiability. If we suppose Zeus lives on Mt. Olympus, was 100 feet tall, and delivered thunder bolts to the humans and other objects of his displeasure, we can deploy a research program that could both a) empirically support such claims (if the world were such a world, home to a real god Zeus), and even falsify such claims in the alternative case, as his size, specific location and behavior etc. we could reasonably understand we could not miss at some point of thorough observation; if Zeus was real as supposed, we should expect to observe such a dude.

In any case, I suggest that what really cleaves modern science from all the non-performative philosophies and epistemologies is liability to falsification as the salient qualifier for (otherwise) empirically supported models.

-TS
 
Touchstone said:
One of the key – the key? – elements of modern science is conspicuously missing in the discussion here, and this seems a good place to bring it up: falsifiability.

That is the sine qua non for modern empirical science, and is the razor that cuts away theology and other forms of philosophy, separating it into an epistemic class of its own.

And this is what I identify as the principle MindOverMatter is getting at. God doesn’t belong because the Catholic understanding of God, to pick an example, is perfectly unfalsifiable.

Unfalsifiability is the black mark of death for ideas and hypotheses that aim to be scientific in the modern sense. It’s not just a filter for religious credulity (although it’s highly effective in that regard), major secular ideas like string theory also fall under the knife of falsifiability (perhaps string theory is falsifiable in principle, but the high energy demands are so far out from where we are, it is at least practically unfalsifiable even allowing for fantastic technology gains for the foreseeable future).

And falisifiability is the missing piece to your puzzle, above. Why is “all bachelor’s unmarried” unscientific? Why, because it’s unfalsifiable, of course, and it’s easily exposed as a tautology, a trivial truth, rather than a scientific one, once we include the key concept of falsifiability in our thinking.

It’s a remarkably powerful criterion, and a profound innovation in knowledge building, the idea that knowledge is essentially the “left overs from negation” rather than some object we might pursue in a positivist sense.

It’s worth noting that some (supposed) gods would be quite amenable to empirical science, and subject to falsifiability. If we suppose Zeus lives on Mt. Olympus, was 100 feet tall, and delivered thunder bolts to the humans and other objects of his displeasure, we can deploy a research program that could both a) empirically support such claims (if the world were such a world, home to a real god Zeus), and even falsify such claims in the alternative case, as his size, specific location and behavior etc. we could reasonably understand we could not miss at some point of thorough observation; if Zeus was real as supposed, we should expect to observe such a dude.

In any case, I suggest that what really cleaves modern science from all the non-performative philosophies and epistemologies is liability to falsification as the salient qualifier for (otherwise) empirically supported models.

-TS
Click to expand...
The Myth of Falsifiability
 
Fine with me, as long science is kept out of Religious Questions.
 
buffalo said:
You are offering this as proof?
Click to expand...
No, I’m not… I’m offering it as a phenomeon that has been OBSERVED, which offers an explanation to the ATP Synthase question you asked and DOES NOT INVOLVE THE SUPERNATURAL.
 
traillius said:
Fine with me, as long science is kept out of Religious Questions.
Click to expand...
We should use scientific discoveries to inform our religious questions, if we are truly interested in truth. Do you not agree?
 
FidesSpesCarita said:
Yup, but never seen an observable example of one. At least not one that we can verify as having occurred randomly.
Click to expand...
Oh, but we have. Every time you look in a mirror you’re seeing a creature that exists because of an observed fusion mutation. The fact that you don’t know this calls your knowledge of genomics into question…
 
About Young’s theorem:
Observationality may be proportional to probability of existence, but young’s theorem makes no statement regarding the nature of the cause of a phenomenon, whether proximal or ultimate, or intermediary.
An example:
I exist, this can be observed by objective third parties. The observation can be as extensive as needed, excluding anything harmful to me or illegal.
Now, having concluded I exist, the next question might be why do I exist?
the proximal cause is sexual intercourse between my parents, resulting in my conception, and all subsequent necessary events that result in me being here now.
That cause had a proximal cause, presumably my parents having at the time a desire for intercourse with each other. ( my parents divorced, and are both beyond child-producing age ) This desire is an intermediary cause of my existence.
The chain of intermediary causes, necessary for my eventual existence, goes back eventually to the act of creation of the universe, which needed a proximal cause. Even if that cause is not God, No matter or energy being available would mean that Cause needed a proximal cause which would have no need for a cause. The ultimate cause, of both creation, and my existence. God. Of course the nature of God can’t be answered by his being the ultimate cause of everything aside from himself. But this proves a creator, as much as proof can be possible. Its not scientific, its logical. Science and Logic are separate schools of thought.
 
buffalo said:
Please explain in more detail.
Click to expand...
What for? So you can turn round and say nay without even reading my post and retract your closed mind back into it’s shell?

If you want me to start writing essays, you’ll have to start taking this seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top