Hiding in science?

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

traillius

Guest
some people hide in science. " we demand scientific proof." Its like trying to use biology to disprove that there are three types of rock. It doesn’t work. They know this, and because they need and want to be right, they won’t accept, in the case of rocks, anything other than biology. No geology, or even looking at the samples of three types of rocks.
" there is no biological proof that this piece of sandstone is sedimentary, therefore it cannot possibly be sedimentary. "
 
traillius said:
some people hide in science. " we demand scientific proof." Its like trying to use biology to disprove that there are three types of rock. It doesn’t work. They know this, and because they need and want to be right, they won’t accept, in the case of rocks, anything other than biology. No geology, or even looking at the samples of three types of rocks.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are framing the question incorrectly, and setting up false boundaries for the discussion. It’s like saying, “Prove to me that 2+2=4, but don’t use Math, okay?!”

If the first step on a journey is in the wrong direction, it doesn’t matter if you follow all the rest of the directions thereafter, you’ll never reach your desired destination.
 
it reminds me of tom and jerry cartoons. The mouse hides in a hole too small for the cat, and then acts like he is tougher and stronger.
 
traillius said:
it reminds me of tom and jerry cartoons. The mouse hides in a hole too small for the cat, and then acts like he is tougher and stronger.
Click to expand...
Hi traillus,
A very funny analogy!😃
I’ll never look at those cartoons the same way again!
(Interestingly, there is a beautiful Irish poem written in the 8th century. It concerns a monk scribe who likens his work to that of his pet cat. The poet-scribe tackles a theme in the same way that his cat tackles a mouse!)
God Bless,
Colmcille.🙂
 
Sadly some pseudo intellectual people think that being atheist one is more intelligent. I’ve come across many such atheists who cite Dawkins and are not able to think for themselves and rather than present ‘reason’ they represent the dogma of Dawkins and others. It’s as if concrete thinking reigns in on the logic of many such people. There seems to be a missing ability to think in abstract terms and reconcile faith one practices in one’s life and uses as a guide to act morally and science one uses in one’s scientific work. It’s a pity as this idea that atheism is in some form more intellectual may drive many people towards it.
 
traillius said:
some people hide in science. " we demand scientific proof." Its like trying to use biology to disprove that there are three types of rock. It doesn’t work. They know this, and because they need and want to be right, they won’t accept, in the case of rocks, anything other than biology. No geology, or even looking at the samples of three types of rocks.
" there is no biological proof that this piece of sandstone is sedimentary, therefore it cannot possibly be sedimentary. "
Click to expand...
To whom and what are you referring?
 
_Locke said:
To whom and what are you referring?
Click to expand...
Probably the Youtube atheists, and logical positivists.

He’s drawing an analogy, with which I largely agree, showing that certain methods are not applicable to finding certain types of truths. Just as the methods of biology cannot be used to find truths about geology, neither can the methods of science be used to find truths about God (per se).
 
"awatkins:
Probably the Youtube atheists, and logical positivists.
Click to expand...
Well I’m not very familiar with logical positivism, but I take anything I read in the Youtube comments section with a grain of salt.
awatkins69 said:
He’s drawing an analogy, with which I largely agree, showing that certain methods are not applicable to finding certain types of truths. Just as the methods of biology cannot be used to find truths about geology, neither can the methods of science be used to find truths about God (per se).
Click to expand...
What methods would you say can find truths about God?
 
_Locke said:
Well I’m not very familiar with logical positivism, but I take anything I read in the Youtube comments section with a grain of salt.

I’d agree with you.

What methods would you say can find truths about God?
Philosophy of religion.
Click to expand...
 
" if you show me scientific evidence, I will believe in God. " A common challenge by atheists. But anyway, even if such evidence could be found, it wouldn’t matter. No evidence for God can be found in science because science is non-sufficient for that task. For lack of a better description, science is too childish to understand the adult concept of God. But anyway, they don’t believe the scriptures, or even Jesus’ resurrection, as real or convincing. Failing to believe that means they are unlikely to believe anything. Even if Jesus suddenly appeared to them with a mean left hook and then an axe kick to their sternum, they probably wouldn’t even believe then. I am employing hyperbole of course. I don’t wish, and Jesus is unlikely, to have such an act happen.
 
Wisdom is knowledge, and knowledge is Virtue.

Read Plato’s description of the prisoners in the cave. We can then discuss whether its science in the cave, or religion in the cave.
 
That would depend on where the cave is. If the cave is in the physical known universe, then science is in the cave. From an atheistic scientific point of view, they would probably say that religion is in the cave of “delusion” or whatever. Of course we look to beyond, while science wants to erase beyond by expanding until beyond no longer exists. Impossible, but what they need.
 
traillius said:
some people hide in science. " we demand scientific proof." Its like trying to use biology to disprove that there are three types of rock. It doesn’t work. They know this, and because they need and want to be right, they won’t accept, in the case of rocks, anything other than biology. No geology, or even looking at the samples of three types of rocks.
" there is no biological proof that this piece of sandstone is sedimentary, therefore it cannot possibly be sedimentary. "
Click to expand...
You’ve been writing about science a lot lately here. However, I’ve got a feeling you have a skewed picture of what science is. I always like to give the benefit of the doubt so let me ask you - what do you refer to when you say ‘science’?
 
lemondiesel said:
Wisdom is knowledge, and knowledge is Virtue.

Read Plato’s description of the prisoners in the cave. We can then discuss whether its science in the cave, or religion in the cave.
Click to expand...
We can’t disagree with one another to the extent that the cave metaphor suggests. We can only make sense of disagreement against a background of significant agreement. Our worldviews are not so different as Plato’s Cave suggests they could be.

Philosophers of science don’t like Plato’s cave metaphor or Descartes’ architectural or chain metaphors for for knowledge. While Descartes modeled his philosophical method on mathematics, following C.S. Peirce, Otto Neurath took science to be the proper model for philosophical thinking. As Quine explained, rather than clearing away all but a single bedrock belief or two upon which to build a system of thought,

“Neurath has likened science to a boat which, if we are to rebuild it, we must rebuild plank by plank while staying afloat in it. The philosopher and the scientist are in the same boat. Our boat stays afloat because at each alteration we keep the bulk of it intact as a going concern.”

There are no bedrock beliefs that all our other beliefs depend upon. Any belief whatsoever can be held in doubt with respect to our other beliefs. What we can’t do is question all our beliefs at once as Descartes thought he accomplished with cogito ergo sum.

We can’t be wrong about everything as in Plato’s cave analogy. Most of our beliefs must be true given the success we have in coordinating our behavior with others with fruitful results.

Best,
Leela
 
^^ Would you agree or disagree that gaining knowledge in science can lead to spirituality?
 
traillius said:
That would depend on where the cave is. If the cave is in the physical known universe, then science is in the cave. From an atheistic scientific point of view, they would probably say that religion is in the cave of “delusion” or whatever. Of course we look to beyond, while science wants to erase beyond by expanding until beyond no longer exists. Impossible, but what they need.
Click to expand...
Science’s “beyond” would be to explain why atoms act the way they do. Why were these the elements of matter that came into existence?
 
Here’s the meaning of Plato’s cave:

“Plato imagines a group of people who have lived chained in a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to seeing reality.** He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not constitutive of reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.**
The Allegory is related to Plato’s Theory of Forms,[1] wherein Plato asserts that “Forms” (or “Ideas”), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Only knowledge of the Forms constitutes real knowledge.[2] In addition, the allegory of the cave is an attempt to explain the philosopher’s place in society.”****

So it isn’t the scientist, but the philosopher who has the highest status because he becomes free of the cave and its illusory images.
 
lemondiesel said:
Science’s “beyond” would be to explain why atoms act the way they do. Why were these the elements of matter that came into existence?
Click to expand...
They act because of a First Mover. I.E., God.

If you are a follower of Democritus, you would say it was “chance.” Therefore no “life after death.” Although Democritus, from what I understand DID posit some sort of Creator, albeit a Deistic “Create Then Step Back”-type of Creator.

Epicuturs took Democritus’s Atomism and gave it his own spin. Though he still posited an original Creator.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top