I have two questions for Atheists (or anyone else)

[KyivAndrew]

And, do you believe that science and religion can co-exist?

Jimmy you asked this of Kaninchen, and if I may be so bold to enter this thread, I believe you are confusing science with something called scientism. Whoever said that science and religion cannot coexist except propagators of scientism, or propagators of the 6,000 year universe? At the fundamental level, science and scientific practice deals with entirely different issues than religion (“why” vs. “how” as stated above), though their paths may cross in things like cosmology out of curiosity.

Even the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in his Blue Book, that great damage is done when philosophers “see the method of science before their eyes and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer questions in the way that science does.” Wittgenstein thought the “scientific method” particularly incorrect in dealing with religion, or aesthetics. He bemoaned those who engaged in “idol worship of science and the scientist”, perhaps a quip before its time at Dawkins.

I think one needs to distinguish those who hold firm to 100% empiricism and those who allow for metaphysics.

Moreover, Wittgenstein’s foe in philosophy, Karl Popper, had this to say on the “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”: “So long as a theory withstands severe tests and is not superseded by another theory, we may say that it has proved its mettle or is corroborated. I never assume by that by force of verified conclusions, theories can be established as ‘true’, or even as merely ‘probable’.” bio.classes.ucsc.edu/bio160/Bio160readings/Logic%20of%20Scientific%20Discovery.pdf

I believe Popper called this Science as Falsification. stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

In any event, Popper’s writings on the scientific method are not my strong suit as I was a more avid reader of his works on the Poverty of Historicism, or the Open Society. But it is useful in reading of some of the questions involved.

I don’t believe we can “prove” God exists, but we can have reasonable grounds for believing in Him (Mortimer Adler on “exnihilation”) or can even use science to make a good case for a Creator and Designer (David Berlinski in his last book using the Big Bang and design). The rest is faith, metaphysics.

Science and religion coexist everyday. Do we not get new cures and medicine from what ails us from religious and atheist doctors, medical researchers, pharmacologists alike every year? I believe you are attempting to get at those who believe in nothing but materialism and empiricism, as opposed to you going after “science”. Scientism, however, as demonstrated by Dawkins, is what you are really trying to juxtapose to religion I believe.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Well here is an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education posted by a “new atheist” which deals with the issues that concern you.

"In a 2008 publication titled Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] stated: “Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. … Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. … Many religious beliefs involve entities or ideas that currently are not within the domain of science. Thus, it would be false to assume that all religious beliefs can be challenged by scientific findings.”

Those of us who disagree—sometimes called “new atheists”—point out that historically, the scope of science has always expanded, steadily replacing supernatural explanations with scientific ones. Science will continue this inexorable march, making it highly likely that the accommodationists’ strategy will fail. After all, there is no evidence that consciousness and mind arise from anything other than the workings of the physical brain, and so those phenomena are well within the scope of scientific investigation. What’s more, because the powerful appeal of religion comes precisely from its claims that the deity intervenes in the physical world, in response to prayers and such, religious claims, too, fall well within the domain of science. The only deity that science can say nothing about is a deity who does nothing at all."

chronicle.com/article/The-New-War-Between-Science/65400

Interesting read.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Jimmy you asked this of Kaninchen, and if I may be so bold to enter this thread, I believe you are confusing science with something called scientism. Whoever said that science and religion cannot coexist except propagators of scientism, or propagators of the 6,000 year universe? At the fundamental level, science and scientific practice deals with entirely different issues than religion (“why” vs. “how” as stated above), though their paths may cross in things like cosmology out of curiosity.

Even the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein wrote in his Blue Book, that great damage is done when philosophers “see the method of science before their eyes and are irresistibly tempted to ask and answer questions in the way that science does.” Wittgenstein thought the “scientific method” particularly incorrect in dealing with religion, or aesthetics. He bemoaned those who engaged in “idol worship of science and the scientist”, perhaps a quip before its time at Dawkins.

I think one needs to distinguish those who hold firm to 100% empiricism and those who allow for metaphysics.

Moreover, Wittgenstein’s foe in philosophy, Karl Popper, had this to say on the “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”: “So long as a theory withstands severe tests and is not superseded by another theory, we may say that it has proved its mettle or is corroborated. I never assume by that by force of verified conclusions, theories can be established as ‘true’, or even as merely ‘probable’.” bio.classes.ucsc.edu/bio160/Bio160readings/Logic%20of%20Scientific%20Discovery.pdf

I believe Popper called this Science as Falsification. stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

In any event, Popper’s writings on the scientific method are not my strong suit as I was a more avid reader of his works on the Poverty of Historicism, or the Open Society. But it is useful in reading of some of the questions involved.

I don’t believe we can “prove” God exists, but we can have reasonable grounds for believing in Him (Mortimer Adler on “exnihilation”) or can even use science to make a good case for a Creator and Designer (David Berlinski in his last book using the Big Bang and design). The rest is faith, metaphysics.

Science and religion coexist everyday. Do we not get new cures and medicine from what ails us from religious and atheist doctors, medical researchers, pharmacologists alike every year? I believe you are attempting to get at those who believe in nothing but materialism and empiricism, as opposed to you going after “science”. Scientism, however, as demonstrated by Dawkins, is what you are really trying to juxtapose to religion I believe.

Thank you very much for your help, this is an excellent post! My problem is with Scientism and with those in the science community apposed to God and religion and not with science itself.

Scientism - Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality

Moreover, I do know that science and religion coexist. What ever is true in science or in religion, represents truth.

However, I don’t know if I could have ever worded it as well as you have, so thanks again!

 

[KyivAndrew]

Thank you very much for your help, this is an excellent post! My problem is with Scientism and not with science and I do know that science and religion coexist. However, I don’t know if I could have ever worded it as well as you have.

Thanks Again!

No probs, my good man. My wording is actually failing me now as I draw sleepy.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Is Scientism a kind of “religion” for some?

 

[KyivAndrew]

Is Scientism a kind of “religion” for some?

Well, I guess it would appear that way with many of the “new atheists”; Richard Dawkins quickly comes to mind. He is dedicated to scientism and atheism for that matter to the same extent as many religious are to religion. Scientism is his religion for all intents and purposes.

Here is an interesting debate by Christian William Lane Craig vs. Dr. Peter Atkins, moderated by WFB. Look at atheist Dr. Atkins’ speeches on he being on “the brink of understanding everything” because of SCIENCE. Science is his religion - hence scientism.

First clip of 11 on the debate posted on youtube.
youtube.com/watch?v=9qT1pp_jCUw&feature=related

Worth to watch the whole debate and the following clips, though Craig goes beyond just arguing God, but brings in Christ.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Well, I guess it would appear that way with many of the “new atheists”; Richard Dawkins quickly comes to mind. He is dedicated to scientism and atheism for that matter to the same extent as many religious are to religion. Scientism is his religion for all intents and purposes.

Here is an interesting debate by Christian William Lane Craig vs. Dr. Peter Atkins, moderated by WFB. Look at atheist Dr. Atkins’ speeches on he being on “the brink of understanding everything” because of SCIENCE. Science is his religion - hence scientism.

First clip of 11 on the debate posted on youtube.
youtube.com/watch?v=9qT1pp_jCUw&feature=related

Worth to watch the whole debate and the following clips, though Craig goes beyond just arguing God, but brings in Christ.

I think that the next time I start a tread, I’ll run it by you first. Not only do you know how to word the question… you know how to word the answer. Some of the posters here are really smart (you) and some of aren’t (me)… I try though… Thank you for keeping, an other than lack-luster post interesting…

 

[Kaninchen]

Scientism is his religion for all intents and purposes

With something of an empasis on the phrase ‘intents and purposes’, I’d suggest.

 

[Kaninchen]

I think that the next time I start a tread, I’ll run it by you first. Not only do you know how to word the question… you know how to word the answer. Some of the posters here are really smart (you) and some of aren’t (me)… I try though… Thank you for keeping, an other than lack-luster post interesting…

Unfortunately, you chose a topic on which ‘libraries full’ of scientific/philosophical/epistemological argument exist and the minefields of ‘depends on what you mean by . . . .’ are well laid down!

 

[Kaninchen]

Ludwig Wittgenstein

Growl - well, a rabbit growl anyway.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Unfortunately, you chose a topic on which ‘libraries full’ of scientific/philosophical/epistemological argument exist and the minefields of ‘depends on what you mean by . . . .’ are well laid down!

Well… what do expect from an old LA cop…At least, I have daughter who is a veteran, a DLI graduate, and a college graduate, currently working out of the Pentagon,., A son getting ready to start his third year at the U.S.M.A. at West Point, NY… and a another son, well along in the process for West Point… All of my kids are going to do better in life than I did and they will all be smarter than their dad buts that’s ok, that’s my job as a dad… making sure that my kids do better than I did…I’m sure that they all can put together a better post than I can and they probably cringe when they see their old man’s spelling and grammar…but when it comes tactical situations and putting real bad guys behind bars, now that’s a different story…but I try here and fortunately most people here put up with me…There are a lot of really smart people here at CAF and I ain’t one of them, but fortunately they still respond to my threads.
Thank you…

 

[snowman10]

I am slowly working my way back to the Faith and have made great strides over the past few weeks. And I have realized the following with regards to faith and science.

Science asks and attempts to answer the how. Religion asks and attempts to answer the why. Science is the language God chose to write the Universe in, like the way a computer programmer chooses to write a computer program in C or C++ or Java. Users of that program are forced to operate under the auspices and rules of that program language. We operate under the Laws of Physics, which in reality is the program language of God. I also find no difficulty in supporting evolution.

Just my take on the matter. I suppose education in Biology and Physics has been helpful.

DU

 

[Kaninchen]

Well… what do expect from an old LA cop…At least, I have daughter who is a veteran, a DLI graduate, and a college graduate, currently working out of the Pentagon,., A son getting ready to start his third year at the U.S.M.A. at West Point, NY… and a another son, well along in the process for West Point… All of my kids are going to do better in life than I did and they will all be smarter than their dad buts that’s ok, that’s my job as a dad… making sure that my kids do better than I did…I’m sure that they all can put together a better post than I can and they probably cringe when they see their old man’s spelling and grammar…but when it comes tactical situations and putting real bad guys behind bars, now that’s a different story…but I try here and fortunately most people here put up with me…There are a lot of really smart people here at CAF and I ain’t one of them, but fortunately they still respond to my threads.
Thank you…

You’re OK Jimmy B.

 

[Jimmy_B]

You’re OK Jimmy B.

Thank you, that’s good to know…

 

[Jimmy_B]

Is Scientism a kind of “religion” for some?

 

[Kaninchen]

It really does depend on what you mean by ‘religion’ - certainly a kind of ‘faith’ would be involved in the sense of ‘putting faith in’. We all put our ‘faith’ in well-supported science every day, after all (you do it when you switch on your computer).

Scientism is that ‘writ large’ - a faith in scientific enquiry as superior to all other endeavours. One problem with this ‘superiority’ is that it assumes that the whole process is entirely rational/logical (or should be - crushing any importation of metaphysical speculation, the killing off of metaphysical ‘weeds’ in the great garden of human knowledge) and that’s at the centre of great historical rows about the nature of scientific method.

In a sense, your question is terribly old-fashioned, because the search for that kind of certainty about how we ‘know things’ is terribly old-fashioned - it’s not about establishing ‘truth’, it’s about establishing ‘truth in the sense of the best explanation we’ve come up with that hasn’t been falsified yet’.

Now, are there scientists whose faith in science has reached a level of ideological involvement that could be described as religious? Well, I expect there are, eccentrics exist in all areas of human activity after all - religious and non-religious.

That’s not what you’re really asking though is it?

I think that what you were searching for was some kind of corroboration of your suspicion that scientists who are atheists are really another religion and I’d disagree with you - Atheism is only a religion, if you play with language quite a bit.

Now, what of the scientists, like Dawkins, who are crusaders against religion? Are they a religion? I expect that it rather depends on what you think ‘religion’ is. For my part, I’d suggest that they’re ideologues who want to get the ‘weeds’ out of the ‘garden’.

Which isn’t really the same thing.

 

[KyivAndrew]

I think that the next time I start a tread, I’ll run it by you first. Not only do you know how to word the question… you know how to word the answer. Some of the posters here are really smart (you) and some of aren’t (me)… I try though… Thank you for keeping, an other than lack-luster post interesting…

Oh, c’mon. Flattery will get you everywhere Jimmy. This post was not lack-luster at all and it takes some intellectual fortitude to start up a debate like this and follow it through. Me, I am incredibly lazy intellectually and I would bet good money you are smarter than I am. And I am still looking for how to phrase the answer, which may be wrong.

Knowledge may only take someone so far, especially if one lacks wisdom. Didn’t WFB once say he would rather be ruled by the first 200 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than the Faculty of Harvard?

Just do what I sometimes do to look smart: I plagiarize sentences from Kaninchen’s posts and add a bit of my own. After all, she was the first poster during my history on CAF who used the words veridical and post hoc ergo prop hoc and I think orthogonal.