On scientism

[JDaniel]

Yep, and I can see from your tone here you sense the threat to “traditional” worldviews from empirical science. Scientists can say the metaphysician’s predictions were wrong, and propose a simpler theory which does not rely on piling up ad hoc assertions to save the metaphysician’s theory.

Actually, I wasn’t imparting anything from my tone - it was a normal tone for me - just trying to be nice. No sense answering this as you will see toward the bottom.

Geocentrism vs. modern astronomy.

This had/has nothing to do with “metaphysics”. Metaphysics made/makes no assertions regarding modern astronomy. I know that some people are confused and are saying so in their arguments. But, believe me, there’s no relation between them.

Quantum mechanics vs. definite position and momentum.

Again, more of a problem between earlier science and newer science. Metaphysics has, and had, nothing to say about either. Almost everything being attributed to metaphysics, in these threads, really has nothing to do with metaphysics.

An “immaterial” mind uncorrelated with the brain vs. modern neuroscience.

Here there may be some correlation between science and metaphysics, although, the “immaterial mind” is really not a subject of metaphysics either. METAPHYSICS is the science of being as being. Being is the act of the act precisely as it is in act. It has to do with that which is in existence, not as a macro-thing full of micro-things, but rather, precisely as that which exists. That which does not exist possesses no being.

The existence of “free” will vs. modern neuroscience (the evidence isn’t as compelling on this one I’ll admit).

You’re off the hook on this one anyway. It is still not the subject of metaphysics. I am sorry to have to continue repeating myself, but, hopefully, I will make myself clearer sooner.

He can’t falsify data or observations. But he can test any hypothesis whatsoever which makes empirical predictions, yes.

Perfect and very well said.

That’s all fair enough, but metaphysicians are not imbued with a charism of infallibility.

Of course not, that’s why there have been many different interpretations of “being” throughout history. Think of some of the interpretations, Sartre, Buber, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Marcel, Klubertanz and Holloway, and many others. Metaphysicians don’t make “predictions”, per se. Metaphysicians make relationships between being, cause, relation, etc.; they look at the realities of being and what makes them beings as opposed to not-beings. They look at predicates of being, attributes of being, causes of being, as well as the act of being - all of which are presupposed by modern science.

If the modern scientist was unaware that some potential object of study existed - had “being” - he might never know of it, or be of a bent to study it.

As you say, these questions apply to all being, including material being, and one would expect their theories to be borne out by observation.

They don’t “make” theories like scientists do. They have “interpretations”. Such interpretations try to make sense of beings in being. Such interpretations try to make sense of the immaterial. Such interpretations try to make sense of the universals of immobile being. Such interpretations try to relate beings with God, and vice-versa.

Look, there have been plenty of erroneous theories proposed by scientists in the past. They were discarded because the evidence didn’t fit. What would cause a metaphysician to admit his theory was erroneous?

It’s not a matter of an interpretation being “erroneous”. It’s not a matter of one “metaphysical” specialist “proving” another wrong. It’s almost more like a matter of supreme preference. There are sufficient exigencies in the metaphysical realm that some may be misapprehended, or not apprehended, or missed considering at all. But, in general, with the exception of minor adjustments to one position or another, much of metaphysics is pretty concurrent with one another. “Being” is - the question is how, or, in which way, or, in what sort of relation to something else.

The “quantum nothingness” is the material cause, not the efficient cause; it is the “stuff” from which virtual particles can arise.

Are you saying that “quantum nothingness” is “primary matter”? That would be interesting.

Of course, you do realize that what you’ve said sounds a little silly. “Nothingness” = “material” cause, and produces “nothings” that some of us have decided to call “virtual” somethings, because they really are “nothings”, but, some sort of activity seems to indicate that they should receive some kind of name even if the name indicates a contradiction.

The “material” cause is the “stuff” out of which something comes about, whereas the “efficient cause” is the agent which brings it about, right?

Pretty much.

Well because it is possible a random fluctuation will occur.

Is it a “random” fluctuation or a “chance” fluctuation?

Well, perhaps he is, in which case the problem is not science encroaching upon metaphysics, but metaphysics encroaching upon science.

I think more that it is perhaps someone who may well be a “metaphysician” by practice, but, is crossing over to another practice wherein his first practice has no value or preference.

So what you’re saying is metaphysics should never venture into anything regarding mobile being, and make no predictions?

Exactly. That is the job of “natural philosophy” not “natural theology”. Among the churches are many practitioners of science. Especially within the Catholic Church. These are the people who study their respective objects and present them to the Magisterium. To my knowledge, I can’t think of any theories or predictions brought about from the Church’s scientists that contradict good science. That being said, I have seen contradictions of bad science.

jd

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Hi Warp,

I’m not familiar with this argument, would you mind telling me about it please? I am always interested in learning new things!

Thanks

sure,

essentially there were dozens and dozens of prophecies about a Messiah, written over the course of millenia by the different authors of the old testament. they were fulfilled by Christ. the mathematical odds of this happening by chance are insurmountable. like an address that allows a postal service to find you on a few pieces of information, we can p(name removed by moderator)oint the Messiah with extreme accuracy.

these sites do a better job explaining than me.

reasonforhope.org/Bulletins/2002/B020414A.htm
clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml
thedevineevidence.com/prophecy_jesus.html
star.mrklingon.org/ (follow the links)

these are the pprophecies that Christ fulfilled, that kickstarted Christianity.

 

[AnAtheist]

that doesnt mean however that there arent objective reasons to accept their truth. otherwise, who would?

For subjective reasons. Like they were told by their parents. Because a certain faith produces a feeling of comfort.

the Disciples were convinced by what they experienced, so much so that they died for what they had experienced in those three years spent with Christ. the people who followed the disciples also experienced the miracles that the Disciples performed, lives they lived, and themselves became martyrs. choosing to die torturously rather than betray what they had seen with their own eyes.

I seriously doubt that all those things really happened the way they are told. There is a lot of exaggeration in there. Besides a lot of people die for what they believe, if that makes something true then Islam, Buddhism, National Socialism and lots of other ideas are equally “true”.

id say that all of Christianity is based on empirical facts, simply ones that you havent experienced, now, 2000 years removed from the events. however, even in this case there is empirical evidence.

It is based on a myth that may have a historical core.

Messianic Prophecy makes Christianity mathematically undeniable. a bare fact .

Yeah, absolutely, a system constructed after some given prophecies is “mathematically true”. Like my yesterday prophecy of some earth quake 10 years ago makes me a really good prophet (and mathematician).

 

[tonyrey]

Because a certain faith produces a feeling of comfort.

Faith in science produces a great feeling of comfort because you live in the cosy world of physical objects without having to concern yourself about questions of truth, goodness ,justice, freedom, love, equality and purpose…

 

[Fran65]

Thanks Warp,

That is an impressive argument.

Tony,

It is an irony that many atheists accuse Catholics of clinging to a comfort blanket whilst many cling to scientism.

 

[Touchstone]

Faith in science produces a great feeling of comfort because you live in the cosy world of physical objects without having to concern yourself about questions of truth, goodness ,justice, freedom, love, equality and purpose…

Who would you point to as an example of that lack of concern? This sounds like “comfort blanket” language itself, entertaining the conceit that a “scientismist” is somehow disinterested or disabled by any of those things. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a “sceintismist” who will tell you that any of those concerns are abated by his worldview. I suspect you’d be told that you’re crazy to suppose such a thing by any “scientismists” you would ask.

But, let’s get an example out there. If any one is a “scientismist”, wouldn’t you say Dawkins is? I can’t think of anyone who applies sceintific principles more aggressively than he, although I’m sure even bettter examples can be found. But do you suppose Dawkins’ worldview relieves him from concerns about truth, goodness, justice, freedom, love, equality, and purpose. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard him address all of these subjects, and they are indeed matters of great interest and concern for a man like Dawkins.

Do you have any examples that would make your comments there look like more than simple conceit?

-TS

 

[MindOverMatter]

Here there may be some correlation between science and metaphysics, although, the “immaterial mind” is really not a subject of metaphysics either. METAPHYSICS is the science of being as being. Being is the act of the act precisely as it is in act. It has to do with that which is in existence, not as a macro-thing full of micro-things, but rather, precisely as that which exists. That which does not exist possesses no being.
jd

I am going to ask a question, but not to obtain knowledge for my self, but rather to push this debate into other teritory in regards to the limits of scientific explanation. I what to ask you some questions regarding absolute being, because it is believed that metaphysics cannot tall us anything about objective reality, but rather just about concepts.

People think that empirical science is the basis of determining truth, i think that perhaps one or two non-theists on this particular thread are beginning to realize that this is not in fact the case. I believe that one of them has even admitted that when metaphysics meets necessity it can make valid logical inferences that doesn’t require empirical justification. Lets say for arguement sake, that once one understands the power and authority of metaphysics, one can make extra subjective inferences to the existence of a necessary being.

Science cannot tall us anything about God, but because metaphysics deals with being as being, I believe that metaphysics can tell us about the existence of God by identifying the ultimate reality as such.

What do you make of the idea that metaphysics can make logical inferences to the ontological identity of being? By this, i mean that which makes being a being, or reality a reality. Can we identify the “existential cause” through metaphysics? And if so, why doesn’t this require scientific verification?

 

[MindOverMatter]

But, let’s get an example out there. If any one is a “scientismist”, wouldn’t you say Dawkins is? I can’t think of anyone who applies sceintific principles more aggressively than he, although I’m sure even bettter examples can be found. But do you suppose Dawkins’ worldview relieves him from concerns about truth, goodness, justice, freedom, love, equality, and purpose. I’m pretty sure I’ve heard him address all of these subjects, and they are indeed matters of great interest and concern for a man like Dawkins.

Do you have any examples that would make your comments there look like more than simple conceit?

-TS

This particular post looks as if its main purpose is to revel in contradiction. You know the old saying about trying to have it both ways.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

You misunderstand me. Every civilised person is concerned about these questions but faith in science as the **sole **explanation of reality dispenses with the need to investigate the nature of these realities. You yourself stated that “science is metaphysics”!

 

[Touchstone]

You misunderstand me. Every civilised person is concerned about these questions but faith in science as the **sole **explanation of reality dispenses with the need to investigate the nature of these realities. You yourself stated that “science is metaphysics”!

I think your explanation here is what I understood the first time. My objection was based on the idea that a materialist paradigm dispenses with any of those investigations. Rather, materialism is the means of investigation into the nature of those realities, a materialist would say. They remain issues of primary importance, and questions that obtain currency because they are real, material phenomena. To investigate nature is to investigate the nature of those things.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Should a materialist say “theists dispense with all concerns about justice, goodness, freedom and love because they don’t believe in the reality of reality, and suppose that imaginary ‘immateriality’ just magically provides answers, opaque answers, even at that”?

That would be conceited also, in reverse. It’s just begging the question. On a materialist view, the deepest, most profound nature of things obtains in a material way. On a supernaturalist view, they do not, and instead obtain in some immaterial (or perhaps we should say “formal”) way.

-TS

 

[NowAgnostic]

NowAgnostic,

Given your response I can only conclude that you know little about the philosophy of science, less about statistics and even less about neuroscience.

Now that’s a VERY convincing argument. Given your response I can only conclude that you did not actually bother to read what I actually wrote. Two can play this game, see? Just for the record I’ve published more than a few articles in the peer-reviewed neuroscientific literature, all of which use a heck of a lot of statistics. You?

Difficulty with the concepts that MoM has explained to you is understandable, but not understanding that the existence of an immaterial soul is not a hypothesis that can be empirically tested,

I said that clear enough, that the existence of an immaterial soul is itself unfalsifiable (as are angels pushing the planets around), but the hypothesis that an immaterial soul (if it exists) operates independently of the brain **can **be empirically tested because it makes the empirical prediction that there should be mind functions uncorrelated with brain functions.

that not all science depends on mathematics and that the term scientific includes empirical methods other then mathematical is… surprising.

It does, and you have not actually refuted the argument.

You honestly believe that generalisation can only occur if statistical tests are used?

Yes, at least implicitly. One may not bother to compute the exact p-value if its value is obviously going to be astronomically low.

It seems that you have little knowledge about medicine either.

Medical research uses inferential statistics all the time to show that a result in a specific group can be generalized to the overall population. I am well aware of the sad ignorance however of statistical principles among many medical researchers. The fact that science can be done badly and incorrectly not using mathematics is not an argument against my point that the proper use of science to generalize to a larger population requires a p-value (at least a sufficiently accurate estimate), each time, every time.

A statistical test is used to demonstarte whether a change in the DV is more likely to have occurred as a result of the IV than by chance.

Do you understand what “chance” means in this context? It means a “lucky” sample from the population, assuming no effect of the IV on the DV. You **always **need a statistical test to rule out (with some given probability) the possibility that your result was just a result of “lucky” sampling, without the hypothesized effect being present in the population at large.

Clinicians generalise all of the time on the basis of structural and functional similarity. The heart of person A will behave in the same way as the observed heart because it looks the same and the two (or more) are of the same or a similar species.

AND because the observed inter-subject variability (for the parameter of interest) in hearts among the species is so low as to make the p-value of whatever is being generalized to be astronomically low and not worth computing. AND because the observed heart and the heart of person A are known to be both normal, or both pathological, etc., lowering the variability. Where this is large inter-subject variability, clinicians had better do more than rely on the hearts looking the same.

If clinicians generalize to the population at large **without **performing such a computation (at least in back-of-the-envelope fashion) they may well kill me due to their fallacious generalization when they treat me, their malpractice insurance had better be paid up…

Drug trials do use statistics however in order to assess whether the drug is effective.

Now why is that, do you suppose, if the heart of person A is going to behave in the exact same way as an observed heart for which a given drug is observed to be effective. Because the inter-subject variability in drug response is sufficiently large.

 

[NowAgnostic]

Almost everything being attributed to metaphysics, in these threads, really has nothing to do with metaphysics… METAPHYSICS is the science of being as being. Being is the act of the act precisely as it is in act. It has to do with that which is in existence, not as a macro-thing full of micro-things, but rather, precisely as that which exists. That which does not exist possesses no being.

Doesn’t metaphysics also deal with being-in-potency?

Metaphysicians make relationships between being, cause, relation, etc.; they look at the realities of being and what makes them beings as opposed to not-beings. They look at predicates of being, attributes of being, causes of being, as well as the act of being - all of which are presupposed by modern science.

…But, in general, with the exception of minor adjustments to one position or another, much of metaphysics is pretty concurrent with one another. “Being” is - the question is how, or, in which way, or, in what sort of relation to something else.

This would all be fine if no empirical predictions were ever made. In that case, it would simply be impossible for there ever to be a conflict between science and metaphysics. Nothing science could do would ever cause a metaphysical principle to be disconfirmed or thrown into doubt, because there are no predictions.

But here’s the question. Is this really possible, given that metaphysics does touch upon the reality of physical, to say observable, objects?

Are you saying that “quantum nothingness” is “primary matter”? That would be interesting.

Of course, you do realize that what you’ve said sounds a little silly. “Nothingness” = “material” cause, and produces “nothings” that some of us have decided to call “virtual” somethings, because they really are “nothings”, but, some sort of activity seems to indicate that they should receive some kind of name even if the name indicates a contradiction.

That’s why “nothingness” is always in quotes, I prefer “quantum vacuum” although vacuum also implies nothing. Quantum “nothingness” is not ontological nothingness; we just don’t have a good name for it. Could it be Aristotle’s prime matter? Possibly, I’m not an expert on this.

Is it a “random” fluctuation or a “chance” fluctuation?

I don’t know there’s a difference between the two.

I think more that it is perhaps someone who may well be a “metaphysician” by practice, but, is crossing over to another practice wherein his first practice has no value or preference.

OK.

Exactly. That is the job of “natural philosophy” not “natural theology”. Among the churches are many practitioners of science. Especially within the Catholic Church. These are the people who study their respective objects and present them to the Magisterium. To my knowledge, I can’t think of any theories or predictions brought about from the Church’s scientists that contradict good science. That being said, I have seen contradictions of bad science.

OK.

 

[NowAgnostic]

I am going to ask a question, but not to obtain knowledge for my self, but rather to push this debate into other teritory in regards to the limits of scientific explanation. I what to ask you some questions regarding absolute being, because it is believed that metaphysics cannot tall us anything about objective reality, but rather just about concepts.

OK.

People think that empirical science is the basis of determining truth,

If it would be logically necessary, a necessary truth. If it were a contingent truth, it would require scientific verification.

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey
Every civilised person is concerned about these questions but faith in science as the **sole **explanation of reality dispenses with the need to investigate the nature of these realities. You yourself stated that “science is metaphysics”!

Is science metaphysics or not?

I think your explanation here is what I understood the first time. My objection was based on the idea that a materialist paradigm dispenses with any of those investigations. Rather, materialism is the means of investigation into the nature of those realities, a materialist would say. To investigate nature is to investigate the nature of those things.

I specified that faith in science dispenses with the need to investigate the nature of these realities. It presupposes that they are** physical **and can be explained **scientifically **in terms of physical processes.

Put the shoe on the other foot. Should a materialist say "theists dispense with all concerns about justice, goodness, freedom and love…

It’s not true that “theists dispense with all concerns about justice, goodness, freedom and love.” Theist philosophers and theologians dedicate their time and energy to investigating these realities and acknowledge that much remains to be explained - as is to be expected given the nature of the subject…

…theists… don’t believe in “the reality of reality”?

! How do you obtain your insight into “the reality of reality”?

… and suppose that imaginary ‘immateriality’ just magically provides answers…

You know that ideas and principles are imaginary and immaterial?

“…opaque answers at that…”

Opaque to minds which reject the deepest, non-scientific experiences of humanity…

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5829752

 

[tonyrey]

Metaphysics deals with what must be…

Metaphysics is concerned with what is, what must be and what might be…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

For subjective reasons. Like they were told by their parents. Because a certain faith produces a feeling of comfort.

it all goes back to objective reasons, the same ones the apostles had.

I seriously doubt that all those things really happened the way they are told. There is a lot of exaggeration in there. Besides a lot of people die for what they believe, if that makes something true then Islam, Buddhism, National Socialism and lots of other ideas are equally “true”.

the people who died for what you are talking about were not in the same situation as the Apostles, they lived lives of deprivation, hiding, suffering, being imprisoned, beaten, and tortured until dead. all of which they could have avoided by simply not preaching, by going back to the comfortable lifestyles they had before. none of it was necessary, thye didnt even die together for mutual support. rather they died alone, unwilling to recant. unwilling to forsake what they knew to be the truth at any cost. a very powerful witness.

It is based on a myth that may have a historical core.

any evidence? ive heard the ambiguous conspiracy theories, nebulous connections based on superficial similarities. but no hard evidence, all supposition.

Yeah, absolutely, a system constructed after some given prophecies is “mathematically true”. Like my yesterday prophecy of some earth quake 10 years ago makes me a really good prophet (and mathematician).

they were written centuries before the birth of Christ, not after.

 

[JDaniel]

I am going to ask a question, but not to obtain knowledge for my self, but rather to push this debate into other territory in regards to the limits of scientific explanation. I what to ask you some questions regarding absolute being, because it is believed that metaphysics cannot tall us anything about objective reality, but rather just about concepts.

People think that empirical science is the basis of determining truth,

I would have to agree with that, at least to the extent that it really doesn’t help the atheist with his atheism. There’s really not much of a problem between modern science and natural philosophy and religion. All of this makes for exciting tete-a-tetes.

i think that perhaps one or two non-theists on this particular thread are beginning to realize that this is not in fact the case. I believe that one of them has even admitted that when metaphysics meets necessity it can make valid logical inferences that doesn’t require empirical justification. Lets say for argument sake, that once one understands the power and authority of metaphysics, one can make extra subjective inferences to the existence of a necessary being.

I still think that one can argue for the existence of necessity based upon natural philosophy. It doesn’t require natural theology, however, natural theology - once necessity is accepted - can give us additional insights into it.

Science cannot tell us anything about God, but because metaphysics deals with being as being, I believe that metaphysics can tell us about the existence of God by identifying the ultimate reality as such.

We know about God in two ways. One, called the supernatural way, is how God reveals Himself to man by an infusion of faith. Sacred theology is how it is made knowable to us.

The second way is by reasoning to the existence of a Supreme cause of all that surrounds us. The knowledge of God begins first in natural philosophy, then is developed and perfected in natural theology (metaphysics).

What do you make of the idea that metaphysics can make logical inferences to the ontological identity of being? By this, i mean that which makes being a being, or reality a reality.

I think metaphysics “grounds” us to existence more so than does science. I realize that we can cause ourselves pain. I also realize that we can do stupid things with ourselves that seem to contradict that all is just illusory. But, there are stoic enough people who can put up with pain, and losses of various types, and still cling to the crazy notion that all is just an illusion.

Can we identify the “existential cause” through metaphysics?

What do you mean by “existential cause”?

And if so, why doesn’t this require scientific verification?

I need to know precisely what you mean by “existential cause”.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Doesn’t metaphysics also deal with being-in-potency?

Not in the way I think you are meaning it. Being is in potency essentially on behalf of accidentally subordinated motion, or causality. IOW, as a being in being, I am in potency to grow, to move here and there, to lose, or sustain injury to a part, etc. But, once again, this is in the purview of natural philosophy, not metaphysics.

This would all be fine if no empirical predictions were ever made. In that case, it would simply be impossible for there ever to be a conflict between science and metaphysics. Nothing science could do would ever cause a metaphysical principle to be disconfirmed or thrown into doubt, because there are no predictions.

In the boldest sense that I can confirm, that is correct. However, there are those who wish to use something they call metaphysics to beat up non-theists and those who wish to beat up theist with something they call modern science, with the possible exception of cause. Yet I never hear throngs of modern scientists chanting a mantra decrying the existence of cause. Cause is there and QM is the mechanics of it.

But here’s the question. Is this really possible, given that metaphysics does touch upon the reality of physical, to say observable, objects?

Yes, but, think of it this way: metaphysics is simply a second, and more basic, way of establishing reality in tandem with science. Metaphysics uses the understanding of that which is in being and, by induction, arrives at the reality of reality. The scientist uses his methodology to arrive at the reality of reality. The only minor difference is that the scientist - perhaps unknowingly - presupposes that a thing is before testing anything about it. Without that presupposition would any scientist spend the time to inquire into atoms, or, electrons, or, neutrons, or protons, or, virtual particles? The existences of these are presupposed first then the testing begins.

That’s why “nothingness” is always in quotes, I prefer “quantum vacuum” although vacuum also implies nothing. Quantum “nothingness” is not ontological nothingness; we just don’t have a good name for it. Could it be Aristotle’s prime matter? Possibly, I’m not an expert on this.

I have read herein that a vacuum may not necessarily imply “nothing” in an absolute sense. I have read herein that there may well be, in fact, particles within a vacuum - that we cannot produce a pure vacuum because there are exigencies that are able to penetrate the vacuum’s surrounding container. If so, anything we predicate of a vacuum must contain conditionals, i.e., statements modifying the absoluteness of the vacuum studied. If that’s what you mean by, “quantum vacuum”, I concur with you.

I don’t know there’s a difference between the two.

As succinctly as possible: it is possible to make a mathematical analysis of a random collection. An order can be found to exist in the whole which proves that there is an order among the parts even though we may well be unable figure out the order. Only because there is an order can statistics be applied to the collection.

Chance is less mathematical and more physical. In the classic example of a barrel of red beans and black beans, a mathematician can calculate the ratio of red to black beans by a statistical sampling. Thus, a sampling that produces 20 red beans and 10 black ones (instead of 15:15) can be safely said to have been collected from a barrel containing 66 % red beans and 34% black ones.

However, next let us say that the bean counter has to leave the barn, for whatever reason, and during the interim, birds or rodents invade the barrel and eat a relatively large number of the beans. An appreciable change in the relative numbers can easily change the sampling as well as the originally ordered set of random beans. This is chance.

jd

 

[Fran65]

Now Agnostic,

I refer you back to my post #41 for my replies to both of your arguments.

In addition, I based my assessment of your level of knowledge on your posts regarding those areas. My apologies if that was incorrect. Further, claiming to be a published researcher in the field of neuroscience does not mean that you are correct. There are many examples of scientists making incorrect claims both within their own discipline and outside it. For example, Richard Dawkins is a highly respected and qualified evolutionary biologist, he was also Professor for the Advancement of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. However, his book The God Delusion has been shown to make erroneous claims and to have many flaws in the presented reasoning.

Also, had you stated that neuroscience *claims * “that every activity of the “mind” has a physical correlate” then we would have some agreement. A claim is not the same as shown. You claim to be a published researcher in neuroscience, but you have not shown that that is the case. That is the problem with the internet and the use of pseudonyms.

Further, stating that “science is done using mathematics” implies that all science uses mathematics all of the time and that is manifestly not true. Empirical is *not the same as *mathematical. You were not arguing that inferential statistical use is “proper” or helpful, (which I would agree with) you were arguing that all science uses mathematics.
Stating, as I did in post 41, that *some *science uses mathematics is a correct assessment. Whatever your claims regarding your qualifications I still find it surprising that this is so hard for you to admit.

Finally, I am not playing games. I am engaging in discussion. My qualifications - which like your claim, cannot be verified, are a BSc Hons from a world class (in the top ten) UK university and postgraduate qualifications in research methods and statistics. I have taught at both undergraduate and postgraduate level and am also employed to prepare students for Oxford and Cambridge entrance exams in Science and in Medicine. I find this very rewarding, they are interesting, challenging and intelligent, like the best threads on this site.

 

[MindOverMatter]

The second way is by reasoning to the existence of a Supreme cause of all that surrounds us. The knowledge of God begins first in natural philosophy, then is developed and perfected in natural theology (metaphysics).jd

Thanks for your reply. You seem to imply that natural theology is metaphysics. It has always seemed to me that metaphysics is “first philosophy”, and is completely natural; not theological. In any case i was hoping for a “demonstration”.

What do you mean by “existential cause”?

I need to know precisely what you mean by “existential cause”.

An existential cause, is the absolute cause of all contingent realities. I call it “existential”, because the cause contains within its being, absolute “existence” itself.