Science, philosophy and faith

[Thinker_Doer]

We disagree obviously; but it at least establishes a common ground of reasoning for us to engage something. And isn’t deism a step closer to theism?

Maybe “closer”, but the distance is still infinitely large. The point is that deism does not make any specific claims, so it cannot be either substantiated or falsified. Christianity, on the other hand make very specific claims, which contradict what we positively know about the world. And when these errors are pointed out, there comes the ever-present disclaimer: “the bible is not a science book, nor is it a history book.” And yet, some of the least credible assertions are accepted unquestioningly - on faith! As if those chapters were historically correct!

Sorry, that is not my cup of tea.

Yes — mostly, or at least partially — but how do you explain the church? What caused it to begin?

The same as the others. It started with a desire to explain the world, and people accepted it as valid.

As for miracles today, you may want to investigate. Every canonized saint in the Catholic church has at least two [alleged] miracles supporting their cause.

Well, I checked the miracle for the canonization for JPII.

The miracle that earned John Paul II his sainthood

'Miracle' cure of woman suffering from a severe brain aneurysm 'paved way for John Paul II to be made a saint'

www.telegraph.co.uk

Without any disrespect, I found it unconvincing. On what grounds did the investigation discern that the healing of Floribeth Mora could be attributed to the intercession by the deceased pope? Set up today a group of a few thousand people, with verified brain aneurysm, and have all those people (and any helpers) to ask JPII to intercede on their behalf. Or you can perform the same kind of experiment with amputees, where there cannot be a question of incorrect diagnosis. I am willing to place a bet, that nothing will happen.

Of course I am aware of the excuse for the lack of success. You cannot put God to the test. Why? Because he will fail.

Inductive reasoning doesn’t really work unless you have repeated and repeatable observations that can establish some predictable conclusion.

There are literally millions of supplicative prayers every day. In those extremely rare cases when something positive happens, the apologists argue that the prayer worked. In those millions of cases when there is no positive result, they simply forget to record the negative result.

Correct me if I’m wrong but that is typically the outcome from experiments on prayer? [See the STEP project.]

I saw this kind of argument before. The question is: “what are the chances that my lottery ticket will win the jackpot?” The wrong answer is: “it is 50 percent. It will either happen or not.” Blaise Pascal, the “father” of probability theory would throw a hissy fit if he heard it. (And he was a very devout Catholic.)

 

[Neithan]

Christianity, on the other hand make very specific claims, which contradict what we positively know about the world. And when these errors are pointed out, there comes the ever-present disclaimer: “the bible is not a science book, nor is it a history book.” And yet, some of the least credible assertions are accepted unquestioningly - on faith! As if those chapters were historically correct!

Alright let’s examine. What claim in particular? What is the positive contradiction? That is a serious challenge. Keep in mind the bible is not a book, but a collection of books (bibliography shares the same root word). Some are meant more historical and some are more poetic, but none are written as scientific textbooks because of the time they were written, well before the modern scientific method was developed. Which book would you be most interested in?

Or you can perform the same kind of experiment with amputees, where there cannot be a question of incorrect diagnosis. I am willing to place a bet, that nothing will happen.

OK so you believe there is a natural explanation. Is this based on an a priori assumption you have made about the world?

As for miracles of healing amputees, would that convince you, or would you look for some alternative explanation? Given your naturalist and materialist assumptions, I would suspect the latter. But if you just do a Google search you can find cases of miraculous healings of all sorts. Look up the case of the Miracle of Calanda.

You can set up an experiment, sure, and maybe you’ll “catch” one; you never know. But it’s not going to be the same as establishing some natural principle that you can predict.

You cannot put God to the test. Why? Because he will fail.

So you’ve already decided, sadly. To put God to the test contradicts the meaning of faith. You don’t have faith, so you should feel free to set up whatever tests you would like. I’m still curious how you test a personal agent for predictability, especially one you don’t even think exists.

In those millions of cases when there is no positive result, they simply forget to record the negative result.

If people are treating petitionary prayer as some sort of magic spell — something that goes well beyond faith in the possibility of miracles and into personally invoked, directive powers over nature — then it is superstitious. Experiments to show that something contradicts observation and reason can expose the problem.

[Continued below…]

 

[Neithan]

I saw this kind of argument before. The question is: “what are the chances that my lottery ticket will win the jackpot?” The wrong answer is: “it is 50 percent. It will either happen or not.” Blaise Pascal, the “father” of probability theory would throw a hissy fit if he heard it. (And he was a very devout Catholic.)

No I mean look at the Harvard study on intercessory prayer. Efficacy of prayer - Wikipedia

Petitionary prayer does not give a person some magical power over nature. [Although the placebo effect is well documented, it’s psychological.] Jesus did say that with enough faith, we can move mountains; but he was also fond of parables. The object and source of faith is God and is not the same as delusional or irrational belief in something imaginary.

If I pray, “Lord, give me the power to fly!” Then I jump off a skyscraper, truly believing that I can fly, that is not faith in anything divinely revealed, which is why we need objective authority beyond our own minds. That’s insanity and magical thinking with tragic consequences. It’s also putting God to the test in the same way Satan tempted Jesus (“throw yourself down”) which prompted that very response.

The same as the others. It started with a desire to explain the world, and people accepted it as valid.

Why would there suddenly be a new desire to explain the Hellenistic world? You have to do better than this; it just doesn’t make sense considering the historical context with the abundance of pagan religions and Judaism, which all made efforts to explain that world that people found satisfactory for thousands of years. All of a sudden, a claim about a resurrection. Why was there a need for another explanation? What happened?

 

[Neithan]

I’ve found that most people believe it much more likely that the miracles of their own faith are much stronger than miracles of other faiths. It’s a natural bias that people can’t help. This causes me pause. It’s a refusal to take the outsiders test of faith. I’m outside all faiths so I arrive with my bias of non belief and am not convinced by any of them.

Do you at least accept that miracles happen sometimes? Has that convinced you that materialism and naturalism are false — or at least incomplete?

Even if the Hindu miracles did happen, what do we make of that? It may mean that there are spirits with preternatural powers, which I also believe. Consider that Hindus do not believe that the world our senses perceive is really “there” in the way we understand it scientifically; it’s an illusion, a dream in the mind of Brahman. So does a Hindu miracle confirm that our senses deceive us? Do you see the contradiction? We can’t use empirical observation to then demonstrate that there are no valid demonstrations from empirical observation. Miracles may be a motive of credibility, but so is rational consistency, and you need both.

Also notice the circular reasoning: “I’m not going to accept miracles of this faith because people of that faith believe in those miracles.”

 

[Pattylt]

Do you at least accept that miracles happen sometimes? Has that convinced you that materialism and naturalism are false — or at least incomplete?

I don’t completely discount miracles but I’d place the probability very low.

I came to a place where I understand reality as not containing a supernatural layer. I’ve only recently begun to dip my toes into philosophy and as far as I understand things at this point in time, philosophy seems very adept at being able to make logical statements that don’t necessarily correspond to reality or have no evidence it is correct. Often, it seems, philosophy defines thing into existence. Talking about initial causes or unmoved movers uses our reality to make inferences about things outside our reality…an area we know nothing about. I’m not sure that’s kosher but it sounds good!

I’m not at a point where I can say it’s only materialism and naturalism but I’m 99% of the way there. I didn’t start with a materialistic view of reality. That actually came long after I became agnostic about God.

 

[adgloriam]

but I’d place the probability very low

You appreciate the lottery jackpot gets drawn frequently.

philosophy seems very adept at being able to make logical statements

You understand that without LOGIC the computer you are using wouldn’t work. Neither would this network nor any of the devices you see around everyday. Including the machinery that made the fabric of the clothes you are wearing, or the processing that went into the food you eat. And yes, all of that started with philosophy and still overlaps with the field of philosophy. You use philosophy every time you have to ponder a decision.

(Now, the speculative side brought countless branches to philosophy that simply had to be explored until proving themselves dead-ends. The same happened with Freudian psychology at the inception of the field.)

materialism and naturalism but I’m 99%

this does not account for fruition, for differences in taste, for the dilemmas of freedom, for all the shades of subjectivity, nor the faculties of the spirit.

 

[Neithan]

Often, it seems, philosophy defines thing into existence. Talking about initial causes or unmoved movers uses our reality to make inferences about things outside our reality…an area we know nothing about. I’m not sure that’s kosher but it sounds good!

If an argument uses premises that you can observe are real, then the inference is not outside our reality: that would be a materialist and naturalist assumption, and an arbitrary limit for pragmatic reasons (if we don’t need it to figure out how most things work, we may as well pretend it’s not there). A lot of people think like this (“Where’s the evidence for God?”) and it’s because the scientific method is a materialist method; but we’ve become conditioned to mistake the epistemology for that part of reality we can measure or observe as the whole of metaphysical reality.

I’m not at a point where I can say it’s only materialism and naturalism but I’m 99% of the way there. I didn’t start with a materialistic view of reality. That actually came long after I became agnostic about God.

I’d strongly recommend looking into natural theology: the cosmological arguments, and the Argument from Reason. The latter will bridge you into the philosophy of mind, especially the problem of consciousness and intentionality.

Consider the practical consequences of total (reductionist, or eliminative) materialism: You are a deterministic, biological machine, and have no free will, or even free thought. Compare how rationally inconsistent that is with your efforts to find out what is real, true or good. We can’t actually live like materialists, practically. It doesn’t actually make sense to us, so we have to explain away our ability to make sense of anything — somehow using our ability to make sense of things, lol. Put simply: materialism can’t explain reality. It is a method to explore some of it.

 

[Pattylt]

Consider the practical consequences of total (reductionist, or eliminative) materialism: You are a deterministic, biological machine, and have no free will, or even free thought. Compare how rationally inconsistent that is with your efforts to find out what is real, true or good. We can’t actually live like materialists, practically. It doesn’t actually make sense to us, so we have to explain away our ability to make sense of anything — somehow using our ability to make sense of things, lol. Put simply: materialism can’t explain reality. It is a method to explore some of it.

I knew I’d get in over my head. I disagree with this but am unable to explain why. I really should take some official philosophy classes.

I will say that what you’ve described doesn’t seem to take into consideration the emergence of the higher functions of our brain. Rationality, cognition and behavior.

I’m going to bow out of the discussion and just read y’alls comments. It’s safer for me.

 

[Neithan]

I will say that what you’ve described doesn’t seem to take into consideration the emergence of the higher functions of our brain. Rationality, cognition and behavior.

It addresses exactly this issue: you can’t get rationality from non-rationality. Look into it, and the evolution of language. It’s fascinating and enlightening.

I disagree with this but am unable to explain why.

You may have some implicit, conditioned and not entirely conscious assumptions, like most of us. So you may be looking to confirm unexamined biases. It’s extremely difficult to excise these (and one reason I believe conversions to the faith require supernatural grace).