Scientist passed over for job because of his faith

[1holycatholic]

Classical metaphysics are not the lynchpin of the scientific method. The idea of the universe being ordered and intelligible has never been an essential presupposition of the scientific method. Quantum Physics is a perfect example of a branch of science that is neither ordered nor intelligible.

You ask “Why does it work?” You admit then, that is does work?

If the universe is not intelligible (i.e. explainable) then there is no point in the scientific method. Without that presupposition the scientific method can not exist.

If the universe is not ordered then conclusions from the scientific method have no value since there is no reason to assume a conclusion reached in one instance could be repeated elsewhere. Again the scientific method collapses if the universe is not ordered.

If quantum mechanics were not intelligible then you wouldn’t be able to say anything about it.

I’m a scientist. I know it works, but I’m not going deny the essential metaphysical assertions upon which the scientific method depends. If I did that the scientific method would be mere magic divorced from reason. Sadly that position is rampant. It’s called scientism and it’s not actual science, but a perversion of science.

 

[kaid100]

If the universe is not intelligible (i.e. explainable) then there is no point in the scientific method. Without that presupposition the scientific method can not exist.

If the universe is not ordered then conclusions from the scientific method have no value since there is no reason to assume a conclusion reached in one instance could be repeated elsewhere. Again the scientific method collapses if the universe is not ordered.

If quantum mechanics were not intelligible then you wouldn’t be able to say anything about it.

I’m a scientist. I know it works, but I’m not going deny the essential metaphysical assertions upon which the scientific method depends. If I did that the scientific method would be mere magic divorced from reason. Sadly that position is rampant. It’s called scientism and it’s not actual science, but a perversion of science.

So do you think that combining religious precepts, as the scientist in the article did, to the assertions is not a perversion of science?

 

[1holycatholic]

So do you think that combining religious precepts, as the scientist in the article did, to the assertions is not a perversion of science?

Questioning evolutionary theory is good science. He’s apparently being punished for doing just that. It would appear that the evolutionary scientists are intolerant and afraid to defend their eighteenth century theory in light of the current evidence.

 

[1holycatholic]

So do you think that combining religious precepts, as the scientist in the article did, to the assertions is not a perversion of science?

As has been already demonstrated, you can’t do science without religious precepts.

 

[kaid100]

As has been already demonstrated, you can’t do science without religious precepts.

Once you start including religious beliefs like those from scripture, without testing them with the scientific methods, does it not cease to be science?

 

[1holycatholic]

Once you start including religious beliefs like those from scripture, without testing them with the scientific methods, does it not cease to be science?

You can’t even use the scientific method without overtly or tacitly accepting a set of metaphysical presuppositions (aka religious beliefs.)

Strictly speaking, atheism is incompatible with the scientific method.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

You can’t even use the scientific method without overtly or tacitly accepting a set of metaphysical presuppositions (aka religious beliefs.)

Strictly speaking, atheism is incompatible with the scientific method.

Yes, strictly speaking science requires some faith. What is required to do science is very simply the faith that your senses are reliable, and the faith that you can systematically describe the phenomenon you sense. I would suggest that people lacking faith in these two areas might be considered insane. If you do not believe that your senses are reliable, then you can barely know anything at all (don’t get me started on Descartes.) If you do not it is possible to make sense of the world around you then it would really be pointless of you to bother with any sort of investigation, theistic or scientific.

What I am interested in is how you think that atheism is incompatible with the scientific method. There have been studies done on the benefits of prayer for example, as well as various other spiritual practices. In all cases that I am aware of, there was no need to posit a theistic existence to explain the results.

 

[vz71]

What is required to do science is very simply the faith that your senses are reliable, and the faith that you can systematically describe the phenomenon you sense. I would suggest that people lacking faith in these two areas might be considered insane. If you do not believe that your senses are reliable, then you can barely know anything at all (don’t get me started on Descartes.) If you do not it is possible to make sense of the world around you then it would really be pointless of you to bother with any sort of investigation, theistic or scientific.

I do not believe this has been thought through.
There is a rather huge number of fact out there in which what actually is differs from what is initially perceived through the senses.

The vast number of items would necessitate a certain amount of doubt in what we think is going on. In fact, doesn’t the ‘scientific method’ itself call upon impartial means of measuring so we do not have to depend upon our own perceptions?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I do not believe this has been thought through.
There is a rather huge number of fact out there in which what actually is differs from what is initially perceived through the senses.

The vast number of items would necessitate a certain amount of doubt in what we think is going on. In fact, doesn’t the ‘scientific method’ itself call upon impartial means of measuring so we do not have to depend upon our own perceptions?

Yes, science uses “sense” with a broader meaning than the 5 we teach kids about in elementary school. The scientific method is fundamentally about making models that are able to match observations, whether they are taken by some instrument or by our own senses.

My point was a more broad metaphysical one, however. Essentially you have to have faith that the world we perceive through our senses exists outside of our experience of them. In other words, faith that we are not being deceived by some Matrix-esque mechanism.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes, strictly speaking science requires some faith. What is required to do science is very simply the faith that your senses are reliable, and the faith that you can systematically describe the phenomenon you sense. I would suggest that people lacking faith in these two areas might be considered insane. If you do not believe that your senses are reliable, then you can barely know anything at all (don’t get me started on Descartes.) If you do not it is possible to make sense of the world around you then it would really be pointless of you to bother with any sort of investigation, theistic or scientific.

What I am interested in is how you think that atheism is incompatible with the scientific method. There have been studies done on the benefits of prayer for example, as well as various other spiritual practices. In all cases that I am aware of, there was no need to posit a theistic existence to explain the results.

In order to use the scientific method you must accept that the universe must be ordered and intelligible. These crucial metaphysical presuppositions to the scientific method can’t be demonstrated, yet you must accept them in order to use the scientific method. These essential non-demonstrable metaphysical beliefs are absolutely unwarranted beliefs for the atheist.

 

[vz71]

In other words, faith that we are not being deceived by some Matrix-esque mechanism.

Or simply not perceiving what actually is.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

In order to use the scientific method you must accept that the universe must be ordered and intelligible. These crucial metaphysical presuppositions to the scientific method can’t be demonstrated, yet you must accept them in order to use the scientific method. These essential non-demonstrable metaphysical beliefs are absolutely unwarranted beliefs for the atheist.

No, because as I said, if you lack faith in either there is no reason to hold any beliefs at all, theistic, atheistic, scientific or otherwise. These assumptions must be made in order to make any progress at all. In other words, this assumption must be made prior to any religious conclusions. Belief a God can not lead to it. If you state “God exists” you are positing that you know something about the universe which means you have assumed it is possible to have an understanding of the universe.

 

[1holycatholic]

No, because as I said, if you lack faith in either there is no reason to hold any beliefs at all, theistic, atheistic, scientific or otherwise. These assumptions must be made in order to make any progress at all. In other words, this assumption must be made prior to any religious conclusions. Belief a God can not lead to it. If you state “God exists” you are positing that you know something about the universe which means you have assumed it is possible to have an understanding of the universe.

These assumptions can’t be made prior to any religious assumptions. You can’t state that the universe is orderly or intelligible unless you posses omniscience which is an attribute of God.

The atheist who accepts the universe is orderly and intelligible would be claiming to be omniscient (and necessarily omnipresent.) That’s not rational.

 

[vz71]

If you state “God exists” you are positing that you know something about the universe which means you have assumed it is possible to have an understanding of the universe.

Since God exists beyond the universe itself, one does not need to be making a statement of the universe when they proclaim a belief in God.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Since God exists beyond the universe itself, one does not need to be making a statement of the universe when they proclaim a belief in God.

But now you are assuming that “God’s universe” is intelligible. Also, if God exists separately from the universe, then a statement about God does not lead to any conclusions about the universe. Moreover, you have tacitly assumed that your own thoughts are intelligible meaning that you have assumed either the universe is intelligible, or your thoughts are also both extra-universal and intelligible.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

These assumptions can’t be made prior to any religious assumptions. You can’t state that the universe is orderly or intelligible unless you posses omniscience which is an attribute of God.

I thought you understood what faith was. Yes, you have to take the order and intelligibility of the universe on faith. Faith does not require Christianity or a belief in a god to possess. These statements about the universe are assumptions precisely because we are not omniscient.

The atheist who accepts the universe is orderly and intelligible would be claiming to be omniscient (and necessarily omnipresent.) That’s not rational.

No, the atheist who claims he knows for certain that the universe is orderly and intelligible would be claiming omniscience. Atheists and scientists do not make this claim, rather they assume that the universe is ordered and intelligible because all of their experiences suggest that they are true. That is only unreasonable if you think there is insufficient evidence for them to make the assumptions. Since that will likely be the case, what evidence do you as a religious person have that atheists do not?

 

[1holycatholic]

I thought you understood what faith was. Yes, you have to take the order and intelligibility of the universe on faith. Faith does not require Christianity or a belief in a god to possess. These statements about the universe are assumptions precisely because we are not omniscient.

I’m glad to see you admit that science and faith are inseparable.

No, the atheist who claims he knows for certain that the universe is orderly and intelligible would be claiming omniscience. Atheists and scientists do not make this claim, rather they assume that the universe is ordered and intelligible because all of their experiences suggest that they are true. That is only unreasonable if you think there is insufficient evidence for them to make the assumptions. Since that will likely be the case, what evidence do you as a religious person have that atheists do not?

Since you admit the essential presuppositions for the scientific method are non-demonstrable then you must also admit that they’re unwarranted assumptions for the atheist who demands demonstrable proofs of the existence of something before they will acknowledge that it exists.

 

[vz71]

But now you are assuming that “God’s universe” is intelligible.

No, simply that God exists.

Also, if God exists separately from the universe, then a statement about God does not lead to any conclusions about the universe.

Exactly what I just said.

Since God exists beyond the universe itself, one does not need to be making a statement of the universe when they proclaim a belief in God.

Are you disagreeing just to be disagreeable?

 

[Della]

The whole point in saying that one needs faith in order to do science is simply true. Human beings thrive on faith–on trusting that what others have discovered is valid, be it in science or religion. Therefore, if the largest Christian body in the world, the Catholic Church, says certain things are true, they ought to be taken seriously and studied, not instantly, in knee-jerk fashion rejected simply because one does not care to believe in them. That’s the same silly notion as a knee-jerk rejection of scientific theories for the same reason–because one does not care for them. Rational human beings learn from those who have studied various fields of learning. To reject any of them out of personal distaste is immature. And as far as I can tell many a modern academic is doing precisely that. Is that wisdom? Is that understanding? Is that fair? Obviously the answer to them all is no.

 

[kaid100]

The whole point in saying that one needs faith in order to do science is simply true. Human beings thrive on faith–on trusting that what others have discovered is valid, be it in science or religion. Therefore, if the largest Christian body in the world, the Catholic Church, says certain things are true, they ought to be taken seriously and studied, not instantly, in knee-jerk fashion rejected simply because one does not care to believe in them. That’s the same silly notion as a knee-jerk rejection of scientific theories for the same reason–because one does not care for them. Rational human beings learn from those who have studied various fields of learning. To reject any of them out of personal distaste is immature. And as far as I can tell many a modern academic is doing precisely that. Is that wisdom? Is that understanding? Is that fair? Obviously the answer to them all is no.

If the Catholic Church says something, it’s fine to study them, yes. In the past there have been experiments testing whether prayer improves the health of hospital patients, for example. What a scientist wouldn’t do (unless they are Catholic themselves) is accept a statement of the Catholic Church as automatically true without subjecting it to the scientific method.