C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
What does science tell us about anything in the moral or theological realm? That betrays its limitations. The things that matter most to us are the very things that science is least able to address.
What can science tell us about truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love?
- Status
O
oldcelt
Guest
Who is us? Kind of a broad statement, don’t you think?
J
Jewel34
Guest
Charlemagne III:
On the other hand, science is woefully silent about theology, angelology, demonology (the study of gods, angels and demons), drakology (the study of dragons), leprechaunology (the study of leprechauns) and a whole lot of other “disciplines”. Imagine, science cannot even decide the fundamental question of “how many angels can stand on the tip of a needle!”. What a shame, what a horrible limitation!
And, of course, the not-so-rigorous science of studying folklore, mythology, the rise and fall of fairy-tales and superstitions can tell us quite a bit about “what matters to most (??) of you”.
tonyrey:
tonyrey:
However, the competition, rivalry, and also jealousy are the driving force of new scientific discoveries. Fallible people crave recognition, and fame, so they will try their best to poke “holes” into the ideas of others, so they can “win”. The rare, but occasional dishonesty among the scientists does no lasting harm, precisely because the rest of the scientists will discover the “massaging of the data”.
What you consider the “negative” side of the scientific method (provisional, temporary, selfish, etc…) are the factors which make the scientific discoveries valuable and useful. It is ironic that the “accusations” of science happen on the most advanced gadgets of science (computers) using the most advanced communication method (the internet).
Going back to the OP:
tonyrey:
Only partially true. The abstract science of mathematics can tell a lot about moral problems (see: game theory).
On the other hand, science is woefully silent about theology, angelology, demonology (the study of gods, angels and demons), drakology (the study of dragons), leprechaunology (the study of leprechauns) and a whole lot of other “disciplines”. Imagine, science cannot even decide the fundamental question of “how many angels can stand on the tip of a needle!”. What a shame, what a horrible limitation!
And, of course, the not-so-rigorous science of studying folklore, mythology, the rise and fall of fairy-tales and superstitions can tell us quite a bit about “what matters to most (??) of you”.
Yes, exactly. And that is what makes those theories so valuable, since that makes the revisions possible. The very opposite of “dogmatism”.
Ah, the quintessential “ad hominem argument”!!!
However, the competition, rivalry, and also jealousy are the driving force of new scientific discoveries. Fallible people crave recognition, and fame, so they will try their best to poke “holes” into the ideas of others, so they can “win”. The rare, but occasional dishonesty among the scientists does no lasting harm, precisely because the rest of the scientists will discover the “massaging of the data”.
What you consider the “negative” side of the scientific method (provisional, temporary, selfish, etc…) are the factors which make the scientific discoveries valuable and useful. It is ironic that the “accusations” of science happen on the most advanced gadgets of science (computers) using the most advanced communication method (the internet).
Going back to the OP:
A lot. Of course such a random collection of unrelated abstractions is not a good idea to expect a meaningful conversation. These categories could and should be examined separately. But a few words can be told about them. Keep in mind that these words all have many, mutually incompatible meanings and so they can be studied by multiple branches of science.
- Truth: Abstract concept, describing the equivalence between reality and its mental picture. (logic)
- Goodness: A positive behavior toward others. (biology, sociology, interpersonal relations)
- Freedom: A state of affairs which allow non-destructive behavior toward others. (politics, sociology)
- Justice: An abstract concept which describes a “quid-pro-quo” attitude. (politics. sociology)
- Beauty: A subjective notion. (belongs to art, which is not a science)
- Love: A positive emotion. (biology, behaviors, sociology)
So, the different branches of science are applicable to these concepts. But, it is true that science is silent in the case of imaginary “entities”, like the seven-headed, fire breathing dragons, Sandy Claws, honest lawyers and politicians and other entities which are merely a figment of your imagination.
I
inocente
Guest
Newton’s law of gravity will always be true within its bounds, the correct predictions it made before Einstein remain correct, just as the predictions made by Einstein’s law will also remain correct if and when it gets replaced.
You are cherry picking. The fact is that there is nothing, nothing whatsoever, which philosophers can point to as a universally agreed body of knowledge produced by philosophers. Not even one thing.
Everything in my school textbook of physics is still true. Absolutely everything. And it always will be. Correct results don’t ever become incorrect. There is no school textbook of philosophy in which anything is necessarily true. Just various opinions and arguments.
I think you are making a basic mistake by trying to put science and philosophy on the same footing. They do different jobs. The value of science is in the answers it produces, while the value of philosophy is in the questions it asks:
“Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation; but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.” - Russell paulgraham.com/valueofphilosophy.html
I
inocente
Guest
I spent quite a while putting my post together, and you haven’t responded to any of the points. Perhaps you found you couldn’t, or perhaps you didn’t have the time. There are many possibilities as to why you didn’t respond. But it would be unfair to expect me to spend time responding to your posts if you won’t do the same for me, so please have another go.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Us is anyone with a brain and a heart. Nothing in the world matters more than morals and our human destiny. These are philosophical questions.
You may find out which is more important some day. When the first terrorist nuclear weapon is detonated in North America, you will be wondering more about morals and “our” human destiny.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
This quote from Russell is a good one. I’m glad you brought it up. Russell is offering praise to philosophy, an act I have never seen you perform in this forum. Without philosophy it would be a dull and dreary and wonderless world. Russell thought enough of philosophy to write a whoile large volume on the history of philosophy. It’s true that he was a relativist and didn’t believe in the certainty of anything. But the consequence of that philosophy he also admitted … that he would not die for any principle since he could not be certain the principle was a true one. That was the fatal flaw in his philosophy.
The reason there is often disagreement among philosophers is in the methodoly of philosophy. It is not, strictly speaking, demonstrable. A certain element of faith is involved in the philosophical conclusions one draws. And our emotions also impact our cerebral activity. For example, whether God exists is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. But people decide God does not exist not becasue there is proof there is no God so much as because they do not want God to exist for any number of reasons.
The remarks about your school text of physics is remarkably dogmatic.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
How does game theory demonstrate “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”Only partially true. The abstract science of mathematics can tell a lot about moral problems (see: game theory).
On the other hand, science is woefully silent about theology, angelology, demonology (the study of gods, angels and demons), drakology (the study of dragons), leprechaunology (the study of leprechauns) and a whole lot of other “disciplines”. Imagine, science cannot even decide the fundamental question of “how many angels can stand on the tip of a needle!”. What a shame, what a horrible limitation!
And, of course, the not-so-rigorous science of studying folklore, mythology, the rise and fall of fairy-tales and superstitions can tell us quite a bit about “what matters to most (??) of you”.
Yes, exactly. And that is what makes those theories so valuable, since that makes the revisions possible. The very opposite of “dogmatism”.
Ah, the quintessential “ad hominem argument”!!!
However, the competition, rivalry, and also jealousy are the driving force of new scientific discoveries. Fallible people crave recognition, and fame, so they will try their best to poke “holes” into the ideas of others, so they can “win”. The rare, but occasional dishonesty among the scientists does no lasting harm, precisely because the rest of the scientists will discover the “massaging of the data”.
What you consider the “negative” side of the scientific method (provisional, temporary, selfish, etc…) are the factors which make the scientific discoveries valuable and useful. It is ironic that the “accusations” of science happen on the most advanced gadgets of science (computers) using the most advanced communication method (the internet).
Going back to the OP:
A lot. Of course such a random collection of unrelated abstractions is not a good idea to expect a meaningful conversation. These categories could and should be examined separately. But a few words can be told about them. Keep in mind that these words all have many, mutually incompatible meanings and so they can be studied by multiple branches of science.
- Truth: Abstract concept, describing the equivalence between reality and its mental picture. (logic)
- Goodness: A positive behavior toward others. (biology, sociology, interpersonal relations)
- Freedom: A state of affairs which allow non-destructive behavior toward others. (politics, sociology)
- Justice: An abstract concept which describes a “quid-pro-quo” attitude. (politics. sociology)
- Beauty: A subjective notion. (belongs to art, which is not a science)
- Love: A positive emotion. (biology, behaviors, sociology)
So, the different branches of science are applicable to these concepts. But, it is true that science is silent in the case of imaginary “entities”, like the seven-headed, fire breathing dragons, Sandy Claws, honest lawyers and politicians and other entities which are merely a figment of your imagination.
When you are standing before the Almighty in judgment, I hope you have the sense not to address him with an ad hominem like Sandy Claws.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Science tells us nothing about what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust, liberty, equality, fraternity, God, free will, spiritual values, life after death or the purpose of life.
J
Jewel34
Guest
Charlemagne III:
The point is that science has a lot to say about these abstractions. But you need to study science in order to understand it. And as Euclid said to Ptolemy (when he complained about the effort needed to understand geometry, and demanded a “special shortcut”): “there is no royal road to geometry”. You need to study a subject before you can utter valid questions and criticisms about it.
Charlemagne III:
It is kind of you to worry about my eternal fate, if and when I encounter the “almighty”, but don’t worry. I don’t think that the “creator of all beings” is just a pitiful little manipulator without a shred of good humor. And I am willing to bet my “eternal well-being” that he will value an honest “adversary” over a mindless “yes-man”.
You would have to study game theory in order to understand it. It is not “magic”, and you need no “special grace” or revelation. But it does require time and effort to be invested. (Besides, the quoted adage has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity. It has been invented many ages before them.)
The point is that science has a lot to say about these abstractions. But you need to study science in order to understand it. And as Euclid said to Ptolemy (when he complained about the effort needed to understand geometry, and demanded a “special shortcut”): “there is no royal road to geometry”. You need to study a subject before you can utter valid questions and criticisms about it.
Charlemagne III:
Looks like you are also ignorant about the actual meaning of “ad hominem”. To say something not particularly endearing about someone is NOT an “ad hominem”. Just Google “ad hominem fallacy”.
It is kind of you to worry about my eternal fate, if and when I encounter the “almighty”, but don’t worry. I don’t think that the “creator of all beings” is just a pitiful little manipulator without a shred of good humor. And I am willing to bet my “eternal well-being” that he will value an honest “adversary” over a mindless “yes-man”.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
More ad hominems. Take a course in logic. I used to teach logic. You are insulting God just to show how confident you are that he does not exist, not to show why he does not exist.
The Golden Rule came to us from Christ. He affirmed it’s validity. It doesn’t matter whether someone said it before him. It is the centerpiece ethic for Christ’s moral teachings.
Please show how you would derive it from game theory.
You can’t.
B
balto
Guest
I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying here, though for different reasons I presume. IMHO, a lot of these science vs. faith discussions reach an impasse because there’s confusion over what the term “science” means. I think what most people view science as is really what used to be called “natural philosophy.” Having been a science graduate student for a couple of years now, I’ve noticed that the word “philosophy” tends to be viewed by scientists as a naughty word. But philosophy is really nothing more than rational, logical thinking, reasoning from premises to conclusions using the rules of logic. Science does this all the time, obviously, however it’s chosen area of study is the material world. Due to large advances in science, scientists start to think that science is fundamentally different from and superior to other forms of philosophy and assume that the material order is all there is. Under a materialist frame of mind, science cannot answer any of the OP’s questions, save maybe isolated facts of material truth. If one is not a materialist, scientific findings can shed some light on the questions, as you indicated, but it cannot do so without recourse to other forms of philosophy. Sometimes it is argued that philosophy really is a part of science, but then the meaning of science returns to its original meaning of “factual knowledge” from its Latin root of scientia. Under that framework theology is just as scientific as physics.
I agree wholeheartedly, it’s very frustrating trying to have a discussion with someone who refuses to learn anything about the subject. However it’s equally frustrating when people I know reject religion without having studied the philosophy and theology behind it (and I mean really studied it, not just gone down to Bob’s Bible Shack down the street) and attribute it all to “magic” or “superstition.” Scientific =/= rational, and unscientific =/= irrational or magical.
J
Jewel34
Guest
This whole thread is NOT about science vs. faith (faith is being a word with many different meanings). This thread is a thinly veiled attack on science, attempting to show that certain important facets of reality are “immune” to the scientific method. In my simple (and necessarily simplistic) answer I did not give a thorough, in depth analysis, since to do so would have needed a short book. Moreover, the OP attempted to collect a whole bunch of unrelated disciplines and questions. That is not how serious discussions should be initiated. (Example: “what can science say about love?” would be a legitimate starting question to ponder – along with a proper definition of “love”, since this word also has several, not-overlapping meanings.)
Such a “catholic” (all-encompassing) condemnation! The answers that the different branches of actual science (as opposed to mere speculation) are able to give can be compared to the reality, and verified if they are correct or not. Because this is how one separates the goats from the sheep. Does one’s prediction correspond to reality, or not?
What does this mean? Science starts with the observable reality, setting up hypotheses, making predictions, performing experiments and verifying (or falsifying) the results. Where and how can “gods” (angels, demons) be observed?
That is perfectly acceptable. But I have a question here. Does “knowledge” mean “acceptance” in your usage of the word? If there are two people, both extremely well-versed in the questions of theology (or astrology) and one of them (called “A”) rejects it as sheer superstition, while the other one (called “B”) accepts them as unquestionable truths (dogmas); do you accept “B”-s opinion as dependable, and reject “A”-s assessment as useless? This is the pivotal question here.
B
balto
Guest
Well the OP will have to speak for himself on his motivations for starting the thread. I don’t think that it is necessarily an attack on the scientific method to say that science cannot answer every question. I do respect that you frequent these fora to offer an opinion that will conflict with 98% of the other posters so I can see how you might think the thread is an attack on science, but I didn’t detect any hostility by asking the question. There always seems to be a false dichotomy set up though. Either you think that science can answer every question (scientism/positivism) or you think it is completely useless (fideism/fundamentalism). How about a middle ground where you accept science but accept that there are questions that are outside it’s reach? This seems reasonable to me. Scientism is a philosophically untenable position, as is fideism.
Well sure I am speaking from a Catholic perspective. However, I don’t see how it is in any way unreasonable. No one seems to doubt that science deals with material aspects of reality. Therefore, any immaterial realities would necessarily be outside the scope of science. Many people will tell you they have no reason to believe that there are immaterial realities because they haven’t been observed. Aside from there being logical reasons why immateriality is real, they are using a material method to search for immaterial realities. Kind of silly if you ask me. And yes you can assess how something that is immaterial can correspond to reality or not. It is either logically consistent or it is not.
What I meant was that if science is redefined to include philosophy, as some people would have you do, that doesn’t allow them to escape having a theological discussion because now you’ve just expanded the definition of science to include all philosophy. If you leave the definition of science as being “natural philosophy” then they claim that “science is all you need” is subject to philosophical criticism like any other proposition. BTW, God, angels, and demons cannot be observed with physical sensation for obvious reasons (well at least if they do produce physical sensations they are not reproducible). How about using your immaterial intellect and reason to determine their existence and qualities? That seems like a more reasonable course of action.
I would only accept B’s opinion as dependable if I had a reason to believe they had credibility. Just like I would accept a fellow scientist’s findings and conclusions as reasonable without actually knowing for myself (unless there was a reason to doubt them - either a serious character flaw, a history of failed predictions, personal evidence that contradicts their findings, etc.). However, if A’s argument was convincing, then I probably would have to analyze the content of A’s argument. If B is indeed correct, then A is committing a logical fallacy or has mistaken premises. Presumably there would be an argument whereby you can assess the logical consistency of both. A’s argument would not be useless because even if it is false it is helpful to the sympathizer with B to see why A’s thinking is false. And it’s not like secularists are not immune from this kind of thing. A lot of them will accept anything that people like Richard Dawkins say without any question.
I do appreciate you response though.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Yes, and historically the Vatican has supported science along the way, Galileo notwithstanding. The Vatican for centuries has had its own astronomer.
Dawkins is a longtime professional practitioner of either/or thinking. Either you are a scientist and an atheist or a bible-thumper and an ignoramus.
J
Jewel34
Guest
Before we go any further, I do appreciate your non-confrontational style and also your line of questioning. This is the way we can (hopefully) learn from each other.
balto:
Some of those questions are subjective. An example: 1) “why does Joe prefer vanilla flavored ice-cream over the chocolate-flavored one?”. This question pertains to the objective, physical reality, and yet, science cannot answer it – and even if it could answer it, no one would care. But the knowledge is useful, if you wish to give Joe a present by inviting him to an ice-cream-parlor and wish to order for him.
Also, we need to exclude the questions pertaining to the axiomatic systems. One cannot experiment to decide if a proposition within an axiomatic is true or not. If it can be reduced to the axioms, then it is true, otherwise it is not true. (Observe: “not true” does not necessarily mean “false”).
balto:
The number one objection is that just because some set of propositions is internally consistent; it is not true that it corresponds to some “reality”. The “realm” of children’s fairy tales is internally consistent, but no one asserts that the world of witches, dragons, fairies is “real”. It is an imaginary world, with no connection to reality. So, you see, the internal logical consistency is not enough to decide if the proposition refers to “reality” or not.
The second problem is that the word “real” is undefined. What does “immaterial reality” mean? One could say that ideas, concepts, abstractions are examples of “immaterial reality” (and that is a philosophical assessment), but then some problems arise. Many critics of science operate under the false impression that materialism considers all reality to be “physical objects”. And that is not true. Physical objects have “immaterial aspects” to them. These are “properties” (“red” or “sweet” are not physical objects), “activities” (“walking” or “thinking” are not physical objects) and “relationships” (“behind” or “next to” are not physical objects). Yet, none of these properties, actions and relationships exist independently from physical objects.
Since I don’t know (yet) what you mean by “immaterial reality”, I will have to stop here, and wait for you to clarify.
balto:
balto:
Do you consider “A” who has a very thorough knowledge about Christianity and also believes it correct – to be a valid authority? Do you consider “B” who can demonstrate the same level of knowledge but rejects it – not to be an authority? You see, if the only necessary requirement is the level of knowledge, then you cannot decide between competing authorities. In such a case you need to resort either (1) to accept the one who supports you (subjectivism), or (2) tossing a coin (random selection), or finally (3) to the “dirty” verificationism to find out which one of the authorities can support his assessment.
This is the way we can (hopefully) learn from each other.
I agree that this would be a false dichotomy. Science does not attempt to answer a lot of questions.
Some of those questions are subjective. An example: 1) “why does Joe prefer vanilla flavored ice-cream over the chocolate-flavored one?”. This question pertains to the objective, physical reality, and yet, science cannot answer it – and even if it could answer it, no one would care. But the knowledge is useful, if you wish to give Joe a present by inviting him to an ice-cream-parlor and wish to order for him.
Also, we need to exclude the questions pertaining to the axiomatic systems. One cannot experiment to decide if a proposition within an axiomatic is true or not. If it can be reduced to the axioms, then it is true, otherwise it is not true. (Observe: “not true” does not necessarily mean “false”).
Yes, here we start to deal with the crux of the problem.
The number one objection is that just because some set of propositions is internally consistent; it is not true that it corresponds to some “reality”. The “realm” of children’s fairy tales is internally consistent, but no one asserts that the world of witches, dragons, fairies is “real”. It is an imaginary world, with no connection to reality. So, you see, the internal logical consistency is not enough to decide if the proposition refers to “reality” or not.
The second problem is that the word “real” is undefined. What does “immaterial reality” mean? One could say that ideas, concepts, abstractions are examples of “immaterial reality” (and that is a philosophical assessment), but then some problems arise. Many critics of science operate under the false impression that materialism considers all reality to be “physical objects”. And that is not true. Physical objects have “immaterial aspects” to them. These are “properties” (“red” or “sweet” are not physical objects), “activities” (“walking” or “thinking” are not physical objects) and “relationships” (“behind” or “next to” are not physical objects). Yet, none of these properties, actions and relationships exist independently from physical objects.
Since I don’t know (yet) what you mean by “immaterial reality”, I will have to stop here, and wait for you to clarify.
Sadly, it is insufficient. If you wish to exclude the physical “imprint” then there is no difference between a “seven-headed, fire breathing dragon” and a “demon”. How does one decide if one is “real”, while the other one is false? You need some actual, physical starting point upon which you build your conclusions. And here we arrive to the next stumbling block.
There is a minor misunderstanding here. Obviously you need to establish credibility. (How you do it, is a different question, to be explored later.) The question was “does the person offering a criticism have sufficient knowledge about the subject to be criticized”? How can you decide if someone has sufficient knowledge to make valid criticisms about Christianity (example only; it could astrology for all I care)? We deal with the problem of “authority” here.
Do you consider “A” who has a very thorough knowledge about Christianity and also believes it correct – to be a valid authority? Do you consider “B” who can demonstrate the same level of knowledge but rejects it – not to be an authority? You see, if the only necessary requirement is the level of knowledge, then you cannot decide between competing authorities. In such a case you need to resort either (1) to accept the one who supports you (subjectivism), or (2) tossing a coin (random selection), or finally (3) to the “dirty” verificationism to find out which one of the authorities can support his assessment.
T
tonyrey
Guest
I
inocente
Guest
What I object to is the reification and veneration of philosophy, as if it were a green eyed yellow idol. The very essence of philosophy is not to piously bow down before any given philosopher as some kind of authority figure. I’ve had posters tell me that philosophers they don’t like are not True Philosophers, and even that I’m not a True Christian unless I fall unquestioningly on my knees before Thomas.
I just refuse to worship any god but God.
I would say it’s semantics rather than methodology. Reaching conclusive conclusions with reason requires a total lack of ambiguity in the terms, but the meanings of most words and concepts are too broad to allow this. So I agree some faith is required.
It’s only like saying the examples in a math textbook will always remain correct. I cannot see your logic. Please give your argument as to why the laws of optics (or whatever) will stop giving correct results at the moment some scientist discovers something new.The remarks about your school text of physics is remarkably dogmatic.
I
inocente
Guest
You’ve had two opportunities to respond to my last post (#72) to you.
First time you chose to ignore all my points and instead ask a question which had nothing to do with what we were discussing. I asked you nicely to do me the courtesy of responding to my points, and instead you now go back to an earlier post (which btw was about your distracting personal remarks to me) and say that somehow that stops you continuing.
I can only take your continued refusal to answer my post to mean that you are stumped on something and won’t admit it. So what, big deal, admit it and move on.
Anyway, all the best to you too. :snowing:
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
But surely you know that certain aspects of Newtonian physics were superceded by Einstein.
Before Einstein any textbook would have treated Newton as the last word. Not so after Einstein.
This dogmatism you find in physics certainly has parallels in other realms of thought.
In ethics (a department of philsosophy) we see that the Golden Rule is fairly universally accepted as dogmatic morality (though certainly not practiced as such).
In politics (a department of philosophy) the world generally recognizes that democracy is superior to dictatorship.
In aesthetics (a department of philosophy) it is universally recognized that the arts have certain rules that must be followed in order to obtain the beautiful. Violate those laws with impunity and you get the ugly.
In physics (once called natural philosophy) there are simple dogmatic notions that are no longer debated (for example, that atoms exist). But the nature of the atom is still very much debated just because we do not know everything about it.
In biology (the philosopher Aristoitle was one of the earliest pioneers) today we hear of the dogmatism of evolution. But evolution does not apply to the origin of life, since there was no living being to evolve from. There is nothing dogmatic about the origin of life. You tend to side with the atheists who see pure chance at work. But there is no proof of pure chance, and the first living organism appearing all at once with all the functions of a living organism (including the capacity to evolve) seems a good deal more like it was intelligently designed than that it came into being without any rhyme or reason.
Dogmatism is built into our nature, yes. But your worship of the dogmatism of science is undeserved, as any good scientist will tell you.
- Status