What is Science?

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s some counterarguments.

1. If the 5 billion theists in the world don’t have any scientific knowledge then they surely can’t put indue value on what they don’t know, so scientism isn’t an issue for them.

But they do follow face book, youtube, newspapers, popular magazines, etc., all of whom pour out this junk - and they are influenced.

1. Since they believe in God, they know for sure there is at least one other form of knowledge - the one by which they came to know God.

Judging from the empty churches around the world, one wonders if they really know God.

1. For many of them, I want them to put undue value on what little science they know. I want them to put emphasis on keeping sewerage well away from drinking water, on washing their hands before cooking or eating, on going to a scientifically trained doctor rather than a juju man, because that helps them to live a longer happier life.

O.K., but that isn’t a part of this debate. That’s common sense.

1. Pearce is not alone in wanting to loosen the ethics of science. Behe wanted it to let in his ID, some string theorists and multi-verse fans want it to let in their notions, and so on. But that destroys the very thing which makes science so valuable, as well as letting astrology and so on call itself a science.

He doesn’t want to loosen the ethics of science, he wants to put it on a solid footing. I don’t know anything about Behe. But Aristotlians and Thomists merely want science to see the value of philosophy, including seeing science as revealing the workings of God in nature. This alone should warn them when they are doing things man shouldn’t do or making erroneous judgments about what science tells us about man, nature, and God. I am not aware that any of the philosophers of the A/T school are opposed to string theory. Rather they are opposed to what some claim it means.

1. Pearce ends up wanting to call poetry and painting science, and to put theology and physics on the same basis. He wants everything to be called science. His logic seems to be that if people look up to science, let’s put a spurious scientific label on religion so they look up to that as if it was science. What’s that if not scientism?

I am not sure what he means by his last paragraph. I don’t think he meant that poetry, etc. are branches of science.

Most Christians I know don’t think modernity is a cancer. I can understand the hellfire view that God has lost the battle and we’re all doomed, but I think if Christians can’t send a message of hope to the world, that God is still in charge, that love always wins out in the end, then who can? There’s that phrase physician heal thyself. If religion is sick, and I’m not convinced it is, then it won’t get better by casting blame around.

Religion based on Revelation is not dead, but those dedicated to some form of scientism have the microphone, they have the ear of the movers and shakers. And that is the problem. As Benedict 16 said, " We may be a smaller Church. " And he wasn’t speaking just of Catholicism. And that is unsatisfactory - if it is the heart of the world we are after.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here’s some counterarguments.

1. If the 5 billion theists in the world don’t have any scientific knowledge then they surely can’t put indue value on what they don’t know, so scientism isn’t an issue for them.
2. Since they believe in God, they know for sure there is at least one other form of knowledge - the one by which they came to know God.
3. For many of them, I want them to put undue value on what little science they know. I want them to put emphasis on keeping sewerage well away from drinking water, on washing their hands before cooking or eating, on going to a scientifically trained doctor rather than a juju man, because that helps them to live a longer happier life.
4. Pearce is not alone in wanting to loosen the ethics of science. Behe wanted it to let in his ID, some string theorists and multi-verse fans want it to let in their notions, and so on. But that destroys the very thing which makes science so valuable, as well as letting astrology and so on call itself a science.
5. Pearce ends up wanting to call poetry and painting science, and to put theology and physics on the same basis. He wants everything to be called science. His logic seems to be that if people look up to science, let’s put a spurious scientific label on religion so they look up to that as if it was science. What’s that if not scientism?

Most Christians I know don’t think modernity is a cancer. I can understand the hellfire view that God has lost the battle and we’re all doomed, but I think if Christians can’t send a message of hope to the world, that God is still in charge, that love always wins out in the end, then who can? There’s that phrase physician heal thyself. If religion is sick, and I’m not convinced it is, then it won’t get better by casting blame around.

Just ran across this. Its about the genetic engineering of multi-parent embryos. It is an example of why scientists should have exposure to A/T philosophy. Admitedly it is an extreme example, but it illustrates the problem. And of course there was the announcement recently that now someone is considering seriously the transplaning of heads! Yes, I think Pearce has a real point.

Read it: catholiclane.com/silence-on-three-parent-embryos-is-deafening/

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

But they do follow face book, youtube, newspapers, popular magazines, etc., all of whom pour out this junk - and they are influenced.

Since the five billion theists in the world are the majority contributors to facebook, etc., you’d have to employ a lot of censors to stop them expressing their views.

*Judging from the empty churches around the world, one wonders if they really know God. *

When Baptists move town and have to find a new church, we hunt around before choosing, since we will be joining the community of that church. So the empty churches are those which people didn’t find relevant to their lives. I think they should be empty.

O.K., but that isn’t a part of this debate. That’s common sense.

I think it is relevant though. There are a lot of impoverished, uneducated people in various parts of the world, and their physical well-being is greatly served by fostering respect for health science. Imho they’re more important than what rich folk get up to in facebook, youtube and newspapers.

*He doesn’t want to loosen the ethics of science, he wants to put it on a solid footing. I don’t know anything about Behe. But Aristotlians and Thomists merely want science to see the value of philosophy, including seeing science as revealing the workings of God in nature. This alone should warn them when they are doing things man shouldn’t do or making erroneous judgments about what science tells us about man, nature, and God. I am not aware that any of the philosophers of the A/T school are opposed to string theory. Rather they are opposed to what some claim it means. *

By ethics I mean the scientific method, peer review, and so on - Pearce can’t get what he wants without hacking them around. As for morals, I don’t buy your arguments here. For instance, while scholastics may be against birth control, I’m very much in favor of science developing excellent birth control because I think it helps reduce suffering in the third world. But the morality of it is for all of us to debate and agree, and certainly shouldn’t be left to philosopher-scientists.

I am not sure what he means by his last paragraph. I don’t think he meant that poetry, etc. are branches of science.

I think he lost the plot.

Religion based on Revelation is not dead, but those dedicated to some form of scientism have the microphone, they have the ear of the movers and shakers. And that is the problem. As Benedict 16 said, " We may be a smaller Church. " And he wasn’t speaking just of Catholicism. And that is unsatisfactory - if it is the heart of the world we are after.

Ratzinger also said: “It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.”

When he’s right he’s right.

 

[inocente]

Just ran across this. Its about the genetic engineering of multi-parent embryos. It is an example of why scientists should have exposure to A/T philosophy. Admitedly it is an extreme example, but it illustrates the problem.

Don’t know much about it but don’t see a problem. The technique was developed to remove birth defects. The decision on whether to authorize it was debated by the elected parliament which approved it three to one. That’s the rule of law in a free society. Scholastics who don’t like it can get themselves elected to overturn the decision.

And of course there was the announcement recently that now someone is considering seriously the transplaning of heads! Yes, I think Pearce has a real point.

Again, don’t know much about it, but it seems the various techniques required were developed independently to help different groups of patients, and a scientist is saying they could now be put together to give paraplegics and muscular dystrophy sufferers new lives.

I think it would have been immoral for him to keep quiet about it. He did the right thing, it’s something we all should get a chance to debate. Whether it’s more moral to keep people in wheelchairs all their lives when we could give them a chance to run, skip and hop is surely not a foregone conclusion.

Or does it mess up scholastic metaphysics to set the lame free?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I like the classic definition the best: a science is certain, universal, and necessary knowledge of something, seeking its causes and properties.

I think that definition can be applied just as well to theology and metaphysics, as to particle physics and biology.

Agreed.

Linus2nd

 

[Rhubarb]

Wait. Is what’s being discussed “science”, or “a science”? Because I think there’s a distinction between them.

 

[Latias]

Wait. Is what’s being discussed “science”, or “a science”? Because I think there’s a distinction between them.

See my posts #32 and #35

I think the thread is also begging the question by implying that there is some authoritative definition of “science” or that one has to accept some definition of “science” in order to have a coherent understanding of it. From this tacit premise, it is then argued that those influenced by modern secularism adopt some definition of science that is too narrow, or that the only credible statements about the world can only be within the narrow confines of “science”. …Of course, there should be some practical distinction between non-science and science, so one would not grant credibility to patently “unscientific” ideas such as homeopathy and deny them any respect they would get by attaching the honorific “scientific” to their hypotheses.

He doesn’t want to loosen the ethics of science, he wants to put it on a solid footing. I don’t know anything about Behe. But Aristotlians and Thomists merely want science to see the value of philosophy, including seeing science as revealing the workings of God in nature. This alone should warn them when they are doing things man shouldn’t do or making erroneous judgments about what science tells us about man, nature, and God. I am not aware that any of the philosophers of the A/T school are opposed to string theory. Rather they are opposed to what some claim it means.

I have already addressed this:

Has anyone considered the possibility that the contemporary separation of “science” and classical metaphysics is primarily driven by understanding the implications of successful scientific theories, rather than an imprudent rejection of metaphysical concepts, particularly natural law and teleology. Certainly there does seem to be any prohibition against natural theology – that is a philosophical attempt to investigate nature, which is the creation of the deity which bespeaks the attributes of the deity whose attributes can be inferred from his creation, without any recourse to tradition, authority, and divine revelation of scripture. Natural theology is a purely secular activity, although its conclusions are often used to affirm the convictions of orthodox theists. One could attempt to resurrect a staid natural theology that does not get embroiled with a cultural agenda to reverse the perceived prevalence of moral relativism or to promote another political agenda.

So has there been any modern, vigorous attempt to engage in “natural theology” among the Aristotelian and Thomians instead of religious polemics against “modernity” and the Enlightenment? As I said, one needs to be competent in science, in order to engage in a productive philosophical dialogue about it. Certainly, one needs to provide an alternative teleological framework to interpret the implications of fundamental biological and physical theories.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

See my posts #32 and #35

I have already addressed this:

So has there been any modern, vigorous attempt to engage in “natural theology” among the Aristotelian and Thomians instead of religious polemics against “modernity” and the Enlightenment? As I said, one needs to be competent in science, in order to engage in a productive philosophical dialogue about it. Certainly, one needs to provide an alternative teleological framework to interpret the implications of fundamental biological and physical theories.

Certainly. The problem is that after four hundred years of anti-philosophical polemics by materialists, and others who wished to reject anything which might lead anyone to think that God existed, beginning with Hume, the intellectual landscape has largely been swept clean. Yes polemics can be a problem, but it is only human to react when you get punched in the mouth and have been a punching bag for four hundred years.

Linus2nd.

 

[Rhubarb]

See my posts #32 and #35

Yeah, I saw your quote and I think your thinking and my thinking on the subject are close, if not the same. I didn’t want to wade into the debate because I know I have different intuitions about things that many users of this forum do. But, I’m going to give it a crack.

Aristotelian philosophy fell out of favor with the scientific community because it simply doesn’t work in as far as science goes - that is Aristotle’s methods and assumptions allowed scientists to lead to bad conclusions. Galen and Ptolemy’s “sciences” are two examples. Now, don’t get me wrong. I love Aristotle. He’s been one of my main topics of study. But his assumptions he brings to the table when it comes to science I don’t think is helpful qua doing science. For example, I don’t see any hard empirical reasons to take Aristotle’s ontology seriously. I don’t see any hard philosophic reasons to take Aristotle’s ontology seriously - unless a person really wants to. There are perfectly coherent ontologies that are consistent with what we know, in fact, “is” that doesn’t rely on matter/form and causes. (Specifically the final cause) I also find the notion of a final cause especially bizarre. Again, unless you want to talk about ‘natural law’ or such things that rely on teleology.

I, personally, happen to think that science is best described in terms that Popper, and Kuhn, and later philosophers of science use. Induction, falsibility, and problem-solving paradigms give us tools that we can use to talk about certain subjects - and those subjects make up the sciences. This isn’t to say that metaphysics isn’t important, or is something we can put aside in a box. I think metaphysics, and philosophy in general is very important - more important than society gives it credit. I’m pursuing advanced degrees in it, I think it’s so important. But it seems to me there’s a difference between an inductive matter that can potentially be falsified by some discovery in our world, and a deductive matter that can never be falsified by anything we might discover in our world. This distinction, I think, is important, and is a good way to draw the line between philosophy and science.

Bertrand Russel said science appeals to facts - I don’t like that line because there could be metaphysical facts. But I think the idea he was getting at is important. We do science and philosophy in different ways, and there does seem to be a tangible feel to a “science” that a subject in philosophy seems to lack. Science relies on experiment. Philosophy relies on argument. Now we can USE philosophy in our science - perhaps in the way the OP laments. They can bring their ontology and their ethics and their epistemology to their science. Likewise, philosophers bring science to their philosophy when they are reasoning about the world. So I guess in summation…

TL;DR
I think that Philosophy and Science are different, but complimentary, disciplines and should remain that way.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

'It is the consensus among contemporary historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science that real science arose only once: in Europe. It is instructive that China, Islam, India, ancient Greece, and Rome all had a highly developed alchemy. But only in Europe did alchemy develop into chemistry. By the same token, many societies developed elaborate systems of astrology, but only in Europe did astrology lead to astronomy. And these transformations took place at a time when folklore has it that a fanatical Christianity was imposing a general ignorance on Europe – the so-called Dark Ages.

'The progress achieved during the “Dark Ages” was not merely technological. Medieval Europe excelled in philosophy and science. The term “Scientific Revolution” is in many ways as misleading as “Dark Ages.” Both were coined to discredit the medieval Church. The notion of a “Scientific Revolution” has been used to claim that science suddenly burst forth when a weakened Christianity could no longer prevent it, and as the recovery of classical learning made it possible. Both claims are as false as those concerning Columbus and the flat earth.

This piece is excerpted from a longer piece, False Conflict: Christianity Is Not Only Compatible with Science – It Created It, which appeared in the October-November 2003 issue of The American Enterprise.

Thank you. But the problem is that the modern age doesn’t want to hear anything contrary to their ideological world view. They do not want the world to put any stock into Aristltotle and Aquinas because if their principles were applied to reality ( and science studies relationships in reality ), then people would be forced to conclude not only that science is doing some things which should not be done, but that there stands God at the beginning and at the end of everythying.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Since the five billion theists in the world are the majority contributors to facebook, etc., you’d have to employ a lot of censors to stop them expressing their views.

That isn’t the idea. The idea is that the scientific enterprise as it functions today would profit from a little Aristotle and Aquinas. I question your numbers here. Five billion watch facebook? Then they must be pretty shallow people.

When Baptists move town and have to find a new church, we hunt around before choosing, since we will be joining the community of that church. So the empty churches are those which people didn’t find relevant to their lives. I think they should be empty.

Perhaps the truth is that they don’t really want to learn anything that is truly relevent to their lives - so they leave and either don’t go anywhere or go the the Church " down the road " that makes them " feel good " no matter what they believe, no matter how they live. You know, the " chummy, we love you " Gospel of Relevance Chursh.

I think it is relevant though. There are a lot of impoverished, uneducated people in various parts of the world, and their physical well-being is greatly served by fostering respect for health science. Imho they’re more important than what rich folk get up to in facebook, youtube and newspapers.

Yes, I think if Aristotle and Aquinas were studied more in the colleges and universities e more Doctors and scientists would try to help the disadvantaged. There is a connection between the philosophical/theological content of a culture’s thinking and the well being of its people.

By ethics I mean the scientific method, peer review, and so on - Pearce can’t get what he wants without hacking them around

" Hacking them around? " I can assure you that there is a lot of peer review of books and papers on the subject of Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. I doubt if anyone in the scientific community sees them.

As for morals, I don’t buy your arguments here. For instance, while scholastics may be against birth control, I’m very much in favor of science developing excellent birth control because I think it helps reduce suffering in the third world. But the morality of it is for all of us to debate and agree, and certainly shouldn’t be left to philosopher-scientists.

Well these are topics that continue to be debated on these forums. You can review the archives at CA radio as well, and the archives at EWTN.

I think he lost the plot.

Ratzinger also said: “It is on the many half-hearted interpretations of the biblical Word that can be found everywhere that a sickly Christianity takes its stand – a Christianity that is no longer true to itself and that consequently cannot radiate encouragement and enthusiasm. It gives, instead, the impression of being an organization that keeps on talking although it has nothing else to say, because twisted words are not convincing and are only concerned to hide their emptiness.”

When he’s right he’s right.

True and that is directed at all of Christianity.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Don’t know much about it but don’t see a problem. The technique was developed to remove birth defects. The decision on whether to authorize it was debated by the elected parliament which approved it three to one. That’s the rule of law in a free society. Scholastics who don’t like it can get themselves elected to overturn the decision.

Law doesn’t make it either right or advisable. Most countries have laws which should not be on the books.l

Again, don’t know much about it, but it seems the various techniques required were developed independently to help different groups of patients, and a scientist is saying they could now be put together to give paraplegics and muscular dystrophy sufferers new lives.

That doesn’t mean that it is a good or moral undertaking.

I think it would have been immoral for him to keep quiet about it. He did the right thing, it’s something we all should get a chance to debate. Whether it’s more moral to keep people in wheelchairs all their lives when we could give them a chance to run, skip and hop is surely not a foregone conclusion.

Or does it mess up scholastic metaphysics to set the lame free?

It is not a question of setting the lame free. Some things should not be done for anyreason. But they are being done because various cultures have lost their moral compass.

All kinds of medical experiements were done by the Nazi Germany and by the Imperial Japanese, even by the U.S. which were morally reprehensible.

Linus2nd

 

[Latias]

Certainly. The problem is that after four hundred years of anti-philosophical polemics by materialists, and others who wished to reject anything which might lead anyone to think that God existed, beginning with Hume, the intellectual landscape has largely been swept clean. Yes polemics can be a problem, but it is only human to react when you get punched in the mouth and have been a punching bag for four hundred years.

Linus2nd.

Humean perspectives are quite common in the modern philosophical metagame, but the question is whether Thomians can adapt to address the presence of Humean arguments in that metagame, and also Darwinian evolution. The environment is not as hostile so as to be comparable to a street fight.

I posted this before:

Latias:

To me, one of the great historical ironies here is the way in which that kind of dogmatic classical apologetics position actually agrees with David Hume! Hume, of course, also believed that the arguments of natural theology are poor, and there the classical apologist would disagree with him forcibly. But Hume insisted, from his own perspective (unpersuaded by natural theology), that one shouldn’t bother to take seriously any miracle claim–a point on which the dogmatic classical apologist is tacitly agreeing with him. After all, there are atheists out there, and even some theists and Christians, who have doubts about some of the most crucial arguments of natural theology and/or outright reject them.

Well, in the Dialogues, it is was not only Philo facing off against Cleanthes. People often forget that Demea was also present as the expositor of classical theology and disagreed with Cleanthes. It is apparent Hume did not think highly of classical theology too; he mostly used Cleanthes as a means to assail classic theology. I believe the only arguments worth presenting to atheists and agnostics are those from natural theology, particularly the Kalam argument using modern cosmology and the fine-tuning argument.

Still, I think natural theology can have an impact on a Christian, even though it would be a small impact. Certainly, anthropocentric teleology is quite compatible with modern science, and in the Anthropic Cosmological Principle Barrow and Tipler introduce the term “eutaxiology” as a basis for the new, scientifically informed teleology as opposed to the more vulgar, anthropocentric teleology, which was confuted by Darwinian evolution. Roughly, eutaxiology makes far weaker claims, but its positive claim is that the laws and parameters of the universe exhibit order (hence its etymology of “good order”) that bespeaks of an intelligent agent influence in the origin of the fabric of the universe. They also say that this argument relies on knowledge not on ignorance (that is intelligent design advocates often ascribe gaps the evolution history or the failure of the human imagination to discover an evolutionary plausible mechanism for the origin of some trait to God’s creative power).

The subjective impressions that “eutaxiology” made on me prevented me from being a complete fideist, but they are indeed, to reiterate, subjective impressions and not a rigorous proof for the agency of a deity in the universe. Even if one yields a concession from an atheist/agnostic, this would, at best, only indicate a rather aloof and distant god who influenced the laws of the universe to be conducive for the generation of sentient beings for some unknown reason. Certainly, I do not see God when I pray as the one who made the cosmological constant a very minute, non-zero value 120 orders of magnitude below the theoretically expected (although anthropically hostile) value of the energy of the vacuum.

However, the greatest practical disadvantage of the fine-tuning/eutaxiological argument is that few people possess the requisite knowledge of physics and other sciences or interest in order to present or understand such arguments. While the argument itself may not be convincing, it would at least leave a forceful impression of scientific competence and intellectual rigor if it is presented well.

I also find Hume quite refreshing to read due to his contempt for “common superstition”; he is something who I can empathize with and admire.

whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2014/05/there_are_no_slippery_prior_pr.html

 

[Latias]

I think the actual position of Thomians and other apologists of classical theism concerning natural theology is cynicism of its persuasive power and impact as it conclusions are rather unambitious. For instance, credible natural theological arguments, particularly those based on the ostensible “fine-tuning” of the universe, do not go far enough to champion orthodox theism or provide evidence for theistic creation myths. Thus, “natural theology” has quite limited utility for the apologist of traditional theism, perhaps as an opportunity for the apologist to demonstrate satisfactory understanding of natural science, particularly cosmology and physics, and how those relate to the potential habitability of the universe. It does not offer a positive argument for the existence of a particular sectarian deity. Moreover, it fails to incite a similar passion for moral agitprop commonly associated with religious belief, such as a narrative for declining morals (often referring to sexual conduct) in society.

But the argument is interesting to me, since it is theoretical, in the sense it has to deal with the qualities and interaction of subatomic and cosmological theoretical entities that are inaccessible to our senses, but could be understood in the framework of contemporary scientific theories by those with an intellectual aptitude for dealing with abstractions. One does not appreciate and often takes for granted these physical entities in nature, since one does not directly encounter them in one’s daily experience as one only directly perceive objects from a macroscopic perspective, but by understanding the properties of these objects, one can understand how one’s physical existence is contingent on these properties. For instance, protons and neutrons are theoretical entities that are composed of three quarks (having either two up or down quarks, with the third quark being the other). These three quarks are “hadronized” by the strong nuclear force, and most of the mass of protons and neutrons actually is derived from the energy from the exchange of gluons (the carriers of the strong force) between the quarks, rather than the sum of the rest mass of the quarks. Moreover, the strong force also holds protons and neutrons together in the nuclei of atoms by exchanging mesons, quark and antiquark pairs. From this, one could have a basic, qualitative understanding of the strong force’s role in forming the fundamental atomic structure.

One then understands that the strong force assumes a particular value within this universe, and many chemical, nuclear, and astrophysical phenomenon are affected by the strength of the strong nuclear force. Obviously, on a more rudimentary level, the strong nuclear force has to be “the strong force” in order make to chemistry possible, since chemistry requires having complex atoms (particularly carbon, which can hybridize its orbitals to sp1, sp2, and sp3, allowing a diverse array of molecular geometry and associated molecular complexity) and positive Columbic charge of protons should not cause strong mutual repulsion among the nucleons. A more impression and specific example concerns the stellar nucleosynthesis of carbon in the triple-alpha process that is sensitive to the value of the strong nuclear force. There exists a resonance between the unstable transitional product of the triple-alpha process, Be-8, and the excited state of C-12, that allows C-12 to be produced in appreciable amounts in the universe. There is no necessary reason that the strength of the strong nuclear force should assume its particular value or another anthropically friendly value, and when one considers the relative strength of the strong force, in comparison to electromagnetism and gravity (the weakest force by about 10^39 orders of magnitude relative to the strong force), one can appreciate the vast potential range of the strong nuclear force.

Furthermore, it is said that the (small, non-zero) “cosmological constant”, which is understood to be the energy density of the vacuum (in outer space) that affects the accelerating expansion of the universe, is remarkably fine-tuned by about 120 orders of magnitude in order to assume an anthropically accepted value. A larger cosmological constant would not enable cosmological structure, such as galaxies, to form, and one 120 orders of magnitude larger would not even permit the existence of atoms. Now, this is an extraordinary theoretical problem as the 120 orders of magnitude figure comes from quantum physics calculations for the contribution of each fundamental particle to the vacuum energy. It was deemed difficult to calculate the vacuum energy since calculating the energy of the quantum fields yielded divergent integrals (that is the integral had value of infinity). Renormalization, originally developed to make the infinite integrals of quantum electrodynamics tractable and finite, can be used to calculate the contributions of each field to the vacuum energy. Even though the theoretical calculation is an absurdity in the light of empirical observation and our existence, to deny the significance of the calculation would be to dismiss renormalization, as that allowed quantum electrodynamics to be physic’s most quantitatively precise and predictive physical theory.

The argument does not establish the existence of God, since, one’s naturalistic existence depends on the parameters of the universe being compatible for life. (If one’s existence is not compatible with the fundamental parameters of the universe, then one’s existence would be miracle!) In other words, one could only observe a universe whose parameters are conducive for life, and in domains where the values are not compatible for the development of life, then no observers cannot exist.

 

[Latias]

I suppose that I have demonstrated that using that particular argument of “natural theology” is rather intellectually demanding, both on the presenter and the audience. However, there does not seem to be any other significant deterrent for one to use the arguments of natural theology to argue for the existence of God, or at least to suggest it.Natural theology allows one to suggest theism by using the secular language of science, or to initiate dialogues based on science. As I suggested before, perhaps, it is Thomians and other classical theists who deem natural theology unsatisfactory since it does not inspire one to adopt the dogmatic tenets of orthodox theism or be further immersed in its culture (as opposed to being enveloped and under siege by a ruthless secular culture).

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I suppose that I have demonstrated that using that particular argument of “natural theology” is rather intellectually demanding, both on the presenter and the audience. However, there does not seem to be any other significant deterrent for one to use the arguments of natural theology to argue for the existence of God, or at least to suggest it.Natural theology allows one to suggest theism by using the secular language of science, or to initiate dialogues based on science. As I suggested before, perhaps, it is Thomians and other classical theists who deem natural theology unsatisfactory since it does not inspire one to adopt the dogmatic tenets of orthodox theism or be further immersed in its culture (as opposed to being enveloped and under siege by a ruthless secular culture).

I think you misunderstand Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. I wonder how much of either you have actually read/studied. Suffice it to say that metaphysics studies what is behind or beyond the realities studied by the hard sciences. Yet it is perfectly compatible with them. As far as Natual Theology goes, it is based on a prior metaphysics, assumed to have been learned by the student. I don’t think it was ever intended to prove the existence of the Christian God, but rather to prove that the God to which it concluded had many of the same essential characteristics of the Christian God. Aquinas did not hesitate to say, " …and this we call God…" Perhaps it is not very inspirational, I don’t think it was meant to be. Rather it was an answer the the pagans of the day, that the existence of God could be demonstrated. And if he existed, it only stands to reason that he would give us a Revelation.

Inspiration, enthusiasm comes from grace and prayer once belief has been reached. On the other hand I think science can be very inspirational. To an honest scientist, I would think it would lead him to belief in the Christian God.

Linus2nd

 

[Latias]

I think you misunderstand Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. I wonder how much of either you have actually read/studied. Suffice it to say that metaphysics studies what is behind or beyond the realities studied by the hard sciences. Yet it is perfectly compatible with them. As far as Natual Theology goes, it is based on a prior metaphysics, assumed to have been learned by the student. I don’t think it was ever intended to prove the existence of the Christian God, but rather to prove that the God to which it concluded had many of the same essential characteristics of the Christian God.

Have theistic Aristotelians actually engaged in natural theology where one attempts to demonstrate “that the God [presumably one elucidated by natural theology] to which it concluded had many of the same essential characteristics of the Christian God”?

I already defined “natural theology”, but perhaps you might find my own definition incomplete:

Certainly there does seem to be any prohibition against natural theology – that is a philosophical attempt to investigate nature, which is the creation of the deity which bespeaks the attributes of the deity whose attributes can be inferred from his creation, without any recourse to tradition, authority, and divine revelation of scripture. Natural theology is a purely secular activity, although its conclusions are often used to affirm the convictions of orthodox theists.

I specifically pointed out that the fine-tuning argument is an example of modern “natural theology” that can be confidently wielding by someone with both philosophical and technical competence. In order to engage in the enterprise of natural theology, one would need to have some basic understanding of contemporary scientific theories and how those theories informs one’s understanding of the world, since it is the fundamental premise of natural theology that one can infer the characteristics of the deity through understanding and investigating nature. One’s most veritable resource into understanding nature is, of course, scientific knowledge, since such knowledge has been systematically and rigorously derived and refined from experimenting and observing the implications and predictions of scientific theories. The conclusions of fine-tuning, as I have pointed out, are not that strong, but they can tenably defend the notion that a divine intelligence influenced the properties of the fundamental structure and processes of nature. But some far, it seems that the popular discourse between religion and science evades any serious discussion about scientific theories, but concerns the alleged eclipse of science over religion in the cultural realm or the encroachment of religion into the secular institutions of the state and education. Some do want to compromise science by saying that it should be more inclusive in order to allow the incursion of sectarian religious dogma (particularly creation myths and specious caviling about the theory of evolution) into public education, in order to give their dogma undeserved scientific legitimacy and stature in order to indoctrinate impressionable children while they are outside the jurisdiction of their parents and clergy. But I do have competence that natural theology can do better than that, instead of charging the redoubt of evolutionary theory and the separation of church and state! A recent example was the Dover Trial, which seemed to be the Pickett’s Charge of the Intelligent Design movement.

 

[inocente]

That isn’t the idea. The idea is that the scientific enterprise as it functions today would profit from a little Aristotle and Aquinas. I question your numbers here. Five billion watch facebook? Then they must be pretty shallow people.

But you weren’t speaking of science there, you said of the 5 billion theists in the world “they do follow face book, youtube, newspapers, popular magazines, etc., all of whom pour out this junk - and they are influenced.”.

btw facebook isn’t for watching, it’s social networking, maybe you mixed it up with something else.

*Perhaps the truth is that they don’t really want to learn anything that is truly relevent to their lives - so they leave and either don’t go anywhere or go the the Church " down the road " that makes them " feel good " no matter what they believe, no matter how they live. You know, the " chummy, we love you " Gospel of Relevance Chursh. *

It isn’t good for the soul to sit in a dead church week after week, year after year, bored to death by long-winded sermons. If a church isn’t uplifting and communal, if they don’t welcome you, leave their church and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them.

Yes, I think if Aristotle and Aquinas were studied more in the colleges and universities e more Doctors and scientists would try to help the disadvantaged.

That’s a curious claim, especially given their views on women and slavery (for example bbc.co.uk/ethics/slavery/ethics/philosophers_1.shtml).

*There is a connection between the philosophical/theological content of a culture’s thinking and the well being of its people. *

Sure. And Jesus has the learned priest and Levite walk on by, whereas the lowly Samaritan, without any metaphysical argument, without any knowledge of Aristotle, “as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him”.

" Hacking them around? " I can assure you that there is a lot of peer review of books and papers on the subject of Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy. I doubt if anyone in the scientific community sees them.

That wasn’t the point. Pearce wants to vandalize science by scrawling his a priori metaphysics all over hypotheses non fingo.

 

[inocente]

Law doesn’t make it either right or advisable. Most countries have laws which should not be on the books.

Not sure what your point is. The “three-parent” technique was developed to remove birth defects. The decision on whether to authorize its use was debated openly by elected representatives. No one is being forced to use it. You may disagree with that, but isn’t that the price of democracy?

*That doesn’t mean that it is a good or moral undertaking. *

And that’s why these things should be openly debated by the whole of society.

It is not a question of setting the lame free. Some things should not be done for anyreason. But they are being done because various cultures have lost their moral compass.

Well, I’ve argued on CAF that torture must never be permitted, whereas some Catholic posters have argued that while torture is evil, it’s OK to torture a terrorist to try to find where he planted a bomb, as the greater evil would be to do nothing when it may kill many people.

So I agree with you that some things should never be done. But whether we should never transplant a heart to help someone, or never transplant a body to help someone, imho is something which ought to be openly debated. I disagree that society’s morals should be dictated by scientists.

All kinds of medical experiements were done by the Nazi Germany and by the Imperial Japanese, even by the U.S. which were morally reprehensible.

Reductio ad Hitlerum. If someone has left their body to medics, enlighten me on the moral difference between transplanting their kidneys to help another, or transplanting their entire body ex head, to help another.

 

[inocente]

I think the actual position of Thomians and other apologists of classical theism concerning natural theology is cynicism of its persuasive power and impact as it conclusions are rather unambitious. For instance, credible natural theological arguments, particularly those based on the ostensible “fine-tuning” of the universe, do not go far enough to champion orthodox theism or provide evidence for theistic creation myths. Thus, “natural theology” has quite limited utility for the apologist of traditional theism, perhaps as an opportunity for the apologist to demonstrate satisfactory understanding of natural science, particularly cosmology and physics, and how those relate to the potential habitability of the universe. It does not offer a positive argument for the existence of a particular sectarian deity. Moreover, it fails to incite a similar passion for moral agitprop commonly associated with religious belief, such as a narrative for declining morals (often referring to sexual conduct) in society.

[snipped to fit the 6000 character barrier]

The main issue with fine tuning for me is that rather than relying on what we know, it relies on what we don’t know, on not knowing why the physical constants take the particular values they do.

But suppose we had a theory of everything. That would necessarily give a falsifiable explanation of why they take those values. The explanation couldn’t be God, since we can’t test Him (which is why some want to remove the falsifiable criterion, to permit such untestable “explanations”). The explanation couldn’t be an infinite multiverse either, unless that can be empirically tested. But there is the possibility that the physical constants are similar to Pi. If we knew the value of Pi but didn’t know how to derive it, we might believe that God set it, or that it varies across an infinite multiverse. But as we know how to derive it, we have a simple prosaic explanation.