What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Charlemagne_III]

But then they are not doing science anymore. If you “affirm” the existence of God (how do you do that?) you are not doing science and it doesn’t affect science.

I agree.

The purpose of philosophy is to explore every possible question of life.

The purpose of science is to explore every possible question of science.

One can do both simultaneously. That is why many scientists dabble in philosophy and many philosophers dabble in science. The only rule is for them not to conflate science and philosophy.

For example, Hawking thinks that science has killed off philosophy. If it did, it killed its own father, because it was the philosophers who discovered the principles of scientific thinking. But of course it didn’t kill off its father because people are still dealing every day with deep problems about life and human destiny without any recourse to what scientists have to say on these matters.

 

[Hans_W]

IThe purpose of science is to explore every possible question of science.

Not sure what you mean by that. What is “every possible question of science”?

One possible question could be “is there an intelligent designer behind this or that problem?” But that’s already outside of science.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “is there an intelligent designer behind this or that problem?” But that’s already outside of science.

Not necessarily, there could be an intelligent force/being who is physical, some god like Zeus, who has the power to influence matter in one way or another.
That is the god in whom most atheists do not believe. That god might be what Deism is about.
This is science fiction, but can be a question science may address.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Well, actually, no. One of the first criteria for God to be an adequate explanation – in the logical sense of truly sufficient – is that God must be, if nothing else, self-sufficient - a quality that the universe, itself, and nothing found within it, can or does possess.

Now you may find that rather convenient for me or, even, insufficient for you, but it seems to me that anything contingent on something else, that cannot fully explain itself, is ruled out, by definition, from being a truly sufficient explanation for anything else, since it would, by definition, require some other explanation. So, to stop that endless buck-passing, I resort to aseity as a necessary or axiomatic characteristic for sufficiency.

This is quite logically consistent with other qualities such as omnipotence or omniscience that I hold are necessary to meet the PSR since being a completely self-sufficient, self-existent reality would mean that nothing could possibly make it “not exist.”

You see, this is what makes your view quite different from mine.

I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus – not because I rule out their existence a priori, as you do, or because you claim they defy your belief system, but – because I don’t find that their existence is required to be explanatory of anything in reality.

If someone tells me Santa Claus doesn’t exist BECAUSE they don’t believe a jolly fat guy with a beard could possibly exist, I would laugh - because I AM a jolly fat guy with a beard. The reason I don’t believe in Santa Claus is because of what the Santa Claus hypothesis purports to explain – presents under the tree at Christmas. That has a perfectly plausible explanation without appeal to a magical fat guy. I don’t a priori rule out magical fat guys merely because I presume they don’t exist, as you do.

Now your problem is that you don’t have an adequate, non-question-begging explanation for the existence of the universe, while I do.

It would be like finding a 13.7 billion year old “present’ under your Christmas tree, one that encompasses all of time and physical reality, but you still can’t accept that it couldn’t have been one of your “go to” explanations - like your parents left it there - even though those explanations all miserably fail to account for the reality or nature of that “magical" present.

I have no problem believing in a Santa Claus, if such a belief could explain otherwise baffling events. You must resist such a move since you have “faith” that a more pedestrian explanation will surface “someday” even though everything that could be possible explanations in your field of view are precisely those things which, themselves, are in need of explanation.

So no, God is not something that MUST also be explained, since, conceptually speaking, using such a limited “being” as an explanation would be to resort to no explanation at all. I begin with the assumption that to be “explanatory,” in the sense required by the mysterious existence of an entire universe, God must have a unique nature - ipsum esse subsistens or aseity - as a logically necessary quality of anything that could possibly explain something like the coming into existence of the universe.

You may not like that and you may wish to characterize that as exactly like believing in Santa Claus, but, as I say, I have no compunction against believing in Santa Claus if I found that such a belief was required to be explanatory of something that could otherwise not be explained.

You are still left with explaining the – otherwise – unexplainable. Good luck with that.

Nailed it! :tiphat: :clapping:

 

[DanielJT]

Well, actually, no. One of the first criteria for God to be an adequate explanation – in the logical sense of truly sufficient – is that God must be, if nothing else, self-sufficient - a quality that the universe, itself, and nothing found within it, can or does possess.

Now you may find that rather convenient for me or, even, insufficient for you, but it seems to me that anything contingent on something else, that cannot fully explain itself, is ruled out, by definition, from being a truly sufficient explanation for anything else, since it would, by definition, require some other explanation. So, to stop that endless buck-passing, I resort to aseity as a necessary or axiomatic characteristic for sufficiency.

This is quite logically consistent with other qualities such as omnipotence or omniscience that I hold are necessary to meet the PSR since being a completely self-sufficient, self-existent reality would mean that nothing could possibly make it “not exist.”

You see, this is what makes your view quite different from mine.

I don’t believe in the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus – not because I rule out their existence a priori, as you do, or because you claim they defy your belief system, but – because I don’t find that their existence is required to be explanatory of anything in reality.

If someone tells me Santa Claus doesn’t exist BECAUSE they don’t believe a jolly fat guy with a beard could possibly exist, I would laugh - because I AM a jolly fat guy with a beard. The reason I don’t believe in Santa Claus is because of what the Santa Claus hypothesis purports to explain – presents under the tree at Christmas. That has a perfectly plausible explanation without appeal to a magical fat guy. I don’t a priori rule out magical fat guys merely because I presume they don’t exist, as you do.

Now your problem is that you don’t have an adequate, non-question-begging explanation for the existence of the universe, while I do.

It would be like finding a 13.7 billion year old “present’ under your Christmas tree, one that encompasses all of time and physical reality, but you still can’t accept that it couldn’t have been one of your “go to” explanations - like your parents left it there - even though those explanations all miserably fail to account for the reality or nature of that “magical" present.

I have no problem believing in a Santa Claus, if such a belief could explain otherwise baffling events. You must resist such a move since you have “faith” that a more pedestrian explanation will surface “someday” even though everything that could be possible explanations in your field of view are precisely those things which, themselves, are in need of explanation.

So no, God is not something that MUST also be explained, since, conceptually speaking, using such a limited “being” as an explanation would be to resort to no explanation at all. I begin with the assumption that to be “explanatory,” in the sense required by the mysterious existence of an entire universe, God must have a unique nature - ipsum esse subsistens or aseity - as a logically necessary quality of anything that could possibly explain something like the coming into existence of the universe.

You may not like that and you may wish to characterize that as exactly like believing in Santa Claus, but, as I say, I have no compunction against believing in Santa Claus if I found that such a belief was required to be explanatory of something that could otherwise not be explained.

You are still left with explaining the – otherwise – unexplainable. Good luck with that.

:ballspin:

Play it like a balla!

I call game. Now who brought the orange slices?

 

[tdgesq]

As I said many times, you (in general as well as personal “you”) are always welcome to present an **alternative **epistemological method about the objective reality.

How about empiricism: direct realism or indirect realism?

1. When the proposition is about the objective, external reality, then only the “scientific” approach will suffice. If you deny this, bring up an alternative method.

I just did. It appears from earlier posts that you are just rebranding good old fashioned empiricism as “the scientific method.” A seven year old child can take sensory data and make accurate conclusions about objective reality, but no one (well, we will see) would say that the child is utilizing the scientific method; I mean the process of (1) observation, (2) hypothesis, (3) testing and (4) analysis. Even a child knows when his birthday is or what he had for lunch yesterday - both objective realities.

I hope this is the last time I will have to make a post about this. It is very boring by now. Let me reiterate: “epistemology is not restricted to the scientific method!!!”.

You are correct that epistemology is not restricted to the scientific method. You are incorrect that the scientific method is only epistemic means by which we know reality. Empiricism was here first, and the scientific method is based on it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not sure what you mean by that. What is “every possible question of science”?

One possible question could be “is there an intelligent designer behind this or that problem?” But that’s already outside of science.

Every possible question of science is illustrated by any question that can be legitimately asked and answered by the scientific method. The question of whether there is “an intelligent designer behind this or that problem” is not outside the realm of science, unless you regard intelligent designing as something that cannot be recognized when it appears anywhere in the world.

I am designing this sentence. Would you say that science cannot address whether the sentence you just read was intelligently designed? If you were to say that, then how can any scientist know he has intelligently designed a scientific experiment of his own? Intelligent designing is something we can recognize when we see the product of that which was intelligently designed. We recognize immediately that what was intelligently designed was not just haphazardly thrown together for no purpose, or that it came together by an accidental accumulation of synchronistic events that are so improbable as to defy any interpretation but that of being intelligently designed to come together in that manner.

Stephen Meyer’s book *The Signature in the Cell *brilliantly defends the proposition that intelligent design is, properly speaking, a legitimate subject for scientific inquiry. Meyer received his doctorate in the Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Nailed it! :tiphat: :clapping:

:ballspin:

Play it like a balla!

I call game. Now who brought the orange slices?

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=2053&pictureid=17329

 

[Hans_W]

Every possible question of science is illustrated by any question that can be legitimately asked and answered by the scientific method. The question of whether there is “an intelligent designer behind this or that problem” is not outside the realm of science, unless you regard intelligent designing as something that cannot be recognized when it appears anywhere in the world.

I am designing this sentence. Would you say that science cannot address whether the sentence you just read was intelligently designed? If you were to say that, then how can any scientist know he has intelligently designed a scientific experiment of his own? Intelligent designing is something we can recognize when we see the product of that which was intelligently designed. We recognize immediately that what was intelligently designed was not just haphazardly thrown together for no purpose, or that it came together by an accidental accumulation of synchronistic events that are so improbable as to defy any interpretation but that of being intelligently designed to come together in that manner.

Stephen Meyer’s book *The Signature in the Cell *brilliantly defends the proposition that intelligent design is, properly speaking, a legitimate subject for scientific inquiry. Meyer received his doctorate in the Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University.

Well, that’s where we disagree. Your “designer” is a supernatural entity and therefore outside the realm of science (I assume the designer is not a physical extra-terrestrial).

We shouldn’t need to worry where Meyer got his PhD from and appeal to his authority. He is simply wrong to bring a supernatural designer into science. He could be right that we will never be able to explain the origin of life by natural means, but then it’s not science anymore. I believe he is wrong, but that’s beside the point.

 

[Hee_Zen]

How about empiricism: direct realism or indirect realism?

Please elaborate. I have the suspicion that your usage or “realism” is not the same as I would use it. As far as I am concerned, “realism” is based upon the “reality”. And reality can only be known by observation and then making inferences based upon those observations. Sure, you can observe some phenomenon, and make an inference that “goddidit”, but you cannot substantiate that hypothesis.

I just did. It appears from earlier posts that you are just rebranding good old fashioned empiricism as “the scientific method.” A seven year old child can take sensory data and make accurate conclusions about objective reality, but no one (well, we will see) would say that the child is utilizing the scientific method; I mean the process of (1) observation, (2) hypothesis, (3) testing and (4) analysis.

Even animals, “who” have no capacity for abstractions use the same method, albeit not consciously. They observe the reality, they learn from their observations, and they act according to what they learned. Rats learn about fast acting poisons by observing their mates who eat it and quickly die. That is why only very slow acting poisons work on rats. This is an informal, unconscious application of the “scientific” method - or empiricism.

Even a child knows when his birthday is or what he had for lunch yesterday - both objective realities.

The past is not part of the objective reality. The past does not exist any more. As long as one remembers it, and remembers it correctly there is no problem for that particular person. Of course how can he be certain that his memories are accurate? This is the weakness of all the testimonial-based “epistemologies”. How can one know that the person giving the testimony is correct? He can be honestly mistaken, or can play a joke on you. This weakness cannot be eliminated by asking “someone else” - since that just pushing the uncertainty one step back. That is why the physical evidence is always superior to the testimonial ones. Of course they can be misinterpreted, but that is the problem for the one who makes the interpretation.

You are correct that epistemology is not restricted to the scientific method. You are incorrect that the scientific method is only epistemic means by which we know reality. Empiricism was here first, and the scientific method is based on it.

Of course. The scientific method is just the formalized version of empiricism. Science simply **adopted **this method, since it is the only way to investigate the objective external reality. You are welcome to use either terminology, I will understand what you mean.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, actually, no. One of the first criteria for God to be an adequate explanation – in the logical sense of truly sufficient – is that God must be, if nothing else, self-sufficient - a quality that the universe, itself, and nothing found within it, can or does possess.

An empty assertion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well, that’s where we disagree. Your “designer” is a supernatural entity and therefore outside the realm of science (I assume the designer is not a physical extra-terrestrial).

We shouldn’t need to worry where Meyer got his PhD from and appeal to his authority. He is simply wrong to bring a supernatural designer into science. He could be right that we will never be able to explain the origin of life by natural means, but then it’s not science anymore. I believe he is wrong, but that’s beside the point.

The aspect of a supernatural designer is not a subject of scientific inquiry. The presence of intelligent design is all that’s scientifically studied, not the designer. When you look at the sentence I am presently designing, you are not looking at a supernatural designer. You don’t know who or what the designer is; you just know that you see a design. You know you are looking at a design because you have empirically learned to recognize design wherever you see it . Whatever you infer from the existence of design is a philosophical (or theological) inference. Science doesn’t go where philosophy goes, unless it’s philosophy of science.

When Meyer examines the cell, he sees a signature (meaning the presence of a designer behind the construction of the cell). That position has been hotly debated in the scientific
community, and of course the theists among the scientists will be more open to see the design than the atheists, who insist everything just came together in one fell swoop.

Appeal to authority obviously doesn’t settle the matter. I just wanted to designate the individual who has studied this matter both from the scientific and the philosophical point of view. Naturally, the same goes when referencing Richard Dawkins. Why would he be an authority that we must heed … just because he is an atheist authority and closed to the idea of intelligent design right from the get-go?

I see that you are a Catholic. As a Catholic do you believe that God created and designed the universe to produce life, or do you believe life was an accident of creation without any intentional design behind it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

**The point is that you cannot have an infinite descent of explanations. You must stop somewhere - and that “somewhere” is a brute fact without further explanation. **For the theists this final stopping point is God, for the atheist it is the Universe. And since the Universe obviously exists, while God’s existence is doubtful, the atheist’s position is simpler. Of course simpler does not make it true.

Some more woolly fabric being applied to mine eyes, I see.

So you won’t allow an “infinite descent” of explanations, because, you claim, quite logically, that such a chain of intricately connected causes MUST stop somewhere, but by your reckoning that long line of compelling, intriguing and often perplexing explanatory connectedness must stop somewhere and THAT “somewhere” is mere “brute fact?"

This is a cheap trick, Hee_Zen! I want my money back! It is the chicanery of a story teller taking us to the brink of the precipice of intrigue and wonder but then ending it all with, “That’s a wrap! Shut off the projector! Yup, Nothing more to see. Great story, no?”

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,” more like.

The story of the universe fits together beautifully, aligns perfectly with logic, reason and consistent order, and positively reeks with meaning and significance but just at the moment the final curtain is about to be drawn – the curtain that will reveal the entire scope of production magic… we get: “That’s all, folks!”

How disappointing! Boy am I glad atheists do not author reality.

This position is not just “simpler," it is downright SIMPLE; as in only a simpleton would fall for it.

 

[Hans_W]

The aspect of a supernatural designer is not a subject of scientific inquiry. The presence of intelligent design is all that’s scientifically studied, not the designer. When you look at the sentence I am presently designing, you are not looking at a supernatural designer. You don’t know who or what the designer is; you just know that you see a design. You know you are looking at a design because you have empirically learned to recognize design wherever you see it . Whatever you infer from the existence of design is a philosophical (or theological) inference. Science doesn’t go where philosophy goes, unless it’s philosophy of science.

When Meyer examines the cell, he sees a signature (meaning the presence of a designer behind the construction of the cell). That position has been hotly debated in the scientific
community, and of course the theists among the scientists will be more open to see the design than the atheists, who insist everything just came together in one fell swoop.

Appeal to authority obviously doesn’t settle the matter. I just wanted to designate the individual who has studied this matter both from the scientific and the philosophical point of view. Naturally, the same goes when referencing Richard Dawkins. Why would he be an authority that we must heed … just because he is an atheist authority and closed to the idea of intelligent design right from the get-go?

I see that you are a Catholic. As a Catholic do you believe that God created and designed the universe to produce life, or do you believe life was an accident of creation without any intentional design behind it?

Meyer doesn’t examine the cell. He is a philosopher and before that he was an oil industry geophysicist.

I don’t want this thread deteriorating into a creationism/ID/evolution debate. The official stance of the Catholic Church is a full acceptance of evolution. Of course, we believe that God has it planned that way.

Every major philosopher of science rejects ID, with the exception of Alvin Plantinga, of course. If you feel a need to discuss ID, I have started with a thesis on that topic, but have switched the topic to a more interesting one involving methodological and ontological naturalism.

Virtually every professional biologist, religious and non-religious, will reject ID as pseudoscience.

 

[Hee_Zen]

This position is not just “simpler," it is downright SIMPLE; as in only a simpleton would fall for it.

You are always free to leave, and ask for your “money” back at the box office. It will be retuned to you to the last penny. I do not call the believers “simpletons”, and I would appreciate a similar courtesy. On the other hand, I already stipulated that the theist and atheist approach are mirror image of each other, and metaphysically speaking none of them is “superior”. The “battle” is fought in epistemology.

As I said before, you are welcome to demonstrate the existence of a different epistemological method, which is applicable to the objective, external reality. What you tried to do here with the shenanigans of “necessary” existence, and the PSR, is called “special pleading”. Yeah, right! All that is physical needs a reason for its existence, but the non-physical, like angels and demons exist “necessarily”? Oops, am I mistaken? You mean only ONE non-physical entity MUST exist necessarily, and that is God?

Well, by your method, you just **defined **God into existence. Now all you need to do is to **demonstrate **God’s existence. But beware, God is assumed to interact with the physical reality (just like angels and demons - remember the exorcists?), and as such this interaction is a legitimate target for the “empirical” or “scientific” method. The usual excuse, namely that God is too elusive, he can detect if someone wishes to test him and will make sure that his presence stays undetected and everything “looks like” as if there were no God, well, this excuse is wearing too thin by now.

On the other hand, if you wish to leave the “theater”, please do not hesitate, and make sure that the door does not hit you on your behind.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Meyer doesn’t examine the cell. He is a philosopher and before that he was an oil industry geophysicist.

I don’t want this thread deteriorating into a creationism/ID/evolution debate. The official stance of the Catholic Church is a full acceptance of evolution. Of course, we believe that God has it planned that way.

Every major philosopher of science rejects ID, with the exception of Alvin Plantinga, of course. If you feel a need to discuss ID, I have started with a thesis on that topic, but have switched the topic to a more interesting one involving methodological and ontological naturalism.

Virtually every professional biologist, religious and non-religious, will reject ID as pseudoscience.

If you think Meyer doesn’t examine the cell, read chapter 5, “The Molecular Labyrinth.”

You objected to the argument from authority in an earlier post, and now you throw a whole army of anonymous authorities into the field?

There seems to be no end of Catholics who are willing to say on the one hand, that they believe in God, and they believe God planned evolution, but they don’t believe God
intelligently designed evolution, or even abiogenesis for that matter.

This doesn’t make sense.

Of course we all buy evolution. The question is not whether evolution happened, but whether it was intelligently designed to happen.

You seem to miss this point buy a mile in your haste to agree with the atheist establishment and their scientism flunkies…

 

[Peter_Plato]

As I said before, you are welcome to demonstrate the existence of a different epistemological method, which is applicable to the objective, external reality. What you tried to do here with the shenanigans of “necessary” existence, and the PSR, is called “special pleading”. Yeah, right! All that is physical needs a reason for its existence, but the non-physical, like angels and demons exist “necessarily”? Oops, am I mistaken? You mean only ONE non-physical entity MUST exist necessarily, and that is God?

There is a difference between existing “necessarily” and aseity. It might even be argued that God as ipsum esse subsistens does not merely self-exist nor merely exists necessarily but that God is Existence Itself, that is, Existence is Who God is. What you assume is that Existence is mere 'brute fact," but we have no reason to think that except that you claim it.

I never claimed that angels and demons must exist, nor that immaterial things must, merely that Existence is necessary and Existence Itself accounts for all that exists because Existence is of the nature, possessing omniscience and omnipotence, that Existence brings things into being - not magically, but by its inherent power to do so - Existence is Actus Purus.

The problem, you see, is that the kind of evidence you restrict others to providing is the kind of evidence that points only to another individual being acting somewhere. Everything, taken as a whole is evidence for God, because everything taken as a whole is the activity of God.

Your restrictions on the evidence you will accept puts a set of blinders and tether on those who understand who God is. God is not another entity who acts here and there in the physical universe. The entire universe is God’s activity - though the universe is not the full account of his activity. It is the account, however, that WE can observe.

Your epistemological method is to focus on separate and distinct observable occurrences to show evidence or account for other distinct and observable things, but you completely ignore that the entire observable universe is, itself, evidence for something beyond it that must have the power to account for it.

Your methodology requires that to accept anything as a full accounting or complete evidential case, the cause must sufficiently account for the effect. If an apple started floating in the air, you would not accept a trivial explanation like, “Gravity must not be working today,” or “Well, that’s just a ‘brute fact’ about apples in December, they sometimes float unexpectedly on some days.” “Brute facts” are not explanatory, they are cop outs.

If you toss away the cheap pair of binoculars that makes you focus on individual existents and inquire about what “reasonable” explanation could possibly account for all of physical reality taken as a whole, clearly nothing IN physical reality explains the whole and nothing ABOUT physical reality explains the whole. Ergo, it is reasonable to assume Existence is non-physical and Itself has the power/capability to account for the whole shebang.

 

[Al_Moritz]

There seems to be no end of Catholics who are willing to say on the one hand, that they believe in God, and they believe God planned evolution, but they don’t believe God
intelligently designed evolution, or even abiogenesis for that matter.

This doesn’t make sense.

Of course we all buy evolution. The question is not whether evolution happened, but whether it was intelligently designed to happen.

You seem to miss this point buy a mile in your haste to agree with the atheist establishment and their scientism flunkies…

Of course God intelligently designed evolution – He designed the very special laws of nature that allow evolution to happen (not just biological, but also the physical evolution of the universe and chemical evolution at the origin of life). But He doesn’t have to interfere with the laws of nature, which He created in the first place, for evolution to happen. God didn’t have to ‘swoosh down from heaven’ to build the first cell (or any subsequent cell, for that matter). Thus, no biological ‘Intelligent Design’ required.

And no, seeing things that way has nothing to do with either agreeing with the atheist establishment or submitting to scientism. It is simply following the scientific evidence.

 

[Al_Moritz]

We shouldn’t need to worry where Meyer got his PhD from and appeal to his authority. He is simply wrong to bring a supernatural designer into science. He could be right that we will never be able to explain the origin of life by natural means, but then it’s not science anymore. I believe he is wrong, but that’s beside the point.

Yes, he is wrong. While we do not know all the details yet, the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to an origin of life by natural causes, as I review in my article for the evolution website Talkorigins.org.

Of course, natural causes are not ‘godless’ causes, but secondary causes created by God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I do not call the believers “simpletons”, and I would appreciate a similar courtesy. On the other hand, I already stipulated that the theist and atheist approach are mirror image of each other, and metaphysically speaking none of them is “superior”.

I never called non-believers “simpletons.” I said those who accept that “brute facts” can and should replace the PSR at some arbitrary point in the search for explanation - at their discretion - merely because they don’t personally like where the search is leading - those individuals are simpletons.

Or, minimally, they must consider others to be simpletons because they attempt to persuade those “others” that brute facts can function in the place of an adequate explanation whenever they, themselves, cannot provide a plausible explanatory accounting.