What would you do if it were proven...?

[PRmerger]

As far as I can tell, that is a Protestant way of thinking about “faith.” Protestants typically honor thinkers like the existentialist Soren Kierkegaard who believed that faith is irrational, but it is a leap we must take in the face of the existential storm that is life. And so, Protestants tend to be very emotional and neurotic about “faith.” But it is a weird way of looking at things. According to that view, I should have faith that God exists AND faith in Him, who might not even exist! No wonder we have this atheist backlash! It is that kind of religion that they abhor. Well, us too. We don’t have a doctrinal place in Catholicism for thinkers like Kierkegaard, who was a Protestant.

It is a dogma of Catholicism that God can be known with certainty through human reason.

Indeed. The writings of our greatest thinkers: Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, Pascal, Edith Stein provide great exegesis. Not to mention St. Paul as well!

 

[Candide_West]

Hi MoM2,

Youve written such a strange pair of posts that I feel a need to break my usual approach of replying to posts chronologically.

So i guess science is an inventor of superstition simply because its method relies upon abstract reasoning, for example mathematics and induction, including logical inferences to things that cannot be seen directly. Don’t be ridiculous!!

Why would you say that? Yes abstract reasoning is used in many areas of our lives including science… That doesn’t mean that each of those areas are the same thing. Nor have I said anything of the sort.*

What I have said is that you can use abstract reasoning to create and understand concepts. Do you disagree with this?

Candide west, do your self a favor and stop smoking weed for while; for at least a year.

I don’t think this part deserves any reply. Especially given that you seem to have made it based upon a misreading of one of my comments.

 

[Candide_West]

I don’t think you do understand the concept.

Fair enough, that doesn’t change the fact that I am just as qualified as you to say that I*understand the concept. The fact is I understand it rather better now than I did back when I was christian myself.

It is true that you do not know God directly, but you are aware of God indirectly through your experience of things, but you do not yet understand nor identify God in your experiences.

Right, so I have not in fact experienced God in any way which is meaningful or identifiable. And yet I still understand the concept. That was the point. Incidentally you can just as easily replace God in your above paragraph with Allah, Brahman, fairy magic, or anything else you please. It works just as well.

You indirectly claim that you do not know that it is impossible for something to come from nothing; thus in a sense admitting that it might be possible.

Then let me be direct, I do not know if it is impossible for something to come from nothing. I have never encountered a “nothing” so have no idea how such a thing might behave. Neither have you. Neither has anyone else. We have no empirical data or applicable information from which to make inferences about how “nothing” would behave. Since the entire experience of humanity is within a reference frame including spacial dimensions and time, neither of which would exist in “nothing”.

You made the bald assertion that nothing comes from nothing. Then claim I’m being irrational by rejecting a totally unsupported (and based on your second point from your previous post both unsupportable and irrelevant) claim.*

I would call that irrational doubt.

Irrational doubt is as far as I know different from radical doubt. And as above I don’t think it’s sensible to describe rejecting a totally unsupported claim as irrational.

 

[Betterave]

Then it depends on what he means by scientific. In the narrower sense as it used in modern times, then even that is not proof but a probabilistic conclusion.

Are you suggesting that the epistemic status you assign to all scientific theories is: “(merely) probablistic conclusion”? If so, how would you justify that claim?

In any case, it is complete non sequitur for God’s existence to be proven by empirical or scientific means because he is immaterial. Science has absolutely nothing to say, and will never have anything to say on the existence of God. Even in the case of miracles, and there are many that have been examined by science, all science can do is examine the empirical effects of a miracle, not of its Causer.

I disagree with each statement here. Why not examine the existence of immaterial beings ‘empirically’ or ‘scientifically’? Why not let ‘science’ say whatever it can about the existence of God? - why must it have nothing to say? What is ‘unscientific’ about proceeding from effects to cause in a ‘scientific’ demonstration?

 

[Betterave]

Yes indeed, I’ve mentioned it before, but abstract reasoning is a simple way of inventing and understanding concepts. It’s where I think the God concept (and for that matter most superstitions) come from. Abstract reasoning trying to explain something.*

So if I understand you correctly, you are denying my claim that “we don’t develop concepts except on the basis of experience,” and you support this denial by claiming that we can invent and understand concepts by means of “abstract reasoning.” That argument only works, however, if you believe that “abstract reasoning” is possible without some basis in experience. IOW, your claim must be that no basis of experience is required in order for us human beings to carry out “abstract reasoning.” Now before going any further my question is: Do you really believe that?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Fair enough, that doesn’t change the fact that I am just as qualified as you to say that I*understand the concept.

I don’t see why that would be the case. You either hold an accurate understanding of what people mean by the concept that we call God, or you hold a straw-man. The only way you can gain an accurate understanding of the catholic idea of God is by learning the concept as presented by Catholic theology and philosophy.

This require serious study.

Incidentally you can just as easily replace God in your above paragraph with Brahman, fairy magic, or anything else you please. It works just as well.

If you had a proper understanding of what i mean by God, then no you cannot. Allah is just another word for God.

Then let me be direct, I do not know if it is impossible for something to come from nothing. I have never encountered a “nothing” so have no idea how such a thing might behave.

So, you are telling me that you don’t know what people mean by nothing.

Neither have you.

If you don’t know what is meant by the word nothing, then how is it that you can determine what i can know and what i cannot know about it?

Since the entire experience of humanity is within a reference frame including spacial dimensions and time, neither of which would exist in “nothing”.

You just told me you don’t know the nature of nothing, so how can you possibly determine with out science that a thing would not exist in nothing? And yet at the same time you seem to have a problem with the certain fact that only nothing can come from nothing.

You made the bald assertion that nothing comes from nothing. Then claim I’m being irrational by rejecting a totally unsupported (and based on your second point from your previous post both unsupportable and irrelevant) claim.*

Its supported by logic. If there is truly absolutely nothing, then it is irrational to claim that the antithesis of nothing could from it. To claim so would be to say that nothing and something is qualitatively and essentially the same in their power and effect, being only superficially or apparently different. But this cannot be so, since there is no real power or effect in absolutely nothing, because it would not truly be absolutely nothing if there was. Reality and nothing is absolutely distinct and thus it is a contradiction to think that absolutely nothing can possibly produce anything that can be truly said of reality. To do so would be to make reality and nothing synonymous in nature. This is not possible since nothing is and can only be the antithesis of production and reality. It is precisely because reality and nothing is absolutely distinct that we cannot meaningfully apply any ontological truth to nothing, that is, any truth that can be rationally applied to reality. Therefore the word nothing (in so far as the word describes the absence of the ontological truth of being) can only function meaningfully as a negation of potential reality.

For example you cannot say that the natural powers of a rabbit has the same natural powers of a rubber ball, and that is because they are distinct in nature while having those particular forms and thus evidently cannot be said to have the same potentiality. This is the same with reality and nothing, accept this time nothing and reality do not share any nature at all, whereas the rabbit and the rubber ball both share a material nature. Thus to say that nothing can produce something would be the same as treating nothing as having a being or nature; which is illogical. Nothing by definition is the absence of being and nature, thus it is meaningless to speak of the possibility or potentiality of beings coming from it.

Irrational doubt is as far as I know different from radical doubt. And as above I don’t think it’s sensible to describe rejecting a totally unsupported claim as irrational.

You entertained the irrational possibility of something coming from nothing, and several times you spoke of nothing as if it had an ontology.

It is what it is.

 

[Windfish]

Are you suggesting that the epistemic status you assign to all scientific theories is: “(merely) probablistic conclusion”? If so, how would you justify that claim?

I have a feeling you are being sarcastic with me.

Yeah, scientific theories are arrived at through induction, not deduction, which means the conclusion could only ever be probable and not deductively certain.

I disagree with each statement here. Why not examine the existence of immaterial beings ‘empirically’ or ‘scientifically’? Why not let ‘science’ say whatever it can about the existence of God? - why must it have nothing to say? What is ‘unscientific’ about proceeding from effects to cause in a ‘scientific’ demonstration?

Perhaps you can correct me, but I do not think anything immaterial is within the purview of science, which deals with material things. It could possibly examine the material effects of immaterial cause, like a miracle, but it cannot say anything about that immaterial cause. You’ll have to show me where I go wrong.

 

[Candide_West]

Please define “this evidence”.

Ah drat, I forgot the antecedent again didn’t I. “This evidence” was in this case intended to be the bones of Jesus.

It doesn’t seem like it would be possible to verify that the bones were his, even if they were.

 

[samiam1611]

I don’t think people can know what would happen if certain core beliefs were forcibly abandoned. Its sort of like asking “what if it was proven to you that killing people because of their race is not wrong?”

The only thing I can say is it would certainly change my view of things.

Care to share what sort of things would change? Morality issues? Something else? Any particular things come to mind?

 

[Betterave]

I have a feeling you are being sarcastic with me.

I assure you, not in the least.

Yeah, scientific theories are arrived at through induction, not deduction, which means the conclusion could only ever be probable and not deductively certain.

That looks like a non sequitur:
IF a conclusion C is derived from ‘induction’ (i.e., not from deduction), THEN conclusion C is merely probable.
Why do you think that is a valid inference?

I also don’t know what you mean by your premise: “scientific theories are arrived at through induction, not deduction.” Could you explain that? (I’m not sure what you mean by ‘induction,’ but I’d have thought both induction and deduction were required for the establishment of scientific knowledge.)

Perhaps you can correct me, but I do not think anything immaterial is within the purview of science, which deals with material things. It could possibly examine the material effects of immaterial cause, like a miracle, but it cannot say anything about that immaterial cause. You’ll have to show me where I go wrong.

I understand that Antony Flew, a well known atheist philosopher, became convinced that atheism was implausible because of what science had to say about the world, and by implication about the necessary conditions grounding its existence. IOW, science did have something to say to him about the existence of an immaterial intelligent cause of the world. (Indeed, don’t we believe what the psalmist writes: “the (material) heavens declare the (immaterial) glory of God and the (material) firmament declares the work of his (immaterial) hands”?)

In general, science deals with universals, not material things. That is to say, the proper subject matter of science is not material things, but universal concepts. And universals (concepts) apply to immaterial as well as material things.

 

[samiam1611]

Yeah, scientific theories are arrived at through induction, not deduction, which means the conclusion could only ever be probable and not deductively certain.

I don’t know about the induction/deduction thing, but the second half of your sentence is basically correct. To quote Wikipedia, "A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, **no theory is ever considered strictly certain **as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge “consists in the search for truth”, but it “is not the search for certainty … All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.” Although some theories are considered fact, like germ theory. I guess they are as near as certain as they could possibly be about that and some other stuff.

Perhaps you can correct me, but I do not think anything immaterial is within the purview of science, which deals with material things. It could possibly examine the material effects of immaterial cause, like a miracle, but it cannot say anything about that immaterial cause. You’ll have to show me where I go wrong.

I think that’s basically correct. I think maybe science tries to find material causes of some things that others might attribute to an immaterial cause. And in fact, it often does find material causes, but of course sometimes it does not. Science does not have all the answers, but that doesn’t mean God did it!
God of the gaps hellllo?

 

[Betterave]

I don’t know about the induction/deduction thing, but the second half of your sentence is basically correct. To quote Wikipedia, "A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, **no theory is ever considered strictly certain **as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge “consists in the search for truth”, but it “is not the search for certainty … All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.” Although some theories are considered fact, like germ theory. I guess they are as near as certain as they could possibly be about that and some other stuff.

So here you write what you presumably take to be some true things about ‘science’? You claim they are “basically correct” (although maybe you contradict yourself on this in your last sentence?), and you appear to claim as justification for that claim certain claims made on wikipedia, some of which appeal to the views of Karl Popper. However, I would suggest distinguishing more sharply between claims made by Karl Popper (or by the authors of Wikipedia articles) and the truth.

(The general point here: such appeals to authority are fallacious and do not contribute to resolving or clarifying the conceptual issue, which is what is required for actual understanding to be possible.)

I think that’s basically correct. I think maybe science tries to find material causes of some things that others might attribute to an immaterial cause. And in fact, it often does find material causes, but of course sometimes it does not. Science does not have all the answers, but that doesn’t mean God did it!
God of the gaps hellllo?

And of course I never made such an argument, so let’s not go chasing after that red herring.

 

[samiam1611]

So here you write what you presumably take to be some true things about ‘science’? You claim they are “basically correct” (although maybe you contradict yourself on this in your last sentence?), and you appear to claim as justification for that claim certain claims made on wikipedia, some of which appeal to the views of Karl Popper. However, I would suggest distinguishing more sharply between claims made by Karl Popper (or by the authors of Wikipedia articles) and the truth.

I was just saying the more-official-than-my statement on science and certainty. I know Wikipedia is not perfect, I just am saying that Windfish’s statement was not incorrect based on what science itself has admitted. scientists. whatever. And I didn’t claim they/science is basically correct, I meant Windfish was basically correct. He said “correct me if I’m wrong.” I said basically because I did add/change it a little bit.

(The general point here: such appeals to authority are fallacious and do not contribute to resolving or clarifying the conceptual issue, which is what is required for actual understanding to be possible.)

Again, my only aim was to show that Windfish was not way off in his statement.

And of course I never made such an argument, so let’s not go chasing after that red herring.

My bad if it seemed I put words in your mouth. I wasn’t really intending to address you specifically, just defending Windfish’s one comment (and even there, only the second half of the sentence.) Theists tend to assume an immaterial cause when a material cause cannot be found. (In some cases, even when one can be found! ) This may not be the case with you or even with Windfish, I don’t know. It’s just a generalization, and I apologize if it seemed like I was assuming this to be the case for you.

 

[Betterave]

I was just saying the more-official-than-my statement on science and certainty. I know Wikipedia is not perfect, I just am saying that Windfish’s statement was not incorrect based on what science itself has admitted. scientists.

Karl Popper is not a scientist, he is a philosopher of science, and certainly not an authoritative one. Scientists might claim things about the nature of science, but philosophy of science is methodologically distinct from what scientists, narrowly defined, study, so scientists don’t have any special authority. They don’t just “admit” stuff about the nature and significance of the theories they produce - they have to make claims and defend them, just like the rest of us.

And I didn’t claim they/science is basically correct, I meant Windfish was basically correct. He said “correct me if I’m wrong.” I said basically because I did add/change it a little bit.

Sure, but Windfish is only (basically) correct if “they” are (basically) correct.

Again, my only aim was to show that Windfish was not way off in his statement.

Maybe so, but you didn’t do that.

 

[Betterave]

In general, science deals with universals, not material things. That is to say, the proper subject matter of science is not material things, but universal concepts. And universals (concepts) apply to immaterial as well as material things.

Windfish,
Let me add that this statement was hastily formulated and probably misleading, so I welcome criticism.

Regards

 

[PRmerger]

For the record, I do not think that scientific knowledge gives us certainty. This is why I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I like science because it is willing to examine, if not seek out, new evidence to get closer to certainty.

I’m wondering, sam, if you understand the nature of theology? Is it not a discipline that is “is willing to examine, if not seek out, new evidence to get closer to certainty”?

As opposed to digging in its heels.

Who has dug in its heels?

If a truth is known, and an individual proclaims it (“Canada is north of the US!”) is that considered digging in one’s heels?

 

[PRmerger]

So you are saying that Christianity could not in fact be proven false by this evidence.

Ah drat, I forgot the antecedent again didn’t I. “This evidence” was in this case intended to be the bones of Jesus.

It doesn’t seem like it would be possible to verify that the bones were his, even if they were.

I would think that if the bones of Jesus Christ were found–and it could be verified that they were his…

• perhaps through his and Mary Magdalene’s descendants as the Sacred Feminine advocates like to proclaim or
• through the descendants of his brothers and sisters, as some Protestants are wont to point out…

then Christianity could be proven false, no?

 

[samiam1611]

I’m wondering, sam, if you understand the nature of theology?

Only so far as the 2 and a half months I’ve been on this forum. Gotta start somewhere!

Is it not a discipline that is “is willing to examine, if not seek out, new evidence to get closer to certainty”?

Willing was the wrong word. More like… When a theological explanation and a scientific explanation contradict each other, I think the scientific one is more likely to be right bc the scientific method of seeking and examining** new** evidence seems like a better way to get to the truth. I just don’t think theological proofs/explanations are as valid as scientific proofs/explanation because of the methodology used.

Who has dug in its heels?

The Church has.

If a truth is known, and an individual proclaims it (“Canada is north of the US!”) is that considered digging in one’s heels?

Not really. But the Church claims it has the Truth on some things that are not supported (or are disproved) by scientific evidence bc to change the teaching on certain things would put into question the infallibility of the Church and She doesn’t want that.

 

[PRmerger]

Willing was the wrong word. More like… When a theological explanation and a scientific explanation contradict each other, I think the scientific one is more likely to be right bc the scientific method of seeking and examining** new** evidence seems like a better way to get to the truth. I just don’t think theological proofs/explanations are as valid as scientific proofs/explanation because of the methodology used.

Well, sam, theological explanations are better for theological questions and scientific explanations are better for scientific questions, don’t you think?

Why should science answer the question of whether there is a God? Why should theology answer the question of whether penicillin-resistant streptococci are mutating beyond our ability to develop new antibiotics?

To be sure, there are some areas that are not mutually exclusive…
And it is also true that All Truth is Catholic Truth…
And it is also true that there is nothing in scientific truth that will contradict theological truth…

But in the end, science works best for scientific questions and theology works best for theological questions, no?

 

[PRmerger]

The Church has.

<sigh!>

Are you really going to tell your toddler that it’s okay for him to walk out that 3rd story window? Or are you going to “dig in your heels” and tell him, “If you walk out of that window, you will fall. I guarantee it. I am not mistaken.”

Are you really going to let your 5th grade English student tell you that “he died for you and I” is ok grammatically, or are you going to tell him, “Sorry, but that is incorrect grammar and you must use a direct object after ‘for’”?

Perhaps what you call “digging in your heels” is really just proclaiming the truth?

Not really. But the Church claims it has the Truth on some things that are not supported (or are disproved) by scientific evidence bc to change the teaching on certain things would put into question the infallibility of the Church and She doesn’t want that.

Could you give an example of the Church claiming a Truth that has been disproved by scientific evidence? Or I’ll even consider one that is “not supported” by scientific evidence.