Why do some people think that Science is the only source of knowledge?

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve asked you many times to read the entire epistle, and you did not. So, tomorrow in Mass sit next to a lesbian Catholic and tell her your belief that Paul was talking about her when he wrote “they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God** for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles**.”

Then tell her your belief that Paul was talking about her when he said they “have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice.”

And that’s without even going on to chapter two. So according to you, Paul thought lesbian Catholics worship idols and are full of murder.

And according to you he blurted that out at the start of the long argument in the epistle which has nothing to do with lesbians whatsoever.

Now that’s as far off-topic as I’m willing to go, if you want to resurrect that topic then start a thread and I may join in.

What Paul is talking about is very similar to what Jesus meant when he spoke of a branch cutting itself off from the source of its life. It is also the lesson of the story of Adam and Eve. When we sin we separate ourselves from the life giving source of goodness. That means our beings become susceptible to all manner of evil. If we sin and do not reconcile with God through grace we remain vulnerable to evil in a way that we have no protection against its incursion. To commit sin and not seek reconciliation can and, over time, will result in what Paul is talking about. The reason he knows that is because he witnessed it among the Corinthians and other groups he visited. He also knew from personal experience.

Jesus had a parable about a man who sweeps his house of one evil spirit but ends up, because of sin, being in a worse state when a troop of them come back to wreck his house. He became filled with, as Paul might say, “every kind of wickedness.”

We do not grasp the reality and power that evil can have over us. By remaining in sin we remain ripe for evil to enter and decimate us spiritually. Why do you think God would have to become man, be crucified and die a horrific death? It wasn’t over some trifling matter I can assure you. It was to counter the far-reaching grip of evil. By continuing to commit sinful acts, every person is on the edge of falling into the pit of evil characterized in Paul’s words. Think also of the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus makes a point of claiming that even our thoughts are liable to judgement. According to this teaching, our mind and spirit can have murderous thoughts and be filled with all kind of malice, and that makes us guilty of all those evils. Someone may look clean and congenial on the outside but are "whited sepulchres” inside.

Try posting a contentious comment on a gay friendly web forum and you’ll get an earful of malice and hostility. Anyone who places their entire identity, how they view themselves, upon how and why they obtain pleasure, any pleasure, have short-circuited themselves spiritually. They will pay spiritually and mentally for their narcissism in gradually increasing tolls.

 

[Peter_Plato]

To bring this sorry little puppy of a thread back on track…

Knowledge is “about” things. We can have knowledge about cars, about the mating habits of bonobo chimps and about the universe itself.

I still think Aristotle’s theory of the four causes is the best way of characterizing and assessing whether we have full knowledge about any particular thing. If we can answer questions about the material, formal, efficient and final causes of a thing, these seem to sum up beautifully what that thing, of which we speak, is.

Unfortunately, science tends to assign the need for a final cause explanation merely to things of human artifice, but that may be a shortcoming built into science itself.

**We can distinguish knowledge from meaning. Knowledge is “about” something, but meaning places things into perspective and “makes sense” of them. **

Given that meaning is crucial to human existence, then the fact that humans want to make sense of the world around us - I certainly do - is an indicator that knowledge, in particular, of the scientific kind, is not sufficient to make all reality meaningful. Unless science can make sense of everything in perspective and explain “why” things exist (the final cause) - or, alternatively, demonstrate definitively that there is no final cause with regard to the universe itself, science cannot bring meaning, but only some aspects of knowledge to the table.

If there is no final cause to the unverse, then ultimately existence is meaningless because there is no meaningful larger perspective into which everything can be fitted.

To answer the question of the thread, some people may think science is the only source of knowledge because they do not distinguish between knowledge and meaning, between knowing about something and making sense of it in the fullest way possible. They are content with knowing about things and do not consider anything more as important.

Personally, that seems a very shallow view of reality. There is something in me that rebels at placing that limitation on reality. I want to make complete sense of things, so they are meaningful to me. I am not content with simply knowing some things “about” them.

As far as science ignores or eschews the fullest sense of meaning it cannot be the only source of knowledge, despite what the “some people” in the title question might content themselves with. If there is a “why” or telelogical aspect to the universe and science cannot address it, then science cannot provide knowledge about the why.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Though you certain hit the nail on the head with your assessment of yourself - “self-absorbed”.

It’s an addiction I am working hard to overcome.

 

[inocente]

What Paul is talking about is very similar to what Jesus meant when he spoke of a branch cutting itself off from the source of its life. It is also the lesson of the story of Adam and Eve. When we sin we separate ourselves from the life giving source of goodness. That means our beings become susceptible to all manner of evil. If we sin and do not reconcile with God through grace we remain vulnerable to evil in a way that we have no protection against its incursion. To commit sin and not seek reconciliation can and, over time, will result in what Paul is talking about. The reason he knows that is because he witnessed it among the Corinthians and other groups he visited. He also knew from personal experience.

Jesus had a parable about a man who sweeps his house of one evil spirit but ends up, because of sin, being in a worse state when a troop of them come back to wreck his house. He became filled with, as Paul might say, “every kind of wickedness.”

We do not grasp the reality and power that evil can have over us. By remaining in sin we remain ripe for evil to enter and decimate us spiritually. Why do you think God would have to become man, be crucified and die a horrific death? It wasn’t over some trifling matter I can assure you. It was to counter the far-reaching grip of evil. By continuing to commit sinful acts, every person is on the edge of falling into the pit of evil characterized in Paul’s words. Think also of the Sermon on the Mount when Jesus makes a point of claiming that even our thoughts are liable to judgement. According to this teaching, our mind and spirit can have murderous thoughts and be filled with all kind of malice, and that makes us guilty of all those evils. Someone may look clean and congenial on the outside but are "whited sepulchres” inside.

OK, but play nice.

The reason why I said sit next to a lesbian Catholic in Mass is to show that your interpretation can’t work with her.

Let’s say she’s 18. God makes her a lesbian in Romans 1:26 (“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts” etc.). The “because of this” means that for God to give her over she must have done the things in 1:24-25 , the sinful desires and worshipping created things.

I don’t know, maybe she spent too much time on her iPhone.

But 1:24 starts with “Therefore God gave them over”, so God made her spend too much time on her iPhone because of something she did even earlier. And that’s explained in 1:21-23, where apparently this Catholic schoolgirl “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles”.

Maybe her brother bought her a Buddha statuette lamp for her room or something.

But 1:21 starts “For although they knew God” so we have to go back further to find the start of this sorry tale, and in 1:18 we get to the heart of God’s wrath, which is visited on her because she was godless and wicked and suppressed the truth by her wickedness. Not sure how a schoolkid can suppress the truth by her wickedness but there you go, she was obviously a mixed up kid.

Yet we’ve not finished with this Catholic schoolgirl because after all this she unsurprisingly forgets about God in 1:28, and so God gives her over to a depraved mind, full of murder and malice. She becomes a God-hater, inventing new ways to do evil.

And there she is, sat next to you in Mass, age 18. One of around 100 million girls in the world who God made into lesbians by the same process.

No, your interpretation can’t work when the narrative is read through.

Paul wasn’t crazy and God isn’t a despot.

Try posting a contentious comment on a gay friendly web forum and you’ll get an earful of malice and hostility. Anyone who places their entire identity, how they view themselves, upon how and why they obtain pleasure, any pleasure, have short-circuited themselves spiritually. They will pay spiritually and mentally for their narcissism in gradually increasing tolls.

Try posting a contentious comment on any forum, including this one, and you’ll get an earful of malice and hostility. We proved that on this thread. On the web people know there’s no physical comeback.

 

[Peter_Plato]

She becomes a God-hater, inventing new ways to do evil.

And there she is, sat next to you in Mass, age 18. One of around 100 million girls in the world who God made into lesbians by the same process.

No, your interpretation can’t work when the narrative is read through.

Paul wasn’t crazy and God isn’t a despot.

You underestimate the power of evil. Hitler’s romp through Europe just a half century ago should be taken as a case in point. I am sure there were good boys and girls who quickly fell into lock step with the murder and mayhem because they had no internal strength of spirit and were simply swept into the mob mentality around them. Think about the power of social media today and how quickly the latest fad takes hold of large numbers of people. It is not inconceivable that with the right motivations otherwise seemingly normal individuals can be convinced of the rightness of even the most heinous acts. Abortion is a case in point - and by simple and fair ethical analysis, a case of the “murderous” capabilities that even otherwise “nice” people are capable of. Sure it can be rationalized away, but simply put it is the wanton killing of one human being by another human being. Paul was not so far off. He wasn’t crazy and he knew what he was talking about. Again, you underestimate the power and grip of evil, and its hideous disguises.

 

[tonyrey]

I was being hopeful, but it seems I was right all along and you cannot back up your claims. Still, glad you found an easy way out by hiding behind the class bully.

Luther’s influence is still evident in this thread:

                                                  “Reason is the Devil’s greatest whore; by nature and manner of being   she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil’s appointed   whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under   foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom… Throw dung in her face to make   her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism… She would   deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house,   to the closets.”

Martin Luther, Works, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148.

Philosophy, of course, is the prime example of the Devil’s whores!

 

[Peter_Plato]

I was being hopeful, but it seems I was right all along and you cannot back up your claims. Still, glad you found an easy way out by hiding behind the class bully.

As opposed to hiding behind a less localized one who advocates beating up and murdering defenseless women?

Luther’s influence is still evident in this thread:

Reason

Which is completely at odds with the traditional Jewish and Catholic view of Wisdom:

Wisdom 6:12-16
Wisdom is bright, and does not grow dim. By those who love her she is readily seen, and found by those who look for her. Quick to anticipate those who desire her, she makes herself known to them. Watch for her early and you will have no trouble: you will find her sitting at your gates. Even to think about her is understanding fully grown; be on the alert for her and anxiety will quickly leave you. She herself walks about looking for those who are worthy of her and graciously shows herself to them as they go, in every thought of theirs coming to meet them.

As the old saying goes: “The apple does not fall far from its tree.”

 

[inocente]

You underestimate the power of evil. Hitler’s romp through Europe just a half century ago should be taken as a case in point. I am sure there were good boys and girls who quickly fell into lock step with the murder and mayhem because they had no internal strength of spirit and were simply swept into the mob mentality around them. Think about the power of social media today and how quickly the latest fad takes hold of large numbers of people. It is not inconceivable that with the right motivations otherwise seemingly normal individuals can be convinced of the rightness of even the most heinous acts. Abortion is a case in point - and by simple and fair ethical analysis, a case of the “murderous” capabilities that even otherwise “nice” people are capable of. Sure it can be rationalized away, but simply put it is the wanton killing of one human being by another human being. Paul was not so far off. He wasn’t crazy and he knew what he was talking about. Again, you underestimate the power and grip of evil, and its hideous disguises.

Come on, you haven’t responded to any of the points I made, all you’ve done is wave your arms around. If you look at what you’ve posted, you’ve done nothing to separate your position from pure homophobia.

I explained verse by verse how Paul cannot possibly be speaking of the lesbian sat next to you in Mass. You need to explain verse by verse how and why you think he is speaking of God turning her into a lesbian (and from what you’ve written, a baby-murdering Nazi fiend to boot).

You then need to explain how you think God used the same process to make the other 200 million or so homosexuals on the planet, and why he didn’t do it to you or me.

A majority of Catholics are in favor of equal marriage. For them and the rest of us it’s far too bizarre to imagine that the lesbian sitting next to them in Mass is Hitler in drag, whether or not she’s their own daughter or sister or friend.

 

[inocente]

Unfortunately, science tends to assign the need for a final cause explanation merely to things of human artifice, but that may be a shortcoming built into science itself.

**We can distinguish knowledge from meaning. Knowledge is “about” something, but meaning places things into perspective and “makes sense” of them. **

Given that meaning is crucial to human existence, then the fact that humans want to make sense of the world around us - I certainly do - is an indicator that knowledge, in particular, of the scientific kind, is not sufficient to make all reality meaningful. Unless science can make sense of everything in perspective and explain “why” things exist (the final cause) - or, alternatively, demonstrate definitively that there is no final cause with regard to the universe itself, science cannot bring meaning, but only some aspects of knowledge to the table.

If there is no final cause to the unverse, then ultimately existence is meaningless because there is no meaningful larger perspective into which everything can be fitted.

To answer the question of the thread, some people may think science is the only source of knowledge because they do not distinguish between knowledge and meaning, between knowing about something and making sense of it in the fullest way possible. They are content with knowing about things and do not consider anything more as important.

Personally, that seems a very shallow view of reality. There is something in me that rebels at placing that limitation on reality. I want to make complete sense of things, so they are meaningful to me. I am not content with simply knowing some things “about” them.

As far as science ignores or eschews the fullest sense of meaning it cannot be the only source of knowledge, despite what the “some people” in the title question might content themselves with. If there is a “why” or telelogical aspect to the universe and science cannot address it, then science cannot provide knowledge about the why.

You are right that science does not attempt to assign meaning or purpose, and that is a big part of its success. The realization that discoveries and progress can be made without ever needing to argue about meaning is a huge intellectual step.

It removes any need for a hierarchy to determine whether work conforms to an orthodoxy (although being human, in practice some do get branded as heretics by colleagues).

But that doesn’t stop us assigning meaning, it just means we don’t have to agree what the meaning is, and I think that’s basically why so many religionists have an uneasy relationship with science, they want the certainty of their belief to be reflected by the rest of the tribe, but hay ho, meaning isn’t fact, that’s why there are so many competing philosophical -isms after all.

 

[inocente]

It’s an addiction I am working hard to overcome.

Aren’t we all. Psalm 131 helped me.

 

[inocente]

Luther’s influence is still evident in this thread:
Philosophy, of course, is the prime example of the Devil’s whores!

But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? - Luther’s Last Sermon in Wittenberg

OK, got that from Wikiquote, but yes sometimes it can be hard to know whether a prompting is from the Spirit.

Though Luther’s greatest role was without doubt as Superman’s archenemy, the super villain evil scientist.

Or was that Lex Luthor …

 

[tonyrey]

But since the devil’s bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she’s wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? - Luther’s Last Sermon in Wittenberg

OK, got that from Wikiquote, but yes sometimes it can be hard to know whether a prompting is from the Spirit.

Though Luther’s greatest role was without doubt as Superman’s archenemy, the super villain evil scientist.

Or was that Lex Luthor …

Luther’s** irrational** subjectivism still exists on this Philosophy forum with its adulation of science on the one hand and its rejection of philosophy on the other!

 

[inocente]

As opposed to hiding behind a less localized one who advocates beating up and murdering defenseless women?

Que?

 

[inocente]

Luther’s** irrational** subjectivism still exists on this Philosophy forum with its adulation of science on the one hand and its rejection of philosophy on the other!

Yes, fancy him being outraged that God’s indulgence could be bought with money, fancy him having the nerve to translate the bible into German so all his countrymen could read it.

God didn’t seem to mind. But that’s almost 500 years ago, not something I can get excited about except without him maybe we wouldn’t have Bach’s music.

On the other hand Luthor’s role as Superman’s nemesis is terrific stuff.

 

[tonyrey]

Luther’s* irrational***

Further evidence that Luther’s** irrational** subjectivism exists on this Philosophy forum…

 

[Ismael]

Science is limited to the study of the material world. We’re only able to study what we are allowed to study, nothing more. Why do people insist that science is the be all end all of knowledge and information? Why is belief in God allegedly incompatible with Science?

Different reasons:

1- They might assume there is ONLY the material world (materialism, naturalism, however that cannot be verified by science so it is a very weak position… also mathematics itself poses a great problem to these positions)

2- They might think that only what can be experimentally verified matters and anything else either does not exist or does not matter (this was logical positivism, deemed self-refuting by its own creators, in the end, since logical positivism cannot be empirically verified. Also here math can be problematic: mathematics shows ‘truths’ that are relevant but NOT empirically verifiable)

3- They are “dazzled” by technology (which is science applied to solve practical problems). Since technology has advanced so much people might be inclined to think it’s all there is.

4- They might be fooled by some new-atheist speakers/college professors who try at every chance to portray everything that goes against materialism as ‘stupid, superstitious, evil, ignorant, etc…’ and push the case for materialism and logical positivism.
Many atheists, especially young ones, are indeed fooled like this. However, it appears that 40% of young atheists seems to leave atheism after a few years, probably after discovering the holes in the theories they were fed.

5- Personal tragedy. Sometimes great suffering might bring someone to lose his faith or try to console himself in the fact there is only crude matter. This happened to Darwin (he lost his faith when his daughter died, not because of the Theory of Evolution, although he became agnostic rather than atheist).

There might be other reasons, but these come to mind.

=========

Why is belief in God allegedly incompatible with Science?

It’s not. It’s a false dichotomy pushed forward by some atheists (but not all, certainly not in the past), and especially the new atheist crowd.

Many scientist who laid down the foundations of science were man of faith as well.

This false dichotomy is the same as trying to claim science is not compatible with philosophy or metaphysics.

These are strategies by the new atheists, a sort of collective of ad hominem fallacies, a smearing campaign. They try to claim ‘religion= bad and stupid’, ‘science and atheism= bright and good’.

The problem is that science is not atheist. Science is just a tool (or rather a set of tools). It’s like claiming a hammer is atheist.

Science is actually just a set of philosophical (especially epistemological) positions (like Popper’s falsifiability principle, the principle of reproducibility) that underline the ‘empirical method’ and mathematics (used to describe the physics in models) that is used to describe the physical and material world around us.

Also as a tool it is limited. You cannot use science to answer all the questions, just like you cannot use just an hammer to build an house (unless you want a very bad house that will fall on you).

 

[inocente]

Further evidence that Luther’s** irrational** subjectivism exists on this Philosophy forum…

When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”

“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”

Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”

The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”

Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”

Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is going to betray you?”) When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him?”

Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.”

 

[inocente]

Also as a tool it is limited. You cannot use science to answer all the questions, just like you cannot use just an hammer to build an house (unless you want a very bad house that will fall on you).

But when a question cannot be settled by evidence is the question worth asking?

 

[Skadi]

Yes, fancy him being outraged that God’s indulgence could be bought with money, fancy him having the nerve to translate the bible into German so all his countrymen could read it.

Fun fact here mate, the story of Luther translating the word of god and giving it to the people in defiance of the church, ya its very inaccurate.

At the time Luther made his translation into German there were no less than 7 German Bibles already in existence. In addition, it is not up for debate that Luther doctored his translation in support of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.

 

[Peter_Plato]

But when a question cannot be settled by evidence is the question worth asking?

Most of the key questions in life (mostly the ones with ought or should in them) can not be settled by evidence:

Should I be faithful to my wife?
Should I keep working at my job when I have a family that depends on me?
Should I be generous in giving?
Should I care about my neighbor?
Should I make striving for goodness rather than evil the key goal for my life?
Should I be a good parent or just a mediocre or negligent one?