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

[john_doran]

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

can this question be settled by evidence?

 

[tonyrey]

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.”

How is this sublime episode relevant to Luther’s irrationalism?

It certainly supports the belief that science is not the sole source of knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

can this question be settled by evidence?

Certainly not by scientific evidence!

 

[tonyrey]

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.

He set **himself **up as a higher authority on the interpretation of Scripture.

 

[tonyrey]

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?

An excellent analysis.

 

[inocente]

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.

But as I said mate, can’t get excited.

 

[inocente]

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?

Of course you have evidence.Your love for your family, your wife’s faithfulness, children starve without food, etc. Then there’s how it turned out for all the people you know who had to make similar decisions, and so on.

Hopefully you don’t ponder such questions by reason alone, set apart in an ivory tower.

btw there’s evidence you’ve not posted a response to my #281.

 

[inocente]

can this question be settled by evidence?

Of course. The evidence is that when philosophers try to answer a question by reason alone, they come up with differing answers. After every succeeding generation of philosophers there are more, not fewer, competing answers. And with no way of knowing which if any is correct, every last one of them is not even wrong.

So the evidence is that it’s not worth asking those questions in the first place. Unless there’s some mystic merit in that ever growing tower of babel.

Whereas the evidence is that when we ask questions which can be settled by evidence, we get answers which allow us to progress and apply the knowledge gained.

 

[inocente]

How is this sublime episode relevant to Luther’s irrationalism?

It certainly supports the belief that science is not the sole source of knowledge.

Peter’s hurt here is an earlier example of the problem of knowing what is and isn’t irrational.

 

[john_doran]

Of course. The evidence is that when philosophers try to answer a question by reason alone, they come up with differing answers. After every succeeding generation of philosophers there are more, not fewer, competing answers. And with no way of knowing which if any is correct, every last one of them is not even wrong.

So the evidence is that it’s not worth asking those questions in the first place. Unless there’s some mystic merit in that ever growing tower of babel.

Whereas the evidence is that when we ask questions which can be settled by evidence, we get answers which allow us to progress and apply the knowledge gained.

so, by “evidence” you mean “empirical evidence”?

the problem is, the proposition “the only questions worth asking are those capable of being answered by appeal to empirical evidence” is not itself capable of demonstration by appeal to empirical evidence.

but even if it were, the array of conflicting answers to questions not susceptible to empirical determination is hardly proof that a question isn’t worth asking.

 

[inocente]

so, by “evidence” you mean “empirical evidence”?

Yes whether fact or feeling. Other than reason alone. The final arbiter is not what we logically thought should happen but what actually happened.

*the problem is, the proposition “the only questions worth asking are those capable of being answered by appeal to empirical evidence” is not itself capable of demonstration by appeal to empirical evidence.

but even if it were, the array of conflicting answers to questions not* susceptible to empirical determination is hardly proof that a question isn’t worth asking.

I gave the evidence. Only philosophers want absolute proofs. The rest of us go with what works until maybe something better comes along, then we go with that. We couldn’t function and survive if our every decision required absolute proof.

Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers (55 seconds) - youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

 

[tonyrey]

Peter’s hurt here is an earlier example of the problem of knowing what is and isn’t irrational.

Love is the supreme form of knowledge which is rational yet unknown to science. Jesus gave us sound reasons why we should believe His teaching and follow His example.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Que?

Recall:

“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.

As opposed to:

Wisdom is bright and unfading. She readily appears to those who love her. She’s found by those who keep seeking after her. She makes herself known even in advance to those who desire her with all their hearts. Someone who awakens before dawn to look for her will find her already sitting at the door. Taking wisdom to heart is the way to bring your thinking to maturity. The one who can’t sleep at night because he’s consumed with thinking about her will soon be free from worry.

She herself goes about looking for those who are worthy of her. She graciously makes herself known to them as they travel. She comes to them in each of the ideas that they think. (Wisdom 6:12-16)

Luther apparently, like some others around here, had a very perverse and primitive view of Wisdom and reason.

Which also covers the issue that you have with philosophy not being statically available, concretely knowable, controllable or demonstrable via an evidential base. The reason is because Wisdom is a living reality and avoids or goes away from those who attempt to grasp and hold power or sway over her. Those who love Wisdom know that she is not to be overpowered or manipulated nor is she quantifiable. In fact, unlike scientific knowledge which allows the person in possession of that kind of knowledge to attain the power to control the outcome, wisdom is only approached by letting go of all pretense to knowing and relinquishing any attempt to grasp at understanding. Socrates came close when he claimed the only thing he knew was that he did not know.

You want me to “prove” this to you? The only reason I can ascertain for anyone to demand such proof would be so that they can subsume Wisdom in order to make use of the available vast potential for truth that Wisdom affords in order to control some future outcome. However, Wisdom isn’t about control it is about a completely opposite reality: Love. If you want to control outcomes seek science, if you want Wisdom, you must abandon the will to power and control, and the demand for proof.

The hypothetical lesbian is in trouble precisely because she has lost touch with reality and seeks to narcissistically impose her will on reality instead of accepting reality as the mysterious other that we participate in and not dictate our views to. The will to overturn reality can only end up creating a pseudo reality or fantasy. Human will cannot ground reality. We do not have that kind of power. To continue on a program that seeks to dictate the terms of reality to reality will only end in disaster.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your position that “…the only questions worth asking are those capable of being answered by appeal to empirical evidence…” actually contradicts your point that “…[o]nly philosophers want absolute proofs. The rest of us go with what works until maybe something better comes along, then we go with that. We couldn’t function and survive if our every decision required absolute proof.”

If there are no questions worth asking that cannot be answered by appeal to empirical evidence, then clearly there are no issues that can possibly arise that would require anything but empirical proof. So why even bring up “the rest of us go with what works” and we “couldn’t function and survive if our every decision required absolute proof…” because by your own admission these “other” issues are not worth being concerned about.

Interesting conundrum you face here.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course you have evidence.Your love for your family, your wife’s faithfulness, children starve without food, etc. Then there’s how it turned out for all the people you know who had to make similar decisions, and so on.

Hopefully you don’t ponder such questions by reason alone, set apart in an ivory tower.

The above shows that you have no idea what the real concern of the issue is.

I don’t decide to rob a bank (or not) based upon the evidence that I have collected that demonstrates reliably that there is no chance of being caught and an easy escape. Most questions like this one are moral questions, not evidential questions.

Unlike you, I do believe that there are very important issues that cannot be answered by evidence or evidence in isolation from a particular world view that is not itself evidentially grounded.

The evidence makes absolutely no difference to the rightness or wrongness of the act. The fact that children starve without food is a matter of simple fact, but that simple fact is not, ultimately, what makes anyone look after children. What makes anyone look after children has to do with a prior commitment to caring for them. Without that, the fact that children die without food could be a piece of evidence for how to do away with them if you had that inclination. The facts don’t create the basis for moral judgements, the facts only provide the pragmatic medium upon which the prior moral perspective is carried out. The facts don’t create the moral perspective, that is assumed in the ethical position that assesses the facts and uses them in a particular way.

btw there’s evidence you’ve not posted a response to my #281.

There’s even more evidence that I would be wasting my time, so it hasn’t been a priority at this time when time is scarce.

 

[mek42]

Right and wrong seems more of a form of belief than knowledge, thus agreeably outside the realm of science.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yes whether fact or feeling. Other than reason alone. The final arbiter is not what we logically thought should happen but what actually happened.

Ah, yes… But what actually happens is often determined by what individual agents will to happen. That determination is not by fact or feeling alone, but frequently by judgement involving reason or a lack of it. It is the constituents of what makes up that judgement that does not depend solely on fact or feeling unless you have totally abdicated reasoning as a means of making good judgements.

To deny the importance of reason is to nullify the possibility of human free will and moral responsibility. Reason is that power which allows human beings to be elevated above the chain of merely caused physical events. Moral responsibility makes no sense without it.

 

[john_doran]

Yes whether fact or feeling. Other than reason alone. The final arbiter is not what we logically thought should happen but what actually happened.

but why should anyone believe this?

for example, mathematical reasoning proceeds using reason alone (e.g. the pythagorean theorem isn’t proven by going out and measuring the sides of thousands of triangles).

inocente:

I gave the evidence. Only philosophers want absolute proofs. The rest of us go with what works until maybe something better comes along, then we go with that. We couldn’t function and survive if our every decision required absolute proof.

you gave no evidence at all that only empirical questions were worth asking; you gave evidence that some questions are endlessly disputed, but the controvertibility of answers to any particular question in no way entails that such a question isn’t worth asking.

inocente:

Richard Feynman on hungry philosophers (55 seconds) - youtube.com/watch?v=X8aWBcPVPMo

a lovely example of a scientist rejecting philosophy by means of a philosophical argument.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I don’t decide to rob a bank (or not) based upon the evidence that I have collected that demonstrates reliably that there is no chance of being caught and an easy escape. Most questions like this one are moral questions, not evidential questions.

Upon re-reading the above point, it now seems less than obvious what I was getting at. The point I was making was that the moral question of whether or not to rob a bank is not made based upon particulars like how easy the bank would be to rob or the possibility of escape. A robber has already made the moral decision about robbing a bank (and that does not depend upon evidential data), but uses the evidential data to decide when and where to do the deed. The moral question precedes and leads to the factual questions. Someone who finds theft odious, and thus has made a moral judgement independent of the facts, would not bother with asking the factual questions.

 

[inocente]

Love is the supreme form of knowledge which is rational yet unknown to science. Jesus gave us sound reasons why we should believe His teaching and follow His example.

I’d have thought love is highly irrational.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the priest and Levite are very rational, they don’t get involved, but “a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him”.

And it’s highly unreasonable of God to love us but He does all the same.