Arguments from ignorance are bad, generally speaking, but not always. This entry is too imprecise to be much good, and suggests a number of misconceptions about Galileo. The Ptolemaic system was the established scientific view of the day, and the Church simply signed on with the wisdom of science as the Church is wont to do from time to time. In point of fact, Galileo was a long time chum of the pope who presided over the Church and men within the Church hierarchy had encouraged Galileo’s researches including those respecting heliocentrism. In addition, Galileo’s own measurements for predictions of his theory arguably falsified it; other scientists had reasonable objections to heliocentrism during Galileo’s time.
http://www.asa3.org/asa/pscf/2003/pscf6-03gingerich.pdf
While I can’t directly dispute much of the article’s accuracy, I find any article being used to support a religious position suspect coming from a website that has a self-acknowledged purpose to “integrate, communicate, and facilitate properly researched science and biblical theology in service to the Church and the scientific community.” (HERE)
Bryan - 21 July 2008 06:30 AM
...While an inconsistency is not a sufficient reason to suggest an atheist ought to believe in god, one would at least hope that atheists would demonstrate consistency in their positions, and inconsistent features in a worldview implicitly improve the standing of competing worldviews.
One would hope that the bar is set at the same level for theists as well.
Bryan - 21 July 2008 06:30 AM
Criticisms:
1) Absence of evidence for or against the existence of an imagined being does not imply that it “may just as well exist for all we know”.* For every entity that actually exists it is possible to imagine an infinite amount of other hypothetical entities that only exist in fantacy**
2) Even the believers themselves dismiss an infinite number of other imaginable gods that are neither more nor less supported by logic or evidence than theirs. Atheists simply apply the same rational standard to one more God
3) Postulating a realm outside the physical universe (whatever that might mean?) does not justify making shit up. Defining an imagined being as transcendent does not make it any more likely to actually exist.
(* Here I actually disagree with many other skeptics: Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but I do think it’s a perfectly good reason to disbelieve any claim that adds anything to reality and it does not work both ways. My position is that it takes a minimum of evidence to not be improbable. Guess I am just a dogmatic, closed-minded “debunker” with an axe to grind and not a real skeptic. :evil: )
The above criticisms perhaps oversimplify a complex issue, or perhaps introduce complexity to a simple issue. Though the appeal to lack of evidence is not necessarily a fallacy; if there is no evidence that a god or gods do not exist, however, there may yet be reasons (such as Occam’s Razor) to prefer the smaller number without necessitating consideration of the specific lack of evidence for particular gods among a potentially infinite number.
It seems disingenuous to use a scientific principle in support of an unscientific premise. The whole concept of Occam’s Razor is the removal of assumptions, yet the whole basis of the premise rests on the assumption that god(s) of some kind exist. This isn’t how science approaches an issue, so how do you justify using the principle? Science would base it’s premise on only what is observable and experimentally verifiable. Presuming that god(s) exist, but we just can’t find evidence is the exact opposite kind of thinking. Since God is unable to be scientifically verified, the scientific hypothesis would have to be that God does not exist. A lack of evidence of God’s existence would then force Occam’s Razor to conclude that a mystical omniscient being doesn’t exist.
The whole concept of Occam’s Razor is the removal of assumptions, yet the whole basis of the premise rests on the assumption that god(s) of some kind exist.
No, not really.
Ockham’s Razor, in the senses in which it can be found in Ockham himself, never allows us to deny putative entities; at best it allows us to refrain from positing them in the absence of known compelling reasons for doing so. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#4.1
This isn’t how science approaches an issue, so how do you justify using the principle?
By having a compelling reason for positing a first cause. And we can work from there.
Science would base it’s premise on only what is observable and experimentally verifiable. Presuming that god(s) exist, but we just can’t find evidence is the exact opposite kind of thinking.
How do we derive the premise that the only entities worth positing (or say it how you will) must be observable and/or experimentally verifiable?
Since God is unable to be scientifically verified, the scientific hypothesis would have to be that God does not exist.
One might suggest that you’re recommending an unfalsifiable hypothesis as science, based on other statements you have made.
A lack of evidence of God’s existence would then force Occam’s Razor to conclude that a mystical omniscient being doesn’t exist.
You misunderstand Occam’s razor, as shown in the snippet I borrowed from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
...While an inconsistency is not a sufficient reason to suggest an atheist ought to believe in god, one would at least hope that atheists would demonstrate consistency in their positions, and inconsistent features in a worldview implicitly improve the standing of competing worldviews.
One would hope that the bar is set at the same level for theists as well.
Bryan, it sounds like a restatement of the mote-in-the-other-guy’s-eye problem—you seem to be more interested in locating inconsistencies in the other guy’s reasoning.
William of Ockham, for whom the razor was named, was a philosopher and theologian. Your suggestion is ridiculous.
Just because a person doesn’t wear a white lab coat doesn’t mean he isn’t a scientist in a broader sense. The principle the man developed is decidedly scientific regardless of his religious beliefs just as Newton’s ideas were decidedly scientific despite his devout religiosity. We are, in the case of Ockham, talking about a time period well before the Enlightenment so it comes as no surprise that many people who develop very scientific ideas in this time period and before aren’t specifically scientists, but rather brilliant thinkers of their time. Science is a methodology, not a profession in my view.
The whole concept of Occam’s Razor is the removal of assumptions, yet the whole basis of the premise rests on the assumption that god(s) of some kind exist.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 12:26 AM
Ockham’s Razor, in the senses in which it can be found in Ockham himself, never allows us to deny putative entities; at best it allows us to refrain from positing them in the absence of known compelling reasons for doing so. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/#4.1
Thanks for the link! Ultimately, it appears that Ockham felt his razor could shave everything except for God (as evidenced by his beard). This is unfortunate for me, but not unexpected. Throughout history, God has been invoked by various scientifically minded individuals whenever their brilliance runs out. It appears to have happened with Ockham and certainly happened with Newton as well as others. I believe the spirit of the principle of Occam’s Razor is very much secular in nature and should be used in this manner, just as we see Newton’s theories as scientific despite his religiosity. However, I’ll concede that since the man himself didn’t rule out God, neither can I, in good faith, do so using his principle (at least in the form he presented it).
Bryan - 22 July 2008 12:26 AM
By having a compelling reason for positing a first cause. And we can work from there.
What do you mean by “first cause”? I can guess, but I’d rather not put words in your mouth. If you’ve explained this in detail somewhere else, a link is sufficient.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 12:26 AM
Science would base it’s premise on only what is observable and experimentally verifiable. Presuming that god(s) exist, but we just can’t find evidence is the exact opposite kind of thinking.
How do we derive the premise that the only entities worth positing (or say it how you will) must be observable and/or experimentally verifiable?
That’s not what I’m trying to say. Science grounds it’s premises in observable and experimentally verifiable facts, then posits outside the realm of current knowledge. In other words, science will row out to the edge of the unknown and cast its line outward to see what it can bring back. It does not cast its line from beyond the known backwards, hoping that it lands somewhere inside our ability to verify it. Science has yet to establish the existence of any God, so as far is it is concerned, the edge stops in a world where there is no God. From this worldview, scientists can very well posit that God exists based on phenomena that may suggest it. However, starting from the position that God already exists and working backwards is fundamentally unscientific and irrational (science is an extension of rationality). Rational and scientific thinking operates in one direction of effort, starting from observable and experimentally verifiable data we know to be true and working towards explaining the unknown or unexplainable.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 12:26 AM
Since God is unable to be scientifically verified, the scientific hypothesis would have to be that God does not exist.
One might suggest that you’re recommending an unfalsifiable hypothesis as science, based on other statements you have made.
Sorry, that was a typo I didn’t catch after splitting one sentence into two. The word “not” shouldn’t be there. Should make more sense now.
The bottom line is that science would take a videotape showing God descending from the heavens, then hypothesize that God existed. The premise, therefore, is grounded in fact and verifiable evidence. The idea that God does exist because no evidence can be found that he does not exist is not grounded in fact or verifiable evidence, and thus not a reason to conclude much of anything at all. Science works with evidence, not a lack of evidence. It’s basically the reason why it works.
...While an inconsistency is not a sufficient reason to suggest an atheist ought to believe in god, one would at least hope that atheists would demonstrate consistency in their positions, and inconsistent features in a worldview implicitly improve the standing of competing worldviews.
One would hope that the bar is set at the same level for theists as well.
Bryan, it sounds like a restatement of the mote-in-the-other-guy’s-eye problem—you seem to be more interested in locating inconsistencies in the other guy’s reasoning.
I think that’s a fair assessment by you, Jackson. Hume’s Razor has the voluminous thread pointing out all the supposed numerous errors in theistic arguments but makes a whole passel of errors himself. I’m interested in addressing those errors, since the thread was created for discussion of the arguments he presented and critiqued.
By having a compelling reason for positing a first cause. And we can work from there.
What do you mean by “first cause”? I can guess, but I’d rather not put words in your mouth. If you’ve explained this in detail somewhere else, a link is sufficient.
In the Kalam tradition, the “first cause” is as described by the cosmological argument (you can pick it up completely enough just starting with my posts in this thread). You can even call it “the universe in a different form” if by “the universe” you mean all that exists.
It’s enough that you agree with me on the application of Occam’s Razor. If you want so see him as a scientist or induct his razor into the exalted realm of science that’s up to you.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 12:26 AM
Science would base it’s premise on only what is observable and experimentally verifiable. Presuming that god(s) exist, but we just can’t find evidence is the exact opposite kind of thinking.
How do we derive the premise that the only entities worth positing (or say it how you will) must be observable and/or experimentally verifiable?
That’s not what I’m trying to say. Science grounds it’s premises in observable and experimentally verifiable facts, then posits outside the realm of current knowledge.
With you so far. How is that premise derived?
In other words, science will row out to the edge of the unknown and cast its line outward to see what it can bring back. It does not cast its line from beyond the known backwards, hoping that it lands somewhere inside our ability to verify it. Science has yet to establish the existence of any God, so as far is it is concerned, the edge stops in a world where there is no God. From this worldview, scientists can very well posit that God exists based on phenomena that may suggest it. However, starting from the position that God already exists and working backwards is fundamentally unscientific and irrational (science is an extension of rationality).
Well, if science is an extension of rationality and Alvin Plantinga is correct that belief in god is a properly basic belief then doesn’t that make belief in god scientific by definition?
My point with that statement is to show that this thing you’re calling science tends toward amorphousness regarding its reach and definition. I’m saying that it ends up that when you call something “unscientific” it is as though you’re using shorthand for arguing that the something is unreasonable or irrational. I think I’m justified in expecting the argument to that effect instead of an easy-to-apply label, since the latter might easily substitute for your own prejudices or simply to the view of a majority.
Rational and scientific thinking operates in one direction of effort, starting from observable and experimentally verifiable data we know to be true and working towards explaining the unknown or unexplainable.
What I’m trying to communicate to you is that in the terms you just presented, science is an epistemological Indian Rope Trick. The basic premises (which you would probably call “reasonable” or “rational") do not derive from science but rather precede it. You skip over the axioms of science that serve as its foundation; those cannot be verified scientifically in the manner you sketch. In the end, science itself is unscientific by the criterion you have presented.
Since God is unable to be scientifically verified, the scientific hypothesis would have to be that God does not exist.
One might suggest that you’re recommending an unfalsifiable hypothesis as science, based on other statements you have made.
Sorry, that was a typo I didn’t catch after splitting one sentence into two. The word “not” shouldn’t be there. Should make more sense now.
Adding the “not” doesn’t fix the problem. What avenue of falsification would you use in either case?
The bottom line is that science would take a videotape showing God descending from the heavens, then hypothesize that God existed. The premise, therefore, is grounded in fact and verifiable evidence. The idea that God does exist because no evidence can be found that he does not exist is not grounded in fact or verifiable evidence, and thus not a reason to conclude much of anything at all. Science works with evidence, not a lack of evidence. It’s basically the reason why it works.
The foundations for belief in God are largely located among the foundations of science in the realm from which came that Indian Rope. Neither is amenable to the methods of science as you describe them. If god is unscientific for that reason then so is science.
In the Kalam tradition, the “first cause” is as described by the cosmological argument (you can pick it up completely enough just starting with my posts in this thread). You can even call it “the universe in a different form” if by “the universe” you mean all that exists.
Alright, I’ll go back and review it.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
It’s enough that you agree with me on the application of Occam’s Razor. If you want so see him as a scientist or induct his razor into the exalted realm of science that’s up to you.
I assure you that I’m not influential enough to be the dominant force behind this phenomenon. The pursuit of science always necessitates standing on the shoulders of those who came before, and it’s clear to me that this is what has happened with Occam’s razor. It’s not a magical, ceremonial, awe inspiring event. It simply is a concept derived from scientific thinking so by default it ends up in science’s body of knowledge. The misconception is that there is some kind of divide between the idea of religion or God and science, and the reality is this simply isn’t the case. Science* is only limited by knowledge we haven’t gathered yet, not by some arbitrarily defined, extraordinary entity whose existence can never be proven. The only reason why this idea is floating around is so we can somehow justify the inherent contradiction between a rational pursuit of knowledge (which would be science) and an irrational one. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that if there were evidence of God’s existence, the religious would jump all over it? Indeed this seems like the case with the Intelligent Design ridiculousness, as just one example. If we were to find scientific evidence of God’s existence, then this would be science; religion would be science. This just hasn’t happened. So the “realm of science” would seem to potentially include everything in “the universe,” until of course science finds evidence that contradicts God and religion. Then it’s science that’s broken or forever unable to touch the majesty of God.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
Well, if science is an extension of rationality and Alvin Plantinga is correct that belief in god is a properly basic belief then doesn’t that make belief in god scientific by definition?
My point with that statement is to show that this thing you’re calling science tends toward amorphousness regarding its reach and definition. I’m saying that it ends up that when you call something “unscientific” it is as though you’re using shorthand for arguing that the something is unreasonable or irrational. I think I’m justified in expecting the argument to that effect instead of an easy-to-apply label, since the latter might easily substitute for your own prejudices or simply to the view of a majority.
Ok, if amorphousness is your criticism, then let’s sure up some of my definitions. Rationality is inextricably tied to reason and logic. To be rational, you need both. Science goes a step further as a methodology for explaining phenomena that exist using observation and verifiable experimentation which it uses to make accurate predictions. It is important that the base phenomena used to reach a conclusion are repeatable. It also represents the only way to accurately describe reality; to be sure that something exists. To me, these are good working definitions.
I don’t know who Alvin Plantinga is and based on his Wikipedia article I can hazard a guess as to why.
from Wikipedia:
In Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism, he argues that the truth of evolution is an epistemic defeater for naturalism (i.e. if evolution is true, it undermines naturalism). His basic argument is that if evolution and naturalism are both true, human cognitive faculties evolved to produce beliefs that have survival value (maximizing one’s success at “feeding, fighting, and reproducing"), not necessarily to produce beliefs that are true. Thus, since human cognitive faculties are tuned to survival rather than truth in the naturalism-cum-evolution model, there is reason to doubt the veracity of the products of those same faculties, including naturalism and evolution themselves. On the other hand, if God created man “in his image” by way of an evolutionary process (or any other means), then Plantinga argues our faculties would probably be reliable. (emphasis added)
This absurdity alone is reason enough to throw the rest of his philosophical ideas into question. Evolution, at least, is a product of science. Science removes the biases and irrationality of human cognitive faculties because it reaches reproducible conclusions that make accurate predictions (I have not deeply studied the specific tenets of naturalism so I can’t say for sure, but on its surface it appears to be a product of science as well). In other words, it removes the very problems associated with a brain attuned to survival, but not attuned to achieve truth about the Universe. That’s literally the entire point. Ideally scientific knowledge would represent a 100% bias-free body of knowledge, but realistically there is always going to be a bad scientist here or there. What Plantinga is arguing works against his conclusion, not for it. Religion doesn’t remove any bias or cognitive inconsistencies. Since evolution is true and the human mind is tuned to survival, it is religion that suffers the blow as an outgrowth of human ignorance.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
Rational and scientific thinking operates in one direction of effort, starting from observable and experimentally verifiable data we know to be true and working towards explaining the unknown or unexplainable.
What I’m trying to communicate to you is that in the terms you just presented, science is an epistemological Indian Rope Trick. The basic premises (which you would probably call “reasonable” or “rational") do not derive from science but rather precede it. You skip over the axioms of science that serve as its foundation; those cannot be verified scientifically in the manner you sketch. In the end, science itself is unscientific by the criterion you have presented.
I’m not sure where you are drawing your conclusion from. I’m not suggesting in any way that rationality came after scientific development, in a chicken or the egg type arrangement. But both forms of thinking operate in one direction. Science just goes a step further to prove phenomena exist and provide repeatable results. Science is always rational, but rationality does not always have to do the dirty work of science. For instance, I can be rational by believing (so to speak) in evolution or gravity because I’ve studied the subjects and their various proofs enough to be well within the confines of reason and logic, but I don’t have to review every piece of data in order to do so. Rationality still grounds itself (sometimes in science), just not in the same manner as science would.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
Adding the “not” doesn’t fix the problem.
Removing “not” fixes my problem with it. Your problems seem to force long, tedious diatribes that make my eyes go all squinty .
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
What avenue of falsification would you use in either case?
This is exactly the problem you run into when you work backwards in the manner I’ve described. When you try and directly falsify God, you’ll never get there from here precisely because it is an unscientific approach. To be true to science, you have to start off with the idea that God doesn’t exist (since there is no evidence to the contrary), then if phenomena warranted, science could hypothesize God’s existence. In other words, you prove your way up the ladder, not try and find your way down. In this manner you would never directly negate the existence of God, only confirm it. One way needs falsification, while the other doesn’t. Keep in mind, that none of this represents the reason why I, as an atheist, can declare God a fantasy.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
The foundations for belief in God are largely located among the foundations of science in the realm from which came that Indian Rope.
If a belief in God is so similar than why is science challenged at every turn by religion (or the reverse, if you like) throughout our history and on into the present? Ockham himself was charged with heresy and the man was a friar. I would agree that both attempt to explain the way the Universe works, but they each go about it in entirely different manners. If your aim is simply to make the point that both arose from our conscious attempt at understanding the world, then I can accept that with the caveat that we don’t confuse the “foundations” of either with their tenets or methods as they have evolved up to this point.
My post has become unsightly and morbidly obese . In the future I’ll break up my responses so they’re easier to chew...for both of us.
Edit: *There was a phrase in my post that didn’t make sense. The original phrase read “The ‘realm of science’’’ instead of “Science.”
It’s enough that you agree with me on the application of Occam’s Razor. If you want so see him as a scientist or induct his razor into the exalted realm of science that’s up to you.
I assure you that I’m not influential enough to be the dominant force behind this phenomenon. The pursuit of science always necessitates standing on the shoulders of those who came before, and it’s clear to me that this is what has happened with Occam’s razor. It’s not a magical, ceremonial, awe inspiring event. It simply is a concept derived from scientific thinking so by default it ends up in science’s body of knowledge.
Good luck proving it empirically.
The misconception is that there is some kind of divide between the idea of religion or God and science, and the reality is this simply isn’t the case. Science* is only limited by knowledge we haven’t gathered yet, not by some arbitrarily defined, extraordinary entity whose existence can never be proven.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, there, but it appears you may have contradicted yourself. If you had knowledge or evidence that god existed wouldn’t that be proof of some type? If you know god can never be proven then don’t you have some particular knowledge of god (such as proof no god exists)?
The only reason why this idea is floating around is so we can somehow justify the inherent contradiction between a rational pursuit of knowledge (which would be science) and an irrational one. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that if there were evidence of God’s existence, the religious would jump all over it?
And that a majority would thus believe in the existence of a god or gods?
Proof is ultimately tested by how well it works in the real world. You’re satisfied that evolution is supported by proof, no? Therefore belief in evolution is universal.
Indeed this seems like the case with the Intelligent Design ridiculousness, as just one example. If we were to find scientific evidence of God’s existence, then this would be science; religion would be science. This just hasn’t happened. So the “realm of science” would seem to potentially include everything in “the universe,” until of course science finds evidence that contradicts God and religion.
I think you’re confusing metaphysics with methodology. Some propositions may well be true and yet remain unfalsifiable in terms of science, pending a change in the ordinary description of science. A true proposition is part of the universe (as “all that exists” including true propositions).
Rationality is inextricably tied to reason and logic. To be rational, you need both. Science goes a step further as a methodology for explaining phenomena that exist using observation and verifiable experimentation which it uses to make accurate predictions.
It is important that the base phenomena used to reach a conclusion are repeatable. It also represents the only way to accurately describe reality; to be sure that something exists. To me, these are good working definitions.
Great. What is the scientific justification for your claim that science represents the only way to accurately describe reality? I’m assuming that you mean the claim to be taken as reality.
You don’t need to know who Alvin Plantinga is in order to answer my question. Shall I repeat the question?
I thought this was also a key question, but evidently you disagreed:
With you so far. How is that premise derived?
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
Rational and scientific thinking operates in one direction of effort, starting from observable and experimentally verifiable data we know to be true and working towards explaining the unknown or unexplainable.
What I’m trying to communicate to you is that in the terms you just presented, science is an epistemological Indian Rope Trick. The basic premises (which you would probably call “reasonable” or “rational") do not derive from science but rather precede it. You skip over the axioms of science that serve as its foundation; those cannot be verified scientifically in the manner you sketch. In the end, science itself is unscientific by the criterion you have presented.
I’m not sure where you are drawing your conclusion from.
If you’ll answer my questions it should start to become clear.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
What avenue of falsification would you use in either case?
This is exactly the problem you run into when you work backwards in the manner I’ve described. When you try and directly falsify God, you’ll never get there from here precisely because it is an unscientific approach. To be true to science, you have to start off with the idea that God doesn’t exist (since there is no evidence to the contrary), then if phenomena warranted, science could hypothesize God’s existence. In other words, you prove your way up the ladder, not try and find your way down. In this manner you would never directly negate the existence of God, only confirm it. One way needs falsification, while the other doesn’t. Keep in mind, that none of this represents the reason why I, as an atheist, can declare God a fantasy.
So what avenue of falsification would you use in either case? You talked about a hypothesis that god doesn’t exist--but now you seem to take the non-existence of god as axiomatic. Is that scientifically justified? If so, I’d love for you to share the particulars of the proof.
The misconception is that there is some kind of divide between the idea of religion or God and science, and the reality is this simply isn’t the case. Science* is only limited by knowledge we haven’t gathered yet, not by some arbitrarily defined, extraordinary entity whose existence can never be proven.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to say, there, but it appears you may have contradicted yourself. If you had knowledge or evidence that god existed wouldn’t that be proof of some type? If you know god can never be proven then don’t you have some particular knowledge of god (such as proof no god exists)?
My point was that many people argue that Science does its thing and Religion does its thing and there is very little overlap, if any. This creates an artificial boundary that would suggest that scientific inquiry into God and Religion is somehow off limits. I’m simply trying to say that this is not the case, and by your responses it’s clear you don’t think so either. The implications behind your questions are correct. I should have been more clear that my phrase, “whose existence can never be proven,” isn’t a belief I hold, but a belief that some people (scientists and theists alike) hold.
Bryan - 23 July 2008 11:49 PM
The only reason why this idea is floating around is so we can somehow justify the inherent contradiction between a rational pursuit of knowledge (which would be science) and an irrational one. Isn’t it reasonable to assume that if there were evidence of God’s existence, the religious would jump all over it?
And that a majority would thus believe in the existence of a god or gods?
No. A majority, including the roughly 85% of the scientific elite and 60% of scientists overall who reject a personal god would believe in God. Singular and capitalized. (figures in USA according to Neil deGrasse Tyson)
Bryan - 23 July 2008 11:49 PM
Proof is ultimately tested by how well it works in the real world. You’re satisfied that evolution is supported by proof, no? Therefore belief in evolution is universal.
Agreed, except that belief in evolution isn’t universal. I’m not sure where you are going with this. If there were clear scientific evidence of God’s existence, I don’t think we would be having this debate. If you’re implying that religion has somehow worked “well” at either representing reality or as a social institution, I think there’s a lot of empirical evidence that would suggest otherwise.
Bryan - 23 July 2008 11:49 PM
Indeed this seems like the case with the Intelligent Design ridiculousness, as just one example. If we were to find scientific evidence of God’s existence, then this would be science; religion would be science. This just hasn’t happened. So the “realm of science” would seem to potentially include everything in “the universe,” until of course science finds evidence that contradicts God and religion.
I think you’re confusing metaphysics with methodology. Some propositions may well be true and yet remain unfalsifiable in terms of science, pending a change in the ordinary description of science. A true proposition is part of the universe (as “all that exists” including true propositions).
Can you work with an example or elaborate because this is a little vague for me? I understand to some extent where you are coming from, but I’m not quite sure how it relates to my comments. These comments were just a continuation of my suggestion that the science/religion barrier is nonexistent. Everything, in my view, is at least potentially explainable by science. Maybe we’ll never resolve a coherent theory of quantum gravity, but it’s at least a potential. Does it help if I articulate that I include cosmology as a tool of science? I’m beginning to think that we’re just playing a word game here. It’s very difficult to be concise as well as to explicitly use the exact word or definition of everything completely (especially when some words don’t really have exact definitions), so I take a few liberties like lumping together science, the tools of science, and the scientific method, for example. Is this the heartburn you’re having? If so I don’t think this is too unreasonable. Do you disagree?
Rationality is inextricably tied to reason and logic. To be rational, you need both. Science goes a step further as a methodology for explaining phenomena that exist using observation and verifiable experimentation which it uses to make accurate predictions.
It is important that the base phenomena used to reach a conclusion are repeatable. It also represents the only way to accurately describe reality; to be sure that something exists. To me, these are good working definitions.
Great. What is the scientific justification for your claim that science represents the only way to accurately describe reality? I’m assuming that you mean the claim to be taken as reality.
You’re correct in your assumption. I haven’t come across any methodology yet that can generate accurate predictions, other than science. Have you? To me, something isn’t really known until you can reproduce or predict and re-observe it in some form. This is what science aims to do. These are general statements and I have a uneasy feeling that you are somehow setting me up , but examples are always welcome.
Bryan - 23 July 2008 11:49 PM
You don’t need to know who Alvin Plantinga is in order to answer my question. Shall I repeat the question?
Eeeeeasy big guy, I thought both of your questions were rhetorical in nature. My bad, I’m not trying to dodge anything and will gladly answer them.
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
Well, if science is an extension of rationality and Alvin Plantinga is correct that belief in god is a properly basic belief then doesn’t that make belief in god scientific by definition?
Not unless it meets the standards of science. A belief can be rational, but that does not necessarily mean it is scientific. Let’s say I grow up in extreme poverty, in some African country, where the majority of my time is spent trying to keep myself and my family alive. Sure, in this case I would consider it rational to believe in God because there is no means with which to obtain any other information. These beliefs are what I grew up with and what I know. However, this is by no means verified by science. As a further comment, this is why science needed to be developed as a methodology in the first place. Rationality only takes you so far. However, rejecting the methodology of science is irrational, IMO.
Science would base it’s premise on only what is observable and experimentally verifiable. Presuming that god(s) exist, but we just can’t find evidence is the exact opposite kind of thinking.
How do we derive the premise that the only entities worth positing (or say it how you will) must be observable and/or experimentally verifiable?
That’s not what I’m trying to say. Science grounds it’s premises in observable and experimentally verifiable facts, then posits outside the realm of current knowledge.
With you so far. How is that premise derived?
Are you referring to a specific premise or just a scientific one in general? There are only two premises listed here. The premise that “the only entities worth positing must be observable and/or experimentally verifiable,” isn’t one I support. Likewise, “presuming that a god or gods exist, but we just can’t find evidence,” isn’t one I support either. That being said, I have to assume you just mean how are scientific premises derived in general, but I’ll use God as an example to try and kill two birds with one stone. I suggested earlier that once evidence is presented in some form or another (experimentation, natural phenomena, etc.), then it can be hypothesized that God exists. For example, if I had a videotape showing God descending from the heavens, this would be cause to hypothesize God’s existence on the basis of the tape. But before then, hypothesizing God’s existence is futile because (as you point out) you have to be able to falsify the claim, and with nothing to falsify, the claim is just a claim. If the tape turned out to be fraudulent, then this would cause the hypothesis to be false. God could not be said to exist on the basis of the tape. Is this what you were going for? Like I acknowledged before, I’m unsure of the parameters of your question.
Bryan - 23 July 2008 11:49 PM
Bryan - 22 July 2008 10:21 AM
What avenue of falsification would you use in either case?
This is exactly the problem you run into when you work backwards in the manner I’ve described. When you try and directly falsify God, you’ll never get there from here precisely because it is an unscientific approach. To be true to science, you have to start off with the idea that God doesn’t exist (since there is no evidence to the contrary), then if phenomena warranted, science could hypothesize God’s existence. In other words, you prove your way up the ladder, not try and find your way down. In this manner you would never directly negate the existence of God, only confirm it. One way needs falsification, while the other doesn’t. Keep in mind, that none of this represents the reason why I, as an atheist, can declare God a fantasy.
So what avenue of falsification would you use in either case?
Ok. With the hypothesis that god exists, say based on a video tape, then the falsification would be if the tape was found to be fraudulent. There may be other options, but this is the most likely one.
With the hypothesis that god does not exist, it’s not based on anything and falsification can’t exist...so it isn’t science. That’s my point in a nutshell.
Bryan - 23 July 2008 11:49 PM
You talked about a hypothesis that god doesn’t exist--but now you seem to take the non-existence of god as axiomatic. Is that scientifically justified? If so, I’d love for you to share the particulars of the proof.
Yes it is scientifically justified. God doesn’t exist in science in the same way a talking bear doesn’t exist in science. A talking bear could still exist somewhere out there, but since there is no evidence one does, science can’t see it as an option. Sorry Smokey . Perhaps “option” is a less confusing term, since we’ve been using “exist” in other contexts. I apologize if this was the root of the confusion.
In the Kalam tradition, the “first cause” is as described by the cosmological argument (you can pick it up completely enough just starting with my posts in this thread). You can even call it “the universe in a different form” if by “the universe” you mean all that exists.
Took your advice and read your posts, as well as Craig’s argument. I would have to agree with others that he presents a very well thought out argument that’s tough to rebut unless you have an in-depth knowledge of a variety of subjects (which I definitely don’t have). I can see why you would find him compelling, at least where this subject is concerned. Regardless of where I stand on the issue, I have to give the guy credit for the level of effort he put into crafting it.
I sat down to try and write a rebuttal to his argument, but soon decided that it was going to take more than an hour to articulate my thoughts. When I realized this was the case, I decided to turn to others who may have had some points of disagreement and almost immediately found a rebuttal that I found satisfactory to at least start the discussion. I couldn’t find a response from Craig for this particular argument, but I’m planning on reading other debates he has had to see if he has addressed some of these points elsewhere.
I agree there could conceptually be evidence of which I’m unaware - but since I don’t know of any true and convincing evidence
to me it makes more sense to doubt the existence of God.
Adding the “not” doesn’t fix the problem. What avenue of falsification would you use in either case?
. In the future I’ll break up my responses so they’re easier to chew...for both of us.
, but examples are always welcome.
