Ship of Fools: Greater simplicity of theism? Really?

Thread: Greater simplicity of theism? Really? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030193

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.

This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.

So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I already addressed that on the thread.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I watched a TV programme about the CERN hadron collider. Research physicists and engineers from all over Europe are probing the fundamental structure of the universe.

I was astounded how many people are working on it and how much brain power and money has gone into it.

I know that science advances will be emmense due to the research. It's a good thing, amazing. But there seemed more to it than that to me, it appeared to be an almost spiritual quest.

This 'need to know' about our origins and purpose goes deep imo. Whether you couch it in religious/spiritual terms or not.

None of it is simple or straightforward. Fascinating, yes.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Yorick is right, if one follows the Blessed Occam, that is, don't multiply terms unnecessarily.

But it depends how you construe atheism - as a lack of belief, it satisfies Occam; as a definite claim that there is no God, probably not.

And some people construe atheism as materialism, (which involves a ton of ideas), which is incorrect. I mean saying that atheism must involve materialism is incorrect, not that materialism is incorrect - how the hell would I know that?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Atheism that doesn't involve materialism; physicalism, needs a shave.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
I already addressed that on the thread.

Me too, but here goes again - I have a quiet 5 minutes [Smile]

Yorick (on the free will theodicy thread) has claimed his morality comes from 'natural sources'. That, to me, is deeply, deeply mysterious. Indeed, even now I can hear the haunting sounds of distant pipes flutering over the sacred groves. Lock up your virgins.

A bit later he implies evil doesn't exist. My guess is that 1700 years of Christian cultural baggage means your virgins aren't in as much peril as it might otherwise seem...I hope I'm not wrong...

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Of course evil actions exist. But does evil exist outside of the will of human beings?

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
[QUOTE]Yorick (on the free will theodicy thread) has claimed his morality comes from 'natural sources'. That, to me, is deeply, deeply mysterious.

A bit later he implies evil doesn't exist...

Okay, let's talk about Him in the third person. Is it okay if we capitalise His H too? It seems fitting somehow.

I'm not sure how He implied evil doesn't exist since He doesn't actually think that. At least, He thinks that people do things most of us would view as 'evil', even though He may not believe in the existence of evil as a supernatural force or whatever, and would agree that the viewpoint is of course subjective.

AHUI, the natural source model of the evolution of morality is very widely described, and is not in any way reliant on any sort of mysticism. Perhaps you could show Him how it does.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.

So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?

Because it explains why we exist at all.

Atheism can't do that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Nope. Nothing explains existence.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It depends on what you call an explanation. I'm not sure the supernatural can be called an explanation really; more like guesswork. Can a guess be an explanation?

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you call an explanation. I'm not sure the supernatural can be called an explanation really; more like guesswork. Can a guess be an explanation?

Yes, it's called a hypothesis. Scientific theories are only anything else within their own hermeneutic, and then only according to their more fundamentalist supporters. Fundamentally, we're all guessing.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Myeah, but scientific hypotheses can be tested in doubt by experiment which produces data based on interpersonal experience, as opposed to religious faith which is based on wishful thinking and non-interpersonal experience. These two positions are categorically different, and to make claims that they are the same is actually rather sad. Have courage in your beliefs!

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Myeah, but scientific hypotheses can be tested in doubt by experiment which produces data based on interpersonal experience, as opposed to religious faith which is based on wishful thinking and non-interpersonal experience. These two positions are categorically different, and to make claims that they are the same is actually rather sad. Have courage in your beliefs!

Experiment and experience are the same word, or at least separated a very short time ago, and as for the rest, that's ideology, which is indistinguishable from faith. Please also examine the question of the repeatability of most of the key experiments.

Have some courage in your own, or accept that all belief systems, including the scientific, require courage.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.

Theological explanations are inherently simple.

Why does it rain? That's just when Zeus pisses through a sieve (h/t Aristophanes).

Why did the sun vanish at mid-day? Apollo hit a pothole and had to take a few minutes to re-seat the axle on his chariot.

Why does my son look more like the milkman than me? Obviously Zeus assumed the shape of the milkman to seduce my wife, and my son bears the outward imprint of this.

Being able to say "Goddidit" or "because God said so" is a remarkably simple explanation. If simplicity is your benchmark, it's hard to do better than a one size fits all answer to everything. If you're interested in accuracy, however, that can get complicated.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.

So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?
Because it explains why we exist at all.

Atheism can't do that.

Nor can philately. So?

Religion can explain why we exist, but so can the spittled ramblings of the shaman. The fact that explanations can be given for the metaphysical whys does not speak to the truth value of those explanations.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

Croesos, the problem of goddidit is that it raises all sorts of difficult questions that are not at all simple- like theodicy.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It depends on what you call an explanation. I'm not sure the supernatural can be called an explanation really; more like guesswork. Can a guess be an explanation?
Yes, it's called a hypothesis. Scientific theories are only anything else within their own hermeneutic, and then only according to their more fundamentalist supporters. Fundamentally, we're all guessing.

Well, I don't see science as describing or explaining reality. That was kicked into touch by people like Bacon, who said, enough with Aristotle, use your senses to observe phenomena. But we have no way of knowing if phenomena are reality or not; let's call them appearances.

I know that some people do see science as explanatory of reality; I just think that is making it too powerful. Science works, but this is a pragmatic thing, and need not involve 'truth' or 'reality'.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

It all depends on what we mean by simple, really.

It seems to me that the problems raised by belief in God (specifically belief in God's providence) are the sort that force themselves on your emotions. But the problems raised by, say, materialism are of emotional interest largely to philosophers. That doesn't mean they're not intellectual problems. Just that the average punter on the internet is more likely to be able to ignore them.

As an analogy:
What makes mathematical truths true? Why do the results of people playing games with a paper and pencil model the physical world predictably?
In one sense, you could say positing Platonic mathematical objects is less simple - in that you're adding extra entities to the material universe. And it's less simple to talk about what they are, in that the best we can say is that they're not material objects, their effects on the universe aren't causal effects in the way material events have causal effects, etc. On the other hand, solutions to the problem that don't refer to Platonic entities are also hand-wavy in a far less well-defined way.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
AHUI, the natural source model of the evolution of morality is very widely described

To your satisfaction? Can you summarise briefly?

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

Scientific knowledge does not begin to cover all knowledge. The question of God's existence involves areas that are not scientifically testable (e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable; Theology, which is the study of the unknowable; Humanity, the study of the unreasonable).

Science is a very useful tool, just not the only one in the box.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.

So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?

There have been several threads here recently, plus posts here and there, which have set me thinking on somewhatsimilar lines, and I have been trying - and failing! - to formulate a question on the theme of, why believe.

so I gave a cheer when I saw your interesting, neat OP.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I know that science advances will be emmense due to the research. It's a good thing, amazing. But there seemed more to it than that to me, it appeared to be an almost spiritual quest.

In this case I should think such a spiritual aspect of the work is the intellectual satisfaction and deeply fulfilling knowledge that it is evolved humans who are doing the work.

quote:
This 'need to know' about our origins and purpose goes deep imo. Whether you couch it in religious/spiritual terms or not.

Adding the religious aspect to the spiritual consideration, adds an unnecessary complexity.,

quote:
None of it is simple or straightforward. Fascinating, yes.

Well, there is certainly no doubt about that!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Scientific knowledge does not begin to cover all knowledge.

However all that is known, i.e. Nnot entirely subjective, can come under the heading of science, and all such knowledge and Theories can be updated and improved as more reliable information becomes available.

quote:
The question of God's existence involves areas that are not scientifically testable...

Since these 'areas' are of the mind only, and for which no hypotheses can be formed because of a lack of any possible observations via the senses, then I agree they are not testable.

quote:
.. (e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable;

Yes, but much verification can be done with reference to multiple, supportive, written and physical evidence and resources.

quote:
... Theology, which is the study of the unknowable;

I would go a little further and say it is the study of something entirely of the human imagination.

quote:
Science is a very useful tool, just not the only one in the box.

Could you say what other tools you are thinking of, and howand for what they could be used?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Scientific knowledge does not begin to cover all knowledge. The question of God's existence involves areas that are not scientifically testable (e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable; Theology, which is the study of the unknowable; Humanity, the study of the unreasonable).

Science is a very useful tool, just not the only one in the box.

History is the study of documents. Knowledge. Science, scio, I know. So what epistemological tool is there for knowing that isn't science?

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

It is easier not to believe in God than to believe, imv. It is simpler to close our minds to possibilities about inter-personal spiritual experiences we can't explain by putting them down to imagination, than to accept the conclusion that a relational God exists and struggle with all that it entails.

In the area of morality, it is simpler to put all human action down to nature and nurture and 'can do no other' than to consider the existence of good and evil and free will choices and accountability, leading us back to theodicy in areas we (or maybe only I) find difficult to grasp, let alone work out.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye, I am that weak Raptor Eye. Yet I can't not believe [in] Him. I have no choice, no will in the matter at all. And I'm glad of it.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Science is to be militantly defended in the areas where it is applicable, whether it is against New Agers, young earth creationists, postmodernists, cultural relativists or anyone else who tries to claim that it is "just one way" of interpreting evidence from the natural world.

The trouble is that science has nothing to say about those areas of life which are of most importance to most people, whether they are atheists or religious believers, such as aesthetics, ethics and relationships.

Science can give us information that feeds into our ideas about beauty, goodness and love, but in the end cannot give us definitive answers as to what is beautiful or good or right or just, or what is the loving thing to do in any given relational situation, which are challenging and confusing for everyone.

(And incidentally, re the title of the OP, I did not say that theism is simpler than atheism, but that both are equally problematical).

[ 14. August 2016, 21:45: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Aye, I am that weak Raptor Eye. Yet I can't not believe [in] Him. I have no choice, no will in the matter at all. And I'm glad of it.

He he. As I typed 'Can do no other' I thought 'but this is true once we believe too' - and yet it is a choice to accept God into our lives, and to concede to God's will.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I can't say that's not so ... bugger.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
On the theodicy thread, KC pronounced the following:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
...what is obvious, is that it is just as complicated and mysterious to be an atheist as it is to be a religious believer.
This is not at all obvious to me, and I'd like to see the idea unpacked a bit without messing up that thread with the tangent.

So, how is it that the postulation of the existence of something supernatural (with all its attendant paradoxes, and non-resolvable nightmares such as theodicy) is simpler and less mysterious than the postulation of the non-existence of that supernatural thing?
Because it explains why we exist at all.

Atheism can't do that.
Nor can philately. So?

So it lacks explanatory power. Hence it is more complicated.

Logic 101.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
(e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable; Theology, which is the study of the unknowable; Humanity, the study of the unreasonable).

Ooooh I like that. Totally stealing it. [Big Grin]

( tho I'd add the caveat that Theology is study of the ultimately unknowable. Christian theology certainly teaches that we can know God in Christ).

[ 15. August 2016, 03:48: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

What makes mathematical truths true?

Engineering, electronics, technology etc. The practical application of mathematical truths. Planes fly, rockets reach the space station, my iPad speaks to you.

That's why I mentioned the hadron collider. The data they collect describes the totally un-seeable it's loaded with mathematical 'stuff'. But, their discoveries will lead to amazing new technologies, not just knowledge about the beginning of the universe and particle physics, I'm sure.

Simple? I couldn't keep up with the simplest explanations.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

Quantum physics can't prove the existence of God, but it can prove that the universe isn't really as we see it. For example gravity distorts light, but it also produces time. Einstein believed that time was an illusion of the gravitational universe. Time is very real to us, as we start out as babies and eventually die, but a mystical practice in all the world'd religions is to live in the present moment where time intersects with eternity. In fact I would say that practising eternity is the most valuable thread in human religion.

For more than a hundred years they've asked if extra dimensions exist. Some scientists say there are 10, some say 11. But think, a two dimensional being ie a drawing, can be imprisoned by drawing a circle around it. We, as three dimensional beings can miraculously lift it out of its circle and place it elsewhere. There would be no explanation for this in two dimensional awareness. If our three dimensional awareness, or four if we include time, is completely an illusionary result of our level of perception, then things may happen which appear miraculous to us.

None of this serves to prove God's existence, but the fact that some form of eternity can be postulated from science at least proves that the world is more than we know, and may leave room for what we call the supernatural.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism can't do that.
Nor can philately. So?

So it lacks explanatory power. Hence it is more complicated.

Logic 101.

I think you're skipping a few logical steps there, like how no explanations are complicated, or everything simple has explanatory power.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

What makes mathematical truths true?
Engineering, electronics, technology etc. The practical application of mathematical truths. Planes fly, rockets reach the space station, my iPad speaks to you.

Not in the relevant sense. In fact, those are part of the phenomena to be explained.
The sense you bring up is the same as saying that engineering and electronics make Maxwell's equations true. That is, they supply the evidence for or the reasons for thinking the equations are true.
But that's not the metaphysically interesting sense. The equations would still be true had nobody ever built an electrical circuit - the circuits have to be designed to fit the physical laws and the mathematics, rather than the other way around. In that sense, the mathematical truths make the electronics work.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

With my engineer hat on, that's usually a dodgy way to think about things, practically. That is - when a math model becomes so appealing (and they do - they provide nice ways of thinking about stuff which otherwise is so multi-dimensional and obscure that it defies analysis) that one starts to regard it as 'true', one normally screws up by violating some initial assumption or other which means the maths and reality, diverge.

So the maths is normally 'true' within some pretty limited range of physical conditions. That's not to denigrate the amazing achievement of folks managing to get a fit at all...but theory and practice are always tenuously related. I suppose engineering lives inside that tenuous-ness, including an cost assessment for each application of how tenuous can one afford to be, or not.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
With my engineer hat on, that's usually a dodgy way to think about things, practically. That is - when a math model becomes so appealing (and they do - they provide nice ways of thinking about stuff which otherwise is so multi-dimensional and obscure that it defies analysis) that one starts to regard it as 'true', one normally screws up by violating some initial assumption or other which means the maths and reality, diverge.

I think to some extent this is a matter of choosing the right mathematical model for your case rather than mathematics not describing reality.
Usually as I understand it, what happens is that the maths to describe what actually happens is too complicated to be easily workable, so you simplify to get something that you can calculate more easily. Which is ok, until something chaotic happens where the bits that were simplified out start to have an effect on the overall result.

That's a bit circular, I suppose, in that the criteria for saying that you've oversimplified is that the maths you're using doesn't model what's happens. I don't think it's viciously circular, in that in any case where the model doesn't work you should in principle be able to point to the parts of the model where you've oversimplified reality.

Posted by Sarah G (# 11669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
However all that is known, i.e. Nnot entirely subjective, can come under the heading of science, and all such knowledge and Theories can be updated and improved as more reliable information becomes available.

That would involve a redefinition of Science some way beyond it's usual meaning. We know that Julius Caesar led an army across the Rubicon, but one wouldn't normally call it a scientific statement.

If we are to define something by “not entirely subjective”, it could perhaps be 'knowledge', of which scientific knowledge is merely one form.

quote:
<History> Yes, but much verification can be done with reference to multiple, supportive, written and physical evidence and resources.

Again, that's not really Science. You might get some support for broadening the meaning of 'Science' from AQA although the general reaction suggests a wider disagreement with that process.

quote:
<Theology>I would go a little further and say it is the study of something entirely of the human imagination.

Mileages vary, especially here on the Ship, (where perhaps we should say “Nautical mileages vary”). Whether God exists or not, it is necessary to do Theology to have a full debate (contra Dawkins).

quote:
Could you say what other tools you are thinking of, and howand for what they could be used?

Besides the ones already mentioned, one could throw in literary knowledge (what genre are the Gospels?), Linguistics (what are the implications of the term soma pneumatikon?), Philosophy (what do we mean by 'God'?)...etc!

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Atheism can't do that.
Nor can philately. So?

So it lacks explanatory power. Hence it is more complicated.

Logic 101.
I think you're skipping a few logical steps there, like how no explanations are complicated, or everything simple has explanatory power.

The logic flows from the context of Yorick's question as to why belief in God might be simpler than Atheism.

[ 16. August 2016, 10:52: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

What makes mathematical truths true?
Engineering, electronics, technology etc. The practical application of mathematical truths. Planes fly, rockets reach the space station, my iPad speaks to you.

Science can not prove anything (thank you Karl Popper). For any set of observations there will always be alternative explanations. One of the reasons for Occam and his razor is to provide a means of choosing between competing explanations for a set of observations - the observations themselves can't demonstrate one explanation false and the other true, otherwise there wouldn't be competing explanations (though, if both explanations predict differences between currently non-existant data then the new data can be used to support one explanation against the other - but, still not prove either to be true).

All that planes, rockets and iPads show is that our understanding of the physical universe is good enough to make planes, rockets and iPads that work. That science is good enough to address some technological requirements doesn't mean that it's good enough to address all technological requirements (eg: science currently is not good enough to enable inter-stellar travel), let alone non-technological requirements (eg: science can inform us about the relevant processes of genetic transmission, it may quantify the risks of genetic modification, but ultimately can science tell us whether we should introduce a particular gene into a food crop?).

Science, as a method to investigate the universe, is a particularly effective tool to delve ever further into the nature of the material universe. In the process science creates other tools that enable us to apply that understanding to create particular technologies.

The scientific method can be applied to other areas beyond the material universe. The question is, should it? I'm reminded of the scene in Dead Poets Society where one of the class reads out the introduction to a book of poetry while Robin Williams draws axes on the blackboard to quantify the quality of a poem by something akin to scientific methods ... and then tells the class to rip out that section of the book.

I am not sure how the question of whether the scientific method should be applied to a particular field of study (including the study of the material universe) can be answered using the scientific method.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Science can not prove anything (thank you Karl Popper). For any set of observations there will always be alternative explanations.

No good scientist will say that they have proved anything conclusively, will they? Challenges and improvements can always be made.
Can you cite one ‘alternative explanation’, i.e. not one following the scientific method, which has replaced the one using the scientific method, and which has stood the test of time?

quote:
All that planes, rockets and iPads show is that our understanding of the physical universe is good enough to make planes, rockets and iPads that work. That science is good enough to address some technological requirements doesn't mean that it's good enough to address all technological requirements …

But whatever reliable technical progress is made in the future, it will be made using the scientific method, with no reliance on guessworkI think you will agree.

quote:
it(eg: science currently is not good enough to enable inter-stellar travel), let alone non-technological requirements (eg: science can inform us about the relevant processes of genetic transmission, it may quantify the risks of genetic modification, but ultimately can science tell us whether we should introduce a particular gene into a food crop?).

It cannot make the decision to take an action like that, although it can provide as much information that they possibly can, so any decision made is 100% human, and any human claiming to have had help from answer to prayer or something would be making an unevidenced statement, wouldn’t they?

quote:
The scientific method can be applied to other areas beyond the material universe. The question is, should it?

Which areas are you thinking of?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Science can not prove anything (thank you Karl Popper). For any set of observations there will always be alternative explanations.
No good scientist will say that they have proved anything conclusively, will they? Challenges and improvements can always be made.
Can you cite one ‘alternative explanation’, i.e. not one following the scientific method, which has replaced the one using the scientific method, and which has stood the test of time?

I'm talking about alternative scientific explanations. The scientific method essentially boils down to having a collection of observations, developing a model that explains those observations and predicts new ones, testing that model against those new observations, and repeat. You can liken it to fitting a curve through a set of data points. Imagine a set of data, which following convention I will say are values of y for different values of x.
x y
--------
0 0
1 5
5 25
10 50

Now we can look at those and say "it's a straight line, of gradient 5" and produce our model. But, there are various power functions, sinusoidal functions etc that will all fit those data points - an infinite number of such functions in fact. Adding more data points will illiminate many of those functions, but until you have an infinite number of data points there will always be an infinite number of functions that fit them, and fit all new data points as well.

So, given that there is never going to be an infinite amount of data, how do we proceed with selecting our prefered theory? The scientific method doesn't specify how we do that, just that we keep on looking for data that will eliminate more of the options. In practice, what we do is step outside the strict bounds of the scientific method and apply subjective criteria - elegance, simplicity, the reputation of the person proposing the theory, the number of scientists who support it, how well written the paper proposing the theory was ... and, I don't think there is anything wrong with these criteria, we just can't kid ourselves into saying that they are objective.

As for examples, I expect every field of science has examples of alternate theories, some even being in dispute for a long time, or theories that were held for a long time with considerable supporting evidence that have recently been ditched. An example out of my field of radiation protection would be the question of the health effects of low level radiation doses, a question where there have been competing theories for almost as long as the subject has existed, 50 years or more. We know that large doses of radiation cause medical harm - increased risks of cancers, for very large doses radiation sickness and death - and that over quite a wide range of doses the risk of cancer scales linearly with radiation dose. Does that linear relationship extend into the very lowest doses (what's called the Linear No Threshold, LNT, model)? The data is inconclusive, and supports both the LNT and also several models which predict a lower risk than the LNT or even a small health benefit. There are explanations of how the body responds that would provide a theoretical basis for each of these models. For radiation protection the LNT is prefered for pragmatic reasons - it predicts the greatest possible health impact from a small radiation dose, and so dose constraints* based on this model are going to be conservative whereas using another model may result in the constraints being too low, exposing people to what actually is an excessive dose. But, that's not the same as knowing which model is the better one in terms of understanding what is actually happening.

* dose constraints are also subjective, based on what is considered an "acceptable" additional risk - one extra cancer per 100,000 exposed people? one per million? one per ten million? There is no real objective, scientific basis to setting what is an acceptable risk - even if there is then a scientific basis for moving from that to a dose constraint.

quote:

quote:
All that planes, rockets and iPads show is that our understanding of the physical universe is good enough to make planes, rockets and iPads that work. That science is good enough to address some technological requirements doesn't mean that it's good enough to address all technological requirements …
But whatever reliable technical progress is made in the future, it will be made using the scientific method, with no reliance on guessworkI think you will agree.

Technological progress follows strange routes, and they are not all based on the scientific method. Progress is often made by modifying what is already done - the design of airplanes, for instance, still follows the basic plan of a cylindrical fuselage with narrow wings. An objective scientific approach would point out that a lifting body (a broad cabin section tapering to small wings) would be much more efficient - but it's not going to happen because a) aircraft manufacturers are very conservative, b) passengers want window seats and c) airports would need to be redesigned to accomodate a radically different aircraft shape. That's just one example of technological progress that doesn't follow purely scientific methods.

But, to an extent you're right. Technological progress is still constrained by physics. New aircraft designs, whether conservatively following the standard model because of the desires of passengers or using a radical new design, still need to be aerodynamic. Aircraft designed to utilise the principles of yogic flying won't take off.

quote:

quote:
The scientific method can be applied to other areas beyond the material universe. The question is, should it?
Which areas are you thinking of?

I've already mentioned the (fictional) application of the scientific method to the appreciation of poetry. Do you think dating websites which use "scientific compatibility indices" are onto something, or is it a mere gimmick? Can science say whether or not two people will fall in love? I'm redecorating my flat, is there a scientific approach to selecting the colour of paint I put on the walls? Is there some objective scientific criteria by which we can answer the question "was Bach a better composer than Mozart?", or "was Van Gogh a better painter than Jackson Pollock?"?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm redecorating my flat, is there a scientific approach to selecting the colour of paint I put on the walls?

Actually the answer to this one is a qualified yes. They have done studies on different colors and their effects on human emotions. You don't want red walls in the bedroom, for instance, because red tends to arouse the fight-or-flight reflex, which isn't conducive to sleep. Green is calming. And so on. Of course which shade of blue you use to induce whatever emotion blue is associated with is presumably up to you.

So maybe there is an argument to be made that science continues to capture territory formerly held by aesthetics or other non-scientific areas of human endeavor, and has its sights (not to anthropomorphize or anything) on capturing all.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Alan cresswell

Many thanks for your extensive and most interesting reply - much appreciated.

Although science does not try to prove all the details of aesthetic ideas or emotional behaviours, it does understand, doesn't it, the fact that they all stem from the brain.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Can science say whether or not two people will fall in love? I'm redecorating my flat, is there a scientific approach to selecting the colour of paint I put on the walls? Is there some objective scientific criteria by which we can answer the question "was Bach a better composer than Mozart?", or "was Van Gogh a better painter than Jackson Pollock?"?

This seems like a common trajectory for discussions like this. The supposed topic is the necessity of theism to resolve certain questions or provide certain answers, but the conversation almost always turns to bagging on science and reason. If the existence of God is supposed to provide answers inaccessible by other means, how does that help us with the above questions? (Apollo says you should paint your walls a nice, sunny yellow, but Heimdallr recommends a rainbow motif.)

[ 16. August 2016, 18:52: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems like a common trajectory for discussions like this. The supposed topic is the necessity of theism to resolve certain questions or provide certain answers, but the conversation almost always turns to bagging on science and reason.

There's a way to avoid that. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.

But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Neither explain bugger all. Science fails simpler.

[ 16. August 2016, 21:50: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?

Doesn't make it less foolish.
It is a natural tendency to measure that which we find important against any ruler presented, but not all are relevant.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?

Let science do sciency things, and let other things be determined by other methods. If god fans would do the former, and science fans would do the latter, what a happier world this would be. Especially for people who are fans of both, but are told by monofans that they aren't allowed to be.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?

There are several conflations in this post and one outright fundamental logical error.

Conflations: we're conflating Evensong's assertion that theism provides explanations with Sarah G's assertion, which is more complex, and doesn't mention explanations. This I suppose goes along with a conflation of cognition with explanation generation. Furthermore, there's a conflation of 'faith' or 'belief by faith' with 'theism' or else with 'history, theology, and the humanities generally'. (There are rather a lot of agnostic and atheist scholars at work in history and the humanities generally; I think they'd be a bit put out at having their disciplines so casually conflated with belief by faith.)

The fundamental logical error is that explanation generators is a category. By logical definition, explanation generation isn't a category. Let us review what a category is.

Socrates is a human being. Also, Socrates is an Athenian. Also, Socrates is pale brown. Also, Socrates is in Athens. Also, Socrates is arguing about the nature of justice.

You will notice that each of these assertions, despite the apparent grammatical similarity, is in fact a different type of assertion. To assert that Socrates is a man has different kinds of logical consequence from asserting that he is in Athens. If Socrates ceases to be a human being, he ceases to be Socrates as we understand it. On the other hand, if he ceases to be in Athens the consequences do not follow. Aristotle thus constructed a theory of logical categories, which is to say types of assertion that have similar logical consequences, and which have logical interrelations. (Within a category, you can make logical deductions that if Socrates is a human being he is not a cat, or he is a mammal. Across categories the only deductions are empirical.)
So assertions within one category work in a different logical fashion from assertions in other categories. It follows that explanations of a fact in one category work in a different logical fashion from explanations of a fact in a different category. To explain how it is that Socrates is human is a logically different category of explanation from explaining how it is that Socrates is an Athenian.(*) Therefore, there can be no such thing as a category of explanations as such, or of explanation generators, since each category requires its own type of explanation.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let science do sciency things, and let other things be determined by other methods. If god fans would do the former, and science fans would do the latter,what a happier world this would be.

I'm not convinced that theism is a "method" as such. It seems more like simply assuming your preferred beliefs are true. And where do you draw the line between "sciency things" and "other [theistic] methods"?

To take a non-DH example, if one person claims disease is caused by germs and another person claims disease is caused by witches consorting with spirits, how would we decide between these two ideas? On the one hand there's microscopic observations, animal experimentation, and other "sciency" stuff, and on the other Goody Proctor did float upon the water and was seen having conversation with a tall man in the woods, which I guess is an "other method".

The additional point I'm trying to make is that despite the alleged advantages of a theistic "method", it never seems to be argued on its own supposed strengths. The only argument ever made is the inadequacy of other methods, never the superiority or necessity of the incredibly vaguely defined theistic methodology. Let's hypothesize for a moment that the germ theory of disease has been completely discredited. This does not mean that the witchcraft theory of disease is therefore proven correct. (Maybe it's a miasma, or an imbalance of the bodily humors.) The amount of time spent trying to demonstrate how science or reason are bad is never matched with a similar amount of effort showing how whatever alternative methodology is valid and useful. Is there any case to be made for theism beyond a negative one?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Let science do sciency things, and let other things be determined by other methods. If god fans would do the former, and science fans would do the latter,what a happier world this would be.
I'm not convinced that theism is a "method" as such. It seems more like simply assuming your preferred beliefs are true.

Of course not.

quote:
And where do you draw the line between "sciency things" and "other [theistic] methods"?

You've made a dichotomy where there is none. There are many different methods of learning about the world. We've already talked about the historical method of looking at letters, artifacts, other documents, etc. There are legal methods that involve depositions and eyewitness testimony and such. Neither of those are scientific.

Theism is not a method; that's a category error. Are there theistic methods of discerning truth? One might say that theology is a way of discerning truth about the things of belief. (One might disagree, depending on who one is.)

Where does one draw the line? Things that can be studied using the scientific method are sciency things. This should be obvious. The problem is, which you have not really addressed, there are things that CANNOT be treated by scientific method. One glaring example already raised on this thread is history.

quote:
To take a non-DH example, if one person claims disease is caused by germs and another person claims disease is caused by witches consorting with spirits, how would we decide between these two ideas?

You seem to have completely missed the point of what I said, which is that things that are in the realm of science should be dealt with by science, and things that are not in the realm of science should not be. This is in the realm of science. I don't see why this even matters to what I said.

quote:
The additional point I'm trying to make is that despite the alleged advantages of a theistic "method", it never seems to be argued on its own supposed strengths. The only argument ever made is the inadequacy of other methods, never the superiority or necessity of the incredibly vaguely defined theistic methodology.

You seem to be now arguing about creationism as presented as an "alternative" to evolution. Which falls under the same description I offered above, and is therefore a non sequitur to the point I was making.

Humours theory is a scientific theory. It's just one that fails to take into account all we know and can observe of nature, so it has been discarded. It has nothing to do with theism and indeed predates Christianity. It is such a big non sequitur to this conversation that it probably deserves its own all-caps NON SEQUITUR WARNING.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a way to avoid that. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.

I think you will need to cite a post where this sort of thing is said if you wish to make the point!!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
There's a way to avoid that. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.
I think you will need to cite a post where this sort of thing is said if you wish to make the point!!

Sure. For starters, there's this one.

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Scientific knowledge does not begin to cover all knowledge.
However all that is known, i.e. not entirely subjective, can come under the heading of science, and all such knowledge and Theories can be updated and improved as more reliable information becomes available.
quote:
The question of God's existence involves areas that are not scientifically testable...
Since these 'areas' are of the mind only, and for which no hypotheses can be formed because of a lack of any possible observations via the senses, then I agree they are not testable.
quote:
.. (e.g.'s History, which is the study of the unrepeatable;
Yes, but much verification can be done with reference to multiple, supportive, written and physical evidence and resources.
quote:
... Theology, which is the study of the unknowable;
I would go a little further and say it is the study of something entirely of the human imagination.

quote:
Science is a very useful tool, just not the only one in the box.
Could you say what other tools you are thinking of, and how and for what they could be used?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And the faithful will need to stop comparing faith as in the same category as science.
But isn't that the whole premise of the thread? That belief by faith (or other theistic construct) is in the same general category (explanation generators) as science? That they're both tools in the same tool box of cognition?

The tool box contains a variety of tools, the scientific method is one of them, to investigate the world - in the broadest possible sense of that, including the physical universe, our selves, our history, etc.

The difference between belief systems is not a different tool, or even a different tool box. It's a difference in the worker who uses the tools. An atheist comes to investigating the world with a belief that there is no god or supernatural, that may affect the questions asked and which particular tool they take from the box. A Christian theist comes to investigating the world with a belief in a Triune Creator God. Both may, and probably will, take the same tools from the box. I certainly see no reason why a Theist and an Atheist would approach investigating a physical phenomenum differently, or even something "softer" like psychology or history.

Of course there are some Theists who are simply incompetant at using the tools in the box, the equivalent of pulling out a paint brush to drive a nail into the wall. But, there are Atheists who are equally incompetant and attempt to paint the wall with a hammer. I see no value in using the practices of the incompetant to drive a discussion like this.

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
... things that are in the realm of science should be dealt with by science, and things that are not in the realm of science should not be.

I don’t think NOMA is quite the Get Out of Jail card you seem to think it is. Many people have criticised it for the glaring holes in how the various magisteria do in fact overlap, often in highly complex ways. Indeed, as Dawkins the Great himself argued, I wonder how long you’d cling on to your Non-overlapping Shield of Impenetrable Logical Protection for theism if DNA evidence were found by science to prove Jesus Christ had no biological father. You’d be dropping it like a hot camel turd and rejoicing all the way up to the summit of Mount Smug, am I right?

But if you insist that science only speaks to sciencey things and faith only speaks to faithey things, which of these two would you say has the better claim to simplicity in its truth claims about natural physical reality?

[ 17. August 2016, 12:18: Message edited by: Yorick ]

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I wonder how long you’d cling on to your Non-overlapping Shield of Impenetrable Logical Protection for theism if DNA evidence were found by science to prove Jesus Christ had no biological father. You’d be dropping it like a hot camel turd and rejoicing all the way up to the summit of Mount Smug, am I right?

But that is a question that (in theory at least, the chances of finding suitable samples that can be reliable attributed and tested is not significantly different to zero) that can be answered by a scientific method. It might even be able to offer an explanation as to how that particular ovum in that particular human woman just happened to be able to develop into a viable independent life. But science would be able to go no further than that. It cannot say why whatever the necessary circumstances were happened to fall into place (or more precisely, cannot say without an infinite chain of recursion of circumstances)

Scientific method couldn't on the other hand provide any commentary on the interaction between the divine and human wills, whether they are united or not, within that particular example of a human being, because the divine will is not part of the created order.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Indeed, as Dawkins the Great himself argued, I wonder how long you’d cling on to your Non-overlapping Shield of Impenetrable Logical Protection for theism

I wonder if you can rephrase the question without the gratuitous insult? I admit skepticism. I have been arguing in good faith.

[ 17. August 2016, 16:20: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
There's a way to avoid that.. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.

Having read carefully through the examples you give, I have (a) not said anything stupid!, (b) used verbs which convey possibility, such as ‘can be’, and (c) put forward points which, if refuted with evidence, wouldcorrect me.

My former reply to you should not have used the words, ‘this sort of thing’, I
should have said, cite posts where it has been said that science knows all,sees all, tells all’

________________________________________

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

But if you insist that science only speaks to sciencey things and faith only speaks to faithey things, which of these two would you say has the better claim to simplicity in its truth claims about natural physical reality?

That's quite a different question from the first one you posited in the OP.

Of course the physical and biological sciences have a better hold on the truth claims of natural physical reality than Christian theology because that is not theology's primary interest.

The physical and biological sciences are part of Christian theology: they must inform it. But Christian theology is not limited to natural physical reality. It's much bigger than that. It's more interested in the why questions than the what questions because they inform everything else: including the what.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
There's a way to avoid that.. Have science fans stop saying stupid things like "Science knows all, sees all, tells all." Then people won't try to come up with counterexamples.
Having read carefully through the examples you give, I have (a) not said anything stupid!, (b) used verbs which convey possibility, such as ‘can be’, and (c) put forward points which, if refuted with evidence, wouldcorrect me.

My former reply to you should not have used the words, ‘this sort of thing’, I
should have said, cite posts where it has been said that science knows all,sees all, tells all’

Then you are being over-rigid in trying to take literally what was meant figuratively. I have given you the post I was reacting to. If you could speak to that, rather than play with my words, it would be appreciated.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The tool box contains a variety of tools, the scientific method is one of them, to investigate the world - in the broadest possible sense of that, including the physical universe, our selves, our history, etc.

The difference between belief systems is not a different tool, or even a different tool box. It's a difference in the worker who uses the tools.

And yet almost every discussion of the relative advantages of theism we have seems to follow the trajectory of "science [or reason, or observation, or other atheistic/non-theistic method] can't explain everything, therefore theism". Theism is never justified on its own terms. The case is made that science (or reason or whatever) sucks, with the implication left hanging that some "other [presumably theistic] method" can fill in the blanks. The exact way in which believing in Odin (or other theistic entity of your choice) will allow access to otherwise unattainable knowledge is left unspecified.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
An atheist comes to investigating the world with a belief that there is no god or supernatural, that may affect the questions asked and which particular tool they take from the box. A Christian theist comes to investigating the world with a belief in a Triune Creator God. Both may, and probably will, take the same tools from the box. I certainly see no reason why a Theist and an Atheist would approach investigating a physical phenomenum differently, or even something "softer" like psychology or history.

And yet . . .

This is another snarl in MT's sciency/non-sciency dichotomy. Fluid mechanics and hydrology would seem to be sciency, but the Wrath of God would seem to be non-sciency. Which gets dibs in this situation?

[ 18. August 2016, 19:49: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Theism is never justified on its own terms. The case is made that science (or reason or whatever) sucks, with the implication left hanging that some "other [presumably theistic] method" can fill in the blanks.

Which is a theological error commonly called "God of the Gaps". It is a very weak position to argue for, and one I hope I haven't fallen into.

Evensong has just talked about science answering "what?" questions and theology "why?" ones. I'm going to disagree with her. I think that all studies, whether science or humanities, even theology, are about understanding the way the universe, in all it's complexity, works. Belief is different. Belief seeks to give meaning to what all our other yearning for understanding yields. Of course, for some, their beliefs would be that there is no meaning behind anything. For others they see a loving God seeking lost sheep, or a wrathful diety punishing the wicked. This meaning isn't dependent upon an understanding of what has happened or why, it's a completely different dimension in thinking. And, because exactly the same observations and explanations of those can have radically different meanings, belief doesn't even need to be founded upon those observations and explanations.

It is how theists can see God working miracles in events that can be entirely explained by science, or when something has no explanation from science see no evidence for God. It is how Atheists do not need proof that there is no God, nor even lack of proof that there is, to hold their belief that any meaning in the universe does not depend on a supernatural being. And, it's how a natural disaster such as a flood can be described as the judgement of God ...

quote:

And yet . . .
...

Which gets dibs in this situation?

I've not read the article, I expect that this particular pastor falls in the category I mentioned earlier of people who are incompetent at using the content of the toolbox and almost certainly holding a theology I would disagree with.

But, there should be no dibs. Both the Atheist saying "it's just a consequence of the weather, and the only meaning there is in these events is that we should probably think a bit more carefully about where we build and flood management", and the Theist saying "it's the judgement of God" (or, those getting out safely declaring that it was by the grace of God) do so on the basis of belief and a consequent understanding of meaning behind events. Neither approach is a better explanation of the way rivers flood, neither is simpler or more complex, the nature of belief is that it actually stands above such things.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the nature of belief is that it actually stands above such things.

I wasn't positing a dichotomy of the what and why Alan, rather that the what informs the why but as you say above, the why stands above.

But I wouldn't put it above so much but as encompassing it all: holding the what within it. It's more of an "around".

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I don't think you can have the why in a purely natural sciences sense without already having the (perhaps) subconscious sense of the why even it means believing there is no why.

I don't think humanity is capable of divorcing the what and the why.

[ 19. August 2016, 11:20: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think humanity is capable of divorcing the what and the why.

Generally speaking, I agree that you are right, but I think there are enough people to form a substantial minority who are completely happy with 'we don't know' and 'there is not a reason why'. That is to say, there is not a reason why if that reason is supposed to include anything outside the material world.
As I said in an earlier post, it is understood that emotional and aesthetic ideas come from the brain. There is no evidence to the contrary as far as I know.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
And yet . . .
...

Which gets dibs in this situation?
I've not read the article, I expect that this particular pastor falls in the category I mentioned earlier of people who are incompetent at using the content of the toolbox and almost certainly holding a theology I would disagree with.

A quick note of clarification. Despite the BBC's headline, Tony Perkins is not a "pastor" in the sense the term is usually understood. He has no formal pastoral education (unless you count getting an undergraduate degree, ironically a Bachelor of Science, from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University) and does not have the care of a congregation (unless you consider the SPLC-designated hate group he heads to be a "congregation"). I guess the confusion probably arose because Perkin's SPLC-designated hate group typically expresses its hate in religious terms.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there should be no dibs. Both the Atheist saying "it's just a consequence of the weather, and the only meaning there is in these events is that we should probably think a bit more carefully about where we build and flood management", and the Theist saying "it's the judgement of God" (or, those getting out safely declaring that it was by the grace of God) do so on the basis of belief and a consequent understanding of meaning behind events. Neither approach is a better explanation of the way rivers flood, neither is simpler or more complex, the nature of belief is that it actually stands above such things.

Except in this case the theist is also talking about flood management. It's just that his idea of flood management involves criminalizing homosexuality and abortion rather than dams and levees. If those are the options presented, I have to disagree that neither one is better than the other.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think humanity is capable of divorcing the what and the why.
Generally speaking, I agree that you are right, but I think there are enough people to form a substantial minority who are completely happy with 'we don't know' and 'there is not a reason why'. That is to say, there is not a reason why if that reason is supposed to include anything outside the material world.
As I said in an earlier post, it is understood that emotional and aesthetic ideas come from the brain. There is no evidence to the contrary as far as I know.

Yes. It does appear some people are quite happy not to know why we exist at all or think about the bigger questions of life.

Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.

As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.

Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, there should be no dibs. Both the Atheist saying "it's just a consequence of the weather, and the only meaning there is in these events is that we should probably think a bit more carefully about where we build and flood management", and the Theist saying "it's the judgement of God" (or, those getting out safely declaring that it was by the grace of God) do so on the basis of belief and a consequent understanding of meaning behind events. Neither approach is a better explanation of the way rivers flood, neither is simpler or more complex, the nature of belief is that it actually stands above such things.
Except in this case the theist is also talking about flood management. It's just that his idea of flood management involves criminalizing homosexuality and abortion rather than dams and levees. If those are the options presented, I have to disagree that neither one is better than the other.

Except, those aren't the only options. The lunacy propounded by such self-appointed "pastors" is not representative of Christian theism. As I've said, I'm not sure what we gain by lumping people like that with theists.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't think humanity is capable of divorcing the what and the why.
Generally speaking, I agree that you are right, but I think there are enough people to form a substantial minority who are completely happy with 'we don't know' and 'there is not a reason why'. That is to say, there is not a reason why if that reason is supposed to include anything outside the material world.
As I said in an earlier post, it is understood that emotional and aesthetic ideas come from the brain. There is no evidence to the contrary as far as I know.
Yes. It does appear some people are quite happy not to know why we exist at all or think about the bigger questions of life.

Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.

As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.

Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.

The vast majority of people couldn't care less, the more educated the less. A billion Muslims and a billion Hindus and a billion Catholics haven't had their search for meaning, their BIG WHY questions answered, as they've never asked them. They've been given stories that smother that. We're a spookable monkey, but rationalism, once realised, prevails.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Evensong

Very interesting as always. I've started a response which I'll try and post today, but then I'm away for a few days visiting granddaughters.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

I'm not really satisfied with this, but no more time today.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Yes. It does appear some people are quite happy not to know why we exist at all or think about the bigger questions of life.

Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.

We are all ‘why’ people, aren’t we? Maybe those who were born without the burning need to find out everything you can might have more of a smooth ride!  Humans evolved to be curious. It is fortunate that, as a result, we have a just about infinite store of acquired knowledge … both useful and not so useful!
It is interesting that the philosophical questions which require thinking and reasoning, but do not result in any independent material outcome are called the ‘bigger’ questions. Perhaps they would be better called the long questions’, since there is no answer which does not rely on human imagination. Nothing wrong with making full use of that, though.

quote:
As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.

Anything that is classified as doctrine I’d see as open to challenge, but yes, I suppose I do.

quote:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also
.irrational as I understand it.

I’m afraid I cannot think why scientific materialism (and materialists) could be called irrational., since all the non-believers I know and particularly those on message boards!, have wide interests which are most definitely not restricted to facts

quote:
[QB]David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.

Hmmm, I’ve just done a quick google and found this:[QUOTE] only 35 pages in, but it’s already clear that Hart in fact has little desire to provide evidence for God’s existence. In fact, he thinks that God’s existence is self-evident, and (à la Plantinga) says that our very ability to apprehend truth testifies to God’s existence,…

I’ll read more later this week.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:

Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.

Boggles my freakin' mind as well, especially as many of them aren't good on how either, but they exist. And, [Waterworks]

they vote.

quote:

As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.

ISTM theism* has little room to be snide to this, though.

quote:

Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.

That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist. Haven't read Hart, but it doesn't track, IMO.

*It doesn't quite fit with Buddhism either. I am not defending the idea, just the derisive rejection of it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist. Haven't read Hart, but it doesn't track, IMO.

You've created a very narrow place. No scientific materialist would say it's magical thinking. And you're not allowing a theist to say it, whether or not it's true seemingly. Who could possibly have the right to make this claim, then? Buddhists?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also irrational as I understand it. David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.
That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist. Haven't read Hart, but it doesn't track, IMO.
You've created a very narrow place. No scientific materialist would say it's magical thinking. And you're not allowing a theist to say it, whether or not it's true seemingly. Who could possibly have the right to make this claim, then? Buddhists?

I am not disallowing anyone. I am simply saying that theism has no logical advantage over materialism. At best, there is no substantive difference between I believe deity and I believe materialism.

[ 22. August 2016, 01:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Then I'm sure I don't understand what you mean by "That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist." This seems to be saying a theist can't say this without coming under suspicion. Suspicion of what?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Then I'm sure I don't understand what you mean by "That is a suspect opinion, coming from a theist." This seems to be saying a theist can't say this without coming under suspicion. Suspicion of what?

I has written that originally in a very caustic phrase and was trying to make it less so.
Theism is in no rationally or logically superior position to any other philosophy in which faith or belief is a component.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Theism is in no rationally or logically superior position to any other philosophy in which faith or belief is a component.

Assuming that you mean by 'belief' belief not attaining the degree of confidence required to count as knowledge...

Firstly, in the relevant sense of 'philosophy' I think that covers all philosophies. As things stand, all philosophies are such that someone could rationally disagree with them.

Secondly, just because no philosophy is rationally compelling doesn't mean that there is no judgement about what is rationally superior to be made. It's usually more a case that each side makes some good arguments, and you have to decide which set of good arguments you think is more persuasive.
This gets us into deep waters about the nature of rationality, but it would be wrong to view it as a purely arational matter.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I'm not really satisfied with this, but no more time today.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[qb] Yes. It does appear some people are quite happy not to know why we exist at all or think about the bigger questions of life.

Personally I don't understand that because I've always been a huge WHY person.
We are all ‘why’ people, aren’t we? Maybe those who were born without the burning need to find out everything you can might have more of a smooth ride!  Humans evolved to be curious. It is fortunate that, as a result, we have a just about infinite store of acquired knowledge … both useful and not so useful!
It is interesting that the philosophical questions which require thinking and reasoning, but do not result in any independent material outcome are called the ‘bigger’ questions. Perhaps they would be better called the long questions’, since there is no answer which does not rely on human imagination. Nothing wrong with making full use of that, though.
quote:
As for emotional and aesthetic ideas coming from the brain: sounds like you believe in the doctrine of scientific materialism.
Anything that is classified as doctrine I’d see as open to challenge, but yes, I suppose I do.
quote:
Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Too narrow. And also
.irrational as I understand it.
I’m afraid I cannot think why scientific materialism (and materialists) could be called irrational., since all the non-believers I know and particularly those on message boards!, have wide interests which are most definitely not restricted to facts
quote:
David Bentley Hart ( the great philosopher on this topic) even calls it indistinguishable from pure magical thinking.

Hmmm, I’ve just done a quick google and found this:[QUOTE] only 35 pages in, but it’s already clear that Hart in fact has little desire to provide evidence for God’s existence. In fact, he thinks that God’s existence is self-evident, and (à la Plantinga) says that our very ability to apprehend truth testifies to God’s existence,…
I’ll read more later this week.

Forgive my inability to quote each response. The code would do my head in at the moment.

Re your first point. Yes I think we are a why people which is why I said above I don't really understand people that don't seem to be interested in the why and how those that believe there is no reason why are content with that belief. But as you say, it can lead to a smoother ride: at least on the surface of things.

I would disagree however with your statement that the why or philosophical questions do not result in material outcomes. I think they very much define how we live our lives and how we spend our time in a very concrete sense.

"Long questions" is a good phraseology if you prefer it to the "why" questions but to say all the answers come from imagination is spurious. The answers to the Christian long questions have a basis in history, experience and reason.

Re your third point why the doctrine or belief in scientific materialism could be called irrational. I don't think wide ranging, non factual interests is the issue. It has something to do with a reference point for reason, rationality and truth. At least that is how I understand David Bentley Hart's argument so far. But I haven't read the whole book yet.

Apparently the main premise of the book is to show how pure naturalism or scientific materialism is irrational. Sounds like an interesting read as some believe it is the epitome of rationality.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

One of the problems with why is that it's ambiguous. One sense is to do with purpose - well, I don't go around wondering what the purpose of everything is, maybe others do.

The old question 'why is there anything at all?' seems a bit of a trick to me, as it has purpose already built in. But why should it be? (That's the use of 'why' as reason).

So being curious, which humans undoubtedly are, seems different to me from asking for a purpose. That usually indicates a religious frame of mind, doesn't it?

I've been reading Hart's 'The Experience of God', and I'm not hugely impressed. Big chunks of it strike me as a long version of the argument from incredulity - isn't it amazing that we are conscious, and we don't understand how the brain connects with this, therefore God.

Oh fuck all that, I read that stuff when I was about 17, along with Sartre and real deep stuff, man.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The other odd thing here is 'scientific materialism'. This seems confused to me. There is philosophical materialism, the idea that everything is made up of, well, whatever you think matter is, (itself highly contentious). But this is not a scientific claim - this is why you can have Christians who are scientists.

And there is methodological materialism, often linked with methodological naturalism, which refers to those methods used in science to examine nature.

I suppose you could call this scientific materialism, but it is not philosophical. You can practise such scientific methods and believe in fairies, the pipes of Pan, and the great Pantocrator, usually not all at once.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Forgive my inability to quote each response. The code would do my head in at the moment.

Thank you for your interesting post. I have no idea how the 'code' works! I type in the [] and QB etc in between as I go along. 

quote:
Re your first point. Yes I think we are a why people which is why I said above I don't really understand people that don't seem to be interested in the why and how those that believe there is no reason why are content with that belief. But as you say, it can lead to a smoother ride: at least on the surface of things.

I would disagree however with your statement that the why or philosophical questions do not result in material outcomes. I think they very much define how we live our lives and how we spend our time in a very concrete sense.

Yes, it is not always clear whether the 'why' is referring to practical or philosophical ideas.

quote:
"Long questions" is a good phraseology if you prefer it to the "why" questions but to say all the answers come from imagination is spurious. The answers to the Christian long questions have a basis in history, experience and reason.

Yes, the records of the Christian people in conjunction with other contemporary records, give us a good understanding of what and why people believed things. I think it also reveals what we now know to be personal incredulity.

The idea that scientific materialism is irrational needs a lot more consideration, I think. There is a local Philosophy group (connected with the U3A as far as I know) which starts up again in September. I shall give it a try - and take this question with me!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0