Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:


Theology too is a science:

quote:

---

A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.

---

But scientific materialism seems to be only interested in the physical sciences with no interest in the rest. A poor philosophy.

---

Right. Ladies and gentleman, on your right we have Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and the maths and physical evidence to support it. Please feel free to look through the repeatable experiments and try one yourself.
On your left, we have Religion with various, contradictory books and, erm, well....
So I suppose there is science and there is science.

---

quote:

---

Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is the theory which decides what can be observed.

---

quote:

---

Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, and science is not philosophy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
The only things "science" should be used to describe are things to which the scientific method is fundamentally applied.

---

Why?

That's a very new and very limited approach to science. Science is much more than empiricism. Empiricism is simply one part of it - usually restricted to the physical sciences. It is only one of several views of epistemology.

By empiricism alone, mathematical proofs and quantum theories would not count as science because they are abstractions derived from deductive reasoning.

And another Einstein quote on epistemology.

quote:

---

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there not some more valuable work to be done in his specialty? That's what I hear many of my colleagues ask, and I sense it from many more. But I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching — that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not just their quick-wittedness — I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through tenacious defense of their views, that the subject seemed important to them.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Evensong: By empiricism alone, mathematical proofs and quantum theories would not count as science because they are abstractions derived from deductive reasoning.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, yes, and science is not philosophy. One of its great breakthroughs was to rid itself of philosophical speculation about reality and truth. It then became empirical and useful.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Evensong: By empiricism alone, mathematical proofs and quantum theories would not count as science because they are abstractions derived from deductive reasoning.

---

The validity of Quantum Mechanics has been proven experimentally. .

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Evensong: I'm not full bottle on quantum physics at all so forgive me if I get this wrong but I don't think string theory or this theory or that theory of another six dimensions or parallel worlds has been proven experimentally.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One reason that theology is not considered scientific is that it is not empirical. This means that it has fewer constraints that an empirical science does. Of course, it was once known as the queen of the sciences, but I think 'science' was being used differently then, more like 'scientiae', which meant knowledge. Hence Bacon said, 'ipsa scientia potestas est', or knowledge is power.

For that matter, mathematics is not scientific.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One reason that theology is not considered scientific is that it is not empirical. This means that it has fewer constraints that an empirical science does. Of course, it was once known as the queen of the sciences, but I think 'science' was being used differently then, more like 'scientiae', which meant knowledge. Hence Bacon said, 'ipsa scientia potestas est', or knowledge is power.

For that matter, mathematics is not scientific.

---

It depends what you mean by Empirical, for instance does the stuff this journal publishes science!

The problem is that Empirical means a variety of things in different sciences and it means an even wider range of things when you get to the social sciences. There are definitely some forms of Empricism that can be used within Theology particularly at the "practical", "contextual" end of the range.

Jengie

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Evensong: I'm not full bottle on quantum physics at all so forgive me if I get this wrong but I don't think string theory or this theory or that theory of another six dimensions or parallel worlds has been proven experimentally.

---

Your conflating two things here: basic Quantum Mechanics, and some of the more advanced potential theories. The latter haven't been proven, nobody claims they have been. They don't have the status of scientific theories; they're potential theories at most.

But basic Quantum Mechanics has been proven thoroughly. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to dismiss Quantum Mechanics as unscientific.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Evensong: I'm not full bottle on quantum physics at all so forgive me if I get this wrong but I don't think string theory or this theory or that theory of another six dimensions or parallel worlds has been proven experimentally.

---

Your conflating two things here: basic Quantum Mechanics, and some of the more advanced potential theories. The latter haven't been proven, nobody claims they have been. They don't have the status of scientific theories; they're potential theories at most.

But basic Quantum Mechanics has been proven thoroughly. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to dismiss Quantum Mechanics as unscientific.

---

Sure. But it does make the advanced potential theories unscientific. But I doubt people see it that way. Quantum theory armchair enthusiasts certainly think they're being scientific.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Evensong: Sure. But it does make the advanced potential theories unscientific. But I doubt people see it that way. Quantum theory armchair enthusiasts certainly think they're being scientific.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It depends what you mean by scientific. It sounds like it's being used as "believed to be true, scientifically". But the problem is that scientific models and theories don't really work that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
String theory is scientific, in that it's a scientific theory that follows a scientific method.

---

quote:

---

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Evensong: Semantics are the basis of communication. If you disregard semantics, you disregard understanding.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
By that definition String theory is not scientific.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]

---

By that definition String theory is not scientific.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Case in point on this thread with Mousethief in response to HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.

---

, but no attempt to offer what they are instead. Which suggests to me that the first bullet point is simply something to hide behind.

---

If you were reading the thread for content and not for things to pick fights with you might have noticed that I do come back and tell what the basics of my beliefs are. But don't let me stop a good rant.

I'm amazed you think there's something wrong with somebody saying "that's not what I believe" when someone else has cast them as believing something they don't actually believe. It's as if you think you really DO have a right to tell me what I believe. Which is just astounding.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]

---

By that definition String theory is not scientific.

---

String theory is not a method of inquiry.
Moreover, the sciences are a body of techniques that all operate together. You want to have some empirical support at some point in the process, but just because you haven't got empirical support yet doesn't mean you're not being scientific yet.

Principia Mathematica, by Isaac Newton, contains no references to any specific empirical evidence as far as I can tell. It would be a brave person who claimed that Principia Mathematica wasn't scientific.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
By that definition String theory is not scientific.

---

Sure. Except that it's status as a theory depends on its compliance with other empirical evidence, and it would be extremely useful for our sum of knowledge to find a way to empirically test it directly.

Unlike theology, in which empirical evidence is both unnecessary (or just plain ignored) and essentially useless for building knowledge. But it has other uses.

As soon as you try to pit spirituality versus knowledge, both lose. Which is sort of like the entirety of your brain.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What observations of God are universally agreed and interpreted the same way repeatedly to start using as a basis of a theory? The whole point of scientific observations that they are replicable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
God is also usually reckoned to be supernatural. So people are proposing to use various methods from the study of nature, for the study of the supernatural? I am also curious how observations will be made, repeated, falsified, predicted, and so on.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
What observations of God are universally agreed and interpreted the same way repeatedly to start using as a basis of a theory? The whole point of scientific observations that they are replicable.

---

String theory is not replicable as yet ( just like the existence of God is not replicable as yet). So by your definition string theory or pure maths is not science. See above on rationalism and empiricism as competing philosophies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
God is also usually reckoned to be supernatural. So people are proposing to use various methods from the study of nature, for the study of the supernatural? I am also curious how observations will be made, repeated, falsified, predicted, and so on.

---

The study of nature was earlier deemed to be a study of God's glorious creation. It is now proceeding in a similar bent, just without the God factor. Efficient cause becomes the end rather than the formal cause.

But no you can't study the supernatural purely from the natural because the supernatural is beyond the natural as well as in it. So you can see in part but not in full if you study the world. That's the definition of panentheism (which is a fairly orthodox Christian position).

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

As soon as you try to pit spirituality versus knowledge, both lose. Which is sort of like the entirety of your brain.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
Unlike theology, in which empirical evidence is both unnecessary (or just plain ignored) and essentially useless for building knowledge. But it has other uses.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian:Krister Stendhal's principles are all fine and dandy, except they don't seem to work both ways. I.e. Christians seem perfectly happy to define what an atheist is but get really upset if it works the other way.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: Also there seems to be a deliberate failure to recognise the pretty simple fact that in English "you" can mean either singular or plural collective. Atheists are not talking about what individual Christians believe. So when we talk about "you" we are talking about christianity not you personally. I would have thought that was obvious.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: Thanks for your arrogance, but I do understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy means.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: Finally you say you'd be happy to debate your faith with an atheist who'd obey a series of Christian imposed parameters.

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: (By the way have you noticed the way on these boards that the theists can be adamant what atheism is, so fuck the first of Stendhal's rules.)

---

quote:

---

Pre-cambrian: But my question was whether you would debate in good faith?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
........

Trying to debate with Christians is like trying to grapple with a jelly. Or to put it less diplomatically it looks as if whatever we say your response (collectively, not you personally, LeRoc) will be simply to contradict, even if it contradicts what you previously said, let alone what you would say to other Christians.

Even less diplomatically, do I think you debate in good faith? The jury's out (and that is being diplomatic.).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If you were reading the thread for content and not for things to pick fights with you might have noticed that I do come back and tell what the basics of my beliefs are. But don't let me stop a good rant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Faith in scientific materialism of the brand Hugh seems to subscribe to is not compatible with faith in God. It is too narrow a viewpoint.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:
The only things "science" should be used to describe are things to which the scientific method is fundamentally applied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Theology can be subject to empirical verification in some bits, but it is bigger than empiricism because it extends beyond the physical and natural worlds.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I would say that string theory so far is a scientific speculation for which scientists are working with to develop hypotheses that can be tested (or testable though we may not have the tools yet to do the testing). It may go the way of ether or it might not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:

Mathematics is a tool not a science but a very useful tool.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:

Now is theology (or some parts of theology) like mathematics in that it takes a set of axioms and tries to derive some conclusions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
In which case at least three possible criticism might be made (1) that some of the axioms are unrealistic

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
(2) that some of the conclusions are contradictory and so the system is flawed

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Net Spinster:
Or is theology (or some parts of theology) like art?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
think this is all kiddology. If you really think that theology (as the study of God) is a science, then show me some links, where scientific observations are made about God.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Theology can be subject to empirical verification in some bits, but it is bigger than empiricism because it extends beyond the physical and natural worlds.

---

Only if there is something beyond the physical and natural worlds. If so it is, ISTM inevitably, beyond our understanding – if not, indeed either way, then the conviction is a drag on getting on with sorting out what we are pretty sure does exist. You choose to think there is something – I, because of the lack of what I see as evidence in its favour and the lack of need for it, am unable to do so. My stance, as I see it, has the advantage of not needing complex and contradictory thought constructions to try to make sense of something fundamentally without substance. (in other words - like me it's simple).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If you asked the man or woman on the street whether mathematics was a science, I reckon 99% would say yes.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If you asked the man or woman on the street whether mathematics was a science, I reckon 99% would say yes.

---

If people's opinions in any way affected fundamental reality, that would matter. But it doesn't.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If you asked the man or woman on the street whether mathematics was a science, I reckon 99% would say yes.

---

If people's opinions in any way affected fundamental reality, that would matter. But it doesn't.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
I knew a Maths professor who swore blind that Maths was in fact an art, but he was also a colossal gaping asshole, so I don't know how seriously to take his opinion.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RooK:

As soon as you try to pit spirituality versus knowledge, both lose. Which is sort of like the entirety of your brain.

---

This! Mother fucking this.
This is what is at the root of the annoyance which caused my OP in Purg.
Equating religion with science is Jesus riding a dinosaur. Not only is it wrong, it misses the point entirely.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: Thank you – exactly my thoughts but so much better put.

---