• jkop
    339
    ..theism. . . . ; ..is a position within a broader metaphysical system.Chany

    What broader metaphysical system?

    . . .One can follow science and be a theist.Chany

    Not really. It is possible to follow science and become a theist in case the existence of god is scientifically discovered. But you can't be a theist and follow science, because by concluding that "god did it", prior to, or regardless of, a scientific discovery in support of such a conclusion, is not to follow science at all but theism.

    You can certainly be a theist with an interest for science as an intellectual puzzle, eg to follow the latest advances in science while keeping them separate from your personal belief in a god. But then your personal belief is not following science but theism.
  • TheMadFool
    397
    But you can't be a theist and follow science, because by concluding that "god did it", prior to, or regardless of, a scientific discovery in support of such a conclusion, is not to follow science at all but theism.jkop

    Why not? I thought theists solved this problem long ago by arguing that the universe and its laws were God's work and we simply discover them.
  • jkop
    339
    Because then you're following theism, not science. You're not following science by assuming that science would be discovering the work of a theist god.
  • TheMadFool
    397
    Because then you're following theism, not science. You're not following science by assuming that science would be discovering the work of a theist god.jkop

    I agree that there are differences between science and religion but they can be boiled down to only two issues viz. cosmology and evolution.

    To add, the big bang theory is in sync with the idea of creation and evolution is merely the product of natural laws, laws framed by a divine being.

    So you see there's nothing wrong in combining religion and science.
  • FLUX23
    39

    Do you have an easy-to-understand conception of this ''something'' you refer to. My imagination fails me.

    Also ''both God but not God'' is a contradiction provided that ''God'' refers to the same thing.
    TheMadFool

    I think it is easier to understand it by interpreting it from the other end. We have this "something" that is supposedly the cause of the universe, and it is up to us to interpret it as whether this is God or not. In the current situation, we do not have a clue in understanding this "something," and I think this makes up much of the reason for having so many interpretations "something" that contradicts each other. One of those interpretations happened to be God, and still, we have tons of interpretation regarding the concept of God too (think about how many religion we have).

    What I am arguing in the example given in the OP is that, if someday we have better and better understanding of "something" by obtaining more evidence, then it is very likely that our current available interpretations are adjusted by the people who believe them so that they are made compatible in light of the new evidence. If we continue on with obtaining evidence, each of the interpretations will eventually go to the same direction, ultimately converging into one single objective understanding of "something".

    Of course, I don't know what this "one single objective understanding of 'something'" is; no one does at the current stage because we don't have enough evidence to make people believe in the same thing.
  • FLUX23
    39
    So you see there's nothing wrong in combining religion and science.TheMadFool

    I think he is referring to the fact that if you believe in a religion and science at the same time, then you will have to 1) religion your science out, and 2) science your religion out.

    If you religion your science out, that is totally fine because you can just say science is merely a method to understand what a divine being has made. However, if you science your religion, then since religion is not experimentally or theoretically provable, religion is unscientific to believe in(I am not saying it is false but unscientific). Because believeing in a religion is unscientific, if you believe in both religion and science, you contradict yourself by believing something unscientific.

    In actuality, this is like a vicious circularity. If you science your religion, you will have to conclude that believing in religion is an unscientific thing to do. However, you have just now done science, which is a discipline to understand what a divine being has made. But that itself is unscientific to believe in because you can't prove that scientifically...And so on. Therefore, believing in both science and religion is paradoxical.


    (There is also another option, though: refuse to think about it, which is what most religious theists that believe in science do.)
  • jkop
    339
    I don't agree with any of those statements. Big bang "in sync with creation"? Wtf?
  • Chany
    152
    What broader metaphysical system?

    A full metaphysical system, in this context, would be an entire way of looking at existence. Knowing one is a theist or an atheist is only to know their position on the existence of gods. It does not inform us on their entire worldview. For example, one could be theist who believes human minds are purely physical while one could be a theist who believes in a form of substance dualism between the mind and body.

    Not really. It is possible to follow science and become a theist in case the existence of god is scientifically discovered. But you can't be a theist and follow science, because by concluding that "god did it", prior to, or regardless of, a scientific discovery in support of such a conclusion, is not to follow science at all but theism.

    You can certainly be a theist with an interest for science as an intellectual puzzle, eg to follow the latest advances in science while keeping them separate from your personal belief in a god. But then your personal belief is not following science but theism.

    I realize I mispoke about science. Science is not an epistemological system- it is a part of an epistemological system. Science assumes methodological naturalism. As such, science cannot deal with anything that does not have a physical aspect that it can study. This means that we require aspects of epistemology to deal with the non-physical, including the philosophy of science. Unless the god has a specific physical aspect or is physical, science cannot touch theism directly.
  • jkop
    339

    Well, by single-mindedly defining science as some kind of a crippled physicalism you can certainly get away with anything "non physical". But that's intellectually dishonest.
  • Chany
    152


    Could you roughly define science, particularly in how it does not assume methodological naturalism?
  • jkop
    339

    Science is, roughly, the name for human knowledge (in its classic definition, justified true belief).

    You justify statements with good reasons (eg evidence, true argument), not by dismissing or attempting to undermine the most basic criteria for what counts as knowledge in order to get away with anything.
  • Chany
    152


    Okay, that is a very different definition than what science means within my real life circles. I would generally just call that philosophy.

    Under that definition, I'm not really sure you can say theism is against science. You may say it is bad science or mistaken science- you may say that theism has poor arguments or make mistakes somewhere - but it would still be science. I'm not even sure I would call it bad science, considering it would pretty much assume all theistic arguments are without merit.
  • aletheist
    608
    Yet a "community of minds" approach to pragmatic inquiry would logically require everyone to have the same kind of experience in repeatable fashion under the same conditions.apokrisis

    As you probably know, Peirce claimed in the article that "any normal man" who engaged in the kind of Musement that he recommended, and did so "in scientific singleness of heart," would come to love and adore "his strictly hypothetical God" to the point of shaping his "whole conduct of life" accordingly, which according to Peirce "is neither more nor less than the state of mind called Believing." Of course, in the second additament - the one that actually appeared with the original article in The Hibbert Journal - he explicitly grounded this assertion in the admittedly dubious assumption "that my own intellectual disposition is normal." He also acknowledged "that no pessimist will agree with me," adding, "I do not admit that pessimists are, at the same time, thoroughly sane." :D

    If your essay gets published, send me a link.apokrisis

    Will do, but it will be a while. I finally heard back from the journal editor today, confirming that he received the manuscript and is initiating the review process, which will likely take a few months.
  • apokrisis
    1.2k
    he explicitly grounded this assertion in the admittedly dubious assumption "that my own intellectual disposition is normal."aletheist

    Heh, heh. I would have loved to meet the guy because even biographical accounts don't paint a picture that make sense to me - even as in the classic mold of "eccentric mathematical genius/borderline autist".
  • TheMadFool
    397
    I don't agree with any of those statements. Big bang "in sync with creation"? Wtfjkop

    I think the purported ''beginning'' of the universe 13.8 billion years ago can be easily interpreted as the moment God ''created'' the universe. There's nothing unreasonable about that is there?
  • FLUX23
    39


    Well if you are discussing the actual details of science and how religion can be compatible, then you are right. But I would talk about it from the other perspective, like I did in the above post (http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/45969), which you might have missed or wasn't convincing enough that you didn't think it was worth replying.
  • jkop
    339


    The conclusion, that god created the big bang, is arbitrary and not based on reason.
  • Chany
    152


    The theist may have reasons and arguments for their position, which is simply something called god exists. The only real big push for the existence of a god and a connection to the Big Bang I can think of (within more intellectual circles, not random apologetists for whatever religion) is William Craig's formulation of the Kalaam cosmological argument.
  • jkop
    339
    The theist may have reasons and arguments for their position, which is simply something called god exists.Chany

    That would be a statement, not an argument, nor a reason.
  • Chany
    152


    Perhaps my phrasing conveyed my message poorly, as I could see how you got that. I meant to convey this:

    The position of the theist is that something called god exists. The theist may have reasons and arguments for believing this god exists.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.