• Wayfarer
    8.3k
    response to Fooloso4's post about Platonism moved to this thread which is about Platonism.
  • Coben
    842
    Yes, I'm saying it's beyond science, but not that this is a failing of science. God is not detectably present here in the world (I mean detectable by any form of scientific measurement), and this will not change unless God does.Pattern-chaser

    How do you know that?

    We have found all sorts of things we could not before. Scientific measurement is not static.

    If you want to argue that God must be utterly transcendent, which some but not all theists believe, then you have a foundation for saying that (empirical) science can't demonstrat God's existence. But then, how would you know God is utterly transcendent?
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    how would you know God is utterly transcendent?Coben

    Of course I wouldn't, in absolute terms. So I'm reduced to guesswork, as we humans so often are. There has never been even the smallest piece of scientifically-acceptable evidence that God has detectable/measurable existence in the space-time universe that science describes so well. So I reluctantly guess that this will continue to be the case. What alternative is there?
  • SpaceNBeyond
    11
    The Point is, Science is a Joke. Done.
  • Pattern-chaser
    1.8k
    Science is a JokeSpaceNBeyond

    I disagree. Science is a powerful and useful tool, which has delivered all kinds of useful stuff. It's just that science is not applicable to every problem and every situation.
  • fdrake
    2.5k


    There is a certain pattern of people defending science in principle without actually knowing anything about it. For clarity, I'm not defending science-denial, woo, mysticism, I'm trying to defend scientific thinking from its own idealisation; scientism is just as bad for science as woo.
  • Coben
    842
    Of course I wouldn't, in absolute terms. So I'm reduced to guesswork, as we humans so often are. There has never been even the smallest piece of scientifically-acceptable evidence that God has detectable/measurable existence in the space-time universe that science describes so well. So I reluctantly guess that this will continue to be the case. What alternative is there?Pattern-chaser

    Well, being agnostic about it. There are all sorts of things that there was absolutely no evidence for that then turned out to be there or the process behind something to the building blocks to something. There was absolutely no evidence there was water on Mars. There was absolutely no evidence that elephants could communicate over large distances. And in the later case natives and Westerners who stated their belief in it were told they were wrong. The ultrasound comminucation was found. We just found out we hadn't noticed most of the matter and energy in the universe. There was absolutely no evidence, then there was a bit, then more, and now it is consensus accepted that there is dark matter and energy. That's most of everything. That space and time are not absolute. No evidence for that. In fact there was no evidence when Einstein deduced it. Only later, after technology changed, could we test it. The examples could go on and on, many seem now right in front of our noses.
  • leo
    585


    Indeed. Or rather, usually there is some sort of evidence, but the scientific consensus chooses not to interpret it as evidence. It also used to be scientific consensus that continental drift doesn't exist, or that we would never reach the Moon. The naïve view is to say that now we know better, but the problem is throughout history the scientific consensus thought they knew better. Now there is the scientific consensus that dark matter exists, even though there is evidence that it isn't the case, but the consensus chooses to interpret that evidence as problems to solve, supposedly the fundamentals are settled and it's only a matter of working out the details. It's also a historical constant that those going against the consensus are ridiculed and ostracized: there is strong incentive to continue developing the consensus, and little incentive to question it.

    If those who maintain the consensus refuse to challenge their fundamental assumptions, outside ideas do not get through to them. Evidence that the model doesn't fit some observations is seen as a sign that there are some variables to tweak in the model, or that those who made these observations are crazy or hallucinated, but not as a sign that the model needs to be fundamentally changed. In the end it is not some outside truth that determines the consensus, it is people.
  • Coben
    842
    If those who maintain the consensus refuse to challenge their fundamental assumptions, outside ideas do not get through to them. Evidence that the model doesn't fit some observations is seen as a sign that there are some variables to tweak in the model, or that those who made these observations are crazy or hallucinated, but not as a sign that the model needs to be fundamentally changed. In the end it is not some outside truth that determines the consensus, it is people.leo

    Connected to this is the assumption that phenomena, if correctly interpreted by those experiencing them, entail that all of science or some large area is now false. Which is generally not the case. Science itself does manage to integrate really radical shifts - such as the whole qm set of phenomena - and it doesn't mean that everything before gets thrown out. IOW when faced with an anomolous phenomenon, to them anomolous, they interpret what it would mean, as if this could be known, and as if it would be catastrophic in relation to current knowledge. As a way of saying it is not possible. The idea of not weighing in on the possibility seems completely lost. It is as if they must draw a conclusion now. And that conclusion will be in the negative..
  • leo
    585
    The idea of not weighing in on the possibility seems completely lost. It is as if they must draw a conclusion now. And that conclusion will be in the negative..Coben

    Indeed, if they don't see how it could be integrated to their models then they find it more convenient to assume that the anomalous phenomena are hallucinations or delusions of those who experienced them, or to assume that eventually these phenomena will be explained in some mundane way that doesn't challenge their fundamental assumptions. People who spend their whole career working within a set of assumptions don't want to see these assumptions challenged, because their career depends on them, so they will fight to defend them no matter the evidence.

    A quote from Max Planck comes to mind: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it".
  • Coben
    842
    Indeed, if they don't see how it could be integrated to their models then they find it more convenient to assume that the anomalous phenomena are hallucinations or delusions of those who experienced them, or to assume that eventually these phenomena will be explained in some mundane way that doesn't challenge their fundamental assumptions. People who spend their whole career working within a set of assumptions don't want to see these assumptions challenged, because their career depends on them, so they will fight to defend them no matter the evidence.leo
    But the truly sad thing is that even if these phenomena are real, they are merely assuming that it would go against current science. It could simply be forces, phenomena, realms, whatever, that haven't been detectable, so far, by scientific measuring, and which do not contradict what we know about other phenomema they have been able to track.

    Some says ghosts are real. Scientists immediately make assumptions about the necessary ontology of ghosts, then conclude that it goes against current science. But within there own history, changes have come that put earlier models into more restricted frames (but do not eliminate them) or change some of the metaphysics of the science but not the use of the former knowledge - say in the example of Einstein demonstrating false assumptions in Newton, but not at all reducing the effectiveness of Newtons theorums in their contexts. And their assumption that it must be a binary winner take all clash is as radically speculative as they accuse their opponents of being.
  • leo
    585
    But the truly sad thing is that even if these phenomena are real, they are merely assuming that it would go against current science. It could simply be forces, phenomena, realms, whatever, that haven't been detectable, so far, by scientific measuring, and which do not contradict what we know about other phenomema they have been able to track.

    Some says ghosts are real. Scientists immediately make assumptions about the necessary ontology of ghosts, then conclude that it goes against current science. But within there own history, changes have come that put earlier models into more restricted frames (but do not eliminate them) or change some of the metaphysics of the science but not the use of the former knowledge - say in the example of Einstein demonstrating false assumptions in Newton, but not at all reducing the effectiveness of Newtons theorums in their contexts. And their assumption that it must be a binary winner take all clash is as radically speculative as they accuse their opponents of being.
    Coben

    Yes, I think this is a consequence of the materialist mindset that permeates the scientific community. And of the implicit belief that the important things are already known and we just have to work out the details, measure the variables in the models with more precision and so on. As you point out these beliefs are not treated as scientific hypotheses that can be tested or challenged, which is one example of the non-objectivity of scientific practice. So where do ghosts fit in that view? Since they don't have evidence of them with their usual instruments, and they try to explain them within a materialist mindset, then they immediately conclude that ghosts are imagination, or hallucinations, or delusions, in other words a specific pattern of brain activity. Without assuming materialism and without assuming that we already know the important things, there is a lot more room for inquiry.

    Scientific theories are basically algorithms that allow to compute predictions from observations. To say that ghosts are inconsistent with these algorithms would be to assume that these algorithms are valid everywhere and at all times and for everyone, whereas an open-minded scientific inquiry would make no such assumption. The science of our era looks more like religion to me. I believe, or at least I hope, that people will wake up to this, if we don't we'll just keep repeating the mistakes of the past, with people attempting to impose their religion onto others, waging ideological wars, except next time we'll have more powerful technology to destroy one another.
  • Cris
    15


    I wouldn't say we are born with knowledge that makes it to where we don't need learn things, especially language, or math either.
  • Coben
    842
    Yes, I think this is a consequence of the materialist mindset that permeates the scientific community.leo
    And materialism no longer means anything. Waht is considered material is a set of 'things' that now includes fields, massless particles, particles in superposition, dark matter, dark energy. That which is considered physical is that which is considered real. It is no longer a stand on what kind of substance. Anything scientists decide is real, regardless of what it is like, will be subsumed under materialism or physicalism. So it is treated as a metaphysical stance, agains dualisms or other monisms, when in fact the term has lost its onological meaning and now just means real. And this add to their and the sense that certain phenomena must contradict science were these phenomena real. But that is jsut silly.
  • Cris
    15
    AL-GHĀZALĪ (1058–1111), argued for the begiining of the universe as a part of his argument for the existence of God. The first thing that struck me about this was that he found a way to show that the universe had a beginning long before modern science conceded in a lamenting fashion. The Greeks understood that the universe was made of atoms (not the kind with an electorn and nucleus, but just a tiny, fundmental building block of all things) long before science caught up. There are many things that people knew to some degree, long before science did, through the power of the mind simply by thinking and rationalizing things. From what I understand, Tesla would build and test things in his mind. When he did it in reality it was just as his mind had imagined. The scientific method is not the only way we know things. It can be wrong, and will be wrong at times as long as people are doing it because people are biassed and data must be interpreted. The death and rebirth of God has been announced. His death was announced by philosophers because the leaders in philosphy at the time were atheist. His rebirth was announced in a time when the leading philosophers were theists. The scientific method was introduced to us by theist and I believe Christians carried the day for some time in all of the sciences. Right now militant athesit are at the helm. 50 to 100 years from now, Intelligent Design may carry the day.
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.