I disagree. There are no facts independent of values. Values tell us how to split up the world in a way that makes sense to humans. Values are related to feelings, emotions. As has been said many times on the forum, perhaps even in this thread, humans with certain kinds of neurological damage that make it difficult to feel emotions also have trouble making decisions. — T Clark

You're missing the distinction. Science presumes an external objective universe of noumena (ostensibly), and seeks to model/approximate it. Science is a more narrow field of knowledge-making which happens to focus on extricating subjective feeling and values-bias from the way we measure and quantify phenomena.

Science doesn't "make decisions", it's purely informative in that regard. Ultimately we make decisions based on values. Religion can be at its core a presumption about what kinds of decisions we should make (or how we should make them), which science cannot. Science can help us make effective decisions per our values (which is something some religious tenets can also do), but else-wise it's an overly strained comparison.

I would like you to recognize that what you call "scientific hypotheses" do not represent some sort of special phenomena which are independent of the entity doing the hypothesizing. — T Clark

What are you trying to get at? That the assertion "god exists" is just as scientific as the assertion "force is equivalent to mass times acceleration"?

I can assure you there's a difference: one is actually testable, specifically measurable, and semantically consistent. The other is not falsifiable whatsoever, vague, immeasurable, and semantically incoherent (on its own).

If you want to juxtapose religious fruit alongside scientific fruit, then you've got to apply the same selection criteria; I would like you to recognize that what I call "scientific hypotheses" are only an epistemological affront to your possible religious beliefs in so far as you think your beliefs represent or approximate some kind of consistent external world of noumena.

That is to say, if you must insist that Jesus is real and is in Heaven, then I'll dutifully question it as not base in real-ity.

What are you trying to get at? That the assertion "god exists" is just as scientific as the assertion "force is equivalent to mass times acceleration"? — VagabondSpectre

Properly stated, yes.

Claims about a theistic god existing involve an empirical claim, they suppose the presence of a existing existing entity with empirical manifestations in its presence and actions. That's why we can falsify such theistic claims. When we look out in the world and find the claim events of this god did not occur, we can conclude said god doesn't exist. Why? This god is an empirical entity subject to scientific investigation.

When someone brings up a specific god, which is invariably a requirement for any coherent existence-debate, yes, we can falsify their claims in so far as the empirical evidence is available. (for instance, we know the earth is older than 6000 years with empirical confidence sufficient to call it scientific fact, and this contradicts some branches of Christian orthodoxy.). But what if someone is just a basic deist? They believe that there is a creator of some kind out there, but they make no necessary statements about exactly who, what, how, or why it is, beyond that it exists and does not intervene in the physical world. How can we falsify such a god? This is why I call such a proposition unscientific.

But what if someone is just a basic deist? They believe that there is a creator of some kind out there, but they make no necessary statements about exactly who, what, how, or why it is, beyond that it exists and does not intervene in the physical world. How can we falsify such a god? This is why I call such a proposition unscientific. — VagabondSpectre

Bingo. I almost made this point myself. It's not that such beliefs are meaningless. They may offer comfort to their purveyors. But they are suspiciously vague. It's hard to imagine a Deism otherwise empty of content offering much comfort. A retreat to such contentless divinity is likely an insincere rhetorical move. A god with no worldly manifestation doesn't seem to offer much. If he doesn't answer prayers, reward the good, punish the wicked, then what's the appeal? Only a philosophical itch is scratched, which is perhaps why I am not aware of such a deism having many adherents.

You turn it back on them, what exactly would such a deistic god even be? How can one clam there is an existing being, yet ascribe no sort of existence to it?

It's like saying: "Well, there on my shelf, there is is existing thing, but its not actually anything for sure, it could tae up the whole shelf or it might not present anything on the half at all." This is not a coherent claim about an existing being. Said being could actually be anything or even nothing, the exact opposite of an existing entity (which is itself precisely in that it is actually nothing else and never will be).

If the being does not intervene in the physical world, that is, does not form some kind of reaction of one material being to another (mere existence is an intervention because it means a relation in space-time), how can it be said to exist at all?

In the case of such a deistic God, we actually have a stronger falsification than the empirical one: we know it is a logical contradiction for it to be an existing being. Unlike the empirical one, there is not even a possibility we might be mistaken.

"Logical contradiction"...

Yes but then they'll just start questioning whatever axioms of logic are within reach. The point is that we should not always argue (empirically) against god claims, because we don't always need to. Deist claims depart from the observable universe, which is limit of our ability to conduct scientific inquiry on the matter. If someone does happen to cling to such a claim (rare though they may be as @old suggests), unless they're using it in a way which interferes with others why should we necessarily disabuse them? Some people believe things for purely emotional reasons, and if the harm is negligible and the emotional reward great, why not allow blissful ignorance to exist?

You're missing the distinction. Science presumes an external objective universe of noumena (ostensibly), and seeks to model/approximate it. Science is a more narrow field of knowledge-making which happens to focus on extricating subjective feeling and values-bias from the way we measure and quantify phenomena.

Science doesn't "make decisions", it's purely informative in that regard. — VagabondSpectre

I understand the distinction, and I don't even have an argument with it as far as it goes. As you say, "Science presumes an external objective universe..." I think that is often a useful presumption, but it is not a universal truth. There is a good metaphysical argument to be made that the concept of "objective reality" is an illusion, a human invention.

You say science doesn't make decisions. Ok, but a so-called scientific world view represents an almost endless series of decisions about what to pay attention to and what questions to ask.

What are you trying to get at? That the assertion "god exists" is just as scientific as the assertion "force is equivalent to mass times acceleration"? — VagabondSpectre

You're right. Whether or not god exists is not a question that can be answered by science. I never said it was and I never said I think god exists. What I have said elsewhere is that the experience of god represents a way of experiencing the world that is more complete than the scientific view by itself. Science is incomplete and misleading in a very practical and down-to-earth way.

There is a good metaphysical argument to be made that the concept of "objective reality" is an illusion, a human invention. — T Clark

Hi. I hope you don't mind me jumping in. What do you make of this old problem? How is 'there is no objective reality' meant to be understood if not as a statement about objective reality? Is it a fact that there are no facts but only interpretations? I understand the appeal of the denial in terms of its openmindedness, but I'm not aware of any strong retorts to the issue above.

That doesn't help them because the contradiction is in their own "axiom"-- they claim an existing being while also saying that being is nothing at all.

Scientific inquiry isn't relevant at this point because this a problem with logic of posing an existing being that is nothing in existence.

We should disabuse them, if we are going to, for the same reason we do it to theists (plenty of them do not interfere with other either). It's important for speaking truths and reasoning. In terms of reasoning about deities, it's quite important because people will use deistic arguments to support theistic one (i.e. "god is unfalsifiable" ).

Hi. I hope you don't mind me jumping in. What do you make of this old problem? How is 'there is no objective reality' meant to be understood if not as a statement about objective reality? Is it a fact that there are no facts but only interpretations? I understand the appeal of the denial in terms of its openmindedness, but I'm not aware of any strong retorts to the issue above. — old

No, of course I don't mind you "jumping in." "There is no objective reality" is a statement about objective reality in the same sense that "There is no god" is a statement about god. I don't see that as a problem.

I don't think this is the place to take up as big a subject as that. I started a discussion a couple of years ago called "Objective Reality vs. the Tao," that covered the subject. It's also been discussed in numerous threads on the forum by myself and others. The idea that objective reality is an illusion is a mainstream idea in philosophy, which isn't to say it is not hotly contested.

A beautiful flower is the Narcissus!

Ok, but a so-called scientific world view represents an almost endless series of decisions about what to pay attention to and what questions to ask. — T Clark

Science makes presumptions about how to do science itself, not about what kind of values-decisions we should make. The "values" of science are just tools we use to help serve our primary values.

You're right. Whether or not god exists is not a question that can be answered by science. I never it was and I never said I think god exists. What I have said elsewhere is that the experience of god represents a way of experiencing the world that is more complete than the scientific view by itself. Science is incomplete and misleading in a very practical and down-to-earth way — T Clark

Science was never meant to be an existential world-view, it is strictly about the physically measurable.

The problem you're getting at is that science has had a knack for dismantling the more spiritual frameworks that once (and still) dominate our interpretations of our existential place in the world/the value of our lives.

For many people, prolonged exposure to science creates a god-shaped wound, and if "god" was previously held close to their heart, the damage to their happiness can be catastrophic. But we can still learn to mend it with other things, and we don't all weave our religious beliefs and experiences into and around our vital arteries to begin with.

It is ultimately for individuals to decide how they want to experience and interpret the world. We need not all follow the well-traveled path.

Promoting irreligion is only as useful as religion is harmful; there's a practical limit, and at some point you would just be upsetting and confusing people.

Imagine if you could snap your fingers and change someone's belief in god. Are you prepared to impart to them your entire existential and moral framework, given that their current one is likely founded in god-belief? What if your framework fails them? Wouldn't they be left in nihilism or absurdism?

Would you tell a 90 year-old, who on their death bed is only comforted by the belief they will see their loved ones in heaven, that heaven probably doesn't exist?

Science was never meant to be an existential world-view, it is strictly about the physically measurable. — VagabondSpectre

I don't think that's true. I think most scientists, and many others, believe that science provides a privileged viewpoint of the true nature of reality. They believe it is not just the best, but the only valid way of understanding the world.

The problem you're getting at is that science has had a knack for dismantling the more spiritual frameworks that once (and still) dominate our interpretations of our existential place in the world/the value of our lives. — VagabondSpectre

The problem I'm getting at is science has a knack for ignoring its own, fundamentally human, value system.

For many people, prolonged exposure to science creates a god-shaped wound, and if "god" was previously held close to their heart, the damage to their happiness can be catastrophic. But we can still learn to mend it with other things, and we don't all weave our religious beliefs and experiences into and around our vital arteries to begin with. — VagabondSpectre

I'm an engineer. When I was a kid, rigid materialism seemed obvious to me. Although that's faded, I'm still comfortable with the assumptions that are built into the scientific world view, but I do recognize they are human assumptions and not universal truths.

No god-shaped wound here.

You're missing the distinction. Science presumes an external objective universe of noumena (ostensibly), and seeks to model/approximate it. Science is a more narrow field of knowledge-making which happens to focus on extricating subjective feeling and values-bias from the way we measure and quantify phenomena. — VagabondSpectre

I think your claim that science "presumes an external objective universe of noumena" is questionable. Science concerns itself with phenomena, not with noumena. I think "measuring and quantifying phenomena" is right, but that it has nothing to do with "subjective feeling and values-bias", so there is no need for extrication. On the other hand, hypothesizing, which involves abductive reasoning has much to do with imagination and metaphor, if not with "subjective feeling and values-bias". It is certainly possible for individual scientists to become emotionally attached to their hypotheses, though.

I don't think that's true. I think most scientists, and many others, believe that science provides a privileged viewpoint of the true nature of reality. They believe it is not just the best, but the only valid way of understanding the world. — T Clark

I just haven't really encountered this kind of "scientism". I'm aware there are a few zealots in every camp, but they hardly define the set. "The only way of understanding the world" is a bit strong for such a broad claim. I think on average it would go something like "the best way we have of understanding the external world". It's certainly not the only way, and "world" can be divided into many niches, some of which don't lend well to measurement and methodological inquiry.

The problem I'm getting at is science has a knack for ignoring its own, fundamentally human, value system. — T Clark

What human values has science founded itself upon? Induction itself somehow?

I'm an engineer. When I was a kid, rigid materialism seemed obvious to me. Although that's faded, I'm still comfortable with the assumptions that are built into the scientific world view, but I do recognize they are human assumptions and not universal truths.

No god-shaped wound here. — T Clark

Rigid materialism, if true, doesn't pose a threat to my happiness. I still inherently value positive emotional experiences (I just don't associate them with god or creation) and when I have "spiritual experiences" (which are basically very profound emotional/cognitive experiences) I try to saver them for how they make me feel, not for what I think they mean in the grand scheme of things. I'm not convinced that the universe is as we perceive it, but so long as our perceptions of an external world are consistent enough, it's something that pragmatically I might as well plan for.

I think your claim that science "presumes an external objective universe of noumena" is questionable. — Janus

Ostensibly man! Ostensibly!

"Ostensibly": adverb: apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually.

I think "measuring and quantifying phenomena" is right, but that it has nothing to do with "subjective feeling and values-bias", so there is no need for extrication — Janus

My point here was that some kinds of measurement are inherently bias-laden (emotional appraisal included). Perhaps I should have said "empirical measurements, which are inherently bias free").

On the other hand, hypothesizing, which involves abductive reasoning has much to do with imagination and metaphor, if not with "subjective feeling and values-bias". It is certainly possible for individual scientists to become emotionally attached to their hypotheses, though. — Janus

There's no guide to abduction. It really doesn't matter where a hypothesis comes from, science can only harden once something is identified and put to a test. Sometimes we use whim, sometimes we take inspiration from nature, sometimes we just get lucky; but I would hardly focus on generating new hypotheses as the locus of the scientific method.

Ostensibly man! Ostensibly!

"Ostensibly": adverb: apparently or purportedly, but perhaps not actually. — VagabondSpectre

Thanks for your condescension, but I know what "ostensibly" means, and I don't believe science even ostensibly "presumes an external objective universe of noumena".

There's no guide to abduction. It really doesn't matter where a hypothesis comes from, science can only harden once something is identified and put to a test. Sometimes we use whim, sometimes we take inspiration from nature, sometimes we just get lucky; but I would hardly focus on generating new hypotheses as the locus of the scientific method. — VagabondSpectre

Analogy is the guide to abduction. I agree that science is not really science until its abductive conjectures are put to the test. Generating hypotheses, along with inducing predictions and testing those predictions by observing phenonema are all essential to the so-called scientific method, so I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here.

What I am suggesting is that it is not an either/or issue. The choice is not between physicalism and consciousness. Physicalism is the rejection of supernatural explanations, but this leaves open questions of the effect of culture on consciousness; whether, so to speak, one can understand consciousness by looking at the hardware or if the software plays an essential part. — Fooloso4

Conscious Sensory Experience seems to be in a Category of Phenomena that is not part of any known Category of Scientific Phenomena. It is not Super Natural but it is Super Scientific, and I fully expect that Science will get it's thinking together and figure this out someday.

I don't believe science even ostensibly "presumes an external objective universe of noumena". — Janus

What about "ostensibly ostensibly presumes an external objective universe of noumena"?

so I'm not too sure what you're trying to say here. — Janus

I'm saying we need to use bias-free measurement for the hardened science. I'm rebuking your assessment that subjective values and personal bias play a significant positive role in the underpinnings of "scientific facts".

What about "ostensibly ostensibly presumes an external objective universe of noumena"? — VagabondSpectre

Makes no sense to me, so what about it?

I'm saying we need to use bias-free measurement for the hardened science. I'm rebuking your assessment that subjective values and personal bias play a significant positive role in the underpinnings of "scientific facts". — VagabondSpectre

And I'm saying that any measurement is bias-free or it is not an accurate measurement. When I am building, my "subjective values and personal bias" don't play any part in the measurements, and the same goes for measurements in science. So it seems you are not rebuking, but merely ostensibly (and ostensibly only to yourself), rebuking anything I have said, since I certainly did not say anything along the lines that "subjective values and personal bias play a significant role in the underpinning of 'scientific facts'. I don't have much of an idea what that could even mean.

S is 30 I think. — Baden

On topics of such scale 30 is an ok excuse too. Nobody is born knowing such things, it takes time for some of this to sink in.

Let me try using different language:

Our ability to do science, to some extent, rests on there being consistent relationships between observable phenomenon in the first place. Though our perceptions and perspectives can disagree, the more we use actual measurement as opposed to subjective feeling to assess the state of things, and relationships between things, the more we find consistency and agreement. The "external world of noumena" per my usage can be as simple as the assumption that despite variance in individual perceptions of the world, it is measurably consistent (or consistent enough) such that a practice that seeks to model consistent relationships actually works.

I was trying to characterize scientific knowledge as relatively free from subjective bias. Perhaps that's so obvious that it's trivial, but it seems to be under contention in this thread.

"Can you give an example?"

I know that I'm not supposed to post links, but your question is answered as follows:

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience

I am talking here about experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are spiritual. As I posted to another response,

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience

It is not a subjective state if it has correspondences with things that exist outside of one's head.

I just haven't really encountered this kind of "scientism". I'm aware there are a few zealots in every camp, but they hardly define the set. "The only way of understanding the world" is a bit strong for such a broad claim. I think on average it would go something like "the best way we have of understanding the external world". It's certainly not the only way, and "world" can be divided into many niches, some of which don't lend well to measurement and methodological inquiry. — VagabondSpectre

Boy, your experience is different from mine. I think maybe your term "external world" is the give away. For most of the scientifically inclined, the external world is the only real world. The internal world is just an artifact of the material world and is given a dismissive wave of the hand. As the prime example, in their way of thinking, the mind is the brain.

What human values has science founded itself upon? Induction itself somehow? — VagabondSpectre

Well, most obviously, the scientific approach emphasizes the physical world to the exclusion of anything else. That's a decision based on a particular set of human values. It's not based on some sort of objective necessity. That emphasis is a reflection of a belief in the encompassing importance of the control of nature for the benefit of humankind.

What are you trying to get at? That the assertion "god exists" is just as scientific as the assertion "force is equivalent to mass times acceleration"?

I can assure you there's a difference: one is actually testable, specifically measurable, and semantically consistent. The other is not falsifiable whatsoever, vague, immeasurable, and semantically incoherent (on its own). — VagabondSpectre

I've never been talking about the existence of god. I've always talked about the experience of a phenomenon we, some of us, call god. Human experience vs. so called objective truth. It's ridiculous to say "Based on my system of values and methods, which denies anything which is not included in the external world, I deny the existence of something which is not included in the external world."

I'm old enough to know my arse from my elbow, and that's all you need to know, Sonny Jim.

Skepticism basically demands strong justification for ALL claims being made. Has spiritualism and religion passed that test? No!

Of course one may cite many personal experiences of the divine but what is not physically detectable falls into mere speculation - imagination runs wild and a world of fantastical entities and events are born. The point to note is where evidence is lacking, especially physical evidence, my theory is as good as yours or anyone else's for that matter. How the hell are you going to find the truth.

I'm not a hardcore physicalist but for the reasons mentioned above I prefer to be skeptical. Physicalists could be wrong but it isn't about getting it right; it's about proper method to acquiring truths. Wouldn't a spiritualist need proof to convince him/herself?

Conscious Sensory Experience seems to be in a Category of Phenomena that is not part of any known Category of Scientific Phenomena. — SteveKlinko

Cognitive science studies sensory experience. There is some ambiguity in your terminology. There can be no sensory experience that is not a conscious experience. A category of phenomena would be a category of things known via experience.