25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerDon't you find it strange that you have to resort to such fantastic scenarios like a God impersonating other God just to make a tangential point about science's inability to learn about God?
Or he has fooled you into not being one since he and the Christian god are one and the same...
I thought you believed your God was a straight-shooter. Why shouldn't He have an effect on the world that science could see?
25 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaBecause that would leave no room for faith.
Why shouldn't He have an effect on the world that science could see?
Faith is required because it is the only way to explain select, undeserving people, getting into heaven being compatible with a just and fair God. (ie you can 'work' for your place in heaven by having faith).
25 May 11
The answer to the question posed by the title of the thread:
“Can we use "Science" to find all the answers? “
is “No” and anyone who thinks the answer is “yes” or at least thinks it is 'supposed' to be “yes” has totally misunderstood the nature of science -science does not claim to be able to give answers to all questions but can ONLY hope to answer those questions that can be answered by means of evidence or logic and not any other kind of question. Science cannot, for example, ever disprove that there is a spaghetti monster.
25 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI disagree. Science can potentially investigate anything and everything. In fact, anything that cannot be investigated by science, does not exist (more or less cut off by Occams razor).
The answer to the question posed by the title of the thread:
“Can we use "Science" to find all the answers? “
is “No” and anyone who thinks the answer is “yes” or at least thinks it is 'supposed' to be “yes” has totally misunderstood the nature of science -science does not claim to be able to give answers to all questions but can ONLY hope to ...[text shortened]... d of question. Science cannot, for example, ever disprove that there is a spaghetti monster.
Further, if the spaghetti monster is defined in certain ways, it is trivial to disprove his existence. What it is impossible to disprove is the non-existence of an undefined entity.(and this is how 'God' generally escapes most proofs against him) But since the entity is not defined it is somewhat meaningless to discuss its existence in the first place.
25 May 11
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadDepends what you mean by “thing”—if you mean any and every concept or idea(e.g. beauty) then I don’t think you can do it without some form of question-begging: e.g., either (1) by fiat excluding “beauty” from all consideration, or (2) by a priori defining beauty in such a way that it becomes amenable to objective measurement (and excluding, again by fiat) any alternative definition.
I disagree. Science can potentially investigate anything and everything. In fact, anything that cannot be investigated by science, does not exist (more or less cut off by Occams razor).
Further, if the spaghetti monster is defined in certain ways, it is trivial to disprove his existence. What it is impossible to disprove is the non-existence of an unde entity is not defined it is somewhat meaningless to discuss its existence in the first place.
That is, I think that one can study scientifically the physiological/neurological responses associated with certain aesthetic notions or states. But I doubt that science can discover an objective criteria that (a) I would be compelled rationally to accept, and (b) would determine that my claim that my wife is beautiful is in error. That would be tantamount to suggesting that the measureable physiological/neurological responses that I have when I see my wife are either (i) inconsistent with a “true” definition of beauty, or (ii) simply erroneous responses to what is not actually beautiful—i.e., I am deluded or confused on the matter.
I would generally exclude aesthetic claims from scientific investigation in the same way as I exclude them from propositional truth claims; they are different modes of discourse.
EDIT: I do, however, agree with the position you have articulated before about any effect that the putative supernatural can have on the natural realm, is then to be treated as natural and investigated as such. That is, the whole notion of the “supernatural” becomes superfluous for investigating any aspect of the natural cosmos. (Not sure that I’ve done your argument justice here, though.)
25 May 11
Originally posted by vistesdHow can there be a definition that is not amenable to objective measurement? Sure, you can play the age old shifting definition game that those who say you cannot disprove God use, but how is such an intangible meaning of 'beauty' any use to anyone?
Depends what you mean by “thing”—if you mean any and every concept or idea(e.g. beauty) then I don’t think you can do it without some form of question-begging: e.g., either (1) by fiat excluding “beauty” from all consideration, or (2) by a priori defining beauty in such a way that it becomes amenable to objective measurement (and excluding, again by fiat) any alternative definition.
I realize that 'beauty' may be relative and 'in the eye of the beholder', but that should not exclude it from scientific inquiry. It may not even be fully measurable. We may not be able to decide whether one thing is more beautiful than another, but that should not stop us investigating things such as what is it about something that we find beautiful.
That is, I think that one can study scientifically the physiological/neurological responses associated with certain aesthetic notions or states. But I doubt that science can discover an objective criteria that (a) I would be compelled rationally to accept, and (b) would determine that my claim that my wife is beautiful is in error.
But that seems to me to be an error in your understanding of beauty(or your definition), not an inability of science to study it. If beauty is in the eye of the beholder then we should not try to 'determine that my claim that my wife is beautiful is in error' but rather take your word for it. But it may be that she is only beautiful to some observers. So how is 'what you believe to be beautiful' not an objective criteria?
I would generally exclude aesthetic claims from scientific investigation in the same way as I exclude them from propositional truth claims;
I think you are making an error by suggesting that aesthetic claims are essentially properties of the objects observed when in reality they are either properties of the observer or an interaction of properties of the observer and properties of the observed. Your wife is not beautiful unless she has been observed and only then, if that observer finds her beautiful, thus it is not really the case that your wife has a property called 'beautiful' but rather that she is categorized as beautiful when her properties are compared with the criteria in your mind for 'beautiful things'. We should in theory be able to determine scientifically whether or not another woman would also be beautiful to you without you ever seeing her in advance.
25 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet me work backwards:
How can there be a definition that is not amenable to objective measurement? Sure, you can play the age old shifting definition game that those who say you cannot disprove God use, but how is such an intangible meaning of 'beauty' any use to anyone?
I realize that 'beauty' may be relative and 'in the eye of the beholder', but that should not exclude it f other woman would also be beautiful to you without you ever seeing her in advance.
I think you are making an error by suggesting that aesthetic claims are essentially properties of the objects observed when in reality they are either properties of the observer or an interaction of properties of the observer and properties of the observed. Your wife is not beautiful unless she has been observed and only then, if that observer finds her beautiful, thus it is not really the case that your wife has a property called 'beautiful' but rather that she is categorized as beautiful when her properties are compared with the criteria in your mind for 'beautiful things'. We should in theory be able to determine scientifically whether or not another woman would also be beautiful to you without you ever seeing her in advance. (Italics mine.)
I agree with you here. Which may render further comments moot. I misunderstood—and unnecessarily limited—what you were saying. So on that, I stand corrected. (Dammit! 😉 )
How can there be a definition that is not amenable to objective measurement?
Is the definition of what it means to measure subject to objective measurement? Is (the word/concept) “measurement” amenable to objective measurement? Does any non-measureable “definition” of the word “measurement” fail?
___________________________________________
The later Wittgenstein rejected the notion of the early Wittgenstein that a thoroughly logical/objective language was possible. All discourse takes place within “language games”. These can be identified (as you identified the error in my “language game”—applying the wrong “game rules” to scientific inquiry of “beauty&rdquo😉, but—as you also point out in terms of my error—one language game cannot be simply mixed with another. Since I have been arguing that for a long time, my error is doubly embarrassing.
I simply do not put religious discourse in the same “language game” as that of propositional truth claims; I generally think that is an error of religionists, who then get caught in all sorts of logical contradictions. I should have said that, and only that—and then shut up.
26 May 11
Originally posted by vistesdMaybe I should say that if something cannot be measured (by definition) then proper scientific analysis would not include an attempt to measure it.
Is the definition of what it means to measure subject to objective measurement? Is (the word/concept) “measurement” amenable to objective measurement? Does any non-measureable “definition” of the word “measurement” fail?
I also should have taken your comment:
Depends what you mean by “thing”
more seriously and realized that some things, like say a work of fictional literature, would not be properly studied with science.
26 May 11
Originally posted by twhitehead“...In fact, anything that cannot be investigated by science, does not exist (more or less cut off by Occams razor). ...”
I disagree. Science can potentially investigate anything and everything. In fact, anything that cannot be investigated by science, does not exist (more or less cut off by Occams razor).
Further, if the spaghetti monster is defined in certain ways, it is trivial to disprove his existence. What it is impossible to disprove is the non-existence of an unde ...[text shortened]... entity is not defined it is somewhat meaningless to discuss its existence in the first place.
Yes, I think that is generally a very reasonable assumption.
But science cannot disprove anything that cannot be investigated by science.
26 May 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBut it must in turn, not have any measurable effect on anything we can observe. The error theists often make is to simultaneously use the fact that science cannot investigate something totally disconnected from the universe, (thus claiming that such a disconnected God may therefore exist), with a definition of God that has noticeable measurable effects on the universe.
But science cannot disprove anything that cannot be investigated by science.
26 May 11
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhich means that they cannot simultaneously maintain a god-concept that is both indefeasible by reason and empiricism, and a god-concept that is relevant to the natural universe—without contradiction, that is?
But it must in turn, not have any measurable effect on anything we can observe. The error theists often make is to simultaneously use the fact that science cannot investigate something totally disconnected from the universe, (thus claiming that such a disconnected God may therefore exist), with a definition of God that has noticeable measurable effects on the universe.
BTW, I took your name in vain in my last post on the Kalam thread…. 🙂
27 May 11
Originally posted by PalynkaGod has had many effects on the world and its people.
Don't you find it strange that you have to resort to such fantastic scenarios like a God impersonating other God just to make a tangential point about science's inability to learn about God?
I thought you believed your God was a straight-shooter. Why shouldn't He have an effect on the world that science could see?
The first major effect after the creation was the world
wide flood. The second was Judaism. The third was
Christianity. All that needs to be done is verify the
world wide flood, Judaism, and Christianity.
27 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThat would not be sufficient. One would have to, at a minimum, show that the existence of God is the best available explanation for the three phenomena.
God has had many effects on the world and its people.
The first major effect after the creation was the world
wide flood. The second was Judaism. The third was
Christianity. All that needs to be done is verify the
world wide flood, Judaism, and Christianity.
After all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for the development of Noodles, the Atlantic Ocean, and the religion of Pastafarianism. All three are readily verified.
27 May 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadApparently, the existence of God is so obvious that your only
That would not be sufficient. One would have to, at a minimum, show that the existence of God is the best available explanation for the three phenomena.
After all, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is responsible for the development of Noodles, the Atlantic Ocean, and the religion of Pastafarianism. All three are readily verified.
recourse, to deny it, is to resort to the illogical humor of the
flying spaghetti monster again. How miserable you must be.
Poor Twighthead. Everyone, have pitty on him.
27 May 11
Originally posted by RJHindsApparently your logic is so poor, that you have no recourse but to resort to assuming I am using illogical humor. How miserable you must be. Poor RJHinds. Everyone, have pity on him.
Apparently, the existence of God is so obvious that your only
recourse, to deny it, is to resort to the illogical humor of the
flying spaghetti monster again. How miserable you must be.
Poor Twighthead. Everyone, have pitty on him.
Actually, we should pity you more for the fact that you seem incapable of admitting when you have made an error. Its obvious to everyone that the existence of a religion is not proof or even significant evidence that the the deity the followers believe in, started said religion. Yet that is effectively what you claimed. You realize now the error you made but will never admit it.