The Hiding God.

Originally posted by vistesd
I tend to agree with Bosse. I think your insistence on “scientific” knowledge is a bit narrow (depending on how you define that term).

I think it is my definition of the term that is at fault in causing confusion. I am not even insisting on scientific knowledge. What I am trying to say is that one of the basic principles of science - to find the most reasonable explanation - is used by almost everyone in their every day experience of the universe - yet theists simultaneously claim they are using it and that God is not subject to it.

I say: “That painting is beautiful to me.” On what basis will you claim that that statement is not true? By what criteria will you claim that I am mistaken? (Two different questions. This of course is in the realm of aesthetics.)
I wonder if you can be mistaken. If you think it is beautiful to you then it is beautiful to you.

We can only know the universe by applying the grammar of our consciousness to the syntax of the universe as we are able to perceive it. I see no reason to suppose that we are the singular species for whom the grammar of our consciousness is exhaustive of the universal syntax. There may well be a domain of mystery—we may even intuit that there is—about which we can say nothing at all.
I fully agree with you. But the issue is not whether or not there exists things that we can know nothing about. The issue is whether or not evidence for such unknowable things is really evidence at all or whether it is a product of our desires. If the mystery is so unknowable then what on earth does 'evidence' mean?

I think that theists (and other spiritually minded people) should admit that either what they consider to be evidence can and should be subject to analysis or should be discarded as a product of their own desires.
Either you have good reason to believe something or you don't. You cant have it both ways.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I think that theists (and other spiritually minded people) should admit that either what they consider to be evidence can and should be subject to analysis or should be discarded as a product of their own desires.
Either you have good reason to believe something or you don't. You cant have it both ways.

Opposing science and religion is a category mistake. “Theology and science can in principle not contradict each other, since from the outset they differ in their subject matter and in their method" (Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations XV). That's why creationism has no place in science class and why science ought not to be invoked in questions of ethics.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Opposing science and religion is a category mistake. “Theology and science can in principle not contradict each other, since from the outset they differ in their subject matter and in their method" (Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations XV). That's why creationism has no place in science class and why science ought not to be invoked in questions of ethics.

Ethics is religion? Theists may claim it is so but that does not make it so.

I am not opposing science and religion in this thread. I am arguing that people either knowingly or unknowingly frequently contradict themselves when it comes to evidence for religion. I am however arguing against your quote, specifically "...and in their method". I am arguing that there is only one reasonable method of investigation despite the frequent claims to the contrary. I am also saying that you are free to believe what you want to believe but why not admit the real reasons for doing so instead of making contradictory claims. Why claim that you can 'know' something by alternative non-scientific means? Why is Karl Rahner in your quote trying to separate the two?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why is Karl Rahner in your quote trying to separate the two?

Because that has been the case for rather a long time. It goes back at least as far as William of Ockham. He argued that it would be better for empiricists to focus on nature than use their method in a vain search for God, when such as search is plainly a category mistake (the title of this thread is a clue as to why this should be so). This was much to the benefit of science.

I agree that people who seek to conflate theology and science are barking up the wrong tree, whether it is to use science as a prop or whip for religion.

You should support this point of view, since it makes theology irrelevant in scientific matters (and vice-versa, but that is of no interest to you).

If you're particularly interested in these matters, I refer you to Kant.

Edit -- I didn't claim that ethics and religion are synonymous. I wish ethics were taught at school. Of course, religious people have been known to use their religion as a means to access ethical ground, often going against the orthodox grain in order to do so.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What I am trying to say is that one of the basic principles of science - to find the most reasonable explanation - is used by almost everyone in their every day experience of the universe - yet theists simultaneously claim they are using it and that God is not subject to it.

That may or may not be the case. It all depends on what you consider reasonable. Newton thought it self-evident that the universe was created by God; to him, God's constant intervention in nature was a reasonable assumption. Yet he was almost single-handedly responsible for introducing empirical rigour into scientific method, ultimately leading to the ascension of a materialist orthodoxy which ridicules such views as his (particularly his obsession with the Book of Revelations). That the founding father of empirical science should have been an irrationalist of the worst sort is the sort of paradox I relish.

And as zahlanzi has already pointed out, to most reasonable people, the geocentric universe was a self-evident fact, so 'the most reasonable explanation' is no guaranteed yardstick for truth.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'd call it a straw dog.

Call it what you like. A lie detector test has nothing to do with whether or not feelings can be studied scientifically - and you know it.

The results of scientific studies tend to confirm the biases of the researcher (unless you subscibe to the myth of 'objective' science). Which school of thought do you adhere to when it comes to emotional theory -- the social constructionist or naturalistic?
Neither as I know nothing about either of them.

I don't get your point. Are you claiming that we cannot study feelings in a scientific manner? If so what manner do you use to study them? What methodology? Think about it for a bit.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Because that has been the case for rather a long time. It goes back at least as far as William of Ockham. He argued that it would be better for empiricists to focus on nature than use their method in a vain search for God, when such as search is plainly a category mistake (the title of this thread is a clue as to why this should be so). This was much to the benefit of science.

What do you mean by "category mistake"?

Edit -- I didn't claim that ethics and religion are synonymous.
You certainly seemed to imply it. You gave a quote about religion and science being unmixable and then concluded that science and ethics should be taught in different classrooms.

I wish ethics were taught at school. Of course, religious people have been known to use their religion as a means to access ethical ground, often going against the orthodox grain in order to do so.
The issue was not whether ethics should be taught in school but whether or not it can be mixed with science.

I think ethics fits into my argument too. We should stop trying to pretend that ethics is some natural property of the universe and accept that to a large extent it is based on what we want to be the case and not what is the case.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
And as zahlanzi has already pointed out, to most reasonable people, the geocentric universe was a self-evident fact, so 'the most reasonable explanation' is no guaranteed yardstick for truth.

I am not claiming that it is a guaranteed yardstick. I am claiming however that it is the only reasonable yardstick and that anything else is nothing more than random guesswork - or more often the creation of our desire.

To illustrate my point let me ask: do you believe the story of Noah in the Bible?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think the problem is that I have not been able to explain my argument properly. Let my try again.
I am not asking for proof of God.
I am not talking about a scientific experiment in which conclusive proof of God is found.
What I am saying that any evidence of any kind whatsoever, can be looked at in a scientific manner and the scientific way is alway ...[text shortened]... fic scrutiny and ignores our results.
But this contradicts his own claims about his experience.

The evidence is subject to scrutiny but nothing much is going to be proven via scientific experiment. Most of the evidence for God exists in a very intimate and personaly way with the individual.

What might help you would be if you realised that the Bible talks about "knowing God" rather than " knowing that God exists". My understanding is that the word "know (A)" in the Bible is derived from the Yiddish term to know as in to "know" a person intimately (like a wife) and to be in relationship with them.

This is not the same "know (B)" that is derived from the greek "to know something exists intellectually or to know the logic of it" .

It's very important to understand the difference between these two kinds of knowing. The greek "know" (B) leads to a rational knowing or scientific knowing. The problem is that even if the evidence was conclusive for God and we could "know" that he existed scientifically - there would still be a gap. We might still not know God at all just in the same way as I might know that my wife exists scientifically but might at the same time have no intimacy (eg- "You just don't know me" )

My problem is that all your talk of science and evidence is all very well , but it's not the whole deal for theists because once a person "knows" God *(A) then the evidence issue seems less important. The evidence is written on their own heart.

I understand this will mean little to you because you have invested a lot in the scientific world view , but given the choice what would you rather have ? - knowledge of God's existence or a deep knowing of God's intimate love for you? ( don't say both)

Originally posted by twhitehead
What do you mean by "category mistake"?////I think ethics fits into my argument too. We should stop trying to pretend that ethics is some natural property of the universe and accept that to a large extent it is based on what we [b]want to be the case and not what is the case.[/b]

Just Google it.

As to your final point -- Wittgenstein (among others) would disagree (just Google it). Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd take one Wittgenstein over 10 000 twhiteheads.

You're arguing 'science' but are ignorant of how important streams of thought in science differ on topics such as emotion and clearly can't be bothered to inform yourself on the topic, yet you take yourself seriously? Pshaw.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not claiming that it is a guaranteed yardstick. I am claiming however that it is the only reasonable yardstick and that anything else is nothing more than random guesswork - or more often the creation of our desire.

To illustrate my point let me ask: do you believe the story of Noah in the Bible?

Yes, so you claim. Go ahead and substantiate your claim.

Noah? As literal fact, no. And? The story wasn't treated as literal fact until the advent of Biblical literalism, after Luther. Are you a fanatical Protestant?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't get your point. Are you claiming that we cannot study feelings in a scientific manner? If so what manner do you use to study them? What methodology? Think about it for a bit.

You have to make a methodological choice; there's no chance of arriving at some objective 'natural law of emotion' via experiment, because the data have to be interpreted by somebody. Absent an infallible interpreter, people are going to disagree -- as scientists do, on the field of emotion, in practice.

'Think about it for a bit.' You patronising egghead!

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Just Google it.

As to your final point -- Wittgenstein (among others) would disagree (just Google it). Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd take one Wittgenstein over 10 000 twhiteheads.

You're arguing 'science' but are ignorant of how important streams of thought in science differ on topics such as emotion and clearly can't be bothered to inform yourself on the topic, yet you take yourself seriously? Pshaw.

In other words you cant be bothered to even give a basic summary. I guess you simply want to avoid discussing what you cant defend.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Noah? As literal fact, no. And? The story wasn't treated as literal fact until the advent of Biblical literalism, after Luther. Are you a fanatical Protestant?

OK. Why do you not think it is literal fact. And what are the people who think it is, doing wrong? Maybe your a making a category mistake and don't realize that they are right.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You have to make a methodological choice; there's no chance of arriving at some objective 'natural law of emotion' via experiment, because the data have to be interpreted by somebody. Absent an infallible interpreter, people are going to disagree -- as scientists do, on the field of emotion, in practice.

You simply avoided the question. You have told me already that you don't think emotions can be studied scientifically. But you are avoiding admitting that you have no alternative.