Responding to physicist Sean Carroll's lecture (continued from Monday) [1]
He goes on talking about how science gives scientific answers and religion doesn't. why shout it? it;s not science, but this is all under the mistaken assumption that God is necessary beings necessary to expatiate the world rather than necessary to himself.
He turns to the origin of the universe, God is said to have created the whole universe at once, while science shows BB is not the beginning. He continues to assert that science gives plausible theories and belief in God does not. He asserts the universe could be eternal but I've ample reasons in scientific literature not to accept that.[2] We don't have to think of the BB as the moment of creation nor do we have to think of creation as coming in one moment. The notion of eternal universe comes with multiverse but that is never going to be proven.
He thinks that streaking explanations back infinitely in time really explains the whole
"We don't need God to Explain the Oregon of the universe."
He asserts that "we should judge God by the same standards that we judge other theories."
why should we do that? God is not just another theory he;s not a scientific theory, The point of belief in God is not merely to explain the universe.
He says the best argument on the empirical basis is fine tuning so of course he asserts that it;s not sensible to ask the question--we just happen to be it why wonder about it? He does admit sounds like a cop out. if course he offers an-alternative to asking the question in that other kinds of life could exist and so the parameters wouldn't be that tailored just for us. then he argues the multiverse
He explores possibility that life is a lot more generic than we think it is: meaning the parameters would not need to be that fine turned to get life, He asserts that no one on either side knows the full extent of variables to decide the issue
then he explores multiverse using Bayes [the illusion of technique he gives the impression that math is disproving God in reality its just showing off nothing,]
He doesn't point out that belief in MV is belief in something not empirically demonstrated.
Gives the impression that proving multiverse disproves God, he does not say that, it doesn't it only disproves some God argument, if it does that.
MV is not a theory but is the consequence of other theories that;s supposed to make it more real
He us answering quote from Swinburne who says MV asserts Trillions of worlds just to assert a couple of factors in our world. Carroll says you don't fault theories because thy entail lots of things in them.
He asserts we judge plausibility of MV by plausibility of inflation. which totally accepted idea. even though he;s admitted that;s not proven.
No matter how plausible no matter how low the probability of MV it;s still belief in non empirical theory which flys in the face of all atheists argue for. It's a Trumpanity, betrayal of their most sacred principle to support their overall cause.. See my defense of Fine tuning argument. (see also my answers on Multiverse).
Futhermore, the best mechanism for multiverses that last, actually requires fine-tuning itself. The chaotic inflationary model - which seeks to avoid fine-tuning by positing that the initial conditions vary at random over the superspace of the Higgs fields - also fine-tunes its parameters, as Earman has pointed out: "The inflationary model can succeed only by fine-tuning its parameters, and even then, relative to some natural measures on initial conditions, it may also have to fine-tune its initial conditions for inflation to work."[3]
co-author in inflationary theoryPhysicist Paul Steinhardt agrees:“The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved."[4]
Now Carroll wants to do Bayes on God. (Bayes completeness theorem, pronounced Baze).
"Is God Best Explanation for Data we see?" As with Bayes he is going to use this to set the prior for God. The way Bayes works is first one advances a prior probability that can be a guess or based upon anything we know. Then one takes further soundings as new info come in, Like a gunner finding his range by continually firing over and under the target,
He admits if God exists we should see life. if God exists then life should exist
Carroll: "Data other than life get God into trouble as a hypothesis entrap of early universe did not need to be so low for life to exist, so universe not what we would imagine if God is there." He's playing off Gods 'interest" against random occurrences in fomentation of entropy
That's a foolish prediction low entropy is not essential to life that doesn't mean there;s no fine tuning it just means all factors are not part of FT. See my article answering Bayes. [5]
At end he plays off sin and degradation against expectations of the divine no reference to the fall
He appeals to Multiverse to answer the one argument or God he admits is good and can't be disproved that is Fine Tuning. He also admits the Multiverse cant be proved. So the only answer he has to the one God argent that can't be disproved can;t be proven. One would think that he would at least admit to a draw on God's existence. But no he is willing too accept a lesser standard than empirical, which is an absolute contradiction to what most atheists say.
That is no different than me putting faith in God to fill the gaps the evidence and logic don''t cover as long I have some basis in the evidence and logic to extend faith from.
Notes
[1]Sean Carroll, "God is not a Good Theory." Video You Tube (Published on Jun 5, 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew_cNONhhKI (accessed 5/10/19)
from 2nd mini-series (Is "God" Explanatory) from the "Philosophy of Cosmology" project. A University of Oxford and Cambridge Collaboration.
https://youtu.be/ew_cNONhhKI
this half starts at at [21:56]
[2] The Bible makes it sound like creation was instant but that need not be the case, ?The Beginning" could be a process that took time or "the heavens and the earth" might refer only to our space/time which is emergent in an instant from big bag. God ca do a lot of things in eternity.
Adrian Cho, "Stphen Hawkimg's (almost) last Paper; Pitting an edge to the beginning of the universe." Science (May. 2, 2018 ) https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/stephen-hawking-s-almost-last-paper-putting-end-beginning-universe (accessed 5/12/19 )
Cho says, "Borrowing a concept from string theory, Hawking and Hertog argue that there is no eternal inflation and only one universe. But what they’re driving at is something even more basic: They’re claiming that our universe never had a singular moment of creation."
an older article:
Staff . "Mathematics of Eternity prove The universe must have had a beginning" MIT Technology Review, (Apr 24, 2012)
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/
Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way. They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.[3]John Earman. Bangs, Crunches, Wimpers, and Shrieks: Singularities and Acausalities in Relativistic Spacetimes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995., p. 156) So rather than avoid fine-tuning, the multiverse pushes it up a level.
[4] John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blogs, December 1, 2014. on line, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ accessed 10/5/15. Horgan interviews Steinhardt.
[5] JLH "Bayes Thorium and probability of God, no Dice." The Religious A Proiori (no date)
http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2013/02/bayes-theorum-and-probablity-of-god-no.html
(acess 5/12/19)
Index of my articles on Bayes
27 comments:
This is another example of the thinking that science is the only category in which to think about anything, and God doesn't fit very well in the category. Since the starting assumption is that science is the only category that anyone can possibly think in, God (not fitting in the category) can't be real. The assumption itself is never examined or tested. And this within a mindset that is supposed to be about testing and examining everything.
That's a great observation Kristen. It leads to a fun recursion because how could you test it? If you use science it;s untested if you use some other method it violates the premise.
Great!
So anyone can say anything is real! No need to support the claim - we can just say it is religion, not science! Now I can get 100% in every test.
Or maybe not.
Science is not the only approach to knowledge, but it is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience). We can claim any religion is true, but ultimately no religion is any more supported than the rest. That is in stark contrast to scientific claims that are tentatively accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence and testing.
Pix
So anyone can say anything is real! No need to support the claim - we can just say it is religion, not science! Now I can get 100% in every test.
The obvious answer is to admit there are other forms of knowledge. I think God is real because his reality was proven to me in many ways including scientifically
Or maybe not.
there you go
Science is not the only approach to knowledge, but it is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience).
That is nonsense. A big question is "what happens to us when we die," Science has no way of answering that. What science tells us about that question every human has known since way before science existed.
We can claim any religion is true, but ultimately no religion is any more supported than the rest. That is in stark contrast to scientific claims that are tentatively accepted or rejected on the basis of evidence and testing.
Religion is an existential and phenomenological matter. It's a matter of which religion speaks to you. It's truth is intersubective.
Anonymous seems to making the exact same, unquestioned assumptions that we've been talking about, Metacrock.
Anonymous, you say, "Science is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience)." This assumes that the "big questions of the nature of the universe" are all the kinds of questions that science can answer. But science's answer to "What happens to us when we die?" can go no further than, "Our bodies decay." If science alone is allowed to answer the question, then the assumption that these decaying bodies are all that we are (which is actually a metaphysical, non-scientific, assumption), is allowed to be considered "scientific" and thus to answer the big question. But what if this assumption is false? What if some of the "big questions" really CAN'T be even addressed by science? After all, science itself cannot be used to establish that everything that exists can be established by science.
The problem with using science as if it can answer metaphysical questions, is that it violates science's very principle of "test everything." TEST the assumption that science can answer metaphysical questions-- that science has somehow proven that our bodies are all we are.
Keeping this assumption is like saying, "I used this ruler to check the air pressure in this room. Since the ruler showed nothing, I can confidently say that air pressure doesn't actually exist." You're using the wrong tool. Science is the wrong tool to answer metaphysical questions.
You're right that the forms of knowledge that apply to metaphysical questions aren't "reliable" in the way science is-- this is why Metacrock often speaks of "rational warrant" to believe, not proof. But that kind of reliability isn't possible for metaphysical conclusions, and it doesn't need to be. If you believe that our bodies are all we are, you are actually thinking metaphysically, and you can't prove your belief scientifically-- and that's ok. You don't have to believe in God; I would just encourage you to not think science has answered the God question.
Joe: The obvious answer is to admit there are other forms of knowledge. I think God is real because his reality was proven to me in many ways including scientifically
Sure there are other forms of knowledge. There is wishful thinking, for example. There is making stuff up or just simply guessing. However, science is the only one that gives us a high level of assurance it is right.
And, ironically, is the only one to acknowledge it could be wrong.
Joe: That is nonsense. A big question is "what happens to us when we die," Science has no way of answering that. What science tells us about that question every human has known since way before science existed.
No one has any way of reliably answering that question. Sure we have wishful thinking and guessing, but neither give us any assurance that they are right.
What they give is the delusion of a certain answer.
Joe: It's a matter of which religion speaks to you. It's truth is intersubective.
And so we conclude they are all true?
Pix
Kristen: You're right that the forms of knowledge that apply to metaphysical questions aren't "reliable" in the way science is-- this is why Metacrock often speaks of "rational warrant" to believe, not proof. But that kind of reliability isn't possible for metaphysical conclusions, and it doesn't need to be. If you believe that our bodies are all we are, you are actually thinking metaphysically, and you can't prove your belief scientifically-- and that's ok. You don't have to believe in God; I would just encourage you to not think science has answered the God question.
U think you nailed it
"And, ironically, is the only one to acknowledge it could be wrong."
Science is certainly not the only discipline that acknowledges it could be wrong. Theology and philosophy both do. And thoughtful religious people almost always acknowledge that they have doubts, and that they sometimes have to rethink philosophical or theological positions. There are thoughtless religious people who assert complete certainty about everything, but there are also thoughtless atheists who do the same.
What you're actually expressing, Anonymous, is a good deal of misunderstanding of religious people and the religious approach to life. You seem to think we're all ultra-fundamentalists, shouting about being right. Are you willing to review the evidence that you think supports the idea that all religious people think this way? If not, then what you're practicing is called "prejudice."
Anonymous said...
Joe: The obvious answer is to admit there are other forms of knowledge. I think God is real because his reality was proven to me in many ways including scientifically
Sure there are other forms of knowledge. There is wishful thinking, for example. There is making stuff up or just simply guessing. However, science is the only one that gives us a high level of assurance it is right.
You really classify falsehood and fantasy as "knowledge?" That's utter reductionism. Show me a scientific test that proves that "a" is not "non a?"
And, ironically, is the only one to acknowledge it could be wrong.
That what could be?
Joe: That is nonsense. A big question is "what happens to us when we die," Science has no way of answering that. What science tells us about that question every human has known since way before science existed.
No one has any way of reliably answering that question. Sure we have wishful thinking and guessing, but neither give us any assurance that they are right.
How do yo determine the nature of reliability in that context without Philosophical parameters. Show me a scientific test that tells us what that means?
For example. I think reliable means I can live concomitantly with the results. I can live o with the experiences I have had what I term "God's presence" understood in a theological context for presence, show me how science proves or disproves that context?
What they give is the delusion of a certain answer.
How can you prove it's a "delusion" if you can't define the the context?
Joe: It's a matter of which religion speaks to you. It's truth is intersubective.
And so we conclude they are all true?
they are all pointing to truth, apparently you don't understand the concept of "inter-subjective" it doesn't mean true, or false.
Pix, according to what you've said you must think only empirical knowledge counts as knowledge? so yo are jut raging for asceticism.
Kristen: Anonymous seems to making the exact same, unquestioned assumptions that we've been talking about, Metacrock.
They are not assumptions.
Kristen: Anonymous, you say, "Science is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience)." This assumes that the "big questions of the nature of the universe" are all the kinds of questions that science can answer. But science's answer to "What happens to us when we die?" can go no further than, "Our bodies decay."
Where do I make that assumption? I agree science cannot answer that question. That does not invalidate my claim.
Kristen: If science alone is allowed to answer the question...
Not what I said. I said it was the only approach that is reliable. You are "allowed" to use tea leaves or Tarot cards or astrology. But your answers will be unreliable.
Kristen: You're right that the forms of knowledge that apply to metaphysical questions aren't "reliable" in the way science is-- this is why Metacrock often speaks of "rational warrant" to believe, not proof.
And yet Joe routinely demands his opponents prove their claims! Heaven forbid the playing field should be level.
Rational warrant is a bit of trickery that magically converts what is possible into a fact. It is saying that X is plausible, therefore we have rational warrant to believe it, and therefore we can feel comfortable be completely certain it happened. In reality, if something is, say, 30% like to be be true, the conclusion is that it is 30% likely to be true, not that it is 100% certain to be true.
Rational warrant is a way for theists to pretend they can be certain their personal beliefs are true.
Pix
Joe: You really classify falsehood and fantasy as "knowledge?" That's utter reductionism. Show me a scientific test that proves that "a" is not "non a?"
Not sure what you mean here. If a person believes something, but it is not true, what do we call that? Does the person have knowledge that is wrong? I think this is a language problem, maybe?
Joe: That what could be?
Science acknowledges it could be wrong. Religion does not. And yet, the claims of science are far better supported.
Joe: How do yo determine the nature of reliability in that context without Philosophical parameters. Show me a scientific test that tells us what that means?
For example. I think reliable means I can live concomitantly with the results. I can live o with the experiences I have had what I term "God's presence" understood in a theological context for presence, show me how science proves or disproves that context?
Again, this may be a language issue; "reliable" may not have been the best choice of words.
What I mean is how certain we can be of a claim, and how justified that certainty is.
People can clearly live perfectly well thinking the world if flat, despite it being wrong. They may be completely certain of that, but we can say that that certainty is not at all justified. Their claim is - for want of a better word - very unreliable.
Joe: they are all pointing to truth, apparently you don't understand the concept of "inter-subjective" it doesn't mean true, or false.
My bad. I thought this was all about whether the existence of God was true or false. If you are merely claiming it is "inter-subjective" then sure, whatever, I agree.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Kristen: Anonymous seems to making the exact same, unquestioned assumptions that we've been talking about, Metacrock.
They are not assumptions.
then prove them
Kristen: Anonymous, you say, "Science is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience)." This assumes that the "big questions of the nature of the universe" are all the kinds of questions that science can answer. But science's answer to "What happens to us when we die?" can go no further than, "Our bodies decay."
Where do I make that assumption? I agree science cannot answer that question. That does not invalidate my claim.
Kristen: If science alone is allowed to answer the question...
Not what I said. I said it was the only approach that is reliable. You are "allowed" to use tea leaves or Tarot cards or astrology. But your answers will be unreliable.
Nonsense! logic is reliable. logic is not science,
Kristen: You're right that the forms of knowledge that apply to metaphysical questions aren't "reliable" in the way science is-- this is why Metacrock often speaks of "rational warrant" to believe, not proof.
And yet Joe routinely demands his opponents prove their claims! Heaven forbid the playing field should be level.
I seek to prove my claims. If I can't proves something I find a way to soften claim so it's at a probable level. I don;t say "Gods existence is a fact" I say U have existential knowledge of God's existence
Rational warrant is a bit of trickery that magically converts what is possible into a fact. It is saying that X is plausible, therefore we have rational warrant to believe it, and therefore we can feel comfortable be completely certain it happened. In reality, if something is, say, 30% like to be be true, the conclusion is that it is 30% likely to be true, not that it is 100% certain to be true.
Yes it is saying we have a reason to believe it, Saying we have reason to believe X is not the same as saying X is a fact. I don't know where you get this. It's silly.
Rational warrant is a way for theists to pretend they can be certain their personal beliefs are true.
you are a brilliant guy my friend but you are a chemist not a logician. So I don't expect you to know. In under graduate school we studied a guy named Stephan Toulmin who had a notion about argumentation, He had "Toolman diagram" showing the parts of an argument, Here is a quote about it proving I'm not making it up.
"The Toulmin model breaks an argument down into six main parts: Claim: assertion one wishes to prove. Evidence: support or rationale for the claim. Warrant: the underlying connection between the claim and evidence, or why the evidence supports the claim."
Writer's Web: The Toulmin Model of Argumentation
writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/toulmin.html
no idea what he thought about religion but quite probable he was an atheist.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: You really classify falsehood and fantasy as "knowledge?" That's utter reductionism. Show me a scientific test that proves that "a" is not "non a?"
Not sure what you mean here. If a person believes something, but it is not true, what do we call that? Does the person have knowledge that is wrong? I think this is a language problem, maybe?
It's only your assertion that what we believe is not true. you are basing your views on assertion you take to be facts by shrouding them in the mystique of science,
Joe: That what could be?
Science acknowledges it could be wrong. Religion does not. And yet, the claims of science are far better supported.
why should it? It's revelation. That's for the individual blkiever to do as a matter of humility.
Joe: How do yo determine the nature of reliability in that context without Philosophical parameters. Show me a scientific test that tells us what that means?
For example. I think reliable means I can live concomitantly with the results. I can live o with the experiences I have had what I term "God's presence" understood in a theological context for presence, show me how science proves or disproves that context?
Again, this may be a language issue; "reliable" may not have been the best choice of words.
than what is your argument?
What I mean is how certain we can be of a claim, and how justified that certainty is.
I am certain enough of God's reality within my own precepts that I have based my life on it.I;m not trying to impose it on you.
People can clearly live perfectly well thinking the world if flat, despite it being wrong. They may be completely certain of that, but we can say that that certainty is not at all justified. Their claim is - for want of a better word - very unreliable.
True. it's still true in relation to all that you think. Your world might be wrong even in this day when you are right in so much science,
Joe: they are all pointing to truth, apparently you don't understand the concept of "inter-subjective" it doesn't mean true, or false.
My bad. I thought this was all about whether the existence of God was true or false. If you are merely claiming it is "inter-subjective" then sure, whatever, I agree.
I believe it's true, therefore, not false I also can't impose it on you since It's my belief and not yours
Warrant
A statement authorizing movement from the ground to the claim. In order to move from the ground established in 2, "I was born in Bermuda," to the claim in 1, "I am a British citizen," the person must supply a warrant to bridge the gap between 1 and 2 with the statement "A man born in Bermuda will legally be a British citizen." (3)
Joe: then prove them
Prove what? What assumptions do you think I made?
Joe: Nonsense! logic is reliable. logic is not science,
But it is abstract. What makes you think logic relates to the real world? Science.
Joe: I seek to prove my claims. If I can't proves something I find a way to soften claim so it's at a probable level. I don;t say "Gods existence is a fact" I say U have existential knowledge of God's existence
Can you even admit you could be wrong about God?
Joe: Yes it is saying we have a reason to believe it, Saying we have reason to believe X is not the same as saying X is a fact. I don't know where you get this. It's silly.
That is what you do. You have "rational warrant" for the existence of God. Can you admit you could be wrong, that it is possible Jesus was never resurrected, that the empty tomb was made up?
Joe: ...In under graduate school we studied a guy named Stephan Toulmin who had a notion about argumentation...
You use - or abuse - warrant in a different way to Toulmin.
Joe: It's only your assertion that what we believe is not true. you are basing your views on assertion you take to be facts by shrouding them in the mystique of science,
Where did I say they are not true? What I am saying here is that you have a false certainty that they are true.
Joe: I am certain enough of God's reality within my own precepts that I have based my life on it.I;m not trying to impose it on you.
You based your life on something you merely have warrant for? Oh, wait, If you have warrant, that magically makes it a certainty.
Joe: True. it's still true in relation to all that you think. Your world might be wrong even in this day when you are right in so much science,
Of course it is true of me too. Science could be wrong. However, science has a lot of scientific evidence to support it.
Pix
Anonymous said:
"Kristen: Anonymous, you say, "Science is the only reliable approach to the big questions of the nature of the universe (as opposed to the little questions we answer from direct experience)." This assumes that the "big questions of the nature of the universe" are all the kinds of questions that science can answer. But science's answer to "What happens to us when we die?" can go no further than, "Our bodies decay."
Where do I make that assumption? I agree science cannot answer that question. That does not invalidate my claim.
Kristen: If science alone is allowed to answer the question...
Not what I said. I said it was the only approach that is reliable. You are 'allowed' to use tea leaves or Tarot cards or astrology. But your answers will be unreliable."
Well, Anonymous, you said that science was "the only reliable approach" to the big questions of the nature of the universe." I inferred from that that you thought that science could reliably answer those questions. Since you agree that science cannot answer the question "what happens to us when we die," I must conclude that either you are not including it in the "big questions of the nature of the universe" that science can answer, or you believe that there is no "reliable" answer.
Do you, then think that any branch of human knowledge or discipline of study should try to look into the question? Or do you think philosophy and theology are no different from Tarot cards or astrology-- just unreliable fantasies, and we shouldn't even ask the question, since there is no reliable answer?
Pix: For me, and I think for Joe and Kristen, religion is true in a phenomenological and existential sense. It is this kind of truth that science does not and cannot deal with.
Science deals with a specific type of truth developed in the seventeenth century to answer a limited range of questions. Science covers a narrow part of the entire bandwidth of our encounter with reality.
Religion, along with philosophy, theology and the arts, is an attempt to make sense or our entire encounter with reality. Science succeeded precisely because it was able to isolate the phenomenon under investigation and eliminating everything else, especially the observer. Conscious experience was purposely left out of the picture.
You say that only science can give us 'reliable' knowledge, but this isn't true. There's nothing in science that can't be overturned or reformulated or re-interpreted. But what, on the other hand, is more certain than my encounter with my own experiences? And how could science, or any other human endeavor, be possible without it?
This isn't to say that the specific claims of religion are certain. That's a completely different matter. And as Kristen and Joe have said, religious faith is ful of doubt and uncertainty about these specific claims, but not about the sense of the numinous.
Kristen: Kristen: If science alone is allowed to answer the question...
Firstly, I never said only science is allowed to, and I made that expressly clear in a later post. That you are still wanting to promote this falsehood tells me a lot about your own position.
Secondly, if we suppose that only science is able to reliably answer questions, then the conclusion is that the question cannot currently be reliably answered.
Kristen: Well, Anonymous, you said that science was "the only reliable approach" to the big questions of the nature of the universe." I inferred from that that you thought that science could reliably answer those questions.
Okay. But note that I did NOT say only science was allowed to.
Kristen: Since you agree that science cannot answer the question "what happens to us when we die," I must conclude that either you are not including it in the "big questions of the nature of the universe" that science can answer, or you believe that there is no "reliable" answer.
The latter.
Kristen: Do you, then think that any branch of human knowledge or discipline of study should try to look into the question? Or do you think philosophy and theology are no different from Tarot cards or astrology-- just unreliable fantasies, and we shouldn't even ask the question, since there is no reliable answer?
I did not say that no reliable answer is possible. We currently have no reliable answer, but that should not stop people looking.
Theology has given us answers, but they really are just unreliable fantasies. Why should I believe the Christian version rather than the Buddist or Hindu version? We can see the development of the idea of the afterlife in Judaism and Christianity and track it to what the people wanted to be true. God had promised to look after the Hebrews, and yet, during the Babylonian captivity, their oppressors were living in luxury and dying of old age. What the Hebrews wanted was justice (as they saw) - for their enemies to suffer and their loved ones to be happy. So they invented an afterlife so they could pretend that would happen in some imagined future.
In what way is that methodology any different to Tarot cards or astrology?
7th: For me, and I think for Joe and Kristen, religion is true in a phenomenological and existential sense.
Can you explain what that means?
Saying religion is true in a phenomenological sense sounds like it is a mental construct, whilst in an existential sense kind of sounds like you believe religion exists. I agree with both, but suspect you mean something else.
7th: It is this kind of truth that science does not and cannot deal with.
That may well be true.
7th: Science deals with a specific type of truth developed in the seventeenth century to answer a limited range of questions. Science covers a narrow part of the entire bandwidth of our encounter with reality.
I think it covers quite a broad part, but okay.
7th: Religion, along with philosophy, theology and the arts, is an attempt to make sense or our entire encounter with reality.
Sure. But that does not mean it is right. It is telling that you include the arts. Why should I imagine any of these painting are true:
http://greekgodsparadise.com/2017/09/12/22-greek-myth-paintings-to-marvel-at-in-france/
Those paintings come from the imagination of the artist. The same is true of religion and philosophy. There is no reason to suppose they relate to the real world.
7th: You say that only science can give us 'reliable' knowledge, but this isn't true. There's nothing in science that can't be overturned or reformulated or re-interpreted.
I specifically noted that it could be wrong. It is not perfect. We cannot be absolutely certain. But nevertheless it does offer us relatively more certainty.
Science gives us a lot of confidence that relativity, for example, is true, but acknowledges it could be wrong.
Christianity asserts the empty tomb happened, but merely gives the delusion of certainty. How many Christians can admit it could be made up?
7th: But what, on the other hand, is more certain than my encounter with my own experiences? And how could science, or any other human endeavor, be possible without it?
Of course your own direct experiences give you more reliable knowledge. This is why I stated from the start that this is about the big questions. When it comes to what you had for breakfast, your personal experience trumps science. When it comes to how the universe started, science is the most reliable approach.
The Pixie said: "Firstly, I never said only science is allowed to, and I made that expressly clear in a later post. That you are still wanting to promote this falsehood tells me a lot about your own position."
I'm not promoting something you didn't say as if you said it - I encased a portion of our conversation in quotation marks, including a quote of me using this word "allow" which you said you didn't mean. So that's not what you meant. No problem. But don't decide that this "tells [you] a lot about [my] own position," because all it was, was a portion of a quote. I'm not still insisting you said it.
So getting aside from semantic misunderstandings about what I meant by "allow" in this context, you now say, "if we suppose that only science is able to reliably answer questions, then the conclusion is that the question cannot currently be reliably answered."
I think I can conclude from this that you believe only science is able to reliably answer questions. Is that right?
Moving on to this: "I did not say that no reliable answer is possible. We currently have no reliable answer, but that should not stop people looking" - what I hear you saying is that you hope someday science will give a reliable answer to this question, because nothing else can ever give a reliable answer. Is that what you meant this time? Because if you did, then according to the way I meant the word "allow -- it still holds that you, personally, aren't going to "allow" an answer from any other discipline than science as something you'll ever consider reliable. That's what I meant by the word.
I'd like to make sure we're communicating. If we can't start with a presumption of good will and then clear up misunderstandings under the same presumption, there's no point in continuing the conversation.
7th: For me, and I think for Joe and Kristen, religion is true in a phenomenological and existential sense.
Can you explain what that means?
I think existentialism has to do with freedom, personal choice, personal commitment and experience and authenticity. Phenomenology in this context I think has to do with lived-experience as the basis of evidence for claims. It's not just a mental construct but has to do with the point of contact between our minds and the world.
Sure. But that does not mean it is right. It is telling that you include the arts. Why should I imagine any of these painting are true:
http://greekgodsparadise.com/2017/09/12/22-greek-myth-paintings-to-marvel-at-in-france/
Those paintings come from the imagination of the artist. The same is true of religion and philosophy. There is no reason to suppose they relate to the real world.
Sure. No more than the specific claims of any particular religion are necessarily literally correct.
I specifically noted that it could be wrong. It is not perfect. We cannot be absolutely certain. But nevertheless it does offer us relatively more certainty.
Science gives us a lot of confidence that relativity, for example, is true, but acknowledges it could be wrong.
Christianity asserts the empty tomb happened, but merely gives the delusion of certainty. How many Christians can admit it could be made up?
I agree, but you'd admit that a lot of scientists (most?) get very invested in their pet theories? That tendency isn't restricted to the religious.
Of course your own direct experiences give you more reliable knowledge. This is why I stated from the start that this is about the big questions. When it comes to what you had for breakfast, your personal experience trumps science. When it comes to how the universe started, science is the most reliable approach.
It depends on how you define "big" and "small." The fact that we are conscious to me is a very big question even though it might present on an apparently small scale. It tells us that the universe is a very different kind of place than a purely scientific, third person account would suggest.
Kristen: I think I can conclude from this that you believe only science is able to reliably answer questions. Is that right?
Yes (but noting that even science may not be able to).
Kristen: Moving on to this: "I did not say that no reliable answer is possible. We currently have no reliable answer, but that should not stop people looking" - what I hear you saying is that you hope someday science will give a reliable answer to this question, because nothing else can ever give a reliable answer. Is that what you meant this time? Because if you did, then according to the way I meant the word "allow -- it still holds that you, personally, aren't going to "allow" an answer from any other discipline than science as something you'll ever consider reliable. That's what I meant by the word.
That feels significantly different to not allowing anything but science to offer an answer, which is how it originally read! But yes, that would be my position.
Kristen: I'd like to make sure we're communicating. If we can't start with a presumption of good will and then clear up misunderstandings under the same presumption, there's no point in continuing the conversation.
Okay, apologies then. I spend a fair bit of time arguing at CARM (ask Joe about that!), and frequently encounter people trying to twist my words. Good to know that you are not like that.
7th: I think existentialism has to do ...
You do not see very sure what the word means, and yet you seem sure religion is true in this sense. How does that work?
7th: I think existentialism has to do with freedom, personal choice, personal commitment and experience and authenticity.
So religion is true in the sense that you have what feels like real experiences and you are personally committed to it?
7th: Phenomenology in this context I think has to do with lived-experience as the basis of evidence for claims. It's not just a mental construct but has to do with the point of contact between our minds and the world.
It feels like it is true?
I wonder if it would be better if you just say why you think God exists, without using the words "existentialism", and "phenomenology", which seem to be just muddying the waters.
7th: I agree, but you'd admit that a lot of scientists (most?) get very invested in their pet theories? That tendency isn't restricted to the religious.
I do not know how common that is, but the point about science is that a pet theory does not get accepted into the mainstream until it becomes consensus, and that only happens when it has been tested by numerous experts in the field.
The 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to Peter Higgs and François Englert for theoretical works that were published in 1964. It took that long for their pet theory to be tested and established. That is unusually long, but illustrates the process.
7th: It depends on how you define "big" and "small." The fact that we are conscious to me is a very big question even though it might present on an apparently small scale. It tells us that the universe is a very different kind of place than a purely scientific, third person account would suggest.
Small would be ordinary, everyday questions any random guy you met in the street could answer. Big questions require a lot of thought, and your average guy in the street will never stop to consider them. Consciousness is indeed a big question.
You do not see very sure what the word means, and yet you seem sure religion is true in this sense. How does that work?
I know what the words mean but I don't want to claim an expertise I don't have. The "I think" is more a formality of modesty. And I'm not sure religion is true.
So religion is true in the sense that you have what feels like real experiences and you are personally committed to it?
Phenomenology covers my entire experiences, my "life-world," my entire encounter with reality.
It feels like it is true?
As any set of experiences appears to be are true, if it is repeatable, shared, has long-term consequences, etc. Even these criteria are no guarantee that the set is veridical but it raises the probability over that of a stray, one-off 'feeling.'
I do not know how common that is, but the point about science is that a pet theory does not get accepted into the mainstream until it becomes consensus, and that only happens when it has been tested by numerous experts in the field.
My point was that emotional over-attachment to one's theories isn't peculiar to religion. The history of science is full of examples, as is politics, as we're seeing today... My own theory is that desire 'drives' belief much more often than we'd like to admit, probably more often than a dispassionate weighing of the available evidence.
Small would be ordinary, everyday questions any random guy you met in the street could answer. Big questions require a lot of thought, and your average guy in the street will never stop to consider them. Consciousness is indeed a big question.
I see your point. But consciousness in fact is closer to everyone's everyday waking life than anything else, so close, as a matter of fact, as to go all but unnoticed.
Putting that aside though, I would say that most of the "big" questions are still the philosophical and possibly theological ones, not the scientific ones. The "Why?" rather than the "How?" questions, the ones about meaning, purpose, value or lack thereof and not about particles and forces, although the two kinds can impinge on each other.
The Pixie said...
7th: I think existentialism has to do ...
You do not see very sure what the word means, and yet you seem sure religion is true in this sense. How does that work?
7th: I think existentialism has to do with freedom, personal choice, personal commitment and experience and authenticity.
rest assured Jm knows more about existentialism than most people. He could teach a class,
Pixie said: "Okay, apologies then. I spend a fair bit of time arguing at CARM (ask Joe about that!), and frequently encounter people trying to twist my words. Good to know that you are not like that."
Thanks. I never post on CARM or other sites where it's not about exchange of ideas, but about defeating opponents.
I do think that when it comes to the metaphysical questions, science is unable to answer at all, due to its own nature. The best anyone can get for an answer, using science alone, is "I don't know." So as far as I can see, we either have to stay right there, or accept that a lesser standard of reliability is ok when it comes to these types of questions, and do the best we can with personal experience, logic, philosophy and theology.
I believe I have personally experienced the divine (and I agree with Joe that the positive results of these experiences in my life, are a form of evidence of their reality). Certain stories from a particular religious tradition also deeply resonate with me and give me incredible joy. This is enough for me. I recognize that this does not rise to the level of reliability that you require, that only science can give you. But I don't think I could ever be satisfied with just "I don't know." To each his/her own.
Post a Comment