On Victor Reppert's Dangerous Idea blog we have a good example of two of the reductionist techniques for losing the phenomena. Losing the phenomena is the major strategy of reductionist in reducing alternative view points to meaningless proportions. In this sense is peak of the kind of philosophical reductionist that under girds scientism, Losing the phenomena works like this. To show that religious experience can't be a real experience of God's presence reduce feeling to brain chemistry and brain chemistry to a totally naturalistic process, then hypercritically evaluate every aspect of the phenomenon until it appears to be totally reduced to component parts that explain it away. It's not God's presence it's misfiring of certain segments of the brain and of brain chemistry..One of the chief methods used is re-labeling another is reduction to physical aspects.
These tactics were employed by Stardusty Psyche (aka "Dusty") who has posted in comments on this blog, It began with me discussing some of the philosophy of science I learned in graduate school that is somewhat critical of science, to blunt the initiative of Dusty's assertions that science is all that matters and religion is crap. In order to make the point that science discovers 'truth" about the universe and religion doesn't. He asserted that physical laws such as Boyle's law are totally actuate statements about the way the universe works. Other Christians took up the challenge one in particular argued that science can't tell us about the truth of the beatitudes, it can't tell us if the poor are blessed or or if the pure in heart will see God.
One of the Christians named "Prokop" argued: "Art, history, literature, music, love, sin, beauty, purpose, meaning, patriotism, treachery, altruism, greed, prayer, contemplation, intellectual dishonesty, integrity, religion, poetry, inspiration, perseverance, repentance, redemption, faith, grief, humility, pride, saintliness, joy... I could go on, but you get the point." I am not so sure he did. Dusty says: "Indeed, I do get the point. All of those things are subject to scientific investigation and explanation through the scientific method. Why wouldn't they be? But go ahead, pick one or two you think are particularly immune to science."
Of course all of them are so immune unless you want to reduce them to their physical components. We can't prove the poor are not blessed but you make up a psychological scheme that would account for that idea. You can't subject the beatitudes to scientific analysis because you can't study the state of blessedness you can reduce it to the brain chemistry that it takes to feel blessed then assert that this proves that;s all there is to it. Blessed doesn't just mean an advantage or being happy it;s a state of grace it signifies approval by the higher power so the poor are blessed not because they are happy but because they have God's favor, they have God's aid. Now one might quibble with that statement one might apply Marxist analysis or some other form of analysis and dispute the truth context of that claim or even say it's propagandist, but that is not science. Science cannot collect data on states of Grace and it can't tell us not to believe in them. It can't make judgement on values. That is what the reductionist tries to do to reduce these aspects to physical complements of brain chemistry that allow such feelings and then because it can only approach it through this avenue assert that this is all there is,
This is a good example of "Losing the phenomena."
Or take some of the other aspects of human spirituality that Prokop discussed above such as art,You can't analyze art qua art scientifically. To subject artistic creation to scientific analysis is to reduce to to a level where it's artistic meaning is no longer regarded; the thing that makes it art is no longer part of the equation. Science is all pretense of objectivity and art is the enhancement of the subjective so they contradict a priori. we could examine the physical and psychological complements of an art work, that would not allow for an artistic understanding, Then the reductionist would say "see it's just this motivation with this kind of pigment" or whatever that would be assumed to sum up the components but it would only mean that the meaning of it as art is reduced to a point where it's not considered as part of the melange.
One could use science to assist the creative process but only at the expense of real science. Imagine a work where one transposes gnome data points to musical notes then plays the the human genome like a symphony. You can appreciate the music at the expense of the science or you could appreciate both in different ways but you can't make the two work together as themselves, you would either only be referring to art to analyze the physical aspects or appreciating science in a way that is not really scientific,
Dusty says "understanding the reduceability of our human experiences to the submicroscopic level only adds to the exhilaration of experiencing life and living it to the fullest." But He has not demonstrated that aspects such as art or morality are reducible to subatomic level.He has only demonstrated that one can reduce such that the value aspects are not being considered and then one is only reducing to the physical process that makes examination of value possible having exuded the value from consideration. ,Of course they make the assertion that if there is a physical process than that's all there is. They have merely lost the phenomena.
Here another poster Legion of logic says:
How so, out of curiosity? For example, I have two young kids. To think of them as "my son and daughter" is one thing. To think of them as "colonies of multiple collections of specialized cells" doesn't quite inspire the same fuzzy feelings. To think of them as "mostly empty space in between carbon molecules" is about as devoid of charm as one could desire. It seems to me that the more one reduces things to the subatomic level, the less emotionally relatable it becomes. But the reductionist, the scientismist just thinks "the fuzzy feelings are unscientific, we want the hard cold dead emotionless data." That is part of the pretense of objectivity, it pretends to be science but it;s really just re=valuing the vittles with a selfishness that hides behind objectivity,It's changing one value for another and labeling it science,So, unless you meant something else than how I took it, I must disagree that viewing life through the prism of subatomic reality does anything to enhance it on an experiential level,
I agree. Dusty is just regurgitating the atheist echo chamber. He's really saying there's one way to look at things, the only way is to see things in science terms and no other, When someone tries to show another way you compare it to science and then critique it for it;s scientific shortcomings,
Heavens declaring he glory of God might as well indicate the sense we get from the night sky of our own finite being juxtaposed to the infinite which is suggested the stars (whatever their retaliative distance) evokes the sense of the numinous and we sense the presence of God. Then the reductionist has to eliminate that regardless of it;s truth so they have to assert that it is some trick of the mind and take it apart and lose the phenomena.
see the discussion
JH: He asserted that physical laws such as Boyle's law are totally actuate statements about the way the universe works. Other Christians took up the challenge one in particular argued that science can't tell us about the truth of the beatitudes, it can't tell us if the poor are blessed or or if the pure in heart will see God.
ReplyDeleteActually the laws of science is just reasonable accurate models of how the universe works.
And scientists certainly can tell us about the truth of the beatitudes. Scientists are allowed to have opinions just as much as anyone else - and that is all the beatitudes are; some guy's opinion. It is only religion that insists that they have a fundamental truth, and it does so on the basis that it believe religion is true. The claim that the poor are blessed is merely an unsupported assertion - and one that flies in the face of the evidence.
JH: Of course all of them are so immune unless you want to reduce them to their physical components. We can't prove the poor are not blessed but you make up a psychological scheme that would account for that idea. You can't subject the beatitudes to scientific analysis because you can't study the state of blessedness you can reduce it to the brain chemistry that it takes to feel blessed then assert that this proves that;s all there is to it.
To an extent I agree with you. Science is unable to analyse and explain a lot. But what you have missed is that religion cannot either. All religion can do is make unsupported assertions. As a theist, you seem willing to give it a pass, whilst you rail against science.
Pix
Actually the laws of science is just reasonable accurate models of how the universe works.
ReplyDeletetrue
And scientists certainly can tell us about the truth of the beatitudes. Scientists are allowed to have opinions just as much as anyone else - and that is all the beatitudes are; some guy's opinion.
we are not talking about scientist's opinions we are talking about science as science.
It is only religion that insists that they have a fundamental truth, and it does so on the basis that it believe religion is true. The claim that the poor are blessed is merely an unsupported assertion - and one that flies in the face of the evidence.
It's as nailed down as science is it;s just ascertained differently, the effects of the belief establish its truth because does what it claims to do, it defines the human problematic in such a way that it is meaningful and then resolves it through life transformation.
JH: Of course all of them are so immune unless you want to reduce them to their physical components. We can't prove the poor are not blessed but you make up a psychological scheme that would account for that idea. You can't subject the beatitudes to scientific analysis because you can't study the state of blessedness you can reduce it to the brain chemistry that it takes to feel blessed then assert that this proves that;s all there is to it.
To an extent I agree with you. Science is unable to analyse and explain a lot. But what you have missed is that religion cannot either. All religion can do is make unsupported assertions. As a theist, you seem willing to give it a pass, whilst you rail against science.
wrong what you missed, I wrote a book about it, I have 200 studies in peer reviewed jourmnals that prove it works it does that it says iot does,
PIX: But what you have missed is that religion cannot either. All religion can do is make unsupported assertions. As a theist, you seem willing to give it a pass, whilst you rail against science.
ReplyDeleteOn a sports blog that I go on, someone said something very similar to this:
Religion, in particular, which subdivides people into groups of often conflicting ideologies by its very nature, was essentially off limits to criticism until very recently. Religion's greatest victory wasn't that it convinced people of easy supernatural explanations for scientific problems, but that the idea should be above mockery.
So, as a result, I said that atheists don't understand what the supernatural really is, and I posted this article:
Metacrock's Blog (8-15-2012): The Original Christian Concept of the Supernatural
They felt that your explanations were fuzzy. Here was one response:
After having read it, I wish I'd gone outside to do some work.
The gentleman in question exhibits some seriously fuzzy thinking and ad hominen attacks in building his argument. His basic thesis is that the term supernatural applies to some sort of hierarchical ordering, with the Divine above nature. He further states that "Super nature is the higher nature to which human nature is being elevated," and concludes "The experience of being raised to a higher level through contact with the divine life is clearly empirical."
His explanation of etymology is correct within the confines of the medieval origin: Thomas Acquinas drew a distinction between supernatural(Divine), natural(human), and preternatural(demonic). However, the idea of progression toward the Divine espoused by the later philosophers is firmly rooted in the Victorian era. The idea of supernatural above natural was transformed in fitting with the Victorian need for progress, much as Darwin's thoughts on natural selection were twisted into a progress bar. About the same time, the term preternatural was appropriated to refer to cryptozoological events, losing the demonic associations. Thus, in the 750+ years since Acquinas, the terms supernatural and preternatural have evolved and become conflated to refer to something outside nature. Since our discussions are taking place now rather than the 13th century, it behooves us to use the current common usage.
To continue the dissection, the idea that there is a progression to the Divine presupposes the existence of the Divine. With the presupposition, evidence presented to support the progression is a priori evidence rather than a posteriori. Circular reasoning is circular. I would also submit that the progression is not "clearly empirical". Empirical evidence is obtained through observation and measurement. How does one measure "being raised to a higher level" objectively? What are the metrics? Is there an SI unit for goodness?
As with all articles designed to prove the existence of the Divine, the author ultimately fell short. Logic and reason will never lead to belief in a deity except in a cynical sort of Pascal's Wager. Faith is faith and science is science, and never the twain shall meet. Theistic beliefs do not invalidate science, any more than science disproves a deity.
on third paragraph I say: "The supernatural is the tendency of divine encounter to raise human nature to a higher level (which means human consciousness). This means the scientific fortress of facts is a house cards because it’s self selected and ideological motivated. The object of opposition for this fortress of facts is a counterfeit and false premise. The actual supernatural is empirically documented to exist."
ReplyDeletethat says quite clearly it is consciousness, a form of consciousnesses, So they are too stupid to follow a simple concept.
"His explanation of etymology is correct within the confines of the medieval origin: Thomas Acquinas drew a distinction between supernatural(Divine), natural(human), "
Useless cretons what do they know a about it, of courseI', right I documeted it with severaldifferent sources all expert,
"To continue the dissection, the idea that there is a progression to the Divine presupposes the existence of the Divine. With the presupposition, evidence presented to support the progression is a priori evidence rather than a posteriori. Circular reasoning is circular. I would also submit that the progression is not "clearly empirical". Empirical evidence is obtained through observation and measurement. How does one measure "being raised to a higher level" objectively? What are the metrics? Is there an SI unit for goodness?"
Moron doesn't understand the basic concepts,no one said anything about a progression in the divine, since they cat follow asimple argument down the raod in a stright limne how are they going to understand arguments for
god? so they reiterate the same idiotic idea throats there;s no Gdo because too stupid to follow the reasoning,
"As with all articles designed to prove the existence of the Divine, the author ultimately fell short. Logic and reason will never lead to belief in a deity except in a cynical sort of Pascal's Wager. Faith is faith and science is science, and never the twain shall meet. Theistic beliefs do not invalidate science, any more than science disproves a deity."
The thing wrote abouit the SN has nothing with proving the existence of god not that moron would would a proof ifI gave himone,
Yeah, Joe, those guys don't really understand Christianity. They were talking about how wonderful Carl Sagan was, and they were also talking about Neil DeGrasse Tyson. To that, I said something (I forget), and one of them said that atheists don't take money from people out of a collection plate. What kind of an answer was that? These guys just want to stay in their ignorance.
ReplyDeleteit was a stupid answer. atheists do try to sell bumper stickers.
ReplyDeleteJBsptfn: Yeah, Joe, those guys don't really understand Christianity. They were talking about how wonderful Carl Sagan was, and they were also talking about Neil DeGrasse Tyson. To that, I said something (I forget), and one of them said that atheists don't take money from people out of a collection plate. What kind of an answer was that? These guys just want to stay in their ignorance.
ReplyDeleteGreat broad-brushing there. Well done.
Pix
Great broad-brushing there. Well done.
ReplyDeletePix
They are broadly brushing themselves with their ignorant behavior. They don't try to understand Christianity. They automatically think it's stupid.
I doubt that they know beans about science most atheists don''t
ReplyDeleteJH: They are broadly brushing themselves with their ignorant behavior. They don't try to understand Christianity. They automatically think it's stupid.
ReplyDeleteDo you know what broad-brushing is?
The person in question was making a sweeping statement about a large group of people based on the actions of a very limited number. Now think about what you said, and try to work out why it is nonsense.
Pix
I know what that person was saying. However, what I said isn't stupid. A lot of Atheists automatically believe that Christianity is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteJH: They are broadly brushing themselves with their ignorant behavior. They don't try to understand Christianity. They automatically think it's stupid.
ReplyDeleteDo you know what broad-brushing is?
The person in question was making a sweeping statement about a large group of people based on the actions of a very limited number. Now think about what you said, and try to work out why it is nonsense.
exactly what they are doing, they are assuming all Christians are stupid based upon a few fundies,
"To continue the dissection, the idea that there is a progression to the Divine presupposes the existence of the Divine. With the presupposition, evidence presented to support the progression is a priori evidence rather than a posteriori. Circular reasoning is circular.
ReplyDeletenot sure what he means by progression in the divine I don't thinki I said anything oilke that, I have both a priori and a postori ori evidence, a prior evidence s not circular, it just deductive,
I would also submit that the progression is not "clearly empirical". Empirical evidence is obtained through observation and measurement. How does one measure "being raised to a higher level" objectively? What are the metrics? Is there an SI unit for goodness?"
by observing the effects of the experience.
JH: first of all Boyle was real important to my dissertation so (history of science) so natural to turn to him. But since he laid the foundations for experiment the protocols of recording experiments it's real important to under the historical foundations that shows us why the problem arose. I am an historian so I think historically anyway.
ReplyDeleteOkay, but surely any historian has to look at what happened in the next three hundred or so years.
If you want to understand baseball, you do not look at games people were playing three centuries ago, and call it a day. You have to look at what people are doing today. Sure, what they did back then gives some historical background, but that is less important than, say, actually watching a game.
JH: Let's face reality now pix this is common knowledgeable in history of science this is what I mean by saying scientists are ghettoized, you don't know about other fields.This is the kind of stuff historians of science talk about and have for about 50 years now. Stop trying to pretend like it;s some aboration I made up..I am only repeating what I learned in graduate school.
It is a comon opinion, especially amongst people whose worldview is threatened by science.
Please note, I am not saying it is perfectly objective, but I am saying it is more objective than anything else (noting that I exclude maths as abstract, and not actually about reality).
Pix: Can you point to any other human endeavor is any more objective than science?
JH: being objective itself is a scam. Humans are not objective, as I pointed out science has merely Lenard to use objectivity as a cloak for their biases,
So in fact you cannot offer any human endeavor that is any more objective than science. I did not think so.
JH: It's misleading to cast it in terms of opinion vs fact.As I already pointed bout science iw not about proving facts it;s about disproving bad hypotheses. When you try to pretend that the verisemilitude left over that gives us our scientific assumptions is really the guarantee of facility and that that assumption of facts somehow disproves God or disproves religion, is totally dishonest and a game you play with yourself. You keep trying to imply that thye assumption of fact gives science some kind of edge but in its way it is no less a pretense than the assumptiomn of faith,
Science is about making predictions and testing them to support hypotheses. Sure, bad hypotheses get disproven along the way, but facts are not proven as such, just sufficiently well supported to be accepted.
We discussed how the assumptions of science are actually well supported on your forum. Turns out that actually they are. Not proven, but very well supported.
I have never said science disproves God or religion.
I do say that the methodology of science gives it an edge. A part of that is that claims in science are supported by evidence, which immediately elevates it above most of philosophy, but the manner in which the claims are tested greatly lessens any human bias, and elevates it higher still.
Pix
Pix I removed your shorter comment by mistake. I am really sorry hit remove because cant see well. I didn't even get to read it.
ReplyDeleteAnd the longer comment I posted by mistake (it belongs to another page on this blog), so we both screwed up! I have no re-posted to the correct page; please respond on that page!
ReplyDelete