Pages
▼
Wednesday, August 17, 2022
Summary: GSI
A summary of my new Book: The book God,Science, Ideology (GSI) makes the argument that New atheism is not scientific in its appraisal of God belief, but uses science ideologically. I begin with a discussion of what scientism is, the name I used to tag the atheist ideology of science as the only valid form of knowledge. I Then explore the historical development of this trend,I lay it at the feet of the French Philosophes of the French revolution.
I then discuss the nature of the ideology of scientism and what real science would be and how it differs.Here I plug in some concepts I've used in my interet battles for some time. That is the atheist fortress of facts and the reduction of knowledge to technique. This just reinforces how they manage scientism. Reduction of knowledge to technique means that naturalism is mandated as replacement for metaphysics. Thus if knowledge cannot be transformed into a concrete demonstration it's not worth having; this is an extension of scientism, science is the only valid form of knowledge. Yet this move is not science but ideology.
Here I discuss the issues involving consciousness, The reduction of consciousness to brain chemistry is a reduction to technique. This results in brain/mind determinism that reduces the individual to a robot. This section culminates in analysis and refutation of biologically based ethics.
I offer two chapters under the heading "stripping away the illusion of technique," Those two are: Can science disprove religion> Can science disprove god. In this section I castigate Dawkins (God delusion) Krauss,(Universe from nothing) and Stinger (God the failed Hypothesis). I show all three are illusions of technique. This Is seen most clearly in Stenger's attempt to reduce belief in God to a scientific hypothesis, Belief in God us a living experience of divine reality is not science it cannot be reduced to science.At this point I discuss Bayes theorem as to whether it proves or disproves God.I argue Bayes is an example of the illusion of technique (I took that terminology from William Barrett in Irrational Man) It argues Bayes does neither.
Chapter 10 is called "the empirical supernatural," HereI reprise my first book, The SN is mystical experience that's what the word was coined for (Dionysius the areopagite 500 AD==CE). I am arguing that when you legitimately use technique to back up God-belief the atheists will not have it. They will ignore 200 studies.The last two chapters deal with astronomical evidence for God and God arguments that could be made. The final chapter shows belief in God is a philosophical premise that has evolved over time but represents a reality that can be experienced. It is a living reality not a mere hypothesis.
I begin with a discussion of what scientism is, the name I used to tag the atheist ideology of science as the only valid form of knowledge.
ReplyDeleteScience is not the only valid form of knowledge, but it is the only reliable one we have for the big questions (broadly, anything outside personal experience).
That is the atheist fortress of facts and the reduction of knowledge to technique.
The "fortress of facts" is something of your own contriving.
The reality is that it is religion that claims Absolute Truth, while science is very clear that it could be wrong and that we are learning more all the time.
Here I discuss the issues involving consciousness, The reduction of consciousness to brain chemistry is a reduction to technique. This results in brain/mind determinism that reduces the individual to a robot. This section culminates in analysis and refutation of biologically based ethics.
Reduction is a tool of science, no more than that. Science is fine with consciousness being an emergent property of the brain.
Pix
The biggest questions of all cannot be answered by science. Science can answer how we got here, but not why we're here at all. Science can tell us what things are, but not why there is something rather than nothing.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI begin with a discussion of what scientism is, the name I used to tag the atheist ideology of science as the only valid form of knowledge.
Pix Science is not the only valid form of knowledge, but it is the only reliable one we have for the big questions (broadly, anything outside personal experience).
Science can't even ask the big questions, Science has no basis for discussing meaning in life, meaning of life, existence of God, heaven, hell or saving your soul.
That is the atheist fortress of facts and the reduction of knowledge to technique.
PixThe "fortress of facts" is something of your own contriving.
Nope, my name for something that is obviously there,
try reading atheist comments critically see how many of them take the tact that science gives us facts and religion doesn't.
Pix The reality is that it is religion that claims Absolute Truth, while science is very clear that it could be wrong and that we are learning more all the time.
It behooves all religious people to keep in mind that our interpretations of the Bible and theology could be wrong. Not that God could be wrong, but I could be wrong about what I think God wants.
Here I discuss the issues involving consciousness, The reduction of consciousness to brain chemistry is a reduction to technique. This results in brain/mind determinism that reduces the individual to a robot. This section culminates in analysis and refutation of biologically based ethics.
Pix Reduction is a tool of science, no more than that. Science is fine with consciousness being an emergent property of the brain.
Pix
Sure reduction is a fine technique of science but reductionism applies that techqu8ire to everything. It doesn't apply to all knowledge. ReductionISM!
As for the fortress of facts, the book does a very good job of explaining what it is and supplying evidence of its use as a tool in anti religious rhetoric.
ReplyDeletegood to see you again Pix
ReplyDeleteKirsten: The biggest questions of all cannot be answered by science. Science can answer how we got here, but not why we're here at all. Science can tell us what things are, but not why there is something rather than nothing.
ReplyDeleteI agree. But what can?
Religion can offer opinions, but there is no way to establish if those opinions are right or wrong. This is why we have so many religions.
Kirsten: As for the fortress of facts, the book does a very good job of explaining what it is and supplying evidence of its use as a tool in anti religious rhetoric.
Can you give one example?
To be clear, science does use facts, and if you want to claim your pet theory is true, and scientists point out facts that refute it, it will feel like science is a "fortress of facts". The issue, however, is that your pet theory is wrong, not a problem with science.
Pix
Joe: Science can't even ask the big questions, Science has no basis for discussing meaning in life, meaning of life, existence of God, heaven, hell or saving your soul.
ReplyDeleteTo repeat what I said to Kristen, I agree, but what can?
Religion can offer opinions, but there is no way to establish if those opinions are right or wrong. This is why we have so many religions.
Joe: Nope, my name for something that is obviously there,
try reading atheist comments critically see how many of them take the tact that science gives us facts and religion doesn't.
Can you give one example?
If you are talking about random atheists posting on the internet, then that may be the case. There are a lot of idiots out there, and some are atheists. But is seems to me like you are painting all atheists with the same brush. Should I assume Christianity is wrong based on what fundamentalist creationists post on CARM?
Joe: It behooves all religious people to keep in mind that our interpretations of the Bible and theology could be wrong. Not that God could be wrong, but I could be wrong about what I think God wants.
Could you be wrong about whether God exists?
Joe: Sure reduction is a fine technique of science but reductionism applies that techqu8ire to everything. It doesn't apply to all knowledge. ReductionISM!
Can you name a reductionist from the twenty-first century? This would be someone who is clear that emergence is not real.
Sure the Victorians thought that everything could be reduced to simple components, but that is a long outdated belief. The difference between the quantum/atomic scale and the macroscale illustrate that.
I strongly suspect, therefore, that this is a straw man; reductionism is just a scary boogieman you like to throw into the argument to get your fellow theists to rally against.
Pix
Joe: Science can't even ask the big questions, Science has no basis for discussing meaning in life, meaning of life, existence of God, heaven, hell or saving your soul.
ReplyDeleteTo repeat what I said to Kristen, I agree, but what can?
Religion can offer opinions, but there is no way to establish if those opinions are right or wrong. This is why we have so many religions.
Yes there is. When you make a faith commitment, you see if it doesn't fix your life. To get started I based it upon the word of people whom I trusted and respected and they said they found Jesus and it worked. There's more to it than that It was a process that took about four years Be that as it may there is a way to know.
Joe: Nope, my name for something that is obviously there,
try reading atheist comments critically see how many of them take the tact that science gives us facts and religion doesn't.
Can you give one example?
yes if I took the time to look
If you are talking about random atheists posting on the internet, then that may be the case. There are a lot of idiots out there, and some are atheists. But is seems to me like you are painting all atheists with the same brush. Should I assume Christianity is wrong based on what fundamentalist creationists post on CARM?
Good point and no I'm not saying that: You are not like that,for one.
Joe: It behooves all religious people to keep in mind that our interpretations of the Bible and theology could be wrong. Not that God could be wrong, but I could be wrong about what I think God wants.
Could you be wrong about whether God exists?
Of course. That's the risk in the leap of faith
Joe: Sure reduction is a fine technique of science but reductionism applies that technique to everything. It doesn't apply to all knowledge. ReductionISM!
Can you name a reductionist from the twenty-first century? This would be someone who is clear that emergence is not real.
This kind of scientific reductionist would assert that emergent properties are real because it's a major scientific theory. To name someone who i think typifies my complaint this Skepie guy would be one, Among printed authors Johnathan Law.
Sure the Victorians thought that everything could be reduced to simple components, but that is a long outdated belief. The difference between the quantum/atomic scale and the macroscale illustrate that.
That involves a specific scientific theory my argumemt is about whole disciplines and types of knowledge.
I strongly suspect, therefore, that this is a straw man; reductionism is just a scary boogieman you like to throw into the argument to get your fellow theists to rally against.
E.O. Wilson. The new begins with a discussion on his views about collapsing all disciplines into three scientific disciples.
I said: The biggest questions of all cannot be answered by science. Science can answer how we got here, but not why we're here at all. Science can tell us what things are, but not why there is something rather than nothing.
ReplyDeletePix replied: I agree. But what can?
Religion can offer opinions, but there is no way to establish if those opinions are right or wrong. This is why we have so many religions.
My response: The real difference is this. The purpose of religion is to ask these big questions. The purpose of science is not. The purpose of science is to find out how physical things work in our physical universe. The purpose of religion is to seek for the deepest "why" -- ultimately, the "why" of the human experience itself.
Despite what fundamentalism teaches, the responsibility of religion is not to offer certainty about the answers to these deepest questions, but to mediate the human experience of the mystery.
Just as a scientist will say about the "how" of physical workings, "We could be wrong, another experiment might throw more light," a wise religious person will say, "I'm seeking the Absolute, but I could be wrong in my understanding of it; another experience of the divine might throw more light."
Ultimately there is nothing that can tell us with certainty why we're here, or why there is something rather than nothing. But when people use science to support their contention that there IS no ultimate reason, that there is nothing besides the physical universe that science exists to explore, then the people who do this are not doing science, and science cannot support them.
Pix: you asked for an example of the "fortress of facts." Here's a really good example: Atheists will use evolutionary science as a pile of facts that they then utilize to support their contention that there is no God. "Evolution alone can explain how we got here," they will say. "So we have no need to hypothesize God." They will then (correctly) point out that young-earth creationism has no evidence that supports the contention that the Genesis account explains HOW the earth came into being. The pile of facts from evolutionary science is supposed to overwhelm religious belief. The problem is that the pile of evolutionary facts does nothing to address WHY there is a universe at all, nor whether or not there is a divine source underlying evolutionary processes. Indeed, scientific piles of facts cannot actually address these questions. To try to do so is like trying to use a ruler to measure air pressure: it's simply the wrong tool. "I can't find any air pressure with this ruler, so air pressure doesn't exist." That's analogous to saying, "The scientific research that yielded data about evolution has also informed us that there is no WHY behind it and no divine source." It has done nothing of the kind, actually, because it is fundamentally unable to address the question at all.
ReplyDelete