On facebook recently an old atheist friend and sparing partner HRG, a mathematician from Austria, made the statemt that there is nothing in nature that obeys any thing telling nature how to beheave. Thus there are no laws of physics. It's true so called laws of physics reperesnet human obsservations about how things work. Wheather there are laws depends upon how one defines "law." I say there may not be laws of physics. certainly no legislative body passimg them, but is order im the universe.
The reason this question matters to the argument is because there is no good naturalistic explanation for the law-like regularity of physics. That's the essence of the abductive argument, but the same issues will surface in arguing the deductive version. Science no longer defines physical law in the sense of an active set of rules that tell nature what to do (as seen in chapter one). The sentiment is gospel in science. A Canadian Physicist, Byron Jennings, expresses it like this: “It is worth commenting that laws of nature and laws of man are completely different beasts and it is unfortunate that they are given the same name. The so called laws of nature are descriptive. They describe regularities that have been observed in nature. They have no prescriptive value. In contrast, the laws of man are prescriptive, not descriptive.” [1] Santo D’Agostino tells us, “...[T]he laws of science are not like the laws in our legal systems. They are descriptive, not prescriptive.”[2]
Contradiction in the descriptive paradigm
A closer look reveals that there is a contradiction here. The standard line about descriptions is double talk. First of all no one thinks physical laws are on a par with laws passed by congress. Just for the record I am not arguing that laws require a law giver, that is equivocation (although science still uses the misleading term “law”). Physical laws proceed from the mind of God, that is totally different from laws in human society. Secondly, Physical laws are just descriptions but what they describe is a law-like regularity. The question is, why is there an unswerving faithful regularity? That cannot be answered just by calling the regulation a “description.” It is so regular that we can risk people's lives in roller coasters based upon trusting those “descriptions.” D'Agostino again says, “For me, the key word is describe. A scientific law is a convenient description of observations. The law of science does not tell the world how to be, the world just is; science is a human attempt to engage with the mysteries of the world, and to attempt to understand them,” [3]
It just is, there is no why? Do Scientist really live with that? No they do not. “Most physicists working on fundamental topics inhabit the prescriptive camp, even if they don't own up to it explicitly.”[4] But then the Stephen Hawking Center for Theoretical Cosmology puts it point blank: “The physical laws that govern the Universe prescribe how an initial state evolves with time.”[5]
Clearly they want it both ways, they want physical laws not to be the will of God but they want them to be binding. The nature of the problem is deeper than just the language of an antiquated term. It really seems that physicists want it both ways.
In many perhaps most scientific disciplines the finality of a theory continues to be measured by its resemblance to the classical laws of physics, which are both causal and deterministic....The extreme case of the desire to turn observed regularity into law is of course the search for one unified law of nature. That embodies all other laws and that hense will be immune to revision.[6]They still use the model of physical law, but they deny it's law-like aspects, yet they want it to be unalterable and to sum everything up in one principle. Don't look now but what she is describing is a transcendental signifier! That's the impetus behind grand unified theory of everything. Why add “of everything?” That clearly points to the transcendental signifier.
In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about? Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.[7]Weinberg tells us the theory of everything will unite all aspects of physical reality in a single elegant explanation.[8]Exactly as does the TS! It's really describing a prescriptive set of laws, so it seems. If their theory can only give descriptions of how the universe behaves how is it going to explain everything? It seems explanatory power only comes with certainty about how things work. That is weaker with probable tendencies than with actual laws. Why are they looking for a single theory to sum it all up if they don't accept some degree of hierarchical causality?
Modern “descriptive laws:” Taking God out of the picture.
Is their rejection of law just a desire to get God out of the picture? That is abundantly clear, at least for some scientists. Paul Davies, a major physicist, thinks so:
Many scientists who are struggling to construct a fully comprehensive theory of the physical universe openly admit that part of the motivation is to finally get rid of God, whom they view as a dangerous and infantile delusion, And not only God but any vestige of God-talk, such as 'meaning,' 'purpose,' or 'design' in nature. These scientists see religion as so fraudulent and sinister that nothing less than total theological cleansing will do.[9]The concept of law was formed in a time when scientists inextricably linked God with science. Robert Boyle purposely appealed to divine command in creation, as did Newton.[10] These were devout believers,and it was also expedient in the confessional English state. The English dealt with heretics by not inviting them to weekend at Westmoreland or by passing them over for honors. After the time of Newton the field of scientific acuity shifted to France. The French put heretics in jail. The Catholic church was much more in charge in France, enjoying the support of the monarchy, than in Protestant England.[11]Thus the French Philosophs rebelled with great ferocity against the Church and religious belief. The French rebellion carried over into all areas of modern letters, not the least in science.
Modern scientists since the enlightenment have sought to take God out of the picture. Philosophers are honest enough to admit there is a problem calling the law-like regularity “description.” After Alan Chalmers explains that Boyle's “stark ontology” made nature passive and left God to do all the work, he writes:
"I assume that, from the modern point of view, placing such a heavy, or indeed any, burden on the constant and willful intervention of God is not acceptable. But eliminating God from the account leaves us with the problem. How can activity and law like behavior be introduced into a world characterized in terms of passive or categorical properties only?"[12]
At least the scientific realists, such as Chalmers know there is a problem in the tension between unalterable regularity, and description. Many scientists either don't see the problem, or refuse to acknowledge it. Some assert a confidence in science's ability to one day answer all questions.
In recent years, under the influence of the new atheism, some physicists have began to compete with God. They claim not only to offer the better explanation, but to learn enough so as to one day erase the God concept from any serious consideration. Steven Pinker, (in answer to a question for discussion posed by the Tempelton foundation, “does science make belief in God obsolete?”): “Yes 'science' we mean the entire enterprise of secular reason and knowledge (including history and philosophy), not just people with test tubes and white lab coats. Traditionally, a belief in God was attractive because it promised to explain the deepest puzzles about origins. Where did the world come from? What is the basis of life? How can the mind arise from the body? Why should anyone be moral?”[13]
Of course he offers no evidence that science can answer such things (notice he expanded the definition of science to include disciplines many scientists seek to get rid of (philosophy)[14] that is an area that could answer the questions that science can't. He also offers no evidence that religion still can't answer them, but he goes on to say, “Yet over the millennia, there has been an inexorable trend: the deeper we probe these questions, and the more we learn about the world in which we live, the less reason there is to believe in God.” So he's made two fallacious moves here, the classic bait and switch and straw man argument. He says science makes God obsolete but then only if we expand science to include non-science. We could just include modern theology instead of nineteenth century theology and bring religion into science. Sorry, but belief in God does not rest with young earth creationism.
Pinker is not just using young Earth creationism to debunk all religion, even though that is a straw man argument. He's really making the same kind of answer that physicist Sean Carroll is making. He's saying“since we now have the capacity to learn everything (someday) we don't need to appeal to God to answer what we don't know thus he asserts that the only reason to believe is the God of the gaps argument). Carroll puts it a bit differently:
"Modern cosmology attempts to come up with the most powerful and economical possible understanding of the universe that is consistent with observational data. It's certainly conceivable that the methods of science could lead us to a self-contained picture of the universe that doesn't involve God in any way. If so, would we be correct to conclude that cosmology has undermined the reasons for believing in God, or at least a certain kind of reason?"[15]
Of course this is the standard wrong assumption often made by those whose skepticism is scientifically based. Explaining nature is not the only reason to believe in God. Moreover, they are nowhere near explaining nature in it's entirety, the TS argument is the best answer to the questions posed by the transcendental signifiers. It's pretty clear that for Carroll, and those who share his outlook the signifier “science” replaces the signifier “God” in their metaphysical hierarchy. They still have a TS and that speaks to the all pervasive nature of the TS. I've discussed in the previous chapter how the best answer to questions of origin have to be philosophical. That is confirmed by Pinker when he argues philosophy as part of science. The TS argument is philosophical. Science is not the only form of knowledge. Carroll admits there is not as of yet a theory that explains it all. He admits, “We are trying to predict the future: will there ever be a time when a conventional scientific model provides a complete understanding of the origin of the universe?”[16] He asserts that most modern cosmologists already feel we know enough to write off God and that there are good enough reasons. In his 2005 article he says, as the title proclaims, “almost all cosmologists are atheists.”[17]
That may be true of cosmologists but I doubt it, and I have good reason to. First, I don't see any poll of physicists in the article. He only argues anecdotal evidence by quoting a few people. If there was a poll it would be at least as old as 2005. A More extensive study from 2007 (two years after publication of Carroll's article) doesn't back up those findings. This study was done by Harvard professors who find the majority of science professors believe in God.[18] They present a bar graph that show about 35% of professor's at elite research universities believe in God with no doubt. About 27% believe but sometimes have doubts. About 38% are atheists. That actually means that 60% are not atheists. True that's not cosmologists but there is good reason to think the majority of cosmologists are not atheists. The most atheistic groups in the study were psychologists (61%), biologists (about 61%), and mechanical engineers(50%), not physicists (among whose ranks cosmologists number).[19] “Contrary to popular Opinion, atheists and agnostics do not comprise a majority of professors even at elite schools, but they are present in larger numbers than in other types of institutions.”[20] No group has “almost all” as atheist. Even if cosmologists are mostly atheists (not studied because they are a handful and highly specialized) it's still appeal to authority and could be based upon hubris. They do not have any empirical data at all to prove the universe could spring from nothing. I will will demonstrate the problems with this view much more clearly in the next chapter. Let's just remember the atheist position on this point is an appeal to faith.
Notes
[1] Byron Jennings, “The Role of Authority in Science and Law,” Quantum Diaries: Thoughts on Work and Life From Particle Physicists From Around The World. (Feb.3,2012) Online resource URL: http://www.quantumdiaries.org/tag/descriptive-law/ Accessed 8/31/15 Byron Jennings is Project Coordinator for TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory, he's an adjunct Professor at Simon Freaser University. He is also the editor of In Defense of Scientism.
[2]Santo 'D Agostino, “Does Nature Obey The Laws of Physics?,” QED Insight, (March 9,2011). Online resource, URL: https://qedinsight.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/does-nature-obey-the-laws-of-physics/ accessed 8/26/15.
D'Agostino is a mathematician who writes science text books. Ph.D. from The University of Toronto, he is also assistant professor in Physics at Brock University.
[3] Ibid.
[4]Paul Davies, Cosmic Jackpot: why is the universe Just Right For Life? New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 1 edition, 2007, 12. Davies is an English physicist, professor at Arizona State University. He was formerly an atheist and his major atheist book was God and The New Physics, written in the 70s. Since the late 90's he as become a believer, not a Christian but believer in a generic deistic sort of God. He was convinced by
the fine tuning argument and his major book since that time is The Mind Of God. He has taught at Cambridge and Aberdeen.
[5] CTC, “Origins of the Universe: Quantum Origins,” The Stephan Hawking Center for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge, online resource, URL: http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk/outreach/origins/quantum_cosmology_one.php accessed 10/5/15.
[6]E. F. Keller, quoted in Lynn Nelson, Who Knows: From Quine to Feminist Empiricism. Temple University Press, 1990, 220. Evelyn Fox Keller is a physicist and a Feminist critic of science. Professor Emerita at MIT. Her early work centered on the intersection of physics and biology. Nelson is associate professor of philosophy at Glassboro State College.
[7]Counter balance foundation, “Stephen Hawking's God,” quoted on PBS website Faith and Reason. No date listed. Online resource, URL http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/cosmohaw-frame.html the URL for the website itself: http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/stdweb/info.html accessed 8/26/2015. This resource provided by: Counterbalance Foundation www.counterbalance.org
counterbalance foundation offers this self identification: “Counterbalance is a non-profit educational organization working to promote the public understanding of science, and how the sciences relate to wider society. It is our hope that individuals, the academic community, and society as a whole will benefit from a struggle toward integrated and counterbalanced responses to complex questions.” see URL above. The faith anjd reason foundation helped fund the PBS show. I first founjd thye piece “Stephen Hawking's God early the century, maybe 2004, certainly before 2006. It was on a sight called Metalist on science and religion. That site is gone. [8]Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist's Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. 1994, 3, also 211.
[9]Paul Davies, Jackpot...op. Cit.,15.
[10]Alan Chalmers, “Making sense of laws of physics,” Causation and Laws Of Nature, Dordrecht, Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Publishers, (Howard Sankey, ed.), 1999, 3-4.
[11] Joseph Hinman, God, Science, and Ideology. Chapter 2.
[12]Chalmers, op., cit.
[13]Stephen Pinker, quoted on website, John Tempelton Foundation, “A Tempelton conversation, “Does Science Make Belief in God Obsolete?” The third in a series of conversations among leading scientists...Onlne resource, website. URL: http://www.templeton.org/belief/ accessed 9/4/15. Tempelton bio for Pinker: Steven Pinker is the Johnstone Family Professor in the department of psychology at Harvard University. He is the author of seven books, including The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, The Blank Slate, and most recently, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature.
[14]Anthany Mills, "Why Does Neil deGrasse Tyson Hate Philosophy," Real Clear Science. (May 22, 2014) OnLine resource, URL:
href="http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2014/05/22/why_does_neil_degrasse_tyson_hate_philosophy.html
accessed 10/7/15.
"In a controversial interview, Neil deGrasse Tyson dismissed philosophy as “distracting.” The host of the television series Cosmos even suggested that philosophy could inhibit scientific progress by encouraging “a little too much question asking.” He thus follows a growing secular trend that cordons Science off from all other forms of inquiry, denigrating whatever falls outside science’s purported boundaries – especially the more “speculative” pursuits such as philosophy."
[15]Sean Corroll, ”Does The Universe Need God?” on Sean Carroll's website, Perposterous Universe.com, online resource, URL: http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/ accessed 9/4/2015 Carroll is an astrophysicist and a theoretical physicist, Moore Center for Theoretical Physics and Cosmology, California Institute of Technology. He's authored many books.
[16]Ibid.
[17] Sean Carroll,"Why (Almost All) Cosmologists Are Atheists," Faith and Philosophy, 22, (2005) p. 622.
[18]Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “How Religious Are America's College and University Professors.” SSRC, (published feb. 2007), PDF URL, accessed 9/4/15 The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf Association for the Sociology of Religion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org. sample was 1,417, representing over 300,000 professors. Neil Gross is assistant professor of sociology at Harvard University. He works on classical and contemporary sociological theory, the sociology of culture, and the sociology of intellectuals. His first book, tentatively titled Richard Rorty's Pragmatism: The Social Origins of a Philosophy, 1931-1982, is
forthcoming.
Solon Simmons is assistant professor of conflict analysis and sociology at George Mason University’s Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution. His recent work has focused on values talk in congressional speeches, third party political candidates, industrial reorganization and the ongoing conservative critique of American higher education
[19]Ibid.
[20]Ibid.
17 comments:
I am kind of with you on part of this. In my view the laws of science are descriptive - they are a model of the real world. However, underlying the real world are the laws of nature, and they are prescriptive. Things in the real world do indeed follow laws - at least in some sense.
Now they are quite unlike the laws of man. Jennings is right about it being unfortunate they have the same name. The laws of nature do not tell you how to behave - as HRG say - but nature does follow them. The laws of nature are more akin to a computer program going through a series of iterations. It does so because that is its nature.
I am not sure to what extent the various people you quote would agree with that.
Joe: Weinberg tells us the theory of everything will unite all aspects of physical reality in a single elegant explanation.[8]Exactly as does the TS!
And that is as far as they are related.
Joe: It's really describing a prescriptive set of laws, so it seems. If their theory can only give descriptions of how the universe behaves how is it going to explain everything?
As physicists, they are trying to explain all physics. If you think it will fail to explain morality, say, then you are right. They are guilty of hyperbole.
Joe: It seems explanatory power only comes with certainty about how things work. That is weaker with probable tendencies than with actual laws.
Probably not. The less accurate approximations are often better just because they are simple enough that they can be used. Schrödinger equation is a very good approximation, but the maths is so horrendous no one can use it for real systems, so have to use approximations. Man landed on the using Newtonian physics, not relativity.
Joe: Why are they looking for a single theory to sum it all up if they don't accept some degree of hierarchical causality?
What do you mean by "hierarchical causality"?
Joe: Modern scientists since the enlightenment have sought to take God out of the picture.
And science has come on in leaps and bounds since then!
Joe: Of course this is the standard wrong assumption often made by those whose skepticism is scientifically based. Explaining nature is not the only reason to believe in God. Moreover, they are nowhere near explaining nature in it's entirety, the TS argument is the best answer to the questions posed by the transcendental signifiers.
I agree that understanding nature is not the only reason to believe in God, but it is one that Christians routinely offer up. As you are here!
And what is religion's answer? "God did it". Where does that get us?
Pix
Anonymous said...
I am kind of with you on part of this. In my view the laws of science are descriptive - they are a model of the real world. However, underlying the real world are the laws of nature, and they are prescriptive. Things in the real world do indeed follow laws - at least in some sense.
I agree with you but you know my major point is the term law is inadequate and yet we create big philosophical problems when we do without that word.
Now they are quite unlike the laws of man. Jennings is right about it being unfortunate they have the same name. The laws of nature do not tell you how to behave - as HRG say - but nature does follow them. The laws of nature are more akin to a computer program going through a series of iterations. It does so because that is its nature.
Yes no one thinks that laws of nature are like laws of juris prudence. HRG is just being too literal but he's using that as red herring. to make law the issue rather than the concept of ordering nature,
I am not sure to what extent the various people you quote would agree with that.
Joe: Weinberg tells us the theory of everything will unite all aspects of physical reality in a single elegant explanation.[8]Exactly as does the TS!
And that is as far as they are related.
what? TS, Law, everything, or what?
Joe: It's really describing a prescriptive set of laws, so it seems. If their theory can only give descriptions of how the universe behaves how is it going to explain everything?
As physicists, they are trying to explain all physics. If you think it will fail to explain morality, say, then you are right. They are guilty of hyperbole.
agree
Joe: It seems explanatory power only comes with certainty about how things work. That is weaker with probable tendencies than with actual laws.
Probably not. The less accurate approximations are often better just because they are simple enough that they can be used. Schrödinger equation is a very good approximation, but the maths is so horrendous no one can use it for real systems, so have to use approximations. Man landed on the using Newtonian physics, not relativity.
yes but still weaker than laws. That just means we are in control of nature we don't understand it all.
Joe: Why are they looking for a single theory to sum it all up if they don't accept some degree of hierarchical causality?
What do you mean by "hierarchical causality"?
At the basic level laws of nature control all of matter. then universe behaves in such a way that we can make laws of physics that are under laws of nature, then there are specific causal principles part of laws of physics.
Joe: Modern scientists since the enlightenment have sought to take God out of the picture.
And science has come on in leaps and bounds since then!
that is not correlated. There us no coloration between belief in God holding back science.
Joe: Of course this is the standard wrong assumption often made by those whose skepticism is scientifically based. Explaining nature is not the only reason to believe in God. Moreover, they are nowhere near explaining nature in it's entirety, the TS argument is the best answer to the questions posed by the transcendental signifiers.
I agree that understanding nature is not the only reason to believe in God, but it is one that Christians routinely offer up. As you are here!
No I think you are confusing arguments for belief in God with reasons to believe im God.
And what is religion's answer? "God did it". Where does that get us?
that is an atheist ploy for dismissing God arguments.
Joe: what? TS, Law, everything, or what?
TS and the potential theory of everything. Both want to explain all aspects of physics, and that is ALL they have in common.
Joe: yes but still weaker than laws. That just means we are in control of nature we don't understand it all.
Weaker in what sense? If you mean in their explanatory power, then no. Approximation can be better at explaining because we can understand them better.
Joe: At the basic level laws of nature control all of matter. then universe behaves in such a way that we can make laws of physics that are under laws of nature, then there are specific causal principles part of laws of physics.
If I understand that right, I do not think that that is contentious. It is not described in those terms, but biology depends on the behaviour of the underlying chemicals, which in turn depend on the underlying electrons, protons and neutron, which in turn depend on the basic laws of nature.
Very reductionist!
Joe: that is not correlated. There us no coloration between belief in God holding back science.
I think there is, at least to some degree. Look at how anti-science creationism is, for example.
Joe: No I think you are confusing arguments for belief in God with reasons to believe im God.
What is the difference?
Joe: that is an atheist ploy for dismissing God arguments.
That would be more convincing if you could provide religion's answer and show there is more to it than "God did it".
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: what? TS, Law, everything, or what?
TS and the potential theory of everything. Both want to explain all aspects of physics, and that is ALL they have in common.
I was not trying to imply that TS can hitch hike on the Theory of everything.
Joe: yes but still weaker than laws. That just means we are in control of nature we don't understand it all.that should say we are not in control of nature
Weaker in what sense? If you mean in their explanatory power, then no. Approximation can be better at explaining because we can understand them better.
epistemologically weaker because direct observation is more direct.
Joe: At the basic level laws of nature control all of matter. then universe behaves in such a way that we can make laws of physics that are under laws of nature, then there are specific causal principles part of laws of physics.
If I understand that right, I do not think that that is contentious. It is not described in those terms, but biology depends on the behaviour of the underlying chemicals, which in turn depend on the underlying electrons, protons and neutron, which in turn depend on the basic laws of nature.
that seems hierarchical to me
Very reductionist!
Methodological reduction is fine, It's ideological reductionism we must avoid.
Joe: that is not correlated. There us no coloration between belief in God holding back science.
I think there is, at least to some degree. Look at how anti-science creationism is, for example.
yes but I don't know how much it's really held back science, it's lost every major battle.
Joe: No I think you are confusing arguments for belief in God with reasons to believe im God.
What is the difference?
I did not come to believe due to Hartshorne's model argumemt it had nothing to do with my personal faith. But I use it as an argument because it's a hood argument,
Joe: that is an atheist ploy for dismissing God arguments.
That would be more convincing if you could provide religion's answer and show there is more to it than "God did it".
There's a lot more to it. For one thing, even though some stupid apologists do say that for everything the smart one's only use it the cosmic level causes and for ordinary stuff we assume there will be discovered a naturalistic casque. That does not apply to miracles but everything is not a miracle.
What is the difference between arguments for belief in God and reasons to believe in God? The same as the difference between promoting marriage as a socially good institution, and standing at the altar with the one you fell in love with.
Is religion's answer "God did it"? No, because religion isn't just a failed version of science. Religion actually asks entirely different questions. But as far as the workings of the physical universe are concerned, religion's answer (except for people who are caught up in fundamentalist ideology) is "Science helps us understand how these physical phenomena work, and aren't the workings awe-inspiring and amazing?"
Kristen: Is religion's answer "God did it"? No, because religion isn't just a failed version of science.
Is it even that?
Kristen: Religion actually asks entirely different questions.
Ask them is the easy bit.
Kristen: But as far as the workings of the physical universe are concerned, religion's answer (except for people who are caught up in fundamentalist ideology) is "Science helps us understand how these physical phenomena work, and aren't the workings awe-inspiring and amazing?"
So in fact God is not even part of the answer.
Pix
The answer to what, Pix? We were talking, I thought, about the answer to "how does the physical world work?" or possibly, "How did it work in the past that resulted in what we see today?" Those are the only questions that science can ask. Religion and philosophy ask things like "why are we here," and "what is the meaning of all this," and "do we have a purpose?" Yes asking them is the easy bit. But science doesn't and can't even ask them
You make excellent points Kristen.
Pix, God is not the answer to questions about science but God and not science is the answer to questions about life.
Kristen: The answer to what, Pix? We were talking, I thought, about the answer to "how does the physical world work?" or possibly, "How did it work in the past that resulted in what we see today?" Those are the only questions that science can ask. Religion and philosophy ask things like "why are we here," and "what is the meaning of all this," and "do we have a purpose?" Yes asking them is the easy bit. But science doesn't and can't even ask them
Sure. So what? Until religion and philosophy have some answers that we can verify - or just agree on - they do no better than science, which at least is up front about it!
So what? The "what" is what religion and philosophy do that science cannot.
When I said "religion is not just a failed version of science," you asked "is it even that?" As if all that religion could or should aspire to, is to be just like science. We have science to be science; we have philosophy to be philosophy; we have religion to be religion. If you don't feel that you want or need religion, so what? Multitudes of people do want and feel they need it.
But don't deny that you have a philosophy. "There is no meaning in life beyond what we humans make for ourselves" is a philosophical stance. So is "we aren't here for any particular reason; it was just a thing of chance." Neither has anything to do with science.
Kristen: So what? The "what" is what religion and philosophy do that science cannot.
Again: Until religion and philosophy have some answers that we can verify - or just agree on - they do no better than science, which at least is up front about it!
Kristen: When I said "religion is not just a failed version of science," you asked "is it even that?" As if all that religion could or should aspire to, is to be just like science. We have science to be science; we have philosophy to be philosophy; we have religion to be religion. If you don't feel that you want or need religion, so what? Multitudes of people do want and feel they need it.
Lots of people want and feel they need Netflix. If all you are saying is religion gives us comfort, then fine, go with that.
I think the issue here is whether it can answer the big questions - and do so reliably.
Kristen: But don't deny that you have a philosophy. "There is no meaning in life beyond what we humans make for ourselves" is a philosophical stance. So is "we aren't here for any particular reason; it was just a thing of chance." Neither has anything to do with science.
Sure. But that is just a guess on my part, and I will happily admit I may well be wrong. Are you prepared to say the same of your position?
Pix
Pix, "answers we can verify" are not possible according to the standard of "reliability" you are insisting upon, because that kind of reliability comes through science -- and as I said, science only asks, and answers, questions about the "how" of physical things in the universe.
The best we can do on ANY question of "why" or about meaning or purpose, is what Joe calls "rational warrant." Not "reliability." But science doesn't even ask the questions of "why," or questions of meaning or purpose. So as far as the reliability of your own answers goes, you've got nothing either.
What I'm saying is that religion and philosophy can at least address the questions. Can they be wrong? Can I be wrong in my selection of the religion and philosophy that yields the answers that seem to me to be most rationally warranted? Of course! That's the point. There's no such thing as certainty on these issues.
We all get emotionally invested in our own philosophy. That's just as true for materialists as for theists. You may be willing to happily admit you may be wrong, but when it comes to actually considering other answers than the ones you've decided on, you're just as unwilling to consider switching philosophies as anyone else. Except, perhaps, a fundamentalist whose reliance on their answers is based in fear.
But for you, to switch philosophies, someone would have to create certainty for you about the answers to these questions-- and that cannot happen.
Kristen: Pix, "answers we can verify" are not possible according to the standard of "reliability" you are insisting upon, because that kind of reliability comes through science -- and as I said, science only asks, and answers, questions about the "how" of physical things in the universe.
That is kind of my point.
Kristen: The best we can do on ANY question of "why" or about meaning or purpose, is what Joe calls "rational warrant." Not "reliability." But science doesn't even ask the questions of "why," or questions of meaning or purpose. So as far as the reliability of your own answers goes, you've got nothing either.
Joe's "rational warrant" is rationalising his beliefs. True rational warrant would: (a) be objective; and (b) acknowledge the uncertainty.
Kristen: What I'm saying is that religion and philosophy can at least address the questions. Can they be wrong? Can I be wrong in my selection of the religion and philosophy that yields the answers that seem to me to be most rationally warranted? Of course! That's the point. There's no such thing as certainty on these issues.
So when will theists start saying there is probably a God, rather than pronouncing it as fact?
Kristen: But for you, to switch philosophies, someone would have to create certainty for you about the answers to these questions-- and that cannot happen.
I do not require certainty, but I do require a higher probability than my current view. But "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The probability of there being a god is extraordinary; it is very low probability. You need some pretty good evidence to overcome that.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Kristen: Pix, "answers we can verify" are not possible according to the standard of "reliability" you are insisting upon, because that kind of reliability comes through science -- and as I said, science only asks, and answers, questions about the "how" of physical things in the universe.
That is kind of my point.
Yes but you need to consider how that point does not negate Christianity
Kristen: The best we can do on ANY question of "why" or about meaning or purpose, is what Joe calls "rational warrant." Not "reliability." But science doesn't even ask the questions of "why," or questions of meaning or purpose. So as far as the reliability of your own answers goes, you've got nothing either.
Joe's "rational warrant" is rationalising his beliefs. True rational warrant would: (a) be objective; and (b) acknowledge the uncertainty.
Rational warrant is a step in any argument, A; arguments must have one. It's just another way of saying good reason to support x. What is that rationalizing? That does not cover my reason for believing in God it covers my attempt to convince you about God. then you say a and. a)be objective, show me where I'm not. I offer 200 studies on RE that's a hell if a lot more objective than your objections which have no no studies.
Kristen: What I'm saying is that religion and philosophy can at least address the questions. Can they be wrong? Can I be wrong in my selection of the religion and philosophy that yields the answers that seem to me to be most rationally warranted? Of course! That's the point. There's no such thing as certainty on these issues.
good one Kristen
So when will theists start saying there is probably a God, rather than pronouncing it as fact?
who is that guy who has been doing that all along? he says it's rational warrant rather than proof so that's a probabalistic argumemt? That guy we all know and love, a genius who's so nice a fellow.;-)
Kristen: But for you, to switch philosophies, someone would have to create certainty for you about the answers to these questions-- and that cannot happen.
I do not require certainty, but I do require a higher probability than my current view.
200 studies good probability. For most issues 10 would be a land slide. On fine tuning we show the odds of a life bearig universe are astronomically improbable.
But "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The probability of there being a god is extraordinary; it is very low probability. You need some pretty good evidence to overcome that.
see my previous argument
Joe: Yes but you need to consider how that point does not negate Christianity
It negates the support for Christianity.
Joe: Rational warrant is a step in any argument, A; arguments must have one. It's just another way of saying good reason to support x. What is that rationalizing? That does not cover my reason for believing in God it covers my attempt to convince you about God. then you say a and. a)be objective, show me where I'm not. I offer 200 studies on RE that's a hell if a lot more objective than your objections which have no no studies.
True rational warrant would be a set of reasons that collectively give good reason to think a claim is true over any other. The way you use it is to say you have one reason to suppose a claim is true, and despite the reasons to suppose it is not true, that one reason gives you "rational warrant" to be certain you are right.
Joe: who is that guy who has been doing that all along? he says it's rational warrant rather than proof so that's a probabalistic argumemt? That guy we all know and love, a genius who's so nice a fellow.;-)
Can you quote him saying God probably exists?
Joe: 200 studies good probability. For most issues 10 would be a land slide. On fine tuning we show the odds of a life bearig universe are astronomically improbable.
And, as per those studies, I fully accept that people have mystical experiences. Whether they come from God, aliens, chemical imbalances or something else has yet to be established.
This is where your "rational warrant" comes in. You want God to exist, so you find this one fact that supports your belief, and declare that is "rational warrant" for having certainty God exists.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Yes but you need to consider how that point does not negate Christianity
It negates the support for Christianity.
Not at all
Joe: Rational warrant is a step in any argument, A; arguments must have one. It's just another way of saying good reason to support x. What is that rationalizing? That does not cover my reason for believing in God it covers my attempt to convince you about God. then you say a and. a)be objective, show me where I'm not. I offer 200 studies on RE that's a hell if a lot more objective than your objections which have no no studies.
True rational warrant would be a set of reasons that collectively give good reason to think a claim is true over any other. The way you use it is to say you have one reason to suppose a claim is true, and despite the reasons to suppose it is not true, that one reason gives you "rational warrant" to be certain you are right.
I don't I've said it's limited to one reason but if yo see one reason it;s still goimg have a multiplicity of supporting reasons, that will just come.
Joe: who is that guy who has been doing that all along? he says it's rational warrant rather than proof so that's a probabalistic argumemt? That guy we all know and love, a genius who's so nice a fellow.;-)
Can you quote him saying God probably exists?
Joe: 200 studies good probability. For most issues 10 would be a land slide. On fine tuning we show the odds of a life bearig universe are astronomically improbable.
And, as per those studies, I fully accept that people have mystical experiences. Whether they come from God, aliens, chemical imbalances or something else has yet to be established.
there's no counter explanation that works, you can't explain the u tie breakers.
This is where your "rational warrant" comes in. You want God to exist, so you find this one fact that supports your belief, and declare that is "rational warrant" for having certainty God exists.
as I said it has a nyriad supporting warrants such as the 200 studiex.
Pix, you said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim. But you do realize, don't you, that the vast majority of human beings, even in this scientific age, believe in some form of the divine? They differ in what they think its qualities or attributes might be, but most of us think there's "something or someone out there." Most people, in fact, experience some form of connection with It or Them.
It's actually a fairly extraordinary claim that a small group of people make, that nothing can exist that cannot be scientifically verified, and that all they will agree to believe in are things that can be scientifically established. It cannot be scientifically established that everything that is real can be scientifically established.
So in what sense is belief in God/the divine extraordinary? It's only extraordinary if you insist that science is the one and only arbiter of reality.
Post a Comment