No such thing as God.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

to say that the failure of empiricism on the quantum level refutes empiricism on the classical level is simply false.

Lack of reconciliation is not the same as refutation, of course, and I don't make the case that empiricism is refuted by any inconsistency.

Personally I don’t buy Kuhn’s thesis in SSR because it fails to acknowledge that science is directed toward the understanding of something that actually exists – as opposed to merely developing concepts.

My reading is that it doesn't matter what actually exists, because our access to / understanding of it is completely beholden to the perspective of our paradigm. What actually exists is what it is, but to us it's understood completely differently in different eras.

As for reconciling classical with quantum physics, failure to have done this seems to me only to represent a (thus far) incomplete paradigm shift.

For example, Kuhn contrasts mass as understood in Newton’s and Einstein’s physics, mass being unrelated to velocity in the former, and variable relative to velocity in the latter. This might constitute a paradigm shift for a classically trained physicist such as Kuhn – but it’s better explained as conceptual development, enabling fuller and better understanding of mass, than as an incommensurability ultimately falsifying the whole empirical endeavor.

Ok, but you're sort of saying the same thing as Kuhn -- whether the phrase is paradigm shift or conceptual development, both express transition to a more complete understanding. An old understanding can be incorporated into a new one or it can be rejected; but in this case the radically different new understanding DOES represent more than just a gradual transition through falsification (in the sense Popper uses it).

If we follow Kuhn’s argument to its logical conclusion here – science would have to present a complete understanding of reality in order to claim any statement were true.

But science CANNOT and SHOULD NOT claim that something is true (unless true is being used in a non-absolute sense). So long as science always reserves the right to revise itself, it can never claim that something is absolutely true.

I’d argue that it’s yours, and presumably Kuhn’s concept of truth that’s at fault. I use the term ‘valid knowledge’ specifically to avoid using the term ‘truth’ – which for me has absolutist connotations that reflects poorly the real nature of human knowledge. Empiricism is a proven means of establishing valid knowledge – and continued observation, theorization and experimentation will improve the validity of that knowledge.

I agree, I never speak of science yielding absolute truth. But whether we call it 'valid knowledge' or 'sufficient truth' or 'conventional truth', you and I are talking about the same thing.

Crick and Watson were eventually able to photograph DNA in 1952 thanks to advances in other sciences, presumably optical physics because they used an x-ray microscope - enabling observations that were previously not possible to be reconciled in terms of the theory.

Well, Rosalind Franklin actually did the x-ray crystallography work and it was for practical purposes intellectual theft on the part of Crick and Watson, but bygones...

I’d acknowledge that empiricism doesn’t establish truth in the absolute sense. It establishes valid knowledge and improves upon the validity of that knowledge by the continued application of empirical method, and this has far more than a mere pragmatic value

Fair enough, I'd go along with that. I think talking about absolute truth is almost pointless anyway, and critiques of science that point out its lack of access to absolute truth don't seem very important to me.

[Didymos Thomas]

It amazes me how blind religious people are to the role of religion in most of the worst episodes in a long history of man’s inhumanity to man. Stand on the border between Israel and Palestine and tell me about universal love – or on the border between Northern and Southern Ireland, between the Catholics and Protestants and tell me it’s just like football violence. Read up on the partition of India along religious lines after the withdrawal of the British and tell me religion isn’t the foundation of nation states. Acknowledge the fact that the Pilgrim Fathers justified a systematic genocide of the Native American people on the basis that they were heathens who knew no Christian God. Read up on century after century of bloody conflict between human groups defined by religious ideology and then tell me ‘some people abuse religion and create division.’ Bull****. I am certainly not convinced, but furthermore, I don’t think you can possibly believe what you’re saying either. It’s simply not acceptable to deny valid knowledge in favor of ideological convention, or even to hold ideological convention and scientific fact in the same secular, relativistic regard – because you cannot claim, in all seriousness and good conscience to believe these lies.

Ah, so in the face of my arguments you say I must either be a liar or a fool. Thanks for the wonderful conversation.

I've not denied any fact about the brutality committed in the name of religion. I've offered up some arguments about this brutality that defend religion in general yet criticize the brutality. But, if you just do not see how anyone could accept such an argument, fine. But there is no reason to suggest I am "blind" because of my spiritual views - my arguments have not been based on spiritual beliefs.

Tell me, are you really satisfied with your worldview – or are there not a thousand facts and questions you have to close your mind to in order to maintain such blatantly false beliefs?

My beliefs are informed by what I learn. As for "blatantly false" beliefs - you do not even know my spiritual beliefs, how could you know them to be false?

[quote]Does it not appeal to your reason – given that evolution can be shown to have occurred, that at some point in time primitive man sought to explain his existence by imagining a creator of the world and himself? [/quote[

Did I ever question this?

Does it not appeal to your reason – given that it can be shown that Ancient Greece, Egypt and Rome, the Myans, Incas and Aztecs and so on – all these past civilizations had their own concepts of God – that there’s no more validity to your concept of God than there was to theirs?

Depends on what you call valid concepts of God. If you mean useful for explaining reality, I'm sure these ancient peoples found their views to be useful, and when they were no longer useful, their views changed. Talk about evolution.

Are you entirely unaware of the theory of evolution, or big bang theory? Do you think these are the just the opinions of primitive people – or are they the hard won discoveries of an intelligent species at last emerging into the light of true belief?

Very familiar. I accept both theories. Careful - you do not know what I believe, which will make criticisms of my belief extremely difficult for you.

Do you not see that the scientific principles underlying technology enable the technology to function – and must therefore be valid? There are no divine spark plugs, prayer powered hot-air balloons or divine light bulbs are there? Why not? Because it’s not valid knowledge. Religion does not describe reality.

Again, I have no problem with science. If you are only going to make assumptions about my claims and then attack me for the assumptions you make, you are wasting your time.

You say: ‘But I do not think we need "valid" understanding so much as we need 'useful' understanding.’
But didn’t you already state that people disagree. Thus, what’s useful for you isn’t useful for me.

Right. I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. No sense in it.

Here’s where science comes in. It’s objective, the same for you as for me. Furthermore, it’s valid of reality and can thus be practically applied to address real world problems.

Absolutely, science is great. The mistake you have made is thinking that somehow science and religion are necessarily opposed.

I’m not people asking for unity, or for universal love – that’s ridiculous and inhuman.

Love. Ridiculous and inhuman. Sure....

Iconoclast - try sticking to my arguments if you want to debate me. Take away all of your biases, and try to understand what the other person is saying. Then the conversation might be more useful to you.

My points have been simple. Science and religion serve different purposes, both are great. You cannot prove that God does not exist, the claim is far too extreme. We should be tolerant of other points of view, otherwise we will kill each other.

If you'd like we can try again.

[Ruthless Logic]

The above responses contain a lot of Me's, My's, and I's. Reminds me of a person who in the absence of having credible counter arguments turns to self preservation by insulating their claims to criticism by invoking the personal path explanation.

[iconoclast]

Didymos Thomas, quote: 'Science and religion serve different purposes, both are great.'

No, they don't, no they're not. Both science and religion are ways of understanding our existence. Science is epistemologically superior to religion - and refutes the conception of reality presented by religion, particulalrly the tacit claim that there are fundamnetal differences between human beings born into different faith traditions.

quote: 'Ah, so in the face of my arguments you say I must either be a liar or a fool.'

I didn't say that. For all I know, you could just be playing devil's advocate. All I'm saying is your client is as guilty as sin - and what's more, I think you know it.

Which bares upon the point made by Ruthless Logic. Excellent point. Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm not critsizing your personal beliefs per se, but putting forward an epistemological argument that's critical of religion in particular and ideology in general. But where you say: 'I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. No sense in it.' I am trying to convince you, and anyone who'll listen of my point of view.

Because the power structures of societies are founded upon, and draw justification from religious ideas - science is subjected to ideology, employed as a tool in pursuit of ideologically concieved ends, and ignored as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

Philosophically, this is wrong because scientific knowledge is epistemologically superior to ideology, while in common sense terms it’s wrong because nations spend billions twisting technology to the purpose of murdering the people of other nations – while we close upon an energy crisis we have the technology – but can’t afford, to overcome. Rationalized by capitalism the cheapest, dirtiest methods of production pollute the air, land and water – such that the climate is changing, the ice caps are melting and one species is lost from the ecosystem every week – and so on.

Of course, it isn’t nearly so simple, but the thing is, because at its heart it’s a conceptual problem, it’s us – we philosophers with a responsibility to understand and address this problem, for while there are enough people concerned about the catastrophes closing in upon us, they don’t recognize the real underlying cause. If you read ‘The Meaning of the 21st Century’ for example, the problems are all there, but because the author, James Martin, fails to identify the underlying cause – he’s unable to present realistic solutions. This is our area – we wouldn’t be here otherwise – but we are here, and something very important needs our attention.

[iconoclast]

Aedes, Quote: My reading is that it doesn't matter what actually exists, because our access to / understanding of it is completely beholden to the perspective of our paradigm. What actually exists is what it is, but to us it's understood completely differently in different eras.

That is Kuhn's claim, but i don't buy it. It's a tricky one because, on the one hand I'd argue that it does matter what actually exists - and that we have evolved in realtion to an existant and consistant reality, because this shapes our reason - our ability to know, so it matters, however, on the other hand, to what end? As you say, and i agree - absolute truth is a philosophical construction rather than a realistic end for scientific investigation.

The highly valid product of the empirical endevour - understood as (if it were) a whole, has more than a mere pragmatic value. In my opinion science has a justified claim to authoritatively allocate values in place of highly conventional and pragmatic ideological bases of analysis.

[iconoclast]

Solace, the short answer is yes, there is. The longer answer is that i don't expect for a moment that we will get rid of religion. It would be ideal, but it's not absolutely necessary. iconoclast.

[urangutan]

Iconoclast, the definition of (The God as opposed to a god) in the tenth reply, (excuse me I don't know how to get the quotes in) as supernatural entity is nothing more than a comic book referance to bible class etiquette. God is the moment before, during and after creation and from that we and all else exist.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by iconoclast

Didymos Thomas, quote: 'Science and religion serve different purposes, both are great.'

No, they don't, no they're not. Both science and religion are ways of understanding our existence. Science is epistemologically superior to religion - and refutes the conception of reality presented by religion, particulalrly the tacit claim that there are fundamnetal differences between human beings born into different faith traditions.

Not to go off on a tangent, but I'm assuming you've been to weddings, funerals, perhaps bar mitzvahs, celebrated holidays, etc. What role do you see science having in the human social need for togetherness and celebration? Even secular holidays and celebrations (like Thanksgiving and the Fourth of July) are not grounded in scientific demonstrability, but rather culturally inherited tradition. There are things we as humans do and need that cannot be decided scientifically. But I bet you could prove scientifically that these things are needed.

[Didymos Thomas]

The above responses contain a lot of Me's, My's, and I's. Reminds me of a person who in the absence of having credible counter arguments turns to self preservation by insulating their claims to criticism by invoking the personal path explanation.

Sounds like your favorite tactic.

Oh, but you would rather drop in with snide comments rather than address the issues.

No, they don't, no they're not. Both science and religion are ways of understanding our existence. Science is epistemologically superior to religion - and refutes the conception of reality presented by religion, particulalrly the tacit claim that there are fundamnetal differences between human beings born into different faith traditions.

I'll defer to Aedes' response regarding the different roles of religion and science. I hope you don't mind.

Any claim by religion that science can refute is a claim said religion should never have made. The tacit claim you refer to is not a claim necessarily advocated by religion. Take Buddhism, for example.

I didn't say that. For all I know, you could just be playing devil's advocate. All I'm saying is your client is as guilty as sin - and what's more, I think you know it.

Then I should reinforce the fact that I'm not playing devil's advocate. My arguments here are entirely serious. If you do not want to take them seriously, that's fine. If you do, you have them and are free to respond to them at your pleasure.

Which bares upon the point made by Ruthless Logic. Excellent point. Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm not critsizing your personal beliefs per se, but putting forward an epistemological argument that's critical of religion in particular and ideology in general. But where you say: 'I'm not trying to push my beliefs on anyone. No sense in it.' I am trying to convince you, and anyone who'll listen of my point of view.

Except that Ruthless Logic did not make a point. Instead, he made a personal attack on me which has no basis in reality - no surprise, his responses are usually of no value to the discussion.

As for your epistemological arguments about religion. These are fine, and I would like to hear them. The problem is that you present them along with other broad generalizations about religion as if those broad generalizations are necessarily true. If we can cut through the unnecessary indictments regarding the (negative) influence of religion, perhaps the epistemological issues would be easier to address by themselves.

I hear you loud and clear about the damage of religion in the past, and in today's world. No one can deny the harm. But what we can deny is that this sort of harm is a necessary aspect of religion. To make an example, let's look at your comments about the divisiveness of religion. Yes, religion is often used to divide people. But so is family, and nation. Just like religion, family and nation also have the ability to unite people. So, the problem is not religion per se, but instead the way people use these ties (religion, family, ect) to influence others.

Because the power structures of societies are founded upon, and draw justification from religious ideas - science is subjected to ideology, employed as a tool in pursuit of ideologically concieved ends, and ignored as a rule for the conduct of human affairs.

But religion does not necessarily cause science to be ignored or adultured. Again, take the example of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama has said quite clearly that if science ever contradicts Buddhist doctrine that practitioners should side with the findings of science. So, you are right that the ordering of society is influenced by religion, but this does not mean that religion necessarily does harm to science.

Philosophically, this is wrong because scientific knowledge is epistemologically superior to ideology

I agree with you, sort of. Even the notion that science is as you say it is, is an example of ideology. But you are right if you mean that science is epistemologically superior to ideology for the sake of conservatism - for the sake of what has been the popular ideology.

Again, I point to the example of Buddhism and science. The Buddhist ideology is to side with science should science and Buddhist doctrine contradict. Obviously, then, this ideology is epistemically equal to scientific knowledge because the ideology upholds the value of science.

while in common sense terms it’s wrong because nations spend billions twisting technology to the purpose of murdering the people of other nations – while we close upon an energy crisis we have the technology – but can’t afford, to overcome. Rationalized by capitalism the cheapest, dirtiest methods of production pollute the air, land and water – such that the climate is changing, the ice caps are melting and one species is lost from the ecosystem every week – and so on.

The first example of state involvement in conservation (of which I am familiar) is the Indian emperor Ashoka. Ashoka issued a series of edicts proclaiming all sorts of environmental and wildlife protections - all justified by Buddhist doctrine.

Today, fundamentalist Christianity in the US has been tied with uber-capitalism, and the combination is horrible (not that either school of thought was particularly appealing to begin with). The results have been horrible. But this sort of attitude of religion is not necessarily the religious response.

Of course, it isn’t nearly so simple, but the thing is, because at its heart it’s a conceptual problem, it’s us – we philosophers with a responsibility to understand and address this problem, for while there are enough people concerned about the catastrophes closing in upon us, they don’t recognize the real underlying cause. If you read ‘The Meaning of the 21st Century’ for example, the problems are all there, but because the author, James Martin, fails to identify the underlying cause – he’s unable to present realistic solutions. This is our area – we wouldn’t be here otherwise – but we are here, and something very important needs our attention.

If the issues you are concerned with are the future of the species - the environment, the way we treat each other - then I would suggest that tolerance of a variety of religious views is essential. It is terribly arrogant and unrealistic to demand that all people give up religion. Instead of introducing a new group to do battle in the global arena, your own particular brand of non-religion, perhaps what is needed is tolerance among the groups that do exist, and tolerance for groups that might exist. When we tolerate one another, we do not kill each other. When we fight over who is right and wrong we do kill each other.

Iconoclast - the discussion is very interesting, and I appreciate your points. I hope that we can continue the discourse in a productive manner, and I do believe we can. To do so, I think we will both have to take things slow and really try to understand what the other person is saying. I think we can learn from one another.

[Ruthless Logic]

Except that Ruthless Logic did not make a point. Instead, he made a personal attack on me which has no basis in reality - no surprise, his responses are usually of no value to the discussion.


Really? Interacting with you is a act in frustrating futility. You just do not get it. I simply do not have the time to grab you by the intellectual reins, and lead you to the trough of enlightenment, so you can drink from the water of knowledge, that is for someone else to do, I simply do not have the patience.