The Fundamental Conflict Between Science And Religion

[Robert F. Smith]

With all due respect, I would like to see where you got that reading of Wittgenstein.

Most, if not all, philosophers of the 20th century would disagree heartily with that intepretation.

I first encountered this reading back in the 1960s when I was a student at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Nathan Rothenstreich, then the rector of that university, had written an article on Wittgenstein which I found fascinating. I cannot now locate that article, but Rothenstreich continued to write about Wittgenstein for the remainder of his life and you can find numerous articles by him online.

Herewith is a typical comment on Wittgenstein's ladder:

“This also entails taking seriously Wittgenstein's words in 6.54—his famous ladder metaphor—and throwing out the Tractatus itself. The Tractatus, on this stance, beyond telling the reader about the ineffable (metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, logical form, pictorial form, etc.), is a part of the ineffable as well, and should be recognized as such. An accompanying discussion must then also deal with how this can be recognized,what this can possibly mean, and how it should be used, if at all.” (online at http://plato.stanfor...s/wittgenstein/ or here).

Edited August 9, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

Such as? I was only giving an example of a religious claim that falls under science but, what other "more parsimonious and falsifiable" claims do you have in mind?

Possibly, for example, the new thread you have going on Book of Mormon archeology would be more amenable to parsimonious and falsifiable examination.

I don't understand why you are talking about this here at all. This comment is completely dislocated from what I said.

Again, the proposition "You exist" isn't a statement about me. Really, where's the difficulty there?

Yes, but is existence a predicate there or in the statement that "God exists" (cf. A. J. Ayer Language, Truth, and Logic). What is the meaning of "is"? Fundamental logical questions inhere in both statements.

[elguanteloko]

Possibly, for example, the new thread you have going on Book of Mormon archeology would be more amenable to parsimonious and falsifiable examination.

Well, this thread is intended to discuss the fundamental problem from which almost all other problems are derived. Friend, talking about parsimony and falsifiability as you are using them in that sentence doesn't make sense since they apply to theories or explanations, not to threads. What about the BoM archaeology thread is "parsimonious and falsifiable"?

Yes, but is existence a predicate there or in the statement that "God exists" (cf. A. J. Ayer Language, Truth, and Logic). What is the meaning of "is"? Fundamental logical questions inhere in both statements.

..."existence" a predicate? (x)Gx, where G stands for God. The predicate is God, not "existence". The meaning of "is" is irrelevant, brother, come on. Wait... what's the meaning of "come on"? or of "of"? Get on topic, brother, you were going fine.

[Robert F. Smith]

Well, this thread is intended to discuss the fundamental problem from which almost all other problems are derived. Friend, talking about parsimony and falsifiability as you are using them in that sentence doesn't make sense since they apply to theories or explanations, not to threads. What about the BoM archaeology thread is "parsimonious and falsifiable"?

I was merely suggesting that the issue being discussed in that other, Book of Mormon Archaeology, thread, might more readily avail itself of scientific inquiry. Verdad?

..."existence" a predicate? (x)Gx, where G stands for God. The predicate is God, not "existence". The meaning of "is" is irrelevant, brother, come on. Wait... what's the meaning of "come on"? or of "of"? Get on topic, brother, you were going fine.

All this reminds me of Bill Clinton wondering about the meaning of "is," and I couldn't resist the implied reference. Sorry.

As Russell would have said, "existence" is not something which one has or gets, so that it is not clear what "God exists" means, any more than to say "God is." If one cannot, as you aver, even investigate such statements (owing to the status of God), are they not nonsensical statements? Isn't that what you have in effect been saying till now?

[Robert F. Smith]

You'll like this illustration, El Guante,

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial teapot, Cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God and has drawn some criticism for comparing the unfalsifiablility of a teapot to God.

--from here.

[subgenius]

You'll like this illustration, El Guante,

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial teapot, Cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God and has drawn some criticism for comparing the unfalsifiablility of a teapot to God.

--from here.

silly parlor trick for underclassmen.

of course that analogy would be enjoyable to anyone who likes to compare things which have no relevance to each other. (see also: reductio ad absurdum ) - so while we are at it, let us apply the teapot to things such as the Big Bang, electromagnetism, etc...

The biggest flaw with the teapot as a religious argument is that it requires the following principle to be true:

"In the absence of positive evidence for their truth, assume positive existential claims to be false."

Upon intelligent examination, one must conclude that the teapot only serves against claims about that which is "physical", beyond that one is erroneously applying the argument due to its inherent limitations.

But please feel free to join the other freshmen http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Russell%E2%80%99s_Teapot_and_the_Burden_of_Proof#Russell.27s_teapot

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

Good morning.

I'm just using the standard dictionary definition of supernatural. IE; Pertaining to God.

I fully believe in a material God, one that has the form of man. He has a body, parts, and passions. I think that if one accepts the premise that there is a God, and that he takes a interest in us. Then the LDS have a logical and defendable belief system.

What I can not do is use the natural world/universe to prove(scientific sense of the word) a supernatural entity. I know of no test from science that could possibly prove or disprove that or any other belief system.

Do I believe that someday that reconciliation will be possible? Yes, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith:

Good morning.

I'm just using the standard dictionary definition of supernatural. IE; Pertaining to God.

I fully believe in a material God, one that has the form of man. He has a body, parts, and passions. I think that if one accepts the premise that there is a God, and that he takes a interest in us. Then the LDS have a logical and defendable belief system.

What I can not do is use the natural world/universe to prove(scientific sense of the word) a supernatural entity. I know of no test from science that could possibly prove or disprove that or any other belief system.

Do I believe that someday that reconciliation will be possible? Yes, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

If you believe that God is truly supernatural, i.e., transcendent and outside this universe, the necessary Uncaused Cause, then of course you can have no hope of any sort of test which can examine his existence or lack of it. In addition, such a notion carries with it the result that we and the entire universe are merely contingent items, unnecessary to God, he being the only necessary entity. Furthermore, if we accept such notions, we are left with a God who created everything that is, and that leaves us with an intractable problem of evil (theodicy) created by God, which leaves the entire notion of God as self-contradictory and absurd.

In Mormonism, on the other hand, we may only speak of an imminent, preternatural God with whom we share eternity (our intelligences have neither beginning nor end) and being (we are of his genus and species). Any evil is self-chosen by us independent, necessary beings, and cannot be blamed on God, who has a plan by which both justice and mercy may be served -- the atonement. There is no room for miracles and supernaturalism in Mormonism (except as ascribed to our ignorance of natural forces) since we are part of an entirely reasonable, material, and monistic multiverse -- worlds without end, amen.

[Robert F. Smith]

silly parlor trick for underclassmen.

of course that analogy would be enjoyable to anyone who likes to compare things which have no relevance to each other. (see also: reductio ad absurdum ) - so while we are at it, let us apply the teapot to things such as the Big Bang, electromagnetism, etc...

The biggest flaw with the teapot as a religious argument is that it requires the following principle to be true:

"In the absence of positive evidence for their truth, assume positive existential claims to be false."

Upon intelligent examination, one must conclude that the teapot only serves against claims about that which is "physical", beyond that one is erroneously applying the argument due to its inherent limitations.

But please feel free to join the other freshmen http://rationalwiki....sell.27s_teapot

Still, this is an excellent illustration of Elguanteloko's case for claims which are unfalsifiable and non-parsimonious. Never does Elguanteloko claim that this renders existential claims false -- only that they are less likely explanations. In the event, he simply opts for explanations which have a higher level of probability.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

Not really. As LDS believe in a eternal pre-existence it is entirely possible for God to create this universe, and still preserve Agency.

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith:

Not really. As LDS believe in a eternal pre-existence it is entirely possible for God to create this universe, and still preserve Agency.

"Not really" what?

LDS members have a full range of personal beliefs, some of which often have no direct relationship to Mormonism as taught by Joseph Smith and the standard works. Part of the reason for that may be that some come from other religious backgrounds and bring incompatible beliefs with them. It can also be due to a lack of study. In other cases, there are legitimate differences of interpretation about various matters which have remained controversial for many years.

When I referred to our intelligences, which have no beginning and no end, I assumed that you knew that that is part of our eternal pre-existence, and that free will obtains only in such a condition. If the God of normative Judeo-Christian belief created everything from nothing, then there can be no free will, and any evil in the universe is the fault of God. This is the intractable problem of evil (theodicy) which Protestants, Catholics, and others have saddled themselves with. Mormonism rejects that belief along with a number of other absurd and incoherent notions -- including belief in the supernatural.

God did not create this universe from nothing, he organized preexisting materials. We (and Satan) have free agency because we are coeternal with God.

[subgenius]

Still, this is an excellent illustration of Elguanteloko's case for claims which are unfalsifiable and non-parsimonious. Never does Elguanteloko claim that this renders existential claims false -- only that they are less likely explanations. In the event, he simply opts for explanations which have a higher level of probability.

"higher level of probability"??? probability for what exactly??

Probability is nothing more than a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probable?show=0&t=1312978955

its about presumptions which may be "true" or "real"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probable?show=0&t=1312978955

So, the arrogance that only through "science" may we define what is "true" or "real" is quite surprising.

My issue is in Elguan's (and others) assumption that their paradigm for probability has a value which is both comparable to and better than another paradigm.

So, while one can say that an existential claim is "less likely" in empiricism, such a statement is seemingly made with ignorance of the fact that an empirical claim is "less likely" in existentialism.

It is the persistent and unfounded comparison of apples to oranges that i find most disagreeable, and seemingly that is the harbinger of most existential criticisms.

Its a fundamental error i see made by most atheists and their ilk.

As for notions of unfalsifiable (a word?) or non-parsimonous, the BoM can easily contradict such labels. How are the scriptures not an economical conveyance of Gospel principles? How are these principles not able to be observed and "tested" in our everyday physical lives? That sort of criticism is most often levied towards the historical claims of the scriptures like the parting of the red sea. The empiricist is incapable of devising a physical experiment or any other "observation" and thus, the incorrect conclusion is made that the principle must also be "non-existent". Which simply reveals that the incorrect paradigm is being assumed. One does not learn spanish in order to read russian, nor does one claim that poetry is not art simply because it has no paint.

[subgenius]

Still, this is an excellent illustration of Elguanteloko's case for claims which are unfalsifiable and non-parsimonious. Never does Elguanteloko claim that this renders existential claims false -- only that they are less likely explanations. In the event, he simply opts for explanations which have a higher level of probability.

"higher level of probability"??? probability for what exactly??

Probability is nothing more than a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probable?show=0&t=1312978955

its about presumptions which may be "true" or "real"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/probable?show=0&t=1312978955

So, the arrogance that only through "science" may we define what is "true" or "real" is quite surprising.

My issue is in Elguan's (and others) assumption that their paradigm for probability has a value which is both comparable to and better than another paradigm.

So, while one can say that an existential claim is "less likely" in empiricism, such a statement is seemingly made with ignorance of the fact that an empirical claim is "less likely" in existentialism.

It is the persistent and unfounded comparison of apples to oranges that i find most disagreeable, and seemingly that is the harbinger of most existential criticisms.

Its a fundamental error i see made by most atheists and their ilk.

As for notions of unfalsifiable (a word?) or non-parsimonous, the BoM can easily contradict such labels. How are the scriptures not an economical conveyance of Gospel principles? How are these principles not able to be observed and "tested" in our everyday physical lives? That sort of criticism is most often levied towards the historical claims of the scriptures like the parting of the red sea. The empiricist is incapable of devising a physical experiment or any other "observation" and thus, the incorrect conclusion is made that the principle must also be "non-existent". Which simply reveals that the incorrect paradigm is being assumed. One does not learn spanish in order to read russian, nor does one claim that poetry is not art simply because it has no paint.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

This universe has existed for about 13.7 billion years. What existed before it? In LDS theology we have. What will exist after this universe is no more. We will, we are eternal.

[Jeff K.]

Judging by some of the posts, maybe a bit infernal too.

[thesometimesaint]

Jeff K.:

God does live in eternal burnings.

Edited August 10, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[wenglund]

Hey Elg,

Have you heard of Noetic Science?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

“This also entails taking seriously Wittgenstein's words in 6.54—his famous ladder metaphor—and throwing out the Tractatus itself. The Tractatus, on this stance, beyond telling the reader about the ineffable (metaphysics, ethics, aesthetics, logical form, pictorial form, etc.), is a part of the ineffable as well, and should be recognized as such. An accompanying discussion must then also deal with how this can be recognized,what this can possibly mean, and how it should be used, if at all.” (online at http://plato.stanfor...s/wittgenstein/ or here).

From the Tractatus

6.54 My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.) He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

Oh - well he threw out the Tractatus later in life, but I understood your statement to be something along the lines that he said that philosophers could not reach conclusions about things. In his later philosophy- what he was doing was quite different than the Tractatus- he was creating a methodology or technique for philosophers to use to clarify language- and giving language a totally contextual meaning.

His entire enterprise at that time was in showing philosophers the errors of his ways- and giving them tools to use to avoid future errors- which in itself is a significant "conclusion" in that sense.

Practically all philosophers today use his methodology and refer to "language games" etc, and certainly the understanding of meaning as contextual. For me, he brought about a huge paradigm shift- and I was just saying it was inaccurate to call that he made no conclusions. His conclusions are used daily!

But I guess all this depends on what you meant and the context in which you meant it, doesn't it?

Edited August 10, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith:

This universe has existed for about 13.7 billion years. What existed before it? In LDS theology we have. What will exist after this universe is no more. We will, we are eternal.

Correct. Brother Joseph undoubtedly has a big smile for you.

This is also a reason to speak of the multiverse rather than the universe. Infinity and eternity are tough concepts to describe in mere words.

[Robert F. Smith]

Oh - well he threw out the Tractatus later in life, but I understood your statement to be something along the lines that he said that philosophers could not reach conclusions about things. In his later philosophy- what he was doing was quite different than the Tractatus- he was creating a methodology or technique for philosophers to use to clarify language- and giving language a totally contextual meaning.

His entire enterprise at that time was in showing philosophers the errors of his ways- and giving them tools to use to avoid future errors- which in itself is a significant "conclusion" in that sense.

Practically all philosophers today use his methodology and refer to "language games" etc, and certainly the understanding of meaning as contextual. For me, he brought about a huge paradigm shift- and I was just saying it was inaccurate to call that he made no conclusions. His conclusions are used daily!

But I guess all this depends on what you meant and the context in which you meant it, doesn't it?

Correct on all counts.

I have always taken logical positivism, Wittgenstein, and the Vienna Circle very seriously, but I have also come to recognize the limits to that analytic approach, as did Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead -- with whose writings I feel far more comfortable.

[Robert F. Smith]

"higher level of probability"??? probability for what exactly??

Probability is nothing more than a way of expressing knowledge or belief that an event will occur or has occurred.

http://www.merriam-w...=0&t=1312978955

its about presumptions which may be "true" or "real"

http://www.merriam-w...=0&t=1312978955

So, the arrogance that only through "science" may we define what is "true" or "real" is quite surprising.

My issue is in Elguan's (and others) assumption that their paradigm for probability has a value which is both comparable to and better than another paradigm.

So, while one can say that an existential claim is "less likely" in empiricism, such a statement is seemingly made with ignorance of the fact that an empirical claim is "less likely" in existentialism.

It is the persistent and unfounded comparison of apples to oranges that i find most disagreeable, and seemingly that is the harbinger of most existential criticisms.

Its a fundamental error i see made by most atheists and their ilk.

As for notions of unfalsifiable (a word?) or non-parsimonous, the BoM can easily contradict such labels. How are the scriptures not an economical conveyance of Gospel principles? How are these principles not able to be observed and "tested" in our everyday physical lives? That sort of criticism is most often levied towards the historical claims of the scriptures like the parting of the red sea. The empiricist is incapable of devising a physical experiment or any other "observation" and thus, the incorrect conclusion is made that the principle must also be "non-existent". Which simply reveals that the incorrect paradigm is being assumed. One does not learn spanish in order to read russian, nor does one claim that poetry is not art simply because it has no paint.

Elguanteloko is actually being entirely reasonable from the point of view of science, and you will find the same emphasis on probability in the results of a crime scene investigation or in the prosecution of a suspect whose DNA or fingerprints were left at the scene -- both are always subject to measures of probability. A hunch or a guess is not nearly as meaningful to a jury (or at least shouldn't be). A case presented to a jury ought to be at least theoretically falsifiable, and the explanations given for the sequence and nature of the crime ought to be parsimonious -- otherwise you'd be able to convict a ham sandwich!!

However, since not everything is a result of the law of averages, we are right to ask after the meaning of odd and unaccountable events in history -- or even the absence of items which science says should be there (the Higgs boson, for example).

Given this understanding of the real world (which follows an oscillatory and unpredictable rather than linear trajectory through time), we ought to ask whether there are actually scientific or empirical ways in which to examine various types of religious claims. Elguanteloko erroneously believes that no such ways exist, simply because (for him) none can be applied which are falsifiable. By this measure, his favorite example, the claim that God has a body of flesh and bone, cannot be tested, and he concludes from that fact that religion qua Mormonism is the least probable explanation for the ultimate nature of reality. He does not say that God doesn't exist. Only that the God claim cannot be tested.

There are, however, a variety of ways in which religious artifacts (the Book of Mormon for example) can be tested scientifically, and the results extrapolated to the God question. And, as you know, science uses extrapolation all the time.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

Correct on all counts.

I have always taken logical positivism, Wittgenstein, and the Vienna Circle very seriously, but I have also come to recognize the limits to that analytic approach, as did Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead -- with whose writings I feel far more comfortable.

As my kids would say, Whitehead is da bomb!

But of course Wittgenstein later repudiated all that Tractatus stuff, the positivism etc- when I speak of myself as a fan of Wittgenstein, I am talking about Philosophical Investigations, the Blue and Brown Books. In my opinion he ultimately was a mystic.

[thesometimesaint]

Robert F. Smith:

I don't see him as all that reasonable. But that is not my contention. I have no way to test a faith claim dealing with the supernatural. I don't even know the perameters for such a test.

LDS claim that God is a physical being that he exists somewhere in time and space. That somewhere obviously is not here. Given the vastness of the universe(let alone a multiverse). How would we know even if we were to look at it through our most powerful telescopes?

[Robert F. Smith]

Robert F. Smith:

I don't see him as all that reasonable. But that is not my contention. I have no way to test a faith claim dealing with the supernatural. I don't even know the perameters for such a test.

LDS claim that God is a physical being that he exists somewhere in time and space. That somewhere obviously is not here. Given the vastness of the universe(let alone a multiverse). How would we know even if we were to look at it through our most powerful telescopes?

Exactly. And that is why Elguanteloko so readily opts for science and probability. And that is why I suggest real world scientific tests of religious artifacts like the Book of Mormon. Are there facts resulting from careful analysis of the Book of Mormon which could not have been known to Joseph? Better, are there complex systems in the Book of Mormon world which could not have been known to anyone in 1830, but have since been discovered and accepted by the scientific community? Does that in turn make the God explanation more likely? This is an approach not considered by Elguanteloko.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Robert F. Smith