"on Bracketing The Truth" And "checking Your Religion At The Door"

[thesometimesaint]

As another thought, I think of an interview I have listened to several times between Brian Greene and Robert Krulwich.  It was hosted by the 92nd Street Y, and you can find it here:

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91859-the-multi-universes/

 

In it, Brian Greene seems to describe himself as an agnostic who is quite sure there is no god because all he sees is physics.  I disagree with him there.  I see physics, but I also see a lot more.  Physics, chemistry, neuroscience, and all those disciplines are magnificent and wonderful tools.  But they do fail to capture the essence of my existence.  They explain the nature of my existence, and I'm ok with that.  It doesn't make me love my kids any less to know that my 'love' can be observed as a collection of physiological reactions to my offspring, spurred on by genetic links.  I see more than physics, I guess.

 

I'm no atheist. I just find science a highly useful albeit ultimately limited way of knowing for myself.

[stemelbow]

The problem with this is that science is made up of practitioners who just happen to be human with human tendencies.  These tendencies have a habit of influencing the interpretation of results.  Don't get the wrong idea, I love and respect science and what it has produced.  I do have a problem with the attitude that anything that is contrary to current scientific theory is incorrect.  That science is the arbitrator of truth.

hmmm...Let's try it:

The problem with this is that revelation is made up of practitioners who just happen to be human with human tendencies. These tendencies have a habit of influencing the interpretation of results. Don't get the wrong idea, I love and respect revelation and what it has produced. I do have a problem with the attitude that anything that is contrary to current understanding of revelation is incorrect. That revelation is the arbitrator of truth.

Yep...seems to work.

[Mars]

I'm no atheist. I just find science a highly useful albeit ultimately limited way of knowing for myself.

 

Oh - I know you're not!  Far from it.  Science is indeed highly useful.

[Rob Osborn]

My science includes God. I dont have to check in my religion at the door. The problem in mainstream science is that it is in fact atheistic in most things and bullies up on anyone who seeks to find God.

[mfbukowski]

As another thought, I think of an interview I have listened to several times between Brian Greene and Robert Krulwich.  It was hosted by the 92nd Street Y, and you can find it here:

 

http://www.radiolab.org/story/91859-the-multi-universes/

 

In it, Brian Greene seems to describe himself as an agnostic who is quite sure there is no god because all he sees is physics.  I disagree with him there.  I see physics, but I also see a lot more.  Physics, chemistry, neuroscience, and all those disciplines are magnificent and wonderful tools.  But they do fail to capture the essence of my existence.  They explain the nature of my existence, and I'm ok with that.  It doesn't make me love my kids any less to know that my 'love' can be observed as a collection of physiological reactions to my offspring, spurred on by genetic links.  I see more than physics, I guess.

lol

When I was in grad school in NY I worked in the 92nd st Y!

 

I bet most people don't even know that the Young Men's Hebrew Association even exists!!   I will check it out

 

The key to what you said was that love "can be observed AS" a collection of physiological events- and yes of course that is true.  But it can only be observed that way by people who are not experiencing the "love" they are observing.  The key to the whole thing is understanding that the experience of BEING in love is NOT describable as a collection of physiological reactions.

 

It can even be proven logically by noting that First Person sentences cannot be made logically equivalent to Third Person sentences.  Those are two different points of view, and so cannot be equivalent.

[mfbukowski]

I don't object to anything you wrote, and perhaps I'm being oversensitive, but I'm feeling that you wish to try to quell the champions of atheism who march under the banner of "Everything I need to know, Science can teach me!"

 

Am I correctly getting that, or am I misreading - quite literally, in this case?

Well yes, I came up during a time when logical positivism was alive and well.

 

Logical positivism and logical empiricism, which together formed neopositivism, was a movement in Western philosophy that embraced verificationism, an approach that sought to legitimize philosophical discourse on a basis shared with the best examples of empirical sciences. In this theory of knowledge, only statements verifiable either logically or empirically would be cognitively meaningful. Seeking to convert philosophy to this new scientific philosophy was aimed to prevent confusion rooted in unclear language and unverifiable claims.^[1] The Berlin Circle and the Vienna Circle propounded logical positivism starting in the late 1920s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

There are many here and on other boards who champion this position even today, though arguably it has now been pronounced "dead" by most philosophers. During the seventies, the idea that positivism was dead was on the cutting edge, though now it is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Positivism is a term used frequently in discussions of research in information systems, but rarely is it treated in depth or in terms of its historical development. Many philosophers of science regard positivism as defunct: ‘Logical positivism, then, is dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes’ (Passmore, 1967). Why then is the term still used so uncritically in information systems? Positivism is discussed here in some detail to show the shortcomings detected by philosophers of science and to pave the way for less narrow views on theory from the philosophy of science.

http://press.anu.edu.au/info_systems/mobile_devices/ch01s02.html

 

But you still see this stuff around in atheists who do not understand philosophy well, and we get them here all the time.  So apologies- I know you are past this and so it is old hat for you but I posted that for others really who would find it... provocative. 

 

There are two books mentioned here all the time which basically take a positivist outlook - "Fear of Knowledge" by Boghossian https://www.google.com/search?q=boghossian&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 and "Deconstructing Mormonism" by Riskas http://www.amazon.com/Deconstructing-Mormonism-Analysis-Assessment-Mormon/dp/1578840074 and which have taken their toll among Mormon apologists.  The latter is often cited by Kerry Shirts who was a pretty well known apologist who became strongly critical of the church after reading it.  Both these books adopt a view of "truth" which is positivist in nature.

Oddly, on the other side, there are atheists who understand religion well and find it perfectly "rational" because they understand the philosophy behind it.  Thomas Nagel is one, http://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf (I highly recommend that particular article which makes the point I am trying to make better than I ever could), and of course I am a fan of Rorty- who seeks a humanist God who is a "friend" to mankind. 

 

Richard Rorty and Gianni Vattimo have given us a work that may be described as an important part of an answer to two important questions that modernity has not yet engaged constructively. First, How may modernity come to terms with the religious impulse that is still alive and well in the modern world even after over a century of the hegemony of science and rationalism? Second, How may those who do not hear the music of religion begin to understand those who do, rather than throw stones at them across a dualistic divide (and vice versa)? Richard Rorty, ever evolving in his philosophical thought, exposes himself as once caught in a dualism concerning religious faith. In this book, he laments that he has in the past branded himself an "atheist" and observed the need for a more nuanced description of his thinking concerning religion and religious belief. The "atheist" label, once self-applied, is now rejected. It is rejected not because he has "come to Jesus" or "has seen the Light" but because it plays into a zero-sum, dualistic game that Rorty knows he can do without.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Future-Religion-Gianni-Vattimo/dp/0231134959

So pardon the dissertation - I must be in a professorial mood.  It will pass.  It always does.  

[mfbukowski]

Oh - I know you're not!  Far from it.  Science is indeed highly useful.

That's both the good and bad news.

 

It makes things go, but can't tell you why, or if,  it is important to get there.  It doesn't even know what "important" means.  It can make an atomic bomb, but can't decide whether or not to use it.

[thesometimesaint]

That's both the good and bad news.

 

It makes things go, but can't tell you why, or if,  it is important to get there.  It doesn't even know what "important" means.  It can make an atomic bomb, but can't decide whether or not to use it.

 

I think it is important to get to the point we know everything that God knows. Wisdom is knowledge correctly applied. As Jesus said; Be as wise as serpents, but gentle as doves.

Edited December 17, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Mars]

mfbukowski

 

I wouldn't deem any philosophical ideology as 'old hat' for me...  I appreciate the write-up.

[Sleeper Cell]

Science is not a they in any dictionary I know of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

SEE Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"^[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[2][3][4] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

 

Scientists are by definition non-conformists. They are constantly seeking ways to falsify the status quo of knowledge. You have absolutely no clue as to how science and scientists work.

 

That certainly is  the ideal.  Unfortunately, scientists are subject to the same human foibles as anyone else.  Most scientists want respect and the praise of their peers (or, at least, to avoid their ridicule).  And, of course, good jobs and funding for their research.  “Constantly seeking ways to falsifying the status quo of knowledge?”  Unless, of course, you are such a non conformist that you seek ways to falsify the theory of Evolution or  disagree with global warming.

 

It is true that scientists are generally far more tolerant of challenges to established dogma than those in other disciplines, but, at times, we can be as intolerant of heresy as anyone else.  

[Sleeper Cell]

That's both the good and bad news.

 

It makes things go, but can't tell you why, or if,  it is important to get there.  It doesn't even know what "important" means.  It can make an atomic bomb, but can't decide whether or not to use it.

 

I’m reminded of the experience of one of my classmates who was being considered for a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship.  In the course of his interview (conducted by humanities and social science types), he was asked how he could morally justify aspiring to become a physicist -- considering the fact that physicists  made the atomic bomb. His answer?  “We make ‘em.  You use ‘em.”  

 

Didn’t go over too well, as I recall.  

[thesometimesaint]

 

That certainly is  the ideal.  Unfortunately, scientists are subject to the same human foibles as anyone else.  Most scientists want respect and the praise of their peers (or, at least, to avoid their ridicule).  And, of course, good jobs and funding for their research.  “Constantly seeking ways to falsifying the status quo of knowledge?”  Unless, of course, you are such a non conformist that you seek ways to falsify the theory of Evolution or  disagree with global warming.

 

It is true that scientists are generally far more tolerant of challenges to established dogma than those in other disciplines, but, at times, we can be as intolerant of heresy as anyone else.  

 

 

Of course we are. What is unlikely however is that my motivations are exactly the same as someone else's. That simply incorrect we've had over 150 years of actual scientists working in the field trying to falsify the theory of evolution. NONE have been able to do it so far. Do you want to falsify it? It is very easy to do, and no special training or work is involved. Use the same things Charles Darwin had, just a shovel, a piece of paper, and a pen/pencil. Now go dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. I eagerly await your publication in the journal Nature. Disagree with global warming all you want, about 3% of scientists do disagree with it. They/you just have to establish that CO2 doesn't trap heat. I eagerly await your publication in the journal Science.

 

Interesting that you use a religious term to mock established science. Galileo would have been not so amused.

[Rob Osborn]

Of course we are. What is unlikely however is that my motivations are exactly the same as someone else's. That simply incorrect we've had over 150 years of actual scientists working in the field trying to falsify the theory of evolution. NONE have been able to do it so far. Do you want to falsify it? It is very easy to do, and no special training or work is involved. Use the same things Charles Darwin had, just a shovel, a piece of paper, and a pen/pencil. Now go dig up a fully modern human skeleton in a previously undisturbed layer of Precambrian dirt. I eagerly await your publication in the journal Nature. Disagree with global warming all you want, about 3% of scientists do disagree with it. They/you just have to establish that CO2 doesn't trap heat. I eagerly await your publication in the journal Science.

 

Interesting that you use a religious term to mock established science. Galileo would have been not so amused.

This is precisely why it is impossible to debate with you. Its an outright lie that you say no scientist has been able to disprove evolution. These discussion thus go nowhere with everyone stuck in dogma and lies.

[tonie]

Sadly, too many are so worried that their faith might show, that they end up looking like that which they do not really believe, and do not really think.

This impression is only strengthened when they attack, ridicule, or with a sneer dismiss others who do let their faith show more overtly in their academic work. One wonders if this is to avoid feeling guilty for their own lapses, or if it is part and parcel of assuring others that they really are on the academic, secularized “team.”

 

And yet, he does not provide evidence.

 

 

What is sickening and very depressing of late, is that some are demanding that fellow Saints where their religion on their sleeve and make scripted pronouncements of faith.

 

The "Saints" making the demand,  require that fellow Saints make public pronouncements of faith and if they refuse to make the public prouncement then it must be sure sign of their absence of faith.

 

Worst yet, the demand is not for testimony - making the demand for a testimony, is descipable enough. The demand is that fellow Saints read the scripted declaration of faith.  Those who make such a grotesque demand, leave no room for faith line upon line; there is no other way in LDS Saint except that way which the demanders have required.

 

We are all Saints, who are traveling the path to salvation and exalatation; God is judge and not religious tyrants who demand that we "disfigure out faces" for a fast or that we pray from the street corner to be seen of men.

[thesometimesaint]

This is precisely why it is impossible to debate with you. Its an outright lie that you say no scientist has been able to disprove evolution. These discussion thus go nowhere with everyone stuck in dogma and lies.

 

I didn't say disprove. I said no scientist has been able to falsify evolution. The discussion with you goes nowhere because in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle. ANYTIME you must put God in in order to make science work. It is many things but science it ain't.

[Mars]

I didn't say disprove. I said no scientist has been able to falsify evolution. The discussion with you goes nowhere because in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle. ANYTIME you must put God in in order to make science work. It is many things but science it ain't.

 

And you'd be correct in saying it.

[ERayR]

I didn't say disprove. I said no scientist has been able to falsify evolution. The discussion with you goes nowhere because in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle. ANYTIME you must put God in in order to make science work. It is many things but science it ain't.

 

And you'd be correct in saying it.

 

And so you get me right back to this:

 

Let me get this straight.  Science (which refuses to recognize God's influence in the process) can tell us about a process they refuse to recognize even exists?  OKaaaaaay.

[Rob Osborn]

I didn't say disprove. I said no scientist has been able to falsify evolution. The discussion with you goes nowhere because in order to shield your ignorance that you put the Lord at every turn to the refuge of a miracle. ANYTIME you must put God in in order to make science work. It is many things but science it ain't.

This a what atheists say. But I know you are not atheist so why do you say the same things? I truly am curious.

[Analytics]

Whether or not science is agnostic about the existence of God depends upon how you define "God."  In principle, everything that interacts with physical, observable reality can be examined by scientists.  If "God" interacts with the real world, then in principle, the "God hypothesis" is a scientific one.

[pogi]

Whether or not science is agnostic about the existence of God depends upon how you define "God."  In principle, everything that interacts with physical, observable reality can be examined by scientists.  If "God" interacts with the real world, then in principle, the "God hypothesis" is a scientific one.

 

I agree, but the fact that something interacts with the "physical, observable reality" does not make it scientific.  In other words, something can be real and not be scientific.

For example, cellular physiology has not always been a science even though cells have always interacted with the physical, observable reality.  It only became a science when cells and their organelles became observable. 

[The Nehor]

Whether or not science is agnostic about the existence of God depends upon how you define "God." In principle, everything that interacts with physical, observable reality can be examined by scientists. If "God" interacts with the real world, then in principle, the "God hypothesis" is a scientific one.

It fails at being a hypothesis because we have no way to objectively test it or falsify it.

Edited December 18, 2014 by The Nehor

[thesometimesaint]

This a what atheists say. But I know you are not atheist so why do you say the same things? I truly am curious.

 

Truth is truth no matter where we find it. IE: If an atheist says the world is round like a ball does that make it a false statement?

[Mars]

I don't understand your objection, ERayR.

[Analytics]

If 1- "something" is a well-defined entity, and 2- if that "something" interacts with the observable universe, then ways could be derived to objectively test and falsify whether that something exists or not. 

 

As an extreme example of the principle, scientists theorize that there are so-called "weakly interacting massive particles" in the universe.  These particles only "weakly" interact with the universe, and thus are extremely difficult to detect.  However, they are well-defined, and they do interact with the universe, if only weakly.  Because of that, their existence is subject to scientific investigation.

 

If you don't think the existence of "God" can be scientifically tested and falsified, it's because "God" isn't well defined, doesn't interact with the observable universe, or both.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Analytics

[Mars]

If 1- "something" is a well-defined entity, and 2- if that "something" interacts with the observable universe, then ways could be derived to objectively test and falsify whether that something exists or not. 

 

As an extreme example of the principle, scientists theorize that there are so-called "weakly interacting massive particles" in the universe.  These particles only "weakly" interact with the universe, and thus are extremely difficult to detect.  However, they are well-defined, and they do interact with the universe, if only weakly.  Because of that, their existence is subject to scientific investigation.

 

If you don't think the existence of "God" can be scientifically tested and falsified, it's because "God" isn't well defined, doesn't interact with the observable universe, or both.

 

There is a third option, Analytics.

 

God interacts with you and you only.  At least, He has with me.