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

[ERayR]

I don't understand your objection, ERayR.

 

Think about it awhile, it should come to you.

[ERayR]

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.

 

Or, his interaction is ascribed to something else.

[mfbukowski]

And you'd be correct in saying it.

What survives, survives.

 

Some think it is a tautology and I am not so convinced it is not.  But there is nothing wrong with tautologies- they can be instructive.

 

After all, it is what it is. 

[mfbukowski]

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.

The problem is in the definition of "real"

 

Is the color blue "real" even though it only exists between our ears?  How about the feeling of love?  Is that real?  How about moral prohibitions against murder and rape.  Are they "real"?  How about consciousness itself?  Is consciousness "real"?

[ERayR]

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? "

 

— Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

Edited December 18, 2014 by ERayR

[Mars]

Think about it awhile, it should come to you.

I'm not your enemy. If you care to have me understand, please explain further.

If you don't, then I'll ignore you.

[mfbukowski]

Mars--

 

See?  I told you!

 

This is an example of logical positivism:

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.

Analytics, see post 56

Edited December 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

I'm not your enemy. If you care to have me understand, please explain further.

If you don't, then I'll ignore you.

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.

 

I do not think of you as an enemy.  I just wanted you to think on it awhile.  Does in not seem a little incongruous that science which does not recognize God's hand in the creation process is trying to explain a process that for them doesn't exist.  A process that includes God is anathema therefore must be rejected.  There has to be a connection between micro-evolution and macro-evolution because there is no other way.  There is no God.  Why do you think ID is so vehemently rejected.

[rodheadlee]

Then worship like a dog at the shrine of their lies.

You knew I was being sarcastic, right?

[The Nehor]

You knew I was being sarcastic, right?

What is this sarcasm of which you speak?

[Robert F. Smith]

I pretty much agree. The practice and attitude of dismissing people's work because it can be technically categorized into a field that is unappreciated by some is a problem. But we all do it. We, LDS, often, categorize people or works as anti-Mormon and thereby dismiss it. These days that practice is biting us on the bums. Accept and reject work on their own merits.

But what  happens when certain people "often categorize people or works as" apologetic "and thereby dismiss it"?  Do you think that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander?  Should we indeed "accept or reject work on their own merits"?

[Robert F. Smith]

In another thread, I made this comment:

 

Now, via Dr. Peterson's blog, a post on Greg Smith's blog has come to my attention. In it, Dr. Smith discusses the matter of "bracketing" one's religious faith or belief when studying religion in general and Mormonism in particular. He compares it to "checking one's religion at the door." He quotes Jeffrey R. Holland relative to that notion.

 

To give some context, Elder Holland was speaking of an incident in which a local basketball player left the community and made good elsewhere. He subsequently returned to play against the home team. The hometown fans were so abusive toward the former member of their team that the bewildered coach asked him if this wasn't his hometown and if, in fact, many of these fans weren't members of his own church.

 

When called on their behavior, one of the fans rationalized it, saying that this, after all, was basketball, that they pay money to see the game, and "we check our religion at the door."

 

Elder Holland commented:

 

 

Dr. Smith also quoted Russell M. Nelson relative to the same subject.

 

 

Dr. Smith remarked:

 

The blog post is relatively short but worth a look. Here's a link.

I see no problem at all in bracketing one's religious beliefs at the door, as long as there is a justifiable reason for it.  Thus, a juror or judge might bracket religion in order to render fair and impartial judgment in a case.  The same applies to a variety of professional and business endeavors where there may be a multiplicity of religious and non-religious beliefs among one's associates.  One may wisely check the tendency to bicker about intellectual and theological matters at the door.

 

Naturally, however, one would not want to bracket one's belief in being kind and compassionate.  Ethical and moral issues are everywhere important, and do not need to be discussed to be exercised.

[Analytics]

When you approach the problem of whether "blue" exists from the perspective of a philosopher, you don't get anywhere scientifically.  If you approach it like a scientist, you certainly do.

 

The problem isn't the definition of "real"; the problem is the definition of "blue".  Is the color "blue" real?  The color "blue" is scientifically defined as electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.  Once you understand this, you can use any variety of scientific instruments to validate whether electromagnetic radiation exists in this band. 

 

On my wall hangs the motto:

 

The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions.

 

~Ruskin

 

Is God's interaction with the universe being ascribed to "something else" (or is the interaction of "something else" in the universe being mistakenly ascribed to God)?  Correcting us when appearances and impressions are deceiving is precisely what scientific inquiry is about.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Analytics

[Analytics]

By the way, I'm not talking about "logical positivism," "logical empiricism", "scientific realism" or any other school of philosophy.  I'm simply talking about what truth claims science can, in principle, deal with.   You don't need a system of philosophy to drop a cube of sodium into a beaker of water and observe what happens.  To call it science, you just need to approach the experiment scientifically.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Analytics

[Mars]

~snip~

The problem isn't the definition of "real"; the problem is the definition of "blue".  Is the color "blue" real?  The color "blue" is scientifically defined as electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.  Once you understand this, you can use any variety of scientific instruments to validate whether electromagnetic radiation exists in this band. 

~snip~

 

No arguments from me.

 

But that description is not the same as seeing blue.

 

How does a mantis shrimp visualize the extra color it sees?  I can scientifically explain it, but...  what I would give to see it.

[Mars]

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.

 

I do not think of you as an enemy.  I just wanted you to think on it awhile.  Does in not seem a little incongruous that science which does not recognize God's hand in the creation process is trying to explain a process that for them doesn't exist.  A process that includes God is anathema therefore must be rejected.  There has to be a connection between micro-evolution and macro-evolution because there is no other way.  There is no God.  Why do you think ID is so vehemently rejected.

 

ID is rejected for a myriad of reasons, and not all of it has to do with a strict understanding of science.  It's not scientific because its hypothesis can't be tested or experimented upon, so I would venture to say that's the reason.

 

Not all scientists nor does science itself reject God, so I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can characterize science as an entity referred to by 'they,' the way it seems you are doing.  Nor the scientific community at large, imo.  "They" don't reject God; rather science chooses to focus on that which can be objectively tested.  I agree with mfbukowski; just because I can't submit my testimony experience to a field of scientists whereby they may be convinced through observable experimentation, doesn't make my claims to having discovered the truth about God any less valid.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Mars

[Rob Osborn]

ID is rejected for a myriad of reasons, and not all of it has to do with a strict understanding of science. It's not scientific because its hypothesis can't be tested or experimented upon, so I would venture to say that's the reason.

Not all scientists nor does science itself reject God, so I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can character science as an entity referred to by 'they,' the way it seems you are doing. "They" don't reject God; rather science chooses to focus on that which can be objectively tested. I agree with mfbukowski; just because I can't submit my testimony experience to a field of scientists whereby they may be convinced through observable experimentation, doesn't make my claims to having discovered the truth about God any less valid.

ID theory can be tested and is tested. Its verified over and over again. Your statement is typical of the dogmatism prevailant in the scientific community. Edited December 18, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[Mars]

ID theory can be tested and is tested. Its verified over and over again. Your statement is typical of the dogmatism prevailant in the scientific community.

 

~le sigh~  Dogmatism?  Oy veh...  Kinda hard to have confidence a productive dialog can follow when those statements get thrown out...

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

I do not think of you as an enemy.  I just wanted you to think on it awhile.  Does in not seem a little incongruous that science which does not recognize God's hand in the creation process is trying to explain a process that for them doesn't exist.  A process that includes God is anathema therefore must be rejected.  There has to be a connection between micro-evolution and macro-evolution because there is no other way.  There is no God.  Why do you think ID is so vehemently rejected.

 

1. Science is agnostic on questions of God.

 

2. Individual scientists are entitled to believe or not believe anything they(and you) want to.

 

3. ANYTIME you must put God in in order to make science work it is many things, but science it ain't.

[mfbukowski]

When you approach the problem of whether "blue" exists from the perspective of a philosopher, you don't get anywhere scientifically.  If you approach it like a scientist, you certainly do.

 

The problem isn't the definition of "real"; the problem is the definition of "blue".  Is the color "blue" real?  The color "blue" is scientifically defined as electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.  Once you understand this, you can use any variety of scientific instruments to validate whether electromagnetic radiation exists in this band. 

 

On my wall hangs the motto:

 

The work of science is to substitute facts for appearances, and demonstrations for impressions.

 

~Ruskin

 

Is God's interaction with the universe being ascribed to "something else" (or is the interaction of "something else" in the universe being mistakenly ascribed to God)?  Correcting us when appearances and impressions are deceiving is precisely what scientific inquiry is about.

"There are no facts, only Interpretations" - Nietzsche

 

There is no distinction between appearances and reality.

 

Sorry folks, gotta do it again.

[mfbukowski]

By the way, I'm not talking about "logical positivism," "logical empiricism", "scientific realism" or any other school of philosophy.  I'm simply talking about what truth claims science can, in principle, deal with.   You don't need a system of philosophy to drop a cube of sodium into a beaker of water and observe what happens.  To call it science, you just need to approach the experiment scientifically.

Unfortunately you ARE programmed to think that way by that quote on your wall which is totally reductionist.

 

THAT IS philosophy- you just don't know it.

 

And that point of view is 150 years old.  It went out with the "science" of phrenology.

Edited December 18, 2014 by mfbukowski

[ERayR]

ID is rejected for a myriad of reasons, and not all of it has to do with a strict understanding of science.  It's not scientific because its hypothesis can't be tested or experimented upon, so I would venture to say that's the reason.

 

Not all scientists nor does science itself reject God, so I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you can characterize science as an entity referred to by 'they,' the way it seems you are doing.  Nor the scientific community at large, imo.  "They" don't reject God; rather science chooses to focus on that which can be objectively tested.  I agree with mfbukowski; just because I can't submit my testimony experience to a field of scientists whereby they may be convinced through observable experimentation, doesn't make my claims to having discovered the truth about God any less valid.

 

So we come back to my question. 

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.

[thesometimesaint]

So we come back to my question. 

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.

 

To say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing.

SEE

[Rob Osborn]

To say nothing of God is not to say God is nothing.

SEE

Typical atheist jargon.

[Mars]

So we come back to my question. 

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.

 

I guess.