Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do we try too hard?

kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 3:42:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Opponents of science often pose questions like 'what was the cause of the big bang' or 'how did life originate', and science fans (like me) usually try to answer them as best we can. The problem is that in such cases the only honest answer is 'Nobody knows'. Admitedly if we said that our opponent will immediately claim victory because of course he does know exactly what caused the big bang and where life comes from - Goddunnit! Checkmate.

But in my experience they will say that anyway, whatever you tell them! A lot of people obviously take a lot of care over their responses to fatuous and unformed anti-scientific posts. But such responses obviously don't get read, or if they do get skimmed they are not understood. So, why do we bother trying to get through to people who don't want to listen? If they wanted to learn there are better places to go than here. Surely they don't honestly expect to convert anybody do they?

So... do we try too hard?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 3:42:58 PM, kp98 wrote:
why do we bother trying to get through to people who don't want to listen?

it's a duty of care arising from an asymmetry, KP: Science is not accountable to theology, KP, but theology is accountable to science.

This arises because:
* Science is by definition the pursuit of natural (i.e. non-theological) explanations for natural phenomena; while
* Theology can be viewed as trying to understand the world through revelation, both transmitted and lived.

Yet, theology can't persuade others that it has any intellectual authority about the world at all or any moral authority over man until it can either alter the world reliably in unexpected ways, or predict the world more reliably than science can. And science is now the best (and only) test for whether it has done so.

Since it first crossed swords with Galileo Galilei in 1632, theology has consistently lost fight after fight on both fronts, for nearly four centuries. Now it's struggling to find any relevance to the natural world, and hence any intellectual or moral authority at all. It has gotten so that even one theological victory would be seen as a triumph -- yet theology hasn't managed even one, and this is why over four centuries it has shifted ground from upholding a young creationist earth at the centre of the universe without evolution to the even less plausible proposition of a compassionate, anthropomorphic god responsible for the Big Bang and evolution on a tiny little planet in the middle of an exploding and decaying universe.

People of strong theological faith find both their continued failure and the ensuing intellectual retreat difficult to accept. They need to test it: Why are your theories superior to mine? How do you know what you know? Why is my theology accountable to you scientifically, while scientific theories aren't accountable to me theologically? Why can't my clergy critique cosmology, biology, psychology, and history; yet cosmologers, biologists, psychologists and historians can critique my canon and even the psychology of my belief itself?

It's unreasonable to expect people of strong faith to abandon their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence, since their faith is characterised by denial of evidence to privilege their preferred conclusions in the first place.

However the conversation can and should explain what the accountabilities actually are: since science embraces total accountability to evidence while theology holds no accountability at all, science can critique theology while theology cannot critique science.

That's essentially the conversation science has with theology time after face-aching time. But if you don't have it, people of faith take extraordinary liberties with their fantasies and conceits.

Earlier I described theology as the attempt to understand the world through revelation, but one can equally characterise it as a struggle for authority without accountability.

Science is no friend to that aim, and while science is no foe to spirituality or religion, theology correctly identified science as its most dangerous enemy four centuries ago.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 3:42:58 PM, kp98 wrote:
why do we bother trying to get through to people who don't want to listen?

it's a duty of care arising from an asymmetry, KP: Science is not accountable to theology, KP, but theology is accountable to science.

This arises because:
* Science is by definition the pursuit of natural (i.e. non-theological) explanations for natural phenomena; while
* Theology can be viewed as trying to understand the world through revelation, both transmitted and lived.


How does that assign accountability?

Yet, theology can't persuade others that it has any intellectual authority about the world at all or any moral authority over man until it can either alter the world reliably in unexpected ways, or predict the world more reliably than science can. And science is now the best (and only) test for whether it has done so.

So science is the best judge of if theology is as good as science. You know science has said and done a lot of jacked up things in the past. And some of what it is saying now, is fromt he theologians playbook.

Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism). Which to remark on Naturalism alone we find:

A naturalistic methodology (sometimes called an "inductive theory of science") has its value, no doubt.... I reject the naturalistic view: It is uncritical. Its upholders fail to notice that whenever they believe to have discovered a fact, they have only proposed a convention. Hence the convention is liable to turn into a dogma. This criticism of the naturalistic view applies not only to its criterion of meaning, but also to its idea of science, and consequently to its idea of empirical method. --Karl Popper


Since it first crossed swords with Galileo Galilei in 1632,

Often cited, but the Galileo incident is more compelx than that. The struggle with heliocentric system was not against the church.

Nicolaus Copernicus dedicated his book "On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs" on heliocentricity to Pope Paul III. And urged the Pope that Math not Physics be the deciding factor in accepting his theory.

When Galileo came around,

"The dominant Aristotelian thought of the day was heavily a prioristic; hence part of what was involved was a dispute about the relative importance of observation and a priori thought in astronomy." http://plato.stanford.edu...

There was also protestant disfavor for the theory.

Galileo was warmly treated, for what was more political reasons Galileo was put under house arrest. Given every convenience, warmly treated, tutored the children of Church leadership. And after his death the Church lifted the bans on his work and championed Galileo's work and views.

theology has consistently lost fight after fight on both fronts, for nearly four centuries. Now it's struggling to find any relevance to the natural world, and hence any intellectual or moral authority at all. It has gotten so that even one theological victory would be seen as a triumph -- yet theology hasn't managed even one,

Theologians held the universe was finite and had a beginning.
St. Augustine treated time as something created with space, and was an Eternalist (past, present, future exist simultaneously)
Jewish Rabbis said the Earth formed from an accumulation of snow. (planet accretion)
And probably some others.

and this is why over four centuries it has shifted ground from upholding a young creationist earth at the centre of the universe without

Young Earth Creationism is a modern concept. To think this is a prevailing view for judeo-Christian Theology (let alone Religion) is inaccurate.

As far as the center of the universe. In space there is no center. So we could very well be the center. (aside from this is never said in the bible)

evolution to the even less plausible proposition of a compassionate, anthropomorphic god responsible for the Big Bang and evolution on a tiny little planet in the middle of an exploding and decaying universe.

Science and Theology are not mutually exclusive. They are epistemically distinct.


People of strong theological faith find both their continued failure and the ensuing intellectual retreat difficult to accept. They need to test it: Why are your theories superior to mine? How do you know what you know? Why is my theology accountable to you scientifically, while scientific theories aren't accountable to me theologically? Why can't my clergy critique cosmology, biology, psychology, and history; yet cosmologers, biologists, psychologists and historians can critique my canon and even the psychology of my belief itself?

Science can not do a lot of things. Morality, purpose, hell even accurate solid conception of reality escape the grasp of science.


It's unreasonable to expect people of strong faith to abandon their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence, since their faith is characterised by denial of evidence to privilege their preferred conclusions in the first place.

However the conversation can and should explain what the accountabilities actually are: since science embraces total accountability to evidence while theology holds no accountability at all, science can critique theology while theology cannot critique science.

That's essentially the conversation science has with theology time after face-aching time. But if you don't have it, people of faith take extraordinary liberties with their fantasies and conceits.

Earlier I described theology as the attempt to understand the world through revelation, but one can equally characterise it as a struggle for authority without accountability.

Science is no friend to that aim, and while science is no foe to spirituality or religion, theology correctly identified science as its most dangerous enemy four centuries ago.

Sweet story what Atheist website did you get it from?
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 6:56:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 3:42:58 PM, kp98 wrote:
Opponents of science often pose questions like 'what was the cause of the big bang' or 'how did life originate', and science fans (like me) usually try to answer them as best we can. The problem is that in such cases the only honest answer is 'Nobody knows'. Admitedly if we said that our opponent will immediately claim victory because of course he does know exactly what caused the big bang and where life comes from - Goddunnit! Checkmate.

But in my experience they will say that anyway, whatever you tell them! A lot of people obviously take a lot of care over their responses to fatuous and unformed anti-scientific posts. But such responses obviously don't get read, or if they do get skimmed they are not understood. So, why do we bother trying to get through to people who don't want to listen? If they wanted to learn there are better places to go than here. Surely they don't honestly expect to convert anybody do they?

So... do we try too hard?

I am aligned on this subject of "trying to hard?" with Richard Dawkins, who claims that, to paraphrase, it is necessary to fight fire with fire in debating science--especially Evolution--with Religious Fundmantalists.

He believes that their anti-scientific teachings, and in fact there groundless lambasting of science--such as claiming that ALL of those dozens of types of radio-metric dating are false--pose a tangible and dangerous threat to the education of our young. As well as to the future of our country's position in the Global Scientific arena.

Good lord, man. (see what I did there?) LOL. TWO-THIRDS of the adults in my country believe that thee is a God in heaven who listens to their prayers and follows their deeds and might reward them with a ticket to the pearly Gates!

I would say our work is just beginning. We cannot try to hard. Religion has been riding the gravy time for far too long. Given a free pass in too many facets of society. It is due time that we relegate it to its place. And that is, along side all of the other genres of Literature and Mythology. As well as superstition and paranormal endeavors.

As you say, the Fundies' "God of the Gaps" tactics can indeed be frustrating. When, for example, we explain that we have currently deciphered, say, 95% of the origin and mechanics of some scientific aspect. Such as the Big Bang. Or Evolution. But when we admit that we "don't yet understand" a small part of it--like what happened before the BB, even though we have it nailed to within 0.00000000000000000000000000000043 of a second, they jump on it like a pit bull on a poodle and exclaim, "Aha! You can't explain it because God did it!!"

I was going to add an "for instance" about Evolution where there is a small part we cannot yet explain which allows the Fundies to employ God of the Gaps rhetoric, but I cannot think of one. AS it seems we now can explain everything! Including their old but now thoroughly-debunked stand-bys of "irreducible complexity" and "transitional fossils." (We have thousands of them now.)

We must continue to fight the good fight!!

Thanks!
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 3:42:58 PM, kp98 wrote:
why do we bother trying to get through to people who don't want to listen?

it's a duty of care arising from an asymmetry, KP: Science is not accountable to theology, KP, but theology is accountable to science.

This arises because:
* Science is by definition the pursuit of natural (i.e. non-theological) explanations for natural phenomena; while
* Theology can be viewed as trying to understand the world through revelation, both transmitted and lived.


How does that assign accountability?

Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

So science is the best judge of if theology is as good as science.

Say rather that the measure of accountability is evidence, and science is defined as the discipline of evidentiary accountability.

Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism).

By 'church' you must mean the church of Thales of Miletus [https://en.wikipedia.org...], or perhaps the churches of Vaisheshika [https://en.wikipedia.org...] and Nyaya [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Hinduism?

You should have said that Christians continued to explore methodological naturalism, because it's true -- some did. Intellectually stagnant for centuries under incontestable theological revelation, some eventually rediscovered pre-Christian thought, and began to retrace it, not realising it would take them away from theological supremacism.

Science and Theology are not mutually exclusive. They are epistemically distinct.

Please explain how you feel the tabula rasa of empiricism and the assumed authority of revelation are ethically compatible.

For that you'll first need to explain what you think ethics means, and what it means to pursue theology ethically.

I very much look forward to that account.

Science can not do a lot of things. Morality, purpose, hell even accurate solid conception of reality escape the grasp of science.

What is morality? I'm not contesting that it has a definition. I'm asking what you think the definition is, and why, under that definition, you feel that science cannot contribute to the moral conversation.

Science is no friend to that aim, and while science is no foe to spirituality or religion, theology correctly identified science as its most dangerous enemy four centuries ago.

Sweet story what Atheist website did you get it from?

There are DDO members you can get away with saying that to, Mhykiel. You ought to know by now that I'm not one of them.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 3:42:58 PM, kp98 wrote:
why do we bother trying to get through to people who don't want to listen?

it's a duty of care arising from an asymmetry, KP: Science is not accountable to theology, KP, but theology is accountable to science.

This arises because:
* Science is by definition the pursuit of natural (i.e. non-theological) explanations for natural phenomena; while
* Theology can be viewed as trying to understand the world through revelation, both transmitted and lived.


How does that assign accountability?

Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

Project much? Sounds like scientist saying "we understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, just ignore all we don't know."


So science is the best judge of if theology is as good as science.

Say rather that the measure of accountability is evidence, and science is defined as the discipline of evidentiary accountability.

Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.


Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism).

By 'church' you must mean the church of Thales of Miletus [https://en.wikipedia.org...], or perhaps the churches of Vaisheshika [https://en.wikipedia.org...] and Nyaya [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Hinduism?

I was referring the Catholic Church.


You should have said that Christians continued to explore methodological naturalism, because it's true -- some did. Intellectually stagnant for centuries under incontestable theological revelation, some eventually rediscovered pre-Christian thought, and began to retrace it, not realising it would take them away from theological supremacism.

Actually it was the majority of the scientific community that held a geocentric system. And why it was so adopted by the Catholic Church. Because the Catholic Church founded and endorsed the Sciences like Astronomy.

When it was Church pastors espousing slavery of blacks as humane they were taking much of their material from Marxist Scientist positing the Evolution of mankind.

It must be real convenient to point out errors in what the Religious have said, when they are repeating what the thinkers of their day espoused. What Science had said.


Science and Theology are not mutually exclusive. They are epistemically distinct.

Please explain how you feel the tabula rasa of empiricism and the assumed authority of revelation are ethically compatible.

Ethically compatible? Well in terms of ethics they certainly are because science can't experiment or test or find evidence to support any ethical actions. Hume problem.

"Ethically" and "epistemological" are 2 different things. First you were discussing about Science and Theology being something like sworn enemies. When they are more like Mother and Son.


For that you'll first need to explain what you think ethics means, and what it means to pursue theology ethically.

I didn't say anything about ethics. Science and theology are not mutually exclusive to the knowledge of mankind.


I very much look forward to that account.

Science can not do a lot of things. Morality, purpose, hell even accurate solid conception of reality escape the grasp of science.

What is morality? I'm not contesting that it has a definition. I'm asking what you think the definition is, and why, under that definition, you feel that science cannot contribute to the moral conversation.

Hume is-ought problem and the Problem of Induction


Science is no friend to that aim, and while science is no foe to spirituality or religion, theology correctly identified science as its most dangerous enemy four centuries ago.

Sweet story what Atheist website did you get it from?

There are DDO members you can get away with saying that to, Mhykiel. You ought to know by now that I'm not one of them.

The war is in Atheist propaganda not the history books. (aside from Politically motivated skirmishes)
http://plato.stanford.edu...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science is not accountable to theology, but theology is accountable to science.
This arises because:
* Science is by definition the pursuit of natural (i.e. non-theological) explanations for natural phenomena; while
* Theology can be viewed as trying to understand the world through revelation, both transmitted and lived.
How does that assign accountability?

Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

Sounds like scientist saying "we understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, just ignore all we don't know."

Mhykiel, I think that conflation arises from the excluded middle approach you frequently take to your own appreciation of science: if it doesn't know everything, it must know nothing.

Science is scrupulous about what it can predict and what it can't. Within its professional conversations, it distinguishes assumptions and conjectures carefully from experiments and tested models. I realise that may not be apparent to you, and it may not always come through science journalism, however that's the reality nevertheless.

So science is the best judge of if theology is as good as science.

Say rather that the measure of accountability is evidence, and science is defined as the discipline of evidentiary accountability.

Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

That's interesting, Mhykiel. Please tell me more about responsibility, and what additional obligations you feel it entails beyond accountability for reasoning, evidence and advice. I'd be especially interested to hear how you think clergy advising people about sexuality, marriage, happiness, morality and relationships upholds principles of accountability and responsibility.

If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow what you were saying or why in this para.

Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism).

By 'church' you must mean the church of Thales of Miletus [https://en.wikipedia.org...], or perhaps the churches of Vaisheshika [https://en.wikipedia.org...] and Nyaya [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Hinduism?

I was referring the Catholic Church.

Erroneously, since it inherited its initial ideas about natural philosophy from the ancient Greeks.

You should have said that Christians continued to explore methodological naturalism, because it's true -- some did. Intellectually stagnant for centuries under incontestable theological revelation, some eventually rediscovered pre-Christian thought, and began to retrace it, not realising it would take them away from theological supremacism.

Actually it was the majority of the scientific community that held a geocentric system. And why it was so adopted by the Catholic Church. Because the Catholic Church founded and endorsed the Sciences like Astronomy.

Arguably the biggest scientific influence on a geocentric system was Ptolemy, whose models and planetary predictions were created in about the 2nd century CE, and lasted for over a millennium. Despite using an incorrect model, Ptolemy had managed to wangle accurate calculations. The initial scientific benefit of a heliocentric system was that it was simpler, and the biggest impediment to it working was the belief in circular orbits rather than elipses.

You are correct that a heliocentric system was not first proposed by Galileo, and neither was heliocentrism the reason he was accused of heresy. Rather, it was his championship of empiricism over papal authority, as appearing in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) [http://law2.umkc.edu...], and from which I quote below:

Several years ago there was published in Rome a salutary edict which, in order to obviate the dangerous tendencies of our present age, imposed a seasonable silence upon the Pythagorean opinion that the earth moves. There were those who impudently asserted that this decree had its origin not injudicious inquire, but in passion none too well informed Complaints were to be heard that advisers who were totally unskilled at astronomical observations ought not to clip the wings of reflective intellects by means of rash prohibitions.

Upon hearing such carping insolence, my zeal could not be contained. Being thoroughly informed about that prudent determination, I decided to appear openly in the theater of the world as a witness of the sober truth. I was at that time in Rome; I was not only received by the most eminent prelates of that Court, but had their applause; indeed this decree was not published without some previous notice of it having been given to me. Therefore I propose in the present work to show to foreign nations that as much is understood of this matter in Italy, and particularly in Rome, as transalpine diligence can ever have imagined. Collecting all the reflections that properly concern the Copernican system, I shall make it known that everything was brought before the attention of the Roman censorship, and that there proceed from this clime not only dogmas for the welfare of the soul, but ingenious discoveries for the delight of the mind as well.

To this end I have taken the Copernican side in the discourse, proceeding as with a pure mathematical hypothesis and striving by every artipee to represent it as superior to supposing the earth motionless"not, indeed absolutely, but as against the arguments of some professed Peripatetics. These men indeed deserve not even that name, for they do not walk about; they are content to adore the shadows, philosophizing not with due circumspection but merely from having memorized a few ill-understood principles.


Science and Theology are not mutually exclusive. They are epistemically distinct.
Please explain how you feel the tabula rasa of empiricism and the assumed authority of revelation are ethically compatible.
Ethically compatible? Well in terms of ethics they certainly are because science can't experiment or test or find evidence to support any ethical actions. Hume problem.

You don't think science embraces ethics in its discipline? And does theology do so? What do you make of Galileo's comments above -- criticising theological censorship and dismissal of empirical measurement?

What is morality? I'm not contesting that it has a definition. I'm asking what you think the definition is, and why, under that definition, you feel that science cannot contribute to the moral conversation.
Hume is-ought problem and the Problem of Induction

In order to show that the is-ought argument applies, you must first answer: what is morality.

There are DDO members you can get away with saying that to, Mhykiel. You ought to know by now that I'm not one of them.
The war is in Atheist propaganda not the history books. (aside from Politically motivated skirmishes)
http://plato.stanford.edu...

The persecution of heresy predates atheism in Christian society.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 8:12:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Opponents of science"

Well, if you want the opposition to regard anything you say, perhaps you should start by treating them with basic respect.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 8:52:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 8:12:58 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
"Opponents of science"

Well, if you want the opposition to regard anything you say, perhaps you should start by treating them with basic respect.

Would you agree that ethics are the foundation of respect, VV, and vice-versa?

Put another way: can you respect anyone who acts unethically, and can ethics work when we don't respect others?
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 11:16:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 3:42:58 PM, kp98 wrote:
Opponents of science often pose questions like 'what was the cause of the big bang' or 'how did life originate', and science fans (like me) usually try to answer them as best we can. The problem is that in such cases the only honest answer is 'Nobody knows'. Admitedly if we said that our opponent will immediately claim victory because of course he does know exactly what caused the big bang and where life comes from - Goddunnit! Checkmate.

But in my experience they will say that anyway, whatever you tell them! A lot of people obviously take a lot of care over their responses to fatuous and unformed anti-scientific posts. But such responses obviously don't get read, or if they do get skimmed they are not understood. So, why do we bother trying to get through to people who don't want to listen? If they wanted to learn there are better places to go than here. Surely they don't honestly expect to convert anybody do they?

So... do we try too hard?
As someone who believes God as the source of all things and that science (our attempt to explain the natural world God created) can explain and account for more than people allow it to, it is frustrating because at the end of the day we really don't know from a worldly point of view. How could we? No one was there. God of course was and I think gives us enough info to get an idea. I have the problem of people not responding to things or just not reading them.
Aside from that rant I think everyone generally when their foundation is challenged or hard questions are asked don't want to deal with them. Its this passive aggressive be you see all over society really.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2015 11:23:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 3:42:58 PM, kp98 wrote:
why do we bother trying to get through to people who don't want to listen?

it's a duty of care arising from an asymmetry, KP: Science is not accountable to theology, KP, but theology is accountable to science.

This arises because:
* Science is by definition the pursuit of natural (i.e. non-theological) explanations for natural phenomena; while
* Theology can be viewed as trying to understand the world through revelation, both transmitted and lived.

Yet, theology can't persuade others that it has any intellectual authority about the world at all or any moral authority over man until it can either alter the world reliably in unexpected ways, or predict the world more reliably than science can. And science is now the best (and only) test for whether it has done so.

Since it first crossed swords with Galileo Galilei in 1632, theology has consistently lost fight after fight on both fronts, for nearly four centuries. Now it's struggling to find any relevance to the natural world, and hence any intellectual or moral authority at all. It has gotten so that even one theological victory would be seen as a triumph -- yet theology hasn't managed even one, and this is why over four centuries it has shifted ground from upholding a young creationist earth at the centre of the universe without evolution to the even less plausible proposition of a compassionate, anthropomorphic god responsible for the Big Bang and evolution on a tiny little planet in the middle of an exploding and decaying universe.

People of strong theological faith find both their continued failure and the ensuing intellectual retreat difficult to accept. They need to test it: Why are your theories superior to mine? How do you know what you know? Why is my theology accountable to you scientifically, while scientific theories aren't accountable to me theologically? Why can't my clergy critique cosmology, biology, psychology, and history; yet cosmologers, biologists, psychologists and historians can critique my canon and even the psychology of my belief itself?

It's unreasonable to expect people of strong faith to abandon their beliefs in the face of contrary evidence, since their faith is characterised by denial of evidence to privilege their preferred conclusions in the first place.

However the conversation can and should explain what the accountabilities actually are: since science embraces total accountability to evidence while theology holds no accountability at all, science can critique theology while theology cannot critique science.

That's essentially the conversation science has with theology time after face-aching time. But if you don't have it, people of faith take extraordinary liberties with their fantasies and conceits.

Earlier I described theology as the attempt to understand the world through revelation, but one can equally characterise it as a struggle for authority without accountability.

Science is no friend to that aim, and while science is no foe to spirituality or religion, theology correctly identified science as its most dangerous enemy four centuries ago.
This post is a brilliant example of this topic and someone assuming they actually know anything about theology and trying to separate it from science. The only real difference is one group of people wants to pretend they aren't treating nature as god when they are.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 12:07:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 11:23:34 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
While science is no foe to spirituality or religion, theology correctly identified science as its most dangerous enemy four centuries ago.
This post is a brilliant example of this topic and someone assuming they actually know anything about theology and trying to separate it from science.

Perhaps you're right, Bigotry. Perhaps nobody should assume they know anything about theology, and perhaps there is no separating commentary about the world from science.
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 4:01:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 5:01:03 PM, kp98 wrote:
Yeah. Whatever.

That's a rather churlish response, kp. You posed a question and someone went to great lengths to give you a detailed and thorough response. Then you immediately dismiss it as "whatever". It makes one wonder whether you were actually after an answer or whether the question was rhetorical only.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

Sounds like scientist saying "we understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, just ignore all we don't know."

Mhykiel, I think that conflation arises from the excluded middle approach you frequently take to your own appreciation of science: if it doesn't know everything, it must know nothing.

I was using your words interchanging Theology with Science. So in reflection are you admitting Theology may know something?


Science is scrupulous about what it can predict and what it can't. Within its professional conversations, it distinguishes assumptions and conjectures carefully from experiments and tested models. I realise that may not be apparent to you, and it may not always come through science journalism, however that's the reality nevertheless.

I understand the distinction. And I do see the distinction made clearer in papers written by some humble and honest scientist. I won't say I see that distinction made as much it should be.

There have been many principles accepted as true that either can not be tested, or go on accepted with out being tested.

...

Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

That's interesting, Mhykiel. Please tell me more about responsibility, and what additional obligations you feel it entails beyond accountability for reasoning, evidence and advice. I'd be especially interested to hear how you think clergy advising people about sexuality, marriage, happiness, morality and relationships upholds principles of accountability and responsibility.

What do you think Science is? You are treating it like it is some religious discipline. Science as a body of knowledge can only tell us about the world. Drawing any assessment from how the world "is" to how we "ought" to act is problematic. David Hume "is-ought" problem. Even given a relativistic moral view, morals and ethical actions based in world-is-facts, are almost circular beginning with an injection of moral value onto the natural results.

For instance, IF we say it is "wrong" to blow up half the Earth. And we back this up with the Science that doing so would destroy life on Earth and ourselves. Well this reasoning requires already stating that "killing all life on earth" and "killing ourselves" is wrong. Science doesn't tell us "killing life on Earth is bad". But there are plenty of Scientist who are actually moral ethical human beings that do say that.

Of course some say make the bomb and don't use it. ((a whole nother story))


If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow what you were saying or why in this para.

There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.


Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism).

By 'church' you must mean the church of Thales of Miletus [https://en.wikipedia.org...], or perhaps the churches of Vaisheshika [https://en.wikipedia.org...] and Nyaya [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Hinduism?

I was referring the Catholic Church.

Erroneously, since it inherited its initial ideas about natural philosophy from the ancient Greeks.

The Catholic Church built observatories, libraries, and taught what was in those days the sciences. Much of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans were lost and rediscovered by excavations carried out by the Catholic Church.

It has been Popes and Christian Philosophers (Seems Ruv wants this discussion narrowed to Judeo-Christian, but the remarks I make can be found in Moorish works as well) who have encouraged the use of methodological naturalism. That God made the world and as creatures made in his image we should strive to learn from nature, and learn about the creator through the way creation operates.

It is a really naive and uneducated position to think that Theist have always answered with "God did it" for everything. Why would God make the Laws of Nature just to have to break them. Isn't he at least smart enough and powerful enough to make a system that runs well.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 7:43:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 7:27:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

Sounds like scientist saying "we understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, just ignore all we don't know."

Mhykiel, I think that conflation arises from the excluded middle approach you frequently take to your own appreciation of science: if it doesn't know everything, it must know nothing.

I was using your words interchanging Theology with Science. So in reflection are you admitting Theology may know something?


Science is scrupulous about what it can predict and what it can't. Within its professional conversations, it distinguishes assumptions and conjectures carefully from experiments and tested models. I realise that may not be apparent to you, and it may not always come through science journalism, however that's the reality nevertheless.

I understand the distinction. And I do see the distinction made clearer in papers written by some humble and honest scientist. I won't say I see that distinction made as much it should be.

There have been many principles accepted as true that either can not be tested, or go on accepted with out being tested.

...

Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

That's interesting, Mhykiel. Please tell me more about responsibility, and what additional obligations you feel it entails beyond accountability for reasoning, evidence and advice. I'd be especially interested to hear how you think clergy advising people about sexuality, marriage, happiness, morality and relationships upholds principles of accountability and responsibility.

What do you think Science is? You are treating it like it is some religious discipline. Science as a body of knowledge can only tell us about the world. Drawing any assessment from how the world "is" to how we "ought" to act is problematic. David Hume "is-ought" problem. Even given a relativistic moral view, morals and ethical actions based in world-is-facts, are almost circular beginning with an injection of moral value onto the natural results.

For instance, IF we say it is "wrong" to blow up half the Earth. And we back this up with the Science that doing so would destroy life on Earth and ourselves. Well this reasoning requires already stating that "killing all life on earth" and "killing ourselves" is wrong. Science doesn't tell us "killing life on Earth is bad". But there are plenty of Scientist who are actually moral ethical human beings that do say that.

Of course some say make the bomb and don't use it. ((a whole nother story))


If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow what you were saying or why in this para.

There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.


Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism).

By 'church' you must mean the church of Thales of Miletus [https://en.wikipedia.org...], or perhaps the churches of Vaisheshika [https://en.wikipedia.org...] and Nyaya [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Hinduism?

I was referring the Catholic Church.

Erroneously, since it inherited its initial ideas about natural philosophy from the ancient Greeks.

The Catholic Church built observatories, libraries, and taught what was in those days the sciences. Much of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans were lost and rediscovered by excavations carried out by the Catholic Church.

It has been Popes and Christian Philosophers (Seems Ruv wants this discussion narrowed to Judeo-Christian, but the remarks I make can be found in Moorish works as well) who have encouraged the use of methodological naturalism. That God made the world and as creatures made in his image we should strive to learn from nature, and learn about the creator through the way creation operates.

It is a really naive and uneducated position to think that Theist have always answered with "God did it" for everything. Why would God make the Laws of Nature just to have to break them. Isn't he at least smart enough and powerful enough to make a system that runs well.

No matter how much you want to bring up the Catholic Church in the past, it doesn't change the fact that you, and people like you are the very antithesis to the natural exploration and scientific discovery they championed. You and those like you are very much the God-did-it brigade, and champion revelation over logic and reason when it comes to matters where science has the answer but it isn't one you like.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 7:45:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 7:27:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

Sounds like scientist saying "we understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, just ignore all we don't know."

Mhykiel, I think that conflation arises from the excluded middle approach you frequently take to your own appreciation of science: if it doesn't know everything, it must know nothing.

I was using your words interchanging Theology with Science. So in reflection are you admitting Theology may know something?

No, because theology is predicated on attempting to develop an authoritative understanding of the nature of metaphysical agencies and their supposed interactions with man -- a subject whose very existence has not been proven -- and perhaps cannot be.

By contrast, science is an attempt to develop a robust understanding of stuff everyone can observe.

So how can theology profess to know anything authoritatively when its subject cannot be confirmed to exist?

The core intellectual problem with theology is its lack of accountability to evidence, and its core moral failing is claiming authority from what is at best, pure conjecture.

Science is scrupulous about what it can predict and what it can't. Within its professional conversations, it distinguishes assumptions and conjectures carefully from experiments and tested models. I realise that may not be apparent to you, and it may not always come through science journalism, however that's the reality nevertheless.

I understand the distinction. And I do see the distinction made clearer in papers written by some humble and honest scientist. I won't say I see that distinction made as much it should be.

There have been many principles accepted as true that either can not be tested, or go on accepted with out being tested.

If true, those would be legitimate criticisms. On the other hand, I don't think you're qualified to level them. Rather, you should be citing people who are.

Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

That's interesting, Mhykiel. Please tell me more about responsibility, and what additional obligations you feel it entails beyond accountability for reasoning, evidence and advice. I'd be especially interested to hear how you think clergy advising people about sexuality, marriage, happiness, morality and relationships upholds principles of accountability and responsibility.

What do you think Science is?

An attempt to form a robust understanding of how things work -- including causes and impacts.

Do you believe that a moral discussion can safely ignore causes and impacts? That would be a very odd discussion indeed.

I cannot see how any legitimate moral discussion can cleave to the pseudoauthoritative conjecture of theology, yet ignore the evidentiary processes of science.

And as I said before, before you can invoke the is-ought question, you need to tell me what you think morality is.

If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow what you were saying or why in this para.

There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.

Let's be honest then, and call them exhaustively tested assumptions, accountable to contest and subject to change. As opposed to theology, which is redolent with untested and untestable conjecture, and shielded by apologetics, blasphemy laws and the persecution of heresies.

The Catholic Church built observatories, libraries, and taught what was in those days the sciences. Much of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans were lost and rediscovered by excavations carried out by the Catholic Church.

Yes. It wasn't a birthplace of science, but a place in which older thought was re-kindled. I've already acknowledged that.

It has been Popes and Christian Philosophers (Seems Ruv wants this discussion narrowed to Judeo-Christian, but the remarks I make can be found in Moorish works as well) who have encouraged the use of methodological naturalism.

Since I have already mentioned Hinduism, while you invoked Roman Catholicism, please do not misrepresent my words. I can attest as well as any where a word like 'algebra' arose, or Muslim contributions to mathematics.

It is a really naive and uneducated position to think that Theist have always answered with "God did it" for everything.

It would be, but since I haven't done that, it's also a straw-man.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:06:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

(continued)

Arguably the biggest scientific influence on a geocentric system was Ptolemy, whose models and planetary predictions were created in about the 2nd century CE, and lasted for over a millennium. Despite using an incorrect model, Ptolemy had managed to wangle accurate calculations. The initial scientific benefit of a heliocentric system was that it was simpler, and the biggest impediment to it working was the belief in circular orbits rather than elipses.

You are correct that a heliocentric system was not first proposed by Galileo, and neither was heliocentrism the reason he was accused of heresy. Rather, it was his championship of empiricism over papal authority, as appearing in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) [http://law2.umkc.edu...], and from which I quote below:

Several years ago there was published in Rome a salutary edict which, in order to obviate the dangerous tendencies of our present age, imposed a seasonable silence upon the Pythagorean opinion that the earth moves. There were those who impudently asserted that this decree had its origin not injudicious inquire, but in passion none too well informed Complaints were to be heard that advisers who were totally unskilled at astronomical observations ought not to clip the wings of reflective intellects by means of rash prohibitions.

Yes and many of the astronomers were priests. You paint the Church even in this time as a society of sheep. But the church priesthood from the pope down were pillars of education in that time. St.Augustine wrote his Confessions and ideas in logical arguments. And the Church would sponsor debates to "judiciously" weigh matters. Galileo is saying the judgement that it was against scripture was passion based and not reason.

I can't argue that the church didn't ban books they didn't agree with. I already mentioned there was a reform going on, and that the times were also changing in manners of reasoning.


Upon hearing such carping insolence, my zeal could not be contained. Being thoroughly informed about that prudent determination, I decided to appear openly in the theater of the world as a witness of the sober truth. I was at that time in Rome; I was not only received by the most eminent prelates of that Court, but had their applause; indeed this decree was not published without some previous notice of it having been given to me. Therefore I propose in the present work to show to foreign nations that as much is understood of this matter in Italy, and particularly in Rome, as transalpine diligence can ever have imagined. Collecting all the reflections that properly concern the Copernican system, I shall make it known that everything was brought before the attention of the Roman censorship, and that there proceed from this clime not only dogmas for the welfare of the soul, but ingenious discoveries for the delight of the mind as well.

Galileo Hoped to show to the world that the Catholic Church didn't only have the truth to save our souls but also the truths of the world.


To this end I have taken the Copernican side in the discourse, proceeding as with a pure mathematical hypothesis and striving by every artipee to represent it as superior to supposing the earth motionless"not, indeed absolutely, but as against the arguments of some professed Peripatetics. These men indeed deserve not even that name, for they do not walk about; they are content to adore the shadows, philosophizing not with due circumspection but merely from having memorized a few ill-understood principles.


Galileo's ad hominems.


Science and Theology are not mutually exclusive. They are epistemically distinct.
Please explain how you feel the tabula rasa of empiricism and the assumed authority of revelation are ethically compatible.
Ethically compatible? Well in terms of ethics they certainly are because science can't experiment or test or find evidence to support any ethical actions. Hume problem.

You don't think science embraces ethics in its discipline? And does theology do so? What do you make of Galileo's comments above -- criticising theological censorship and dismissal of empirical measurement?

1st. Galileo was expressing a dislike of theological censorship. He fully felt that Science and Scripture must agree in truth.

His primary criticism was basing science on math instead of rationale.

Science has Ethical boards and Moral People. That is Science as a practice yes, but as a discipline no.

Theology as the study of the nature of God and religious belief. Same as before as a discipline no. But in the context of organized religions in the epistemological attempt to describe the nature of mankind in relationship to God, it does directly state moral values.

Why Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".


What is morality? I'm not contesting that it has a definition. I'm asking what you think the definition is, and why, under that definition, you feel that science cannot contribute to the moral conversation.
Hume is-ought problem and the Problem of Induction

In order to show that the is-ought argument applies, you must first answer: what is morality.

Right or Wrong behavior. And as I mentioned earlier. Science telling us how things are do not make moral statements, without first injecting moral values.


There are DDO members you can get away with saying that to, Mhykiel. You ought to know by now that I'm not one of them.
The war is in Atheist propaganda not the history books. (aside from Politically motivated skirmishes)
http://plato.stanford.edu...

The persecution of heresy predates atheism in Christian society.

Yes people are bad to each other. I only invite you to read the history a little deeper and hopefully with unbias eyes so you can see that Churches gave birth to centers of higher learning and gave Modern Science it's foundation.

The fight between Science and Religion is not as you portray. I think the reality is more like a friendly spat.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:21:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 7:43:28 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:27:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

Sounds like scientist saying "we understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, just ignore all we don't know."

Mhykiel, I think that conflation arises from the excluded middle approach you frequently take to your own appreciation of science: if it doesn't know everything, it must know nothing.

I was using your words interchanging Theology with Science. So in reflection are you admitting Theology may know something?


Science is scrupulous about what it can predict and what it can't. Within its professional conversations, it distinguishes assumptions and conjectures carefully from experiments and tested models. I realise that may not be apparent to you, and it may not always come through science journalism, however that's the reality nevertheless.

I understand the distinction. And I do see the distinction made clearer in papers written by some humble and honest scientist. I won't say I see that distinction made as much it should be.

There have been many principles accepted as true that either can not be tested, or go on accepted with out being tested.

...

Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

That's interesting, Mhykiel. Please tell me more about responsibility, and what additional obligations you feel it entails beyond accountability for reasoning, evidence and advice. I'd be especially interested to hear how you think clergy advising people about sexuality, marriage, happiness, morality and relationships upholds principles of accountability and responsibility.

What do you think Science is? You are treating it like it is some religious discipline. Science as a body of knowledge can only tell us about the world. Drawing any assessment from how the world "is" to how we "ought" to act is problematic. David Hume "is-ought" problem. Even given a relativistic moral view, morals and ethical actions based in world-is-facts, are almost circular beginning with an injection of moral value onto the natural results.

For instance, IF we say it is "wrong" to blow up half the Earth. And we back this up with the Science that doing so would destroy life on Earth and ourselves. Well this reasoning requires already stating that "killing all life on earth" and "killing ourselves" is wrong. Science doesn't tell us "killing life on Earth is bad". But there are plenty of Scientist who are actually moral ethical human beings that do say that.

Of course some say make the bomb and don't use it. ((a whole nother story))


If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow what you were saying or why in this para.

There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.


Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism).

By 'church' you must mean the church of Thales of Miletus [https://en.wikipedia.org...], or perhaps the churches of Vaisheshika [https://en.wikipedia.org...] and Nyaya [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Hinduism?

I was referring the Catholic Church.

Erroneously, since it inherited its initial ideas about natural philosophy from the ancient Greeks.

The Catholic Church built observatories, libraries, and taught what was in those days the sciences. Much of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans were lost and rediscovered by excavations carried out by the Catholic Church.

It has been Popes and Christian Philosophers (Seems Ruv wants this discussion narrowed to Judeo-Christian, but the remarks I make can be found in Moorish works as well) who have encouraged the use of methodological naturalism. That God made the world and as creatures made in his image we should strive to learn from nature, and learn about the creator through the way creation operates.

It is a really naive and uneducated position to think that Theist have always answered with "God did it" for everything. Why would God make the Laws of Nature just to have to break them. Isn't he at least smart enough and powerful enough to make a system that runs well.

No matter how much you want to bring up the Catholic Church in the past, it doesn't change the fact that you, and people like you are the very antithesis to the natural exploration and scientific discovery they championed. You and those like you are very much the God-did-it brigade, and champion revelation over logic and reason when it comes to matters where science has the answer but it isn't one you like.

Your opinion and apparently no matter how wrong I think your opinion is, you are right.

I don't think any of my Supervisors, Teachers, or anyone that knows me would say that about me. Or even in the slightest make a remark that paints me as a "God did it" or as unscientific, or as illogical unreasonable.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:45:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 8:06:04 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
You are correct that a heliocentric system was not first proposed by Galileo, and neither was heliocentrism the reason he was accused of heresy. Rather, it was his championship of empiricism over papal authority, as appearing in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632) [http://law2.umkc.edu...], and from which I quote below:

Several years ago there was published in Rome a salutary edict which, in order to obviate the dangerous tendencies of our present age, imposed a seasonable silence upon the Pythagorean opinion that the earth moves. There were those who impudently asserted that this decree had its origin not injudicious inquire, but in passion none too well informed Complaints were to be heard that advisers who were totally unskilled at astronomical observations ought not to clip the wings of reflective intellects by means of rash prohibitions.

Yes and many of the astronomers were priests. You paint the Church even in this time as a society of sheep.

I'm sure that others have, but I haven't argued that at all.

Modern science began to flourish after the printing press, but at a time when training in philosophy, literacy and higher education still resided with the Church. Unsurprisingly then, for the first few centuries, many theologians were science-literate, and many scientists were steeped in Christian theology. Thus, science owes a great deal to the likes of Christians such Galileo Galilei, Francis Bacon, and Gregor Mendel, as well as less orthodox Christians like Isaac Newton, along with non-Christians like Aristotle, Thales and Albert Einstein.

However, that confluence is no longer true today, Mhykiel. Science was always destined to be a multicultural, multifaith endeavour. Although many scientists continue to know something about the theology of many faiths, there's no special reason a Hindu physicist must be literate in Christian theology.

However, what has become even more apparent is how illiterate most theologians are now in science. Science knows quite a lot about culture and faith -- in fact, there are branches of science studying those very subjects. However, many modern theologians are pig-ignorant about science, and yet still presume to pronounce on causes, effects and natures as though faith alone entitled them to do so.

Galileo pointed out this conceit back in 1632 (see quote above.) Apparently, theological vanity hasn't improved much in nearly 400 years.

Science has Ethical boards and Moral People. That is Science as a practice yes, but as a discipline no.

I'm unclear how you distinguish these. If the profession and its methods are informed and regulated by ethical and moral codes, and if the products of the discipline itself are crucial to inform ethical and moral conversations (as I argued in a previous post), then how is the discipline not steeped in, motivated by and aligned to ethical and moral concerns?

Theology as the study of the nature of God and religious belief. Same as before as a discipline no. But in the context of organized religions in the epistemological attempt to describe the nature of mankind in relationship to God, it does directly state moral values.

To the best of my understanding, theology claims authority, but cannot defend the claim, and offers no code of ethics for its own practices of education and evaluation, while shielding itself from accountability and intellectual contest through apologetics, invoking clerical privilege, the prosecution of blasphemy and the persecution of heresy. How is that not amoral -- even immoral?

Why Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind".

Religion is not theology, Mhykiel. Einstein was a Deist.

What is morality? I'm not contesting that it has a definition. I'm asking what you think the definition is, and why, under that definition, you feel that science cannot contribute to the moral conversation.
Hume is-ought problem and the Problem of Induction

In order to show that the is-ought argument applies, you must first answer: what is morality.

Right or Wrong behavior. And as I mentioned earlier. Science telling us how things are do not make moral statements, without first injecting moral values.

Think carefully on this: given that morality is a concern of every faith and culture, what makes a behaviour right or wrong?

There are DDO members you can get away with saying that to, Mhykiel. You ought to know by now that I'm not one of them.
The war is in Atheist propaganda not the history books. (aside from Politically motivated skirmishes)
http://plato.stanford.edu...

The persecution of heresy predates atheism in Christian society.

Yes people are bad to each other.

More than that, Mhykiel. Intrinsically, Science is the pursuit of a better heresy. It proceeds by debunking popular, bad ideas, and then replacing them with unpopular, better ones.

Science does not object to empirical ideas deriving from theological traditions (in fact those were the first ideas modern science started testing), but theological authority objects greatly to science.

The fight between Science and Religion is not as you portray. I think the reality is more like a friendly spat.

On science's side it is friendly (by which I mean nonmalicious), but on the side of theology it is not. In four centuries, modern science has wrested away clerical authority and the authority of canon; the legitimacy of theological cosmology and biogenesis; the legitimacy of revelation; the hagiographies of prophets, saints and sages; the legitimacy of miracles; the histories of faiths themselves; and countless ex cathedra moral assertions. It has also held theology and its practitioners up to growing scrutiny and illuminated egregious cynicism and vast corruption.

Theology can co-exist with science as long as it keeps retreating from anything it can't prove (which is pretty much every authority it claims) -- but in doing so, how can it avoid continuing to leave the authority of scriptures, churches, clergy and sacred traditions -- not to mention its own credibility -- in shreds on the ground?

Conclusion: science gets on fine with religion and spirituality, however its very nature is a threat to theology.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 8:51:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 7:45:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:27:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
..

Mhykiel, I think that conflation arises from the excluded middle approach you frequently take to your own appreciation of science: if it doesn't know everything, it must know nothing.

I was using your words interchanging Theology with Science. So in reflection are you admitting Theology may know something?

No, because theology is predicated on attempting to develop an authoritative understanding of the nature of metaphysical agencies and their supposed interactions with man -- a subject whose very existence has not been proven -- and perhaps cannot be.

How does a discipline of study attempt to be authoritative? Organized Religions to what you explain but not theology. Similar to How Science doesn't attempt to make authoritative claims but Secular humanist societies do.

As for proven, not to you and not scientifically. But why time flies when your having fun isn't proven either.


By contrast, science is an attempt to develop a robust understanding of stuff everyone can observe.

Then why bother explaining things no one can observe like exchange particles? Science is predicated on explaining things in terms it already accepts as true. And this is why the most famous thinkers on the subject of science have always encouraged a bit of rebellion and exploration into the uncharted. Because to explain the observations we see we are being forced even today to accept things Science rejected and in some circles DENIED just a few decades ago.

Who knows, maybe one day a deity will be a heuristically acceptable proposition.


So how can theology profess to know anything authoritatively when its subject cannot be confirmed to exist?

We are speaking of two distinctly separate epistemological. And while you place Science on a pedestal to judge Theology. This role is arbitrary and not based in logic. Is Science as a domain of knowledge complete, inerrant, and all encompassing of all things in existence? No it is not. Therefore it can only judge Theology in relation to how scientific it is. But NOT in how correct or valuable it is.


The core intellectual problem with theology is its lack of accountability to evidence, and its core moral failing is claiming authority from what is at best, pure conjecture.

Accountability to evidence? Sounds like evidentialism. Which Even Karl Popper was critical of.

Theology relies on revelation, history, philosophy, logic, and examination of human nature to deduce it's claims. Which vary and are argued just as fervently between theologians as scientific theories are debated in Science.


Science is scrupulous about what it can predict and what it can't. Within its professional conversations, it distinguishes assumptions and conjectures carefully from experiments and tested models. I realise that may not be apparent to you, and it may not always come through science journalism, however that's the reality nevertheless.

I understand the distinction. And I do see the distinction made clearer in papers written by some humble and honest scientist. I won't say I see that distinction made as much it should be.

There have been many principles accepted as true that either can not be tested, or go on accepted with out being tested.

If true, those would be legitimate criticisms. On the other hand, I don't think you're qualified to level them. Rather, you should be citing people who are.

Argument from authority. I come here with the qualifications of a poet.

You already know that I cite examples like exchange particles, hypothetical particles that are mathematically consistent with a model.

Same as Dark Energy. Which despite it being an "umbrella term" it is espoused as fact. And others but let's not get on a tangent. Quite simply Not everything in Science is empirically based.


Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

That's interesting, Mhykiel. Please tell me more about responsibility, and what additional obligations you feel it entails beyond accountability for reasoning, evidence and advice. I'd be especially interested to hear how you think clergy advising people about sexuality, marriage, happiness, morality and relationships upholds principles of accountability and responsibility.

What do you think Science is?

An attempt to form a robust understanding of how things work -- including causes and impacts.

Do you believe that a moral discussion can safely ignore causes and impacts? That would be a very odd discussion indeed.

Scientist write papers on causes and impacts in impartial terms. This would be the "is". And afterwards many (especially Christian Scientist) discuss the moral impact of their work. But that is not them doing Science it is them practicing ethics.


I cannot see how any legitimate moral discussion can cleave to the pseudoauthoritative conjecture of theology, yet ignore the evidentiary processes of science.

Evidence makes no moral claim. Evidence makes no ethical distinction. And the process for understanding evidence in it's context is about cause and effect. Which are consequential not judgmental.


And as I said before, before you can invoke the is-ought question, you need to tell me what you think morality is.

I told you right or wrong behavior.


If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow what you were saying or why in this para.

There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.

Let's be honest then, and call them exhaustively tested assumptions, accountable to contest and subject to change. As opposed to theology, which is redolent with untested and untestable conjecture, and shielded by apologetics, blasphemy laws and the persecution of heresies.

Okay if you are going to resort to bare assertions I will to. Maybe RUV you have to be a Theologian for a decade or 2 before you can understand what it is about. I think they have some by-laws about letting blasphemers in though.


The Catholic Church built observatories, libraries, and taught what was in those days the sciences. ..Catholic Church.

Yes. It wasn't a birthplace of science, but a place in which older thought was re-kindled. I've already acknowledged that.

It has been Popes and Christian Philosophers (Seems Ruv wants this discussion narrowed to Judeo-Christian, but the remarks I make can be found in Moorish works as well) who have encouraged the use of methodological naturalism.

Since I have already mentioned Hinduism, while you invoked Roman Catholicism, please do not misrepresent my words. I can attest as well as any where a word like 'algebra' arose, or Muslim contributions to mathematics.

It is a really naive and uneducated position to think that Theist have always answered with "God did it" for everything.

It would be, but since I haven't done that, it's also a straw-man.

Theology and Science are epistemological distinct. organized religions have no beef with Science. Scientific advances have often been accomplished by people who had no lack of Faith. Some even encouraged by their faith to discern creation from their creator.

http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 8:21:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I don't think any of my Supervisors, Teachers, or anyone that knows me would say that about me. Or even in the slightest make a remark that paints me as a "God did it" or as unscientific, or as illogical unreasonable.

Correction, my Ex-wife would call me unreasonable and I call her crazy. But she is on meds and was chasing me with a knife, so I wouldn't trust her judgement.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:27:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 8:51:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:45:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
No, because theology is predicated on attempting to develop an authoritative understanding of the nature of metaphysical agencies and their supposed interactions with man -- a subject whose very existence has not been proven -- and perhaps cannot be.
How does a discipline of study attempt to be authoritative? Organized Religions to what you explain but not theology.

Either theology is a discipline or it is not. If it is a discipline then it's organised -- and theology is by nature religious. So how is a theological discipline not organised religion?

On the other hand, if theology is not a discipline, then how is it anything more than art -- an expression of the personal and subjective? And if it is art, then by what authority must anyone take a particular theology seriously?

As for proven, not to you and not scientifically. But why time flies when your having fun isn't proven either.
It's not only unproven, Mhykiel, it holds itself unaccountable to evidence.

That's what it means when you resort to revelation.

By contrast, science is an attempt to develop a robust understanding of stuff everyone can observe.
Then why bother explaining things no one can observe like exchange particles?

You mean, why use abstract concepts to organise material observations? Because all humans do that, Mhykiel. Else there would be no 'warm days' or 'cold days' -- only a day of a particular temperature. The important question is whether those abstract concepts are grounded in observation, contestible by prediction and parsimony, constructive and falsifiable.

In science they are; in theology they generally aren't.

Who knows, maybe one day a deity will be a heuristically acceptable proposition.

A metaphysical agency -- perhaps. We already have them, y'know. The laws of thermodynamics and Conservation of energy are metaphysical agencies. They're just not terribly smart or interested in humanity. :)

A deity? That's a moral assertion, requiring a whole lot more evidence, beginning with, but not ending at, demonstrating the existence of an intelligent, responsive metaphysical agency.

So how can theology profess to know anything authoritatively when its subject cannot be confirmed to exist?
We are speaking of two distinctly separate epistemological. And while you place Science on a pedestal to judge Theology.
They're not epistemologically separate, because they have subjects in common. Moreover, they also are accountable to the same evidence. It's just that science acknowledges and embraces that accountability, while theology squirms to evade it.

The core intellectual problem with theology is its lack of accountability to evidence, and its core moral failing is claiming authority from what is at best, pure conjecture.
Accountability to evidence? Sounds like evidentialism. Which Even Karl Popper was critical of.
Another straw-man? Refutation by evidence is not evidentialism, and science itself accepts the value of conjecture (it just doesn't conflate conjecture with proof.)

Moreover, theology has worked very hard to claim empirical evidence for its authority, even before science existed as a coherent discipline. You don't need Genesis to claim the existence of a deity for example, yet look at how hard theologians have tried to show Genesis true.

Theology relies on revelation, history, philosophy, logic, and examination of human nature to deduce it's claims. Which vary and are argued just as fervently between theologians as scientific theories are debated in Science.

Except, without the intellectual integrity of promptly admitting and learning from errors of fact and method.

If true, those would be legitimate criticisms. On the other hand, I don't think you're qualified to level them. Rather, you should be citing people who are.
Argument from authority. I come here with the qualifications of a poet.

Not at all -- an argument from competence.

Science is a disparate, multicultural multifaith discipline admitting a vast range of heresies. You are constantly making errors of fact and method in your argument, corrected by people working closer to the domain by you using cited references, and you have yet to draw the conclusion that you are not competent to pronounce on the domain. Meanwhile, you have yet to find one credible research scientist who supports your bare assertions with a single published, peer-reviewed paper. So the argument from authority is actually yours: you're claiming insights into disciplines you don't really understand.

You already know that I cite examples like exchange particles, hypothetical particles that are mathematically consistent with a model.

You can't explain the difference between a taxonomic abstraction and a material observation, or explain how scientific taxa are justified and evaluated. You barely understand falsification; you don't understand the difference between abduction and deduction, and cannot get your head around the way conditional probability works.

But sure, you can skim Wikipedia, and name-drop. Armchair quarterbacks can name players and discuss plays too.

An attempt to form a robust understanding of how things work -- including causes and impacts.

Do you believe that a moral discussion can safely ignore causes and impacts? That would be a very odd discussion indeed.

Scientist write papers on causes and impacts in impartial terms. This would be the "is". And afterwards many (especially Christian Scientist) discuss the moral impact of their work. But that is not them doing Science it is them practicing ethics.

I'm aware that science studies 'is'. But medicine and psychiatry (for example) frequently provides policy advice on 'ought', as does engineering.

How do STEM disciplines so quickly move from 'is' to 'ought'? And are you arguing they ought to: a) stop discussing how to perform surgical procedures or build bridges; or b) consult theologians for permission first?

There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.

Let's be honest then, and call them exhaustively tested assumptions, accountable to contest and subject to change. As opposed to theology, which is redolent with untested and untestable conjecture, and shielded by apologetics, blasphemy laws and the persecution of heresies.

Okay if you are going to resort to bare assertions I will to.

Those aren't bare assertions but a summary of evidence. I can give countless examples of science acknowledging, testing, revisiting and changing its assumptions; and no end of examples of theologians making unproven claims, evading accountability with apologetics, shielding themselves with blasphemy laws and propping up claims to power with the persecution of heresies.

But you know I can, because you can too.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 9:30:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 8:21:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:43:28 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:27:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

Sounds like scientist saying "we understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, just ignore all we don't know."

Mhykiel, I think that conflation arises from the excluded middle approach you frequently take to your own appreciation of science: if it doesn't know everything, it must know nothing.

I was using your words interchanging Theology with Science. So in reflection are you admitting Theology may know something?


Science is scrupulous about what it can predict and what it can't. Within its professional conversations, it distinguishes assumptions and conjectures carefully from experiments and tested models. I realise that may not be apparent to you, and it may not always come through science journalism, however that's the reality nevertheless.

I understand the distinction. And I do see the distinction made clearer in papers written by some humble and honest scientist. I won't say I see that distinction made as much it should be.

There have been many principles accepted as true that either can not be tested, or go on accepted with out being tested.

...

Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

That's interesting, Mhykiel. Please tell me more about responsibility, and what additional obligations you feel it entails beyond accountability for reasoning, evidence and advice. I'd be especially interested to hear how you think clergy advising people about sexuality, marriage, happiness, morality and relationships upholds principles of accountability and responsibility.

What do you think Science is? You are treating it like it is some religious discipline. Science as a body of knowledge can only tell us about the world. Drawing any assessment from how the world "is" to how we "ought" to act is problematic. David Hume "is-ought" problem. Even given a relativistic moral view, morals and ethical actions based in world-is-facts, are almost circular beginning with an injection of moral value onto the natural results.

For instance, IF we say it is "wrong" to blow up half the Earth. And we back this up with the Science that doing so would destroy life on Earth and ourselves. Well this reasoning requires already stating that "killing all life on earth" and "killing ourselves" is wrong. Science doesn't tell us "killing life on Earth is bad". But there are plenty of Scientist who are actually moral ethical human beings that do say that.

Of course some say make the bomb and don't use it. ((a whole nother story))


If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow what you were saying or why in this para.

There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.


Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism).

By 'church' you must mean the church of Thales of Miletus [https://en.wikipedia.org...], or perhaps the churches of Vaisheshika [https://en.wikipedia.org...] and Nyaya [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Hinduism?

I was referring the Catholic Church.

Erroneously, since it inherited its initial ideas about natural philosophy from the ancient Greeks.

The Catholic Church built observatories, libraries, and taught what was in those days the sciences. Much of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans were lost and rediscovered by excavations carried out by the Catholic Church.

It has been Popes and Christian Philosophers (Seems Ruv wants this discussion narrowed to Judeo-Christian, but the remarks I make can be found in Moorish works as well) who have encouraged the use of methodological naturalism. That God made the world and as creatures made in his image we should strive to learn from nature, and learn about the creator through the way creation operates.

It is a really naive and uneducated position to think that Theist have always answered with "God did it" for everything. Why would God make the Laws of Nature just to have to break them. Isn't he at least smart enough and powerful enough to make a system that runs well.

No matter how much you want to bring up the Catholic Church in the past, it doesn't change the fact that you, and people like you are the very antithesis to the natural exploration and scientific discovery they championed. You and those like you are very much the God-did-it brigade, and champion revelation over logic and reason when it comes to matters where science has the answer but it isn't one you like.

Your opinion and apparently no matter how wrong I think your opinion is, you are right.

I don't think any of my Supervisors, Teachers, or anyone that knows me would say that about me. Or even in the slightest make a remark that paints me as a "God did it" or as unscientific, or as illogical unreasonable.

Then they probably aren't aware that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I'm only going on your positions here that I can read
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 10:14:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:27:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/21/2015 8:51:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:45:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
No, because theology is predicated on attempting to develop an authoritative understanding of the nature of metaphysical agencies and their supposed interactions with man -- a subject whose very existence has not been proven -- and perhaps cannot be.
How does a discipline of study attempt to be authoritative? Organized Religions to what you explain but not theology.

Either theology is a discipline or it is not. If it is a discipline then it's organised -- and theology is by nature religious. So how is a theological discipline not organised religion?

Nice semantics but fallacious. Theology is pertains to religion, making it religious, but not a religion.


On the other hand, if theology is not a discipline, then how is it anything more than art -- an expression of the personal and subjective? And if it is art, then by what authority must anyone take a particular theology seriously?

A discipline is a field of study.


As for proven, not to you and not scientifically. But why time flies when your having fun isn't proven either.
It's not only unproven, Mhykiel, it holds itself unaccountable to evidence.

That's what it means when you resort to revelation.

So you disagree with "time flies when you're having fun."


By contrast, science is an attempt to develop a robust understanding of stuff everyone can observe.
Then why bother explaining things no one can observe like exchange particles?

You mean, why use abstract concepts to organise material observations? Because all humans do that, Mhykiel. Else there would be no 'warm days' or 'cold days' -- only a day of a particular temperature. The important question is whether those abstract concepts are grounded in observation, contestible by prediction and parsimony, constructive and falsifiable.

What you describe as the important thing is your dogma.

grounded in Observation: Not Star formation, photon exchange in electron scattering, virtual particles, ect..

Contestable: Not like the inside of black holes, multiverse, abiogenesis...

Parsimony: That is IBE and is very subjective. It's an heuristic. Belongs in the same box as the Anthropic Principle and Murphy's law.

Constructive: I'm unsure in what manner you speak. If you mean in aiding in the development of technology even bad ideas do that.

Falsifiable: Well this is the great thing isn't it. You espouse Science as an epitome of human knowledge. And everything Science says today demonstrates how wrong theology is.

Yet Science has been wrong about calorics, phlogiston, or how John Ioannidis found most Research Papers are wrong.
http://journals.plos.org...

So Science is right until they are wrong, but theology is always wrong.

Like I said you put Science in a seat to judge theology and the only thing it can judge is how scientific Theology is. It can not judge how right, wrong, valuable Theology is.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 10:36:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:27:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/21/2015 8:51:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:45:51 PM, RuvDraba

In science they are; in theology they generally aren't.

That's because Theology is NOT Science. And for further clarification Arithmetic is NOT Science, Logic is NOT Science, History is NOT Science, list really goes on.

So stating how Science evaluates evidence has no baring on the Validity of the claims Theology makes. Just as it has no bearing on the claims History makes. Now still even with theology there will be some overlap but not the same.


Who knows, maybe one day a deity will be a heuristically acceptable proposition.

A metaphysical agency -- perhaps. We already have them, y'know. The laws of thermodynamics and Conservation of energy are metaphysical agencies. They're just not terribly smart or interested in humanity. :)

A deity? That's a moral assertion, requiring a whole lot more evidence, beginning with, but not ending at, demonstrating the existence of an intelligent, responsive metaphysical agency.

A deity is not a moral assertion. There is nothing moral about stating what exists, exists. If it does it does and no moral value or consideration changes that.

As far as demonstrating a person hood. If I could devise an experiment that is responsive and reacts correctly according your intelligence, and is repeatable it would be a force of nature. It wouldn't be a being.

I sometimes give money to the poor, now can you demonstrate I exist by canvasing the poor people in my town? No you wouldn't. Well not by the standards of evidence you would hold God to.


So how can theology profess to know anything authoritatively when its subject cannot be confirmed to exist?
We are speaking of two distinctly separate epistemological. And while you place Science on a pedestal to judge Theology.
They're not epistemologically separate, because they have subjects in common. Moreover, they also are accountable to the same evidence. It's just that science acknowledges and embraces that accountability, while theology squirms to evade it.

Theology doesn't squirm to evade it. Evidence is investigated and interpreted, same as it is done by the scientific community. What you are upset at, because you put science on a pedestal is the conclusions disagreeing with each other.


The core intellectual problem with theology is its lack of accountability to evidence, and its core moral failing is claiming authority from what is at best, pure conjecture.
Accountability to evidence? Sounds like evidentialism. Which Even Karl Popper was critical of.
Another straw-man? Refutation by evidence is not evidentialism, and science itself accepts the value of conjecture (it just doesn't conflate conjecture with proof.)

Okay Ruv, you erased your comments when calling mine a straw man, uncool. You didn't say refutable by evidence you said accountable to the evidence. Meaning the conclusions made by science are justifiable by the evidence. And the wording you have used up to now is lingo for evidentialism.

Know one is arguing that Science says proof, or posits things that are not tentative to change.


Moreover, theology has worked very hard to claim empirical evidence for its authority, even before science existed as a coherent discipline. You don't need Genesis to claim the existence of a deity for example, yet look at how hard theologians have tried to show Genesis true.

When asked where to start a story what is the answer? "In the Beginning"


Theology relies on revelation, history, philosophy, logic, and examination of human nature to deduce it's claims. Which vary and are argued just as fervently between theologians as scientific theories are debated in Science.

Except, without the intellectual integrity of promptly admitting and learning from errors of fact and method.

Theology changes as well. And what might be surprising for you to know is that concepts in theology often change to accord with what Science is saying at the time. Sometimes only to be refuted and thrown out by Science later on.

So you can't hold Theology to blame for the whole mess when it was Science backing the racism of southern democrats.

but what about the times when theology stood firm that the universe was not Infinite and had a beginning? Going all the way back to the 1st Century it was said that creation was a definition, a border drawn to make an object. And God has no borders hence the Universe is finite, had a beginning, but growing because God fills the heavens and extends the firmament.

hind sight is 20/20 for either Science or Theology. And in most cases you will find the other side influencing each other.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:01:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:27:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/21/2015 8:51:28 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:45:51 PM, RuvDraba wrote::
If true, those would be legitimate criticisms. On the other hand, I don't think you're qualified to level them. Rather, you should be citing people who are.
Argument from authority. I come here with the qualifications of a poet.

Not at all -- an argument from competence.

Science is a disparate, multicultural multifaith discipline admitting a vast range of heresies. You are constantly making errors of fact and method in your argument, corrected by people working closer to the domain by you using cited references, and you have yet to draw the conclusion that you are not competent to pronounce on the domain. Meanwhile, you have yet to find one credible research scientist who supports your bare assertions with a single published, peer-reviewed paper. So the argument from authority is actually yours: you're claiming insights into disciplines you don't really understand.

This is a debate site. Don't like non-scientist disagreeing with science then leave.


You already know that I cite examples like exchange particles, hypothetical particles that are mathematically consistent with a model.

You can't explain the difference between a taxonomic abstraction and a material observation, or explain how scientific taxa are justified and evaluated. You barely understand falsification; you don't understand the difference between abduction and deduction, and cannot get your head around the way conditional probability works.

But sure, you can skim Wikipedia, and name-drop. Armchair quarterbacks can name players and discuss plays too.

So you admit that what science espouses as fact, or accepted as truth, that which it uses to bolster and explain other theories, that which goes uncontested in the scientific community, is sometimes not based on the same evidence you ask for from everyone else. Good! I'm glad we agree.

A computer model spitting out numbers that match close with observed reality is not an experiment. It is not Science. It is video game design.

Science has gotten away from evidence and is breast feeding from ideology, all the very things you accuse theology of doing.



An attempt to form a robust understanding of how things work -- including causes and impacts.

Do you believe that a moral discussion can safely ignore causes and impacts? That would be a very odd discussion indeed.

Scientist write papers on causes and impacts in impartial terms. This would be the "is". And afterwards many (especially Christian Scientist) discuss the moral impact of their work. But that is not them doing Science it is them practicing ethics.

I'm aware that science studies 'is'. But medicine and psychiatry (for example) frequently provides policy advice on 'ought', as does engineering.

Only because they inject a moral value on the outcome. Science does not create moral values.


How do STEM disciplines so quickly move from 'is' to 'ought'? And are you arguing they ought to: a) stop discussing how to perform surgical procedures or build bridges; or b) consult theologians for permission first?

No as I said Science is done ethically by moral people. people should still perform actions that are "good". Science can say what the result of an action will be. but to how "good" or "bad" that action is will be considerations apart from Science.



There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.

Let's be honest then, and call them exhaustively tested assumptions, accountable to contest and subject to change. As opposed to theology, which is redolent with untested and untestable conjecture, and shielded by apologetics, blasphemy laws and the persecution of heresies.

Okay if you are going to resort to bare assertions I will to.

Those aren't bare assertions but a summary of evidence. I can give countless examples of science acknowledging, testing, revisiting and changing its assumptions; and no end of examples of theologians making unproven claims, evading accountability with apologetics, shielding themselves with blasphemy laws and propping up claims to power with the persecution of heresies.

But you know I can, because you can too

You know I can list a series of events where Science (Scientist) made unproven claims, evaded accountability with state support, shielded themselves with court cases and propping up claims to power with the persecution of fines, levies, and loss of tax exempt status.

We are way off-topic Ruv. But you remember the Piltdown man, a Hoax on display in a Museum for more than 40 years. Or the Scopes trial over a humanoid tooth that forced US schools to teach evolution only, that toothe turned out to be a pigs tooth. Whose accountable for changes in Law based on bad Science.

How about the Harvard medical study that showed stricter gun laws reduced death BY HAND GUN. It influence legislation. Yet, same year I think The Harvard school of Law and Public Safety, showed Murders increased after gun laws are passed. (are they mutually exclusive, no because though people might have less guns they still find ways to kill each other).

Who is accountable for leading the public astray with politically motivated slants on the so called evidence. Who is held accountable for when Science keeps shouting they understand the breadth of the Universe only be told time and time again how wrong they are. how about the age of the universe. First it was infinite, then it was finite but then it was 25 billion, no 6 billion, no 8, no 14 billion.

So let's drop the high and mighty act, and if you want to talk about the interaction, exchange, and relationship between theology and Science we can do that.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:03:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/21/2015 9:30:54 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/21/2015 8:21:58 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:43:28 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/21/2015 7:27:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:59:54 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:23:34 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 7:02:55 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/20/2015 6:29:12 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/20/2015 4:50:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
...
Science's accountability is to the entirety of independent observation. However, theology has virtually no accountability except possibly to the theologians who propagate it. So we have the bizarre situation of theologians saying "We understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, ask us."

Sounds like scientist saying "we understand your world, and if you don't believe we do, just ignore all we don't know."

Mhykiel, I think that conflation arises from the excluded middle approach you frequently take to your own appreciation of science: if it doesn't know everything, it must know nothing.

I was using your words interchanging Theology with Science. So in reflection are you admitting Theology may know something?


Science is scrupulous about what it can predict and what it can't. Within its professional conversations, it distinguishes assumptions and conjectures carefully from experiments and tested models. I realise that may not be apparent to you, and it may not always come through science journalism, however that's the reality nevertheless.

I understand the distinction. And I do see the distinction made clearer in papers written by some humble and honest scientist. I won't say I see that distinction made as much it should be.

There have been many principles accepted as true that either can not be tested, or go on accepted with out being tested.

...

Accountability is about responsibility, and while you pass Science off as a a discipline of evidentiary accountability, that is wrong.

That's interesting, Mhykiel. Please tell me more about responsibility, and what additional obligations you feel it entails beyond accountability for reasoning, evidence and advice. I'd be especially interested to hear how you think clergy advising people about sexuality, marriage, happiness, morality and relationships upholds principles of accountability and responsibility.

What do you think Science is? You are treating it like it is some religious discipline. Science as a body of knowledge can only tell us about the world. Drawing any assessment from how the world "is" to how we "ought" to act is problematic. David Hume "is-ought" problem. Even given a relativistic moral view, morals and ethical actions based in world-is-facts, are almost circular beginning with an injection of moral value onto the natural results.

For instance, IF we say it is "wrong" to blow up half the Earth. And we back this up with the Science that doing so would destroy life on Earth and ourselves. Well this reasoning requires already stating that "killing all life on earth" and "killing ourselves" is wrong. Science doesn't tell us "killing life on Earth is bad". But there are plenty of Scientist who are actually moral ethical human beings that do say that.

Of course some say make the bomb and don't use it. ((a whole nother story))


If you think Evidence is a natural observation or experience then there are many things science education espouses as science that is not based in evidence.

I'm sorry, but I didn't follow what you were saying or why in this para.

There are things taught in scientific fields as logical truths, or empirical truths, and neither is true about them. Most of these things are assumptions.


Course It was the church that gave birth to Science and Methodological Naturalism (not materialism).

By 'church' you must mean the church of Thales of Miletus [https://en.wikipedia.org...], or perhaps the churches of Vaisheshika [https://en.wikipedia.org...] and Nyaya [https://en.wikipedia.org...] Hinduism?

I was referring the Catholic Church.

Erroneously, since it inherited its initial ideas about natural philosophy from the ancient Greeks.

The Catholic Church built observatories, libraries, and taught what was in those days the sciences. Much of the knowledge of the Greeks and Romans were lost and rediscovered by excavations carried out by the Catholic Church.

It has been Popes and Christian Philosophers (Seems Ruv wants this discussion narrowed to Judeo-Christian, but the remarks I make can be found in Moorish works as well) who have encouraged the use of methodological naturalism. That God made the world and as creatures made in his image we should strive to learn from nature, and learn about the creator through the way creation operates.

It is a really naive and uneducated position to think that Theist have always answered with "God did it" for everything. Why would God make the Laws of Nature just to have to break them. Isn't he at least smart enough and powerful enough to make a system that runs well.

No matter how much you want to bring up the Catholic Church in the past, it doesn't change the fact that you, and people like you are the very antithesis to the natural exploration and scientific discovery they championed. You and those like you are very much the God-did-it brigade, and champion revelation over logic and reason when it comes to matters where science has the answer but it isn't one you like.

Your opinion and apparently no matter how wrong I think your opinion is, you are right.

I don't think any of my Supervisors, Teachers, or anyone that knows me would say that about me. Or even in the slightest make a remark that paints me as a "God did it" or as unscientific, or as illogical unreasonable.

Then they probably aren't aware that an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

I'm only going on your positions here that I can read

Sure, why don't you point out where I made an appeal to authority.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/21/2015 11:10:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
More on the bad science in gun control.

So murder rates go up after gun laws are past. Why? because only law abiding citizens obey the law. And when they don't have guns criminally minded people still have guns and feel safer entering the homes of others and doing bad stuff.

So strict gun laws made less murders by gun. But gunshot is not a violent death. Burning to Death that's violent. But we don't outlaw open flame.

It was Science with political ideologies skewing statistics and passing if off as an authoritative source.

Result. More people will die due to increase in gun control. Science accountable for those lives?