The "Two Causes" Solution to the Religion and Science Conflict

[Shad]

No, that is not science. You're conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

No I am was not doing so. I was pointing out that others confuse this as part of sciences. I made no mistake in this matter. The mistake I did make was that I thought you were suggesting science should address teleology. Metaphysical naturalism does not deal with teleology either. God driven metaphysics deals with teleology not naturalism.

 

[Shad]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Science tries to determine nature and everything in it. Your factually in error, by means of perverting the term "final cause"

Final cause is a cause with purpose or goal. This is usually the hallmark of the ID crowd. X developed for a purpose rather than X developing as an adaption. Humans have incisors because the designer, or evolution wants us to eat meat rather than incisors developed as a result of humans already being capable of digesting meat.

 

[Gambit]

What I'm saying about this is that the blog post you linked also implied they exist, and provided several analogies where one would see and understand the difference between the associated causes. If it's true that scientific inquiry cannot see an efficient cause in its study, then how do we know the results of such a study is limited to the correct cause?

Why do you keep insinuating that I have argued that science cannot determine efficient causes? I have never argued that science cannot determine efficient causes. Science can determine efficient causes. So, stop misconstruing what I have argued. What I have argued is that science cannot determine final causes.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Why do you keep insinuating that I have argued that science cannot determine efficient causes? I have never argued that science cannot determine efficient causes. Science can determine efficient causes. So, stop misconstruing what I have argued. What I have argued is that science cannot determine final causes.

You haven't argued anything at all. You have restated a conclusion ad nauseam. I have concerns about the logic of your argument, as I believe it creates an inherent unreliability in empirical evidence.

You refuse to deal with this, or even acknowledge it other than to restate your conclusions, suggests that you don't understand the argument's logic in the first place.

Discuss it. Talk about it. Address my concerns. Do something.

 

[outhouse]

I have concerns about the logic of your argument

Or lack of.

 

[outhouse]

What I have argued is that science cannot determine final causes.

But you refuse to define final cause

 

[Gambit]

I'm saying that under your system, metaphysics would have to be part of the scope of scientific inquiry to discern the difference between that which is physically caused and that which is metaphysically caused. Yes. . . That's ridiculous. Of course it is.

Science is based on methodological naturalism. An understanding of metaphysical naturalism is required in order to understand methodological naturalism. (There's no getting around that. It's not my "system." It's simply the way it is.)

- Methodological naturalism, naturalism that holds that science is to be done without reference to supernatural causes; also refers to a methodological assumption in the philosophy of religion that observable events are fully explainable by natural causes without reference to the supernatural.
- Metaphysical naturalism, a form of naturalism that holds that the cosmos consists only of objects studied by the natural sciences, and does not include any immaterial or intentional realities.
(source: Wikipedia: Naturalism)

You just contradicted the entire scope of your argument here. If Atheistic materialism considers only scientific inquiry as true, then they do not have a metaphysical position by your own definitions. You honestly don't understand it at all, do you?

Wrong! Scienctific materialism (a.k.a. naturalism) is a metaphysical position. It holds there isn't any "immaterial or intentional realities" (see above).

 

[Gambit]

No I am was not doing so. I was pointing out that others confuse this as part of sciences. I made no mistake in this matter. The mistake I did make was that I thought you were suggesting science should address teleology. Metaphysical naturalism does not deal with teleology either. God driven metaphysics deals with teleology not naturalism.

You did make a mistake. Previously, you stated: "Science has taken the position there was always something, never nothing."

Science does not take this position. That's a metaphysical position, not a scientific position. (Scientific materialists might take the position that there has always been "something, never nothing." But that is not the position of science itself.)

 

[Gambit]

Final cause is a cause with purpose or goal. This is usually the hallmark of the ID crowd. X developed for a purpose rather than X developing as an adaption. Humans have incisors because the designer, or evolution wants us to eat meat rather than incisors developed as a result of humans already being capable of digesting meat.

Thanks for explaining to him what final causality entails.

 

[Unification]

You moved goal post. You now defined your statement more clearly. Try to do so when you make a statement.



Factually unsubstantiated rhetoric.




Ridiculous

While I had parents that raised me, I became my own man based solely on my own actions. Are you going to move goal post again?



What is non physical outside imagination and fantasy and mythology???????????????????????????


You answer that and you have my attention.

If you don't it is because you cannot, and your only here proselytizing your imagination.

Well, let's substantiate that for the one who claims to know, yet does not (the best meaning of imagination/illusion is one claiming to know something and does not know something) Then, proceeds to simply use the words "unsubstantiated rhetoric" in place of their unknowing and unaware ego because they are wrong and are unaware. It's okay to be wrong.

Newton's laws of motion are three PHYSICAL laws that together laid the foundation for classical mechanics.
Classical mechanics is concerned with the set of PHYSICAL laws describing the motion of bodies under the action of a system of forces.

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.

Second law: The vector sum of the external forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma

Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

The physical is under the absolute control of our environments. Complete freewill or control is an illusion, a deception created by the mind. It is the second greatest deception after the deception that you are your mind.

Everything outside your spiritual-self(conscious) including your mind, is your environment. Your mind was and is created by your past and conditioning. Your mind is part of your environment, just as your body is, and it is controlled by the larger environment, directly and indirectly.

Science needs to realize that Newton's laws of motion mean that the laws that govern all matter include us, because our bodies are matter. We are not in complete control...free will is an illusion, a delusion. It is "action-reaction" that causes the motion of all things in the universe, including us. There can be no matter in the universe that is exempt from these fundamental laws of nature. His book Principia Mathematica explains the laws of motion, and they have proven to be true. That book is the foundation of modern physics. Our bodies are governed by those same laws, because our bodies are matter in the universe. True or false?

Your logic crumbles instantly if you possess the "belief" that all is physical, including the mind and conscious, due to the fact that one would have absolutely no will or control over anything, zilch ...at all. By saying you do over one remote thought even, one brain cell of self-gained knowledge would be to break many science and physics laws and indirectly "believe" in a non-physical, and being unaware of it. This cognitive dissonance of lack of awareness of these facts would be precisely the same as a religious person believing in talking snakes and holding on at all costs, ignoring truth.

The mind likes to have power and control over others and feel like they are somebody, and that they matter. For self and ego purposes. I don't care for your attention, I care for you.

Myth makers take something that is true and twist it. The fact that there is some truth in it gives it some credibility and makes it more believable to some. Most humans, religions and science love doing this.


Existence is comprised of three components: energy (motion), matter, and consciousness. Essentially these are all ONE. Energy is neither created nor destroyed. Matter is neither created nor destroyed. Consciousness is neither created nor destroyed. You cannot have the one without the other. In order for consciousness to “be,” a vehicle (body) is needed. As matter (the body) is put into motion (energy) consciousness has the chance to experience, eventually given rise to self awareness.

God, as pure consciousness, is experiencing himself through us, and the more of him (heightened consciousness) that we bring down into this body, the more fully he manifests in this physical realm. God is not separate from creation, all of mankind has a spirit(conscious), essentially making the human a mini-god themselves and carrying out creation and experiencing. The God aspect of mankind spirit/consciousness is in all, good and evil alike... The ignorant just have no awareness of this and utilize the mind and see only physical/material/matter and keep on missing the truth, reality due to ego and mind.

A spiritual man is not to be confused with a religious man. One knows the truth and the true life, knows everything...the other knows myths and theories, imaginations, etc.

That which is true and is, as reality, the present is what matters. Not past, future, theories, beliefs, limitations, ego's, agendas, bias, lies, myths, or anything else that does not matter.

Belief in the supernatural is one of the mind’s favorite tools of deception. The mind wants to believe in the supernatural, because it cannot see the magic in the natural.

People want to believe in a God that does things that are impossible. Many people think doing the impossible is what makes God, a God.

Creating the infinite universe and our life is not good enough for some people. They want to see something outside reality, something that changes reality. They want to see the impossible, which is impossible.

The very nature of the human mind is delusional. It will see what it wants to see, what it believes or wants to believe exists. Pretending to know when one does not know is a disease and delusion. It is best to be aware of what one does not know. The scientific mind isn't much better than the religious mind. Both suffer significantly from cognitive dissonance, pride, ego, lack of awareness and higher conscious.

There are no real miracles or magic other than life and consciousness itself.
One of the things that make life so miraculous is that you can understand it, know the truth, and know that anything against the laws of nature (God’s law) is impossible. It's quite simple.

Imagination is a good and necessary thing when it comes to being creative, but not good when it comes to the truth and reality.

Here's an example of a good imagination: Imagine you were the only modern man in a world filled with cavemen. That is how a spiritual being feels living with mindkind, in the physical and material and ego/self centered realm. After the mind is overcome, it becomes challenging living with people who are of the mind. The spiritual being will always conflict with the mediocre mind.

Truth, reality and becoming a spiritual being (higher conscious) and escaping the animal/physical realm is all that matters.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Science is based on methodological naturalism. An understanding of metaphysical naturalism is required in order to understand methodological naturalism. (There's no getting around that. It's not my "system." It's simply the way it is.)

Thank you. That's the point I've been trying to make. Based on your system, all empirical data, or methodological naturalism, is suspect without the metaphysical system.

Wrong! Scientific materialism (a.k.a. naturalism) is a metaphysical position. It holds there isn't any "immaterial or intentional realities" (see above).

You're right, if that's the term you use. That is a knowledge based position. But you said atheistic materialism. As atheists have no belief in gods, there are no epistemological systems present to require a metaphysical system. Do you understand the difference? If you'e going to hang your hat on the precision of these definitions, then be precise.

Thanks for explaining to him what final causality entails.

I know what it entails, you don't understand what it logically implies. This is a blast from the past. My first statement on this post, and as far as I'm concerned, it still stands too.

I don't think it changes much.

The question is: are secondary causes independent from primary causes?

If yes, then the deity you allow for is cold, distant, and is as far removed from reality as to be irrelevant.

If no, the all secondary causes are suspect and empirical evidence is irrelevant, because at any given moment a primary mover can alter it. There is no science, just magic.

Concurrentism is a logic game that allows us to trust the scientific method and still assume a deity can direct control of everything. That is the most convoluted piece of nonsense I have ever heard. It's akin to saying that a sip of wine turns into Jesus' blood at the exact moment it is drunk. It's a made up nonsense that allows the believer to have no cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and his intellectual capacities.

Outside of defining terms and restating your conclusions, you have done nothing to explain to me how this is not only the correct way to think about reality, but how it is supposed to make sense logically. Believe in god and ID and the omnipotence of god if you want to, but this logic game is nonsense. If God is onmipotent and omniscient, that you don't get to keep scientific inquiry and the empirical evidence as reliable.

And please don't respond with this by restate the definitions of your causality system or its conclusions. If you have nothing else to add, then just let it stand and respond to someone else.

 

[curiousjohn]

science is the reasoning to determine what is true about reality. It does not assume there is no supernatural, but it does assume the cause is natural unless proven otherwise.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

science is the reasoning to determine what is true about reality. It does not assume there is no supernatural, but it does assume the cause is natural unless proven otherwise.

....with that attitude, you will bring subjective issues into science. Then once again the goodness of the Aryans and the evil of the jews becomes to be a scientific fact.

Science is constricted to facts, which means it has nothing to say whatsoever about what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does. That is a subjective issue.

 

[Gerald Kelleher]

Newton's laws of motion are three PHYSICAL laws that together laid the foundation for classical mechanics.
Classical mechanics is concerned with the set of PHYSICAL laws describing the motion of bodies under the action of a system of forces.

Look at you shouting away but what Newton did was try to dissolve the boundaries between experimental sciences and astronomical methods and insights.

"Rule III. The qualities of bodies, which admit neither [intensification] nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever." Newton

That is an assault on the eyes and not just because it represents 'universal gravitation' but rather that it represents its real aim as the so-called scientific method.

I have been through the empirical agenda and have seen how Newton butchered astronomical methods and insights in order to promote his agenda but what I have not seen are any individuals capable of grasping the living nightmare of this overreaching scheme and its temporary destruction of astronomy and the links to terrestrial sciences.

It is not one problem but problems at several major levels and not least the generational element where one generation infects the next. Few people have seen it and fewer still have a comfortable overview of this human tragedy but for those who have known it, it is profoundly disturbing -

"I turn my eyes to the schools and Universities of Europe
And there behold the loom of Locke, whose woof rages dire,
Wash’d by the Water-wheels of Newton: black the cloth
In heavy wreaths folds over every Nation: cruel Works
Of many Wheels I view, wheel without wheel, with cogs tyrannic
Moving by compulsion each other, not so those in Eden, which,
Wheel within Wheel, in freedom revolve in harmony and peace. "

William Blake, 1757-1827

 

[Shad]

You did make a mistake. Previously, you stated: "Science has taken the position there was always something, never nothing."

Science does not take this position. That's a metaphysical position, not a scientific position. (Scientific materialists might take the position that there has always been "something, never nothing." But that is not the position of science itself.)

It is a theoretical physics position not a metaphysical position. So no I was not wrong since such a view is based on current physics and mathematical simulations.

 

[Shad]

Thanks for explaining to him what final causality entails.

No problem. I am often baffled that people confuse final cause with final result. Then I remember that most scientists only have a passable understanding of logic and philosophy. Passable in the sense most learn what is contained in the scientific method; abduction, induction and deduction but no more than a very narrow concept of it.

 

[Gambit]

science is the reasoning to determine what is true about reality. It does not assume there is no supernatural, but it does assume the cause is natural unless proven otherwise.

Just to clarify things: Science (a.k.a. "methodological naturalism") does not assume the the genesis of nature is the result of a natural cause until proven otherwise.

 

[outhouse]

Just to clarify things: Science (a.k.a. "methodological naturalism") does not assume the the genesis of nature is the result of a natural cause until proven otherwise.

They don't assume mythology did it either.

And abiogenesis is being studied as a natural process in chemistry and about a half million years.

 

[Skwim]

Just to clarify things: Science (a.k.a. "methodological naturalism") does not assume the the genesis of nature is the result of a natural cause until proven otherwise.

So, just what is the assumption of Science (a.k.a. "methodological naturalism") in regard to the genesis of nature?

 

[Gambit]

Thank you. That's the point I've been trying to make. Based on your system, all empirical data, or methodological naturalism, is suspect without the metaphysical system.

It's not my "system!" The distinction between the primary cause and the secondary causes ( between supernatural causes and natural causes, between mental causes (immaterial and intentional realities) and physical causes) was instrumental in establishing the domain of natural philosophy (what eventually would become to be known as science). This is simply a fact in the historical development of science. And even in contemporary philosophy of science, the distinction between physics and metaphysics is still subject to debate. It's called the "demarcation problem."

You're right, if that's the term you use. That is a knowledge based position. But you said atheistic materialism. As atheists have no belief in gods, there are no epistemological systems present to require a metaphysical system. Do you understand the difference? If you'e going to hang your hat on the precision of these definitions, then be precise.

The terms atheistic materialism and scientific materialism are interchangeable terms. Scientific materialism rejects the supernatural and God by definition. As such, it is inherently atheistic.

Concurrentism is a logic game that allows us to trust the scientific method and still assume a deity can direct control of everything.
.

You're assuming that the only kind of causes are physical causes. What you are failing to take in account is mental causality. God's interaction in the world is through mental causes (which is beyond the physical sciences).