Antireligious rule of Science

[Valjean]

Science relies on predictability, that chemicals will interact in predictable ways, that a given material will have stable, known properties.
The OP seems to imply that belief in predictability is to deny God, who, apparently, is constantly meddling in things, creating a capricious, unpredictable world.

So belief that water runs downhill, will freeze at a given temperature, or that pushing a given key on a keyboard will print a given letter, is atheism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science relies on predictability, that chemicals will interact in predictable ways, that a given material will have stable, known properties.
The OP seems to imply that belief in predictability is to deny God, who, apparently, is constantly meddling in things, creating a capricious, unpredictable world.

So belief that water runs downhill, will freeze at a given temperature, or that pushing a given key on a keyboard will print a given letter, is atheism.

Well, science also relies on a set of unprovable assumptions and depending on the assumptions stop being methodological naturalism and becomes something else in the philosophical/religious/political sense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are many scientists, who believe in God.
But the methodological naturalism is the basic rule of their profession.
Does methodological naturalism strengthens and benefits their faith?
Can a believer assume for an hour that there is no God, and not lose faith?

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

In his workplace a scientist assumes, that God is inactive, the angels are inactive, the UFO is inactive, the devil is inactive in the workplace. But that is not possible: angels must constantly drive demons away from the consecrated by priesthood laboratory. The angels and demons can not both be inactive in order for the science could be conducted. Moreover, while researching the Big Bang the theist-scientist assumes, that God was silent and inactive while doing world creation; such scientist assumes, that Bible with its 6 days of Creation in 6000 BC is wrong. But it is the method of science, pretended philosophy, that is why after day-long working at the lab, the scientist returns his mind into the state of normality at home: the Young Earth Creationism. I bet with vodka. Is such swiching of the mind between theism and atheism good for faith? Is it a healthy thing for the psychical health?




Not the doubt, but the totally sure NATURALISM: the total "absence" of God.

Again... methodological naturalism isn't a about whether you think God exists.
Do you think God is measurable? Are our human tests capable of controlled testing of God?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Well, science also relies on a set of unprovable assumptions and depending on the assumptions stop being methodological naturalism and becomes something else in the philosophical/religious/political sense.

Yes, but the point of those assumptions is to introduce constants to tests. Not variables.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, but the point of those assumptions is to introduce constants to tests. Not variables.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
That is the basic assumptions in science.

Now the limits to that are covered here:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So there are variables. I.e. in the end the variables boils down subjective variation. Note though that is with methodological naturalism. What reality really is, the moment we switch to philosophy as such is something else.

 

[Clara Tea]

It is well known that many Jews (even rabbis), with shouting voices, flailing arms, argue vociferously with fellow Jews over the finer points of the religion. I don't think that many have argued for atheism, but the arguments have not weakened their religion. Quite the contrary, after Jews were sent to Nazi concentration camps, ordered not to practice their religion, starved, beaten, and raped, few abandoned their religion. In early Italy, Jews were forced to convert (called Conversos) to the Christian faith, but many had secretly maintained their Jewish roots.

My point is that argument about religion doesn't harm it, but strengthens it. It exposes our minds to all of the possibilities and we either convince others of our way of thinking or they convince us, or we agree to disagree. But the concepts are thoroughly considered, and that makes the religion concrete in our minds.

Science is not the enemy of religion. Scientists are not necessarily atheists.

Science can strengthen religion. For example, scientists say that the universe was created (with a big bang) 13.4 billion years ago, and theists say that God created it 6,000 years ago. Fossils, carbon dating, and other means seem to prove the older date. Yet, science also asserts that there is no absolute time. Special Relativity (of Einstein) says that fast objects slow time. General Relativity (also Einstein) says that strong gravitational fields slow time. Hence, science provides a means to make God have his own time and a means for us to have our time (and the times are not equal). Thus, science, at least on this point, doesn't disagree with religion (nor does it agree with it, necessarily).

 

[lewisnotmiller]

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/basic_assumptions
That is the basic assumptions in science.

Now the limits to that are covered here:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

So there are variables. I.e. in the end the variables boils down subjective variation. Note though that is with methodological naturalism. What reality really is, the moment we switch to philosophy as such is something else.

Those are all constants, though.
In other words, they are assumptions applied in the same manner. They don't move about from experiment to experiment.

 

[rational experiences]

A test. A human choice.

Natural. O planet Earth/God stone one body a named condition by a living human.

Who quotes O the word, a planet. Who quotes the word Earth. Who quotes the word a stone and one body. Who quotes the body is a fused yet diverse mass.

By observations all natural. By his walking around on the stone planet body observing variables. And quotes, it is cold/sealed and fused. Natural observations.

What one condition did science lie about? Using machines. As his thesis science if it is a philosophy, talking discussing beliefs about why a planet exists in its natural stone form exists. Which is just a philosophy of personal human beliefs in thinking.

Thinking therefore does not quantify natural history. And natural history is real, for it has been observed in space as evolving/changing and cooling bodies. Why science quotes that spatial observation taught him. How to change.

Yet science by the knowledge of the thinker does not exist and nor is it relative until the scientist who is the Designer of a static held and fixed machine, forms the thinking/design...builds the design to own/control a reaction.

His relative science cosmological thesis is that within the spatial conditions, cooling owns form/mass to be observed present. Therefore his quote the science law in the cosmos for relativity is cooling. Which is only an observation.

If a scientist in his philosophy of science quotes I observe O God the planet I personally named as God the One and also the Stone and body Earth, then I owned all naming conditions as a male in philosophy. And said it was a Holy body in its mass existence, as an observation. To OB serve...O the one planet is to quote the existence of the presence Planet/stone/fusion/fused and mass is Holy.

Self owned human relative advice.

Now if science is just a human owned choice, the design, owner and operation of it, human. For human purposes and hence it was first chosen by a group of males humans in an agreement. Then we would own a relative historic self taught human advice that related to that term/reference.

Which is a brother/hood claim. The invention of the human sciences, all terms.

And also own a new organization teaching against its practices, for a human survival purpose. As a lawful human institution owning organization history for a purpose against other organizations.

Being the history of a brother disagreement versus other group/organizations agreements.

Which then places science/religious history as a personal human argument about the relativity of natural life surviving on a natural planet. Which never was any scientific thesis/theme for a machine building design or its reaction.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yes, but the point of those assumptions is to introduce constants to tests. Not variables.

This is almost never true. Variables in scientific fields are generally kinds of functions and therefore allow for the construction of models or similar frameworks. Constants are generally impossible to achieve or even meaningless outside of some natural sciences, and a fair number of known and used such constants are either quite wring or very problematic. In particle physics, most "constants" are either parameters or functions of these that rely on renormalization schemes and plug-in values to produce finite results. They are regarded as in general too reliant upon a combination of unobservable theoretical constructs and derived parameters. The speed of light itself is about the simplest, most straightforward example and is itself defined using postulates and group theoretical/symmetry principles such that it is possible for "speed" to be constant regardless of how fast any particular reference frame moves. Constants on cosmology or quantum chromodynamics are nothing remotely as empirically grounded or theoretically sound.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In his workplace a scientist assumes, that God is inactive, the angels are inactive, the UFO is inactive, the devil is inactive in the workplace.

And the same goes for extra-dimensional unicorns, graviton regulating pixies and undetectable dragons.
Why do you think this would be a problem?

However, they do NOT consider gravity to be inactive, or electro-magnetism or any such things. Why is that, do you think?

What's the difference between gravity / electro-magnetism and say... extra-dimensional unicorns or undetectable entities of any kind?

But that is not possible: angels must constantly drive demons away from the consecrated by priesthood laboratory

Lol... eum... Okay. Whatever you say, chap.

The angels and demons can not both be inactive in order for the science could be conducted. Moreover, while researching the Big Bang the theist-scientist assumes, that God was silent and inactive while doing world creation; such scientist assumes, that Bible with its 6 days of Creation in 6000 BC is wrong. But it is the method of science, pretended philosophy, that is why after day-long working at the lab, the scientist returns his mind into the state of normality at home: the Young Earth Creationism. I bet with vodka. Is such swiching of the mind between theism and atheism good for faith? Is it a healthy thing for the psychical health?

No, I don't think such a split personality is healthy in any way.

But I'm also quite positive that the vast majority of actual scientists, especially those working in related fields, aren't dumb enough to believe that the universe is only 6000 years old.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Don't we assume that experiment is reflective of reality and that we can interpolate between experiments?

"Naturalism" is largely just words and without an understanding of metaphysics we can't know what we know. Inductive reasoning can be a powerful tool but the results are necessarily outside of "true" science.

I don't believe in "laws of nature" and believe reality is merely made manifest in experiment. Interpolation of scientific knowledge leads us astray and makes us believe we know far more than we actually do.

Interpolation of scientific knowledge allows us to take the theory of something like relativity and the data from experiments in that field and apply them to technology that allows us to build GPS satellites.

When we build a GPS satellite, we must calibrate the atomic clocks inside those satellites to account for the relativistic effects of it orbiting the earth at the extreme speed of 40k km an hour. We do this, because we interpollate that the relativistic effects we see in experiments in a lab will also apply and manifest in the same way when a satellite orbits the planet at high speed.

And lo and behold: it works. If we do not calibrate those clocks to account for the relativistic effects, GPS is off by several miles and thus useless to be used as navigation. Once we DO calibrate those clocks, suddenly it proves to be effective to 1 to 3 meters.


Yes, we indeed assume that the natural phenomenon that we measure and detect in lab experiments, will also apply in the real world when the conditions are similar and allow for those phenomenon to manifest.

And it seems like these assumptions are very justified because GPS accurately pinpoints our location, nukes explode, nuclear power plants deliver power to thousands of homes and you are reading this message.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Methodological naturalism is an idea given to how "religious scientists" think in the field of science but its a hypothesis, not quantified. Thus you have to treat it as one.

It's a method of inquiry. Not a "hypothesis".
And it is a method that has proven to be extremely efficient.
Much more efficient then any other method that has been tried before it.

Some time ago there existed scientists who were from a theological background and were in fact scholars in theology themselves who were fabulous scientists and philosophers.

Yes. This was back in the day before formal science really existed like we know it today, where a scientist and a theologian / philosopher was basically the same thing.

They did not believe God was inactive just to be a scientists for a little while, but there were scientists who believed that God was the creator but does not allow anyone to break the laws of nature so there is no question of God being inactive just to set your mind towards science.

Well, they did invoke their god into active duty from time to time though.
Usually, this was done when they hit a wall...

Like when Newton got stuck in explaining certain aspects of the orbit of the various celestial bodies of the solar system. In his entire Principia work he never once invoked god, until he hit that wall. There, he suddenly said "...in this, I see the hand of God".

It's quite curious though that a genious like him didn't manage to go that extra mile. Laplace later on solved his problem. There's a myth story that says that someone asked him where god was in his calculation / hypothesis to which he supposedly replied "I had no use for that hypothesis".

That part is a myth and likely never happened, but it does illustrate the point here... Laplace didn't discover anything that Newton didn't already know... He didn't need to "invent" any new math or make big concept-altering discoveries or anything.... Newton could have solved it as well. But failed. And then invoked the hand of god instead.

Typical case of "intelligent design" argumentation. God as a gap filler. Or as Neil DeGrasse Tyson once put it: "The gap-filler god, is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those are all constants, though.
In other words, they are assumptions applied in the same manner. They don't move about from experiment to experiment.

Okay, same constants in different situations(different time and space) which give same outcome, when you reduce away some variables.
Example: Height, gravity, the inability to fly unaided and the result of death. For all humans, for all time and space if a human jumps out from sufficient height, achieves a sufficient speed and land on a sufficiently hard surface, then that the human will die and that applies to all humans. Now that is not absolute though, but rather rests on the assumption that the universe will remain the same.

So back to "all constants". Can we combine all constants into a coherent set of constants and the answer is no! How? Because while it is a constant that humans need brains/bodies to function, that we have brains allow for variations in behavior and it puts a limit on natural science.
We humans don't only use our brains to observe and test the objective parts of reality. We also test what makes sense to us as individuals. Example: To me it doesn't make sense to kill another human. To some other humans it makes sense in some cases to kill another human. Now please without any variables make it into the exactly same constants, but you can't.

So here it is for natural science as a constant: It works for all humans who follow the behavior required for it to be natural science, but that behavior as natural science is a variation within all human behavior, because I will now do some non-science behavior: I believe in God.

So here is an experiment for you: Test if you can do all your life only doing science? You can't. Science is both in one sense a constant and in another a variation.

Note: I am from in a sense cultural and human science and I have observed that natural scientists can't live only doing natural science. In other words the behavior of natural scientists can be observed and described as something natural and understood for its limitation. Just as the example above showed the limits in regards to human mobility, natural science has limits in what it can do.

Is everything a mess of combinations of constants and variations? So if you answer to the effect of no, I just answer yes and have thereby show you both a constant and a variation: All humans with a sufficiently functioning brain make sense of reality, though with some limited variations. The evidence for variation is that we don't agree, yet we are both still a part of reality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

This is almost never true. Variables in scientific fields are generally kinds of functions and therefore allow for the construction of models or similar frameworks. Constants are generally impossible to achieve or even meaningless outside of some natural sciences, and a fair number of known and used such constants are either quite wring or very problematic. In particle physics, most "constants" are either parameters or functions of these that rely on renormalization schemes and plug-in values to produce finite results. They are regarded as in general too reliant upon a combination of unobservable theoretical constructs and derived parameters. The speed of light itself is about the simplest, most straightforward example and is itself defined using postulates and group theoretical/symmetry principles such that it is possible for "speed" to be constant regardless of how fast any particular reference frame moves. Constants on cosmology or quantum chromodynamics are nothing remotely as empirically grounded or theoretically sound.

Legion sighting!!!

Hope you're doing well, mate. Although I'm slightly worried, since this post seems a little short by your standards...!

Thanks for the info. Just for the sake of explaining myself, my take on 'variables' and 'constants' is driven more by my work in computer software than any actual scientific knowledge (I'm a science major, but it was psych, so...yeah...)

So, in simple terms a constant doesn't have any particular truth to it. It doesn't matter whether it's valid, invalid, or 'maybe' valid. The only thing that matters is that the value is known, and doesn't change through the testing regime. Or in the case, experiment. If we decided the speed of light was a thousand kms per hour for the purposes of an experiment, the fact that it's completely inaccurate would impact on the experiment results, and perhaps invalidate the results. But the value in terms of the experiment is both known, and reproducible. It's a thousand kms. If we do the experiment again, and we treat the speed of light as a thousand kilometres per hour, we should get the same results. I'm obviously reducing this to a ridiculously simple level, but that was what I meant by 'constant'.

A variable, on the other hand, is more just a placeholder for a value which can change through the lifespan of the testing regime.

What @mikkel_the_dane linked to was more at the elementary level (just as well, since that is my level) and referred to assumptions we make when doing experiments. In each case, the assumptions referred to were assumptions that would remain consistent through all experiments.

Not trying to explain science to you, more where my incorrect usage of the terms came from, and what I meant.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So here it is for natural science as a constant: It works for all humans who follow the behavior required for it to be natural science, but that behavior as natural science is a variation within all human behavior, because I will now do some non-science behavior: I believe in God.

At best, what you're talking about is psychology, which is almost a science if you squint really hard. But in truth, it's simply not science.

So here is an experiment for you: Test if you can do all your life only doing science? You can't. Science is both in one sense a constant and in another a variation.

Of course not. I never claimed I could, and the premise seems ridiculous to me. My point was that science requires a level of consistency. Not that everything is science.

Is everything a mess of combinations of constants and variations?

In life? Sure, you could put it that way. Science <> life.

So if you answer to the effect of no, I just answer yes and have thereby show you both a constant and a variation: All humans with a sufficiently functioning brain make sense of reality, though with some limited variations. The evidence for variation is that we don't agree, yet we are both still a part of reality.

I'm not...for a moment...claiming there is not variability in life. One of the reason we need agreed assumptions in science is to try and limit the noise which would otherwise render results less useful, and less repeatable. This occurs even in psych experiments. Kinda.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

I'm not...for a moment...claiming there is not variability in life. One of the reason we need agreed assumptions in science is to try and limit the noise which would otherwise render results less useful, and less repeatable. This occurs even in psych experiments. Kinda.

That is a form of psychology, because what useful is, is not science.
As for what science is, is culture and varies with culture.
To you natural science is science. To me as a member of another culture natural science is a form of science, but not the only form of science.
So you don't find noise useful. Well, I get you, but if you try to reduce it away, you might overlook something.

 

[firedragon]

It's a method of inquiry. Not a "hypothesis".

Then you have not read the book in question. So maybe if you read up you will be aware.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That is a form of psychology, because what useful is, is not science.
As for what science is, is culture and varies with culture.
To you natural science is science. To me as a member of another culture natural science is a form of science, but not the only form of science.

I'm being somewhat flippant in my answers (sorry) since I'm a psych major. It's a science, but it's not what I'd call 'hard science' and maybe what you're calling 'natural science'. Using a scientific approach makes some sense, but for lots of reasons there are limits to how definitive results can be once we stretch outside of hard scientific areas.

So you don't find noise useful. Well, I get you, but if you try to reduce it away, you might overlook something.

Possibly because of the nature of this conversation, but you might be getting the wrong picture of me. I live in the noise. But it's not science. It's something else.

 

[rational experiences]

Civilization use in day to day activities quotes 12 hour a day light.

Science quotes, the Earth burning gas light remains constant not owning any timed status. As a thinking capability.

It owns no beginning moment and no end moment...it is constantly burning, spatial vacuum keeps burning gases cooled in a water environment.

Therefore life got sacrificed in the past science/Temple and pyramid radiation/radio wave ground fission attack, as detailed. Data inferred reviewed after the fact for you cannot predict a science model cause and effect before any fact. For where then is the fact that you use/infer and imply as just a living human being male.

And not some superior human intelligent life form as an artificial male human imposed self belief about human thinking abilities. As comparison of self human and male to everyday natural and spiritual conscious lives, who know that you are the Destroyer of life on Earth, always did know and you also knew.

Stephen Hawking was a scientific sacrificed slowly removed life mind conscious psyche.

Who quotes in his memories...a machine is a built model for instant reaction. By the controlled button pusher consciousness....human male Designer.

Yet historically he quotes as a natural thinker in natural cold supported thinking conditions the thesis instant.

So you would ask him, what instant natural destruction are you contemplating, for your machine is not active, is not function instant reaction until you button push.

Where is your instant ideal thought upon in a natural environment, where you first pose a design and a theory? When life is not instantly reacted?

One condition of instant in life/conscious appraisal is instant self life removal. The only status that inferred consciously to be the end of a human thinking capability.

For you infer all information whilst naturally living, and consciousness human can only express beliefs whilst living.

In the past Jesus Christ review Revelations was quoted to be life living its sacrifice in Temple pyramid use. Ignored...as greed and elitism ignores destruction based on personal wants. Yet never do they personally as a human want to be life sacrificed or destroyed.

Which brings you to a conscious self review about the fake inference of owning the condition of 2 in one self body. As if you took the protection of life the ovary and now lived as a male human life safe and cell owned as a male human.

You were never 2 selves in one body. 2 is always mutual and equal, not one and separate. Natural owned and expressed use of 2 first.

One self and one mind psyche, male human and scientist is our life Destroyer.

Any scientific thesis or experiment is first done by a natural origin human self thinking first, before any machine use. And all theories and thoughts and beliefs done and applied by a natural life living condition.

As Stephen Hawking warned, you now act as if the machine owns the direct life history as if a machine is the equal life partner of human male to human female.

Male human and machine now his belief.

Science always quotes, a reaction that occurred historically is why life is safe today on Earth. Then he builds a machine and then wants that reaction to be present, right where he exists. Quoting unnaturally as the theist that as the reaction occurred historically in a past a long time ago that life is safe.

And it is exactly how he quotes it, as if his new want reaction right now is happening in a past when he pushes the buttons. Yet the reactions in the past did occur in the past naturally.

It is that sort of conscious idealism that we have fought non stop against as human to human for a very long time in life on Earth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm being somewhat flippant in my answers (sorry) since I'm a psych major. It's a science, but it's not what I'd call 'hard science' and maybe what you're calling 'natural science'. Using a scientific approach makes some sense, but for lots of reasons there are limits to how definitive results can be once we stretch outside of hard scientific areas.

We actually agree.

Possibly because of the nature of this conversation, but you might be getting the wrong picture of me. I live in the noise. But it's not science. It's something else.

Well, I also live in the noise and am a part of the noise, since I have 4 disorders/diagnosis relevant to soft science.

So I will leave it there. The rest I could add, is nitpicking about the really correct understanding of how science and noise are parts of the same reality. That is fun, but in some sense pointless.