Antireligious rule of Science

[cladking]

One can assume anything, & then see where it leads.
Tis leaping to belief that leads one astray.

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.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Gibberish.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Some believe far more than they know.
Problems arise from this.

Consider....
In philosophy, naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe. Adherents of naturalism assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.Wikipedia

Exiting Wikipedia, & back to me.....
Treating the idea of naturalism as an approach to science is
essential because testing & understanding the natural world
would be corrupted by presuming supernatural influence.
This is "a-religious" rather than "anti-religious". After all,
science doesn't disprove the existence of gods.

If indeed it ever turns out that there are supernatural goings on,
then detecting this influence upon the natural world would fall
within the purview of science. But if no such influence is ever
detected in the material world, then it's all just "nicht einmal
falsch" belief.

 

[Tambourine]

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.

What's the point of experiments when they do not tell you anything about the world outside your experiments?

 

[firedragon]

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.

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.

Religion is not monolithic. Thus, you cannot make claims about religious scientists thinking God is inactive, and all of what you said about Angels and Demons etc because these ideas will vary so much you could never generalise anything to anyone. You have made your idea of "religiosity" to everyone. I believe that you have not understood this idea of naturalism fully.

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. 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. You are quoting research done by Elaine Howard and she does not really go as far as that you have made it out to be. You should also read other works by her to understand the division and relationship between theism and science.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

You don't have to assume there are no gods when doing science. I never did, though granted it helps when your gods are the things that the sciences (and the humanities for that matter) study.

What you do have to assume is that you must practice your discipline in a way that is in keeping with your discipline's traditions and expectations. It's not that hard. Wasn't for me, anyway. It's not much different than, say, switching writing styles depending an audience.

This is correct. However, it is an occupational hazard of some laboratories that they may dismiss based on having "biased ideas" which might threaten objectivity. That is, if you are taken to believing in things that are not falsifiable, you are likely to make other mistakes in experiments.

That said, many scientists also believe in climate science, which to me is even less real. Observe.

Nolte: Scientists Prove Man-Made Global Warming Is a Hoax

Yes, you read that correctly, three million — million — years ago CO2 levels on Earth were the same as they are today, but there is one major difference between three million years ago and today…

Three million years ago, we humans were not driving cars or eating the meat that requires cow farts; we weren’t barbecuing or refusing to recycle or building factories; there was no Industrial Age, no plastic, no air conditioning, no electricity, no lumber mills, no consumerism, no aerosols.

In fact, three million years ago, there were probably no human beings on Earth, at least not human in the way we use that term today. And yet…

CO2 levels were the same then as they are now…

Hmmm…?

 

[cladking]

What's the point of experiments when they do not tell you anything about the world outside your experiments?

I'm sorry but I didn't design reality or create the universe.

I believe we simply have no choice but to accept our ignorance because it will probably always be near total.

But just because we are ignorant does not keep us from using what we do know and adding to the body of knowledge. We don't need understand gravity to design machines that employ counterweights. In a very real way "ignorance" is a state of mind for modern people. It helps us stay humble and helps us predict unforeseen consequences. But most importantly it helps to see anomalies which are the primary cause of scientific advancement. If you see what you know instead of what you believe you'll see lots more anomalies.

Reality does manifest in experiment and this is why reductionistic science works at all. The problems arise when we try to extrapolate such principles to that which hasn't been shown experimentally. Experimental knowledge does apply to the real world but the real world doesn't isolate variable. Everything always affects everything else and no two identical objects exist. These simple facts are ignored by virtually every observer.

 

[cladking]

What's the point of experiments when they do not tell you anything about the world outside your experiments?

Experiment provides a sort of spectrum of reality not a rainbow. There are no "laws of nature" and reality is merely beholden to logic and past events.

 

[blü 2]

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

Here we go again.

Okay, what real entity ─ by real I mean existing in nature, not imaginary ─ do you intend to denote when you say "God"?

Or do you mean an imaginary being?

If the former, you can see that all you need to persuade science to recognize God is a satisfactory demonstration of this real being ─ although as you know, there are no authenticated examples of this. Indeed, there isn't even a description of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we coul determine whether it were God or not.

If the latter, no argument ─ there appear to be a very large number of imaginary gods.

 

[gnostic]

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.

In modern science, more specifically Natural Science or Physical Science, the people who work in science or science-related jobs or careers, it is part of the profession to have no presupposition or preconception of anything "supernatural" or "paranormal", because they are not something that be OBSERVED and TESTED.

No one can observe and test god(s) any more than they can with demons, spirits, fairies, Minotaur, mermaid, ghoul and goblin, unicorn, phoenix, etc. They are all UNFALSIFIABLE and UNTESTABLE...meaning there are no possible observation or evidence for such beings.

More to the point, Science is a tool, like maths, that can be used to understand the physical world, to do something with it. And being scientists, physicists, biologists, etc, are jobs that be done in certain scientific fields.

Science is a profession, not a religion. Religions are not job, religions are more concerned with people’s belief and to worship.

There are no worshipping involved in science, anymore than there are worshipping involving in works such as building (excavating, bricklaying, woodwork, plumbering, electrical, etc), selling, accounting, farming, fishing, shipping, etc.

For example, an electrician are trained to their works, installing power outlets, wiring, knowing how to use tools available to him or her. Hairdressers have to train in how to cut customers’ hair, using whatever tools or device to help with their works.

Likewise, biologists and physicists do the same thing, requiring education, training, using tools and devices to do their work.

Nothing in religions or beliefs in these gods will provide them with the necessary education and training to do their works, as electricians, hairdressers, biologists and physicists.

Does believing in god or religious teachings aid a person to cut hair, to farm, to build a house, to design and construct any motor vehicles, etc?

Would you say that being builders, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, mechanics, farmers, salespeople, etc, being anti-religion when there are no mention of god, Jesus or the Bible in their job training?

Why do you only single out science being anti-religion, and not with other non+scientific professions, trades or other jobs?

If anything, it is you who sounds like you are anti-science.

 

[Quintessence]

This is correct. However, it is an occupational hazard of some laboratories that they may dismiss based on having "biased ideas" which might threaten objectivity. That is, if you are taken to believing in things that are not falsifiable, you are likely to make other mistakes in experiments.

Do you have any actual evidence of this? I'd also like to point out that all humans - scientists or otherwise - believe in things that are not falsifiable. The scientific method itself is on that list - it rests on philosophical assumptions that are not in of themselves able to be proven. They are simply granted.

The things that really cause mistakes in experiments isn't what you claim here. It's things like having incorrectly calibrated instruments, poorly-trained personnel, data entry errors, limited data sets or data availability, chance occurrences, stuff like that. But given you think climate science isn't real, I'm going to guess your understanding of sciences is... in need of refinement.

 

[Tambourine]

Experiment provides a sort of spectrum of reality not a rainbow. There are no "laws of nature" and reality is merely beholden to logic and past events.

Logic and past events are what laws of nature are composed of. Science is observational, not legislative.

 

[Tambourine]

I'm sorry but I didn't design reality or create the universe.

I mean, for all we know, neither reality nor the universe were created in the first place.

I believe we simply have no choice but to accept our ignorance because it will probably always be near total.

But just because we are ignorant does not keep us from using what we do know and adding to the body of knowledge. We don't need understand gravity to design machines that employ counterweights. In a very real way "ignorance" is a state of mind for modern people. It helps us stay humble and helps us predict unforeseen consequences. But most importantly it helps to see anomalies which are the primary cause of scientific advancement. If you see what you know instead of what you believe you'll see lots more anomalies.

That position seems contradictory to me. If we cannot help but remain ignorant of reality, then how can there be any scientific advancement to begin with? What are we advancing, if not our knowledge of the workings of the universe?

Reality does manifest in experiment and this is why reductionistic science works at all. The problems arise when we try to extrapolate such principles to that which hasn't been shown experimentally. Experimental knowledge does apply to the real world but the real world doesn't isolate variable. Everything always affects everything else and no two identical objects exist. These simple facts are ignored by virtually every observer.

I don't think experimental science, or really any observational method, is reductionist in principle. I see it simply an artifact of the method of analysis to break down problems into variables that can be isolated at the conceptual level.

And I believe that only trying to look at problems holistically effectively eliminates analytical methods altogether, which in my opinion would only handicap our production of knowledge. Both approaches (holistic and analytic) have their place in this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Here we go again.

Okay, what real entity ─ by real I mean existing in nature, not imaginary ─ do you intend to denote when you say "God"?

Or do you mean an imaginary being?

If the former, you can see that all you need to persuade science to recognize God is a satisfactory demonstration of this real being ─ although as you know, there are no authenticated examples of this. Indeed, there isn't even a description of a real God such that if we found a real candidate we coul determine whether it were God or not.

If the latter, no argument ─ there appear to be a very large number of imaginary gods.

Okay, here is my answer. And it relates to another thread.

What real is, is imagined for all versions of real.

Here is a test of God as you use it: You demand an objective referent for God. That is what it means that God can't be imagined. I.e. the word "God" must reference something independent of human thinking and feelings. That is your rule.
The problem is that it also applies to "real" and "existence". Those 2 words have no objective referent just like God.

Here is it for God. You can't interact with God using your external sensory perception, i.e. e.g. see God. God is not tangible and has no measurement qualities using scientific measurement standard or instruments.
We agree. If someone believes in God, it is imagined because it is in their mind. As for supernatural:
- of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe.
Definition of SUPERNATURAL
- departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature.
In order words God is not observable in the the visible observable universe and if God exists* outside human imagination, God exists beyond(transcend) the laws of nature.
Again we agree.

So now we do the same thing for the word "real".
And here is the result. Just like God real is not observable or has no natural/scientific/objective referent.
Here it is for a cat. The cat on the mat from logical positivism. You and I are looking at a cat on a mat and you say: It is a black cat. And I agree. The cat and that it is black meet the requirements for an observation as per objective as here 1a, 2a and 2b: Definition of OBJECTIVE
Now you say: It is a real cat. And here is the answer: No, the cat is not real, because it doesn't have the property of being real. Real is in your mind and is imagined by you. There are no real beings and there is no existence* as such. Existence as exitance/being has no objective referent just like God or real.

Hi blü 2.
Now I am honest with you. I am tried of you and your kind/group of likeminded believers. You are in effect apparently incapable of questioning your own thinking, when it comes to real and existence/being. You can't separate science and philosophy and understand that real and existence has nothing to do with science. Neither have any objective referent.
So here it is for what I demand of you based on what you demand of religious believers. You learn to check the words you use according to your own rule!!!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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.

That's why you can use the internet and a computer to post here. Because when scientists develop and test frameworks and corresponding technogologies, we can safely assume that algorithms will be implemented reliably on devices meant to do so barring natural error. When something like imaging technology, quantum control, or even just the local network fails, we manage to produce the results that allow your inane thread to exist by assuming that errors aren't likely to be due to some unknowable number of supernatural factors. And as result, you can access the internet and link to sites hosting video files and more, all because we don't make assumptions that would disallow such progress.

 

[blü 2]

Okay, here is my answer. And it relates to another thread. What real is, is imagined for all versions of real.

In my view we conceptualize reality all the time. We can also employ aspects of reality in what we imagine, so there's overlap between the two. However, to be conceptualized is not necessarily the same as to be imagined.

And it sounds to me as though you're not making that distinction.

Here is a test of God as you use it: You demand an objective referent for God.

If the claim is that God is real, that's a claim that God has objective existence, is found in nature. So the problem arises with the claim. If the claim is that God exists only as a conceptualized or imaginary being with no real referent, there's no problem.

That is what it means that God can't be imagined. I.e. the word "God" must reference something independent of human thinking and feelings. That is your rule.

No, the expression "real God" must do that, but "conceptual / imagined God" has no such problem.

Definition of SUPERNATURAL

No test will distinguish the purely conceptual / imaginary from the supernatural.

So now we do the same thing for the word "real".
And here is the result. Just like God real is not observable or has no natural/scientific/objective referent.

As I said, I deal with that with my three assumptions. And as I also pointed out, by posting here you demonstrate that you agree with at least the first two and I trust the third.

You are in effect apparently incapable of questioning your own thinking, when it comes to real and existence/being. You can't separate science and philosophy and understand that real and existence has nothing to do with science. Neither have any objective referent.

Funny, isn't it ─ I think you can't hear anything you don't want to hear. So it looks like a standoff.

But when you have a real God to show me, I'll be very interested to get it into the lab.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my view we conceptualize reality all the time. We can also employ aspects of reality in what we imagine, so there's overlap between the two. However, to be conceptualized is not necessarily the same as to be imagined.

And it sounds to me as though you're not making that distinction.
If the claim is that God is real, that's a claim that God has objective existence, is found in nature. So the problem arises with the claim. If the claim is that God exists only as a conceptualized or imaginary being with no real referent, there's no problem.
No, the expression "real God" must do that, but "conceptual / imagined God" has no such problem.
No test will distinguish the purely conceptual / imaginary from the supernatural.
As I said, I deal with that with my three assumptions. And as I also pointed out, by posting here you demonstrate that you agree with at least the first two and I trust the third.
Funny, isn't it ─ I think you can't hear anything you don't want to hear. So it looks like a standoff.

But when you have a real God to show me, I'll be very interested to get it into the lab.

So can you show me a real being as a real being that has existence as just existence?

 

[blü 2]

So can you show me a real being as a real being that has existence as just existence?

Do you think I'm real (whether as a real human or a real Turing machine)? Or do you think you're just talking to yourself?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you think I'm real (whether as a real human or a real Turing machine)? Or do you think you're just talking to yourself?

I don't think in real or not real. That is the point, you don't need God to explain the world and you don't need real.

 

[cladking]

I mean, for all we know, neither reality nor the universe were created in the first place.

Granted, except it shouldn't be forgotten that everything which exists had to be created. You can't step into the same river twice so the Nile River that exists right this moment was created by the Nile River of a moment ago and the logic of nature as well as the events that have transpired since that time. The logic and events are forever causing reality to unfold.

That position seems contradictory to me. If we cannot help but remain ignorant of reality, then how can there be any scientific advancement to begin with? What are we advancing, if not our knowledge of the workings of the universe?

We can learn and we can catch glimpses into the actual logic which all things manifest. We can make predictions about the future Nile and plan our behavior accordingly.

I don't think experimental science, or really any observational method, is reductionist in principle. I see it simply an artifact of the method of analysis to break down problems into variables that can be isolated at the conceptual level.

It never really occurred to me that others wouldn't see this. But it is invisible to us because of the way we think. It is language which programs our minds and is reductionistic in nature. We see a "rabbit" rather than an individual even though no two identical rabbits exist. We believe in "rabbits" and can compute 2.01375 per acre despite the fact that even "acres" are a "reductionistic term and despite the fact rabbits are forever crossing boundaries and living and dying. Reductionism is forever leading to inductive "logic" which is NOT manifested in nature.

And I believe that only trying to look at problems holistically effectively eliminates analytical methods altogether, which in my opinion would only handicap our production of knowledge. Both approaches (holistic and analytic) have their place in this.

It's not exactly "holistic" that is required but rather a different perspective. Humans have far too much knowledge at this point to change the way we think because it would be orders of magnitude too complex. But this d0esn't prevent our taking simple steps to better understand what is already known and to improve communication in science and philosophy.

"Holistic" isn't such a bad term or so inappropriate but it has some bad connotations and a lot of baggage. What is needed is to look at the interrelatedness of everything. This applies to things and processes as well as the cycles operating on them. This is much more about a way to think than it is a necessity for knowledge. Relativistic equations are hardly needed to compute trajectories and tidal effects of Mars are hardly required when weighing gold. The root of the problem is specialization. There is so much knowledge that it is all divided into many thousands of branches and no one is trained to see it all at once. This is destroying every institution and having deleterious impact on the planet. For profit resources are dug out of the earth and shoveled back in as landfill and everything done by Congress to address CO2 production has increased it instead. Meanwhile we could reduce it 75% in a few years by improving efficiency and figuring out what to do with the quadrillions of dollars of wealth that are generated. Industry is run by committee but the damage done is irrelevant because the competitors are the same way. Despite massive waste, fraud, and poor quality even the worst business can succeed. Congress can save them if reality starts catching up with them.