• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Physics, Metaphysics, and Singer/Songwriter Lana del Rey

In theory, if perhaps not in practice, can the alleged gap between god and the sciences be bridged?

  • You're darn tootin' it can!

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • Not a chance, cowboy!

    Votes: 3 20.0%
  • You're asking me? Me? I see you're desperate.

    Votes: 9 60.0%

  • Total voters
    15

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Discuss your views with them. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.


At the tender and succulent age of 19, today's internationally popular singer/songwriter Lana del Rey entered Fordham University with criminal intentions.

That is, she had of her own legal will and volition chosen to major in the study of philosophy, a known criminal enterprise. Or, as Spinoza once said, “I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.” Moreover, Ms. del Rey not only took out a major in philosophy, but she took out a major in philosophy with an emphasis on metaphysics!

I must pause now while I reach for my smelling salts.


I'm back! (and twice as good looking as before). Lana del Rey later on in life confessed to a reporter that she had committed herself to studying philosophy in the desperate hope of "bridging the gap between God and science"!

Regrettably, during her confession, she showed no signs of remorse.

(In my opinion, which is legally recognized as an opinion in all 50 U.S. states, Ms. del Rey would have been better served to have placed her academic emphasis on the noble and esteemed discipline of epistemology. It seems to me that if there is ever to be a philosophical reconciliation of "God and science" it will issue from epistemology, rather than from metaphysics.)​

With that said, let's compare the epistemology of physics (the realm of the sciences) with the epistemology of metaphysics (the realm of the gods).

In physics, inquiry proceeds via a combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation. Such a method of inquiry can not prove something -- can not prove anything -- is true. At most, the method can only prove something is false. Yet, ironically, the method of combining logical reasoning with empirical observation is capable of arriving at reliable facts and predictive hypotheses and models.​

In metaphysics, inquiry proceeds via logical reasoning with only incidental reference to empirical observations. Such a method of inquiry is capable of generating logical proofs that something is the case. However, these are not necessarily logical proofs that can be empirically tested. Hence, the method of inquiry is (at least in theory) capable of proving something exists that does not actually empirically exist.​


Given those two means of inquiry, how are we to epistemically reconcile god and the sciences?

Or is epistemic conflict inevitable?

And if inevitable, is epistemic conflict fatal to reconciliation of any kind between god and the sciences?

And if fatal, where does the reconciliation go after it dies?


EDIT: Want more information and/or clarification? Please see Post #18 at your leisure.





By the way, if you want my opinion (and what human on earth or god above could possibly not want my opinion), the two -- god and the sciences -- might be epistemically reconcilable. If so, I believe the most promising path at this moment might be over a bridge between the two created by one or more of the various and sundry mystical experiences. That is, assuming such a bridge can be found.


 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Discuss your views with them. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.


At the tender and succulent age of 19, today's internationally popular singer/songwriter Lana del Rey entered Fordham University with criminal intentions.

That is, she had of her own legal will and volition chosen to major in the study of philosophy, a known criminal enterprise. Or, as Spinoza once said, “I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.” Moreover, Ms. del Rey not only took out a major in philosophy, but she took out a major in philosophy with an emphasis on metaphysics!

I must pause now while I reach for my smelling salts.


I'm back! (and twice as good looking as before). Lana del Rey later on in life confessed to a reporter that she had committed herself to studying philosophy in the desperate and decadent hope of "bridging the gap between God and science"! Regrettably, during her confession, she showed no signs of remorse.

(In my opinion, which is legally recognized as an opinion in all 50 states (of consciousness), Ms. del Rey would have been better served to have placed her academic emphasis on the noble and esteemed discipline of epistemology. It seems to me that if there is ever to be a philosophical reconciliation of "God and science" it will issue from epistemology, rather than from metaphysics.)​

With that said, let's compare the epistemology of physics (the realm of the sciences) with the epistemology of metaphysics (the realm of the gods).

In physics, inquiry proceeds via a combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation. Such a method of inquiry can not prove something -- can not prove anything -- is true. At most, the method can only prove something is false. Yet, ironically, the method of combining logical reasoning with empirical observation is capable of arriving at reliable facts and predictive hypotheses and models.​

In metaphysics, inquiry proceeds via logical reasoning with only incidental reference to empirical observations. Such a method of inquiry is capable of generating logical proofs that something is the case. However, these are not necessarily logical proofs that can be empirically tested. Hence, the method of inquiry is (at least in theory) capable of proving something exists that does not actually empirically exist.​


Given those two means of inquiry, how are we to reconcile god and the sciences? Or is conflict inevitable?


One way is via Gould's concept of Non-Overlapping Magisteria.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member
You (humans in general) are the bridge. Don't sell yourself short.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Discuss your views with them. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.


At the tender and succulent age of 19, today's internationally popular singer/songwriter Lana del Rey entered Fordham University with criminal intentions.

That is, she had of her own legal will and volition chosen to major in the study of philosophy, a known criminal enterprise. Or, as Spinoza once said, “I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.” Moreover, Ms. del Rey not only took out a major in philosophy, but she took out a major in philosophy with an emphasis on metaphysics!

I must pause now while I reach for my smelling salts.


I'm back! (and twice as good looking as before). Lana del Rey later on in life confessed to a reporter that she had committed herself to studying philosophy in the desperate and decadent hope of "bridging the gap between God and science"! Regrettably, during her confession, she showed no signs of remorse.

(In my opinion, which is legally recognized as an opinion in all 50 states (of consciousness), Ms. del Rey would have been better served to have placed her academic emphasis on the noble and esteemed discipline of epistemology. It seems to me that if there is ever to be a philosophical reconciliation of "God and science" it will issue from epistemology, rather than from metaphysics.)​

With that said, let's compare the epistemology of physics (the realm of the sciences) with the epistemology of metaphysics (the realm of the gods).

In physics, inquiry proceeds via a combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation. Such a method of inquiry can not prove something -- can not prove anything -- is true. At most, the method can only prove something is false. Yet, ironically, the method of combining logical reasoning with empirical observation is capable of arriving at reliable facts and predictive hypotheses and models.​

In metaphysics, inquiry proceeds via logical reasoning with only incidental reference to empirical observations. Such a method of inquiry is capable of generating logical proofs that something is the case. However, these are not necessarily logical proofs that can be empirically tested. Hence, the method of inquiry is (at least in theory) capable of proving something exists that does not actually empirically exist.​


Given those two means of inquiry, how are we to reconcile god and the sciences? Or is conflict inevitable? (And if inevitable, is it fatal to any reconciliation of god and the sciences? And if fatal, where does the reconciliation go after it dies?)




It seems to me that science is slowly killing God in that science is providing more and more explanations for the universe that doesn't require a God.

However I think there is a possibility that religion and science could get on the same page. Let's say there exists a mental(spiritual) aspect of man that needs to be addressed. I think as we learn more about the brain, science may be able to provide a path to mental happiness. Whereas before the realm of mental happiness belonged to religion with it's various concepts of God.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Given those two means of inquiry, how are we to reconcile god and the sciences? Or is conflict inevitable? (And if inevitable, is it fatal to any reconciliation of god and the sciences? And if fatal, where does the reconciliation go after it dies?)
Seems to me that approaches are ultimately unreconcilable:

- science starts with the evidence and tries to make inferences from there. The endpoint is unknown and changeable.

- theism starts with the endpoint - god(s) - and tries to find a way to justify it

I think the scientific approach is a more reliable pathway to truth, so that's the one I'll pick. Still, I don't expect that theism will ever go away entirely.
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Discuss your views with them. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.


At the tender and succulent age of 19, today's internationally popular singer/songwriter Lana del Rey entered Fordham University with criminal intentions.

That is, she had of her own legal will and volition chosen to major in the study of philosophy, a known criminal enterprise. Or, as Spinoza once said, “I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.” Moreover, Ms. del Rey not only took out a major in philosophy, but she took out a major in philosophy with an emphasis on metaphysics!

I must pause now while I reach for my smelling salts.


I'm back! (and twice as good looking as before). Lana del Rey later on in life confessed to a reporter that she had committed herself to studying philosophy in the desperate and decadent hope of "bridging the gap between God and science"! Regrettably, during her confession, she showed no signs of remorse.

(In my opinion, which is legally recognized as an opinion in all 50 states (of consciousness), Ms. del Rey would have been better served to have placed her academic emphasis on the noble and esteemed discipline of epistemology. It seems to me that if there is ever to be a philosophical reconciliation of "God and science" it will issue from epistemology, rather than from metaphysics.)​

With that said, let's compare the epistemology of physics (the realm of the sciences) with the epistemology of metaphysics (the realm of the gods).

In physics, inquiry proceeds via a combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation. Such a method of inquiry can not prove something -- can not prove anything -- is true. At most, the method can only prove something is false. Yet, ironically, the method of combining logical reasoning with empirical observation is capable of arriving at reliable facts and predictive hypotheses and models.​

In metaphysics, inquiry proceeds via logical reasoning with only incidental reference to empirical observations. Such a method of inquiry is capable of generating logical proofs that something is the case. However, these are not necessarily logical proofs that can be empirically tested. Hence, the method of inquiry is (at least in theory) capable of proving something exists that does not actually empirically exist.​


Given those two means of inquiry, how are we to reconcile god and the sciences? Or is conflict inevitable? (And if inevitable, is it fatal to any reconciliation of god and the sciences? And if fatal, where does the reconciliation go after it dies?)



You assume a gap.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
There are quite a few who see no gap or conflict between science and God. Science is the lens through which we appreciate the wonder of the created world. The reconciling can be conceived of as this: Science studies the God-created laws of the universe.

Here's one example book:
The Works of His Hands: A Scientist's Journey from Atheism to Faith
Raised in a militant atheist family, Sy Garte fell in love with the factual world of science. He became a respected research biochemist with an anti-theistic worldview to bolster his work--and he had no intention of seeking a God he didn't believe in. That is, until the very science he loved led him to question the validity of an atheistic worldview. His journey to answer the questions that confronted him drew him into becoming a fully committed Christian, determined to show others the truth: modern science doesn't contradict God at all but instead supports Christianity...
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
PLEASE NOTE: This is a discussion thread, not a debate thread. State your views. Provide your reasons for them. Ask respectful questions of other posters. Discuss your views with them. Even compare and contrast your views with other positions purely for the sake of clarification. BUT DO NOT ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHER POSITIONS FALSE OR WRONG! Moreover, please report to the Mods any posts that engage in debate, or attempt to.


At the tender and succulent age of 19, today's internationally popular singer/songwriter Lana del Rey entered Fordham University with criminal intentions.

That is, she had of her own legal will and volition chosen to major in the study of philosophy, a known criminal enterprise. Or, as Spinoza once said, “I do not know how to teach philosophy without becoming a disturber of the peace.” Moreover, Ms. del Rey not only took out a major in philosophy, but she took out a major in philosophy with an emphasis on metaphysics!

I must pause now while I reach for my smelling salts.


I'm back! (and twice as good looking as before). Lana del Rey later on in life confessed to a reporter that she had committed herself to studying philosophy in the desperate and decadent hope of "bridging the gap between God and science"! Regrettably, during her confession, she showed no signs of remorse.

(In my opinion, which is legally recognized as an opinion in all 50 states (of consciousness), Ms. del Rey would have been better served to have placed her academic emphasis on the noble and esteemed discipline of epistemology. It seems to me that if there is ever to be a philosophical reconciliation of "God and science" it will issue from epistemology, rather than from metaphysics.)​

With that said, let's compare the epistemology of physics (the realm of the sciences) with the epistemology of metaphysics (the realm of the gods).

In physics, inquiry proceeds via a combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation. Such a method of inquiry can not prove something -- can not prove anything -- is true. At most, the method can only prove something is false. Yet, ironically, the method of combining logical reasoning with empirical observation is capable of arriving at reliable facts and predictive hypotheses and models.​

In metaphysics, inquiry proceeds via logical reasoning with only incidental reference to empirical observations. Such a method of inquiry is capable of generating logical proofs that something is the case. However, these are not necessarily logical proofs that can be empirically tested. Hence, the method of inquiry is (at least in theory) capable of proving something exists that does not actually empirically exist.​


Given those two means of inquiry, how are we to reconcile god and the sciences? Or is conflict inevitable? (And if inevitable, is it fatal to any reconciliation of god and the sciences? And if fatal, where does the reconciliation go after it dies?)


By the way, if you want my opinion (and what human on earth or god above could possibly not want my opinion), the two -- god and the sciences -- might be epistemically reconcilable. If so, I believe the most promising path at this moment might be over a bridge between the two created by one or more of the various and sundry mystical experiences. That is, assuming such a bridge can be found.



You started out with a rather contentious post and a poll I could not answer. I will comment more later.
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
Given those two means of inquiry, how are we to reconcile god and the sciences? Or is conflict inevitable? (And if inevitable, is it fatal to any reconciliation of god and the sciences? And if fatal, where does the reconciliation go after it dies?)
There are two diametrically opposite axioms in science and (most) beliefs.
"Magic exists." and "Magic does not exist."
I see them as irreconcilable. One side has to give up one of its prime axioms.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
There are quite a few who see no gap or conflict between science and God. Science is the lens through which we appreciate the wonder of the created world. The reconciling can be conceived of as this: Science studies the God-created laws of the universe.

Here's one example book:
The Works of His Hands: A Scientist's Journey from Atheism to Faith
Raised in a militant atheist family, Sy Garte fell in love with the factual world of science. He became a respected research biochemist with an anti-theistic worldview to bolster his work--and he had no intention of seeking a God he didn't believe in. That is, until the very science he loved led him to question the validity of an atheistic worldview. His journey to answer the questions that confronted him drew him into becoming a fully committed Christian, determined to show others the truth: modern science doesn't contradict God at all but instead supports Christianity...

Thanks for posting that. That's interesting, but I would need to know more details before I felt I understood whether or not Garte's reconciliation was on the epistemic level.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
There are two diametrically opposite axioms in science and (most) beliefs.
"Magic exists." and "Magic does not exist."

Thank you for responding. I wonder if those are axioms, or if perhaps they are inevitable outcomes of taking two different approaches to investigating 'reality'? Any views on that?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I would modify by saying that metaphysics *claims* to generate logical proofs that something is the case.

But, as is the case with *all* logical inferences, the initial assumptions have to be granted. And that's where there are deep problems. Without empirical testing, how do we know those assumptions are valid?

So, my basic answer is that metaphysics cannot do what it claims, so there really isn't anything to reconcile.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
There are two diametrically opposite axioms in science and (most) beliefs.
"Magic exists." and "Magic does not exist."
I see them as irreconcilable. One side has to give up one of its prime axioms.

One must first define what you mean by 'magic'. I am reminded of the quote by Arthur C Clark

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic ☿
Premium Member

By the way, if you want my opinion (and what human on earth or god above could possibly not want my opinion), the two -- god and the sciences -- might be epistemically reconcilable. If so, I believe the most promising path at this moment might be over a bridge between the two created by one or more of the various and sundry mystical experiences. That is, assuming such a bridge can be found.
Not only are you the bridge, but you are also the troll that lives under the bridge that regulates passage.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Thanks for posting that. That's interesting, but I would need to know more details before I felt I understood whether or not Garte's reconciliation was on the epistemic level.

My tendency based on a somewhat superficial reading of this web page is the say yes Religious Epistemology But really after reading the following and thinking about it for a very few minutes, I suspect that the answer to your question depends on which path you go down:

This article considers the following epistemological issues: reasonableness of belief in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God (“God,” for short), the nature of reason, the claim that belief in God is not rational, defenses that it is rational, and approaches that recommend groundless belief in God or philosophical fideism.

Is belief in God rational? The evidentialist objector says “No” due to the lack of evidence. Theists who say “Yes” fall into two main categories: those who claim that there is sufficient evidence and those who claim that evidence is not necessary. Theistic evidentialists contend that there is enough evidence to ground rational belief in God, while Reformed epistemologists contend that evidence is not necessary to ground rational belief in God (but that belief in God is grounded in various characteristic religious experiences). Philosophical fideists deny that belief in God belongs in the realm of the rational. And, of course, all of these theistic claims are widely and enthusiastically disputed by philosophical non-theists.


Of course, you could always ask him ;) Sy Garte – Science meets Faith
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
It seems to me that science is slowly killing God in that science is providing more and more explanations for the universe that doesn't require a God.

However I think there is a possibility that religion and science could get on the same page. Let's say there exists a mental(spiritual) aspect of man that needs to be addressed. I think as we learn more about the brain, science may be able to provide a path to mental happiness. Whereas before the realm of mental happiness belonged to religion with it's various concepts of God.

Thank you. You raise some good points about the day-in and day-out conflicts between science and god. I'm now wondering what you think of the epistemic conflict between the two? To explain, please allow me to grossly simplify that conflict...

The sciences (relying on a combination of logical reasoning and empirical observation) investigate the question only to conclude that they cannot say one way or the other whether the gods exist (or anything about them).​

The theologians (crucially relying on logical reasoning alone) investigate the question to conclude that the gods exist (perhaps along with some notions of their nature, astrological signs, and favorite colors).​

So you can see that the epistemic conflict is between two methods of inquiry perhaps even more than it is between two claims or beliefs.

Ideally, the two methods could be reconciled if something could be found that science was able to study, and that would lead to science supporting the notion that the gods exist. Me, I think a scientific investigation of mysticism might do the trick -- eventually.

Any thoughts about that?
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Ideally, the two methods could be reconciled if something could be found that science was able to study, and that would lead to science supporting the notion that the gods exist.

I don't see how that's possible given that science studies the material. But I think science can go a ways but not falsify belief in God.

The ways I'm thinking of includes quantum entanglement. It's possible to argue that God interacts with the material world through an entanglement. But I can't see how God can be proven to be necessary.

Another path is through miracles. Let's say that I perform a miracle and it's provable that no fakery or trickery was involved. That would prove that there are powers beyond what is known but would not necessarily prove that God was the source of those powers.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Not only are you the bridge, but you are also the troll that lives under the bridge that regulates passage.

Please be careful to avoid the appearance of proselytizing -- especially in a discussion thread. I know you were not trying to do so, but not everyone will realize that.
 
Top