Physics, Metaphysics, and Singer/Songwriter Lana del Rey

[Sunstone]

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.

Thank you for an excellent post. I especially agree with the last two paragraphs.

 

[Heyo]

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?

For science it definitely is an axiom. (Or more precisely the founding three axioms (1. The universe is real. 2. The universe is orderly. 3. The universe is knowable.) rolled up into a slogan.) Without these it wouldn't make sense start doing science.
I'm not so sure about religions. Some don't even have a belief in magic but in those who have it is pretty fundamental.

 

[Sunstone]

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

Quite interesting. My own focus lies beyond the epistemology of God (in the Judeo-Christian-Muslim tradition), and with the epistemology of the generic god.

 

[Heyo]

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"

Magic (sometimes called miracles by believers) is anything what happens against the laws of nature. (The final version, not what we have found until now.)

 

[Polymath257]

Magic (sometimes called miracles by believers) is anything what happens against the laws of nature. (The final version, not what we have found until now.)

Ahh...but that only means that any final set of laws would have to include anything valid that we now consider to be magic.

More interestingly, how would you determine if any particular event is against those final laws that we don't yet know?

 

[crossfire]

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.

Alright, let me clarify: regarding the mystical experience, you are the one making the observations regarding the experiences, but you are also the troll that guards your mental stability. Regarding the reconciliation between metaphysics and empiricism: what exactly is science looking for on the other side of the bridge? The mechanisms behind the placebo and nocebo effects?

 

[Nakosis]

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?

I think the term God is vague. I've felt that depending on how one chooses their definition, God can be defined into or out of existence. Some folks for example define the universe as God, or the "truth" as God.

So I think the first necessary step would be to standardize a definition for God so we can test for the existence of what we define.

If we were to define the universe as God then science is right there. As I'm sure you are aware, some people even complain that a gap between God and science even exists. Likely those equating God as such.

Does knowledge of the universe equal knowledge of God? Obviously there are people about wanting to make that argument.

Myself, I don't define God. It seems unnecessary. So it is really impossible for me to discuss the epistemology of something I don't define.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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 it fatal to any reconciliation of any kind between god and the sciences? And if fatal, where does the reconciliation go after it dies?)

Great topic thanks. Just a few reflections:

Conflict is inevitable but can easily be reconciled as many theists who work within science will attest. A careful exegesis of the Torah, Quran, Gospel or Baha’i Writings will readily uncover verses that promote knowledge, truth and the investigation of reality. Is it a coincidence the so called Islamic Golden Age came about within a couple of centuries of Muhammad’s life? How come Jews feature so prominently in the development of science? To what extent did the Jews influence the Greeks in the centuries before Christ? How much influence did Islam play in igniting the European Renaissance? How did Christianity influence the subsequent flowering of Western Civilisation? So I would argue there is a strong case to be made that religion not only affirms and encourages science but has been a major driving force for an ever advancing civilisation,

On the other hand I’m yet to see any evidence that science has disproved religion. Science may irrefutably disprove a theory a religionist promotes but that is a different matter. For example, how did religion eventually respond to a heliocentric view of the earth? There was definitely resistance initially but few Christians would advocate Copernicus and Galileo were in error these days.

Perhaps the question has become more pertinent now with the rise of religious fundamentalism and the accompanying rejection of some science. However, as discussed in another thread fundamentalists are not representative of their respective religions no matter what they say.

Anyway, that’s how I would begin to consider epistemology from a theist perspective. Hope I’m making sense and not becoming too adversarial.

 

[Sunstone]

Is it a coincidence the so called Islamic Golden Age came about within a couple of centuries of Muhammad’s life?

Fun bit of trivia. The Islamic Golden Age was kick-started by the Umayyads whose caliphate had been exiled to Al-Andalus (modern day Andalusia, Spain) from Syria, following a rebellion. In Al-Andalus lay the legendary city of Cordoba which became the early nexus of the Golden Age. Cordoba at one time had something in the neighborhood of 900 public baths, 50 hospitals, hundreds of booksellers, and at least six of the most influential thinkers of the Age or any age. It also had a few lighted streets. Very important to girl watching after dark, and thus to civilization itself.

It has always astonished me how relatively few people it took to kick off something as huge as the Islamic Golden Age. Essentially, one city and probably only a few hundred people out of its whole population of 200,000 - 400,000 people. Sparks can indeed grow into wildfires.

Anyway, that’s how I would begin to consider epistemology from a theist perspective. Hope I’m making sense and not becoming too adversarial.

Not adversarial at all! Thank you so much for taking care not to become so. I quite enjoyed your post.

The OP was a bit misleading in that I did not clearly state the problem. At least not clearly enough. I tried to rectify that in post #18.

 

[Sunstone]

Alright, let me clarify: regarding the mystical experience, you are the one making the observations regarding the experiences, but you are also the troll that guards your mental stability.

Thank you. I got that the first time around. I wasn't asking for clarification, but for something else. Thank you anyway.

Regarding the reconciliation between metaphysics and empiricism: what exactly is science looking for on the other side of the bridge?

Good question. Please see post #18.

The mechanisms behind the placebo and nocebo effects?

It's my impression those things have nothing to do with the epistemic question posed in the OP. If you think they do, I'm all ears.

 

[crossfire]

It's my impression those things have nothing to do with the epistemic question posed in the OP. If you think they do, I'm all ears.

Well, the placebo and nocebo effects are observable effects. Are these effects ample to justify one's belief they are getting better or worse? (Am I misunderstanding "epistemic" in this regard? Can you have an observable effect without a cause? If not, then what do you attribute it to?)

 

[atanu]

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?

I have edited the question posed in the OP to clarify it.

Let us forget the word 'God'. Let us bring in the word 'Truth'. Can we? Truth is that which is true through space-time. My proposition is supported by 'Truth will set you free'.

I will suggest a couple of points.

First. If we use the word 'Truth' then we find that indeed we have assumed a gap right in the beginning. We sense a world of discrete objects. In this, the sense of touch plays the leading role -- no doubt to enable tasting the deadly joy of touching another. But it condemns the intellect into permanently believing "I am this body". The current day science takes this sensual picture as absolute truth. But what if the Truth is not fragmented? So, we start with an assumption that our sensual perception of a universe composed of fragmented objects is the god truth. But is it?

Second. It is not that metaphysical epistemology ignores the 'empirical'. As evidence, I will cite the 'Nyaya' logic system that I know a little bit about.

Nyaya | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Nyaya is the rule of reasoning. Epistemologically, Nyāya develops of a sophisticated precursor to contemporary reliabilism (particularly process reliabilism), centred on the notion of “knowledge-sources” (pramāṇa), and a conception of epistemic responsibility which allows for default, unreflective justification accorded to putatively veridical cognition. It also extensively studies the nature of reasoning in the attempt to map pathways which lead to veridical inferential cognition.

An epistemic system like Nyaya uses 'Pratyaksha' -- the empirical observation as the first knowledge source (Pramana - evidence-proof). Where it differs from the current scientific method is that it accepts as a knowledge source the normal perception sources and also the 'extraordinary perceptual states', such as the data obtained from (i) yogic perception, (ii) perception of a universal through an individual which instantiates it, and (iii) perception of an object’s properties as mediated by memory.

In all other matters, the Nyaya epistemology is identical or more rigorous than the scientific method in the reasoning part. I will note that most scientists do not have a grounding in logical reasoning.

So, to summarise, I will say that a metaphysical epistemological system such as Nyaya does not neglect any perception-empirical data and employs techniques of reasoning. It does not assume that that the world is exactly as is presented through the senses.

I will pose a question, which I hope you and others will answer. If we replace the word god with truth -- and suppose that we really are seeking the truth, then can we even entertain an assumption of separation between the truth and the sciences?

...

 

[Sunstone]

@atanu. I regret that I have no response to your post #32 that would not require me to devote more time to responding than I have free at the moment. However, I thought your post was informative and engaging, and I thank you for it.

 

[Sunstone]

Can you have an observable effect without a cause? If not, then what do you attribute it to?

An observable effect without a cause would be an instance of true randomness. Some folks tell me there is true randomness in quantum mechanics, others tell me there is none. Whether or not there is such a thing is above my pay grade.

 

[atanu]

@atanu. I regret that I have no response to your post #32 that would not require me to devote more time to responding than I have free at the moment. However, I thought your post was informative and engaging, and I thank you for it.

Oh. That is okay. Thanks for responding.

 

[Left Coast]

Let us forget the word 'God'. Let us bring in the word 'Truth'. Can we? Truth is that which is true through space-time. My proposition is supported by 'Truth will set you free'.

I will suggest a couple of points.

First. If we use the word 'Truth' then we find that indeed we have assumed a gap right in the beginning. We sense a world of discrete objects. In this, the sense of touch plays the leading role -- no doubt to enable tasting the deadly joy of touching another. But it condemns the intellect into permanently believing "I am this body". The current day science takes this sensual picture as absolute truth. But what if the Truth is not fragmented? So, we start with an assumption that our sensual perception of a universe composed of fragmented objects is the god truth. But is it?

Second. It is not that metaphysical epistemology ignores the 'empirical'. As evidence, I will cite the 'Nyaya' logic system that I know a little bit about.

Nyaya | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Nyaya is the rule of reasoning. Epistemologically, Nyāya develops of a sophisticated precursor to contemporary reliabilism (particularly process reliabilism), centred on the notion of “knowledge-sources” (pramāṇa), and a conception of epistemic responsibility which allows for default, unreflective justification accorded to putatively veridical cognition. It also extensively studies the nature of reasoning in the attempt to map pathways which lead to veridical inferential cognition.

An epistemic system like Nyaya uses 'Pratyaksha' -- the empirical observation as the first knowledge source (Pramana - evidence-proof). Where it differs from the current scientific method is that it accepts as a knowledge source the normal perception sources and also the 'extraordinary perceptual states', such as the data obtained from (i) yogic perception, (ii) perception of a universal through an individual which instantiates it, and (iii) perception of an object’s properties as mediated by memory.

In all other matters, the Nyaya epistemology is identical or more rigorous than the scientific method in the reasoning part. I will note that most scientists do not have a grounding in logical reasoning.

So, to summarise, I will say that a metaphysical epistemological system such as Nyaya does not neglect any perception-empirical data and employs techniques of reasoning. It does not assume that that the world is exactly as is presented through the senses.

I will pose a question, which I hope you and others will answer. If we replace the word god with truth -- and suppose that we really are seeking the truth, then can we even entertain an assumption of separation between the truth and the sciences?

...

Hi friend! This may take too much time to explain and it would require a separate thread, but what is 'yogic perception'?

 

[atanu]

Hi friend! This may take too much time to explain and it would require a separate thread, but what is 'yogic perception'?

Well. I thought the thread was about devoting time on the captioned subject. But okay.

When you ask what is 'Yogic perception', I know what will be the next response and so I say "Forget it". I will only say that meditation and yoga can endow peace and bring in permanent positive changes in brain structures. Some practice that can physically change your brain must be included as evidence (pramana). No?

 

[Left Coast]

Well. I thought the thread was about devoting time on the captioned subject. But okay.

It is, I just genuinely didn't know if my question would be too much of a rabbit trail.

When you ask what is 'Yogic perception', I know what will be the next response and so I say "Forget it". I will only say that meditation and yoga can endow peace and bring in permanent positive changes in brain structures. Some practice that can physically change your brain must be included as evidence (pramana). No?

Yes, I'd say so. So does "yogic perception" mean things perceive in altered states of consciousness achieved through meditation and yoga?

 

[sealchan]

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 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.

I believe that the human brain determines truth more than one way and that these ways of knowing truth, or natural epistemologies, conflict all the time. And that is an evolutionarily critical feature of human cognition because having only one epistemic basis for self-consciously knowing truth would leave us in such a deep sphexish hole that we would never have been able to reach the place of knowledge and power that we have within this universe that created us if we didn't have these multiple ways of cognizing truth.

 

[atanu]

Yes, I'd say so. So does "yogic perception" mean things perceive in altered states of consciousness achieved through meditation and yoga?

Okay friend, for you I will bite the bait. I wrote something in another thread. Allow me to reproduce that.

Essentially, the spiritual traditions teach that the mind can be seen as bipolar to start with -- an individualistic mind-intellect that suffers from desires and pain on a continuous basis and another calm-peaceful seer of the desiring ego-mind. You may or may not believe it. But most spiritual traditions further suggest turning the attention of the desiring-troubled ego-mind to the seer mind. This can happen in two ways: by devotion and surrender or by conscious meditation/attention on the movements in the mind. The latter is meditation, wherein essentially one tries to be the seer of the monkey mind thereby detaching from the notion that "I am troubled".

Now. There is enough scientific data that show that with time not only the pattern of brain waves change on a continuous basis but that actual physical changes take place in the brain. The plasticity of the brain is documented.

But I do not go only by literature support. I have my own experience. Does that constitute evidence or no?​

Hope this is of help.