• 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!

Science and atheism inconsistent?

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Truth doesn't necessarily deal with facts? That's new.

Not new. Truth is not a concept of science nor logic. More relevant in layman everyday use of what is acepted to be true in everyday life. Truth as a absolute claim that something is true is too vague and circular to be remotely consider true in science. Logic and logical conclusions are philosophical in nature, and do necessarily have true conclusions.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Hey, that's a bit unfair. Enough time spent around listening to atheists is enough to make someone become a theist, the rest is just minor details.
What's unfair, stating that indoctrination plays a major role in peoples' religious choice and beliefs?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Because "nature" is empirical-evidence based. Nature is what is available to the senses. From Wikipedia: Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe.

Are you suggesting that methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism are the same?
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Not clear. It is true many apologists try and use logic to justify their beliefs and slide into a tube of mud fallacies such as intense 'begging the question.'

Proof in logic must be factual otherwise it is false.

Actually no, read up on logic. Logic is not necessarily based on 'facts,' and most often it is not. Though it is widely misused and misrepresented. Logic more accurately is:

from: Philosophy of logic - Wikipedia
Philosophical logic is the branch of study that concerns questions about reference, predication, identity, truth, quantification, existence, entailment, modality, and necessity. Philosophical logic is the application of formal logical techniques to philosophical problems.

Nothing here necessarily deals with 'facts.'



Math is not necessarily verifiable. The ultimate value of math is it usable or functional to satisfy a need. Math is part of our every day life, and the scientific tool box, but math itself does not have to be verifiable. Forms of math can and are developed with no apparent use or verifiability, but later may be useful in the science tool box.

From: Mathematical logic - Wikipedia

Mathematical logic is a subfield of mathematics exploring the applications of formal logic to mathematics. It bears close connections to metamathematics, the foundations of mathematics, and theoretical computer science.[1] The unifying themes in mathematical logic include the study of the expressive power of formal systems and the deductive power of formal proof systems.

Mathematical logic is often divided into the fields of set theory, model theory, recursion theory, and proof theory. These areas share basic results on logic, particularly first-order logic, and definability. In computer science (particularly in the ACM Classification) mathematical logic encompasses additional topics not detailed in this article; see Logic in computer science for those.

Since its inception, mathematical logic has both contributed to, and has been motivated by, the study of foundations of mathematics. This study began in the late 19th century with the development of axiomatic frameworks for geometry, arithmetic, and analysis. In the early 20th century it was shaped by David Hilbert's program to prove the consistency of foundational theories. Results of Kurt Gödel, Gerhard Gentzen, and others provided partial resolution to the program, and clarified the issues involved in proving consistency. Work in set theory showed that almost all ordinary mathematics can be formalized in terms of sets, although there are some theorems that cannot be proven in common axiom systems for set theory. Contemporary work in the foundations of mathematics often focuses on establishing which parts of mathematics can be formalized in particular formal systems (as in reverse mathematics) rather than trying to find theories in which all of mathematics can be developed.

You stated "Layman's use of proof is notoriously misused"
I replied "As is the religious use of proof"


Cherry picking philosophy (and hence philosophical logic) is not helpful. Besides which it is of the mind. One can do whatever one wants with their mind. That does not necessarily mean what they imagine is factual or real

The ultimate value of maths is precision
 
Last edited:

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
A good post (from atanu) and a good response from you (lewisnotmiller).

I think you need to clarify what you understand to be 'philosophical naturalism'. Because there are varied shades of 'scientism' (scientific materialism) wafting through the atheism in many of the comments on this thread, and on this site, generally. And though I agree these are not the same idea as 'science' itself, or as 'philosophical materialism', or as 'philosophical naturalism', they certainly sound similar, and share some common traits. Thus, it's an area of easy confusion.
Humans are not intellectually one-dimensional, so we have little difficulty changing our conceptual positions relative to the various tasks at hand.
Yes, (me too,) some clarification would seem to be in order.

Makes sense...I'm currently posting via phone on a train. I might try and clarify/extrapolate when I'm on a laptop.
My two finger texting isn't up to the task.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Cherry picking philosophy (and hence philosophical logic) is not helpful.

Not clear, needs clarification.

The ultimate value of maths is precision

The value of math is not precision. It is being functional and useful as in the science tool box. A lot of math results in "~" estimations and ranges and alternatives of possible results and precise results.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The bottom line is science, math, and logic has absolutely nothing to do with, and is independent of any religious belief nor philosophical belief, such as Theism, Agnosticism nor Atheism
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Of course not. Methodological naturalism is science, and philosophical naturalism is a worldview.

So...a worldview about the nature of the world doesn't need to adhere to a identification rules of evidence.

I can believe the world is material without being able to prove it, for example.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The bottom line is science, math, and logic has absolutely nothing to do with, and is independent of any religious belief nor philosophical belief, such as Theism, Agnosticism nor Atheism

I wouldn't say 'any'. But many, yes, I agree.
Just leaving allowance for extreme positions.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Not clear, needs clarification.



The value of math is not precision. It is being functional and useful as in the science tool box. A lot of math results in "~" estimations and ranges and alternatives of possible results and precise results.

You chose one aspect of logic which is very much based on personal opinion. Would such logic be of use in decision making. Electronics design, computer programming?

Try telling that to a mathematician or scientist. Of the math is not precise the project fails. If described and marked as estimation is used only as a guide. How about an mri scanner with circuitry that works on estimation? Or a web browser that estimates which site you want to visit and then displays an estimation of what it thinks you want to see?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
So...a worldview about the nature of the world doesn't need to adhere to a identification rules of evidence.

I can believe the world is material without being able to prove it, for example.
A worldview is the sum of conclusions about the world. When that view is informed entirely by knowledge, and extrapolations of knowledge, about the world garnered through the senses, you have naturalism. Conclusions that suggest a 'supernatural' or 'extra-natural' or 'unnatural' world are summarily dismissed.

Rules of evidence are useful for science, where experimentation is done deliberately under controlled circumstances, or for law. As far as philosophical naturalism goes, any rules that determine conclusions are unconscious.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
A worldview is the sum of conclusions about the world. When that view is informed entirely by knowledge, and extrapolations of knowledge, about the world garnered through the senses, you have naturalism. Conclusions that suggest a 'supernatural' or 'extra-natural' or 'unnatural' world are summarily dismissed.

Rules of evidence are useful for science, where experimentation is done deliberately under controlled circumstances, or for law. As far as philosophical naturalism goes, any rules that determine conclusions are unconscious.

Sorry, auto correct on my phone kicked in on my last post. Scrambled it a little.
All I'm saying is that a position of philosophical naturalism can be held without needing to stick to science based evidence to achieve it. It can be extrapolated from what is known, and is a projection based on belief.

If it wasn't...if it was purely limited to what is known...then it could be conflated with methodological naturalism.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
No it does NOT ignore history. It ignores mythology, supposition, speculation, imagination and pure fantasy that was written to pretend to be history. And actually, sometimes wasn't even pretending to be history, but rather was allegorical and metaphorical, which credulous later readers pretend to read as history.
Perhaps you misunderstood my post.

It ignores the facts of history that show that men have created gods.

It ignores the facts of history that show that men have made up stories to support those gods
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
You chose one aspect of logic which is very much based on personal opinion. Would such logic be of use in decision making. Electronics design, computer programming?

I DID NOT choose on aspect of logic. I defined the philosophical logic as it is considered in philosophy. As far as Electronic design and computer programming you are dealing with a different application within the context of applied science in Methodological Naturalism, and applying the math tool box to solve problems in applied scien and technology.

Try telling that to a mathematician or scientist. Of the math is not precise the project fails.

No math does not need to be precise to provide answers applied to science, and as a matter of fact math can be used to describe things that are not precise, and used as projections and estimates that are not precise. The Fractal math of Chaos Theory is most definitely not precise, and at present is one of the most important tools in science and technology today.

If described and marked as estimation is used only as a guide. How about an mri scanner with circuitry that works on estimation? Or a web browser that estimates which site you want to visit and then displays an estimation of what it thinks you want to see?

Actually in many cases yes they work on estimations of current knowledge using the math tool box. Chaos Theory using fractal math is critical in these application of future estimations in technology that predicts the possibility of future alternate outcomes in predictions of possible failures in applied technology, and is most definitely precise in its predictions.
 
Last edited:

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Sorry, auto correct on my phone kicked in on my last post. Scrambled it a little.
All I'm saying is that a position of philosophical naturalism can be held without needing to stick to science based evidence to achieve it. It can be extrapolated from what is known, and is a projection based on belief.

If it wasn't...if it was purely limited to what is known...then it could be conflated with methodological naturalism.
I agree.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
Proof is evaluated in the mind of the person weighing the evidence. If the evidence is compelling to the individual's mind, then it's accepted as proof.
"Accepted as proof" is not the same thing as "proved". Many people have found the evidence for a flat earth compelling and accept that a flat earth is proved.

So, it's rather meaningless, isn't it.
 
Top