Science can inform us a great deal about space, time, and gender. But it has exactly nothing to tell us about hypothetical pre-time causation.
I have not seen or heard it do or say so. If ideas are posited, they are all speculation. Speculation based on what is understood so far, but 'we don't know' is the only answer, for the moment, and might wel remain so for as long as the human species exists..
The "so far" here is the part that tips your hand, and indicates that you are declaring a statement of faith.
Faith in what? My 'statement' is more of an observation, don't you think?
Science cannot, by definition, tell us anything about pre-time causation.
exactly what I said - science might speculate, but the ony answer is they/we don't know.
This will not change at some future point
This sounds like a claim which of course cannot be upheld.
To presume science is capable of this is a category error.
Who does presume this?
Any "answers" we may seek about pre-time causation, or anything before time, cannot come from science. Not now, not ever.
Why not?
Believing science will one day have the answer for questions the scientific method is incapable of addressing is simply an irrational scientism.
I agree. Any scientific investigation cannot start if there is not an observation to be made.
Which is no doubt one of the reasons many here find your dogmatic atheism so tiresome.
Dear Ganesha,
What does this mean and what is it a reference to?
what a mess of contradictions.
It would really help if you would explain the 'mess of contradictions' from your point of view, rather than just saying they are a category error. I am happy to admit that is so, but would appreciate more of an explanation why.
You somehow managed to double down on your category error at the same time as claiming not to be making one.
I personally do not use terms such as category error as I am well aware that I will probably get it wrong.
A failure of logic as perfect as this really needs to be stuffed and mounted.
However, an explanation of the 'failure of logic' would be far more helpful, don't you think?
Google can help you out with Lord Ganesha, one of the Hindu pantheon.
As for the rest, the category error you keep making is explained very well by Rook's post. You (and Colin Smith) are operating under the delusion that science will "one day" be able to deal with non-empirically verifiable phenomena. This is impossible. It is not a matter of time, as we know more etc. Science does not deal with these questions. It never can.
HTH.
To say that I operate under the delusion you assert is wrong. I do not operate under such a delusion. I cannot stop you believing that view, but I will state mine.
But here's the thing: there are things that are fundamentally not observable. This is the realm of dreams and whimsical conjecture. And religion works just fine there. And science absolutely does not. Not even a little bit.
In a way, I think it has something to say because it learns more and more about the amazing human brain and its ability to think of anything. I venture to suggest that these understandings may help to extend the imagination, the wishful thinking and a million other ideas, but only venture, not state!
This is the category error. This is quite simply something science can never do. Science has nothing to say about the unobservable, it has nothing to say on what Kierkegaard taught us to call subjective, but infinitely important, truth. For example, you cannot prove empirically something is moral or ethical.
Your belief (and that is what it is) that science is capable of more than it is constitutes a failure to understand the limits of science.
It is hard to describe the frustration I feel as a functionally-atheist agnostic when I see evangelistic atheists making counter-productive inaccurate assertions about science.
Not wanting to cede anything to religion makes sense to me. Religion is essentially cooperative wishful ignorance. So, yeah, I'm all for resisting any attempts to justify things on such a basis. Further, in the realm of actually explaining things, religion has been systematically bludgeoned by science for everything relevant to observable reality. If you try to explain anything observable from a religious perspective that even hints at contradicting science, you're officially a kook.
But here's the thing: there are things that are fundamentally not observable. This is the realm of dreams and whimsical conjecture. And religion works just fine there. And science absolutely does not. Not even a little bit.
And this is the realm in which @Colin Smith and @SusanDoris keep trying to foist their science zealotry. Just fucking stop it. You don't have to agree with the religious daydreams about undisprovable things, but please for the love of reason stop mistaking science as a competitive dream replacement.
You appear to be accusing me of something I haven't done--or at least am not aware of having done. I'm not remotely evangelical about anything (well, maybe the benefits of EU membership, Sibelius's Seventh Symphony, and Laphroaig Malt Whisky) and even if science did provide spiritual comfort for me (and it doesn't: the thing I gain actual comfort from is my own creativity, not science) I'm not interested in converts.
There's an idea called "panentheism"*, which is basically that God is in everything, contains all of creation *and* goes beyond it. Kind of like pregnancy.
Can be interesting to play with, and might help you see how some of us can work with ideas that you find contradictory.
FWIW.
*Different from "pantheism", which has God in/as everything.
Thank you. I think I can accept the idea that this might be true. What I cannot square is the idea of a God so immense but who also gives a damn about me. While I am generally atheistic about God and other spiritual beliefs, the idea of a personal God with an interest in my life is anathema.
Comparing the 13.7 billion year age of the universe with the relatively recent (2 million years or so) emergence of humans and their occupation of a small planet orbiting around one of a 100 thousand million stars in our galaxy which is only one of 100 billion to 200 billion galaxies in the universe suggests that whoever or whatever it might have been that kick-started the universe wasn't focused on making humans.
But here's the thing: there are things that are fundamentally not observable. This is the realm of dreams and whimsical conjecture. And religion works just fine there. And science absolutely does not. Not even a little bit.
In a way, I think it has something to say because it learns more and more about the amazing human brain and its ability to think of anything. I venture to suggest that these understandings may help to extend the imagination, the wishful thinking and a million other ideas, but only venture, not state!
This is the category error.
]Why is it a category error to suggest something might be different?
This is quite simply something science can never do. Science has nothing to say about the unobservable,
Do you think it should? I think science knows this since the scientific method cannot be employed without observations being validated by experiments etc.
I do not believe that ‘science is capable of more than it is ‘ and have never said so, even though you might have inferred it. How can anyone know what the ‘limits of science’ are? No-one can know that, as can be seen daily by the way something more is discovered and found to be objective. What I do firmly believe is that there are no limnits to human imagination. Would you agree with this?
...I've deleted a bit here - sorry ...Kierkegaard taught us to call subjective, but infinitely important, truth.
Do you think it should? I see no reason why it should, whatever an individual scientist might think or believe, s/he should keep it apart from his/her work in science.
For example, you cannot prove empirically something is moral or ethical.
I agree, especially as these ideas change with time and people.
[quote[]Your belief (and that is what it is) that science is capable of more than it is constitutes ] ...
It would really help, you know, if you would stop telling me what I believe when you are not correct in this.
I will, however, say this yet again as clearly as I can: I do not believe that science can do more than the scientific method enables it to do. It can speculate and guess, but without access to a method, it stops there.
Many apologes for having got into something of a muddle with quotes.
I meant to say that 'I'm not remotely evangelical about anything (well, maybe the benefits of EU membership, Sibelius's Seventh Symphony, and Laphroaig Malt Whisky)' prove that @Colin Smith is a Humming Bean, and worthy of forgiveness.
I meant to say that 'I'm not remotely evangelical about anything (well, maybe the benefits of EU membership, Sibelius's Seventh Symphony, and Laphroaig Malt Whisky)' prove that @Colin Smith is a Humming Bean, and worthy of forgiveness.
Especially the bit about Laphroaig.
Thank you. I do recommend Sibelius's 7th. Only 20 minutes long.
But here's the thing: there are things that are fundamentally not observable. This is the realm of dreams and whimsical conjecture. And religion works just fine there. And science absolutely does not. Not even a little bit.
In a way, I think it has something to say because it learns more and more about the amazing human brain and its ability to think of anything. I venture to suggest that these understandings may help to extend the imagination, the wishful thinking and a million other ideas, but only venture, not state!
This is the category error.
Why is it a category error to suggest something might be different?
Huh?
This is quite simply something science can never do. Science has nothing to say about the unobservable,
Do you think it should? I think science knows this since the scientific method cannot be employed without observations being validated by experiments etc.
Of course I don't think it should. I am the one saying it doesn't. Are you being deliberately obtuse?
I do not believe that ‘science is capable of more than it is ‘ and have never said so, even though you might have inferred it. How can anyone know what the ‘limits of science’ are?
How do you not see the contradiction in these two statements? I have inferred nothing. You quite clearly believe that science does not have knowable limits. This is idiotic. Science works with observable fact. The limits are what lies beyond observable fact. How many times do you need to hear that?
No-one can know that, as can be seen daily by the way something more is discovered and found to be objective.
For the love of God - the fact that the frontier of what science discovers is always changing is not in dispute. That is how science works. But it also works with empirically verifiable fact. What lies beyond empirically verifiable fact WILL NEVER be knowable by science.
What I do firmly believe is that there are no limnits to human imagination. Would you agree with this?
What has that got to do with anything?
...I've deleted a bit here - sorry ...Kierkegaard taught us to call subjective, but infinitely important, truth.
Do you think it should?
Why, why, why would I think it should when I am the one saying it does not? Why?
Your belief (and that is what it is) that science is capable of more than it is constitutes ...
It would really help, you know, if you would stop telling me what I believe when you are not correct in this.
This is like saying that something that quacks like a duck is actually a zebra. If you keep making non-rational statements about science, I am going to keep calling them faith statements.
I will, however, say this yet again as clearly as I can: I do not believe that science can do more than the scientific method enables it to do. It can speculate and guess, but without access to a method, it stops there.
And yet, you keep claiming that the limits of science are unknowable. I really have no idea how to reason with you.
The logical progression from this point leaves the following options.
They're lying.
They're too stupid to even understand how they're wrong.
Clearly, hybrid states including both is entirely likely. Especially if the lying is partially to themselves. Since they can't let us usefully discuss the ways in which the hate-filled rhetoric of dogma needs to be improved for the good of society, I guess we might as well see how to falsify either of these two hypotheses.
Christianity spread fast at first. Why? What gave it such power? Simple: Christianity promised a way out of the brute misery most of humanity lived in during those early years. Jesus would return, and bring with him the Kingdom of God! A God of mercy, and justice, and compassion, who would transform the world as we knew it upside down! Pain would turn to health! Grief would become joy! Hunger would be filled, and fear would be banished!
It's my understanding that there were a number of sects at the time that promised those things. What made Christianity stand out and grow while the others withered on the vine?
Did they wither? Were they stamped out? Some combination of the two? Was it secular authority donning the, er, Christian habit for some expedient reason? All of the above? Christianity, as it grew and expanded, became immensely complex, developing (in echoes of its Jewish roots) a sort of midrash which (unlike Judaism) often became enshrined as doctrine. Enshrining "correct belief" as central or at least co-equal with "correct practice" inevitably fractured Christendom into its current dis-unified state. That complexity in turn has driven many Christians toward attempts at simplification like prosperity gospel, bibliolatry, and selectively-chosen, rule-driven versions of praxis designed to bring orthopraxis and orthodoxy into closer alignment (and also easier-to-follow) for the ordinary Christian-in-the-street. After all, what can be simpler to follow than to rule out forms of sexuality which apply only to a small minority of humans other than oneself?
As my former denomination proclaims, "God is still speaking." What they fail to take note of is the fact that "We still aren't listening."
And yet lots of churches are food banks. Lots of churches are CAP centres. Lots of churches provide food to the homeless. Lots of churches are active in their community. We my local government wanted to distribute money and work out where the money was best spent they came to the churches. Churches provide Patent and Toddler groups, pensioners groups, I could go on. Doesn’t sound very self centred to me.
Ohher said
“But isn’t this simply saying what I’m pointing out, but in a different way? Isn’t this a frank admission that, where people once found hope and meaning and purpose, they no longer do? Christianity, at least in its institutional forms, has failed, and has adopted pre-existing prejudices it has encountered planet-wide. It has become what it started out hating”.
No it is not. Lots of people did not go to church because they found hope meaning and purpose. They went because it was the proper thing to do. It was a way of keeping up with Jones, you did it because it was expected not necessarily because of a great faith. That changed and it became less culturally relevant to go to church, so people stopped. That means that congregations consist mainly of people who believe. Leaner and fitter.
Christianity spread fast at first. Why? What gave it such power? Simple: Christianity promised a way out of the brute misery most of humanity lived in during those early years. Jesus would return, and bring with him the Kingdom of God! A God of mercy, and justice, and compassion, who would transform the world as we knew it upside down! Pain would turn to health! Grief would become joy! Hunger would be filled, and fear would be banished!
It's my understanding that there were a number of sects at the time that promised those things. What made Christianity stand out and grow while the others withered on the vine?
Did they wither? Were they stamped out? Some combination of the two? Was it secular authority donning the, er, Christian habit for some expedient reason? All of the above?
Are you saying all of the mystery religions lasted long enough for Christianity to gain secular power and squelch them?
Christianity, as it grew and expanded, became immensely complex, developing (in echoes of its Jewish roots) a sort of midrash which (unlike Judaism) often became enshrined as doctrine. Enshrining "correct belief" as central or at least co-equal with "correct practice" inevitably fractured Christendom into its current dis-unified state.
You compress a heck of a lot of history into a single paragraph. The first major split in Christianity came at Chalcedon, in 450. That's about 420 years without enough immense complexity to split itself apart. The Chalcedonian churches managed to not fracture until 1054, fully 600 years later, when it split in half, not "fragments", ostensibly over belief but in fact largely over cultural and political questions.
I don't recognize the history of the early church in what you say.
Ohher said
“But isn’t this simply saying what I’m pointing out, but in a different way? Isn’t this a frank admission that, where people once found hope and meaning and purpose, they no longer do? Christianity, at least in its institutional forms, has failed, and has adopted pre-existing prejudices it has encountered planet-wide. It has become what it started out hating”.
No it is not. Lots of people did not go to church because they found hope meaning and purpose. They went because it was the proper thing to do. It was a way of keeping up with Jones, you did it because it was expected not necessarily because of a great faith. That changed and it became less culturally relevant to go to church, so people stopped. That means that congregations consist mainly of people who believe. Leaner and fitter.
Not reasserting, correcting a misunderstanding. Ohher said that people went to church for the reasons she gives. I am saying that is a miss understanding. Lots of people went to church because it was the socially accepted thing to do. Not because of any of the reasons proffered by Ohher. Once what is socially acceptable changed numbers fell. For those it was not a matter of faith but how it looked. That is different from the reasons given.
I have laboured this a bit, but I seem not to have put my point across well in the first place.
Not reasserting, correcting a misunderstanding. Ohher said that people went to church for the reasons she gives. I am saying that is a miss understanding. Lots of people went to church because it was the socially accepted thing to do. Not because of any of the reasons proffered by Ohher. Once what is socially acceptable changed numbers fell. For those it was not a matter of faith but how it looked. That is different from the reasons given.
I have laboured this a bit, but I seem not to have put my point across well in the first place.
But as I pointed out elsewhere, that model would imply that amongst the more elderly congregants, who are from a demographic more likely to attend, we'd see more people going out of habit than belief than in younger demographics. However, I have found little in my experience to substantiate that. In my charevo days merely attending a liturgical traditional church was quietly considered evidence enough of nominality, but that simply proves not to be the case if you actually talk to them.
There is simply more belief in Christianity in older generations. Younger people, IME, are more inclined to simply not be interested in the whole thing; religion just isn't part of their lives.
Societal change is certainly driving this but its a move away from a general assumption in public life that Christianity is true rather than a move away from church attendance as a social expectation. The ghost of this assumption lives on in the Scouts and Guides dragging their members to church on St George's Day, Mothering Sunday and Remembrance Sunday, and school collective worship requirements and practices, but it is increasingly anachronistic.
The logical progression from this point leaves the following options.
They're lying.
They're too stupid to even understand how they're wrong.
Clearly, hybrid states including both is entirely likely. Especially if the lying is partially to themselves. Since they can't let us usefully discuss the ways in which the hate-filled rhetoric of dogma needs to be improved for the good of society, I guess we might as well see how to falsify either of these two hypotheses.
tbh, I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. So far as I'm concerned, everyone here professing that God has an objective exists is misrepresenting God because God is a personification of something going on in the human mind, but I don't feel the need to run around telling them so. If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?
“If you want red to be different from green and I gain some succour from supposing something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger on the roads.
“If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger to rational conversation. (And maybe because it makes it look as though your take on religion - which Rook may share in some respects - is founded on a faulty rationale.)
I don't believe in God as an idea but as a reality. A past, present and future reality.
You have thrown down an interesting challenge to God by saying that you don't believe He has a personal interest in a relationship with you. He might just take you up on that challenge. But only if you really are a seeker.
“If you want red to be different from green and I gain some succour from supposing something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger on the roads.
“If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger to rational conversation. (And maybe because it makes it look as though your take on religion - which Rook may share in some respects - is founded on a faulty rationale.)
I still don't know what I'm supposed to have done!
I don't believe in God as an idea but as a reality. A past, present and future reality.
You have thrown down an interesting challenge to God by saying that you don't believe He has a personal interest in a relationship with you. He might just take you up on that challenge. But only if you really are a seeker.
I am not a seeker. I have an academic and creative interest in belief but no interest in furthering my own beliefs.
How are science and Christianity mutually exclusive? From this conversation you would think that Christians cannot be scientists. They obviously can. I have a friend who is a solid Christian and a research Scientist. Science does not exclude God. There are plenty of Christians, me included who believe in a God centred evolution. Science explains how things work. Why is a different matter and reached outside of the remit of science into belief or at least philosophy
Let me try and explain how I see science, or one bit of it. When I look at the sky on a clear night I am looking across a vast distance into space and seeing stars that are millions of years old. Through a telescope there are images of stars and galaxies billions of light years away and which shone billions of years ago.
Compared to that immense age and size I am utterly both utterly insignificant and at the same time I am everything because I can experience them. I had a similar experience with 'Adam' by the sculptor Anish Kapoor https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/kapoor-adam-t07592 which gives the observer the illusion of looking into eternity.
Science allows me to understand how the world is and I love what it reveals.
A good place to start. You are a writer so you like telling stories. So did Jesus. So why not consider the stories that He told? They are so original that they are still being discussed 2000 years later.
Everyone unlocks differently. And people's preconceptions about God can be very entrenched. The parables are stories of unlocking. They offer a creative space to see God in a different way. And consider their response to Him in a new light. What is He is not distant but close at hand? What if His radical generosity, compassion and inclusion confounds human expectations of justice, fairness and entitlement? The stories invite us to consider who I am and who is He. Perhaps God is more surprising and attractive than I had thought Him to be.
How is that different from a Christian view point? I can still be stuck by the wonder of the universe. I believe it was created by God, you don’t yes and I believe it reflects the wonder of its creator but we still experience the same feeling. It is a human thing
A good place to start. You are a writer so you like telling stories. So did Jesus. So why not consider the stories that He told? They are so original that they are still being discussed 2000 years later.
Everyone unlocks differently. And people's preconceptions about God can be very entrenched. The parables are stories of unlocking. They offer a creative space to see God in a different way. And consider their response to Him in a new light. What is He is not distant but close at hand? What if His radical generosity, compassion and inclusion confounds human expectations of justice, fairness and entitlement? The stories invite us to consider who I am and who is He. Perhaps God is more surprising and attractive than I had thought Him to be.
Sorry. I don't wish to believe in the Christian God or in any god.
Let me put it this way: an ornithologist studies birds; he does not wish to be a bird. If I wanted to have a religious belief I'd probably choose Shinto as I have some sympathy for Numenism.
“If you want red to be different from green and I gain some succour from supposing something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger on the roads.
“If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger to rational conversation. (And maybe because it makes it look as though your take on religion - which Rook may share in some respects - is founded on a faulty rationale.)
I still don't know what I'm supposed to have done!
My issue was specifically with the statement "God created time, space, and gender" which takes real things in the real world for which we have adequate scientific explanations that do not require a spiritual element and credits them to a God. In so doing it undermines the scientific worldview. I have no issue with people saying they believe in god or even that god exists because I accept that for them there is a god. I do dislike it when believers in a God grab things that are in the realm of science.
Science offers hypotheses about how time, space, gender etc. have come to exist. There are, I’m sure, some Christians who deny/doubt the hypotheses in principle, but many, many Christians accept them.
Many Christians are as happy with those scientific hypotheses as any scientist, but don’t find it rationally or philosophically contradictory to say that an explanation about how these things come into being is also consistent with a view about there being something more fundamental which ‘underlies’ the scientific account.
The questions that science can’t answer, and may in principle be unable to answer are questions like why is there something, rather than nothing? Why does what is ‘observe’ ‘rules’/‘laws’ about its behaviour? Are those ‘rules’/‘laws’ really ‘true’, or are they just an accidental congruence between our minds and the environment in which our brains have evolved? Are there things which are ‘real’ but which cannot be tested or proved scientifically? How can we answer that question?
Sorry. I don't wish to believe in the Christian God or in any god.
Let me put it this way: an ornithologist studies birds; he does not wish to be a bird.
Christians don't want to be God, so I have no idea what the hell you're getting at here.
Much like gravity, God will exist whether or not you believe in it.
This
Your comparison does not work. If there is a God he exists irrespective of our believing in him or not (as pointed out). As I asked you previously how are Christianity and Science Mutually exclusive. Why does scientific knowledge disprove God? That is your belief and you are entitled to it, but if you post it in a thread you have to be willing to back it up.
That's almost explicable, in an ethnographic sort of way, but Colin really needs to understand we're not a different species (let alone genus or class).
How are science and Christianity mutually exclusive? From this conversation you would think that Christians cannot be scientists. They obviously can. I have a friend who is a solid Christian and a research Scientist.
May I enquire in what branch of science?
Science does not exclude God
It does not try to, since even if a scientist makes a guess about what might be any characteristic or action of a God, there can be no observations made to proceed further.
There are plenty of Christians, me included who believe in a God centred evolution.
There are so many questions that arise from that belief, but I'll just mention one: at what point did God step into evolution?
Science explains how things work. Why is a different matter and reached outside of the remit of science into belief or at least philosophy
As for me, I am very happy to accept that there is or was no 'why'.
“If you want red to be different from green and I gain some succour from supposing something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger on the roads.
“If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger to rational conversation. (And maybe because it makes it look as though your take on religion - which Rook may share in some respects - is founded on a faulty rationale.)
I still don't know what I'm supposed to have done!
Yes, I keep feeling baffled about this, and also Susan. Is it supposed to be that atheists don't like theists talking about time and space, and their origin? There is no conflict, as far as I can see, but maybe I've got it wrong. Some of the posts seem unclear to me.
As ever SusanDoris, as a Christian, I couldn't agree more.
My church crawls with scientists (physicist, gerontologist, electronic engineer, chemist), engineers, doctors (four GPs I know), one surgeon I know of (ophthalmic). Unfortunately the physicist and electronic engineer make do cognitively biased claims based on the anthropic principle.
How is that different from a Christian view point? I can still be stuck by the wonder of the universe. I believe it was created by God, you don’t yes and I believe it reflects the wonder of its creator but we still experience the same feeling. It is a human thing
I disagree somewhat. My feelings and appreciation of the wonders of space etc are different since I ceased to believe they had been created by a god, although I was very doubtful that God had done it anyway, since I had the World of Wonder to read! It became more fascinating the more I read.
“If you want red to be different from green and I gain some succour from supposing something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger on the roads.
“If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger to rational conversation. (And maybe because it makes it look as though your take on religion - which Rook may share in some respects - is founded on a faulty rationale.)
I still don't know what I'm supposed to have done!
My issue was specifically with the statement "God created time, space, and gender" which takes real things in the real world for which we have adequate scientific explanations that do not require a spiritual element and credits them to a God. In so doing it undermines the scientific worldview. I have no issue with people saying they believe in god or even that god exists because I accept that for them there is a god. I do dislike it when believers in a God grab things that are in the realm of science.
Science offers hypotheses about how time, space, gender etc. have come to exist. There are, I’m sure, some Christians who deny/doubt the hypotheses in principle, but many, many Christians accept them.
Many Christians are as happy with those scientific hypotheses as any scientist, but don’t find it rationally or philosophically contradictory to say that an explanation about how these things come into being is also consistent with a view about there being something more fundamental which ‘underlies’ the scientific account.
The questions that science can’t answer, and may in principle be unable to answer are questions like why is there something, rather than nothing? Why does what is ‘observe’ ‘rules’/‘laws’ about its behaviour? Are those ‘rules’/‘laws’ really ‘true’, or are they just an accidental congruence between our minds and the environment in which our brains have evolved? Are there things which are ‘real’ but which cannot be tested or proved scientifically? How can we answer that question?
Leave out the "may in principle" part, and you have it.
Since Colin and Susan can't see what they are doing, I'm settling for the "stupidity" hypothesis of the two Rook suggested. At least they aren't trolling, I suppose.
“If you want red to be different from green and I gain some succour from supposing something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger on the roads.
“If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger to rational conversation. (And maybe because it makes it look as though your take on religion - which Rook may share in some respects - is founded on a faulty rationale.)
I still don't know what I'm supposed to have done!
Yes, I keep feeling baffled about this, and also Susan. Is it supposed to be that atheists don't like theists talking about time and space, and their origin? There is no conflict, as far as I can see, but maybe I've got it wrong. Some of the posts seem unclear to me.
As far as I'm concerned, I find it a constant source of interest to read all points in discussions, whatever they are, with the different routes they take and the different ways they close or tail off.
How are science and Christianity mutually exclusive? From this conversation you would think that Christians cannot be scientists. They obviously can. I have a friend who is a solid Christian and a research Scientist.
May I enquire in what branch of science?
Hugal can answer for himself, but the ones I know/have known include biologists, microbiologists, biochemists, physicists, astrophysicists and a mathematician.
There are plenty of Christians, me included who believe in a God centred evolution.
There are so many questions that arise from that belief, but I'll just mention one: at what point did God step into evolution?
This is the point at which the fact of your misconception (if not its precise nature) becomes clear. God pre-exists life (indeed pre-exists the whole material order). So God pre-exists evolution. God does not ‘step into’ evolution. God brings evolution into being. To speak of God stepping into evolution as if somehow evolution existed without God is to make a category error.
Science explains how things work. Why is a different matter and reached outside of the remit of science into belief or at least philosophy
As for me, I am very happy to accept that there is or was no 'why'.
Just as a pedestrian walking along the pavement may be unbothered by the difference between red and green. It simply doesn’t matter - until the point at which she wants to cross the road at traffic lights.
Sure. And all of my responses. But Rook's last two posts I think might be the ones to focus on. Plus, BroJames has just pointed out some more of Susan's inanity. This thread is lousy with it.
Sure. And all of my responses. But Rook's last two posts I think might be the ones to focus on. Plus, BroJames has just pointed out some more of Susan's inanity. This thread is lousy with it.
Well, again, I don't get that. Susan seemed to be saying that "why" is redundant, which I tend to agree with on a large scale. BroJames compares this with ignoring traffic lights. Eh? That doesn't make sense.
My issue was specifically with the statement "God created time, space, and gender" which takes real things in the real world for which we have adequate scientific explanations that do not require a spiritual element and credits them to a God. In so doing it undermines the scientific worldview. I have no issue with people saying they believe in god or even that god exists because I accept that for them there is a god. I do dislike it when believers in a God grab things that are in the realm of science.
Science offers hypotheses about how time, space, gender etc. have come to exist. There are, I’m sure, some Christians who deny/doubt the hypotheses in principle, but many, many Christians accept them.
Many Christians are as happy with those scientific hypotheses as any scientist, but don’t find it rationally or philosophically contradictory to say that an explanation about how these things come into being is also consistent with a view about there being something more fundamental which ‘underlies’ the scientific account.
The questions that science can’t answer, and may in principle be unable to answer are questions like why is there something, rather than nothing? Why does what is ‘observe’ ‘rules’/‘laws’ about its behaviour? Are those ‘rules’/‘laws’ really ‘true’, or are they just an accidental congruence between our minds and the environment in which our brains have evolved? Are there things which are ‘real’ but which cannot be tested or proved scientifically? How can we answer that question?
I don't regard questions such as why or who to be particularly useful when dealing with such phenomena. To me, such questions say more about the way the human mind is programmed than they do about the actual things being observed. It would be like asking why did the asteroid hit the earth and cause the end of the dinosaurs? For me, 'because shit happens' covers it. I don't need any bigger or more fundamental answers and don;t think bigger and more fundamental answers exist.
Well, you've missed the crucial part of the exchange, which is in the middle.
If "why" is of no interest to you, than faith and philosophy are likely to hold little interest also. Why is to me of far more importance than how. All of the questions of meaning are "why" questions, rather than "how." Hence my reference to Kierkegaard upthread.
Comments
This is the category error. This is quite simply something science can never do. Science has nothing to say about the unobservable, it has nothing to say on what Kierkegaard taught us to call subjective, but infinitely important, truth. For example, you cannot prove empirically something is moral or ethical.
Your belief (and that is what it is) that science is capable of more than it is constitutes a failure to understand the limits of science.
You appear to be accusing me of something I haven't done--or at least am not aware of having done. I'm not remotely evangelical about anything (well, maybe the benefits of EU membership, Sibelius's Seventh Symphony, and Laphroaig Malt Whisky) and even if science did provide spiritual comfort for me (and it doesn't: the thing I gain actual comfort from is my own creativity, not science) I'm not interested in converts.
Thank you. I think I can accept the idea that this might be true. What I cannot square is the idea of a God so immense but who also gives a damn about me. While I am generally atheistic about God and other spiritual beliefs, the idea of a personal God with an interest in my life is anathema.
It's not intended to be. Everyone, including me, has a subjective reality.
Because to me, it doesn't seem rational. It's the equivalent of spending a decade inventing chickens just so you can have an egg for breakfast.
I expect God to be rational, if only because humans are supposedly made in God's image and humans are mostly rational.
I do not believe that ‘science is capable of more than it is ‘ and have never said so, even though you might have inferred it. How can anyone know what the ‘limits of science’ are? No-one can know that, as can be seen daily by the way something more is discovered and found to be objective. What I do firmly believe is that there are no limnits to human imagination. Would you agree with this? Do you think it should? I see no reason why it should, whatever an individual scientist might think or believe, s/he should keep it apart from his/her work in science. I agree, especially as these ideas change with time and people. It would really help, you know, if you would stop telling me what I believe when you are not correct in this.
I will, however, say this yet again as clearly as I can: I do not believe that science can do more than the scientific method enables it to do. It can speculate and guess, but without access to a method, it stops there.
Many apologes for having got into something of a muddle with quotes.
I meant to say that 'I'm not remotely evangelical about anything (well, maybe the benefits of EU membership, Sibelius's Seventh Symphony, and Laphroaig Malt Whisky)' prove that @Colin Smith is a Humming Bean, and worthy of forgiveness.
Especially the bit about Laphroaig.
Thank you. I do recommend Sibelius's 7th. Only 20 minutes long.
How do you not see the contradiction in these two statements? I have inferred nothing. You quite clearly believe that science does not have knowable limits. This is idiotic. Science works with observable fact. The limits are what lies beyond observable fact. How many times do you need to hear that? For the love of God - the fact that the frontier of what science discovers is always changing is not in dispute. That is how science works. But it also works with empirically verifiable fact. What lies beyond empirically verifiable fact WILL NEVER be knowable by science. What has that got to do with anything? Why, why, why would I think it should when I am the one saying it does not? Why? This is like saying that something that quacks like a duck is actually a zebra. If you keep making non-rational statements about science, I am going to keep calling them faith statements. And yet, you keep claiming that the limits of science are unknowable. I really have no idea how to reason with you.
The logical progression from this point leaves the following options.
Clearly, hybrid states including both is entirely likely. Especially if the lying is partially to themselves. Since they can't let us usefully discuss the ways in which the hate-filled rhetoric of dogma needs to be improved for the good of society, I guess we might as well see how to falsify either of these two hypotheses.
Did they wither? Were they stamped out? Some combination of the two? Was it secular authority donning the, er, Christian habit for some expedient reason? All of the above? Christianity, as it grew and expanded, became immensely complex, developing (in echoes of its Jewish roots) a sort of midrash which (unlike Judaism) often became enshrined as doctrine. Enshrining "correct belief" as central or at least co-equal with "correct practice" inevitably fractured Christendom into its current dis-unified state. That complexity in turn has driven many Christians toward attempts at simplification like prosperity gospel, bibliolatry, and selectively-chosen, rule-driven versions of praxis designed to bring orthopraxis and orthodoxy into closer alignment (and also easier-to-follow) for the ordinary Christian-in-the-street. After all, what can be simpler to follow than to rule out forms of sexuality which apply only to a small minority of humans other than oneself?
As my former denomination proclaims, "God is still speaking." What they fail to take note of is the fact that "We still aren't listening."
How does that fo!low?
“But isn’t this simply saying what I’m pointing out, but in a different way? Isn’t this a frank admission that, where people once found hope and meaning and purpose, they no longer do? Christianity, at least in its institutional forms, has failed, and has adopted pre-existing prejudices it has encountered planet-wide. It has become what it started out hating”.
No it is not. Lots of people did not go to church because they found hope meaning and purpose. They went because it was the proper thing to do. It was a way of keeping up with Jones, you did it because it was expected not necessarily because of a great faith. That changed and it became less culturally relevant to go to church, so people stopped. That means that congregations consist mainly of people who believe. Leaner and fitter.
Are you saying all of the mystery religions lasted long enough for Christianity to gain secular power and squelch them?
You compress a heck of a lot of history into a single paragraph. The first major split in Christianity came at Chalcedon, in 450. That's about 420 years without enough immense complexity to split itself apart. The Chalcedonian churches managed to not fracture until 1054, fully 600 years later, when it split in half, not "fragments", ostensibly over belief but in fact largely over cultural and political questions.
I don't recognize the history of the early church in what you say.
Reasserting this does not make it true.
I have laboured this a bit, but I seem not to have put my point across well in the first place.
But as I pointed out elsewhere, that model would imply that amongst the more elderly congregants, who are from a demographic more likely to attend, we'd see more people going out of habit than belief than in younger demographics. However, I have found little in my experience to substantiate that. In my charevo days merely attending a liturgical traditional church was quietly considered evidence enough of nominality, but that simply proves not to be the case if you actually talk to them.
There is simply more belief in Christianity in older generations. Younger people, IME, are more inclined to simply not be interested in the whole thing; religion just isn't part of their lives.
Societal change is certainly driving this but its a move away from a general assumption in public life that Christianity is true rather than a move away from church attendance as a social expectation. The ghost of this assumption lives on in the Scouts and Guides dragging their members to church on St George's Day, Mothering Sunday and Remembrance Sunday, and school collective worship requirements and practices, but it is increasingly anachronistic.
tbh, I have absolutely no idea what you're referring to. So far as I'm concerned, everyone here professing that God has an objective exists is misrepresenting God because God is a personification of something going on in the human mind, but I don't feel the need to run around telling them so. If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?
Maybe because it makes you a danger on the roads.
“If you want science to be only a tool and I gain some succour from supposing it to be something else then why is that wrong?”
Maybe because it makes you a danger to rational conversation. (And maybe because it makes it look as though your take on religion - which Rook may share in some respects - is founded on a faulty rationale.)
Who knows what will get through to Tweedle Dum and Dumber.
I don't believe in God as an idea but as a reality. A past, present and future reality.
You have thrown down an interesting challenge to God by saying that you don't believe He has a personal interest in a relationship with you. He might just take you up on that challenge. But only if you really are a seeker.
I still don't know what I'm supposed to have done!
I am not a seeker. I have an academic and creative interest in belief but no interest in furthering my own beliefs.
Compared to that immense age and size I am utterly both utterly insignificant and at the same time I am everything because I can experience them. I had a similar experience with 'Adam' by the sculptor Anish Kapoor https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/kapoor-adam-t07592 which gives the observer the illusion of looking into eternity.
Science allows me to understand how the world is and I love what it reveals.
Everyone unlocks differently. And people's preconceptions about God can be very entrenched. The parables are stories of unlocking. They offer a creative space to see God in a different way. And consider their response to Him in a new light. What is He is not distant but close at hand? What if His radical generosity, compassion and inclusion confounds human expectations of justice, fairness and entitlement? The stories invite us to consider who I am and who is He. Perhaps God is more surprising and attractive than I had thought Him to be.
Sorry. I don't wish to believe in the Christian God or in any god.
Let me put it this way: an ornithologist studies birds; he does not wish to be a bird. If I wanted to have a religious belief I'd probably choose Shinto as I have some sympathy for Numenism.
She could well be. None of us will be able to say either way, this side of death.
Many Christians are as happy with those scientific hypotheses as any scientist, but don’t find it rationally or philosophically contradictory to say that an explanation about how these things come into being is also consistent with a view about there being something more fundamental which ‘underlies’ the scientific account.
The questions that science can’t answer, and may in principle be unable to answer are questions like why is there something, rather than nothing? Why does what is ‘observe’ ‘rules’/‘laws’ about its behaviour? Are those ‘rules’/‘laws’ really ‘true’, or are they just an accidental congruence between our minds and the environment in which our brains have evolved? Are there things which are ‘real’ but which cannot be tested or proved scientifically? How can we answer that question?
Christians don't want to be God, so I have no idea what the hell you're getting at here.
Much like gravity, God will exist whether or not you believe in it.
This
Your comparison does not work. If there is a God he exists irrespective of our believing in him or not (as pointed out). As I asked you previously how are Christianity and Science Mutually exclusive. Why does scientific knowledge disprove God? That is your belief and you are entitled to it, but if you post it in a thread you have to be willing to back it up.
Yes, I keep feeling baffled about this, and also Susan. Is it supposed to be that atheists don't like theists talking about time and space, and their origin? There is no conflict, as far as I can see, but maybe I've got it wrong. Some of the posts seem unclear to me.
My church crawls with scientists (physicist, gerontologist, electronic engineer, chemist), engineers, doctors (four GPs I know), one surgeon I know of (ophthalmic). Unfortunately the physicist and electronic engineer make do cognitively biased claims based on the anthropic principle.
Leave out the "may in principle" part, and you have it.
Since Colin and Susan can't see what they are doing, I'm settling for the "stupidity" hypothesis of the two Rook suggested. At least they aren't trolling, I suppose.
This is the point at which the fact of your misconception (if not its precise nature) becomes clear. God pre-exists life (indeed pre-exists the whole material order). So God pre-exists evolution. God does not ‘step into’ evolution. God brings evolution into being. To speak of God stepping into evolution as if somehow evolution existed without God is to make a category error. Just as a pedestrian walking along the pavement may be unbothered by the difference between red and green. It simply doesn’t matter - until the point at which she wants to cross the road at traffic lights.
Well, RooK has written about 7 posts here, so do you mean all of them?
Well, again, I don't get that. Susan seemed to be saying that "why" is redundant, which I tend to agree with on a large scale. BroJames compares this with ignoring traffic lights. Eh? That doesn't make sense.
I don't regard questions such as why or who to be particularly useful when dealing with such phenomena. To me, such questions say more about the way the human mind is programmed than they do about the actual things being observed. It would be like asking why did the asteroid hit the earth and cause the end of the dinosaurs? For me, 'because shit happens' covers it. I don't need any bigger or more fundamental answers and don;t think bigger and more fundamental answers exist.
If "why" is of no interest to you, than faith and philosophy are likely to hold little interest also. Why is to me of far more importance than how. All of the questions of meaning are "why" questions, rather than "how." Hence my reference to Kierkegaard upthread.