Quote:Of course science doesn't address morality, or other subjective matters.

Neither does religion. It simply defines what it wants its adherents to think.

(August 9, 2014 at 1:40 am)Cato Wrote:

(August 9, 2014 at 1:28 am)Chuck Wrote: That assumes you have a free will, and it is in principle beyond the reach of science to exactingly predict the outcome of what you call your free will, but not beyond you to exactingly predict you own free will.

If one does not make that assumption, then science can't help you decide only because you don't decide. But science will forecast exactly how you will imagine you have decided, and why you would delude yourself into thinking it was really your choice to decide the way you do.

In essence, absent that assumption of free will, science's role would no longer in principle be subject to that limitation.

What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?

Acknowledge science is in principle capable of trumping anything in everything. It's only a matter of advancing science to the necessary level.

(August 9, 2014 at 1:41 am)psychoslice Wrote: Science certainly doesn't know everything, religion also doesn't know everything, we need to keep that balance, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that being on both side.

Keep the baby but crucify the old definition of its soul to resurrect a more intelligible (naturalistic) one.

(August 9, 2014 at 1:48 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(August 9, 2014 at 1:41 am)psychoslice Wrote: Science certainly doesn't know everything, religion also doesn't know everything, we need to keep that balance, don't throw the baby out with the bath water, that being on both side.

Keep the baby but crucify the old definition of its soul to resurrect a more intelligible (naturalistic) one.

Yes that maybe true, but give the other room and time to do so, and if that doesn't happen, then respect that as you would want your beliefs to be respected.

(August 9, 2014 at 1:47 am)Chuck Wrote:

(August 9, 2014 at 1:40 am)Cato Wrote: What the fuck am I supposed to do with this?

Acknowledge science is in principle capable of trumping anything in everything. It's only a matter of advancing science to the necessary level.

I don't even think that is a necessary claim to make, and is a bit too presumptuous of the capabilities of the human brain IMHO. Instead, I would admonish: accept the inevitably of uncertainty, and acknowledge the only reliable--and therefore, reasonable--means for discovering the deeper truths of reality that demand our reverence; the scientific method, and its guiding, most triumph, philosophical principle, the fecundity of its practice.

---

(August 9, 2014 at 1:51 am)psychoslice Wrote: Yes that maybe true, but give the other room and time to do so, and if that doesn't happen, then respect that as you would want your beliefs to be respected.

In what Universe does ignorance of the world demand anyone's respect?

(August 9, 2014 at 1:47 am)Chuck Wrote: Acknowledge science is in principle capable of trumping anything in everything. It's only a matter of advancing science to the necessary level.

I don't mean to be patronizing; but, I think I should kiss you on the forehead and tuck youi in.

(August 8, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Jenny A Wrote:

(August 8, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Michael Wrote: Pickup. The point was simply that not everything in our lives is within the purview of science. No-one can live consistently with the view that only those things verifiable by science can be held to be true. Rather, science has a particular scope. Personally, I use it to investigate health and disease (and how we can best alleviate the suffering caused by disease). I don't use it to judge good from bad, for example. I love science, but I think those who try to subject everything to it misunderstand it.

I agree that no one uses science as the only method for action. Frankly the exercise would be exhausting. And I certainly don't choose my friends or pastimes based on science. Nor do I think science can establish good or bad.

But I do view the reasons I choose to do what I choose to do as natural. My moral choices may feel innate but they are informed by: instinct which is hereditary and actually innate and; culture, which also evolves and is taught formally and by immersion. If I want to know why I behave the way I do, or why my fellows behave the way they do, I don't fill in the gap with god. Instead I look at culture (which includes religion) and biology. Both the question of is there a god; and why do people believe in a god or god are ultimately scientific and historical questions.

The god hypothesis appears to be lacking in evidence. The Christian god hypothesis appears to be often at odds with the evidence. I do not entertain ideas at odds with the evidence long.

Jenny. You say the question of whether there is a God is a scientific one. What experiment do you think you could do that would test that?

Many scientists have worked on the presupposition that God exists, and that science serves to understand the natural world that God created. Science has clearly worked with both theistic and atheistic presuppositions. Indeed that has been the key motivation for many scientists. This, along with the fact that you can't test for God's existence by scientific experiment, (unless you can think of such an experiment) makes it pretty clear to me that the question of the existence of God is outside of the purview of science. The OP seems to make the mistaken, and logically flawed, leap then to the idea that God is incompatible with science (in the same way presumably that mathematics and poetry cannot both hold to truths), but generations of scientists would disagree. I am reminded of the old proverb 'those who say something can't be done should get out of the way of those already doing it' :-)

So, as a scientist and Christian, I love how science helps us explore 'creation', and have no problem with letting science inform me about all aspects of God's creation. There is no conflict in my own experience. (But I do accept that there are some forms of Christianity, who have a particular view of the bible, who do have problems with science. That form of Christianity is pretty rare in the UK and Europe, but I get the sense it is much more common in the US).

(August 9, 2014 at 1:54 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(August 9, 2014 at 1:47 am)Chuck Wrote: Acknowledge science is in principle capable of trumping anything in everything. It's only a matter of advancing science to the necessary level.

I don't even think that is a necessary claim to make, and is a bit too presumptuous of the capabilities of the human brain IMHO. Instead, I would admonish: accept the inevitably of uncertainty, and acknowledge the only reliable--and therefore, reasonable--means for discovering the deeper truths of reality that demand our reverence; the scientific method, and its guiding, most triumph, philosophical principle, the fecundity of its practice.

---

(August 9, 2014 at 1:51 am)psychoslice Wrote: Yes that maybe true, but give the other room and time to do so, and if that doesn't happen, then respect that as you would want your beliefs to be respected.

In what Universe does ignorance of the world demand anyone's respect?

Certainly not yours, your perfect little world.

(August 9, 2014 at 2:23 am)Michael Wrote: The OP seems to make the mistaken leap then to the idea that God is incompatible with science, but generations of scientists would disagree. I am reminded of the old proverb 'those who say something can't be done should get out of the way of those already doing it' :-)

That strikes me as either you misunderstood my words or otherwise are disingenuously changing them, though I won't assume that it is the case. So, please re-read my first paragraph and then allow me to correct you. I said there was nothing philosophically impossible with a scientist also being religious; he can subjectively compartmentalize reality from fantasy however he deems fit. However, no assumption that demands a religious framework is necessary to do science, and in fact, cannot be done as science. If it could, you could demonstrable God through scientific examination of purported miracles and revelations. Unfortunately, your evidence here tends to be fodder for a History Channel program, not a serious examination.

P.S. One last thought before I get on with the day. For me, the great Johannes Kepler nailed it when he described science as 'thinking God's thoughts after him'.

I wouldn't say all scientists must see science in that way (as I say, science works with both theistic and atheistic presuppositions), but I think Kepler poetically pointed to the beautiful compatibility that can be found between science and faith.

Have a good day everyone (or night if you are now in the shady part of the globe).