Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[polymath257]

So Ten is making an argument that if there was evidence for God then God would be part of science and not part of religion...and what he is also saying is that that other stuff that falls out of the domain of science has no practical use.

Thank you for the clarification. I can respect that position while at the same time it seems very counter-intuitive to me. Kinda of like if-the-only-tool-you-have-is-a-hammer kinda way. Most of life's experiences are outside the domain of science, such as the obligations we have to future generations and also only to ourselves, the honor we have for our ancestors, etc. The world of meaning and significance is closed to atheists, though I can tell that some of you still see the Light :-) 

I don't see statements about obligations to have truth values. They are opinions, even if they are very common opinions. There is nothing inherent in the universe that dictates them.

And, in contradiction to what you  realm of meaning and significance is very important to many atheists (as they are to me). I just don't see them as having *cosmic* or *eternal* meaning or *cosmic* significance simply because they make our lives easier in this little marble we call the Earth.

I mean, the "no evidence" bromide is so lame. I don't believe most of you are such sticklers about evidence for everything else in your lives. Something about other people believing in God, which is something normal and basic to many people,...something about people believing in God really bothers a "no evidence" heckler. There's a whole host of basic concepts that most normal people take for granted (like "the Past exists" and "Numbers are immaterial.") and for which there isn't the level of  "evidence" equal to the one demanded by sticklers about evidence for God. Let me tell you what I consider evidence. Evidence is that which is evident. And there are lots of things that are evident about the world...such as the multiple-realizability of meaning...that suggest a totality...a Cosmos, if you will (although the Gnostics called it the Pleroma),...that is much richer, and meaningful than mundane reductionist thinking allows. :-P

I don't consider numbers to 'exist' either. They are a good language to use to help us understand and model aspects of reality. But there is no 'number 2' that exists independently of pairs of specific objects.

And yes, I *do* question things like what it means for the past to 'exist' and what evidence we expect about such. I think about things like the mutability of the past and in what sense the future exists.

As for what is or is not 'evident': there are a great many concepts and ideas that have been regarded as 'evidently true' by many people that are *known* to be false. For ages, it was 'evident' that the world is flat (some people still consider that to be evident). Others considered it evident that heavy things fall faster than lighter things. People easily delude themselves into thinking that what they like is evident and what they dislike is impossible. That is how religions are formed.

Your 'multiple realizability of meaning' isn't a fact about the universe, but more a fact about the psychology of some people. And no, I don't consider that to imply any sort of 'totality, a 'Cosmos' (why is that capitalized any way?).

Meaning is something *humans* (and potentially other conscious creatures) assign to things and events. it isn't something inherent in those things or events. They are added on in our attempts to understand things more deeply. Sometimes that works and other times it does not. If you take psychedelics, you may well find rather trivial things to *feel* deeply meaningful. That doesn't mean that they are.