Science Really Does Point To God [Spirituality & Religion]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t60MBskbNuc] No Question About It.
61-69, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Does science point to god?
One [b]Author[/b] thinks it does.😏👍
But saying that science points to god is a misrepresentation of the situation.
All it shows is that the universe is complex and we're discovering that complexity and this gives Metaxis an excuse to trot out the logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity.
Question:
Why are you happy to accept science when it seems to confirm your beliefs but reject it when it doesn't?
The conclusions are arrived at in the same way using the scientific method.
That's a little self-serving, don't you think?
Either science is a trustworthy tool or it is not.
One [b]Author[/b] thinks it does.😏👍
But saying that science points to god is a misrepresentation of the situation.
All it shows is that the universe is complex and we're discovering that complexity and this gives Metaxis an excuse to trot out the logical fallacy known as an argument from incredulity.
Question:
Why are you happy to accept science when it seems to confirm your beliefs but reject it when it doesn't?
The conclusions are arrived at in the same way using the scientific method.
That's a little self-serving, don't you think?
Either science is a trustworthy tool or it is not.
1-25 of 46
This message was deleted by the author of the main post.
This message was deleted by its author.
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
@Pikachu [quote]One Author [/quote] Really?
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn7YQOzNuSc]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1oCQ6bZ_Ws]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GsoQRqnwV4]
Interesting.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn7YQOzNuSc]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1oCQ6bZ_Ws]
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GsoQRqnwV4]
Interesting.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
GodSpeed63 · 61-69, M
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@GodSpeed63 True.
There are scientists of all religions and also atheists.
They all do Science.
As scientists and History defines Science to be.
So, being atheist, religious, of one brand of religión or another do not prevent them to make science and neither maked their science better.
The daily practice of Science and it´s results shows this to be factually true.
What should not be tolerated is any intent to go back in time to put Science under the power of any kind of religión.
There was a time when people could observe, make conjectures and formulate HOW but NOT WHY kind of "laws". The WHY´s and interpretations were reserved to First Philosophy.
And was NOT Science.
And then, in a long strugle, Science was born, rised, grown and gave results ONLY after it was emancipated of the dark tutelage of Firts Philosophies and Religious thought.
Ask to the ones that DO Science, that one defined as above.
Ask to those scientists that are Jew, Christian, Muslims, Budhists, Taoists, Hinduists (you can complete the long list), agnostics, atheists, whatever IF they would TOLERATE to put Science under the management of THEIR OWN FAITH.
The
Ones
Who
Do
Science
Will
Say
NO WAY!
There are scientists of all religions and also atheists.
They all do Science.
As scientists and History defines Science to be.
So, being atheist, religious, of one brand of religión or another do not prevent them to make science and neither maked their science better.
The daily practice of Science and it´s results shows this to be factually true.
What should not be tolerated is any intent to go back in time to put Science under the power of any kind of religión.
There was a time when people could observe, make conjectures and formulate HOW but NOT WHY kind of "laws". The WHY´s and interpretations were reserved to First Philosophy.
And was NOT Science.
And then, in a long strugle, Science was born, rised, grown and gave results ONLY after it was emancipated of the dark tutelage of Firts Philosophies and Religious thought.
Ask to the ones that DO Science, that one defined as above.
Ask to those scientists that are Jew, Christian, Muslims, Budhists, Taoists, Hinduists (you can complete the long list), agnostics, atheists, whatever IF they would TOLERATE to put Science under the management of THEIR OWN FAITH.
The
Ones
Who
Do
Science
Will
Say
NO WAY!
Speedyman · 70-79, M
The incredible idiocy came, however, in the 19th century, when secularists tried to pit science against religious faith ignoring the fact that great scientists line Faraday and Maxwell had no problem with bring devout men of faith and brilliant scientists. You see the same idiotic tendency on this board where atheists immediately climb onto a bandwagon and try and prove that science contradicts theism. @CharlieZ
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman Please, refrain the dishonesty of debating with what I´ve never said attributing it to me.
Science haves no bussiness in refuting the existence of God.
Science haves no bussiness in proving the existence of God.
In fact, do not debate an assumption that is not an obstacle but neither need to be Science.
You mention some Christian scientists, and you are right.
Moreover, there are actually a lot.
And, as you know, there are as much scientists of several other religions.
Muslims, Budhists, Jews, Hinduists, and a long list of other faiths.
And also agnostic ones.
And also atheist ones, as well.
They have in common some relevant attitudes:
- They do Science as a collaborative joint activity, autonomous of their individual faith based believes.
- They do Science as autonomous of any specific political, philosophycal and cultural worldview and lifestyle.
- They do not and would not tollerate to make nor allow Science be ruled nor subordinated to any political, philosophycal and cultural worldview or lifestyle. In that sense, is secular.
- They research the Universe from a bottom up perspective, as build up from natural causes and not the top down "logical necesity" of philosophy.
- They know that this perspective had given the results that Science had and haves. While religious philosophical thought gave no one.
- They know that the above said was posible, as Science itself, since and mainly because Science become autonomous from other authority.
So, to invoke the supernatural to explain the natural is pseudoscience.
And to try to subordinate Science to the religious or to political worldviews is dishonest anti Science.
Science haves no bussiness in refuting the existence of God.
Science haves no bussiness in proving the existence of God.
In fact, do not debate an assumption that is not an obstacle but neither need to be Science.
You mention some Christian scientists, and you are right.
Moreover, there are actually a lot.
And, as you know, there are as much scientists of several other religions.
Muslims, Budhists, Jews, Hinduists, and a long list of other faiths.
And also agnostic ones.
And also atheist ones, as well.
They have in common some relevant attitudes:
- They do Science as a collaborative joint activity, autonomous of their individual faith based believes.
- They do Science as autonomous of any specific political, philosophycal and cultural worldview and lifestyle.
- They do not and would not tollerate to make nor allow Science be ruled nor subordinated to any political, philosophycal and cultural worldview or lifestyle. In that sense, is secular.
- They research the Universe from a bottom up perspective, as build up from natural causes and not the top down "logical necesity" of philosophy.
- They know that this perspective had given the results that Science had and haves. While religious philosophical thought gave no one.
- They know that the above said was posible, as Science itself, since and mainly because Science become autonomous from other authority.
So, to invoke the supernatural to explain the natural is pseudoscience.
And to try to subordinate Science to the religious or to political worldviews is dishonest anti Science.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman "The incredible idiocy came, however, in the 19th century, when secularists"
Your asertion collides with documented History.
Science began about 400 years ago, WHEN and BECAUSE it got autonomous from the philosophic search for Absolutes.
When the focus went from "ragioni" to "causa" (in Italian because the bright explanation of Da Vinci, a predecesor anouncing future Science).
When researchers began to discard the reification of qualities (to make the appearance to be a thing, the adjective to be a substantive, the ressult to be a cause): so no more Platonic "Life" making things live, nor abstract "Redness" making things be red. But what was called "things in itselves" (Bacon, long before the confused Kant).
Of course, that no prevented scientists to be religious, as a lot of scientists are today. But as individual faith. While you will not find the description of not natural concepts or entities in the very formulation of their works.
That, about the Platonic ontology, but also…
When Bacon put in it´s place "rationallity", as a tool, not as something in command.
That is, when "logical necessity" no more had to mean "material existence", because it is not the same and the first do not entail the second (non sequitur).
And, not a only a coincidence, from THEN (much earlier tan the XIX century), a certain activity that we now call Science, began to have tangible results.
As it haves them now.
Different than the complete lack of results of First Philosophies regarding the natural world. Had non 400 years ago and remain being non now.
Your asertion collides with documented History.
Science began about 400 years ago, WHEN and BECAUSE it got autonomous from the philosophic search for Absolutes.
When the focus went from "ragioni" to "causa" (in Italian because the bright explanation of Da Vinci, a predecesor anouncing future Science).
When researchers began to discard the reification of qualities (to make the appearance to be a thing, the adjective to be a substantive, the ressult to be a cause): so no more Platonic "Life" making things live, nor abstract "Redness" making things be red. But what was called "things in itselves" (Bacon, long before the confused Kant).
Of course, that no prevented scientists to be religious, as a lot of scientists are today. But as individual faith. While you will not find the description of not natural concepts or entities in the very formulation of their works.
That, about the Platonic ontology, but also…
When Bacon put in it´s place "rationallity", as a tool, not as something in command.
That is, when "logical necessity" no more had to mean "material existence", because it is not the same and the first do not entail the second (non sequitur).
And, not a only a coincidence, from THEN (much earlier tan the XIX century), a certain activity that we now call Science, began to have tangible results.
As it haves them now.
Different than the complete lack of results of First Philosophies regarding the natural world. Had non 400 years ago and remain being non now.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Your statement is ridiculous as science did not begin 400 years ago but millennia ago . The first modern scientists of course were all theists as they believed in the rational universe. As Kepler said we are thinking gods thoughts after him. People like Newton, faraday, Maxwell were all very strong theists. Galileo of course is someone who is trotted out by the atheist clan but of course he was a theist. His sin was not accepting Aristotle. Sorry mate but you've got to get your facts right rather than postulating. @CharlieZ
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman "Your statement is ridiculous" Adjectives change nothing. Relate, please, to well historical docummented facts.
"...you've got to get your facts right rather than postulating" I postúlate nothing that is not historically documented.
"...science did not begin 400 years ago but millennia ago" What you call Science, that one from millenia ago had a problem: Was Philosophy and not Science.
Conceptually, it shared almost nothing with contemporary Science, [b]had other assumptions, other objectives. Fictional assumptions, never reached objectives[/b].
In strong contrast, what was born 400 years ago, when and because got autnomous from philosophy, Science, [b]shares with actual scientificc activity the basic assumptions and same objectives, wich are reached by results[/b].
"The first modern scientists of course were all theists" Almost and perhaps all scientists then (400 years ago) where religious. A lot of them are religious now, together with agnostics and atheists. As practice of Science shows daily, unrelated to religión.
"as they believed in the rational universe." If by "rational" you mean "intelligible" you are right.
If by "rational" you mean that the quality something of being perceved as Red is "provided" from outside the thing by an external "Redness" and not by the physical wavelenght, you are wrong. What scientists research (now and then) is not "Life", abstract of what is materially living but the intrinsic physcial activity of living things.
The cognitive comes from the material and not the material from the cognitive.
You´ll find this in the documented research, old and new.
And you´ll find no refference to non natural factors in the specific formulation of theories and neither in those related to the previous research.
"As Kepler said…"
"Newton, faraday, Maxwell were all very strong theists."
"Galileo was…"
All of them strongly religious as individuals. As others today. Unrelated.
You will look in vain for religious based explanations in the specific formulations of their scientific works.
Relligious scientists do Science the same way and with same assumptions and objectives as agnostic and atheist scientists.
Non of them in search, while doing Science, of absolutes and neither non natural causes. And they neither find them.
But all of them searching and finding natural causes.
Shorter.
Galileo was Christian and his contenders were also Christians.
Galileo did Science. His contenders did not, but Philosophy.
So, Science and the philosophic assumptions of religión are not related, while religión do not preach about the natural Universe.
When it does, those assumptions and objectives clash.
And, in that task, Science gave and give results.
While religión and philosophic "rationalism" about Absolutes do not.
"...you've got to get your facts right rather than postulating" I postúlate nothing that is not historically documented.
"...science did not begin 400 years ago but millennia ago" What you call Science, that one from millenia ago had a problem: Was Philosophy and not Science.
Conceptually, it shared almost nothing with contemporary Science, [b]had other assumptions, other objectives. Fictional assumptions, never reached objectives[/b].
In strong contrast, what was born 400 years ago, when and because got autnomous from philosophy, Science, [b]shares with actual scientificc activity the basic assumptions and same objectives, wich are reached by results[/b].
"The first modern scientists of course were all theists" Almost and perhaps all scientists then (400 years ago) where religious. A lot of them are religious now, together with agnostics and atheists. As practice of Science shows daily, unrelated to religión.
"as they believed in the rational universe." If by "rational" you mean "intelligible" you are right.
If by "rational" you mean that the quality something of being perceved as Red is "provided" from outside the thing by an external "Redness" and not by the physical wavelenght, you are wrong. What scientists research (now and then) is not "Life", abstract of what is materially living but the intrinsic physcial activity of living things.
The cognitive comes from the material and not the material from the cognitive.
You´ll find this in the documented research, old and new.
And you´ll find no refference to non natural factors in the specific formulation of theories and neither in those related to the previous research.
"As Kepler said…"
"Newton, faraday, Maxwell were all very strong theists."
"Galileo was…"
All of them strongly religious as individuals. As others today. Unrelated.
You will look in vain for religious based explanations in the specific formulations of their scientific works.
Relligious scientists do Science the same way and with same assumptions and objectives as agnostic and atheist scientists.
Non of them in search, while doing Science, of absolutes and neither non natural causes. And they neither find them.
But all of them searching and finding natural causes.
Shorter.
Galileo was Christian and his contenders were also Christians.
Galileo did Science. His contenders did not, but Philosophy.
So, Science and the philosophic assumptions of religión are not related, while religión do not preach about the natural Universe.
When it does, those assumptions and objectives clash.
And, in that task, Science gave and give results.
While religión and philosophic "rationalism" about Absolutes do not.
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Pikachu He can´t know what Science is because he can not say what Science is not (To Define, from De finire: about the endings, the frontiers of something).
Not really academic but a good pragmatical criteria, rule of thumb, would be: What Science is not, can be found where Speedy and Hippy say it is.
Not really academic but a good pragmatical criteria, rule of thumb, would be: What Science is not, can be found where Speedy and Hippy say it is.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
I think it's you who doesn't know what sciences but I'm putting up a pretty poor pretence anyway. Your problem is you swallow the idiocrasy on the Internet and change it out without thinking about it . The fact is if you believe in a rational universe you obviously believe that it is be rationally created whether you believe in God or not . You see your problem is you are trying to replace God with silence but actually the laws of science come from God. Basically you don't know what you're talking about@CharlieZ
CharlieZ · 70-79, M
@Speedyman "Rational" is not a Word that describes it scientifically.
It may lead to asume, like Plato, that knowledge precedes and cause.
Even an early predecesor of scientific thought, as Leo Da Vinci, explained that the word "reasons" when about Nature (ragione) should not be taken as previous knowledge and neither purpose, but as material causes.
That is what Science research and what defines it.
So, "inteligible" describes it better tan "rational".
No amount of philosophic "rationalism" had ever provided good descriptions of the natural world. Just look at millenia of fruitless speculations.
While this, few centuries of scientific grounded research, gave us, humans, the partial provisory but fruitful knowledge we have.
It may lead to asume, like Plato, that knowledge precedes and cause.
Even an early predecesor of scientific thought, as Leo Da Vinci, explained that the word "reasons" when about Nature (ragione) should not be taken as previous knowledge and neither purpose, but as material causes.
That is what Science research and what defines it.
So, "inteligible" describes it better tan "rational".
No amount of philosophic "rationalism" had ever provided good descriptions of the natural world. Just look at millenia of fruitless speculations.
While this, few centuries of scientific grounded research, gave us, humans, the partial provisory but fruitful knowledge we have.
1-25 of 46