Depends on the philosophy...but try reading some Dennet, Pinker, or Churchland. There are definitely philosophers with scientific knowledge.jaydee said:
World's Leading Atheist Now Believes in God... Sorta...
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
Scientific theory comes from philosophy. Where universtities put it is irrelevant. All of science is philisophically derived.jaydee said:
If you mean there is certain philosophy behind science, I agree with you. But the traditional study of capital P Philosophy is not rooted in science, though it certainly is rooted in logic and reason. I'm not meaning to say here that I think philosophers are airy-fairy and unscientific, just that it takes a specialist in a particular area of science to interpret the results and implications of tests and experiments in that area. There certainly are philosophers that have impressive scientific credentials, and I guess you could argue that an insightful physicist like Hawking is also a philosopher.fluff said:
Watch what you say. N8 is watching you all.......
I'd have to agree with fluff on the categorization. It's a little bit of everything. Ethics belongs in the arts faculty, unless you're talking about how the evolved, then you might need to be in sociology or evolutionary biology.
Symbolic logic is mathematics. Then you have philosophy of science? Where to put that?
Symbolic logic is mathematics. Then you have philosophy of science? Where to put that?
Every academic field was once lumped into the broad category of Philosophy. I have taken several philosophy classes and I do on occasion think.. why dont we just ask someone who knows something about it?? Most philosophy now lies in logical consistency, but I think a problem may arise in that we are discovering more and more scientific facts that are counterintuitive. I am thinking about space and time bending under gravitational force and such things.
Nobody wants to talk abotu intelligent design?? I spent so long writing that post too....
Nobody wants to talk abotu intelligent design?? I spent so long writing that post too....
Well, the majority of biologists would classify ID under the "loon" category of theories.TheInedibleHulk said:.. why dont we just ask someone who knows something about it??
Nobody wants to talk abotu intelligent design?? I spent so long writing that post too....
For what it's worth, I'd put ID up there with the "Brain in a vat" issue. It's possible, but since there seems to be zero evidence, it's not something that I think about that often.
I know what you mean about the brain in a vat issue, even if it could be true, who gives a crap? However, to me epistomology is far less interesting than cosmology, since our cosmological views do have an effect on how we look at science, spirituality, and the universe. While it still might not have a direct effect on most people's lives, I still think it's more important than the "how do we know what is real?" question. A biologist is the wrong person to talk to about the brand of ID I'm talking about. I dont deny the theory of evolution, Im talking about a cosmological ID argument. Plus I'm afriad too many scientists are complete slaves to empiricism and arent willing to entertain any kind of idea about the spiritual world, even if it does makes sense.Silver said:Well, the majority of biologists would classify ID under the "loon" category of theories.
For what it's worth, I'd put ID up there with the "Brain in a vat" issue. It's possible, but since there seems to be zero evidence, it's not something that I think about that often.
Once again, no evidence.TheInedibleHulk said:
No ESP, no magic, no divine intervention, no psychics. Just us and the material world
... and no explanations for a great number of things... including how the conditions neccessary for life to exist came to be in the universe.Silver said:Once again, no evidence.
No ESP, no magic, no divine intervention, no psychics. Just us and the material world
We're getting there. How long has genetic engineering been around? Venter is working on making a synthetic bacteria right now, I read.TheInedibleHulk said:... and no explanations for a great number of things... including how the conditions neccessary for life to exist came to be in the universe.
Uh, we don't actually know the likelyhood of life evolving in any given situation. All we really know about is the Earth and the Moon, and we don't really know much about the Moon. Things that may be fossils of Bacteria have been found on Mars, but again, we don't know what they are. We have no idea how many intelligent or otherwise forms of life there are in our Galaxy. The assumption that life is somehow rare and special is currently seriously flawed.TheInedibleHulk said:
Consider this - only a few years ago, science assumed that volcanos and deep sea trenches were devoid of life - the conditions far too harsh, obviously, but now we know that there are bacteria that live in the intense heat of the volcano and a veritable plethora of deep sea life. In fact, so far, everywhere we take the time too look, we find life huddling away somewhere even in conditions we previously thought incompatible. We even have anerobic bacteria and organisms which make use of silicon instead of carbon as their fundamental ingrediant.
That life is somehow unlikely and special and therefore requires some sort of design to bring it about is a very flawed argument as we have no real evidence that it is, and we do have some, albeit extremely local evidence that suggests that life will find a way in some extremly 'harsh' conditions.
Secondly, if life requires intelligent design to evolve, who designed the first intelligence?
Have any of you ever done the boiling oil experiment? The laws of Entropy, whilst ultimately tending toward the energy of the universe dispersed evenly in it's lowest energy state, also provide some interesting detours - for example, and pertinently here, the higher the gradient of energy dispersal, the more complex the method of dispersal becomes. 'Life' is a great way to turn bulk amounts of many chemical compounds into lower energy varients of those states.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/EDUCATION/12/14/evolution.debate.ap/index.html
The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the lawsuit is the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. The two organizations are representing the parents in the federal lawsuit.
The Dover Area School District voted 6-3 on October 18 to include intelligent design in the ninth-grade science curriculum, in what is believed to be the first such requirement in the country.
The ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the lawsuit is the first to challenge whether public schools should teach "intelligent design," which holds that the universe is so complex that it must have been created by some higher power. The two organizations are representing the parents in the federal lawsuit.
The Dover Area School District voted 6-3 on October 18 to include intelligent design in the ninth-grade science curriculum, in what is believed to be the first such requirement in the country.
On the face of it that could be the biggest and least logical leap of deduction I have ever seen...Changleen said:
i think i saw the link here (?) but for those interested in this issue, the npr show science friday has an hour segment on this topic.DRB said:
http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2004/Nov/hour1_111904.html
click on one of the Archived Audio links in the upper right
I read four pages of this and everyone seems to on tangential wavelengths talking loudly to themselves. Basically, if you are waiting around for science to provide immutable proof of God's existence, you will either die first or experience a "change of heart" as you enter the final chapter of your life as Flew did. On the other hand, if you simply believe because that was what you were influenced to do without ever questioning, yearning and closely examining what it is at the core that you truly believe, may you be blissful in your existence. You will not ultimately find the answers you seek in either a rainforest or a bible exclusively, nor will it just "come to you" if you live long enough. In my personal estimation, faith is evolution and only through evolution can one really find faith.
Take my personal situation. I was born into an atheist household. As my parents' first child, though, I was baptized at my grandparents' insistence. Born later, my brother and sister were not, and they continue to be atheists. Although I went to church only about a dozen times(besides weddings and funerals) in my first 29 years, I always felt a spiritual tug and spoke to God whenever so moved. After I met she who is now my wife, I started attending her Lutheran church...and it helped me. It's not as if I all of a sudden "got religion"; it is that I was finally willing to sit through a service and *listen* without fidgeting and peering at my watch repeatedly. I unstopped my ears, quit with the "I-can't-hear-you-I can't-hear-you" and pondered what I heard.
I'm glad I did. I met many good people there who were-despite my apprension- very much like myself. We attend a "modernized" service with a band and less "high" ritual. I haven't absorbed all that I am exposed to, but it has helped open me up to other possibilities. Without any reservation, I can say that my family wouldn't have been able to make it to where we are today without the selfless love and support heaped upon us by both our old church family in Arlington and our new one in Frederick. I guess for me, that's what it distills down to- love. Love given without reservation, often anonymously and without hope of repayment. I still can't really comprehend it, but I now realize that I am not meant or capable to. Science is wonderful as a tool for viewing the coarsest grains of understanding, but I no longer expect it to unlock the mysteries of our universe. Love cannot be found on the perodic table of elements or refracted through an orbiting telescope.
Take my personal situation. I was born into an atheist household. As my parents' first child, though, I was baptized at my grandparents' insistence. Born later, my brother and sister were not, and they continue to be atheists. Although I went to church only about a dozen times(besides weddings and funerals) in my first 29 years, I always felt a spiritual tug and spoke to God whenever so moved. After I met she who is now my wife, I started attending her Lutheran church...and it helped me. It's not as if I all of a sudden "got religion"; it is that I was finally willing to sit through a service and *listen* without fidgeting and peering at my watch repeatedly. I unstopped my ears, quit with the "I-can't-hear-you-I can't-hear-you" and pondered what I heard.
I'm glad I did. I met many good people there who were-despite my apprension- very much like myself. We attend a "modernized" service with a band and less "high" ritual. I haven't absorbed all that I am exposed to, but it has helped open me up to other possibilities. Without any reservation, I can say that my family wouldn't have been able to make it to where we are today without the selfless love and support heaped upon us by both our old church family in Arlington and our new one in Frederick. I guess for me, that's what it distills down to- love. Love given without reservation, often anonymously and without hope of repayment. I still can't really comprehend it, but I now realize that I am not meant or capable to. Science is wonderful as a tool for viewing the coarsest grains of understanding, but I no longer expect it to unlock the mysteries of our universe. Love cannot be found on the perodic table of elements or refracted through an orbiting telescope.
oh man, that's funny. "hey guys....i know your biggest leader just blew your whole ideal out of the water...but it's ok, he only believes in a "minimal God" ."N8 said:
classic.
We have a leader now? I wasn't aware. Damn, I'm behind on my non-fairy tale believer tithes...manimal said:
TheInedibleHulk said:.....
Plus I'm afriad too many scientists are complete slaves to empiricism and arent willing to entertain any kind of idea about the spiritual world, even if it does makes sense....
........and no explanations for a great number of things... including how the conditions neccessary for life to exist came to be in the universe.
the first quote answer itself. why is it wrong to be a complete slave of empiricism?? after all, arent weall compelled to be complete slaves of our senses, thus to only the tangible world????
you seem to be in the same point until i had an awesome chat with my rabbi, who happened to be quite versed in science and phylosophy. once you grasp that concept, no overlap anymore.
there is a fundamental difference between religion and science, a difference that makes them both not mutually exclusive.
science gives you the HOWs. HOW we can to the world, HOW matter is made of, HOW humans reproduce. religion on the other hand is a personal thing (the spiritual thing you talk about). its up to you and your religion or spiritituality the WHYs of things. WHY you came to the world, WHY matter is like it is, WHY humans reproduce and that kind of things. since this is a personal matter, its up for grabs and everyone can have a different interpretation of physical phenomena in the sake of their own WHYs, but the HOWs.... well HOWs, once proven, are not-negotiable til dis-proven....
Um, that's great if that's what you, personally believe, but the fact is that religion (that is, the Bible) does tell you the HOWs of many things, and some of those things are in direct conflict with what scientific theories indicate. Your statement is pretty simplistic - religion certainly does not only tell you the WHYs of things.ALEXIS_DH said:
In regards to that last statement, very few of the HOWs that have a conflict with the Bible (the major one being evolution) are proven - they are only theory. Accept 'em or don't, but don't pretend that they're the undisputed truth & will remain that way until "dis-proven".
Dude..........totally awesome postllkoolkeg said:
That is so cool your church took care of you guys, that's what it's all about, loving others (without an agenda mind you) IS how you love God.
binary visions said:
yup, they are simple. try to keep them simple so they dont overlap.
WHYs and HOWs should not overlap. in fact they dont.
about the "disproven"... well i take the best theory available as the closest to the truth, then discard it when something better comes along. in the meanwhile i go by the most likely theory.
ALEXIS_DH said:
What kind of response is that? Are you deliberately posting a non-sequiter?
the bible "explains" HOWs.. but its basically a the back-up reasoning for the WHYs, under the "reason" at reach at the time it was written.binary visions said:
What kind of response is that? Are you deliberately posting a non-sequiter?
in that line of reasonign, god created us (HOW), because he loves us (WHY).
you can say, god loves you (a reason on WHY you shuold do this or that), but that god created us doesnt comply with current science trends. the HOW of that reasoning seems to be mistakne, but that does not necesarilly takes the why out of question.
you're misusing "theory" as modern day creationists like to do. a theory, as alexis alluded to, is the explanation for a set of experimental data that best explains the observations. as such it is well tested, and nothing huge conflicts with it. creationism is a theory in the english-language sense, but not in the scientific sense: it is not the best explanation for the observed data because major aspects of these data confilct with it. intelligent design is also not a theory in the scientific sense because it is asserting something that cannot be proven or disproven by experiment.binary visions said:
Actually, I'm not misusing the word "theory" at all, as I understand what it means perfectly. In fact, if you re-read my post, I didn't even state that creationism was a theory in the scientific sense. I was simply questioning his use of the word "proven".Toshi said:
Regardless, "in the scientific sense" is a great phrase that disallows all religious argument. You're absolutely correct: "in the scientific sense" there are many holes in both creationism and intelligent design.
However, as they say, in the Lord, all things are possible - and the fact of the matter is, "in the scientific sense" is very similar to the religious argument of, "It's God. He can do anything." Both phrases excluding the other half of the argument - scientifically, creationism is invalid, and religiously, evolution is invalid (at the extreme ends, of course).
ok, i can see your intent now. but i still think your wording sounded suspect and creationistbinary visions said:
. yeah, nothing can be "proven" conclusively in science, but using that as an argument to say that science is on par with unsubstantiated "HOW" statements in various sacred texts is indeed a warping of the language. i'm not saying you're doing that, just speaking in general.
Toshi said:ok, i can see your intent now. but i still think your wording sounded suspect and creationist
The irony is that I'm actually very firm in my belief of evolution (even if I admit there may be more to the story), and am not religious at all. I have, as Andyman said in a post in another thread, a "classic Western mentality" that requires proof of everything.
However, I've had a lot of religious friends, a long term, live-in relationship with a religious girlfriend, and have read a bit on the subject & been to church a lot and I like to discuss it in the interest of furthering my own knowledge. Not to mention keeping an open mind.
I wouldn't really call it a warping of the language, incidentally, but what it is doing is comparing two different definitions of the word "theory". It's perfectly acceptable to call creationism a theory, however, it's not the same kind of theory as evolution.
i have a lot of religious friends, too, having gone to a jesuit high school. no creationists among them that i know of tho.binary visions said:
i agree that it's perfectly acceptable to call creationism a theory, but the problem is that creationists then make the leap, as in many midwestern and southern states where this battle is raging, to say that "if evolution is just a theory, and creationism is a theory as well, aren't they on equal ground?"
and _that_ is warping of the language. but i'm preaching to the choir here.