Heyo
Veteran Member
Um, yes. Science, before it was called science, was called natural philosophy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheisms and the supernatural
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, yes. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy This is an education site written by scientists and it admits the following:
"In this website, we use a practical checklist to get a basic picture of what science is and a flexible flowchart to depict how science works. For most everyday purposes, this gives us a fairly complete picture of what science is and is not. However, there is an entire field of rigorous academic study that deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. This branch of philosophy is handily called the philosophy of science. Many of the ideas that we present in this website are a rough synthesis of some new and some old ideas from the philosophy of science."
Here is an okay oversite from Wikipedia:
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
That you apparently don't know this, is your problem, not mine.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, there is always the problem of how science is build on axiomatic assumptions and how it is called methodological naturalism?
Apparently you don't know this. That is your problem, not mine.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But if it is independent of human consciousness, you can't know about it, because you know through your consciousness.
Further there is this about existence:
Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
In short "existence" is no different than god. You believe or not.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You are absolutely right. In the traditional, classical sense, the general term philosophy applies to the study of, or questions about, knowledge, reality, existence, values etc.
However, I think we can no longer conflate or equate those disciplines outside of science and it's use of the scientific method of inquiry, with those disciplines that adhere to the scientific method of inquiry. As such, I would propose that the term philosophy/philosophies apply to knowledge disciplines that do not use the scientific method, and the term science/sciences apply to those disciplines that do use the scientific method.
It is time to formalize this schism and treat philosophy and science as separate, non-equivalent approaches to seeking knowledge.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, as long as you understand that it is subjective as "However, I think..." and not as such science but an in effect ideological approach to make different kinds of knowledge.
So why do you want to do that?
ecco
Veteran Member
I think you would agree that our planet revolves around a star.
Science tells us that our planet formed around our sun billions of years ago.
There were no humans to be conscious of the existence of our sun.
By your logic, the sun did not exist before there were humans.
I know the sun exists.
I know I exist.
I know that god/gods/God do not exist.
So your assertion is meaningless.
I'm not about to bother reading a long philosophical commentary to try to substantiate your silly assertion. If you want to quote from the article and show how that supports your position, then do so.
ecco
Veteran Member
That's the level of your ability to have a discussion? You post the same link to a philosophical article three times and expect me to read it and go: Of, golly, mikkel_the_dane is just so right!
Really?
Can't you put your arguments into your own words?
PureX
Veteran Member
Ignorantly?
You wouldn't have to if people would just use the term properly. Religious unbelief is just religious unbelief. It's not atheism.
PureX
Veteran Member
Without imagination, and reason, the "actual world" would just be a succession of incomprehensible nerve signals flooding into our brains. Philosophy recognizes that 'reality' is fundamentally imagined, and reasoned, and that how we go about this profoundly effects how well we do at it, and in turn how effectively we will be able to navigate that ongoing succession of nerve signals entering our brains.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
You don't know that the sun exists. You assume it and it seems to work. Now you apparently in practice assume that the objective world is natural or any similar versions. That is an unprovable assumption/belief and I hold another belief.
Don't do metaphysics and believe that is provable. You are in effect a naturalist. I am a metaphysical non-naturalist.
Stop doing philosophy unless you understand how come that science is methodological naturalism and in effect a belief system.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/philosophy
"In this website, we use a practical checklist to get a basic picture of what science is and a flexible flowchart to depict how science works. For most everyday purposes, this gives us a fairly complete picture of what science is and is not. However, there is an entire field of rigorous academic study that deals specifically with what science is, how it works, and the logic through which we build scientific knowledge. This branch of philosophy is handily called the philosophy of science. Many of the ideas that we present in this website are a rough synthesis of some new and some old ideas from the philosophy of science."
This is an education site written by scientists. Here:
"The Understanding Science site was produced by the UC Museum of Paleontology of the University of California at Berkeley, in collaboration with a diverse group of scientists and teachers, and was funded by the National Science Foundation."
Here is more:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12
This part is relevant:
"
Science doesn't draw conclusions about supernatural explanations
Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won't help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality."
Now you don't seem to understand that this is not science:
I know that god/gods/God do not exist.
It is philosophy, because it uses a model of knowledge, which science doesn't use. You are confusing knowledge as axiomatic assumptions with some other form of knowledge.
"
Naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists.[47] The following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method.[48]
- that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers.[48][49] "The basis for rationality is acceptance of an external objective reality."[50] "Objective reality is clearly an essential thing if we are to develop a meaningful perspective of the world. Nevertheless its very existence is assumed." "Our belief that objective reality exist is an assumption that it arises from a real world outside of ourselves. As infants we made this assumption unconsciously. People are happy to make this assumption that adds meaning to our sensations and feelings, than live with solipsism."[51] Without this assumption, there would be only the thoughts and images in our own mind (which would be the only existing mind) and there would be no need of science, or anything else."[52]
- that this objective reality is governed by natural laws;[48][49] "Science, at least today, assumes that the universe obeys to knoweable principles that don't depend on time or place, nor on subjective parameters such as what we think, know or how we behave."[50] Hugh Gauch argues that science presupposes that "the physical world is orderly and comprehensible."[53]
- that reality can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[48][49] Stanley Sobottka said, "The assumption of external reality is necessary for science to function and to flourish. For the most part, science is the discovering and explaining of the external world."[52] "Science attempts to produce knowledge that is as universal and objective as possible within the realm of human understanding."[50]
- that Nature has uniformity of laws and most if not all things in nature must have at least a natural cause.[49] Biologist Stephen Jay Gould referred to these two closely related propositions as the constancy of nature's laws and the operation of known processes.[54] Simpson agrees that the axiom of uniformity of law, an unprovable postulate, is necessary in order for scientists to extrapolate inductive inference into the unobservable past in order to meaningfully study it.[55]
- that experimental procedures will be done satisfactorily without any deliberate or unintentional mistakes that will influence the results.[49]
- that experimenters won't be significantly biased by their presumptions.[49]
- that random sampling is representative of the entire population.[49] A simple random sample (SRS) is the most basic probabilistic option used for creating a sample from a population. The benefit of SRS is that the investigator is guaranteed to choose a sample that represents the population that ensures statistically valid conclusions.[56]"
In effect we don't share the belief that the objective reality is natural. And you can't show that the objective reality is natural.
That is why they are assumptions. You either assume them or use other assumptions.
That you haven't learned that, is your problem, not mine.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yes, existence has no objective referent.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Pick your fights. This one is lost.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
As @PureX wrote it and you quoted it, that is correct. Religious unbelief is just religious unbelief and it's not atheism.
Heyo
Veteran Member
It is atheism - it is not Atheism.
PureX
Veteran Member
What one "believes" is irrelevant, philosophically. What one asserts as the truth of (our) existence is what is relevant, and then how one arrived at this as being a valid assertion. Theism asserts that God/gods exist in a way that affects our (humanity's) existence. The theist asserting this idea as a truth of our existence is then expected to share the course of reasoning by which he determined this to be a truth of our existence. Atheism, then, is the reasoned rejection of this theistic assertion (and therefor, by default, assumes the counter-assertion that no God/gods exist in any way that affects humanity's existence). And this also with the obligation to share the course of reason by which this counter-assertion is being determined valid.
'Belief' has nothing to do with the idea being asserted, or with how the assertion is being deemed valid. We can propose and defend theism whether we 'believe in' gods or not. And we can propose and defend atheism whether we 'believe in' no gods, or not. Belief neither defines nor determines theism, nor atheism.
Last edited:
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, atheism is not about religion. It is about deities. You can be religious and an atheist.
Learn to use the correct words.
This is religion:
"Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life. ..."
religion | Definition, Types, & List of Religions
PureX
Veteran Member
That isn't possible, as science cannot make any determinations about anything beyond or apart from physical interaction. It's why humans engage in philosophy, and art, and religion.
Last edited:
Heyo
Veteran Member
Can you tell me what a computer is?