God as defined using science.

[blü 2]

You are a dualist in effect. To you subjectively only the objective is real, but that is something you do subjectively and you don't get that.

I get it very well. It's expressly present in the first two of my assumptions: (1) that a world exists external to the self (ie self on the one part, external world on the other) and (2) that our senses are capable of informing us of that world (ie again, self on the one part, external world on the other).

It's been under your nose from the start,

And as I keep pointing out, you agree with those assumptions, as you action in posting here demonstrates.

You don't get that " No, only the objective is objectively real." is subjective. That is it.

You're advocating hard solipsism ─ that the world is imaginary, purely a construct of the mind.

Yet that's incompatible with your conduct demonstrating your agreement with the first two of my assumptions.

Objectively real has no objective referent. You do know what an objective referent is, right?

Correct, because 'objectively real' is an abstraction. But if I refer to any objectively real thing ─ that cow, the sun, that cloud, my football team, the fresh air coming in my window ─ each of those has a referent with objective existence, is correctly called 'objectively real'.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course not. What is it about what I said that led you to think I meant anything like that?

So we have establish that in practice science and religion are both human behaviors. And they are different as for objective/intersubjective/subjective.
Well, I have learned anything new. What about you?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I get it very well. It's expressly present in the first two of my assumptions: (1) that a world exists external to the self (ie self on the one part, external world on the other) and (2) that our senses are capable of informing us of that world (ie again, self on the one part, external world on the other).

It's been under your nose from the start,

And as I keep pointing out, you agree with those assumptions, as you action in posting here demonstrates.
You're advocating hard solipsism ─ that the world is imaginary, purely a construct of the mind.

Yet that's incompatible with your conduct demonstrating your agreement with the first two of my assumptions.
Correct, because 'objectively real' is an abstraction. But if I refer to any objectively real thing ─ that cow, the sun, that cloud, my football team, the fresh air coming in my window ─ each of those has a referent with objective existence, is correctly called 'objectively real'.

You really don't understand solipsism. I am not an ontological solipsist. I am another kind of solipsist.

 

[blü 2]

You really don't understand solipsism. I am not an ontological solipsist. I am another kind of solipsist.

You're saying that objective reality doesn't exist. For you, all the things I say have objective existence are, like me, like your computer, like RF, merely things your own brain has constructed.

That's solipsism, pure and simple.

And at the same time, you contradict yourself by posting here, showing that you indeed think a world exists external to yourself and your senses are capable of informing you of that world.

 

[ratiocinator]

So we have establish that in practice science and religion are both human behaviors.

Of course they are (when did I ever claim they weren't?), it's their subject matter that is different - one is about testable, falsifiable, intersubjectively verifiable things (the "objectively real world") and the other isn't. So in normal language, one is subjective and the other objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course they are (when did I ever claim they weren't?), it's their subject matter that is different - one is about testable, falsifiable, intersubjectively verifiable things (the "objectively real world") and the other isn't. So in normal language, one is subjective and the other objective.

Yes, we agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're saying that objective reality doesn't exist. For you, all the things I say have objective existence are, like me, like your computer, like RF, merely things your own brain has constructed.

That's solipsism, pure and simple.

And at the same time, you contradict yourself by posting here, showing that you indeed think a world exists external to yourself and your senses are capable of informing you of that world.

No, I don't. I do believe in the objective reality in itself. I even know that there is an objective reality in itself.

 

[blü 2]

No, I don't. I do believe in the objective reality in itself. I even know that there is an objective reality in itself.

Then what precisely are we arguing about? That some things exist only as concepts in brains and have no objective referent ─ like justice, 2, Mickey Mouse, perpendicularity and God?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then what precisely are we arguing about? That some things exist only as concepts in brains and have no objective referent ─ like justice, 2, Mickey Mouse, perpendicularity and God?

You really have to read some basic Descartes and Kant as for the evil demon and "das Ding an sich". If you don't want to, say so. But then you have to trust me, that I understand it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, existence is philosophy and so are self-evident and truth.. But what you claim, is not self-evident. Just be strong in your beliefs. You don't need truth and all that to believe in God.

Thank you, but Jesus IMHO IS truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you, but Jesus IMHO IS truth.

I accept that as your belief. I have another belief.

 

[osgart]

God is not a good hypothesis. After all you are looking for someone who is totally different then the reality we live in; God.

Science ignores and eschews all questions of intelligence in nature, dismissing it as irrational.

Trouble is everyone is irrational about ultimate existential questions. The answers sit beyond human rationale. Human rationality is a monkey in a cage.
Whether or not you are spiritual, religious, or physical, materialist and secular, you are a monkey in a cage with regards to rationality.

Science isn't philosophy where you can exercise human rationality. Science only improves from experimental evidence from observations tested. All these popular science spokespeople are moreso bad philosophers attacking religion claiming scientific explanation in the realm of religious questioning.

Science can only inform religion on knowable physical reality from observation and experiment. So we can safely say that all religious myth can not be taken literally. No big deal!

God is the realm of philosophy, in particular philosophy of religion. Science has nothing to say about that. So the whole science vs. religion debate is philosophy masquerading as truth of reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

God is not a good hypothesis. After all you are looking for someone who is totally different then the reality we live in; God.

Or I treat God as a place holder for objective reality in itself.

Science ignores and eschews all questions of intelligence in nature, dismissing it as irrational.

Well, there is intelligence in nature. You know humas

Trouble is everyone is irrational about ultimate existential questions. The answers sit beyond human rationale.

Correct

Human rationality is a monkey in a cage.
Whether or not you are spiritual, religious, or physical, materialist and secular, you are a monkey in a cage with regards to rationality.

We all are.

...
God is the realm of philosophy, in particular philosophy of religion. Science has nothing to say about that. So the whole science vs. religion debate is philosophy masquerading as truth of reality.

Well, truth is human, so there is no truth of reality. There is human's belief in truth about reality.

 

[halbhh]

It is simple, once you realize what it means that science is methodological naturalism and based on a set of assumptions for which there are no proof or evidence.

• Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.
• We can know nature.
• All phenomena have natural causes.
• Nothing is self evident.
• Knowledge is derived from acquisition of experience.
• Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

That is the definition of God as used by science. None of these assumptions can be proven because they run into Agrippa's Trilemma. In short as for the history of science as related to philosophy once it was realized that there is no Truth in practice, you don't have to hunt for Truth. You go with what appears to work and forget about the problems of epistemological solipsism, Descartes' evil demon and that rationalism doesn't work; and simply state what appears to work.

Now for those of you,, who want to have your cake and eat it too, you can't. Science is not about Truth and there is no proof possible for these assumptions. They are the basis for knowledge, but not knowledge, truth, proof or evidence themselves. That is what, it means, that science is methodological naturalism.
They also explain, how knowledge is cognitive or a model and thus the difference between the model and the landscape in the fundamental sense. In other words for the practical use of science, you explain your model of knowledge and what you find when you use that model, Truth or no Truth.

That is the dirty secret of science. It doesn't prove or otherwise shown that reality is natural. It assumes it. Now add the limitations in practice of science:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
And that includes that you can't with strong justification show, that religion is wrong, because science doesn't deal in that kind of wrong, you get a certain kind of non-religious person, who argues beyond science and ends up doing morality/useful/philosophy.

So for the set of non-religious people just as I have to "defend" the religious belief that is okay to eat babies, non-religious people don't have as a double standard to defend anything. Science is self-evidently True with Reason, Logic, Proof and what not and we don't go near that one, because science is scared. You can't point out that it in practice can't solve morality or useful and that it is limited in practice. Oh, yes and that the Big Bang is not a fact. It is one possible set of theoretical models.

Some people in practice can't differentiate between the philosophy of science and their belief that it is a fact, that reality is natural, physical and what not.
Now for those of you , who get this and know this. Fine! But it was never about you. It is about those who confuses methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism or overdo the usefulness of science.

Regards and love
Mikkel

Science is only and simply the effort to figure out how nature works.

While in classical physics, it was thought at one time (and many non physicists still would imagine) that simply and totally "Nature is orderly, and the laws of nature describe that order.". But, in modern times Quantum Mechanics has suggested that it could well be (still unknown, but looks very plausible) that at the heart of nature are random fluctuations, which at least to some people seem unlike what they imagine or expect from nature, as such randomness would strongly foreshorten (or destroy) the old clockwork Universe idea most people seem to believe from youth.

On a macro level, due to statistical averaging, large quantities of particles will still follow it seems an orderly and theoretically predictable (within a limited time scale) course, though in complex systems the calculation of that progression into the future is often beyond any calculating ability we have to date.

But quantum fluctuations could mean that there is also an absolute limit on predicting the future of a macro object, no matter how vast the calculating power available.

In short, your OP is...kinda unrelated to the actual situations in physics at least.

It might be related though to how some people view science.

It would be helpful though to keep that distinction between what science is -- only the effort to try to understand nature -- vs the unrelated actual viewpoints of individuals, where some might imagine science as different than it is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... Thank you for your answer ...

It would be helpful though to keep that distinction between what science is -- only the effort to try to understand nature -- vs the unrelated actual viewpoints of individuals, where some might imagine science as different than it is.

What science do, is a group of individuals, who use the same rules. It only tells us, how it relates to these humans' way of interacting with rest of the world. And. yes, that is an objective methodology, but humans are a part of nature and not outside nature nor is science outside nature. I.e. no observer independent knowledge. Or in other words, science is a part of how we as humans understand our relationship with the rest of nature and how we work as a part of nature.

 

[halbhh]

no observer independent knowledge.

That's a modern Quantum Mechanics viewpoint, that the observer and the object observed are unalterably intertwined, affecting each other, and there is even a viewpoint (not the only view) that there isn't any such thing as a reality fully independent/separate from the observer.

Example:
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html

 

[blü 2]

You really have to read some basic Descartes and Kant as for the evil demon and "das Ding an sich". If you don't want to, say so. But then you have to trust me, that I understand it.

I'm familiar with the ideas of Descartes; he first made me mindful of having basic assumptions, though his list and mine aren't the same. His ideas about dualism are untenable, but you can see what he was trying to do with the knowledge available to him. I'm also familiar with the ideas of Kant, and I disagree with his ideas of universals and Things as Such because I think they're vastly better understood as concepts and categories of concepts.

And you didn't tell me what we're arguing about.

You agree that there's a world external to the self.

You agree that our senses are capable of informing us of that world.

I take it you agree that reason is a valid tool.

I take it you know what a concept is, and that concepts are only found case by case in individual working brains.

I take it you can distinguish between your subjective self, the being that looks out through your eyes, as it were, and the objective world external to you, objective reality.

So what's the problem, exactly?

 

[blü 2]

God is not a good hypothesis. After all you are looking for someone who is totally different then the reality we live in; God.

You speak as though God were a singular entity. The evidence is very strong that each person's concept of God is different from anyone else's. Most Christians have no idea how the Trinity is supposed to work, for example, nor that the churches admit the Trinity doctrine is incoherent.

Science ignores and eschews all questions of intelligence in nature, dismissing it as irrational.

It's only dismissed because no examinable evidence suggests that the universe, as distinct from the individual animals in it, is purposeful.

Trouble is everyone is irrational about ultimate existential questions. The answers sit beyond human rationale. Human rationality is a monkey in a cage.

I'm not clear on what you mean. What qualities are you attributing to a monkey in a cage?

Science isn't philosophy where you can exercise human rationality.

Scientific method is a form of reasoned enquiry, and there's a reasonably coherent >philosophy of science<.

Science only improves from experimental evidence from observations tested. All these popular science spokespeople are moreso bad philosophers attacking religion claiming scientific explanation in the realm of religious questioning.

Do I understand you correctly? Science uses empiricism and induction, THEREFORE you can't use science to discuss religion, you say? If that's what you mean, doesn't it amount to your admitting that God is not real, not does not have objective existence? And things that don't have objective existence can only exist as concepts, or things imagined, in individual brains, no?

Science can only inform religion on knowable physical reality from observation and experiment. So we can safely say that all religious myth can not be taken literally. No big deal!

I'm glad we can agree on that much.

God is the realm of philosophy, in particular philosophy of religion. Science has nothing to say about that.

Here's W! on the philosophy of religion, subheading science. What do you disagree with?

 

[osgart]

You speak as though God were a singular entity. The evidence is very strong that each person's concept of God is different from anyone else's. Most Christians have no idea how the Trinity is supposed to work, for example, nor that the churches admit the Trinity doctrine is incoherent.
It's only dismissed because no examinable evidence suggests that the universe, as distinct from the individual animals in it, is purposeful.
I'm not clear on what you mean. What qualities are you attributing to a monkey in a cage?
Scientific method is a form of reasoned enquiry, and there's a reasonably coherent >philosophy of science<.
Do I understand you correctly? Science uses empiricism and induction, THEREFORE you can't use science to discuss religion, you say? If that's what you mean, doesn't it amount to your admitting that God is not real, not does not have objective existence? And things that don't have objective existence can only exist as concepts, or things imagined, in individual brains, no?
I'm glad we can agree on that much.
Here's W! on the philosophy of religion, subheading science. What do you disagree with?

I never claimed science was the only way of knowing something, but I don't believe in any God's of any religions.

Rationality in regards to ultimate existential questions does not offer anything of value that I have seen. On ultimate existential questions we are all caged monkeys. Absurdity in every world view.

The only place science can refute religion is in the area of myths taken as literal facts of history. All other general religious questions remain unanswered.

If anything science supports religion in general but my claim is that you can't get a definitive answer to affirm or deny general religious questions.

By the way the idea of an omnipotent God is pure fantasy to me. A naturalistic eternal intelligence and an unconditioned base reality that is eternal and self existing I have not ruled that out for myself.

 

[blü 2]

Rationality in regards to ultimate existential questions does not offer anything of value that I have seen. On ultimate existential questions we are all caged monkeys. Absurdity in every world view.

What is the alternative to reasoned enquiry when a question arises?

What is an example of an "ultimate existential question"?

All other general religious questions remain unanswered.

What is an example of a "general religious question"?

A naturalistic eternal intelligence and an unconditioned base reality that is eternal and self existing I have not ruled that out for myself.

I've never found intelligence as such in nature, only in particular working brains. What do you say suggests the universe is of itself sentient?