Science

[RestlessSoul]

I simply withhold belief, until there is sufficient, or indeed any, evidence


Really, you jest surely, is guessing a method you find rigorously useful for basing beliefs or the lack thereof?

Well I don't have to undertake an empirical analysis of all available quantified data before making the simplest of decisions, if that's what you're asking. If I did that, I'd never get out of bed. And I'd never have learned how to walk, talk, or ride a bike.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no evidence that consciousness is a material phenomenon. It is just a presupposition.

There is nothing but evidence that consciousness is derived from the physical functioning brain? Stick a spike through a brain and watch it disappear, never to be seen again, in every single verifiable case. I lost my consciousness utterly on three separate occasions when under general anaesthetic, are you saying anaesthetic removes the soul? Where does it go, and why did it stop recording memories or even dreaming?

 

[Brian2]

Concerning near death experiences and out-of-body experiences proving heaven exists for example, ask yourself which is more likely?
- Some ill-defined metaphysical substance, not subject to the known laws of physics, interacts with atoms of our brains in ways that have thus far eluded every controlled experiment ever performed in the history of science;
Or
- People hallucinate when they are nearly dead.

People seem to miss the fact that the people have hallucinated what really happened and that not all NDE study is about people being called into the light.

 

[ChristineM]

We are all able to be deceived, including scientists and atheists.
I would not want to deprive you of your hat.

Verified, falsifiable evidence counts for a lot when debunking conspiracy theories

 

[Brian2]

Where to start, firstly presumption is an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability. Secondly we know consciousness and physical brains exist as an objective fact, so it is you who is making an unevidenced assumption when you had a supernatural element, Occam's razor applied - slash. lastly if a physical brain dies the consciousness disappears, every single time, ample evidence of causation, but when a brain is damaged it affects our consciousness, when a brain ages it also affects our consciousness.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Occam's razor shows nothing.
Our spirit is conscious of what our mind tells it. The spirit and body join to form the human. The presumption of no spirit in life leaves something that occam's razor should cut out,,,,,,,,,,,, how does dead matter become conscious. That is one for the too hard basket but it seems it is better to cut out the supernatural and keep the magic material universe.

 

[Brian2]

You'd need to evidence that claim with something more than bare assertions, biased rhetoric, and extremely dubious accusations of a scientific conspiracy.

Scientific false presumptions and errors is not scientific conspiracy.

 

[Sheldon]

God is not a thing to be dissected and studied.

That is true of all non-existent things as well, so a double edged claim, given the dearth of objective evidence for any deity.

I have seen the research and can understand the Bible in such a way that the flood and science agree.

Science does not agree though, so when you or whoever's woo woo pseudoscience you have swallowed, publishes and wins their Nobel prize and the Templeton prize, and receives the euphoric approbation of every ecstatic theist globally, I will duly acknowledge it, until then, ...

I have seen the errors that science has made in studying the Exodus.

No you haven't, Hitchens's razor applied, and the archaeologists responsible for this research were trying tot evidence Exodus, as they theists themselves. However they were also scientists in good standing, and had to admit when they failed to find a shred of archaeological evidence, and admit the obvious conclusion.

I have seen the errors made by atheists when interpreting the Bible.

Another bare assertion, I am minded to say so what? This bombastic non sequitur doesn't remotely evidence any deity, or address my post.

I can read the creation account in such a way that it fits evolution.

I can read Harry Potter in such a way that makes wizardry real, what does that establish exactly? Evolution is supported by all the scientific evidence from over 162 years of global scientific scrutiny, it doesn't archaic creation myths that bear no resemblance to the facts even as bizarre allegory.

Life evolves and science presumes no possibility that God intervened at times.

Science presumes nothing, not finding any evidence for something is not a presumption, and the scientific theory that both explains and evidences evolution, does not involve nor does it need, any unevidenced superstition.

When it comes to creation of life, something that God claims for Himself, science makes basic errors in presuming that it knows how it happened.

Science makes no comment at all about archaic creation myths, unsupported by any objective evidence, why would it. This scientific conspiracy against your beliefs is something else you've simply imagined, but is not remotely real. It's a type of no true Scotsman fallacy, some apologists use to dismiss science when it contradicts aspects of their beliefs.

 

[Brian2]

No.

The presumption of natural and materialistic is part of the methodology of science, I am told.

 

[Sheldon]

Well I don't have to undertake an empirical analysis of all available quantified data before making the simplest of decisions, if that's what you're asking. If I did that, I'd never get out of bed. And I'd never have learned how to walk, talk, or ride a bike.

Dismissing a claim based on a guess is obviously a pretty simple modus operandi, but didn't this discourse open with you decrying the idea that people do that, to unevidenced religious apologetics?

Myself I prefer to keep an open mind, but withhold belief from all claims until sufficient objective evidence is demonstrated for them.

 

[Brian2]

Again, no. Science examines data, and empirical evidence, and supernatural claims don't offers any. Science can't examine anecdotal hearsay.

It is true that science cannot study the truth of anecdotes, but as you have said, that is what science has done with the Bible. Maybe science has stepped outside it's parameters.

 

[Sheldon]

The presumption of natural and materialistic is part of the methodology of science, I am told.

I doubt that most serious scientists would express it that way. It is more likely that they cannot examine anecdotal claims, as they present no data or empirical evidence. Where such claims are made to influence the physical world, and have been examined, they always fail.

 

[Brian2]

No it's the other way around in my experience, throughout human history, people assume things have a supernatural cause, because we don't yet have a natural explanation. It is how miracles for example are defined.

miracle
noun

1. an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

Science makes no unevidenced assumptions, just examines the data.

So science has found mechanisms for things that used to be attributed to the supernatural only. We are smart.
But it is not smart to start assuming that this is possible with all things.

 

[ppp]

There is no evidence that consciousness is a material phenomenon. It is just a presupposition.

And as soon as you provide some evidence for the existence of a non material domain then I will add it to my list of considerations. As soon as you provide evidence of the Force, I will take that into consideration. Or Magic. Or alien mind beams. Or whatever.

But I am not going to seriously entertain an assertion that you cannot demonstrate in any way.

 

[Sheldon]

It is true that science cannot study the truth of anecdotes, but as you have said, that is what science has done with the Bible.

That's not what I said. I merely pointed out that parts of the bible makes claims that can be examined by science, and have been falsified, the Noah flood myth, and Exodus are two examples, the Genesis creation myth simply makes unevidenced and mysterious appeals to magic, and gets some basic facts wrong, and of course, we know that humans evolved slowly, appearing first in their current form roughly 200k years ago, which bears no resemblance to the biblical creation myth. It fails even as allegory, especially if its origins are claimed to be omniscient.

 

[Brian2]

Between evidence and no evidence, obviously?

So when science sees the brain operating when stimuli are presented, it assumes that the consciousness is a function of the body, specifically the brain. Science cannot study the supernatural so makes assumptions about the natural with no evidence except the naturalistic methodology.

 

[ppp]

I have seen the research and can understand the Bible in such a way that the flood and science agree.

There are not enough water molecules on earth for a global flood. Including water vapor and ice.

Where did the water come from? Where did it go?

 

[Sheldon]

So science has found mechanisms for things that used to be attributed to the supernatural only. We are smart. But it is not smart to start assuming that this is possible with all things.

As I said science makes no unevidenced assumptions, just examines the data. So again science makes no such assumption, all you have done is repeat your false and unevidenced claim, Here:

So things which are possibly supernatural are presumed to be natural and analysed as if they are, with naturalistic answers as the only possible answers.

You need to demonstrate sufficient and objective evidence that something is possible, you don't just get to assert it.

As I said it is theists who assume that the lack of a natural explanation justifies a belief in divine causation. Again miracles are even defined precisely using that language.

miracle
noun

1. an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

We know the natural physical world and universe exists for an objective fact, and we have sufficient objective scientific evidence for natural causes, you are adding a claim supernatural causation, so what objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this unnecessary and unevidenced addition? Again have you heard of Occam's razor?

 

[Brian2]

Not even remotely true, prizes have long been offered to anyone who can properly evidence the supernatural.

<HERE>

The Templeton foundation have a longstanding prize, of a million dollars US from memory, for anyone providing scientific evidence for anything spiritual or supernatural.

It is easier to see things as being supernatural than to properly (empirically) evidence those things.
But that prize is good rhetoric for atheists.

When you cite an example of consciousness that is not derived from live functioning human brain it might be, until then I am dubious about your claim.

I think I have mentioned OBEs in NDEs and the evidence from them. But you remain dubious.
It is obviously consciousness outside of a physical body. But you remain dubious.
That's OK, you're a skeptic, that is your job.

I think the bias is yours to be honest, and you're projecting. A scientist who was demonstrated to have shown bias in their work, would suffer irreparable damage to their reputation.

Who is going to suggest that a scientist showed bias because they did not say that their study could evidence the supernatural? Only religious extremists like me.
But of course I imagine that using the naturalistic methodology is no more than following the rules.

 

[Sheldon]

So when science sees the brain operating when stimuli are presented, it assumes that the consciousness is a function of the body, specifically the brain.

Do you seriously believe that is what a neurologist does? I am dubious that you believe that claim.

Science cannot study the supernatural so makes assumptions about the natural with no evidence except the naturalistic methodology.

No, you asked how does anyone know where to draw the line? I answered between evidence and no evidence, science need make no assumptions, merely go where the evidence leads.

 

[Brian2]

Again it's the other way around, where something is labelled as supernatural only because we don't as yet have a natural explanation for it. Miracle for example are actually are defined as "an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."

The bias is in the opposite direction to what you're claiming.

Defining miracles can only go on what science knows. To presume a miracle is not even when there is no scientific explanation is bias imo.

That's a claim, but it is not supported by any objective evidence.

As I have said, the presumption is that the brain is the cause of consciousness. It does not have to be supported by objective evidence. The statement is just true. It's the naturalistic methodology again.

That is another extremely dubious claim, since woo-woo is defined as "unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis, especially those relating to spirituality, mysticism, or alternative medicine." Again, you seem to be projecting.

Interestingly enough dead matter being conscious is "unconventional beliefs regarded as having little or no scientific basis,,,,,,,,,," but it right there as a presumption of science.