The "Two Causes" Solution to the Religion and Science Conflict

[psychoslice]

I'm not sure I understand. Science is interested in religion - just look at all the neurological research into religion.

Yes but is that the main stream of science, I don't think so.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes but is that the main stream of science, I don't think so.

Well sure, neurology and behavioral science in many other fields are mainstream. Religion and religious claims have been very important to mainstream science - after all there is nothing more mainstream than evolution.

 

[psychoslice]

Well sure, neurology and behavioral science in many other fields are mainstream. Religion and religious claims have been very important to mainstream science - after all there is nothing more mainstream than evolution.

Is it ?, I don't think so.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I'm not sure I understand. Science is interested in religion - just look at all the neurological research into religion.

I'm glad nobody has wired up my brain while I'm meditating.

 

[Bunyip]

I'm glad nobody has wired up my brain while I'm meditating.

Well I'm an amateur you understand - but I'd have a go.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Yes but is that the main stream of science, I don't think so.

Social psychology and psychology are very interested in understanding why religious claims are made. World geography is interested in religious distribution. But that's not the point.

Science may be more interested in understanding the natural world as opposed to . . . I guess, magic? But I am not a scientist. I'd like to hear everyone's views so I can be a little less ignorant than I currently am.

Claims have been made, premises have been assumed, and there seems to be no explanation forthcoming as to why an additional metaphysical postulation is even necessary.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Because science cannot explain how nothing became something.

At the moment...
I've also recently had a conversation with someone else how how science has never claimed that something came from nothing. On the contrary, everything came from everything.

It's beyond the purview of science. And if you cannot see that, then we will have to agree to disagree. We obviously reached an impasse beyond which any fruitful debate will not be possible.

I'm simply asking you to give a decent explanation of why this dichotomy that you have created needs to be accepted. Why limit science? Why presuppose theology and religion?
Walking away from a perfectly reasonable question usually says a lot about the probable response...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Making the distinction between the primary cause and secondary causes is the "two causes" solution to the religion and science conflict (a solution which was originally proposed by Scholasticism). The primary cause (a.k.a. God) is the domain of religion (metaphysics and theology). Secondary causes (natural causes) is the domain of science. (God as the primary cause works indirectly through secondary causes in order to accomplish the divine plan.)

Trying to impose artificial limits on science is a denial of science. What you're suggesting does nothing to resolve any conflict.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

At the moment...
I've also recently had a conversation with someone else how how science has never claimed that something came from nothing. On the contrary, everything came from everything.

I read something about that before, but I wish I could find/remember the source.

It may have been called the "assumption of the spontaneous nothing."

It is technically an assumption to suggest the universe had a beginning, and that "nothing" is a spontaneous outcome of a universe without a prime cause.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I read something about that before, but I wish I could find/remember the source.

It may have been called the "assumption of the spontaneous nothing."

It is technically an assumption to suggest the universe had a beginning, and that "nothing" is a spontaneous outcome of a universe without a prime cause.

I really think it's a flawed premise and argument to assume nothingness was ever a state of being.

There will probably be push back from the pious and atheist alike, as it seems counterintuitive. But, seriously, there is no evidence that there has ever been "nothing".

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I really think it's a flawed premise and argument to assume nothingness was ever a state of being.

There will probably be push back from the pious and atheist alike, as it seems counterintuitive. But, seriously, there is no evidence that there has ever been "nothing".

There are models in theoretical physics where the math supports a beginning, but if you are arguing metaphysics, then you would have to deal with this assumption more seriously.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well, we at least agree on one thing, namely, that science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing.

Your phrasing can be exploited, because nothing is simply 0 in science, and something is just 1. And it is perfectly possible to get 1 from 0, it is actually the only way to obtain 1, by deriving it from 0.

The real meaning in your phrasing is that science cannot explain "why". That is to say, when something is possible it may happen or not happen, and science cannot explain what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

 

[jonathan180iq]

There are models in theoretical physics where the math supports a beginning, but if you are arguing metaphysics, then you would have to deal with this assumption more seriously.

Certainly - but a beginning from what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the models that I know of, and indeed the majority of our thoughts on the topic, refer to a beginning only of this state of existence. The Big Bang, obviously, would be the genesis (forgive the allusion, I'm not spiritual or anything) of our current model of everything. But with data supporting expansion followed by contraction, that lends validity to the argument that this is all just a cycle of expansion and contraction which spans billions of years, eon after eon, undulating essentially forever and ever through space and time.

We exist on a certain planet, under certain circumstances, evolved to fit into our specific environment. The same is true of humans, animals, and plants. It's true of the solar objects contained within our solar system. It is true of extra-solar objects contained within their solar systems. It's true of any number of objects lost traveling through the interstellar expanse. It's true of everything. Why wouldn't it be true of the whole of the Universe?

Note that everything I'm saying is conjectural, but there could have been, possibly, hundreds of billions of previous versions of existence prior to this one. (I'm talking whole Universes here, not just you and me) Each with it's own "singularity" allowing no further study prior to that point in time. This might possibly be the first and only existence. This might be an offshoot or a wormhole from another existence. If we are talking about all of theoretical possibilities, the conversation would be endless...

I'm simply asserting that we have no evidence of the "nothing". All of this existence was, at one point, condensed, into an almost infinitely dense space. We basically know this as fact. But within that space was not nothing. Within that space was everything, obviously. When and where that space rested is an unknown. But the eventual expansion of that space into all of our space does not negate the fact that we already had everything.

Following that path back further, it's easy to understand why there would still be a question of where the Everything came from. For that, I don't have an answer. Then again, neither does anyone else.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Certainly - but a beginning from what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the models that I know of, and indeed the majority of our thoughts on the topic, refer to a beginning only of this state of existence. The Big Bang, obviously, would be the genesis (forgive the allusion, I'm not spiritual or anything) of our current model of everything. But with data supporting expansion followed by contraction, that lends validity to the argument that this is all just a cycle of expansion and contraction which spans billions of years, eon after eon, undulating essentially forever and ever through space and time.

We exist on a certain planet, under certain circumstances, evolved to fit into our specific environment. The same is true of humans, animals, and plants. It's true of the solar objects contained within our solar system. It is true of extra-solar objects contained within their solar systems. It's true of any number of objects lost traveling through the interstellar expanse. It's true of everything. Why wouldn't it be true of the whole of the Universe?

Note that everything I'm saying is conjectural, but there could have been, possibly, hundreds of billions of previous versions of existence prior to this one. (I'm talking whole Universes here, not just you and me) Each with it's own "singularity" allowing no further study prior to that point in time. This might possibly be the first and only existence. This might be an offshoot or a wormhole from another existence. If we are talking about all of theoretical possibilities, the conversation would be endless...

I'm simply asserting that we have no evidence of the "nothing". All of this existence was, at one point, condensed, into an almost infinitely dense space. We basically know this as fact. But within that space was not nothing. Within that space was everything, obviously. When and where that space rested is an unknown. But the eventual expansion of that space into all of our space does not negate the fact that we already had everything.

Following that path back further, it's easy to understand why there would still be a question of where the Everything came from. For that, I don't have an answer. Then again, neither does anyone else.

Total agreement here. I may have overstated. Theoretical physics creates mathematical models that reconcile our observations. There are many. . . some of those theories require the possibility of multiverses, branes where alternate realities collide, and 11 dimensions.

I would not discount any of the possibilities you suggested at all regarding the universe's supposed "beginnings."

 

[Gambit]

Not having an explanation you do not have either is not a limitation of science, it is why we do science. The argument you presented in the OP depends upon misasumptions you refuse to address.

Science is not LIMITED to what we know, you have it backwards. Science is about how we explore what we do not know. Science BEGINS with the limits of our knowledge - it does not end there.

Science cannot explain why there is something rather than nothing. Neither can it explain how something emerged from nothing. You either get that or you don't.

 

[Gambit]

You still haven't explained why science shouldn't be involved in primary causes, or what basis there is for theism having a monopoly.

I have already explained it. But I will explain it one more time. Science cannot explain how something came from nothing for that would clearly entail a supernatural event, namely, creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). If you don't agree with that assessment, then we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I have already explained it. But I will explain it one more time. Science cannot explain how something came from nothing for that would clearly entail a supernatural event, namely, creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing). If you don't agree with that assessment, then we will have to agree to disagree.

Again in more detail.
x
x, -x
x, -x, y, -y

starting from a symbol x
next the conjugate is derived -x
next a new symbol is derived y with it's conjugate -y

Where x is 0, -x is the 1 in boolean logic (0 or 1), and y is the proper number 1

noting that proper numbers do not apply to a system consisting of just x or x,-x, numbers only start to apply when the second symbol is created y.

and you can just start with both x and y, and then work back to only x

Which is in all probably not exactly correct, but one can see that for an actual mathematician it would be possible to find the correct solution of how to derive 1 from 0.

So again, the supernatural only accounts for what it is that makes a decision turn out the way it does

 

[Gambit]

Your phrasing can be exploited, because nothing is simply 0 in science, and something is just 1. And it is perfectly possible to get 1 from 0, it is actually the only way to obtain 1, by deriving it from 0.

The real meaning in your phrasing is that science cannot explain "why". That is to say, when something is possible it may happen or not happen, and science cannot explain what it is that makes the decision turn out the way it does.

Science can neither explain why there is something rather than nothing. Neither can it explain how nothing became something. (These are metaphysical and/or theological questions, not scientific ones.)

 

[Gambit]

Which is in all probably not exactly correct, but one can see that for an actual mathematician it would be possible to find the correct solution of how to derive 1 from 0.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Science can neither explain why there is something rather than nothing. Neither can it explain how nothing became something. (These are metaphysical and/or theological questions, not scientific ones.)

Second avenue of questioning then - why should religion and theology be given authority to make claims about the unknowable without having the precedent of data or fact to support their claims?

If they get sole possession of making wild guesses about things, on what authority to they make those claims? Their own bias? Their personal preference? The easily attainable Power of History?

What is it?