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

[Bunyip]

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.

So what? Why would science need such an explanation?

 

[Bunyip]

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,

No, that does not in any way whatsoever infer 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.

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps some sort of explanation why science not having an explanation it doesn't claim to have anyway is somehow a 'limitation' into which metaphysics must be manifest? Science is a tool, why is it 'limited' to what it can explain? Science exists in order to explore what we can not yet explain.
How is science limited by what is in effect an infinite frontier of new knowledge?
Surely that is the very glory and goal of science, it's purpose - not a 'limitation'?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Science exists in order to explore what we can not yet explain.

Exactly. Meanwhile theism exists in order to pontificate about what we can not yet explain.

 

[Bunyip]

Exactly. Meanwhile theism exists in order to pontificate about what we can not yet explain.

It strikes me that claiming science is limited by what it can not explain is rather like saying that vision is limited to what we can see. Vision IS what we see.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

It strikes me that claiming science is limited by what it can not explain is rather like saying that vision is limited to what we can see. Vision IS what we see.

Science is honest, it admits when it doesn't know the answers. Theism is dishonest, it claims to know the answers when it doesn't.

 

[Shad]

Agreed. That's exactly what I stated in my post.



Please do not misrepresent my views. I have never argued for creationism or intelligent design.

My mistake then. Just that final causation is usually imposed upon science as a demand by believers and is a core part of the ID movement. If you expect final causation from science then the comment applies, if not then forget about it.

 

[Bunyip]

Science is honest, it admits when it doesn't know the answers. Theism is dishonest, it claims to know the answers when it doesn't.

I can't really agree, I think that for many theists science simply explains god's creation - it illuminates their understanding of it. I don't think it is necessarily dishonest. I would say that the answers it does provide are rather less useful, they tend not to really answer anything. Conversely sciences answers have demonstrated an astonishing utility.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I can't really agree, I think that for many theists science simply explains god's creation - it illuminates their understanding of it. I don't think it is necessarily dishonest.

I think theism is dishonest when it claims with certainty that "God did it". It's just a belief.

 

[Shad]

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.

You are imposing your theistic views on science. You believe there was nothing then something created by someone, God which is described as nothing by negative defination. Science has taken the position there was always something, never nothing. It would be like me saying "What created God" which completely misses the point that if God had a creator that creator would be God.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I have already explained the difference between efficient causation and final causation. Science attempts to determine efficient causes. It does not attempt to determine the final cause. (At least the physical sciences do not employ teleological language. But now I digress.)

Respectfully, I understand that you've defined them and suggest that they both exist.

What I'm saying about this is that the blog post you linked also implied they exist, and provided several analogies where one would see and understand the difference between the associated causes. If it's true that scientific inquiry cannot see an efficient cause in its study, then how do we know the results of such a study is limited to the correct cause?

Unlike those analogies, we truly have no frame of reference, and I think based on your understanding, you might even used that as a selling point. But without a frame of reference, it makes the results of any empirical data suspect by definition, because you have no idea if you have overstepped the domain of your inquiry or not. You can say science cannot understand efficient causes, that if you argument is true, we would have to redefine scientific inquiry to include metaphysical postulations in tandem.

It would good enough for Aristotle to consider both physical and metaphysical concepts, so why are we unwilling to talk about it here? How would you redefine scientific inquiry?

Let's have a discussion on how to determine efficient causes metaphysically. I would really like to know what the implication are.

 

[outhouse]

. "Some theist" is rather condescending, egotistical, and labeling.

Yet it is a truth you will have to deal with.

Fanaticism and fundamentalism are religious problems.

Any knowledge one possesses wasn't their own doing or ability or circumstances they created for themselves, it was given NOT by their choice.

What kind of position is this. I find it quite laughable.

MY knowledge was my doing.

YOUR statement is factually unsubstantiated rhetoric.

 

[outhouse]

Please do not misrepresent my views.

YOU have done just that with your twisted philosophy in your OP.

You created a circular statement from unsubstantiated rhetoric.

 

[Gambit]

I think theism is dishonest when it claims with certainty that "God did it". It's just a belief.

Stop misrepresenting "theism." The "ism" (like all "isms") in theism implies belief. (That's why they call it faith!) All worldviews (metaphysical positions) entail some kind of belief. (This includes atheistic materialism.)

 

[Unification]

Yet it is a truth you will have to deal with.

Fanaticism and fundamentalism are religious problems.



What kind of position is this. I find it quite laughable.

MY knowledge was my doing.

YOUR statement is factually unsubstantiated rhetoric.

I wasn't aware that you created yourself, gave birth to yourself, gave yourself life, a brain, a mind, and created knowledge itself, chose when and where you were born, what circumstances, what ability you possess, what access to knowledge you'd have, and what race, height, size you are. You would be supernatural! Can you defeat physical death too?

True or false: the laws that govern all matter apply to our bodies as well, made of matter, and no matter in the universe can be exempt from these fundamental laws of nature?

If the mind and conscious were physical, you would be in absolute control of NOTHING. If the mind and conscious were not physical, then you can say that "I gave myself this knowledge." It's not of a sound mind to twist and bend science, breaking its laws to justify ones free will and ones own ability. That would be unsubstantiated rhetoric and hypocrisy. Using the non-physical to substantiate your position.

Something one is going to have to deal with, even being completely unaware and unconscious of it, is that one dances to the same mysterious tune with a purpose as anyone else.
It is beyond ignorant to think one is an exception to the rule. Taking credit for ones position in life is unsubstantiated rhetoric and ignorance. . Unless of course one takes the position of of truth and combines non physical and physical.

 

[Gambit]

You are imposing your theistic views on science. You believe there was nothing then something created by someone, God which is described as nothing by negative defination. Science has taken the position there was always something, never nothing. It would be like me saying "What created God" which completely misses the point that if God had a creator that creator would be God.

No, that is not science. You're conflating methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism.

 

[Gambit]

You can say science cannot understand efficient causes.

I said science does NOT attempt to determine final causes! Efficient causes is what science attempts to determine.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I said science does NOT attempt to determine final causes! Efficient causes is what science attempts to determine.

I'm saying that under your system, metaphysics would have to be part of the scope of scientific inquiry to discern the difference between that which is physically caused and that which is metaphysically caused. Yes. . . That's ridiculous. Of course it is.

Your ad nauseam repetition of the conclusions of your argument without bother to deal with the argument itself suggests that you do not understand the argument at all. If you want to prove me wrong by dealing with the entire scope of my arguments on this thread, I'm all ears.

All worldviews (metaphysical positions) entail some kind of belief. (This includes atheistic materialism.)

You just contradicted the entire scope of your argument here. If Atheistic materialism considers only scientific inquiry as true, then they do not have a metaphysical position by your own definitions. You honestly don't understand it at all, do you?

 

[outhouse]

I said science does NOT attempt to determine final causes!

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Science tries to determine nature and everything in it. Your factually in error, by means of perverting the term "final cause"

 

[outhouse]

I wasn't aware that you created yourself, gave birth to yourself, gave yourself life, a brain, a mind, and created knowledge itself, chose when and where you were born, what circumstances, what ability you possess, what access to knowledge you'd have, and what race, height, size you are. You would be supernatural! Can you defeat physical death too?

You moved goal post. You now defined your statement more clearly. Try to do so when you make a statement.

If the mind and conscious were physical, you would be in absolute control of NOTHING

Factually unsubstantiated rhetoric.

. Taking credit for ones position in life is unsubstantiated rhetoric and ignorance

Ridiculous

While I had parents that raised me, I became my own man based solely on my own actions. Are you going to move goal post again?

Unless of course one takes the position of of truth and combines non physical and physical.

What is non physical outside imagination and fantasy and mythology???????????????????????????


You answer that and you have my attention.

If you don't it is because you cannot, and your only here proselytizing your imagination.