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

[Gambit]

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.)

Empirical science studies the nature and activity of secondary causes. Metaphysics and theology study divine action and the spiritual dimensions of the human being. These two perspectives should be different and complementary, but are not necessarily opposed. (source: "Causality, Primary and Secondary" by Artigas Mariano)

 

[Skwim]

Nice thought I guess, and I suppose it serves to wed science and religion in an orderly form, but it's strictly a religious construction that has no relevance in the secular world. Believe whatever you want (need).

 

[Rick O'Shez]

(God as the primary cause works indirectly through secondary causes in order to accomplish the divine plan.)

Which means that this model incorporates the assumption of God. So it's not really resolving the issue. And of course it's equating religion with theism.

 

[Sunstone]

I think you'd have a problem demonstrating that there is an efficacious deity.

 

[Bunyip]

Well sure, but why assume either that a God exists, or that it must be 'primary'? In what way must an imagined being be necessary or 'primary'?

 

[shawn001]

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.)

So were going back to

"Scholasticism is a method of critical thought which dominated teaching by the academics ("scholastics," or "schoolmen") of medieval universities in Europe from about 1100 to 1700, and a program of employing that method in articulating and defending dogma in an increasingly pluralistic context."

Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 2015?

I am looking for a God to believe in Gambit, what God is the one I should believe in? So I can start with a primary cause and go with God did it for answers. Any of them in particular or should I just believe in Millions of them as all true and all real?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Bunyip, post: 4250412, member: 52605"]Well sure, but why assume either that a God exists, or that it must be 'primary'? In what way must an imagined being be necessary or 'primary'?

Indeed. The model assumes God.

 

[shawn001]

A different solution to your

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

Which by the way isn't a conflict since science takes no stance on God. Its religions that have a conflict with science and scientists.

 

[shawn001]

As well as religions having a conflict with other religions and even their own religious interpretations.

 

[Ultimatum]

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.)

If I force mismatching jigsaw puzzle pieces into each other, have I really found the solution?
Why do we have to have a metaphysical, supernatural explanation for everything?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.)

As also explained by the monk Ockham. The existence of the soul is a matter of faith and revelation, and cannot be established by either empirical or even philosophical evidence.

Many historians see Ockham as one step in the direction of doing away with God. But this is totally mistaken, because in excluding evidence Ockham is validating subjectivity as distinct from objectivity. He was validating expression of emotion, and forming an opinion, which is why Ockham is also seen as a significant contributor to the foundations of democracy with it's constitutional freedom of opinion.

Democracy, freedom of opinion, makes little sense when every issue is objective, empirical, factual. If that is regarded as true, then one would put into the constitution as article 1 that all statements must be supported by evidence, or else there is punishment.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why do we have to have a metaphysical, supernatural explanation for everything?

Because some people can't cope without them.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

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.)

I don't think it changes much.

The question is: are secondary causes independent from primary causes?

If yes, then the deity you allow for is cold, distant, and is as far removed from reality as to be irrelevant.

If no, the all secondary causes are suspect and empirical evidence is irrelevant, because at any given moment a primary mover can alter it. There is no science, just magic.

Unfortunately, both options suggest the incompatability continues.

 

[Quintessence]

Doesn't really work once you step outside of classical monotheist theology and religions. In my religion, both "primary" and "secondary" causes would be gods.

Honestly, the main solution is to just quit treating storytelling as if it is supposed to be science. Why people even do that in the first place is just mind boggling to me.

 

[Gambit]

Nice thought I guess, and I suppose it serves to wed science and religion in an orderly form, but it's strictly a religious construction that has no relevance in the secular world. Believe whatever you want (need).

The relevance is to establish when religion or science is overstepping its bounds.

 

[Gambit]

Which means that this model incorporates the assumption of God. So it's not really resolving the issue. And of course it's equating religion with theism.

Yes, this model assumes that God is the primary cause . What else would be the primary cause, the creator? And it resolves the conflict by establishing separate domains.

 

[Gambit]

I think you'd have a problem demonstrating that there is an efficacious deity.

The bottom line is that primary cause is beyond the purview of physics.

 

[Gambit]

Well sure, but why assume either that a God exists, or that it must be 'primary'? In what way must an imagined being be necessary or 'primary'?

The issue is that whenever physics starts to postulating a primary cause, then it has overstepped its boundary and entered into the domain of metaphysics.

 

[Gambit]

So were going back to

You're always attempting to divert attention away from the subject matter at hand.

 

[Skwim]

The relevance is to establish when religion or science is overstepping its bounds.

Have you ever seen science encroaching on religion other than to present evidence or conclusions that may conflict with religious beliefs? On the other hand, religion has insinuated itself into the operations of science many times. However, I don't see establishing a primary cause and secondary causes accomplishes anything toward mitigating the problem. It's always been very evident when religion has overstepped its bounds.

But believe whatever you want (need).