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

[Gambit]

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

Because that is the domain of metaphysics. (If you're not interested in foundational issues, then I suggest you do not engage in metaphysical discussions. IOW, just focus on secondary causes and leave the primary cause to others.)

 

[Thief]

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'?

Spirit First.
otherwise (substance first) all life is chemically bound and terminal.

 

[Thief]

and science would have you believe substance at rest needs 'something' to set it into motion.
no big bang with God.

 

[Gambit]

I don't think it changes much.

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

No, natural agency is dependent on divine agency for its grounding.

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.

Efficient causation and final causation work in tandem.

 

[jonathan180iq]

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 because there are some questions on primary cause, Theology and Religion are awarded the sole ability to just make stuff up, as that's their domain. And science is only allowed to focus on secondary causes, having their freedom to question the made-up hokum of theology revoked, just because it's easier that way??

 

[Kuzcotopia]

No, natural agency is dependent on divine agency for its grounding.



Efficient causation and final causation work in tandem.

But they don't. If we claim that we can reasonably explain the laws of physics mathematically based on our observations, that's one thing.

But if efficient causes are a real thing, then we cannot assume that those observations are truly consistent. There are no grounds to make any predictions going forward, and we can't use the math to to produce theories about the past.

There is no more agency to act on reality if it has the potential to be changed. Claiming efficient causation makes final causation unpredictable. The idea may suggest that they work in tandem, but it's still at the expense of all empirical knowledge.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

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.

"Metaphysics" is a euphemism for religious belief.

 

[Bunyip]

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.

That has nothing to do with what I asked you. Why assume a primary cause, and why assume it to be god?

 

[Gambit]

Have you ever seen science encroaching on religion other than to present evidence or conclusions that may conflict with religious beliefs?

I have seen prominent scientists (e.g. Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking) with an atheistic agenda who have overstepped the boundaries of science by making this pretense that science can explain why there is something rather than nothing.

 

[Bunyip]

I have seen prominent scientists (e.g. Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking) with an atheistic agenda who have overstepped the boundaries of science by making this pretense that science can explain why there is something rather than nothing.

How is that a pretence? Science gives us a good explanation .

 

[Gambit]

So because there are some questions on primary cause, Theology and Religion are awarded the sole ability to just make stuff up, as that's their domain. And science is only allowed to focus on secondary causes, having their freedom to question the made-up hokum of theology revoked, just because it's easier that way??

The issue of a primary cause is a metaphysical or theological issue, not a scientific one.

 

[Bunyip]

The issue of a primary cause is a metaphysical or theological issue, not a scientific one.

So not really an issue at all then?

 

[Gambit]

Claiming efficient causation makes final causation unpredictable. The idea may suggest that they work in tandem, but it's still at the expense of all empirical knowledge.

Efficient causation and final causation work in tandem. Science is primarily based on studying efficient causation. But it assumes the regularities of nature that final causation makes possible.

Final causality too must be regarded as immanent to nature, and precisely because efficient causal powers are. For Aquinas, there is no way to make sense of the fact that an efficient cause A regularly generates a certain specific effect or range of effects B -- rather than C, or D, or no effect at all -- if we don’t suppose that A inherently “points to” or is “directed at” B as toward an end or goal. Immanent efficient causal power goes hand in hand with immanent finality or directedness; deny the latter and you implicitly deny the former, which is why Humean skepticism about efficient causality as a real, objective feature of the world followed upon the early moderns’ chucking-out of immanent final causes. (source: "Metaphysical Middle Man" by Edward Feser, Thursday, January 31, 2013)

 

[Gambit]

"Metaphysics" is a euphemism for religious belief.

Determining the boundaries between physics and metaphysics is problematic in science. It's called the "demarcation problem" in the philosophy of science.

 

[Gambit]

How is that a pretence? Science gives us a good explanation .

Because the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

 

[Bunyip]

Because the question of why there is something rather than nothing is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one.

How so? Surely it makes a perfectly valid scientific question. So why is it not a scientific question?

 

[shawn001]

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

Is your brain being sidetracked?

 

[shawn001]

There was an initial event and that is what scientists are studying.

 

[Skwim]

I have seen prominent scientists (e.g. Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking) with an atheistic agenda who have overstepped the boundaries of science by making this pretense that science can explain why there is something rather than nothing.

And you consider that to be encroaching on religion? Really? Sorry, but presenting alternative explanations to issues religion chooses to address is not encroaching. Believe it or not, but religion does not retain exclusive entitlement to speak on anything. Encroachment is religion denying the teaching of science issues it deemed heretical (the many condemnations of 1210–1277). Encroachment is religion banning the scientific findings of Copernicus. Encroachment is religion preventing Galileo from holding, defending, or teaching heliocentrism (he was charged with heresy). Encroachment is the Catholic church declaring in 1632 that the doctrine that the continuum of matter is composed of infinitely small "atoms" could not be pursued or taught. Encroachment is making it illegal to teach human evolution rather than Bible based creation in any state-funded school. Encroachment is trying to insinuate religious beliefs (creationism) into public school science curriculum.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The issue of a primary cause is a metaphysical or theological issue, not a scientific one.

No, it's a question that some want to make religious.