Help me get this straight

[Zzyzx]

.
Correct me if any of the following are wrong in your case or in the case of Christianity in general

1. You (generic term) deny that a series of small changes can produce big changes over time (evolution and speciation) but accept that an invisible, undetectable "god" poofed the universe into existence.

2. You doubt the honesty and accuracy of scientists worldwide studying anthropology concerning the origin and development of humans but trust the word of unidentified religion promoters who wrote thousands of years ago claiming to know that humans were "created" in present form

3. You dismiss the conclusions of astronomers and astrophysicists who study the universe but accept the claims of preachers who do not study such things and accept the conclusions of ancients who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe

4. You trust the word of ancient writers who claim that dead bodies came back to life but doubt the word of forensic biologists who say that death is irreversible

5. You propose that scientists and Atheists conspire against religion but do not acknowledge the possibility that religion fanatics conspire to promote your favorite religion

6. You declare that thousands of proposed gods are false but claim to have chosen a favorite that you know is real (with odds of 0.0005 of being correct)

7. You claim that your God is infinitely intelligent but also claim to know about its desires and requirements or its thinking and emotions

8. You critique and criticize the work of scientists who spend decades in advanced study without having studied the subject yourself beyond high school or television level

9. You claim that Christians follow a superior moral code even though statistics on rates of incarceration, divorce and abortion by Christians demonstrate otherwise

10. You accept the benefits provided by science (including modern medicine) but reject any findings that conflict with your chosen religious beliefs

11. You reject tales of competing gods performing superhuman feats but accept tales of your favorite God doing the same things (performing "miracles")

12. You declare that competing religions are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that your chosen religion is real and provides "the one true path to salvation"

13. You realize that humans are imperfect / flawed / "evil" but claim they were created by an omniscient, omnipotent God who could do no wrong and make no mistakes

14. You reject information from geologists that indicates that the Earth is billions of years old but accept opinions of preachers and ancient religion promoters who claim it is thousands of years old

15. You claim that "science does not have all the answers" so religion must be true (God of the Gaps)

16. You demand evidence for anything that conflicts with chosen religious beliefs but furnish no evidence (beyond testimonials and opinions) that support those beliefs

Questions for debate:

A) Do any of the above make sense?

B) Do any of the above NOT apply to your religious beliefs / theological position?

[KenRU]

.

While I do accept the authors of scripture when they discus their areas of expertise (God's activity in history),

What, exactly, establishes the "expertise" of unidentified ancient writers concerning God or God's activities? There is no assurance that they knew any more about gods than anyone else. Their "expertise" may have been in promoting a religion.

Well, they're certainly more likely to be in touch with events 4000-2000 years ago than the average internet skeptic is. The chain of information is a heck of a lot shorter.

From an apologetic perspective, what the writers of the OT have to say can be vindicated if what the NT writers have to say about Jesus can be regarded as generally accurate. The details would take extensive argumentation, but this is neither the time nor the place for discussing them.

I don't think this argument furthers your point. I could just as easily say Book 7 of Harry Potter vindicates Book 1, because the events in Book 7 prove the events in Book 1.

That doesn't make Voldemort real.

[David the apologist]

But the fact of the matter is that the average person doesn't take part in any of these experiments, and therefore that their only source of information on scientific subjects is testimony. Moreover, most scientists don't have the time to double-check all of the testimony of their colleagues, and thus have to just accept them "on faith" as it were.

Yes, but scientific breakthroughs are made by challenging that testimony and coming up with better explanation. It's the engine of science. A scientists looks at the models put forth by his colleague, evaluates the data and "testimony," and either finds it consistent and sees no reason to doubt it at the moment when considering all previously proven science, or he uses that testimony to falsify it or some component of it, and makes a breakthrough. You're pretending that the two testimonies are similar and they aren't because of the process to which they are bound. You're not seriously stating that a testimony in a scientific journal, that does not break any known laws of science, is equally plausible as testimony in metaphysical belief, are you? That's preposterous, and you know that, if you're honest with yourself. An honest person would not call those two processes "faith."

When it comes to what happens in a colleague's lab, I do indeed have to take his report on "faith."

At any rate, "testimony" is relevant to establishing propositions of the form "X happened." Metaphysics works, not by cataloguing and analyzing observations, but by a different method entirely. It takes more general facts ("some things change," "some things stay the same") and makes deductions from them using first principles ("everything is itself and is not not itself").

You appear to be using the term "metaphysics" to refer to anything that cannot be established using the methods of natural science. Is there any particular reason for this idiosyncratic usage?

Well, seeing as the metaphysical does not lend itself to manipulation, we'll just have to make do with the non-manipulative methods of metaphysics.

As for "more precise models," metaphysics does involve competition of arguments. If a better argument can be found, metaphysical concepts can be abandoned. The real difference is that metaphysics draws on the data of daily experience first and foremost, taking that as its starting point and its most important source of illumination. Science is always looking for as-of-yet unfound data on the periphery of our epistemic reach. Metaphysics tries to make sense of our most immediate data (and thus our most certain data) first, then applies those insights to any new data that may come up.

If you think about it, that's actually parallel to what science does. Models rarely get replaced, but instead are fine-tuned. Relativity and Quantum theory came after classical physics, and the concepts and categories of classical physics ("energy," "momentum," "force," etc.) were retained and reapplied as necessary in order to do justice to the new data. Any model that doesn't replicate the predictions of classical physics when applied to normal conditions was rejected, and the concepts and categories of classical physics were refined, not rejected.

Nope. Science uses experiments to validate or falsify. Metaphysics doesn't, it simply weighs concepts as derived and defined by language.

And "concepts" and "language" weren't constructed in an attempt to reflect reality?

Science runs electronics and explains process accurately, metaphysics has no idea where it might be wrong or right because there is nothing to measure other than ideas as derived and defined by language.

And "electronics" and "process" and "measurement" aren't "derived and defined by language"?

There's a reason metaphysics gets called "first philosophy": it comes before all the other stuff, even epistemology.

You also haven't addressed my point that, when it comes to things we can't observe or manipulate, we have to make do with what we have.

]Oh really? What about when scientists use data to make models of, say, the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs? That's not going to be replicated. As much as the methods they used to construct the model can be duplicated, the correctness of the model cannot feasibly be checked against a fresh asteroid strike of comparable scale. And yet the model can be justifiably accepted as accurate.

And that's a theory up for debate. Science isn't asking you to believe it; science would prefer you not believe and come up with a better explanation, but that would just make for a better theory in that the new theory's model would, by default, use more accurate, known science. That event will never be proven or disproven, but it's CONSISTENT with science. Nothing remotely close to "faith" or "belief through testimony." A ridiculous suggestion.

My point isn't so much about "belief through testimony" as it is about "belief in spite of unrepeatability."

Let's strike a bit closer to the heart, now, shall we? Where did you get all of this information about the scientific method?

Any historical event is impossible to replicate, and any metaphysical thesis is impossible to test by manipulated experiment. But unless you can find a way to do history and metaphysics by "the scientific method," I don't see why that should be regarded as a reason to be skeptical of the deliverances of history and metaphysics.

Yes, historical events cannot be replicated, but you will notice I said "the same sort." When we do experiments with molecules and atoms, we get consistent results as proved by the computer you use about a million times a second. Metaphysics doesn't give us billions and trillions of proofs that are provided with a cell phone every day to the user. Metaphysics suggests, and no measurements can declare their suggestions true or false. Belief in a metaphysical idea is as good as belief in any invisible, undetectable (and therefore, irrelevant) idea.

Of course metaphysics isn't technologically applicable! Science was invented because Roger Bacon precisely to increase mankind's control over the forces of nature by means of the mechanical arts!

What if I judged science by its ability to tell me who handed me my diploma when I graduated from high school? Wouldn't it be valid to argue that science wasn't meant to do that? What if I judged science by its ability to explain how motion is even possible in the first place? Wouldn't it be valid to argue that science wasn't meant to do that?

When was the last time you got a cell phone out of Josephus or Tacitus?

When was the last time linguistics gave you a car engine?

Can't you see how many academic disciplines you're summarily dismissing by making technological relevance your criterion for veridicality?

I'm not saying that science is better than metaphysics.

Right, you're only saying that science can deliver veridical conclusions, whereas metaphysics cannot. In other words, you're only saying that science actually accesses truth whereas metaphysics does not.

I am saying that a certain level of belief of testimony in science is a completely different process than belief in metaphysical testimony. One allows for measurement that, so far, seem consistent with repeated experiment; the other doesn't allow any measurement because it is invisible and undetectable and no measurements can be performed making all hypotheses equally valid or preposterous. Science may rely on a form of "faith" until the idea is challenged by someone wishing to further define the principle, but only as an intermediate space between suggested hypothesis and design of experiment. IN metaphysics, there's nothing but faith which can be used on any idea--as humans prove across the globe.

Do you even understand what metaphysics is? Or how vital a solid understanding of metaphysical concepts like causality, substance, essence, modality, identity, persistence, teleology, and the like is to the interpretation of the deliverances of all of the special sciences?

Do you at least understand how you're conflating the issue of testimony (which is relevant to science and history) with the issue of metaphysics (which does not rely on testimony)?

[McCulloch]

When it comes to what happens in a colleague's lab, I do indeed have to take his report on "faith."

Actually, no. Repeatability is a keystone to the scientific method. It is not accepted in the scientific community until the result has been replicated.

[Danmark]

You appear to be using the term "metaphysics" to refer to anything that cannot be established using the methods of natural science. Is there any particular reason for this idiosyncratic usage?
....
Do you even understand what metaphysics is? Or how vital a solid understanding of metaphysical concepts like causality, substance, essence, modality, identity, persistence, teleology, and the like is to the interpretation of the deliverances of all of the special sciences?

Do you at least understand how you're conflating the issue of testimony (which is relevant to science and history) with the issue of metaphysics (which does not rely on testimony)?

That's it in a nutshell. Metaphysics does not rely on testimony, or empirical data or reality at all for that matter. Metaphysics was an interesting branch of philosophy which consisted mainly of people sitting around speculating on ultimate reality and being itself. As the scientific method developed it transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity, using actual experiments in place of speculation and 'philosophizing.' In fact that is why science began to be called 'science,' to distinguish it from the speculative whimsy of philosophy.

When it comes to understanding ultimate reality, all the metaphysics in the world isn't worth a single Large Hadron Collider.

[David the apologist]

When it comes to what happens in a colleague's lab, I do indeed have to take his report on "faith."

Actually, no. Repeatability is a keystone to the scientific method. It is not accepted in the scientific community until the result has been replicated.

As I have repeatedly emphasized, I can't be the one replicating all of the results. Even if I manage to replicate a few, we end up with a situation like this for the rest:

A: My experiment worked!
Me: I wish I could double-check those results, but my work on porphyrins is sucking up all my time.
B: A's experiment worked! I duplicated his results!
Me: I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it...

In practice, the vast majority of the members of the scientific community will be taking the vast majority of their scientific knowledge on faith. To the extent that what work they have done themselves builds upon the work of others, even their own experiments gain meaning from a matrix of propositions accepted on the basis of the testimony of colleagues.

[David the apologist]

You appear to be using the term "metaphysics" to refer to anything that cannot be established using the methods of natural science. Is there any particular reason for this idiosyncratic usage?
....
Do you even understand what metaphysics is? Or how vital a solid understanding of metaphysical concepts like causality, substance, essence, modality, identity, persistence, teleology, and the like is to the interpretation of the deliverances of all of the special sciences?

Do you at least understand how you're conflating the issue of testimony (which is relevant to science and history) with the issue of metaphysics (which does not rely on testimony)?

That's it in a nutshell. Metaphysics does not rely on testimony, or empirical data or reality at all for that matter.

Really? "Some things change" and "some things remain the same" weren't established by empirical observation?

The real difference between the data that metaphysics draws on and the data that science draws upon is that metaphysics' data comes from our most immediate experiences: our own lives as rational individuals socially situated in a community of other rational individuals. Science's data, on the other hand, comes from the periphery of our experience. Metaphysics' data is immediate and direct - and therefore may be regarded as extremely certain. Science's data, on the other hand, is mediate and indirect - and therefore may be regarded as somewhat less certain.

Combine this with the fact that science can only even access those aspects of reality that can be observed, measured, or controlled, and it becomes quite obvious where science belongs: it is a branch on the tree of knowledge, nourished by sap coming up from the trunk and roots of metaphysics. Perhaps science bears better fruit than the other branches. But the other branches still bear fruit. Perhaps it provides better shade than the other branches. But its shadow does not extend to all sides of the tree. Perhaps it is more conspicuous than the other branches. But cut it off from the trunk and it shrivels and dies.

[Danmark]

You appear to be using the term "metaphysics" to refer to anything that cannot be established using the methods of natural science. Is there any particular reason for this idiosyncratic usage?
....
Do you even understand what metaphysics is? Or how vital a solid understanding of metaphysical concepts like causality, substance, essence, modality, identity, persistence, teleology, and the like is to the interpretation of the deliverances of all of the special sciences?

Do you at least understand how you're conflating the issue of testimony (which is relevant to science and history) with the issue of metaphysics (which does not rely on testimony)?

That's it in a nutshell. Metaphysics does not rely on testimony, or empirical data or reality at all for that matter.

Really? "Some things change" and "some things remain the same" weren't established by empirical observation?

The real difference between the data that metaphysics draws on and the data that science draws upon is that metaphysics' data comes from our most immediate experiences: our own lives as rational individuals socially situated in a community of other rational individuals. Science's data, on the other hand, comes from the periphery of our experience. Metaphysics' data is immediate and direct - and therefore may be regarded as extremely certain. Science's data, on the other hand, is mediate and indirect - and therefore may be regarded as somewhat less certain.

What you have made a good case for is that metaphysics relies on subjective experience and science is objective.

I'll give you an example from the law. The judge gives an instruction to the jury that tells direct evidence and circumstantial evidence can both be accepted equally by the jury. Frequently a trial lawyer explains this to the jury:

"An example of direct evidence is when a witness testifies he saw it snow during the night. Circumstantial evidence is when some testifies that when he went to bed there was no snow on the ground and when he woke there was a blanket of snow for all to see."

Tho' the jury may consider both of these testimonies, I submit that the latter, the circumstantial evidence is more powerful. In the first case the witness may have been mistaken. He may have been dreaming, or deranged.

But in the second case it is easy to verify thru other testimony that many people saw that there was no on the ground the night before and that altho' they did not see it actually snowing, they saw snow in the morning on the same places that had been bare the night before.

This is an example of why science has replaced metaphysics as a superior way of knowing. The immediate experience of the individual is more suspect than what is determined by the scientific method.

[scourge99]

When it comes to what happens in a colleague's lab, I do indeed have to take his report on "faith."

Actually, no. Repeatability is a keystone to the scientific method. It is not accepted in the scientific community until the result has been replicated.

As I have repeatedly emphasized, I can't be the one replicating all of the results. Even if I manage to replicate a few, we end up with a situation like this for the rest:

A: My experiment worked!
Me: I wish I could double-check those results, but my work on porphyrins is sucking up all my time.
B: A's experiment worked! I duplicated his results!
Me: I suppose I'll just have to take your word for it...

In practice, the vast majority of the members of the scientific community will be taking the vast majority of their scientific knowledge on faith. To the extent that what work they have done themselves builds upon the work of others, even their own experiments gain meaning from a matrix of propositions accepted on the basis of the testimony of colleagues.

In the vast majority of cases, scientific experiment results do not produce extraordinary results or paradigm shifting results. The more mundane and the more the results conform to established knowledge, the less scrutiny they receive, and rightly so. For example, no one needs to reproduce or intensely scrutinize my experiments that show that gravity caused my pencil to drop at 9.8m/s/s.

But if i claim to have produced cold fusion, that is a different story:

[Danmark]

In practice, the vast majority of the members of the scientific community will be taking the vast majority of their scientific knowledge on faith. To the extent that what work they have done themselves builds upon the work of others, even their own experiments gain meaning from a matrix of propositions accepted on the basis of the testimony of colleagues.

I have to protest this false statement. It is part of an ongoing theme based on equivocation. As a logical fallacy equivocation occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase used in two different senses appear to have the same meaning in two different contexts. To the extent this is done knowingly, it is dishonest.

When a religious person says, "ultimately I do not know, but I have faith that God exists and that he created the world the way Genesis describes and that is why I don't believe the Earth is more than 10,000 years old." This is an honest statement of belief, of faith.

When he says "scientists also ultimately rely on faith when they say the Earth is billions of years old" he is employing the fallacy of equivocation and to do so knowingly is dishonest.

In the first statement "faith" is used to mean "I believe because of my religion and my belief in the truth of the Bible regardless of other evidence."

In the second statement he is saying this is the same as a scientist's belief. It is not. There are crucial differences. The scientist has learned that when the correct protocols are followed and have undergone peer review; when the results and methodology are published, and independent studies have verified those results he knows he can trust the reliability of those results. Even then, he does not make an eternal, absolute statement that he can state with 100% certainty that X is so. Certainly when it comes to evolution and the fact the Earth is much older than 10,000 years, the follower of science treats the fact of evolution and the fact of the Earth being much older than 10,000 years as a fact, but a fact in the sense that the odds are a billion to one that it is true, not an absolute.

On the other hand, when the religious person uses the word 'faith' he is talking about "an unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence." Justifiably, a Christian may reply "but I do have evidence to support my faith." And this is true, but ultimately he is using "faith" in the sense the author of Hebrews did in the first verse of chapter 11: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." This is qualitatively different than when a scientist says he has "faith" in the methodology and results of his colleague.

[Hatuey]

When it comes to what happens in a colleague's lab, I do indeed have to take his report on "faith."

Nope. You can repeat the experiment. If you get different results, you have ADDED to the amount of measurable data that must be input into the scientific process and have helped refine the work.

And "concepts" and "language" weren't constructed in an attempt to reflect reality?

Changing the subject may work on other people you debate here, but I consider it merely a cheap way to avoid marking the point made. The point was valid; you can choose any method you wish to ignore it, though.

And "electronics" and "process" and "measurement" aren't "derived and defined by language"?

Not at all answering my point. More avoidance behavior. If we called "electronics," "process," and "measurement," by other words with different letter combinations, the same things and ideas would remain and work in the same way.

You also haven't addressed my point that, when it comes to things we can't observe or manipulate, we have to make do with what we have.

LOL. My entire point is that we have no business making any determinations on what cannot be observed or manipulated. There is no reason to consider the invisible and undetectable as relevant. No need to "make do" with anything. We simply recognize that there's nothing observable or detectable despite ideas abounding.

My point isn't so much about "belief through testimony" as it is about "belief in spite of unrepeatability."

Reliance upon other proven branches of science makes some answers a billion times more likely than other assumptions. The best theory is the one that matches most of the data in the best way. If you or any scientist can show that there is a better theory that better matches most of the data in a better way, science will adopt that better theory. Have at it; that attitude is what drives science. Wonderful to try and come up with a better theory or by your investigation better refine the current theory.

What if I judged science by its ability to tell me who handed me my diploma when I graduated from high school? Wouldn't it be valid to argue that science wasn't meant to do that? What if I judged science by its ability to explain how motion is even possible in the first place? Wouldn't it be valid to argue that science wasn't meant to do that?

All these red herrings are stinking up the place, don't you think? These sorts of distractions muddy the waters rather than advance the debate. Just because science doesn't provide an immediate answer for every question, doesn't mean that it is weak or that assuming nontestable ideas are somehow relevant.

Right, you're only saying that science can deliver veridical conclusions, whereas metaphysics cannot. In other words, you're only saying that science actually accesses truth whereas metaphysics does not.

No. You should stop putting words in my mouth. It's dishonest debating. I've been very clear in my statements. If the best you can make of them is ridiculous exaggerations, then restating what I've already been clear on probably won't help.