If science cant explain everything.. Scientific Materialism

[Tart]

I personally think we are all born with a wonder in our consciousness. Something that tells us that our reality might not be as what it seems, that there may be something mysterious and unexplained in our consciousness.. Something beyond our reasoning...

And we see this manifesting in peoples thoughts all the time... There are sooo many claims (even scientific claims) that go beyond our reasoning.. Like mind over matter, or infinite parallel universes, multiverses, aliens, ghosts, the afterlife, telekinesis, out of body experiences, past lives, the "matrix", mysticism, sorcery, magic, etc... We see people, who honestly wonder about the possibilities of many of these things, perhaps all of us have had these kinds of thoughts amusing the unexplained...

I mean even science, and scientist, and even atheist scientist have amused some of these possibilities, like the multiverse.. The multiverse (something that there is no evidence of) is a theory that came up in a rebuttal against God creating THIS universe... (Ill put a scientific video below that suggest "mind over matter" is a real thing)

But then when we come to the idea of God, all of these wonders turn away and people are certain that God cant exist, that miracle cant happen, that there is no after life, there is no soul, etc.... As soon as God gets into the picture, all these wonders that we are born with contemplating, are trashed as a means of mocking and discrediting anything out of the inexplicable, and everything boils down to cold hard science... This is Scientific Materialism.... This is why David Berlinski (atheist philosopher) says in his book "The Devils Delusion" that "scientific atheism is a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt"... It is this notion that nothing inexplicable exist, that everything is explained, and anything beyond explanation (like God) is mocked...

Its a frivolous exercise in intellectual contempt...

To me, this seems like a complete indoctrination of atheism... And is there any proof that there is nothing beyond these cold hard explanations? No... But it is assumed....

So if you play around with any of these thoughts, how come you discredit God automatically? If something like "mind over matter" is true, how can you say the divine is false? (example: video below)...

(Personally i think Christianity explains in perfectly.. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)

[youtube][/youtube]

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by Overcomer]

I have encountered some who simply don't want God to be real because they want to retain their autonomy,

If you mean people on this website, can you quote some? I can think I myself might come close to that, but only in the sense that if the bloodthirsty tyrannical warlord God of the Bible (Old Testament included) is proven to be real, then I would reject any call to follow/worship/obey him.

I have encountered some who don't believe for emotional reasons, not rational ones. They have been hurt in life and blame God for it even though it's always the failure and fault of human beings, not God.

Do Christians portray God as always being there, as being aware of, knowledgeable about all things? Yes or no?
Is God able to intervene in these situations, like a police officer is expected to intervene? Yes or no?
Your line of reasoning comes dangerously close to this Christian's
[YOUTUBE][/YOUTUBE]

The Pharisees give us a great example of this. They see Jesus raise Lazarus from the dead. Do they say, "Truly this man is who he says he is. We must bow down and worship him"? No, they say, "We have to get rid of Jesus as soon as possible because people are following him instead of us."

According to the Bible, anyway...not a biased source at all, no sir!
Anyway, doesn't that strike you as idiotic? Someone apparently demonstrates mastery over death itself...and the go to plan is to kill this guy? You might as well try attacking the game mod who has root access to the game, who controls who respawns and who doesn't.

Jesus could raise an atheist's brother from the dead right before his eyes and if that atheist doesn't want to believe in God, he'll find an excuse, however flimsy, not to.

Jesus could have answered my prayers back when I believed in him, and that would have served to continue my belief in him...but I guess he found an excuse not to...

Actually, it's precisely because God exists that there IS predictability in the universe. I find it amazing that people think this orderly world came out of disorderly chaos, randomly, by chance.

The origins of modern science rest in the fact that Christians believed that this world was created by a rational, orderly God and that, being made in God's image, they had rational, orderly minds to use in studying the world to understand it.

Okay riddle me this.
According to science, is it possible for a body to rise from the dead? Yes or no?
If you answer no, then this means for your theological beliefs to be true, that God would have to change the laws of physics/biology to allow Jesus/Lazarus to happen.

No, it can't. God's idea of sin NEVER changes because he NEVER changes. As to why God removed some of Israel's enemies, here's the reason:

Then God never created anything, if he doesn't change. He can't have changed from being the only thing that exists, to being a God who exists with a universe.

God's plan of salvation rested in the nation of Israel. Israel was always following pagan gods. If God lost Israel, he would lose his plan of salvation and, therefore, lose all of humanity.

What a pathetic god he is then. So flimsy a plan. How can an omnipotent God be thwarted so simply?

I assume you're referring to Abraham and Isaac. That whole episode was about one thing: Pagan nations sacrificed their children to their false gods all the time. God was showing us that he didn't want us to sacrifice our children to him, that he would sacrifice his son for us. As he provided Abraham with a ram, he provided us with a lamb named Jesus.

So why didn't he tell the child sacrificing nations to knock it off, in the exact same fashion as he did with Honest Abe?

Given your obvious dislike of the God of the Bible, why would he reveal himself to you? He doesn't force people to believe.

But when the Hebrews were dancing before a golden bull, his prophet Moses was free to slaughter them by the thousands...coincidentally not his brother Aaron who was the one who made the bull.
Funny that. God doesn't force people to believe in him, but when or if people believe in other gods (or don't believe) there's a whole host of punishments that are apparently waiting to be enacted.

He will reveal himself to those who come to him with humility, not arrogance,

Just like myself as a child...oh wait. No he didn't. I gave myself up completely to God and no answer.
Huh...I'm guessing what you're saying here is not true.

to those who are willing to understand who he is, what he has done and why he has done it, not someone who condemns him for actions that he condemns out of ignorance of God's motives and character.

Because "true" morality means giving a get out of jail free card to certain characters...

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by Tart]

The New Testament reveals things that only a God could know. Personal Revelations of ones self, of the world around one, and of God... They call this "Revelational Epistemology"...

So the NT contains details about Tart? About rikuoamero? About Demotts?
What's the name of one of the schools I attended?

Oh I know what you'll say. Obviously the Bible doesn't contain details like that. So what then are you talking about? It would have to then be talking about you in generic terms, like that humans are prone to doing wrong things...but then this blows your claim of "personal revelations" out of the water, doesn't it?

Lets start with the basics: Jesus as a personal savoir, that the spirit can be embedded within people, it reveals to us our sin, it reveals the truth about God's nature.

It boggles my mind why you consider this the 'basics'.

There is no better document to study, then the New Testament, when it comes to understanding the law,

Funny. I don't recall the Bible being considered a valid source of knowledge or testimony in court rooms today. I'll accept that witnesses can be sworn in with their hands on a Bible, but that's a personal affection, not something the court actually requires.

Certainly, Christianity is consistent with our reality, and even with your attitudes toward it...

You start with something that ought to be a conclusion. You said it yourself. It's the "basics".

[DeMotts]

Yes, i agree with the idea that things that arent proven shoudlnt be believed in... This is actually why i believe in Christianity so strongly, it has been proven to me beyond doubt... But "proof" is a relative claim.. That is, you dont know what i know...

Proof can definitely be relative. Would you agree that there are certain things which are objective truths due to their proof being accessible to everyone? Take something like I dunno, heliocentrism. That can be proven true by anyone who wants to (with a telescope and some math). Everyone can point to the same evidence because we are all observing the same phenomenon. So a heliocentric description of our solar system is an objective truth (unless you are solipsistic but I assume you are not). Would you agree that this and other observable truths are fairly objective? Things like "gravity exists" or "electro magnetism exists".

I think the supernatural claims that we didnt witness (you or I), are proven by the supernatural claims we can witness and experience... This would be like prophecy.

Atheists have difficulty taking prophecy as evidence because it's difficult to prove that it isn't just incidentally correct, or that the prophecy itself wasn't modified after events to more accurately describe an event that has happened. I know you will immediately think that I'm just hand waving away prophecy unfairly so I will admit that there is of course the possibility that it is in fact some sort of clairvoyance. But if we can't confirm with certainty who even wrote the gospels how can we trust prophecies? Don't all religions have prophecies - and wouldn't their adherents claim that their prophecies have been fulfilled? Why aren't any people still able to predict the future? Why haven't there been any in the last couple thousand years? What other supernatural claims exist that we can "witness and experience"?

I guess the main difference in our points of view is that you look at something like prophecy, and interpret it as fulfilled, which then justifies your faith in all the even wilder supernatural claims of the bible. If someone can tell the future, then surely it is possible to walk on water and rise from the dead.

I look at something like prophecy and I'm very doubtful about whether I can trust it. I don't know whether it was given as written, if it has been edited or changed, and if the event in question is even being interpreted correctly. There also a chance that it is a pure coincidence the the event being predicted happened (I could predict rain on this day next year and be right) or that I'm just seeing what I want to see. People make interpretations of Nostradamus all the time that you'd probably agree are just coincidences or bending of the original text to fit a current event. So why trust biblical prophecy?

If I don't trust biblical prophecy there's no reason to believe all the stories about resurrections and walking on water and living inside fish or whatever. You're starting from the assumption of biblical truth and using it to justify the rest of the bible. I'm starting from looking through a telescope to accept heliocentrism. I'm starting from the stuff that we can all agree is correct. That I suppose is why I tend towards the side of scientific materialism.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 65 by bluethread]

The "information at hand" consistently indicates that the universe operates on it's own, as an entirely natural process. The more information we gather, the more clear this natural process becomes. The problem for many people however, is that a universe that functions entirely on its own, for naturally occuring reasons, does not serve to satisfy their emotional needs. It does not make them special in the universe, and it does not allay their fear of death. Unfortunately, cold hard reality is under no obligation to satisfy anyone's emotional needs. And neither is science.

That is what it indicates to you, according to your philosophy. There is nothing wrong with that. However, you then speculate reasons why it might indicate something else to others, discount those reasons and conclude that you view is "cold hard reality". This is a classic straw man argument.

Wikipedia
Straw Man
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Let's consider the physical evidence. Science has used the facts that have been discovered about the functioning of the universe to develop things like computers, smartphones and essentially all of modern electronic technology. All of this technology is based on an understanding of how electrons react, and on the consistent operation of basic quantum mechanics. Basic quantum mechanics amounts to the realization that matter/energy interacts with itself in predictable ways that can be counted on to occur in the same way each and every time. Because the universe operates for reasons that are entirely natural, humans are able to harness these natural processes for our own purposes.

Science has given us working technology. Christianity has given us 2,000 years of empty assertions about final judgement, and the return of a man who lived and died 2,000 years ago. So which of us is actually constructing a straw man argument?

Again, you do not state the basis of scientific speculation, and claim that all religion is based on dogma, setting up another false dicotomy. Religion is a practice that folllows from a philosophy, some of which is modified. Science is a methodology that follows a prescribed pattern that is rigerously adheared to. Scientific Materialism is a philosphy that works under the dogma that if something can not be verified via this rigorous scientific methodology, it is pretty much unacceptable. I will not go as far as to say that Scientific Materialism is a religion. However, it does have it's dogma.

Merriam-Webster
Definition of science
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Science has nothing to do with philosophy. Science merely involves empirical observation. Science is all about the ongoing acquisition of knowledge, which not only requires the constant change and modification of current understandings, but presupposes the necessity of an ongoing change as our knowledge increases. Science strives for an increased understanding which necessitates modification of current explanations. The creation of the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider in Europe is a testament to the desire of science to better understand and modify the current understanding of the exact workings of nuclear physics.

Religion on the other hand requires the acceptance, on faith, of rigid conclusions which are themselves founded on assumptions and baseless assertions. Attempts to significantly alter or modify accepted dogma could, at one time, be the cause of one meeting his end in most unpleasant ways.

[bluethread]

Merriam-Webster
Definition of science
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study the science of theology
b : something (such as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge have it down to a science
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws cooking is both a science and an art
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Science has nothing to do with philosophy. Science merely involves empirical observation. Science is all about the ongoing acquisition of knowledge, which not only requires the constant change and modification of current understandings, but presupposes the necessity of an ongoing change as our knowledge increases. Science strives for an increased understanding which necessitates modification of current explanations. The creation of the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider in Europe is a testament to the desire of science to better understand and modify the current understanding of the exact workings of nuclear physics.

Religion on the other hand requires the acceptance, on faith, of rigid conclusions which are themselves founded on assumptions and baseless assertions. Attempts to significantly alter or modify accepted dogma could, at one time, be the cause of one meeting his end in most unpleasant ways.

Neither, as I stated, the strawman argument is your assumption that people are theists purely for emotional reasons and which you then attack as not fitting what you consider to be "cold hard facts". You have not established the former and, in the latter, are attributing too much to science. In doing so, you have created a false dichotomy between two disciplines that deal with different parts of the human experience.

Scinece can be used in colloquial fashion, as indicated in the first definition, to attribute everything that has been extrapolated from observation and experimentation to science. However, contrary to your contention, science does not merely involve empirical observation. The scientifc method involves initial hypothetical speculation, followed by experimentation and then observation, followed by repetition. Now, Scientific Empiricism goes beyond that to state that anything that can not be verifieed using that process is insignificant, at best. That is a philosophical assertion, not a factual one, that makes things like value, consciousness and morality insignificant to the Scientific Humanist. However, those things are anything but insignificant in the human experience.

Regarding theism, you are also misstating it. It does not necessarily have to be deductive. In can also be induced from obsrvation and generalization, as scientific hypothesis is. The difference is that it speaks to different things such as value, consciousness and morality, which can not be derived through scientific experimentation. Therefore, it is more dependent upon archetypes and reason, which Scientific Materialism rejects.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 75 by bluethread]

Scinece can be used in colloquial fashion, as indicated in the first definition, to attribute everything that has been extrapolated from observation and experimentation to science. However, contrary to your contention, science does not merely involve empirical observation. The scientifc method involves initial hypothetical speculation, followed by experimentation and then observation, followed by repetition. Now, Scientific Empiricism goes beyond that to state that anything that can not be verifieed using that process is insignificant, at best.

I don't think that's fair at all. Anything that cannot be verified simply remains in the first two categories of your four step process. There are plenty of hypotheses for which the technology or understanding does not exist yet. Einstein's theory of relativity was postulated in 1905 but the Ives–Stilwell experiment didn't occur until 1938, validating his speculations on time dilation. More recently the Higgs boson was theorized in 1964 but we didn't have the particle accelerators to confirm it's existence until ATLAS and the LHC. Were these theories insignificant until they could be confirmed? No, they were not.

That is a philosophical assertion, not a factual one, that makes things like value, consciousness and morality insignificant to the Scientific Humanist. However, those things are anything but insignificant in the human experience.

I'd argue that value and morality are human inventions that are subjective, but I feel that consciousness doesn't fit into this category as there is a substantial probability that it operates on a physical mechanism - we may not have the technology or understanding to validate that but that shouldn't make that theory insignificant. What if we develop the ability to create a neuron-for-neuron simulation of a human brain and it describes it's consciousness to us? What if we become able to perfectly map a human brain and manipulate an individual's consciousness? Would this advance not shed light on the nature of human consciousness?

There have been plenty of mysterious phenomena throughout history that seemed to be beyond our reach, and then they weren't. I predict consciousness is just another box to tick off that list.

[bluethread]

I don't think that's fair at all. Anything that cannot be verified simply remains in the first two categories of your four step process. There are plenty of hypotheses for which the technology or understanding does not exist yet. Einstein's theory of relativity was postulated in 1905 but the Ives–Stilwell experiment didn't occur until 1938, validating his speculations on time dilation. More recently the Higgs boson was theorized in 1964 but we didn't have the particle accelerators to confirm it's existence until ATLAS and the LHC. Were these theories insignificant until they could be confirmed? No, they were not.

Well, there you have it. If you consider those things "science", then "science" is not merely empirical observation. It is engaged in philosophy.

I'd argue that value and morality are human inventions that are subjective, but I feel that consciousness doesn't fit into this category as there is a substantial probability that it operates on a physical mechanism - we may not have the technology or understanding to validate that but that shouldn't make that theory insignificant. What if we develop the ability to create a neuron-for-neuron simulation of a human brain and it describes it's consciousness to us? What if we become able to perfectly map a human brain and manipulate an individual's consciousness? Would this advance not shed light on the nature of human consciousness?

That is philosphical speculation not "cold hard facts". Therefore, if science is only about "cold hard facts", as you claim, the use of the word "science" to refer to that is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst.

There have been plenty of mysterious phenomena throughout history that seemed to be beyond our reach, and then they weren't. I predict consciousness is just another box to tick off that list.

That is a statement of faith. When scientific "fact' does not explain something, one is then expected to just accept that it eventually will. That is science of the gaps.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 77 by bluethread]

That is a statement of faith. When scientific "fact' does not explain something, one is then expected to just accept that it eventually will. That is science of the gaps.

Bluethread, here's the difference between science of the gaps, and God of the gaps.

Can you point to just one time, that's it, one, singular, time where a God of the gaps was proposed and shown to be true via some sort of independent corroboration?

Whereas for what you might call science of the gaps...how many times throughout history has something been unexplained, unexplainable, and then as Demotts says
"There have been plenty of mysterious phenomena throughout history that seemed to be beyond our reach, and then they weren't."
Flight at one pointed seemed to be the province of the birds, of spirits, of gods. Now? I can travel to Paris in just an hour and a bit sitting down in a chair strapped to a hunk of metal that somehow magically soars through the air.
Huh...I wonder how that happened?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 77 by bluethread]

That is a statement of faith. When scientific "fact' does not explain something, one is then expected to just accept that it eventually will. That is science of the gaps.

Bluethread, here's the difference between science of the gaps, and God of the gaps.

Can you point to just one time, that's it, one, singular, time where a God of the gaps was proposed and shown to be true via some sort of independent corroboration?

Neither is shown to be true via some sort of independent corroboration. That is the point. They are both statements of faith regarding what can not be independently corroborated. Theists say that a deity created things such that they can be discovered through many means, one of them being the scientific method. Scienific materialists argue that all is matter and motion, and they can be discovered through the scientific method, yet they continue to explain some things by other means. One credits the universe to a deity and the other to matter and motion. That is the only difference.

[DeMotts]

I don't think that's fair at all. Anything that cannot be verified simply remains in the first two categories of your four step process. There are plenty of hypotheses for which the technology or understanding does not exist yet. Einstein's theory of relativity was postulated in 1905 but the Ives–Stilwell experiment didn't occur until 1938, validating his speculations on time dilation. More recently the Higgs boson was theorized in 1964 but we didn't have the particle accelerators to confirm it's existence until ATLAS and the LHC. Were these theories insignificant until they could be confirmed? No, they were not.

Well, there you have it. If you consider those things "science", then "science" is not merely empirical observation. It is engaged in philosophy.

Yes I do consider the theory of relativity "science" and I do consider the discovery of the Higgs boson "science". Both are falsifiable hypotheses that went through your four step process o' science. And of course science isn't exclusively empirical observation, it involves creative thinking and extrapolation of existing concepts.

Also just because something is a hypothesis doesn't make it pure speculative philosophy until the moment the results of the experiment are determined. A researcher trying a number of different approaches to cure a disease isn't engaged in pure philosophy when their proposed cures fail and moves suddenly into pure science once one works.

I'd argue that value and morality are human inventions that are subjective, but I feel that consciousness doesn't fit into this category as there is a substantial probability that it operates on a physical mechanism - we may not have the technology or understanding to validate that but that shouldn't make that theory insignificant. What if we develop the ability to create a neuron-for-neuron simulation of a human brain and it describes it's consciousness to us? What if we become able to perfectly map a human brain and manipulate an individual's consciousness? Would this advance not shed light on the nature of human consciousness?

That is philosphical speculation not "cold hard facts". Therefore, if science is only about "cold hard facts", as you claim, the use of the word "science" to refer to that is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst.

An unfalsifiable premise is philosophical. A falsifiable premise is scientific. A premise that is unfalsifiable but later becomes falsifiable moves from the philosophical into the scientific. A premise that expands on an existing scientific principle and seeks to refine or expand it is an extension of existing science.

I would say that we understand a great deal about the brain and neuroscience right now but much of it remains a mystery. I suspect it will not always remain so. I don't think it's "deceptive" to say that.

There have been plenty of mysterious phenomena throughout history that seemed to be beyond our reach, and then they weren't. I predict consciousness is just another box to tick off that list.

That is a statement of faith. When scientific "fact' does not explain something, one is then expected to just accept that it eventually will. That is science of the gaps.

Science of the gaps? The body of knowledge expands with each discovery. This is like saying "literature of the gaps" as new books are written or "music of the gaps" as more songs are written. Science will never be able to explain everything just as every possible book will never be written. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have an expectation that we will continue to discover. If you want to call that faith then you can do whatever you like. I call it a reasonable expectation based on past results.