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]

[bluethread]

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.

Believers like to contend that their claims are rational and based on solid evidence. But when asked to provide this "evidence," believers often become strangely recalcitrant. Because if they do agree to provide the promised "evidence," the "evidence" they provide is invariably easily dispelled as erroneous or contrary to common observation and common experience. Claims which are contrary to common observation and common experience are commonly considered unsound or mistaken, FOR CAUSE. Unless of course, it can be physically demonstrated that common observation and common experience are misinterpretations of what is actually occurring.

But if you personally actually have "cold hard evidence" which serves to support your claims, then please enlighten us all with it. You will not comply of course, because you have no such "cold hard evidence," only insupportable claims. And we all know it.

That is the straw man argument. We are talking about believers in Scientific Materialism. That philosophy does not comply with "common observation and common experience" either. It requires as you state "cold hard evidence". However, large portions of life can not be supported by "cold hard evidence". Areas such as value, consciousness and morals, are necessary but scientifically unverifiable.

Scientific discovery may well begin as "hypothetical speculation." Einstein's breakthroughs began as what he termed "thought experiments." But this is not the way things necessarily occur. The concept of black holes, for example, first began as nothing more than a result of the math that occurred when considering the implications of relativity. Even Einstein was dubious of the result. But in spite of a general reluctance to accept what the math was saying, black holes are now considered one of the most important insights into the nature of the physical universe ever discovered. Scientific discoveries often astonish scientists, because the results can often be very different from what was predicted.

Mathematics is not empirical, it is philosophical, specifically rational. Once one does come up with a philosophical prediction, then one might be able to devise certain scientific experiments to verify that prediction in whole or in part. However, until something is scientifically verified, Scientific Materialism would say, that it can not be held as an active belief. Well, if it can not be acted upon, how is one to verify it scientifically?

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.

People have for millena looked at the universe and deduced that it must be the result of intelligent design. But that is not an accurate observation in exactly the same way that observing that the stars in the night sky go around the earth from east to west indicates that the Earth is the center of the universe. It is of course easy to understand how this "observation" could be popularly misinterpreted. But misinterpreted it was for centuries.

Yes, some do use deductive reasoning. However, I clearly stated that one need not do so. One can use deductive reasoning. Also, your two examples are not exactly the same. One speaks to a general philosophy and the other to a specific assertion. The first can not be tested, because it speaks to intelligence, while the second can be tested, because it speaks to movement.

We humans have been developing more accurate ways for accurately observing and gathering evidence on how the universe operates. Currently, it is observed that the universe consistently appears to operate for natural reasons. The engine that drives all change is generally referred to as quantum mechanics. Understanding how quantum mechanics operates has been allowing us to develop working technology based on the consistent application of the observed workings of the natural universe. If our understanding of the workings of the natural universe are completely wrong, we are going to be very confused as to why any of our technology actually works.

What are "natural reasons"? Quantum mechanics is an engine that drives things? I thought it was a mathematical theory that describes things. It sounds like you are implying that there is some actual machine that powers the entire universe. I never said that quantum physics needs to be entirely wrong. All that I said is that it does not speak to things like intelligence, which is a form of consciousness. Sure, some experiments have been set up that confirm certain parts of quantum physics. However, one can infer that, since we can discern patterns in the universe, there is more going on here than simply random matter and motion. Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that the universe must be nothing more than matter and motion.

[DeMotts]

[Replying to post 82 by bluethread]

bluethread I think you're construing our position as "we know everything, we know how everything works already". It's more like, this is what we know so far, and we're not going to assume that other stuff is true simply because a super old book says so.

No, I am contending that you are being disingenuous. I contend that you do a great many things because "a super old book says so".

Of course I do. I treat money like it has value because I have to use it to buy food. I obey made up laws because they afford me safety. I do all sorts of things because I'm a living organism and I want to continue being a living organism amongst other living organisms for a while longer. What I do doesn't have anything to do with objective truth. And ancient theological texts don't contain objective truth, they contain the cultural musings of an ancient culture that wanted to continue being living organisms so they made up some explanations and rules and wrote them down.

That said, I am not arguing for a particular "super old book", but for the value of mythology. Science can help answer the who, what, when and how questions. However, it can not answer the why question.

This assumes that scientific materialism cannot ever answer this question. This also assumes that another means can answer this question. This further assumes that there even is an answer to this question.

That is a value question and the driving force behind all of the other questions. Science can not answer that question and yet is driven by it. "Super old books", along with not so old books and current books have examined that question philosophically. Our societies are based on what is written in all of those books.

What our societies are based on has nothing to do with objective reality. Our societies are based on our human ability to share an imagined reality. Our societies are proof of our ability to construct imaginary orders for cooperatives purposes.

I have no problem with philosophy being used to examine the human condition, morality, and the question of existence. I have issues with theology as it assumes a higher being with a mind, motive, morality, and means to influence our reality. I see no reason to adhere to a moral standard derived from a human interpretation of a supposed divine influence, of which we have no proof at all.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 90 by bluethread]

A claim that 600 years of scientific discoveries verifies that all is matter and motion is no more valid. That is science of the gaps. One can also say that one can not see how all is matter and motion, when there is at least some evidence of order in the universe. In fact, a measure of order in the universe is an unstated presumption of Scientific Materialism. If there were no order in the universe, science would not work and science does not tell us why there is order in the universe.

It is not the job of science to explain WHY there is order in the universe. That is a completely irrelevant question as far as science is concerned. Science can tell us that there is order, via observation, then make predictions based on the order that is observed and the fact that this order appears to have been in place for as far back as we can determine. So it is not a blind assumption of Scientific Materialism that there is order in the universe ... it is an observation upon which scientific conclusions can be based.

This is also true of things like morality, which is inherent in all social animals or they would not survive. Morality does not come from any holy book or religion. But science has no need to explain morality to be "complete" or useful. It is a tool to understand nature and to put things into a framework that can be used, practically, to make predictions, to design better drugs, create new technology, etc. And it has had great success in doing these things to the exclusion of any other approach. Scientific Materialism is not a religion and it isn't based on faith in anything beyond what can be observed and measured. And it's validity (or not) certainly has no dependence on answering the "why" questions regarding things like morality, order in the universe, etc.

[William]

[Replying to post 93 by DrNoGods]

It is not the job of science to explain WHY there is order in the universe.

This is specifically why science is not the best tool for the job re metaphysical philosophy and there are different ways of interpreting this reality re the question 'why'.

That is also why it is bogus to demand evidence for the ideas which arise through philosophy based in metaphysical thinking.

The only time it is acceptable to demand evidence is when there is an actual claim which can be tested scientifically, and in that, the side demanding the evidence has to point out how this can be achieved using the tools available to do so.

Otherwise the demand for evidence is fallacy.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 94 by William]

That is also why it is bogus to demand evidence for the ideas which arise through philosophy based in metaphysical thinking.

I think you are confusing me with another poster. I didn't make any comments about demanding evidence in my post ... I only commented that science doesn't answer the "why" questions, or care about them.

[William]

[Replying to post 95 by DrNoGods]

I was not confusing you for anyone else, I was simply taking your statement and bouncing off that by fleshing its meaning out.

Which is why I started off with the words;

"This is specifically why science is not the best tool for the job re metaphysical philosophy and there are different ways of interpreting this reality re the question 'why'."

I was agreeing with your statement and adding further emphasis to that reality.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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.

Believers like to contend that their claims are rational and based on solid evidence. But when asked to provide this "evidence," believers often become strangely recalcitrant. Because if they do agree to provide the promised "evidence," the "evidence" they provide is invariably easily dispelled as erroneous or contrary to common observation and common experience. Claims which are contrary to common observation and common experience are commonly considered unsound or mistaken, FOR CAUSE. Unless of course, it can be physically demonstrated that common observation and common experience are misinterpretations of what is actually occurring.

But if you personally actually have "cold hard evidence" which serves to support your claims, then please enlighten us all with it. You will not comply of course, because you have no such "cold hard evidence," only insupportable claims. And we all know it.

That is the straw man argument. We are talking about believers in Scientific Materialism. That philosophy does not comply with "common observation and common experience" either. It requires as you state "cold hard evidence". However, large portions of life can not be supported by "cold hard evidence". Areas such as value, consciousness and morals, are necessary but scientifically unverifiable.

Scientific discovery may well begin as "hypothetical speculation." Einstein's breakthroughs began as what he termed "thought experiments." But this is not the way things necessarily occur. The concept of black holes, for example, first began as nothing more than a result of the math that occurred when considering the implications of relativity. Even Einstein was dubious of the result. But in spite of a general reluctance to accept what the math was saying, black holes are now considered one of the most important insights into the nature of the physical universe ever discovered. Scientific discoveries often astonish scientists, because the results can often be very different from what was predicted.

Mathematics is not empirical, it is philosophical, specifically rational. Once one does come up with a philosophical prediction, then one might be able to devise certain scientific experiments to verify that prediction in whole or in part. However, until something is scientifically verified, Scientific Materialism would say, that it can not be held as an active belief. Well, if it can not be acted upon, how is one to verify it scientifically?

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.

People have for millena looked at the universe and deduced that it must be the result of intelligent design. But that is not an accurate observation in exactly the same way that observing that the stars in the night sky go around the earth from east to west indicates that the Earth is the center of the universe. It is of course easy to understand how this "observation" could be popularly misinterpreted. But misinterpreted it was for centuries.

Yes, some do use deductive reasoning. However, I clearly stated that one need not do so. One can use deductive reasoning. Also, your two examples are not exactly the same. One speaks to a general philosophy and the other to a specific assertion. The first can not be tested, because it speaks to intelligence, while the second can be tested, because it speaks to movement.

We humans have been developing more accurate ways for accurately observing and gathering evidence on how the universe operates. Currently, it is observed that the universe consistently appears to operate for natural reasons. The engine that drives all change is generally referred to as quantum mechanics. Understanding how quantum mechanics operates has been allowing us to develop working technology based on the consistent application of the observed workings of the natural universe. If our understanding of the workings of the natural universe are completely wrong, we are going to be very confused as to why any of our technology actually works.

What are "natural reasons"? Quantum mechanics is an engine that drives things? I thought it was a mathematical theory that describes things. It sounds like you are implying that there is some actual machine that powers the entire universe. I never said that quantum physics needs to be entirely wrong. All that I said is that it does not speak to things like intelligence, which is a form of consciousness. Sure, some experiments have been set up that confirm certain parts of quantum physics. However, one can infer that, since we can discern patterns in the universe, there is more going on here than simply random matter and motion. Therefore, it is not reasonable to conclude that the universe must be nothing more than matter and motion.

I never claimed that people are theists for purely emotional reasons. But the emotional desire to believe that we were all created for a purpose, and that we don't really die is a very strong motivation behind the emotional need to believe. The physical evidence that believers claim explains existence is based entirely on unfounded assumptions and assertions which are easily dispelled. This has not always been the case of course. But the ongoing acquisition of knowledge has changed that.

It has been my experience that believers are shocked and dismayed by the very idea that our existence is not tied to any greater purpose, that we are simply creatures like the other creatures living on this planet, that like all living things we die, and death is the end of our existence. Who would want to believe THAT?

Which is why I always point out that I am not offering a better deal on a belief system. Atheism is not a belief system. Neither is science. Science is simply a method for understanding why things work as they do. We are stuck with the results we discover. Liking them was never a part of the bargain. I am simply acknowledging reality here. The concept of God was imagined into existence by ancient people to explain what was occuring around them. From observing nature in action they then extrapolated the concept that God/the gods must necessarily want something from us. From this concept came the notion that we were created for a purpose, and that we can influence God/the gods in a positive way through "right" actions, and in a negative way through "wrong" actions. Surely, it has been decided, if we perform enough "right" actions during our lives we deserve a reward.

And every bit of that rationalization was entirely made up. It is meaningless. At it's core the concept of the existence of God/the gods, is built on the belief that changes in nature around us are the obvious product of supernatural cause at work. And that simply IS NOT TRUE. Weather on the Earth, as with the other planets, is the result of massive amounts of positive and negatively charged particles from the sun striking and interacting with the positive and negatively charged particles of the Earth. QUANTUM MECHANICS! Certain of the quantum bits (the elemental bits that form matter) vibrate at frequencies that we arbitrarily refer to as either positive or negative charges. Oppositely charged particles are attracted to each other. Particles with like charges are repelled by each other. This creates an ongoing attraction/repulsion that is the engine that drives all change.

Understanding this process has given us all of our modern technology. But it has undermined the notion that things occur because there are gods. The gods are under no obligation to make your cell phone operate. The concept of supernatural cause is understandable only until one understands what is REALLY occurring and why. Ultimately superstition is the result of ignorance. It's time to outgrow that sort of ignorance.

Because knowledge is truth, and the truth has no obligation to satisfy anyone's emotional needs. And the truth is that you do not have and cannot provide any actual evidence that your religious claims and beliefs are valid. They are the result of MAKE BELIEVE. You were conditioned from your earliest memories to believe them, and you desperately desire them to be true.

All living things die. That is simple observation. There was a time before each of us existed, and there will be a time when each of us no longer exists. I am 70 years old, so I have entered into that time in my lifespan where stuff inevitably happens. I have no wish to die. But what cannot be changed, must be accepted. Anything else is make believe.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 97 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I never claimed that people are theists for purely emotional reasons. But the emotional desire to believe that we were all created for a purpose, and that we don't really die is a very strong motivation behind the emotional need to believe. The physical evidence that believers claim explains existence is based entirely on unfounded assumptions and assertions which are easily dispelled. This has not always been the case of course. But the ongoing acquisition of knowledge has changed that.

It has been my experience that believers are shocked and dismayed by the very idea that our existence is not tied to any greater purpose, that we are simply creatures like the other creatures living on this planet, that like all living things we die, and death is the end of our existence. Who would want to believe THAT?

I was born and raised a staunch atheist and remained so for several decades, and from my perspective the 'wishful thinking' argument cuts both ways, at the very least

I was very comfortable with the idea that life had no greater purpose- the simplest explanation is certainly usually the most tempting, but science has revealed that nature shows little regard for Occam's razor.

It's always easier to critique other people's beliefs rather than our own- which is why I remained atheist for so long. When a particular belief inherently refuses to even acknowledge itself as such... it becomes even more difficult to question!

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself'

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 97 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I never claimed that people are theists for purely emotional reasons. But the emotional desire to believe that we were all created for a purpose, and that we don't really die is a very strong motivation behind the emotional need to believe. The physical evidence that believers claim explains existence is based entirely on unfounded assumptions and assertions which are easily dispelled. This has not always been the case of course. But the ongoing acquisition of knowledge has changed that.

It has been my experience that believers are shocked and dismayed by the very idea that our existence is not tied to any greater purpose, that we are simply creatures like the other creatures living on this planet, that like all living things we die, and death is the end of our existence. Who would want to believe THAT?

I was born and raised a staunch atheist and remained so for several decades, and from my perspective the 'wishful thinking' argument cuts both ways, at the very least

I was very comfortable with the idea that life had no greater purpose- the simplest explanation is certainly usually the most tempting, but science has revealed that nature shows little regard for Occam's razor.

It's always easier to critique other people's beliefs rather than our own- which is why I remained atheist for so long. When a particular belief inherently refuses to even acknowledge itself as such... it becomes even more difficult to question!

'Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself'

As an atheist I don't HAVE beliefs as such. Belief is defined as:

Wikipedia
Belief
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
posting.php?sid=b939ac2565c9eb2c97c8aa0936cfd299

For example, I don't "believe" in the big bang theory. I accept the big bang theory as the most likely of the current explanations concerning the origin of the universe based on observation. I don't have any special emotional attachment to the big bang theory and would/will happily abandon it without regret if a better explanation were proposed.

Believers, on the other hand, tend to be very emotionally involved with the things they have imagined to be true, rather than observed to be true. NOT COINCIDENTALLY, the things which believers imagine to be true tend to come packed with imagined perks that sweeten the imaginary deal. Nothing about the big bang theory serves to move me to great displays of emotional fervor. The BBT simply appears to offer the best explanation for what is observed to be true. So I don't have beliefs. I accept certain explanations over others based on the current state of observable evidence.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 99 by Tired of the Nonsense]

As an atheist I don't HAVE beliefs as such. Belief is defined as:

Wikipedia
Belief
Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.
posting.php?sid=b939ac2565c9eb2c97c8aa093...

For example, I don't "believe" in the big bang theory. I accept the big bang theory as the most likely of the current explanations concerning the origin of the universe based on observation. I don't have any special emotional attachment to the big bang theory and would/will happily abandon it without regret if a better explanation were proposed.

Believers, on the other hand, tend to be very emotionally involved with the things they have imagined to be true, rather than observed to be true. NOT COINCIDENTALLY, the things which believers imagine to be true tend to come packed with imagined perks that sweeten the imaginary deal. Nothing about the big bang theory serves to move me to great displays of emotional fervor. The BBT simply appears to offer the best explanation for what is observed to be true. So I don't have beliefs. I accept certain explanations over others based on the current state of observable evidence.

That's good to hear! the Big Bang was coined as a pejorative term for the Primeval Atom by atheist Fred Hoyle- he considered it 'religious pseudoscience' for the theistic implications of such a specific creation event. So I think we agree that it's not a good idea to let preferences determine conclusions..

But considering that the BB is not an event we can directly/empirically observe, repeat, measure in a lab experiment - the wiki definition of belief seems to be applicable - it's a semantic argument really?

But likewise, if you consider atheism to be the best explanation for you currently, and are open to abandoning it, that's fine also. Many atheists stubbornly avoid the positive assertion altogether