Question for Opposes Scientism Group

[help3434]

I admit that I don't know much about the topic but is seems like a straw-man. Can you give some examples of scientism as it exists today and explain why it is a problem?

[help3434]

God is the non-physical cause of the origin of the universe.
.

How do you know that?


People can make up all the "non-physical" attributes of God all they want, but a god that does not interact with the physical universe is a pretty useless, and not a god that many people would bother with. It is the supposed interactions that are within the scope of science.

[Jester]

Greetings once again.
I'll try my best not to ramble. Let's see how I do...

You are the one that said that science does not study the temporal first cause of the universe, and I replied by saying that does not mean that science can not ever study it.

I completely agree that "does not" doesn't imply "can never".
However, in this case, it is doubtful that science can ever study the first cause, given that the first cause is immaterial.

Will science be able to figure weather the temporal first cause is non-physical?

No. Science, by definition, only studies the physical.
Therefore, it cannot, by definition, inquire into questions about the immaterial.

What can't science by definition study?

The non-physical.
Science only studies that which is subject to the physical experiment-observation process that is characteristic of the scientific method.

What does it mean for something to be non-physical?

Most simply, it means that it is not-physical.
Such a thing could have any number of other traits, of course, but this is the only pertinent one.

However, it would probably be much more helpful to add that (if this is the objection that it is very difficult to imagine something that is not physical), this is not a question of whether or not we can picture such a thing. It is simply a reasoning process about what must be in reality (whether we can picture it or not).

Concepts are not physical, but that is not the same thing as a literal God that can create a universe. Photons have no mass, but they are studied by science.

Photons, like anything else, are only studied by science insofar as they are physical and interact with the physical world. Whether or not such a thing has mass is not relevant.

In any case it is my understanding that what the new atheists do is look at what we do know about the origin of the universe, our planet, and our species, and say it seems unlikely that an all power God would do things that way

What the New Atheists are calling "what we do know" is strictly the scientific information. As such, this is a completely invalid inference.

Nor do any of the New Atheist writers have better than a deeply distorted understanding of the Biblical God. They seem to claim to know how God would or wouldn't do things is as quickly as fundamentalists claim to know what God would say.
In neither case are these claims to authority justified.

What is wrong with that?

That it is both a category error and a deep distortion of what theists believe.

How is that "scientism" any more than looking at what we know about lightening and saying that it is unlikely that they are caused by Zeus?

Zeus is a physical being, who was said to live in a physical place, and was claimed to be the efficient cause of a testable physical event. It is not a category error to apply a physical test here.
This isn't remotely the same case regarding a transcendent God.

It is another common mistake of the scientistic approach taken by the New Atheists to fail to understand the difference between physical and non-physical gods. As scientism assumes all things are physical, the difference goes overlooked.

They are using Occam's Razor to say that God has an explanation doesn't seem very likely.

This is a misuse of Ockham's Razor.
When someone presents a simpler first temporal cause that has as much explanatory scope and power as the suggestion of a transcendent God, then Ockham's Razor will be pertinent.

Until then, however, it does not justify the rejection of all explanation of a phenomenon (which is how it is being used here).

[Jester]

God is the non-physical cause of the origin of the universe.

How do you know that?


People can make up all the "non-physical" attributes of God all they want, but a god that does not interact with the physical universe is a pretty useless, and not a god that many people would bother with. It is the supposed interactions that are within the scope of science.

I'm not here claiming to "know that". I'm pointing out the definition of God. We can set aside the question of whether or not such a God exists for purposes of this topic.

But, there is a difference between "physical" and "interacts with the physical", one that seems to be conflated both here and in other comments. If there are things which are not physical (or not wholly physical), but interact with the physical, then science can only study the effects of such things.

So, if there is a non-physical God which created the universe, science can study the physical characteristics of that universe, but this is (at best) a distant cry from claiming that God is within the scope of science.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 53 by Jester]

But if they can study the effects, why can't tell if the effects come from a physical or nonphysical source?

[help3434]

[p=562498#562498]help3434[/url]"]How do you know that?



I'm not here claiming to "know that". I'm pointing out the definition of God.
.\

Your definition of God. I grew up LDS and they believe that God has a body of flesh and bone.

[help3434]

What can't science by definition study?

The non-physical.

False, the physical sciences are one of the two main branches of Science. The Social Sciences such as Economics and Psychology also use the scientific method.

What the New Atheists are calling "what we do know" is strictly the scientific information. As such, this is a completely invalid inference.

It is not invalid. Our knowledge of the big bang, the formation of planets, and the evolution of life by random mutation and natural selection all come from science. These facts all flatly contradict the creation myths of every religion that has a creation myth. It is hard to see where a God could even fit into this process; or how our species, much less any historical event, could be part of any grand plan.

Nor do any of the New Atheist writers have better than a deeply distorted understanding of the Biblical God. They seem to claim to know how God would or wouldn't do things is as quickly as fundamentalists claim to know what God would say.
In neither case are these claims to authority justified.

...



Zeus is a physical being, who was said to live in a physical place, and was claimed to be the efficient cause of a testable physical event. It is not a category error to apply a physical test here.
This isn't remotely the same case regarding a transcendent God.

The Bible depicts God interfering with the physical world all the time. Thus, like Zeus, the Biblical God can be refuted by science. I don't know what "brand" of Christian you are, but most people that believe in the Bible believe that God physically lived on the Earth for 33 years.

When someone presents a simpler first temporal cause that has as much explanatory scope and power as the suggestion of a transcendent God, then Ockham's Razor will be pertinent.

"Transcendent God" is vague. It has no explanatory power.

[help3434]

I have some clarifications of some of my earlier posts.

I know that the Social Sciences study only interactions involving humans and has nothing to do with the first cause. My point is that there is more that there is more than one branch of science and that science is not limited to studying natural phenomena. Who knows maybe someday there will be a branch called Metaphysics or the Inter-dimensional Sciences.

When I said that atheists use Occam's Razor to say that God is not a good explanation I was not talking about the first cause, I was talking about the Big Bang and afterwards.

[Jester]

Okay greetings once again!

But if they can study the effects, why can't tell if the effects come from a physical or nonphysical source?

Because there are different kinds of causes than purely efficient physical causes, which is all science studies.

To study more than this would cost it the focus that makes science so useful.

Your definition of God. I grew up LDS and they believe that God has a body of flesh and bone.

I'm not here to argue that. If you choose to debate with me, personally, then you are choosing to debate my understanding of God.
Whether or not we can disprove other views of God is neither here nor there.

What can't science by definition study?

The non-physical.

False, the physical sciences are one of the two main branches of Science. The Social Sciences such as Economics and Psychology also use the scientific method.

Regardless of the names, all sciences study the physical. Psychology is the study of human behavior. It is a science only insofar as its findings can be subjected to physical tests of behavior patterns.
The same is true for economics, sociology, anthropology, etc.

But, I am aware of your clarification. This still goes unless you are willing to expand the definition of the word "science". But, if you expand it to include metaphysical questions like this one, then the traditional arguments for and against God would be "scientific".

That would prevent scientism from being false, but only by making it trivial.

Our knowledge of the big bang, the formation of planets, and the evolution of life by random mutation and natural selection all come from science.

I don't dispute this. I rather enjoy reading on these topics.

My only disagreement is with the idea that this is all the information we have. Science itself does not claim this, but scientism does.

These facts all flatly contradict the creation myths of every religion that has a creation myth.

Only if one reads them literally, which is hardly required.

And, to address a common response, modern people seem to think a non-literal reading is a new invention, as opposed to dating back to antiquity.

It is hard to see where a God could even fit into this process; or how our species, much less any historical event, could be part of any grand plan.

I don't personally find the general idea difficult. But, to get to the point, I don't see what this has to do with scientism being a poor position on metaphysics.

The Bible depicts God interfering with the physical world all the time. Thus, like Zeus, the Biblical God can be refuted by science.

This is a terrible misunderstanding of what the Bible claims.

The biblical God is depicted as "causing" things, but not in the efficient physical sense that would be required for science to be of any use. To insist that this is the way the text should be understood is to misread it.

A better understanding of this kind of causation (teleology) would be the way a writer causes natural events in a story. To say that we can refute God with science is rather like saying Hamlet can refute Shakespeare by looking through a telescope. it is a category error.

Nor is "all the time" accurate. These were very rare events if one is attentive to the amount of time passing.

Last, to say that current science is applicable to the study of these events is strange. How is science to test events that are in the past?

I don't know what "brand" of Christian you are, but most people that believe in the Bible believe that God physically lived on the Earth for 33 years.

If you don't see a difference between the teleological causation of God as spirit and the incarnation, then we need to address some of the basic terms of the discussion.

Christ is, very specifically, only physical in his human nature. The divine nature is not physical. This is the traditional view–and fairly basic to Christianity.

And that is an issue related to scientism and the New Atheism both: many who take a scientistic view have so little patience for theology that they tend not to study long enough to realize that they are attacking straw men.

At least, this is what I've seen in the New Atheist writers. Very little of what they have to say applies to any but the most extreme of fundamentalists. And we hardly needed the New Atheists to tell us that the most extreme of fundamentalists aren't rational.

When someone presents a simpler first temporal cause that has as much explanatory scope and power as the suggestion of a transcendent God, then Ockham's Razor will be pertinent.

"Transcendent God" is vague. It has no explanatory power.

Whether or not one is, personally, aware of the nuance in the concept, the term has been defined in detail at least since Aquinas. It is not vague.

And it has quite a bit of explanatory power. Simply claiming otherwise doesn't change this.



Okay, those are my thoughts.
Best to you out there.

[help3434]

But if they can study the effects, why can't tell if the effects come from a physical or nonphysical source?

Because there are different kinds of causes than purely efficient physical causes, which is all science studies.

To study more than this would cost it the focus that makes science so useful.

If scientists find an effect, wouldn't they wonder why they can't find the cause? Should they assume it is non-physical and give up, or try finding it forever?

What can't science by definition study?

The non-physical.

False, the physical sciences are one of the two main branches of Science. The Social Sciences such as Economics and Psychology also use the scientific method.

Regardless of the names, all sciences study the physical. Psychology is the study of human behavior. It is a science only insofar as its findings can be subjected to physical tests of behavior patterns.
The same is true for economics, sociology, anthropology, etc.

But, I am aware of your clarification. This still goes unless you are willing to expand the definition of the word "science". But, if you expand it to include metaphysical questions like this one, then the traditional arguments for and against God would be "scientific".

That would prevent scientism from being false, but only by making it trivial.

Making what trivial? Maybe one day we will be able to probe other dimensions, including the one that is the origin of our universe. Far fetched I know, but it would legitimately expand the scope of science.

These facts all flatly contradict the creation myths of every religion that has a creation myth.

Only if one reads them literally, which is hardly required.

And, to address a common response, modern people seem to think a non-literal reading is a new invention, as opposed to dating back to antiquity.

It seems to me that even with a generous reading, taking into a account that it was written for people thousands of years ago, and that it may contain poetic language, that Genesis still conflicts with what we know.

Occam's Razor is important. If the plain meaning of a myth has to be twisted around to fit the facts, and it is still claimed that somehow it is a revelation of God, you might as well claim that we live in the Matrix and that nothing we see is real.

It is hard to see where a God could even fit into this process; or how our species, much less any historical event, could be part of any grand plan.

I don't personally find the general idea difficult. But, to get to the point, I don't see what this has to do with scientism being a poor position on metaphysics.

The point of this thread is to find out if scientism is a real problem. If it is only being used by a few people, like that one guy that wrote that one book, but not by popular movements like the new atheist movement then it doesn't seem like that much of a problem.

The Bible depicts God interfering with the physical world all the time. Thus, like Zeus, the Biblical God can be refuted by science.

This is a terrible misunderstanding of what the Bible claims.

The biblical God is depicted as "causing" things, but not in the efficient physical sense that would be required for science to be of any use. To insist that this is the way the text should be understood is to misread it.

Are you kidding me? The Bible claims that God is the cause of the formation of the universe, the planet, and life on Earth. It claims that God is the cause of a huge flood and destroyed most of life on Earth. These are about as physical as you can get.

[Jester]

If scientists find an effect, wouldn't they wonder why they can't find the cause? Should they assume it is non-physical and give up, or try finding it forever?

They should indeed wonder this. That is, they should wonder it until the question is answered. If there is a specific, logical reason why the cause is not physical, then it makes no sense to keep looking through physical means.

But this doesn't mean that one should "give up", rather it means that one should try looking with the correct means.

This still goes unless you are willing to expand the definition of the word "science". But, if you expand it to include metaphysical questions like this one, then the traditional arguments for and against God would be "scientific".

That would prevent scientism from being false, but only by making it trivial.

Making what trivial? Maybe one day we will be able to probe other dimensions, including the one that is the origin of our universe. Far fetched I know, but it would legitimately expand the scope of science.

I agree, but this has nothing to do with my point.

If one chooses to define "science" in such a way so that it studies non-physical entities (such as metaphysical concepts), then the claim "all things are scientific" is trivial. Under this definition, ethical philosophy would count as science.

That is a far cry from probing other physical dimensions.

More directly, as long as one insists that a commitment to the scientific method is the only reasonable form of inquiry, one is committing one's self to an unwarranted and self-contradictory position.

It seems to me that even with a generous reading, taking into a account that it was written for people thousands of years ago, and that it may contain poetic language, that Genesis still conflicts with what we know.

It doesn't seem this way to me.

To make the claim that science is applicable here is to make the claim that your impression is correct. So far, I've not seen that view well supported.

Occam's Razor is important. If the plain meaning of a myth has to be twisted around to fit the facts, and it is still claimed that somehow it is a revelation of God, you might as well claim that we live in the Matrix and that nothing we see is real.

This strikes me as a very strange argument. Why on Earth should we assume that the "plain meaning" is the way the text tends to strike a modern person interested in literal scientific facts? Most cultures in history did't write or read this way.

And, as a relevant side point, Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle, not a scientific discovery. To use it as if it has force is to agree that there are ways of knowing things other than the scientific.

The point of this thread is to find out if scientism is a real problem. If it is only being used by a few people, like that one guy that wrote that one book, but not by popular movements like the new atheist movement then it doesn't seem like that much of a problem.

As far as numbers of people who make use of scientism, my real answer is simply: too many.

But I'd say that Richard Dawkins' demand that the question of God's existence is a scientific one, Christopher Hitchens insistence on "extraordinary evidence", and Sam Harris' claim that science answers moral questions are very strong evidence that scientism is at least a tendency in this group.

Much less "official", but much more importantly (to me) is the sheer number of times I've encountered New Atheists who demand that physical evidence is the only valid consideration in determining the truth of a claim (that is a direct statement of scientism).

The biblical God is depicted as "causing" things, but not in the efficient physical sense that would be required for science to be of any use. To insist that this is the way the text should be understood is to misread it.

Are you kidding me? The Bible claims that God is the cause of the formation of the universe, the planet, and life on Earth. It claims that God is the cause of a huge flood and destroyed most of life on Earth. These are about as physical as you can get.

This is mixing up cause and effect.

Setting aside the initial origin of the universe (which is not currently testable, and may well never be), physical things in the universe have more than one kind of "cause".

Generally, God is taken to be the teleological cause of physical events. That is, he causes a rainstorm more in the way a writer would cause a dark and stormy night than the way sunlight causes evaporation.

The idea here is that God oversees the entire physical order, not that he pushes around on particular things within that order. As such, the study of physical "pushes" is not relevant to looking for God.