Foundations for science, God or no God?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #1

Post by Tart »

There seems to be a big debate on whether or not science is directed by God, or not... Certainly there are many aspects of debate on this subject, like the cosmological argument and the origins of the universe, a fine tuned universe to accommodate intelligent life, intelligent design, the foundation on natural law, etc... And some of these arguments make good points, but for the subject of this topic id like to concentrate on a specific aspect of this debate. Id like to discuss induction, and the scientific method, it's foundations and whether or not it is justified to believe in science... It is summed up by the "problem of induction"...

A lot of non-believers point to science as a foundation for their truths that they believe, yet those foundations might be established by God. For example, Aristotle who first used the word "Physics" in his book "The Physics" (Greek: Φυσικὴ ἀκ�όασις Phusike akroasis) stated in that book "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world" ~Aristotle...

Newton observed similar thoughts saying "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe." -Sir Issac Newton.

Einstein talked on Physical laws, implying them to be created by God. "We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws... We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books.... That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God."~Einstein

It looks like a lot of scientific thinkers not only believe in God, but imply that God is necessary for science, and a foundation.

Or logical reasoning, for example, also seems to have foundations that rest on God. For example, our word for "Logic" comes from the root Greek word "Logos"... "Logos is logical appeal, and the term logic is derived from it."~Wikipedia… Well Logos is a term that has been identified as resting on God... "Logos (noun) the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order..."... That the foundation of reasoning and logic rest on an absolute truth, a foundation on God, as revaluation from God.. I think that is how the Greeks understood it...

So it seems to be that foundations for science, logic, reasoning, and knowledge, rest on God (and im not even going to get into the law, morality, righteousness, freewill, ect, which also seem to be rested on the necessity of God)…

But maybe a nonbeliever would throw away all these foundational elements of science and logic and reasoning, and say they are unnecessary for science and knowledge to be true, and logic and reasoning to make sense..

However, we can continue to explore the foundations for these things.. Because in order for the scientific method, through observation and empirical evidence, to make sense, we are dependent on our reasoning. It is dependent on what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... That is to say that our past experiences can predict future events, the scientific method is dependent on induction...

Well even here we come to problems on these foundations for science... For example, David Hume (a ashiest philosopher) observed a problem with inductive reasoning, and made good points. How can we rely on this kind of reasoning for our source of truth?
We generally think that the observations we make are able to justify some expectations or predictions about observations we have not yet made, as well as general claims that go beyond the observed. For example, the observation that bread of a certain appearance has thus far been nourishing seems to justify the expectation that the next similar piece of bread I eat will also be nourishing, as well as the claim that bread of this sort is generally nourishing. Such inferences from the observed to the unobserved, or to general laws, are known as “inductive inferences�.

Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive inferences. He presents an argument in the form of a dilemma which appears to rule out the possibility of any reasoning from the premises to the conclusion of an inductive inference. There are, he says, two possible types of arguments, “demonstrative� and “probable�, but neither will serve. A demonstrative argument produces the wrong kind of conclusion, and a probable argument would be circular... for Hume, the problem remains of how to explain why we form any conclusions that go beyond the past instances of which we have had experience (T. 1.3.6.10). Hume stresses that he is not disputing that we do draw such inferences. The challenge, as he sees it, is to understand the “foundation� of the inference—the “logic� or “process of argument� that it is based upon (E. 4.2.21). The problem of meeting this challenge, while evading Hume’s argument against the possibility of doing so, has become known as “the problem of induction�.

Hume’s argument is one of the most famous in philosophy. A number of philosophers have attempted solutions to the problem, but a significant number have embraced his conclusion that it is insoluble. There is also a wide spectrum of opinion on the significance of the problem. Some have argued that Hume’s argument does not establish any far-reaching skeptical conclusion, either because it was never intended to, or because the argument is in some way misformulated. Yet many have regarded it as one of the most profound philosophical challenges imaginable since it seems to call into question the justification of one of the most fundamental ways in which we form knowledge. Bertrand Russell, for example, expressed the view that if Hume’s problem cannot be solved, “there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity� (Russell 1946: 699).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
(Note both these philosophers are atheist, Hume and Russell)

So how can we rely on science, if its foundations are still unjustified? It is like saying "logic justifies logic". What if that logic has no coherent foundations to make sense?

However, from a foundation of God, many presuppositional apologists will argue, that induction is justified, and therefor science is justified and so is knowledge and reasoning..

Instead of resting our truth and knowledge on induction which is unjustified, we can rest on God who "is the central reference point and foundation for all questions regarding truth and knowledge".. That when we rely on God for foundations "the principle of induction can be assumed" and that "God is a precondition necessary to make sense of induction".~Jeff Durbin's

It certainly seems like God is a foundation for truth and knowledge, not just historically but also in our present philosophy for truth and knowledge, who justifies induction and science... If not God, then how can we make sense of these things? What do you think is a foundation for truth and knowledge?
Last edited by Tart on Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #2

Post by Divine Insight »

Tart wrote: A lot of non-believers point to science as a foundation for their truths that they believe
For me there is no need to even talk about a potential argument of "Science Versus Religion"

I was born and raised into Christianity. Even as a Christian I saw no serious contradictions between science and religion. From my perspective science could simply an explanation of how God does things.

My ultimate rejection of Christian theology was due entirely to the self-contradictory nature of the theology itself. I had no choice but to conclude that the theology could not be true "as it is written".

Also, what sense would it make to say that the theology is true in some other way (i.e. in ways contrary to what the Bible actually says). If that were true then exactly what would the theology be based upon? :-k

So for me Christian theology (and the entire Abrahamic religious picture) is all clearly false. Science wouldn't even be an issue and doesn't even need to be addressed in this context at all.

However, I should mention that scientific knowledge does appear to also contradict the Biblical picture. After all, science has shown us that death, disease, and natural disasters have been occurring on this planet long before humans ever appeared (whether they had evolved or were created would be a moot point). Animals were carnivores who completed with each other for food and preyed on each other for eons before humans ever came onto the scene. So science actually disproves the story of Adam and Eve's fall from grace being the cause of all the ills of the world.

So science does show that the Biblical narrative cannot be true. But I didn't even think of that until after I had already realized that the theology is self-contradictory on its own. Science only confirms what the Bible already reveals.

Have I then become a materialist? Not exactly. In fact, after I had realized that Christian theology cannot be true, I actually looked into other religions and I have to say that various forms of Eastern Mysticism and Buddhism actually appear to have far more merit as a possible picture of a supernatural creator. So if I was going to believe in a supernatural creator, those religions would be far more likely to be true than Christianity anyway.

Today, while I don't rule out the possibility of a supernatural creator (and neither does science as far as I am aware) I simply see no evidence for one. At least not one who cares much about humans in particular.

So my rejection of a supernatural entity really has nothing at all to do with science. It has far more to do with the fact that there is simply no evidence that any such supernatural entity exists. And there's certainly no evidence that if one does exist it cares much about humans.

So yeah. For me, no science is even required to dismiss these theological views. They appear to me to be nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of humans who apparently cannot accept the possibility that they will just cease to exist when they die. Apparently the desire to live forever is so great that people are willing to believe in the most absurd things just to not have to face the idea that they might actually die.

That seems to be the driving force behind all religions actually.

People want to believe in supernatural fantasy. I can't blame them for that. But that's hardly an excuse for supporting obviously poorly written and self-contradictory fables.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #3

Post by Tart »

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]
(EDIT: I erased this post because id rather not debate off topic)

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2051 times
Been thanked: 808 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #4

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 1 by Tart]

So let me get this straight. You want to base your decisions not on observed reality confirmed by experimentation and peer review (science), but on stories about god concepts described in ancient literature which have no supporting evidence that can be tested (religion)? Have I got that right?

This seems to be a rant against science without fully comprehending what science is. Science is not about declaring truth. That is the business of religion. Science is about creating useful explanations of all available data and is open to updating as new data is presented.

What do engineers use when building bridges? Things declared true by theists with no testable support OR accumulated, validated, knowledge formed by scientific inquiry?

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #5

Post by Divine Insight »

Tart wrote: Or logical reasoning, for example, also seems to have foundations that rest on God. For example, our word for "Logic" comes from the root Greek word "Logos"... "Logos is logical appeal, and the term logic is derived from it."~Wikipedia… Well Logos is a term that has been identified as resting on God... "Logos (noun) the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order..."... That the foundation of reasoning and logic rest on an absolute truth, a foundation on God, as revaluation from God.. I think that is how the Greeks understood it...
There are many secular views on why logic works without any need to invoke an imaginary God.

Not only this, but these kinds of arguments for a so-called "God" would not point to Christianity or the Abrahamic religions at all. To the contrary even a belief in a rational logical God would actually point away from these obviously illogical religions.

In fact, theists have no choice but to create apologies for the Abrahamic religions regarding the very fact that they do not make logical sense. Their argument is that what appears illogical to us supposedly makes sense to this God and that we mere humans simply can't grasp God's so-called "logic". When confronted with the absurdity of their own theology they tell us that we must "Have Faith" that God had his reasons for doing things that appear to be so illogical and unreasonable.

So even if an argument could be made that some higher intelligence is required for the universe to behave in a "logical manner" it wouldn't help Christianity or the Abrahamic religions anyway. We'd still need to turn to something like Buddhism if we want to argue that God is "logical". And even that is stretching the very concept of "Logic".
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14895
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 956 times
Been thanked: 1751 times
Contact:

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #6

Post by William »

Tart: It certainly seems like God is a foundation for truth and knowledge, not just historically but also in our present philosophy for truth and knowledge, who justifies induction and science...

William: Granted, we are referring to data here, which requires something in which to acknowledge said 'truth' and 'knowledge' and also store said data...
...in the physical reality, such instruments are provided in two main ways - biological and mechanical. These might be referred to as reflections of an unseen reality, and certainly most theists tend toward that bias...
...however, if that is the argument then one would have to agree that there is no 'foundation' without the means in which to record and to save the data, so that which 'truth' and 'knowledge' reside has to be seen as the foundation and the anchor point, else the data is lost.

If God = that which causes data and that which stores data, then at least we have a basis in which to study the claim in more detail...
One cannot simply claim that one's idea of GOD = 'the foundation of 'truth' and 'knowledge' if it is merely theological speculation, because scientists in this universe do not require a GOD to explain existence of data...or how to store that data and use it for whatever purpose it can be used for.


Tart: If not God, then how can we make sense of these things?

William: You mean the deep and meaningful things which are the kingdom within?
Or 'why' we are here experiencing the data of this universe?

From pure secular science, it can only be that we make sense of things as if this is all that exists, and the task is to see how we can survive in said universe as 'carriers of consciousness' and do with the data whatever can be done.
This is why there is a lot of scientific interest in AI, robots and trans-humanism. Perhaps the seed of the idea of living forever in this universe derives from theological thought, but scientists are discovering the knowledge and investors are paying them to find out if this indeed can be achieved using the materials available.

Throughout that process, where is the need for acknowledging any GOD?


Tart: What do you think is a foundation for truth and knowledge?

William: A base from which data freely flows to and fro, which in this case amounts to The Universe.
For a theist, this might be understood as "The Universe is a reflection of the Creator GOD who created it" and therefore the GOD creator cannot be said to be anything else or other than, what The Universe images.

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #7

Post by John Human »

benchwarmer wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Tart]

So let me get this straight. You want to base your decisions not on observed reality confirmed by experimentation and peer review (science), but on stories about god concepts described in ancient literature which have no supporting evidence that can be tested (religion)? Have I got that right?

This seems to be a rant against science without fully comprehending what science is. Science is not about declaring truth. That is the business of religion. Science is about creating useful explanations of all available data and is open to updating as new data is presented.

What do engineers use when building bridges? Things declared true by theists with no testable support OR accumulated, validated, knowledge formed by scientific inquiry?
Your jump-to-conclusion presupposition about what the initial poster WANTS is the basis for your heavy-handed dismissal and refusal to engage with the extended discussion of the philosophy of science in the initial post. That is neither civil nor respectful.
_________________
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2051 times
Been thanked: 808 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #8

Post by benchwarmer »

John Human wrote:
benchwarmer wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Tart]

So let me get this straight. You want to base your decisions not on observed reality confirmed by experimentation and peer review (science), but on stories about god concepts described in ancient literature which have no supporting evidence that can be tested (religion)? Have I got that right?

This seems to be a rant against science without fully comprehending what science is. Science is not about declaring truth. That is the business of religion. Science is about creating useful explanations of all available data and is open to updating as new data is presented.

What do engineers use when building bridges? Things declared true by theists with no testable support OR accumulated, validated, knowledge formed by scientific inquiry?
Your jump-to-conclusion presupposition about what the initial poster WANTS is the basis for your heavy-handed dismissal and refusal to engage with the extended discussion of the philosophy of science in the initial post. That is neither civil nor respectful.
_________________
My point was to boil down what the OP is getting at. The title of this OP is "Foundations for science, God or no God". Tell us, where does the concept of the god in question come from?

The foundation for science is simple observation of reality NOT believing tales in stories, thus rendering the main question moot. Unless Tart has some verifiable, observable evidence of this god being spoken of, the title of this post could just as easily be "Foundations of science, pink fairies or no pink fairies".

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #9

Post by Tart »

The question is where are our foundations for truth and knowledge... the Christian claim is that the foundations for truth and knowledge go back to God. And referencing the original post, we can assume induction when God is our foundation.. We can establish a foundation for logical reasoning...

And let me give an example, because William says "where is the need for acknowledging any GOD?"

And i think the need is to give a coherent foundation of truth.

If someone says, that which is right and wrong can be established as resting on God, and another makes a counter claim saying "I know right from wrong and i dont believe in God", that doesn't establish a foundation for knowledge of right and wrong.... It just makes a baseless claim that right and wrong can be known without God...

Likewise, someone can point to science as where truth permeates from, but if someone wants to point to science as a foundation of truth, it seems to be, philosophically, that that claim is in question. If induction cant be proven, then the claim that science is the base for our knowledge, is incoherent. For example, people can make logical claims, that lead to logical fallacies.. People can make scientific claims that lead to unscientific assumptions... Maybe this is why "Bertrand Russell, for example, expressed the view that if Hume’s problem cannot be solved, “there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity�"... Like where logic and logical fallacy become the same.


How can science be justified as true, if there isnt a coherent foundation for its claim? As hume pointed out, observation and empirical evidence does not establish the fact that induction can be assumed. It is dependent on induction and not the other way around.

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #10

Post by John Human »

benchwarmer wrote:
John Human wrote:
benchwarmer wrote: [Replying to post 1 by Tart]

So let me get this straight. You want to base your decisions not on observed reality confirmed by experimentation and peer review (science), but on stories about god concepts described in ancient literature which have no supporting evidence that can be tested (religion)? Have I got that right?

This seems to be a rant against science without fully comprehending what science is. Science is not about declaring truth. That is the business of religion. Science is about creating useful explanations of all available data and is open to updating as new data is presented.

What do engineers use when building bridges? Things declared true by theists with no testable support OR accumulated, validated, knowledge formed by scientific inquiry?
Your jump-to-conclusion presupposition about what the initial poster WANTS is the basis for your heavy-handed dismissal and refusal to engage with the extended discussion of the philosophy of science in the initial post. That is neither civil nor respectful.
_________________
My point was to boil down what the OP is getting at. The title of this OP is "Foundations for science, God or no God". Tell us, where does the concept of the god in question come from?

The foundation for science is simple observation of reality NOT believing tales in stories, thus rendering the main question moot. Unless Tart has some verifiable, observable evidence of this god being spoken of, the title of this post could just as easily be "Foundations of science, pink fairies or no pink fairies".
"Simple observation of reality" would seem to be better described as the raw materials (building blocks) of science, not the foundation (putting the building blocks into coherent order). As Tart observed in the opening post, inductive reasoning plays a fundamental role in how science works, and that is open to philosophical challenge. Furthermore, in the opening post, Tart referred to Aristotle, Newton and Einstein, all of whom you simply ignore.
_________________
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

Post Reply