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
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #21

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 20 by John Human]
Your posts convey the attitude, whether intended or not, that the rest of us should ignore Newton and Einstein's approach and follow YOU.
You're reading way too much into this. Read post 17 again... that summarizes the very simple point I am making:

"The opinions or comments by famous scientists on the existence (or not) of gods or creators is not the least bit relevant to whether they actually do exist (or not), which was my point in post 13."

There is no more to it than that. These scientific thinkers may have believed in a creator or god, or implied that such a being is necessary for science or even a foundation for it. But that has zero bearing on whether or not such entities actually do exist, or that science depends on their existence in any way.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #22

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Tart wrote: 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"...
I am not entirely sure a) what God has to do with induction, and even if He does, whether b) the notion of God can provide a sure foundation for science.

So far as I can ascertain from my philosophy text books, induction is a process of reasoning that proceeds from observation(s) to generalisation.

And so far as God is concerned, such observations tend to be private and subjective, and I am not at all sure they rightly progress to the public and objective.

Furthermore, philosophers of various persuasions have long sought the epistemological foundations on which the entire superstructure of human knowledge can be based, but so far it has proven to be a vain quest. For this reason, among others, I tend towards a coherentist idea of knowledge; that there are no such foundations, but our knowledge is nevertheless justified by how consistent it is with reality, how coherent these ideas are with each other, and how comprehensive our ideas are with respect to an explanation of the universe and its manifold phenomena. The basic idea is of a web or network of knowledge, suspended rather than grounded, with each idea mutually supported by, and supportive of, each other idea.

Thus, I tend to think of God and His many perfections as something to aspire to, rather than something to found our various ideologies on.

Best wishes, 2RM.
Non omnes qui errant pereunt
Not all who wander are lost

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 #23

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 20 by John Human]
Your posts convey the attitude, whether intended or not, that the rest of us should ignore Newton and Einstein's approach and follow YOU.
You're reading way too much into this. Read post 17 again... that summarizes the very simple point I am making:

"The opinions or comments by famous scientists on the existence (or not) of gods or creators is not the least bit relevant to whether they actually do exist (or not), which was my point in post 13."

There is no more to it than that. These scientific thinkers may have believed in a creator or god, or implied that such a being is necessary for science or even a foundation for it. But that has zero bearing on whether or not such entities actually do exist, or that science depends on their existence in any way.
I understand what you are saying, and I recognize it as a persistent sophistic obfuscation by someone who is determined to avoid engaging with my point:

A logical inference, from the observed order in the universe, that there must be creator, is different from a religious belief.

Logical inferences derived from observed human nature inform the classical natural law tradition, providing a body of knowledge statements regarding moral principles that is outside the realm of scientific empiricism.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #24

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 23 by John Human]
I recognize it as a persistent sophistic obfuscation by someone who is determined to avoid engaging with my point:


I'm not interested in engaging with your new point on whether or not logical inference of a creator is different from a religious belief. I got involved with this thread because of your emphasis in post 10 that ignoring the OP's references to Aristotle, Newton and Einstein was somehow a problem (which I am logically inferring from the fact that you highlighted the comment using red font).

The references to these three scientists in the OP was to justify the subsequent comment that their belief in "God" implies that this being not only exists, but is necessary for science, and a foundation for it. That is the issue I am debating, not your tangent on whether a logical inference of this entity's existence is the same as a religious belief in this entity's existence. That is a different subject, and I have no interest in getting into a philosophy discussion.

My point is the same whether this creator entity is logically inferred from order in the universe, or believed to exist by a religious person simply because they believe it on faith. What I am debating is the relevance of the opinions of any famous scientist (dead or alive) on whether a God/creator exists, or is necessary for science, or a foundation of it (as stated in the OP). I am arguing that they are not, regardless of how they arrived at their opinion.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

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 #25

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 23 by John Human]
I recognize it as a persistent sophistic obfuscation by someone who is determined to avoid engaging with my point:


I'm not interested in engaging with your new point on whether or not logical inference of a creator is different from a religious belief.
It is not a new point. It is the same point that I have been maintaining ever since the beginning of this discussion.

For you to falsely label it a "new point" is yet another sophistic obfuscation, and would seem to be very clear evidence of your lack of good faith.
_________________
"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]

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #26

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 25 by John Human]
It is not a new point. It is the same point that I have been maintaining ever since the beginning of this discussion.


But why are you making this point in response to my posts? It has nothing to do with the point I am making as I just explained in post 24. So if you want to debate your point please respond to whoever it is that you think brought up that specific subject (which appears to be you, yet you are responding to my posts as if I brought it up which I didn't, and I have no interest in discussing it). Perhaps you can debate with yourself using John Human vs. Ancient Demon and leave me out of it. That would make more sense.
For you to falsely label it a "new point" is yet another sophistic obfuscation, and would seem to be very clear evidence of your lack of good faith.


It is a new point as far as anything I've been posting in this thread. I can only assume you are confused as to who you are replying to, or maybe you simply want to debate with yourself in order to make your point visible to readers. But take it up with the OP, or whoever it is you think engaged you on the point initially. My comments in post 24 should be clear enough ... I have no interest in a philosophy debate.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

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 #27

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 25 by John Human]
For you to falsely label it a "new point" is yet another sophistic obfuscation, and would seem to be very clear evidence of your lack of good faith.


It is a new point as far as anything I've been posting in this thread. I can only assume you are confused as to who you are replying to, or maybe you simply want to debate with yourself in order to make your point visible to readers. But take it up with the OP, or whoever it is you think engaged you on the point initially. My comments in post 24 should be clear enough ... I have no interest in a philosophy debate.
You have been assiduously avoiding my basic point ever since the beginning, and now you pretend that my same-old point is a "new point." You say that you have no interest in a philosophical debate, but the opening post of this thread dealt directly and deliberately with the philosophy of science. It would seem that, if you don't want a philosophical debate, it would be prudent for you to not post on this thread.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #28

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 27 by John Human]
You have been assiduously avoiding my basic point ever since the beginning, and now you pretend that my same-old point is a "new point."


Your "basic point" (if that is whether the logical inference of a creator is different from a religious belief in a creator) it irrelevant to my point (that opinions of famous scientists, dead or alive, on the existence of creators have no bearing on whether such entities exist or if they serve as foundations for science). So I am avoiding your point because it has no relevance to the comment in the OP I am debating.
It would seem that, if you don't want a philosophical debate, it would be prudent for you to not post on this thread.


This is the Science and Religion section of the website. If you want to debate philosophical issues it would be prudent to take your old/new point, or other philosophical topics, over to the section specifically intended for exactly that kind of debate (it is called Philosophy on the main index for the forum):

index.php
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

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 #29

Post by John Human »

Moderator, OnceConvinced, removed one-line, non-contributing post. Kindly refrain from making posts that contribute nothing to debate and/or simply express agreement / disagreement or make other frivolous remarks.

For complimenting or agreeing use the "Like" function or the MGP button. For anything else use PM.

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 #30

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 27 by John Human]
You have been assiduously avoiding my basic point ever since the beginning, and now you pretend that my same-old point is a "new point."


Your "basic point" (if that is whether the logical inference of a creator is different from a religious belief in a creator) it irrelevant to my point (that opinions of famous scientists, dead or alive, on the existence of creators have no bearing on whether such entities exist or if they serve as foundations for science). So I am avoiding your point because it has no relevance to the comment in the OP I am debating.
It would seem that, if you don't want a philosophical debate, it would be prudent for you to not post on this thread.


This is the Science and Religion section of the website. If you want to debate philosophical issues it would be prudent to take your old/new point, or other philosophical topics, over to the section specifically intended for exactly that kind of debate (it is called Philosophy on the main index for the forum):

index.php
Your comment seems inappropriate. The whole point of this thread is to debate the philosophical underpinning of what we know as science. Once again, as mentioned in the opening post, Newton and Einstein drew the logical inference, from the fact that there is order in the universe, that it was created by a creator. Thus reappeared the "intelligent design" argument, which is as old as Plato. Do you not have a rebuttal for this logical inference?
_________________
"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