Originally posted by black beetle
Dear epi,

The Empiric sciences have to do with palpable subjects, and they focus on specific aspects of the objective reality. Therefore the empiric sciences are Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Psychology etc.
The Noological sciences have to do with concepts that they derive solely from the human ideas. A well known Noological science is the Maths.
A ...[text shortened]... on the scientific finds and evidence, and of course cannot work without common sens (sense).

The scientist decides not what is "truth" driven by his personal views. The truth evolves from the basis of the scientific finds and evidence.


But if truth is limited only to what can be proven or observed, does that not preclude truth which cannot be proven or observed? If so, then obviously, as is the case with convect, a scientist's personal views (e.g., naturalism) do indeed decide what truth is.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The scientist decides not what is "truth" driven by his personal views. The truth evolves from the basis of the scientific finds and evidence.


But if truth is limited only to what can be proven or observed, does that not preclude truth which cannot be proven or observed? If so, then obviously, as is the case with convect, a scientist's personal views (e.g., naturalism) do indeed decide what truth is.[/b]

So God cannot have any tangible effect on the world?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The scientist decides not what is "truth" driven by his personal views. The truth evolves from the basis of the scientific finds and evidence.


But if truth is limited only to what can be proven or observed, does that not preclude truth which cannot be proven or observed? If so, then obviously, as is the case with convect, a scientist's personal views (e.g., naturalism) do indeed decide what truth is.[/b]

Surely the truth is not limited only to what can be proven or observed; in such a case we could not have our Science and our philosopies evolved due to the fact that in the beginning the humans suffered of severe lack of knowledge. So what we do?

We always progress when we face the Problem. "No Problem" means "no Evolution and no Progress".
But what is the Problem that arises if we deny the existence of "God"? My opinion is that there is not the slightest problem arising. If you disagree you have to use Science or Philosophy in order to convince me -of course not Theology, you have to keep your theology solely for preaching.

Originally posted by Palynka
So God cannot have any tangible effect on the world?

Exactly;

Originally posted by whodey
So you are saying that philosophical inquiry is part of the material world? It seems to me that there is an element of the immaterial world involved in philosophy as well.

As for your assertion that religious stories are no more real that stories about the Easter Bunny, I will take issue. Specifically, you apparently have never been introduced to the sci ...[text shortened]... as a source. The only question is, what is that source of both material and immaterial reality.

Well, ultimately, I suppose I'm a materialist. But a strict materialist reductionism is quite useless when talking about immaterial objects. Just like tracking individual molecules is quite useless for describing and forecasting a thunderstorm.

It's unfair of you to put derogatory words in my mouth. I didn't exactly say "religious stories are no more real" than "stories about the Easter Bunny." As for the use of ancient texts for archaeology, well, it's hardly surprising that an ancient culture passing its stories down includes its own history in those stories. We do the same thing today.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Wow. Who would have thought that a theist would believe that God is real and created the universe?

Of course they do. But what is that discussion doing in the Science Forum?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Let me guess, you have never studied philosophy and know nothing about it?

Let me guess, you have never met me and know nothing about me?

I got a minor in philosophy when I was an undergraduate. But that was ten or so years ago, so there you have it.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]I take it that God is not supposed to be a human invention, but is to be regarded as real as the Universe. Thus I have the same standards of proof that I have for anything else in the Universe.

Can you prove that truth is only what can be proved? Are there not truths which cannot be proven? (The law of non-contradiction, for example, enient ways to bury one's head in the sand rather than being either prudent or wise.[/b]

Why do I feel like some sort of trick is being played here? Probably because I'm a scientist and not a philosopher.

I don't think I ever said that truth is only what can be proved, nor that I take an exclusively rationalist or empiricist approach to truth. Nor have I used the word "objective." I've never liked that word. However, if I am expected to believe something is real in the same way as my foot is real--or better still, real in the same way that thermodynamics is real--I'm going to require the same standards as either of those.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Convect said he is an atheist because his naturalistic standards of proof tell him that nothing like God is real. It is my contention that convect's standards of proof already preclude God's existence, and it is therefore a pointless exercise to try to "convince him about God" according to those standards.

So, if God is real, it's impossible to prove its existence except by resorting to words and philosophical arguments?

Originally posted by convect
Why do I feel like some sort of trick is being played here? Probably because I'm a scientist and not a philosopher.

I don't think I ever said that truth is only what can be proved, nor that I take an exclusively rationalist and empiricist approach to truth. Nor have I used the word "objective." I've never liked that word. However, if I am expected to ...[text shortened]... y that thermodynamics is real--I'm going to require the same standards as either of those.

Over here just a note regarding the "objectivity" that I brought up, convect pal.

My point was to show that in our case the scientific "object" exists without being necessarily related to every subject. I exist although you are not aware of this -but I exist. A theory may be false or correct, therefore it exists, although I am not aware of this fact.

Originally posted by black beetle
Over here just a note regarding the "objectivity" that I brought up, convect pal.

My point was to show that in our case the scientific "object" exists without being necessarily related to every subject. I exist although you are not aware of this -but I exist. A theory may be false or correct, therefore it exists, although I am not aware of this fact.

I just spent way too much time back in the 90s rotting my brain on things like Husserl and Foucault and Deleuze and Derrida* to be able to use the word "objective"--my thoughts on subjects and objects are far too confused. But you're right, no amount of Husserl or Derrida or argument can change the orbit of the stars in the sky or the fact that I accelerate at a rate slightly less than ten meters per square second (or the equivalent in any other system of measurement) if I step off a cliff. As a sidenote, the entire act of measurement seems so magical, from philosophicalistic perspective! Ah, but I'm at the edge of nonsense, again.

Footnotes:

* Okay. I've only actually ever read one English translation of a Derrida essay, and that was only after I read a stack of books so that I could understand it...it was his essay on Foucault's Madness and Civilzation. Anyway, I haven't read hardly any Derrida, but I like what other people say he says!

Originally posted by Palynka
So God cannot have any tangible effect on the world?

As in, miracles? Or are you thinking along the lines of some measurable effect, e.g., the cosmic microwave background radiation?

Originally posted by black beetle
Surely the truth is not limited only to what can be proven or observed; in such a case we could not have our Science and our philosopies evolved due to the fact that in the beginning the humans suffered of severe lack of knowledge. So what we do?

We always progress when we face the Problem. "No Problem" means "no Evolution and no Progress".
But what ...[text shortened]... convince me -of course not Theology, you have to keep your theology solely for preaching.

But what is the Problem that arises if we deny the existence of "God"?

Well, if God exists, then the "Problem" that arises if we deny the existence of God, obviously, is ignorance.

If empirical and rational inquiry cannot of itself verify God's existence, it seems to me either a naive or a blatantly contrived position to deny God's existence based on those particular avenues of knowledge acquisition.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]But what is the Problem that arises if we deny the existence of "God"?

Well, if God exists, then the "Problem" that arises if we deny the existence of God, obviously, is ignorance.

If empirical and rational inquiry cannot of itself verify God's existence, it seems to me either a naive or a blatantly contrived position to deny God's existence based on those particular avenues of knowledge acquisition.[/b]

How would you suggest acquiring knowledge of God?

Originally posted by convect
So, if God is real, it's impossible to prove its existence except by resorting to words and philosophical arguments?

I don't think it is possible to prove God's existence even by resorting to words and philosophical arguments, although such inquiry could be useful. There is evidence of God's existence, but no proof.