Science has it's limitations (philosophy, religion, Earth, evidence)

[rifleman]

Thx to AREQUIPA for stepping in and providing a good summary answer. Too bad a Christian would not take up this simple challenge, but then again, I stand by my assertion that they cannot answer such a question honestly, let alone even try to. Why? Because the obvious answers are problematic to their artificial belief system.

So be it. The silence is Telling.

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

√ This denial means that the polemic supporters of theism are not going to give away position by even considering that future research might provide the evidence for something from nothing or abiogenesis.

√ They fervently hope and trust that ain't gonna happen as the present absence of that conclusive evidence is that on which they pin their denial of all the massive other evidence in its support.

Thus, if it doesn't (hopefully) happen, then they won't need to consider their position which would of course be that it doesn't make any difference to them. They would still believe even with no good evidence for God and all the worthwhile evidence against God.

Imagine a grown, educated adult putting a tooth under their pillow.....

[rifleman]

What are the "limitations" to science as perceived by devoted Christians? Could we hope for a point-form list of those perhaps?

Remember, no self-respecting scientist would ever say that anything: the SM toolbox, it's applications & conclusions, religion; anything, is unlimited. However, that having been said, the proper understandng of the SM toolset, plus it's poential applications, is, I'd say, pretty unlimited.

Example: We can attempt to test for anything with a properly designed experiment, even for a spritual presence. We may fall on our faces and find nothing, but that's just another conclusion of the study, to wit:

"We tested for spirituality in the following ways: A, B, C & D.

We saw or found no measurable response, therefore, the correct and conservative conclusion is:

1) There may well be no such thing as spirituality, or:

2) Our test methodology, or our measurements techniques, were not adequate,

Therefore:

We suggest further testing and trying the flowing new methods: E, F or G."

Of course, it may also be appropriate to finally conclude that this was the most recent study out of, say, 200 such studies, in well over 40 years of such tests, and we might then reasonably conclude, with a stated level of confidence, that to the best of anyone's knowledge or testing to date, there really is no measurable thing called a spirit."

So again, what are those limitations to science? (This is akin to stating there are limitions to which questions we're allowed to ask, which may well be the agenda of religion; to mute and suppress true scientific investigation. That has certainly been so in the historic past!).

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by rifleman

What are the "limitations" to science as perceived by devoted Christians? Could we hope for a point-form list of those perhaps?

Remember, no self-respecting scientist would ever say that anything: the SM toolbox, it's applications & conclusions, religion; anything, is unlimited. However, that having been said, the proper understandng of the SM toolset, plus it's poential applications, is, I'd say, pretty unlimited.

Example: We can attempt to test for anything with a properly designed experiment, even for a spritual presence. We may fall on our faces and find nothing, but that's just another conclusion of the study, to wit:

"We tested for spirituality in the following ways: A, B, C & D.

We saw or found no measurable response, therefore, the correct and conservative conclusion is:

1) There may well be no such thing as spirituality, or:

2) Our test methodology, or our measurements techniques, were not adequate,

Therefore:

We suggest further testing and trying the flowing new methods: E, F or G."

Of course, it may also be appropriate to finally conclude that this was the most recent study out of, say, 200 such studies, in well over 40 years of such tests, and we might then reasonably conclude, with a stated level of confidence, that to the best of anyone's knowledge or testing to date, there really is no measurable thing called a spirit."

So again, what are those limitations to science? (This is akin to stating there are limitions to which questions we're allowed to ask, which may well be the agenda of religion; to mute and suppress true scientific investigation. That has certainly been so in the historic past!).

You answer your own question without realizing it, rifle. Measurability in science is currently limited to baryons . . . even the LHC is looking for some evidence of the Higgs . . . despite early collider evidence suggesting a perfect fluid is the basis of our vibratory energy reality. The fact that baryons comprise less than 5% of our reality . . . that is a significant limitation on discovery of the other 95%.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by Orestes

I have no problem with saying that 'secularism' is a belief structure, and it may, or may not, include a belief that there is no god (i.e. atheism). However, the secularist doesn't arrive at a belief in 'no god' by accepting speculation without evidence. The secularist arrives at a belief in 'no god' once they find that there is no evidence to support the speculation (i.e. unsubstantiated). There is no need for a secularist to ascribe intent to 'no supernatural prime mover'. The secularist and theist can both speculate a god. While the secularist develops a belief that the speculation is unsubstantiated based on insufficient evidence, the theist chooses to adopt the speculation as valid based on what they believe is adequate evidence. And, as you see so often in this forum, that evidence is thoroughly vetted and found wanting when subjected to scientific method.

You appear to be painting with a broad brush here. Are your references to "the secularist" meant to apply to ALL, MOST or SOME secularists? If the answer is SOME, then I would basically agree. This is most definitely not a 'one size fits all' situation.

Which evidence is "found wanting when subjected to scientific method?" Is it ALL, MOST or SOME?

Originally Posted by Orestes

I understand your desire to create a "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" standard here. However, it won't work. Because while I illustrated that both can speculate a god, the secularist doesn't need to. The truth is, the only reason the secularist has for considering a supernatural prime mover is the speculations of theists.

What possible motivation would I have for creating a standard? I'm more inclined to view it as a willingness to 'call a spade a spade.'

For whatever it's worth, I'm convinced that any thinking and honest secularist would naturally speculate about such things. I most definitely do not agree that they are only reliant upon "the speculation of theists."

Originally Posted by Orestes

When left to their own devices, secularists are likely to never consider whether or not a god is responsible for the unknown. For those secularists, there isn't a belief in no god; there just simply is no belief regarding a supernatural prime mover, period. There's no need for speculation to arrive at the absence of god belief.

We may be forced to simply agree to disagree. The very fact that one is born, raised and exposed to natural surroundings (empirical sense perception) is cause for any honest and thinking secularist to consider such ultimate questions such as whether or not there is a God. Hopefully, they would be willing to be honest with themselves and do the research employing logic and sound reasoning to include consideration of all the available empirical scientific data. It just seems like common sense to me.

Originally Posted by Orestes

It's extremely important and it's not at all subjective.

Just to be clear, your reference to "it's" is understood as 'the substantiated evidence.' Correct?

Another broad brush assertion. Are you speaking of ALL, MOST or SOME of the evidence as being substantiated? Are you stating that there is NEVER any argument, debate or disagreement even within the scientific community over that which constitutes substantiated evidence?

Originally Posted by Orestes

The topic of this thread, "Science has it's limitations" begs my response here! We have a method with a well proven track record to use in determining what is and is not substantiated.

...and I have no qualms with the scientific method. It is indeed useful in substantiating certain evidence. I think it only fair to allow for a certain amount of subjectivity...it's not always black and white.

Originally Posted by Orestes

Theists enjoy the fruits of objectively substantiating speculations through the scientific method. Theists are altogether happy indulging on the fruits of that objectivity, until it's applied to their speculations regarding the intent and capacity of a possible supernatural prime mover. It seems theists find great appreciation for subjectivity when 'god evidence' is in question.

Yes, well, the inference here seems to be with respect to dogmatism. In other words, choosing to come to the table with certain presuppositions and then proceeding to purposely interpret the information/evidence in order so as to make it fit in with one's preconceived template? Is that your point here?

Originally Posted by Orestes

Absolutely nothing. It happens everyday. And, the scientific method employs mechanisms to root out subjectivity. But, as I've already harped on, theists are happy to have the methodology steer them back to objectivity, until the subjectivity in question is essential to their own personal substantiation of 'god speculations'.

I would agree that the scientific method is in many cases useful in rooting out subjectivity. Whenever possible, it is obviously preferred to have objective empirical substantiated "beyond any reasonable doubt" verification.

To be fair, I would opine here that dogma cuts in both directions. What is to stop anyone (not just theists) from approaching the topic from a presuppositional and predetermined template, choosing to view everything in such a manner so as to make it fit the predetermined template?

Originally Posted by Orestes

You tell me. I'd love to know. But it doesn't change the dilemma, you can't substantiate speculations about the intent, capacity, desires, etc. of God until you can substantiate speculation of a god.

I suppose we must agree to disagree at this point. Although, I would be quite happy to have the discussion over what it is that may or may not actually constitute substantiated evidence in favor of theism or atheism, truth claims of Christianity etc. Happy to do it any time.

[Orestes]

Originally Posted by rifleman

...So again, what are those limitations to science?...

Well stated. I too am interested in learning what limitations theists would find. Seriously, what avenue of discovery beyond those limitations can be applied to God? Sheer speculation? Warm and fuzzy feelings?

[Orestes]

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

You appear to be painting with a broad brush here. Are your references to "the secularist" meant to apply to ALL, MOST or SOME secularists? If the answer is SOME, then I would basically agree. This is most definitely not a 'one size fits all' situation.

Which evidence is "found wanting when subjected to scientific method?" Is it ALL, MOST or SOME?

I'd say all when you consider a 'secularist' as defined by the context of my entire response. I'm open to your thoughts though, in what sort of case might you disagree?

As for the evidence, again, all. Otherwise, the secularist would likely be a theist, no?

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

What possible motivation would I have for creating a standard? I'm more inclined to view it as a willingness to 'call a spade a spade.'

Isn't it obvious? In creating that standard, you'd be attempting to provide foxhole, from which, to argue. The only spade involved is the one used to dig that foxhole. I'd elaborate, but you haven't really attacked my articulation, so I'll stand on the point I've already made. "the secularist doesn't need to"

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

For whatever it's worth, I'm convinced that any thinking and honest secularist would naturally speculate about such things. I most definitely do not agree that they are only reliant upon "the speculation of theists."

It's a minor point that I'm happy to concede. I've thoroughly addressed it in my prior post, it doesn't really matter where the speculation originates.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

We may be forced to simply agree to disagree. The very fact that one is born, raised and exposed to natural surroundings (empirical sense perception) is cause for any honest and thinking secularist to consider such ultimate questions such as whether or not there is a God. Hopefully, they would be willing to be honest with themselves and do the research employing logic and sound reasoning to include consideration of all the available empirical scientific data. It just seems like common sense to me.

What's to disagree? Did you just deconvert? In light of this particular section, I must ask; can you honestly say you've done that? If so, what piece(s) of empirical scientific data did you find to substantiate your speculation in God?

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Just to be clear, your reference to "it's" is understood as 'the substantiated evidence.' Correct?

Close, but no. "It's" refers to 'substantiated speculation'. Evidence is fact and can be used to substantiate speculation. The process of validating evidence is one of the imperatives of the scientific method. Therein lies the problem. Theists hold a subjective standard for evidence, while the SM objectively validates evidence before its acceptance. That differing standard for 'truth' is at the heart of the problem with religion.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Another broad brush assertion. Are you speaking of ALL, MOST or SOME of the evidence as being substantiated? Are you stating that there is NEVER any argument, debate or disagreement even within the scientific community over that which constitutes substantiated evidence?

As stated elsewhere, I'm saying all evidence is substantiated. Evidence that is not substantiated (validated) through the SM is not evidence, it's nothing more than subjective 'data'.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

...and I have no qualms with the scientific method. It is indeed useful in substantiating certain evidence. I think it only fair to allow for a certain amount of subjectivity...it's not always black and white.

Example of the previously mentioned problem in bold. I am, however, open to your expanded thoughts on the kind of evidence that is off limits to the method.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

Yes, well, the inference here seems to be with respect to dogmatism. In other words, choosing to come to the table with certain presuppositions and then proceeding to purposely interpret the information/evidence in order so as to make it fit in with one's preconceived template? Is that your point here?

Close enough. You've nearly described the religious process. However, the information/evidence that you describe as 'purposely interpreted', needn't be so. Religion is a belief structure built upon adopted speculation in the absence of substantiating evidence.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

I would agree that the scientific method is in many cases useful in rooting out subjectivity. Whenever possible, it is obviously preferred to have objective empirical substantiated "beyond any reasonable doubt" verification.

I kinda agree, and I wish the process were better understood at large. I also wish it could be faster, but it probably can't.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

To be fair, I would opine here that dogma cuts in both directions. What is to stop anyone (not just theists) from approaching the topic from a presuppositional and predetermined template, choosing to view everything in such a manner so as to make it fit the predetermined template?

Absolutely, that's the business that all religions are in. In this case I'll be sure to clarify that religions need not include a deity, just doctrine.

Originally Posted by tigetmax24

I suppose we must agree to disagree at this point. Although, I would be quite happy to have the discussion over what it is that may or may not actually constitute substantiated evidence in favor of theism or atheism, truth claims of Christianity etc. Happy to do it any time.

Ok, let's continue down that rabbit hole. I asked above for your thoughts on exactly that...

By the way, I want to return your gratitude in an earlier post for good discussion.

[tigetmax24]

Originally Posted by Orestes

I'd say all when you consider a 'secularist' as defined by the context of my entire response. I'm open to your thoughts though, in what sort of case might you disagree?

Perhaps we're not connecting. I understand you to be asserting that all secularists decide, think, act in precisely the same fashion. If that's the case, isn't it obvious as to why I would disagree?

Originally Posted by Orestes

As for the evidence, again, all. Otherwise, the secularist would likely be a theist, no?

That would depend upon what each one (secularist) determines the evidence to be pointing towards wouldn't it? I'm referring to a person of the secularist mindset who is honestly searching for answers to life's ultimate questions without a preconceived bias, or, at least a limited amount of bias. Possessing the willingness to accept evidence that may cut against their secular (non-God) leanings.

Originally Posted by Orestes

Isn't it obvious? In creating that standard, you'd be attempting to provide foxhole, from which, to argue. The only spade involved is the one used to dig that foxhole. I'd elaborate, but you haven't really attacked my articulation, so I'll stand on the point I've already made. "the secularist doesn't need to"

...and why would I need a foxhole? Are you gunning for me?

Originally Posted by Orestes

What's to disagree? Did you just deconvert? In light of this particular section, I must ask; can you honestly say you've done that? If so, what piece(s) of empirical scientific data did you find to substantiate your speculation in God?

I anticipated that this might probably strike a cord with you. It must seem totally unbelievable that someone would make an honest search for answers to life's ultimate questions and eventually arrive at Christianity. However, I do try to keep an open mind. If convincing reason actually exists for chucking Christianity I won't hesitate to do it.

What about you? Are you prepared for the possibility of conversion?

Originally Posted by Orestes

Close, but no. "It's" refers to 'substantiated speculation'. Evidence is fact and can be used to substantiate speculation. The process of validating evidence is one of the imperatives of the scientific method. Therein lies the problem. Theists hold a subjective standard for evidence, while the SM objectively validates evidence before its acceptance. That differing standard for 'truth' is at the heart of the problem with religion.

"Substantiated speculation is extremely important and not at all subjective."

Is that your assertion?

Originally Posted by Orestes

As stated elsewhere, I'm saying all evidence is substantiated. Evidence that is not substantiated (validated) through the SM is not evidence, it's nothing more than subjective 'data'.

It seems to me that if part of the reason for using the scientific method is to correct previous SM acquired knowledge, then logically, it's possible to have SM acquired knowledge that is incorrect. Validated knowledge that is later found to be incorrect. By extension, the possibility of substantiated knowledge that may later be demonstrated as unsubstantiated. By further extension, evidence that may later be demonstrated as false evidence.

It seems to me that there may also be certain instances where epistemological considerations would apply. I can't think of any examples right off hand, but I do see this as a possibility.

Originally Posted by Orestes

Example of the previously mentioned problem in bold. I am, however, open to your expanded thoughts on the kind of evidence that is off limits to the method.

Would the examples presented by Dr. Craig suffice?

Originally Posted by Orestes

Close enough. You've nearly described the religious process. However, the information/evidence that you describe as 'purposely interpreted', needn't be so. Religion is a belief structure built upon adopted speculation in the absence of substantiating evidence.

You've acknowledged that secularism qualifies as a belief structure. By extension, wouldn't atheism also qualify as a belief structure?

Originally Posted by Orestes

Absolutely, that's the business that all religions are in. In this case I'll be sure to clarify that religions need not include a deity, just doctrine.

Nice try. The "everyone" in my assertion would also apply to atheists. ...or perhaps you would consider atheism to be a religion?

Originally Posted by Orestes

Ok, let's continue down that rabbit hole. I asked above for your thoughts on exactly that...

Sounds good. Please begin a new thread or resurrect an old one and I'll meet you there.

Originally Posted by Orestes

By the way, I want to return your gratitude in an earlier post for good discussion.

Thanks...much appreciated.

[GldnRule]

Another "REALITY CHECK"!---Science is sooooooo "limited"...it's not even needed!!

ANNNNNNND (while I'm at it)...that would be the same for philosophy/religion!

Science is "nice". It "figures things out"...and that helps to satisfy our curiosity, and provide us with methods/processes/procedures and things that add to our convenience and comfort...and it helps us to extend our lifespan...but we don't really need science. Not as in "NEED" need.

That's how we ended up with all these "Gods" in the first place. Mankind didn't know what was really going on...so they cobbed up some hocus-pocus entities as a way to explain what they couldn't figure out.
But it's not like that lack of scientific knowledge ever put the species at risk of not making it. Man has made it for most of the time of existence without any real "scientific study/knowledge".

All things (except man), both "animal" and "vegetable", live on without ever having any scientific knowledge...or religious knowledge...or "worldview".

We don't "need" ANY of it---THAT'S how "limited" it all REALLY is!

[sanspeur]

Yup. I guess we can all go back to rubbing sticks together to start a fire....No wait....That is science too!

[Theophane]

Science has its limitations because human beings have limitations. Or are we gods already?