Mojo
Mostly harmless
They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays, don't they?
Hawk one
Emperor of the Internet
Still not bothering to present any arguments for why it's interesting, eh?
And Tai, since the author doesn't seem to want to answer this, maybe you can:
Why can't we approach the possibility of God's existence (or lack thereof) scientifically?
And Tai, since the author doesn't seem to want to answer this, maybe you can:
Why can't we approach the possibility of God's existence (or lack thereof) scientifically?
Going from "It's interesting" to "Looks interesting"?
Next: "It might look interesting."
No, not really.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
The reports of atheism's death are greatly exagerated.
Caveats, before we go on:
1) I am an atheist, and have been a hard atheist for over two decades.
2) I run a board for non-theists, which translates out to mostly atheists with some agnostics.
3) I realise Tai Chi has a certain reputation here, which leads to skepticism regarding his motives for the OP etc.. However, I only want to address certain very concrete points here, I do not want to be seen as backing Tai Chi up or anything like that.
4)PZ, the author of Pharyngula, is a remarkably unpleasant person with regard to the atheist broad community; he's flounced off two seperate, unconnected atheist boards because he simply could not bear people being allowed to disagree with him.
5) PZ makes a most stunning garbage statement in that blog entry, which I will get to below.
We can certainly approach all the "Natural Theology" side of things scientifically; and Catholicism for example depends a good deal on Natural Theology, while the more extreme Protestantism prevalent in the USA depends on a kind of "miracle theology", which is also adddressable scientifically to a large degree.
However, not all aspects of theology nor of belief can be addressed "scientifically". To see what and why, let's examine a statement PZ makes in his Pharyngula blog entry:
PZ, the author of Pharyngula, is a remarkably unpleasant person with regard to the atheist broad community; he's flounced off two seperate atheist boards because he simply could not bear people being allowed to disagree with him.
PZ on Pharyngula said:
This, bluntly, is garbage, and shows PZ's rather willful deep ignorance concerning science.
Science concerns itself with intersubjectively verifiable phenomena; that makes it already hazy, when you consider that purely abstract concepts can also be likewise treated, and therefore theoretical mathematics is a part of science, and theoretical mathematical models with no apparent connection to the real world can also be and are addressed "scientifically".
That gives us a huge leeway in defining what science is, and what science can address; but even with that huge leeway, PZ's statement is simply false.
For example, ethics.
Now, the only way you can at all address ethics scientifically is to study what ethics obtain, who holds them, when they are held, and possible biological bases for ethics.
But science cannot tell you what ethic to hold. That is because science cannot make value judgments for you.
And among all the reasons for that, the most pertinent reason is one Hume described hundreds of years ago, to wit:
There is no logical way to make a prescriptive statement using descriptive premises;
which can be said otherwise, to wit:
You cannot in any logical way derive a "should" from an "is".
This means science can never tell you what your ethics should be. That means the essence of ethics is not a scientific question.
That takes us onto other examples, such as aesthetics:
No way on Earth can science tell you if The Ninth Symphony is any good or not. You must decide that for yourself, and it's not a question to be addressed scientifically.
No way on Earth can science tell you if you should prefer strawberries or bananas.
And PZ knows this all already (after all, the subject comes up with monotonous regularity), yet he still evades it; not at all inspiring, and rather ironic when he accuses McGrath of evasion.
Going on, the subject of subjectiveness and subjective perception is also a question that in the end can only be addressed philosophically, not scientifically, which means some aspects of overall theology can only be addressed philosophically --- that is, atheism utilises and must utilise philosophy just as much as science.
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
So Gurdur, how would you rephrase it, because I'm not seeing how your objection applies to the Pharyngula quote. I didn't see where he was saying you can derive a 'should'. If you can ask a question about it, it can be science. If you can ask a question about how we should feel about it, not necessarily science.
PZ claimed everything but everything is addressable scientifically, and that everything you can ask a question about is therefore a scientific object. That simply is false (see my above post). That should be clear as being my objection.
fromdownunder
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2006
- Messages
- 6,721
Yeah, believers (like yourself) are so negative in their absolutism.
Nick Bogaerts
Muse
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 617
The debate over moral naturalism has no bearing on the existence of God.
No? Really? Why not? It sometimes does; as it is, Martin Gardner, skeptic supreme, would probably disagree with you.
In what way? Does Gardner claim an existing god?
quixotecoyote
Howling to glory I go
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2006
- Messages
- 10,379
I think you're nitpicking. You've already said that ethics can be addressed scientifically, only the specific ethic one should choose isn't. So the exemption you seem to be claiming is choice of ethics. But then the choice of ethics can be viewed scientifically taking into account from a behaviorist perspective, so we'll need to pare our language down again to an even greater level of specificity. Even "What should we do?" can be scientific if you give the base assumptions and data.
He certainly expresses a belief in one. The reasons for that are ones that should be addressed, not evaded.
Given that many actual theists (Gardner being a pantheist, not a theist) claim a god as source for morality, then to claim that the debate over moral realism has nothing to do with debates over existence of gods is simply false.
Very wrong indeed.quixotecoyote said:
To spell it out in small words:
Science can only address ancillary issues of ethical questions, science cannot address central ethical questions themselves.
That is bloody clear. My previous post was bloody clear. An ethical question is a clear question; is it OK to murder traffic wardens? Science cannot answer that question for you.
That is no nitpick, that is a central category difference.
You of course have utterly failed to address the central point that you simply cannot logically derive a "should" from an "is"; no matter how much evidence you collect, the ethical question and decision is still not a scientific one.
Fallacy of is-ought.
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 22,091
Yes, I too wonder why McGrath claims that we can't approach the possibility of God's existence scientifically. Why is he so negative and absolute.
Hourglassmemory
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2007
- Messages
- 315
I think Science doesn't apply its time to questions like God, but until now we have been able to explain things without the need of God.
The most likely is that it'll keep happening and we'll need god less and less. Why then, turn around in such an abrupt way and now consider that evolution might have begon because of God's will? If that is so every atomic movement is in the will of God. But we can explain thing without having to go up another step and say it's a god doing it. It's an unecessary step when the previous one, Scientific explanation without God, is enough.
Science would spend its time on God if there was any shred of creible evidence for such.
It's the same for big Foot, fairies, or any other creature we invent to explain some unknown phenomenon.
If God is supposed to be a subjective emotional experience, why do only a select few get it? And why can scientists imitate the same feelings in controled environments?
The most likely is that it'll keep happening and we'll need god less and less. Why then, turn around in such an abrupt way and now consider that evolution might have begon because of God's will? If that is so every atomic movement is in the will of God. But we can explain thing without having to go up another step and say it's a god doing it. It's an unecessary step when the previous one, Scientific explanation without God, is enough.
Science would spend its time on God if there was any shred of creible evidence for such.
It's the same for big Foot, fairies, or any other creature we invent to explain some unknown phenomenon.
If God is supposed to be a subjective emotional experience, why do only a select few get it? And why can scientists imitate the same feelings in controled environments?
Last edited: