Calminian

But how do you support scientifically the idea that causality exclusively exists in this sense? What you seem to be describing is a range (albeit limited) of results (or determinations) flowing from a particular cause. So in a sense, this cause is still deterministic in that it determines a limited range of effects. Do I have this correct? This would still support a form of causal determinism. I personally believe that most, indeed the vast majority of events going on in the universe are the result of this kind of material causality. But the issue I'm having with science is the fact that causal determinism is a necessary presupposition that must be accepted a priori before it investigates any given subject. But what if it investigates a subject where a different type of causality exists? Many believe humans have libertarian freedom—the ability to choose otherwise, not based on prior antecedents outside of themselves, but on the ability to self determine some choices. But if one only approaches human behavior from a scientific perspective, he would have to dismiss this idea a priori. The same thing with origins or the idea of creation, by a Creator that posses the power of self determinism. Rather than helping us to determine the truth of such an idea, science is forced to preclude such a notion before any investigative thinking starts. Actually, faith is required by everyone. All empirical observations must be interpreted by a world view which requires faith (trust). This all may be a dream or some kind of matrix, and proving otherwise is impossible. But we both have faith that this is not a dream based on different, yet similar world views. I'm also picking up on a bit of a misconception about faith in religious circles. Christianity actually discourages faith apart from evidence. I have a feeling you're using the term in the vernacular sense of "belief without evidence." But this notion was never held by any of the biblical writers, or founders. I can't speak directly about other religions though. Faith is simply a synonym for trust and trust is always wiser when based on good evidence and rational thinking. But evidence never serves to destroy faith, rather it strengthens it. In my religious world view, there is no merit in believing contrary to evidence and good thinking. 1Th. 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

I googled this subject and it lead me to a thread created here a couple of years ago. So, since I think most missed the boat on that thread, I thought I bring it up again. Does anyone here disagree that Causal Determinism is actually a presupposition of science (unproven assumption)? On the previous thread, many here (at that time), seemed to believe that science was still in the process of discovering if this idea is actually true or valid. It dawned on me that this would actually be impossible, since you can't use a methodology that presupposes something, to determine whether or not that something is true. This would be circular reasoning by definition, drawing a conclusion base on a starting premise. One thing that's always bugged me about science is its overuse and our society's over reliance on it in areas like origins, ethics, and human behavior, etc.. These are areas where the assumption of causal determinism is debated and frankly, philosophically, very weak (IMHO). Yet over and over I see scientists and people relying on scientists trying to apply science in these areas and frankly engaging in very obvious circular reasoning—even theists who fundamentally should have problems with universal causal determinism. I will grant this: If causal determinism is true, science is the ultimate epistemology and deserves the worship it receives. But if it is not true (in other words, if freewill—libertarian or incompatibilism—exists in humans, and if a free God and Creator exists) science is actually a very limited methodology and epistemology that will yield very false conclusions in the ares I've listed above. So, am I wrong about this? Is causal determinism not a necessary presupposition of science? Or is it possible that scientists are more vulnerable to this type of circular reasoning than other philosophical thinkers? Feedback is invited.

Wow! While scientists are generally brilliant when thinking within the confines of their field, unfortunately the opposite seems to be the rule once they get outside of it. They generally make the mistake of believing that everything is a matter of science—in this case, even philosophy. It's like saying fruit is a category of apples. Science was born of philosophy, not the other way around. In fact there are many philosophical assumptions that must be affirmed a priori before any science can be conducted. An example would be helpful in understanding this very vague statement. A definition of philosophy would be helpful as well. An impasse between science and philosophy? Do you see an impasse between fruit and apples? Like, huh? This ironically is true. Scientists have been so deified in our society, people are looking to them to answer questions that are outside the realm of science—questions of ontology, of origins, even the supernatural. The problem is, scientists must, of course, be methodological naturalists and therefore cannot be objective when in comes to anything out side the realm of naturalism (at least while conducting science). Scientists, would be much more helpful if they understood their limitations.

Hopefully this thread is just dormant and not quite dead yet. But just some quick thoughts. Science should never be equated with philosophy or logic. Certainly science could be considered (perhaps should be considered) and branch of philosophy—a branch of epistemology to be specific. But it's only a branch, and a very limited one at that. Science is limited to the realm of processes that are predictable due to the fact that they repeat. Thus if God didn't create a world of repeating processes, science would have no value at all. It could make no predictions for the future, nor formulate any theories about the past. And if this God intervenes from time to time, science could neither verify nor falsify His direct interventions (i.e. miracles). In order to formulate its theories, science must assume, a priori, that nature has run its course in the past, and will run its course in the future. But unfortunately, that presupposition is the subject of much debate among philosophers and theologians. And unfortunately, science can't help us in that debate. Logic tells us that we can't draw a conclusion based on a starting assumption (circular reasoning). A much broader epistemology is therefore required. Hope that helps.

Yikes, which Bible did you get this from? :) Another question. Did Moses take only 2 of every kind of animal on the Ark?

I disagree with this. Scientist have changed their minds on many issues over the years and scientists disagree about many things now. Sure there is a majority opinion, but it has often been the case the majority has been wrong. The truth is, both nature and the Bible have to be interpreted. And while nature does not lie it can be misinterpreted. Scientists have been wrong about all kinds of things over the years. One scientist told me (actually several), yesterday's science books are today's joke books. Another problem is the issue of miracles. According to the Bible we have a supernatural God who has performed many miracles (defined as additions to natural processes). Some of these affected the entire universe and some at least the entire earth. If true this would cause problems for those using the scientific method to speculate about the past, as they would be starting with a false presupposition (naturalism).

Please clarify this Uncle Al. Are you saying science can't tell us about whys or that our existence itself has no purpose? If the latter do you think science has proven this? I'd like to offer some perspective on this. Yes what you say above is true. Now lets look at nations that have been dominate by godless philosophies. Where would you rather live, in India or under a communist regime like the one in N. Korea? Hitler and Stalin were devout evolutionists. Communism was built on atheism and more were murdered by this movement than by all the religious wars of history. It's true, religions and religious people can even do evil. Evil has indeed been done in the name of christianity. But by far the most evil societies are those based on atheism. You merely need to check the guinness book of world records to confirm this.

I agree. All scientific investigation is conducted under the assumptions of naturalism. That is to say for a scientist to speculate about the past, he must assume there have been no additions to natural processes. This is not to say that science and God contradict. It merely means that science can neither verify nor falsify a miracle. All scientists agree with this. The conflict is not between science and God, but between the starting presuppositions about what God may or may not have done in the beginning. I do too. But I hate it more when people think science proves their naturalistic assumptions. :hihi:

I'm not a scientist but I know from scientists that scientific investigation is only useful in studying natural processes. If a supernatural God actually created this world via miracles (additions to natural processes) then scientific investigation will not be an effective tool (at least by itself) in discerning that truth. Science does not prove naturalism, it merely assumes naturalism because it must. Now in the christian wolrdview miracles (additions to natural processes) are very rare events and therefore christians consider science a very valuable tool. But they also see it's limits when delving into areas such as origins.

Thanks FT, glad I dropped by. I’m just wandering surfer that thought I’d drop in and give my 2¢. I appreciate the kind welcome. I don't have much to contribute in the area of science, but perhaps I have some theological and philosophical insights that might be appreciated. We’ll see. I've been a christian many years and have studied doctrinal difference of various denominations for many years. I can assure you even the most fundamental churches do not believe their denomination to be the only true church. This is not to say they don't believe they are correct in their opinions, but the dogmatism you say you've experienced is not the norm. In fact you will find they dogmatically believe they are not the exclusive church. That's a totally different issue. Of course they think other sects are wrong on various issues. I myself think I have a grasp on many issues and therefore believe that other christians are wrong about them. So what? This is not what unity is about. I don't need to agree with my christian brothers on every issue. But christians are remarkably united on very core essential doctrines like, the nature of God, how one gets to heaven, the nature of Jesus, etc.. This is also a totally different issue. Wise parents know compatibility is as important as warm fuzzy loving feelings. Religious compatibility is crucial for a happy marriage. You don't even have to be a christian to understand this. I'll betcha Dr. Lara would support these families 100%.

Actually you'll probably be surprised to learn that traditional denomination do not make this claim. There are some christians cults that do, but traditional denominations like baptists, methodists, presbies, etc. do not believe themselves to be the exclusive church. I think so and oddly enough I think denominationalism proves it. Before denominationalism, governments and churches were basically one entity. This was not good for the church and often shut out needed debate on various doctrinal issues. But when denominational freedom began to spread, something amazing happened. Instead of widespread disagreement on major issues, there came amazing unity in essential christian doctrines such as the trinity, the dual nature of Christ, salvation by grace through faith, not of works, etc. etc.. Yes there is disagreement over many issues but all the denominations agree these are non essential as to ones identity as a christian. And you may also be interested to know these disagreements are are actually sanctioned in the Bible. The apostle Paul knew there would be matters on which christians would disagree and gave guidelines on how they should be handled. For anyone confused about this, I would highly recommend a study of Romans chapter 14.