Can secular science ever oust religious belief?

[hallenrm]

Let me remind my dear friends that this thread is located in philosophy of science forum and not in theology forum. If they are interested in discussing theology, The New testament etc. they can very well start a new thread in the theology forum.:)

[Pyrotex]

However, let's say sometime this century we develop medical equipment that can detect spirit and spiritual energy....

Dream on. If such things as "spiritual energy" actually existed, we would have detected them already. As it is, we have ultra-sensitive detectors operating in every realm where the Laws of Nature permit "energy" and "fields".

 

It is JUST as likely, that super-modern technology will peer into the parallel "spirit universe" and find... NOTHING AT ALL. I believe the liklihood of EITHER happening is zero. But as long as we're making up pseudo-science fantasies, why isn't my scenario just as likely or even more likely than yours?

[Dyothelite]

Dream on. If such things as "spiritual energy" actually existed, we would have detected them already. As it is, we have ultra-sensitive detectors operating in every realm where the Laws of Nature permit "energy" and "fields".

 

It is JUST as likely, that super-modern technology will peer into the parallel "spirit universe" and find... NOTHING AT ALL. I believe the liklihood of EITHER happening is zero. But as long as we're making up pseudo-science fantasies, why isn't my scenario just as likely or even more likely than yours?

 

Right on my point is that both points are valid until disproved. I wasn't saying spirit energy is any kind of fact, I was merely proposing that the possibility may still exist.

 

I will keep on dreaming about the possibility of spirit energy. There is a large academic sector called Nautropathic Medicine that tries to incorporate Accupunture and Chi Gong from Chinese Medicine that relies on the existence of yet un proven "Chi" energy.

 

I like to think of spirit energy like electricity before its discovery, unknown as of yet.

[Dyothelite]

The members of your first paragraph were not "free philosophers", they were defenders of a religious point of view that they had inherited. The members of your final paragraph are a mixed bunch but all have in common the fact that their religious ideas were simply made up. Maybe Lao Tzu and Confucius can be classed as philosophers, how do you justify the label for the other four?

 

Abraham was the first to propose "One God" (well not the first ever but the first in his environment). Buddha was the first Hindu to propose "Anatman" or no-self. Both had socio-political implications, just like Lao-Tze and Confucius. And Jesus and Mohammed although they were in the same Abrahamic thread they were revolutionary thinkers.

 

Just because they are religious philosophers doesn't mean they are not philosophers.

 

Sorry hallenrm, I won't go off topic anymore.

[ughaibu]

Three points:

1) things based on individual speculation (fantasies) are not valid until disproven

2) if anybody who proposes something drawn from their fantasy is a philosopher, then we all are philosophers and the term has no value

3) a person isn't a philosopher simply because they talk about fantasies of a religious nature

[Dyothelite]

Thanks...... I was so ignorant that deluded fantasies like the speculation of quantum reality and the specifics of universal quantum interconnectness and the specifics of a blackhole had me blind. God forbid if I continued to fantasize about the unkown. Thanks for proving the invalidity of questioning the unknown if it hasn't been proven yet.

[ughaibu]

Dyothelite: Are you suggesting that mathematics is a form of individual fantasy?

Here's a short lecture: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

[Dyothelite]

Dyothelite: Are you suggesting that mathematics is a form of individual fantasy?

Here's a short lecture: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

 

Sorry Moderator this is still off topic.

Is the exact measurement of Pi (3.141.......) a reality or fantasy?

 

Is it known or unknown?

[ughaibu]

Pi is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference, a transcendental number. How is this relevant?

[Dyothelite]

Pi is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference, a transcendental number. How is this relevant?

 

It's Not relevant..... we're totally off topic. I'm not even sure which thread we're supposed to argue in.

[Buffy]

It's Not relevant..... we're totally off topic. I'm not even sure which thread we're supposed to argue in.

You could try 4474...

 

Or if you want to get more technical and irrational, try 1944....

 

'lo Bob,

/forums/images/smilies/mad_2.gif

Buffy

[Heresiarch]

Okay, getting back to the topic at hand: That God exists seems beyond dispute. Certainly the laws of physics alone do not predict a universe like ours that grows in novel complexity and order. Right after the Big Bang the universe was a ball of radiation, then the electrons and protons precipitated out. Then the particle clouds condensed into stars, which made, and keep making, the other species of atoms. This made planets and biology possible. This made culture and technology possible. The pattern overall has been not an increase in entropy as the universe cools, but an increase in complex organization.

 

Religious belief is based on the intuition of something actual.

[InfiniteNow]

That God exists seems beyond dispute.

The concept of god is beyond dispute, but the so-called entity on which that concept focusses is very much open for debate.

 

Religious belief is based on the intuition of something actual.

The only thing actual about this, from my limited perspective, is the emotions and neural activity that rise from the belief you reference. Intuition itself falls into that same define.

[Pyrotex]

..That God exists seems beyond dispute. Certainly the laws of physics alone do not predict a universe like ours that grows in novel complexity and order. ....

The existence of God was disputed as far back as Socrates and Plato. It has been in continuous dispute since the 17th Century.

 

Yes, the laws of physics do indeed explain 99.9+% of our current universe and its novel complexity and order.

[Heresiarch]

The existence of God was disputed as far back as Socrates and Plato. It has been in continuous dispute since the 17th Century.

 

Goody. Someone to keep me honest.

 

Yes, the laws of physics do indeed explain 99.9+% of our current universe and its novel complexity and order.

 

Uh, Which laws override entropy on the largest scale? Or are you referring to the thinly disguised revivals of Vitalism that go by names such as "complexity theory" and "self-organization"?

 

I can will my arm to move, and it moves. Science can't explain that. Science can tell me all about muscle contractions and nerve firings, but nothing about what originally sets those events into motion.

 

Physics grants causal agency only to prior physical events, a position that makes Nature a perfect determinism, which is an indefensible position. Nature must make decisions (to resolve indeterminacies). This implies a subjectivity at the fundamental level. The intuition that this is so is the source of the concept of God. The concept takes many local forms in different cultures, but the idea is sound.

[HydrogenBond]

Science will not be able to oust religion because it is in the same boat with respect to proving the reality of its theories. There can be a difference between a good correlation that explains reality and what reality actually is. Mathematics makes this possible. Let me give an example, if we assume that gravity is due to the repulsion of matter by space, one can come up with the math needed to correlate all the data. It would be sort of an inverse of what we currently use. We know this is wrong, from experience, but it is still a good correlation. When we reach the frontiers of science where things are far less clear, too many assume that just becuase the math works it must be true. That is why we have at least three good theories for sub-physics, QM, Strings, AWT, etc. With this 3-tier mutually exclusive nebulous foundation, the extrapolation to reality becomes even more suspect. It may correlate well, but correlation does not prove reality. Science continues to change its mind.

 

First there was the Big Bang; this is reality. Oops, my mistake we need to add inflation. This is it, no more, the final reality. I am sorry, maybe it is steady state with no beginning or end; thats it, last time, the final reality. Excuse me a second, someone jusr made a good point about parallel universes, that must be the real final reality. Oops.....

 

The situation, in reality is, something that can't make up its mind, and has changed it 5 times in 50 years, deciding it wants to Lord over something that has reached steady for 2000+ years. It won't happen until science can reach steady state.

[Tormod]

I am hoping for a clearer separation of science and religion. Let the religious folks do their thing, and let the scientists do theirs, and let those who are not sure which camp they belong in, do both.

 

HydrogenBonds' satiric comment above is why I get tired of discussing the philosophy of science with people who keeps equating religious beliefs with scientific theories. They are not the same, and they will hopefully never be.