Is Science Truth? The Bible? Spirituality? Who Knows?

[uhhuh]

I lifted this post of mine from a poll- related discussion a few minutes ago.

I thought it might be a good topic other than Schiavo and that it MIGHT lead to possibly helping heal the rift between believers in faith and science. I feel that both of the convinced sides of the debate are being dogmatic and find compromise unacceptable.

Both sides say they "know". I both sides attack each other, belittle them and cry "bashing" if their thoughts are questioned.

I don't think anyone "knows" the truth.

Here's what I wrote, slightly modified:



The only rational position at this time is that nobody knows if there is or is not a god or spiritual force.

To make a definitive declaration that something is non existant is irrational.

So is a difinitive declaration that something exists without proof.

I find my "beliefs" in flux all the time. I have chosen my beliefs for today. They change based on the information and experiences I have. We all do this. I think those that don't are the ones not thinking rationally.

That doesn't make one side of the argument less dogmatic than the other.

The atheist who flat out says there is no possibility of something that would ever be agreed to be proof of the spiritual is being as closed minded as someone who answers "God did it." to anything that could be better explained by science.

I think both the "forget the facts, The Bible says so!" religious,and the "I know everything! You believe in fairy tales!" atheists are both showing signs of arrogance.

I am not saying that I know better. I'm saying that I don't know.

Think about this:

People who discount people's beliefs in religion often criticize them for not applying the scientific method to the theories and ideas that are presented in their religious texts or traditions.

The scientific method works really well to help determine truth, so people use it to examine hypotheses and theories, and accept that it is the standard by which we will attempt to determine truth.

The problem is, what if there is a better method to determine truth?

How can you test the scientific method without using it?

What if it's flawed? How will we know if we use it to test thoeries, including the validity of the scientific method?

I don't know if there is a better way to determine truth, but to claim that The Scientific Method is inviolate, and not subject to review is as dogmatic as claims that the Bible has all the answers.

Discuss.

[Goldmund]

1. Your very reliance on "rationality" is an automatic endorsement of science

[uhhuh]

5. How so?

I think science is useful. I don't know if the current accepted methods of scientific inquiry are not going to prove useless at some point in the future.

[Goldmund]

13. If they don't, it will be because some other methods will...

...rationally surpass them.

Science is nothing but a system to explain the empirical through the use of the rational.

As soon as you include rationality into the equation, you've already endorsed science -- because the scientific method is, to trivialize, nothing but the rational method, or the method that currently seems like the best representation of the rational mind's interpretation of the empirical. If the rational mind comes up with a better method, that is more rationally consistent, then the current method is replaced.

Unlike the religious "method", which is never replaced, but written in stone (or stone tablets) and is not subject to rational inquiry.

The only way to occupy this "neutral" ground between science and religion is to say that rationality may not necessarily be the best way of looking at the world.

[uhhuh]

19. Or to redefine rationality

;)

[Goldmund]

33. That's cute, I admit

But "defining" things is a device of an inherently rational system as well. :)

[uhhuh]

38. Only if you accept the definition!

Wheeeee!

[Goldmund]

40. LOL!!!

[trotsky]

2. The problem you run into

is that by saying "no one knows for sure," you end up equating rational scientific inquiry with unsubstantiated religious revelation. Just because science can't answer EVERY question doesn't mean that everything else is just as good.

[ultraist]

17. exactly. They are two very different processes

Science is dynamic in that it is an ongoing process of discovery and explanation that uses rational methods to prove it's findings and theories.

Christianity relies on one definitive source, the Bible to explain all things and is stagnant. It is very limited and based on made up stories rather than facts.

Science seeks to continue to build the knowledge base using reason and provable methods. What is still unknown and unexplained is not credited to a supernatural being or realm. It does not pretend to explain what is "unseen" by the naked human eye by using a limited source.

[uhhuh]

22. Not talking Christianity specifically

Are reason and provable methods immutable, or can they change?

[ultraist]

28. They change and evolve

New technologies, methods, and standards are always being created. Science is very progressive. It is open minded and seeks new and better ways to understand and explain things. But, it does not implement standards that defy logic, such as explanations that cannot be proven (ie "God" caused the tsunami or "God" created the earth).

Any religion uses their holy documents as their only sources. Religions do not seek new knowledge or info. They are stagnant.

[uhhuh]

36. Not Talking religion specifically

For example:

If it could at some point be determined by measurement, communication, etc. that conciousness survives death, and perhaps that people who formerly occupied physical bodies retained awareness and were able to be measured to some degree and/or reliably communicate with those in a physical body in an observable way, would that be science or spirituality, or both?

Is it impossible, or have we just not got the tools to facilitate it?

I don't know if it's true or possible, I don't think such a thing would prove God either, I think that those who say it's decidedly impossible are just as close minded as those who say it's decidedly true.

I think the most you can say is it isn't knowable now.

[eallen]

3. Which means the only rational thing is not to believe in it.

"The only rational position at this time is that nobody knows if there is or is not a god or spiritual force."

That's true also of extraterrestrials, gremlins, vampires, and the boogie man that goes bump in the night. Until there is evidence of something, the rational person doesn't give it credence. Note well, that not believing in something is different from believing it is not.

"How can you test the scientific method without using it?"

There is no such thing as the scientific method. If you take methodology courses in one or two fields of science, you'll find (a) that it evolves from use, (b) that it never is settled, and (c) that there isn't a recipe. Scientists don't claim "that The Scientific Method is inviolate, and not subject to review." That's a strawman constructed by someone who isn't familiar with how science works.

[uhhuh]

4. ok

"The scientific method or process is considered fundamental to the scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence. Scientists propose new assertions about our world in the form of theories: observations, hypotheses, and deductions. Predictions from these theories are tested by experiment. If a prediction turns out to be correct, the theory survives. Any theory which is cogent enough to make predictions can then be tested reproducibly in this way. The method is commonly taken as the underlying logic of scientific practice. The scientific method is essentially an extremely cautious means of building a supportable, evidenced understanding of our world."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[eallen]

16. As usual, the devil is in the details...

Consider an experiment to test plate tectonics or stellar evolution vs. an experiment to test the electropotential between two dissimilar metals. Do they really test their respective theories in the same way? If not, how does that affect how the respective fields work? And what does it mean about the status of their respective theories?

What do we do when we have two very successful theories, GR and QM, which however happen to conflict? Speaking of QM, is the many-worlds interpretation really its straightforward meaning? And if not, just when do wave functions collapse? And are there experiments that will distinguish between the MWI and the Bohr interpretation, or are these really just alternate interpretations?

Capsule summaries, such as the one from Wikipedia, state good generalities that apply broadly: it's important to understand the internal structure of your theories, to know what their empirical content are, and to test how well their empirical content meets the world. But when you start to press on that in any field, things get a bit messier. QM has been especially challenging in that regard. On the general problem, start with Quine. On QM, see D'Espagnat.

[ultraist]

21. What is done when there are conflicting theories?

Continued studies are done. Some concepts are called theories rather than laws or absolute facts because the knowledge base is not stagnant. It is something to be built upon and expanded through further investigation. Unlike the Bible, which claims to have all of the answers and the "truth." Creationism vs. Evolution, case in point.

[uhhuh]

24. What is the process to test a theory generally?

My understanding is that thoeries are tested to be proven or falsified in a series of steps, not dependent on the particular theory in question, to determine if it is consistent.

What if those process is flawed? Not the tests, but the process of determining the tests or the order of the tests, generally, for any experiment, in order to be deemed scientifically valid?

The scientific method of process for determining testability and/or falsifiability may some day be dertermined to be flawed.

[ultraist]

32. What is the process to test theories?

Read up on the Scientific method and basic research methodology. It depends somewhat on what is being tested and measured. There are varying measures and validity and reliability rates.

For instance, Social Science research often uses qualitative research methods. Hard Sciences generally use quantative methods.

There are standards/checks to ensure validity and reliabilty.

[eallen]

43. What you describe is engineering, and occurs where the science is settled.

Relatively settled. For example, if you develop a new material, perhaps a composite made by a new process or with a new resin, or a nanotech material, there are standard tests to determine its tensile strength, its Young's modulus, its coefficient of thermal expansion, and a host of other standard properties. Architects and designers could then decide when and where to deploy this new material. These tests wouldn't need to be revised, unless the material acted in some novel fashion.

Science is not so orderly. Often, it's not immediately obvious what new experiments are required to test a theory. Schrodinger wrote his equation decades before Young did the double slit experiment, or Bell derived his inequality from it.

So, let me make several general observations. First, the line between science and engineering is not hard and fast. Nor the line between law, theory, and hypothesis. Second, there is the famous aphorism, that if you know what you're doing, it isn't research. Third, it is theory all the way down. There is no "base" that settles these methodological issues. New science always raises new methodological concerns. Fourth, the way scientists approach these questions is to look at what was done in other fields, extract principles from there, and figure out how to apply them in the new work. Fifth, the difference between science and something else -- say, theology -- is precisely the effort and work put into testing theories, and the recognition that where and to the extent that this isn't or can't be done, the theory is simply speculation.

[uhhuh]

47. Ok

" -- is precisely the effort and work put into testing theories, and the recognition that where and to the extent that this isn't or can't be done, the theory is simply speculation."

How does one dertermine scientifically what is a valid test?

I'll have to get your answer later. I'm off to work.

[eallen]

49. There are many criteria, but here is an imporant and relevant one....

In science, it isn't a test unless you can imagine a possible outcome where the theory is refuted.

One of the important qualities of religion is that it will never subject itself to such a test. A Christian will tell you that if you sincerely open your heart and pray to his god to come into it, you will experience his god and get what is needed for belief. If you do this, and that isn't the result, rather than revising his theory, the Christian will say you weren't really sincere. Their theory is a priori irrefutable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. On a point of history

Thomas Young did his double slit experiment in the early 1800s.

http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~zgap118/2/yds.html

You must be thinking of something else.

[eallen]

52. Doh!

Yeah, I was thinking of some of the later versions, that use electrons, that show interference even when only one particle at a time propagates through the slits.

We need a Homer icon.

[flamin lib]

6. Line from the movie Prophesy:

Arch Angel Gabriel to a mortal,"The only thing you can know is that you can't possibly know . . ."

If there is a God and if He created the universe which is too vast for my human mind to conceive, it follows that God is too vast for humanity to conceive.

Therefore, any attempt to explain God is necessarily an attempt to make the un-knowable knowable. Religion is a diminution of God to a concept that the human mind can accept. It is nothing but a cosmic construct that makes the believer comfortable with things too vast for Mankind's current mental capacity.

Having come to this conclusion I have constructed my own construct that explains what I see and feel. It is mine and mine alone and it isn't Truth, only a way of looking at the cosmos and feeling comfortable with it.

Any belief system embraced by others is OK with me as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. However, if your concept of God allows you to hate, hurt or disrespect others I think you should re-evaluate your cosmic construct.

[firefox]

7. It is the Christian god in question

What you are talking about requires a definition of god to even start. I believe in god if the definition is "the ultimate reality" but in no way do I believe in a Christian god that looks like a man, is in need of worship, and is one wrathful dude that condemns people to an eternal hell.

[uhhuh]

12. Everything is in question

I don't know. I don't think anyone else does either.
That's the point.

[Toots]

25. 2+2=4 Is that in question?

Not everything is in question at least by me. Some facts are just that facts. God is belief not fact. There is as much difference between Science and Religion as there is between God and Man.

[uhhuh]

29. I agree it is accepted now

Maybe 2+2=4 could be determined to be false at some point. I don't know.

It sounds a little dogmatic to me.

:P

[K-W]

39. Math is a troublesome example, I would try something else.

Math is a beast all of its own. 2+2=4 is not a claim of knowledge, it is convention.

[Toots]

44. Yes facts are troublesome things..maybe "everything" is not in question

Ya think??????

[flamin lib]

42. 2 + 2 = 4 only in base 10.

[Goldmund]

45. No, two plus two equals four in any base --

-- it's only that the "font" is different. Numbers are represented by different digits, that's all.

[LdyGuique]

8. Much of the world that surrounds us is beyond our unaided senses

The unseen universe doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. For example, until microscopes and telescopes were invented, and progressively developed to see more, very little that we accept as part of the modern world existed, for example: bacteria, molecules, atoms, ultraviolet light, infrared, x-rays, radio waves, etc. All of these exist beyond the normal senses of a human.

There appear to be "some" who have additional senses, such as psi abilities, such as telepathy. Others seem to be able to tune into the time continuum for predicting future events.

It is possible that there are unseen beings who exist on a different dimension than we do, whether they be aliens, angels, avatars, or god-like beings. We certainly get enough crossover to tempt us into believing that more exists than the normal five senses can perceive.

The true world around is is more than something we can hold in our hand or evaluate through our senses. But, is it spiritual or religious in nature, or just poorly understood?

[ultraist]

26. Therein lies the difference between Science and religion

But, is it spiritual or religious in nature, or just poorly understood?

Religion claims the unknown is "God" or provides supernatural explanations whereby Science claims that it is still undiscovered and yet to be explained ("poorly understood").

Early cultures credited the Gods for storms, earthquakes, and every phenomenon they did not understand. Science began to explain things using evidence and reason. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg of how our universe functions.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

9. You're confusing truth and the real

Truth is non-dishonesty. Truth belongs to people. In individuals and also in society there are truths and lies. When scientists warn us about global warming, they are telling the truth; even if the science is wrong, they believe what they are saying. When evangelists say there is no global warming, they are probably lying. They know there is global warming but they are playing to an audience that they rightly consider stupid.

The real is inaccessible to any conscious person. It is the inconceivable make-up of the universe. Science doesn't attempt to approach what is real because it is confined to observation. What humans can't perceive cannot be studied scientifically.

Religion purports to explain the real, and some of its practicioners are telling their own truth. Most, in my opinion, are lying. The hermetic tradition dating back to Ancient Egypt calls for a twofold philosophy in the form of religion, science for the priesthood and superstition for the rest of us.

[BlueEyedSon]

10. "To make a definitive declaration that something is non existent

is irrational."

Um, no. That is the DEFAULT position always (on edit: see the above post about ETs, gremlins and vampires).

I don't assume there is a troll under the foot bridge or a Ferrari in my garage. We gather evidence and then, if that evidence supports the conclusion of existence, we can make a reasonably "definitive declaration."

There are 4 or 5 major religious belief systems and countless flavors within each. They cannot all be right. Who is to say the Jesus-followers (for example) chose correctly?

Now what are these wide fancy tire tracks on my driveway....

[flamin lib]

14. The problem is that we all define "reality" based upon our

experiences and perceptions. Since we all do not have the same experiences and perceptions, "reality" is a moving target.

Homogeneous groups of people have enough similarity in experience and perception that they can construct a group "reality". They then pass those experiences and perceptions on to their offspring and the "reality" takes on the aura of history.

Eskimos have more than 200 words for snow. That is their "reality". We temperate dwellers can't conceive of a reality with that much variety in ice crystals.

[K-W]

34. No reality isnt a moving target, just your subjective experience.

And yes, your subjective judgement is a very bad way to try and garner knowledge.

I dont know what on earth you think you are talking about, but group reality and aura's of history sound like nonsense to me, and your eskimo metaphor doesnt make any sense.

I can certainly concieve of a reality where I deal with so much snow I speak of it in great nuance, why exactly cant you? And what on earth does this have to do with science or knowledge?

[flamin lib]

41. It has nothing to do with science or knowledge, it has to do with

"reality".

The perception of "reality" is shaped by experience. If the only experience you have is with elders and teachers who tell you that the world was created in 6 days, then by golly the world was created in 6 days.

If your experience is that everybody knows that strapping a bomb to your body and killing the infidel will get you 72 virgins in heaven, then by golly get the Viagra ready!

What is "real" to one group is not "real" to another.

To say that anyone has a firm grip on what reality is flies in the face of, well, reality.

[uhhuh]

15. Why is that the default position

Is it because, up to this point, it is the most useful?

I don't claim that it is the wrong position, but I also won't state that it ALWAYS the default position for all time. I guess you will.

[BlueEyedSon]

20. Occams razor?

[K-W]

37. Parsimony

You have a set of evidence that points to multiple possibilities.

The possibility that is probably true is the one that contains the highest probability events.

Like if your home was ransacked.

It could be burgelers, it could be leperchauns.

Unless you find a little green hat, we go with burgelers, because that theory simply requires that there be people who steel things from other people for money, something that has a high probability of happening.

The other theory requires the existance of an entire form of being thought to be mythical. That has a low probability of happening.

Yes, the judgements are based on our frame of reference which is certainly capable of being wrong, but like all science, it aknowledges the fact that all we can do is use our best evidence and best reason. Humans simply arent capable of magically knowing the truth of the universe.

[eallen]

48. My take on it is a little different...

I don't think belief in any claim should be a default position. This confuses a lot of people, because they erroneously try to distribute belief across the law of the excluded middle. OK, that's a mouthful. :) So let me take it slowly.

The law of the excluded middle says that we take "not" quite strongly. So, for example, it either is the case that the Christian god exists, or that it doesn't, which can be written symbollically:

(1) (G)or(~G)

Since this is a logical law that defines how we use the terms "not" and "or," a rational person, Fred, should believe it. That claim can be written:

(2) Believes(Fred, (G)or(~G))

Does this mean that Fred either (a) believes that the Christian god exists, or (b) believes that it doesn't exist? No! This claim would be written:

(3) (Believes(Fred, G))or(Believes(Fred, ~G))

(3) is obtained from (2) by distributing the belief operator across disjunction. But that would be a very irrational way for Fred to manage his beliefs! Fred doesn't need to believe G or its negation, and if he is acting rationally, shouldn't leap to a conclusion until there is reason to do so.

Or to put it another way, the rational default position is not to believe. That appliest to every proposition. Importantly, not believing that something exists is different from believing that something doesn't exist. Compare these symbolically:

~(Believes(Fred, G))

(Believes(Fred, ~G))

Belief and negation do not commute.

:hippie:

[ultraist]

57. well done! nice post

[SnowGoose]

11. Militant Agnosticism:

"I don't know and neither do you"

'Bout sums it up. Then again, there's the very useful: "things are not always the way they seem.... but that's the way to bet."

On edit:
One other thing seems to me to be worth saying. One of the huge advantages science has over religion is that it *does not* make any claims to have "absolute truth" - only a "best guess" based on available evidence. This is fundamentally different than most religions I've been aquainted with.

[uhhuh]

18. True

But many who proclaim atheism don't state their position against spirituality as a best guess, they state it as fact and truth. So to do many of a religious bent, ignore what science seems to indicate, and believe the universe was created in 7 days.

[BlueEyedSon]

23. Hey hey hey, don't confuse spirituality with religion.

or atheism with denial of spirituality.

Atheism literally means a disbelief in the existence of deity (m-w.com).

[Az]

35. Not to start a huge semantic argument but

You are better off asking the atheist in question what they mean by the label. Many of us state simply that our atheism means simply that we are without a belief in god or gods.

[uhhuh]

46. I'm just working with the extremes here

Many do just not believe in god. Others seem to have it out for anything that seems unexplainable by science at this time.

E.g., ghosts( or rather, disembodied consciousness) could exist, but are unmeasurable at this time.

If they were to be measured, that would not prove religion, it would just indicate that conciousness could exist in a form that we couldn't measure and may not require a body to do so.

This is not to say that such a thing is true. I'm not taking a position on it. I just don't see how those who claim to be thinking rationally( whatever that means) can say that something cannot, or does not exist without a doubt.

Saying I won't accept that without proof that satisfies me seems more enlightened.

[SnowGoose]

54. If you stop and think about it....

have you *really* heard more than one or two oddballs say:

"that something cannot, or does not exist without a doubt"?

While I've met many people who don't believe there's a god(s), I can't remember a single person who's said to me "there's no way there could be a god(s)."

I agree with you that "Saying I won't accept that without proof that satisfies me seems more enlightened." I've met plenty of people (who call themselves atheists) who'd probably say that, but none who've said the other (that I can remember).

I find myself wondering if that's merely an unintentional "straw man". As someone else pointed out, not believing in a god doesn't mean that you're saying "I'm positive there's no god".

If we call skepticism the unwillingness to believe something without supporting evidence, it's worth remembering that even christians are skeptical - only it's about all the other gods besides theirs. I celebrate that skepticism - I just wish they'd apply it equally to their own assumptions.

[K-W]

27. Anyone who bothers to learn about this stuff knows.

Science provides a systematic emprical method by which we can test claims of knowledge against reality. It is nothing like religion, although it can evaluate some of the knowledge claimed to have been magically attained through spiritual channels.

Science isnt a religion nor is it in any way shape or form like a religion. Science doesnt offer truth or knowledge in the way religion does. Science says that we can never actually know truth, we can only continue to hold our theories up to reality and hope we have a good enough grasp of the truth to serve our purposes.

Or we could follow the religious path of knowedge and just pretend we know everything without ever letting reality get in the way.

[uhhuh]

50. Ok. What if

"Science provides a systematic emprical method by which we can test claims of knowledge against reality."


What if the systematic method is flawed?

Doesn't anybody here question the sytem???

:silly:

Gotta go. Going to work.

[eallen]

53. Methodological questions are raised all the time.

[Solon]

30. Asking the wrong question....

If truth is what you are looking for, look to philosophy or religion, if evidence of the physical world is what you are looking for, with theories based on this evidence to explain it, then Science is what you are looking for.

One of the major problems is that people attribute false solutions to what science is and what the process does for us. Science answers the What and How questions, not the Why or Who type of questions. The Scientific Method has so far been self correcting and the best way to explain the physical world.

To put it this way, a religious person would look at the night sky and ask "Why are we here?", whereas the nearest Astronomer would look at the same sky and ask "What are those points of light made out of?". The questions have NO relation to each other because they are for completely different fields of human thought. While it is true that Religious dogma sometimes attempts to explain the physical world, sometimes it is inaccurate, other times not. However, there is no process within religion to test the accuracy of these answers given in Holy Books and oral history. Science, however imperfect and flawed it may be, however does have a process of self correction, if a theory inadequetely explains an observed phenomenon in the physical world, it will be either refined, or thrown out completely in favor of another theory that not only explains new facts, but also the old ones as well.

[SnowGoose]

55. Stephen J Gould would say the same thing

I like how succintly your anology of the night sky puts it, though.

Do you mind if I start using that analogy? I get into these kinds of conversations all the time, and my explanations are too long winded - I can tell because their eyes start to glaze over.

'goose

[Solon]

56. No problem...

It is hard for people to understand the differences between Science and Religion, and how they are in two different spheres of thought entirely, I figure that analogy is apt for disparities between them.

[Az]

31. Absolutes are always tricky

But science doesn't give us absolutes. It gives us degrees of certainty. When we determine something to be true through science it is not absolute. We determine it is true to a varying degree of certainty. How certain we are about the matter is dependent on the evidence supporting the matter. And it is always open to new evidence.

On the other end of the scale there is religious dogma. In orthodox examples their word is the truth. The proclomations of the doctrine considered holy. Beyond question. Even when they are selfcontradictory.

These two venues operate in different criteria. One proclaims the truth and one challenges us to find the truth. Such positions will often find themself in conflict with one another. Each placing the import of their criteria before the people and asking them to decide in their favor.

As Andre Gide said, Believe those that are seeking the truth, doubt those that have found it.