Science, Epistemology and Debating Creationists.

I do not accept the view that science and faith are two diametrically-opposed concepts. Rather I think that they are just two ways of attempting to describe the same things, and two different angles from which to attempt to make sense of existence. But both have their problems ...

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• epistemology
• creationists
• creationism
• religion
• faith
• science
• bible
• literalism
• literal
• hawking
• einstein
• socrates
• relativity
• e=mc2
• time
• space
• velocity
• energy
• infinite
• regress
• scientists
• physics
• methodology

[greenelf12]

I aggree with Socrates I know, I know nothing too. :o)

[Anekantavad]

@greenelf12 I have studied history all my life, and it has led me to consider who in history I would probably actually like to meet. Socrates and St Francis of Asisi (or at least the people that have come down to us in the history books) pretty much top the bill. "History" produces precious few Nice Guys (or Gals), but I think Socrates would probably have charmed me no end :-)

[Anekantavad]

@MattressGallery Very odd that you've wasted so much ink on someone so utterly unqualified :-)

[MattressGallery]

@Anekantavad

The ancients made thousands of hilariously wrong arguments about physics, including the idea that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones of the same size/shape. It is only through dumb luck that they happened to be right about the atom, and they were still wrong in the end. The atom is NOT the smallest possible particle of matter.

It appears to me that you know nothing about science, and even less about philosophy, and are thus utterly unqualified to speak on this subject.

[Anekantavad]

@wimsweden I agree. I put this in the context of "debating creationists" because it often seems to me that people are rather quick to sneer at the "silliness" of the religious, when their own faith in science is IMO just as questionable. Questions that science can't answer, it's adherents simply say "That's not my department" or the equivalent.

[wimsweden]

@Anekantavad

Sure, "die Welt an sich" is different from "die Welt für mich", but the fact that we can control and manipulate the world "out there" to such an incredible extent via science would seem to tell us that that model of reality is a closer understanding of it than that of any religion (the gap bewteen the "an sich" and "für mich" is not as wide so to say). I think the skepticism you apply to science, is what is called the philosophy of science.

[Anekantavad]

@wimsweden I agree with you, but building an electric lamp may tell us what electricity can be harnessed to do, but it can't tell us anything at all about what electricity actually is. Occam's Razor can help us manipulate that which is around us, but it can't educate us as to the ultimate reality around us.

I'm certainly lot arguing for god or the supernatural. I am rather applying skepticism to science, and the results have so far been very interesting to me :-)

[wimsweden]

Isn't this where Occam's razor could come in? I hope I'm using it right, but via these basic scientific assumptions we've developed e.g the science of engineering which allows us to build flying machines. So, the assumptions lead to results and are thereby validated. What does the assumption of a god or other supernatural stuff add to that? You may argue for psychol. or soc. benefits, but those aren't inherent to any one religion, they appear in multiple social organisations, incl. secular ones.

[Anekantavad]

@theepsilon2010 I won't say that we can't be sure of anything we experience, but I tend to think we can't be 100% sure of it since our experiences are themselves passed through the filters of our imperfect senses. This means that our perceptions are distorted, but not 100% inaccurate.

[Anekantavad]

@Kuba022 Probably. And as I just said to theepsilon2010, I am definitely not saying that we can safely throw science in the scrap heap. Like food, we need it to simply exist in the material universe and stay alive, but like food, it isn't life itself.