ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my personal virtual library, where i collect information, which leads in my view to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation of the origin of the physical Universe, life, biodiversity


You are not connected. Please login or register

Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Otangelo


Admin

Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins  

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1759-scientism-verificationism-and-the-quest-of-a-sound-epistemological-approach-to-find-truth-in-regards-of-origins

Origins questions requires three things:
👉🏿 multicontextual thinking,
👉🏿 polymathic knowledge and, most importantly,
👉🏿 willingness to follow evidence and reason to rational conclusions.
The first can be relearned, the second can be acquired, but the third is the most difficult because only the individual can find it in and for himself.
And he must find it by himself.

’I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.’
Erwin Schroedinger’

The problem of many atheists is that they have not developed an epistemological framework that is consistent. Very frequently, they ask God to prove himself to them, in order to believe. Or they claim that science provides all relevant answers.  Can science measure thoughts? Logic? Truth? Empiricism is a failure as a worldview. The assertion that only things we can measure, touch, taste, hear, or smell are reality, is absurd and demonstrably false. The key component of the supernatural is that it occurs at the will of an undetectable persona. Will and intention cannot be measured or predicted.

We need to endorse a worldview that makes sense, and is a consequence of a carefully chosen and elaborated methodology of an epistemological framework, and applied to do a consistent, correct to the case research, and coming to meaningful, and the most accurate possible conclusions in regards of origins and reality. There are several ways, like rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, authority, and revelation. Empiricism is a cornerstone of the scientific
method. Empiricism, in philosophy, is the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. Can or should we use the scientific method and empiricism alone where the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims? This approach is based on observations
of the world, but philosophy and theology are a priori rejected outhand. That is one of the wrong approaches that many unbelievers in God adopt.

William Lane Craig Religious Epistemology
https://www.bethinking.org/truth/religious-epistemology
W.L.Craig: Positivists championed a Verification Principle of meaning, according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified. 5
Under criticism, the Verification Principle underwent a number of changes, including its permutation into the Falsification Principle, which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.
The statement “In order to be meaningful, an informative sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified/falsified” is itself incapable of being verified or falsified.
The inadequacies of the positivistic theory of meaning led to the complete collapse of Logical Positivism during the second half of the twentieth century, helping to spark not only a revival of interest in Metaphysics but in Philosophy of Religion as well. Today’s Flew’s sort of challenge, which loomed so large in mid-century discussions, is scarcely a blip on the philosophical radar screen.
If someone is asking for 100 per cent,  to truly know that God exists, we need to remind them this is unrealistic. We believe lots of things with confidence even though we do not have absolute certainty. 2
'"It is up to logic and the factors of different perspectives to determine if God exists or not." The marriage of science to naturalism during the mid-to-late 19th century ministered most famously by the Scottish enlightenment philosopher; David Hume, symbolized the brokering of a union which was nothing short of a shotgun wedding of academia to ideology.

Can you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims?

The very greatest scientists, those from whom new perspectives finally come, those from whom paradigm shifts in human thought come, are open-minded on fundamental questions and begin to see the value of philosophy as a torchlight on the discoveries of science.

The average scientist is good at doing science but not much good at thinking about its implications. The average religious person is not so good at looking and understanding at what science has to say about reality and, more serious, seeing that science is more valuable than doctrines, traditions and authority systems about telling us about the true nature of things. 3

Every worldview, without exception, is a faith-based belief system, consisting of a set of statements the holder adopts as being true. Starting from this view, we can dispense with the foolish notion of "proof," as some are so quick to require (as though they have such proof for the worldview they currently hold). Instead of "proof" in the absolute sense, we proceed with examining the available evidence, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence. 4

While every worldview (from Atheism to Theism) is faith-based, or perhaps more accurately, confidence-based (no absolute proof), there is none that should be based on no evidence at all (a pure blind-faith). The rule of evidence examination and conclusions we draw from it: truth is that which corresponds to reality, anything that does not correspond to reality is summarily rejected as false.

Socrates said, "The unexamined life isn't worth living." Correspondingly, the unexamined worldview isn't worth believing. 

Many (if not most) of the really important things in life aren't subject to scientific, empirical investigation. You can't scientifically prove the beauty of the beautiful, or the goodness of the good. You can't scientifically prove that love is better than hate, or even that life is better than death. You can't prove scientifically the friendship of your best friend, and even trying to would only serve to queer the relationship in some way. The bottom line is, when you're experiencing the friendship of your best friend, you don't need any proof. And when you're not experiencing the friendship of your best friend, no proof will do. So it is with God.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof



The union endures until today. Science, thus became the bride of a completely self-sufficient naturalistic worldview, a crooked union sealed by a single vow, as pervasive as it is perverse: “What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot kndow.” Bertrand Russell
- Bo Jinn | Illogical Atheism: A Comprehensive Response to the Contemporary Freethinker from a Lapsed Agnostic

There is no science to which final appeal can be made; there are only scientists and their various theories. … No scientific or observational proof can be given for the uniformity of nature, and much less can experience demonstrate that “the scientific method is the sole gateway to the whole region of knowledge.” On the contrary, a plausible analysis showed that science was incapable of arriving at any truth whatever.
Gordon Clark; (1902-1985); A Christian View of Men and Things; 1952; p216, 227

If we examine the history of science … we find that in each period a given theory is entertained by science as true. Shortly afterward, the theory is found inadequate, and is replaced by a new theory … These theories … cannot all be true. … A true theory would not be replaceable, for what is true remains true– unless of course what we are explaining no longer remains the same. Thus the theories of science are guesses, which are changed after the scientific fashions of the day, but none are faithful accounts of reality.
J. H. Randall; (1899-1980); Philosophy: An Introduction; p98

Science is not a system of certain, or well-established statements; nor is it a system which steadily advances towards a state of finality. Our science is not knowledge (episteme); it can never claim to have attained truth, or even a substitute for it, such as probability; we do not know, we can only guess.
The old scientific ideal of episteme– of absolutely certain, demonstrable knowledge– has proven to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it inevitable that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever.
Karl Popper; (1902-1994); Logic of Scientific Discovery; p278, 280

… we can never have perfectly clean-cut knowledge of anything. It is a general consequence of the approximate character of all measurement that no empirical science can ever make exact statements.
P. W. Bridgman; (1882-1961); The Logic of Modern Physics; 1927/1951; p33, 34

Our senses were given to us for the preservation of our bodies and not for the acquisition of truth.
From The Search After Truth,
Nicolas Malebranche, 1674

Ref.
[1] Hume is frequently directly and indirectly referenced by both Hitchens and Dawkins.

1) http://www.phy.ilstu.edu/pte/publications/scientific_epistemology.pdf
2) https://chab123.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/a-look-at-gods-existence-evidence-we-want-vs-evidence-we-should-expect/
3. https://www.quora.com/What-did-Werner-Heisenberg-mean-when-he-said-%E2%80%9CThe-first-gulp-from-the-glass-of-natural-sciences-will-turn-you-into-an-atheist-but-at-the-bottom-of-the-glass-God-is-waiting-for-you%E2%80%9D
4. Brian Foster 


http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/douglas-axe-on-scientism/



Last edited by Otangelo on Wed Oct 25, 2023 8:29 am; edited 43 times in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins  Christ10



The Religion of Scientism by Don Watson 

Materialism holds a commanding position in science throughout the world today. The materialistic world-view has earned this position because it has been extremely fruitful for the scientific work of the last few centuries, not only in the physical sciences, but in biology, too. The "clock-work" model has created and reinforced the strong belief that, given enough time and money, materialistic science will eventually explain everything, including life and consciousness. The philosopher of science, Karl Popper, wryly characterized this belief as "promissory materialism." Indeed, promissory materialism is a fundamental article of faith in Scientism.

Scientism has been characterized in many ways, some neutral and others pejorative. In this essay, I use neutral terminology, e.g., "The use of the style, assumptions, techniques, and other attributes typically displayed by scientists" (Random House Dictionary). In other words, Scientism is what the scientific community actually does and believes, regardless of what it claims to do and believe.

The scientific community formally adopted materialism as the basis of its belief system in 1667 when Thomas Sprat wrote a letter to King Charles II on behalf of the Royal Society. To protect English scientists from the persecutions that were rampaging in Europe, the Royal Society solemnly promised that its scientists would not "meddle . . . with Divine things," and would limit their studies of humans to "their bodies" and "the products of their hands." The Royal Society thus promised that, while scientists would avoid the subjects of God and the Soul, "in all the rest, [they] wander at their pleasure."

With this oath, Scientism became the religion of materialism, and the basic tenets of materialism became the Scientist's Creed.

From our perspective today, Scientism's covenant with the Church looks like a pact with the devil. In exchange for the safety of scientists, the Royal Society agreed to blind scientists to one half of the observable universe. With this self-inflicted hemianopsia (half-blindness) scientists can see the world objectively, but not subjectively. This is a severe disability because subjective observation is the only way that leads to understanding the origins of life and consciousness. Thus, the dogmas and canons of Scientism limit basic studies of life to molecular biology, and aside from certain branches of psychology, preclude studies of the "self" altogether.

Scientism's oath nearly aborted the embryonic science of psychology. Unlike physical science, which addressed inanimate objects, psychology bluntly confronted the sacred "soul." In 1653, twelve years before the Royal Society's covenant, J. de Back had divided the study of man into three parts, "Psychologie, Somatologie, and Hœmatologie," and specified that "Psychologie is a doctrine which searches out man's Soul, and the effects of it." Indeed, the prefix, psyche meant "soul," but this was soon to change.

The idea of subjecting the soul to scientific study incited religious institutions to counterattack, so psychologists defended themselves by secularizing their discipline. They changed the meaning of psyche from "soul" to "mind." However, sidestepping the issue did little to quell the conflict. Thus, when Sigmund Freud introduced his psychoanalytic theory, which rested on the concept of the unconscious mind and psychic determinism, he re-inflamed emotions in the religious communities.

Completing the transformation, John B. Watson removed the psyche from psychology altogether in 1913 when he introduced behaviorism, which he characterized as "a purely objective experimental branch of natural science. Its theoretical goal is the prediction and control of behavior." Thus, to ensure compliance with Scientism's canons, the behaviorists joined physical scientists in adopting objective observation as their gold standard. Behaviorism is appealing to those who make robots because they can claim that robots that behave like humans are humanoid.

Behaviorism has contributed several important ideas about learning, but it's severely limited because there's no such thing as objective observation. All perceptions are subjective, including those of behaviorists, because they occur in the mental apparatus of the "self." As a result, scientists who embrace the myth of objectivity fail to appreciate their most important instrument—themselves and their mental operations. That's one reason they can't see the cultural and psychological impediments to their science.

As selves, we humans perceive objects by interpreting our sensory experiences according to our world-views. Fortunately, however, our world-views aren't static and immutable. They change as we learn from our experiences. That's why psychology has grown beyond behaviorism, and why scientific thinking can grow beyond the arbitrary limitations of Scientism. Indeed, we can expect this growth in the next scientific revolution and paradigm shift.

We can also make mistakes because we can interpret our subjective experiences as objects, whether those "objects" are real or not. In either case, this process is termed objectification. For real objects, we'll characterize the process as "valid objectification," to distinguish it from "false objectification."

False objectification is misinterpreting mental constructs that aren't produced from objects—for instance, the sensory experience of pain. Experiences of pain originate in neuronal states, not objects, so objectifying it is a mistake. Despite this, neuroscientists continue in their quest to study pain "objectively."

False objectification also applies to the visceral sensation of hunger. When my granddaughter, Shelly, was three years old, she recognized the root of the fallacy. Her mother said, "You can't be hungry now," and Shelly replied, "You don't know 'cause you aren't me." She thereby identified her subjectively observed "self" as the only person who could observe her hunger. If we were to deny the self, we would also have to deny hunger.

Today it's fashionable in neuroscience, cognitive science, molecular biology, and philosophy to use false objectification to deny, ignore, or explain away the "self." For instance, James D. Watson, co-discoverer with Francis Crick of the structure of DNA, claims that the DNA sequence "tells us who we are." If this were true, then identical twins would be the same person. Yet no twin ever confuses himself with his twin. Thus, the notion of DNA determining "who we are" reflects the limited thinking imposed by false objectification.



Last edited by Admin on Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:00 am; edited 1 time in total

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Doug Axe, undeniable : 

The scientistic view introduced in the first chapter—scientism—is the most striking example of an embellished version of science that has risen to prominence. The reason adherents to this version hold science to be the only legitimate source of truth is that they also hold to materialism. This commits them to the idea that there isn’t anything but physical stuff, and because science is the only way to know the truth about physical stuff, this leads them to conclude that science is the only source of truth. The materialist commitment itself,
though, is completely unnecessary to science and therefore a harmful embellishment.

The IRRATIONALITY of Atheistic SCIENTISM
--------------------------------------------------------
P1. Atheistic-Scientism is Foundationally and Fundamentally Irrational.
P2. There are three major forms of Scientism, (a) Atheistic Scientism, (b) Experimental Scientism, and (c) Sense-Empirical Scientism.
............................
P3. Definitions:
- (a) Atheistic Scientism = the Atheist-faith-based belief that Atheistic-Science is the ONLY way to truth.
- (b) Experimental Scientism = the view that ONLY what can be Experimentally Verified is true.
- (c) Sense-Empirical Scientism = the view that ONLY what can be Empirically Verified (i.e., verified directly with our five senses) is true.
............................
P4. All three of the above (Atheistic Scientism, Experimental Scientism, Sense-Empirical Scientism as in P3) are IRRATIONAL. See below.
P5. Each of these positions is itself a Philosophical position that is based on premises that cannot be proved to be true.
P6. AND, each of these positions is a metaphysical position that is self-refuting. I.e., each of these is based on premises that when applied to that view, refutes that view. See below.
.............................
P7. Experimental Scientism is actually a Metaphysical position, one that is based on premises that cannot be proved to be true.
P8. Experimental Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be experimentally proved is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot experimentally prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be experimentally proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be experimentally proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be experimentally proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C1. Therefore, Experimental Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Experimental Scientism.
………………
P9. Sense-Empirical Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be sense-empirically proved (through our senses) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot sense-empirically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be sense-empirically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be sense-empirically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be sense-empirically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C2. Therefore, Sense-Empirical Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on sense-empirical Scientism.
………………
P10. Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C3. Therefore, Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Scientism.
………………
P11. Atheistic-Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Atheist-Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method together with the faith-based assumption that ONLY Atheistic-Naturalism is true; i.e., that no non-naturalistic explanations are permitted for ANY phenomenon, no matter how compelling the evidence for the existence and/or activity of a supernatural entity) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Atheist-Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Atheist-Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Atheist-Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C4. Therefore, Atheistic-Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Atheistic-Scientism.
………………
P12. Additional forms of Scientism include Naturalistic Scientism, Materialistic Scientism, and Physicalistic Scientism. See below.
P13. Naturalistic-Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Naturalistic-Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method together with the faith-based assumption that ONLY Naturalism is true; i.e., that no non-naturalistic explanations are permitted for ANY phenomenon, no matter how compelling the evidence for the existence and/or activity of a supernatural entity) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot naturalistic-scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Naturalistic-Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Naturalistic-Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Naturalistic-Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C5. Therefore, Naturalistic-Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Naturalistic-Scientism.
………………
P14. Materialistic-Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Materialistic-Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method together with the faith-based assumption that ONLY Materialism is true; i.e., that no non-Materialistic explanations are permitted for ANY phenomenon, no matter how compelling the evidence for the existence and/or activity of a non-Materialistic entity) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot Materialistic-scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Materialistic-Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Materialistic-Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Materialistic-Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C6. Therefore, Materialistic-Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Materialistic-Scientism.
………………
P15. Physicalistic-Scientism is the view that ONLY what can be Physicalistic-Scientifically proved (through the use of the scientific method together with the faith-based assumption that ONLY Physicalism is true; i.e., that no non-Physicalistic explanations are permitted for ANY phenomenon, no matter how compelling the evidence for the existence and/or activity of a non-Physicalistic entity) is True. This view is self-refuting. You cannot Physicalistic-scientifically prove the truth of the metaphysical claim that "ONLY what can be Physicalistic-Scientifically proved is True". So, IF it is true that ONLY what can be Physicalistic-Scientifically proved is True, then that statement (that “ONLY what can be Physicalistic-Scientifically proved is true”) is itself FALSE.
………………
C7. Therefore, Physicalistic-Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Physicalistic-Scientism.
________________________________________
CONCLUSIONS (summarized):
________________________________________
C1. Experimental Scientism is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Experimental Scientism.
C2. Sense-Empirical Scientism is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Sense-Empirical Scientism.
C3. Scientism itself is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Scientism in general.
C4. Atheistic Scientism is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Atheistic Scientism.
C5. Naturalistic Scientism is self-refuting. Therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Naturalistic Scientism.
C6. Materialistic Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Materialistic Scientism.
C7. Physicalistic Scientism is self-refuting. And therefore, it is IRRATIONAL for atheists to insist on Physicalistic Scientism.
………………………..
BOTTOM LINE:
………………………..
C8. ATHEISM is Fundamentally and Foundationally IRRATIONAL.
C9. The insistence by many (or most) atheists on Scientism is ONE among many indications of the truth of this statement (that ATHEISM is Fundamentally and Foundationally IRRATIONAL).

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Gary Thomas Sheedy   


The logic of atheism
A colleague once told me,
“I only believe things that can be scientifically proven,” and I quickly turned the tables by asking, “Well, then why do you believe that, since that cannot be scientifically proven? Your method of investigating truth is built on a construct that you believe, despite an absence of scientific proof for your philosophy, so by your own philosophy you shouldn’t believe your own philosophy because it cannot be scientifically proven.”
My acquaintance then proceeded to stare at me, head tilted like a dog staring at a blaring television. If one claims that,
“it’s only true if you can prove it scientifically,” then he is making a statement that cannot be proven scientifically.” In what way could one could one prove scientifically that all claims must be proven scientifically? Such self-refuting materialistic claims are definitely not science and are at best hillbilly philosophy. Furthermore, things like mathematics cannot be proven scientifically, as science presupposes mathematics. Similarly, the reality of the past cannot be proven, as we could have been dropped into our bodies 5 minutes ago with pre-programmed memories, and we would never be able to tell the difference. We also cannot prove that other people have consciousness, as they could just be soulless biological robots that perfectly mimic a conscious being. Everyone believes things that cannot be proven, despite any metaphysical posturing and pseudo-intellectual rhetoric. In truth, for many materialists, belief is like being at a salad bar, picking and choosing beliefs that are convenient or comfortable, but this is not science.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

What can we know that science does and cannot tell us ?

The Enlightenment was as much a Europe-wide political revolution as an academic revolution. The legacy of secularism is still going on today in academia, but a new momentum has emerged which is shaking the foundations of “Rationalists”,  “Humanists”, “Secularists”,  “Freethinkers”, " Atheists" " Naturalists" – which have without success tried to eradicate the legacy and traces of the Judeo-Christian heritage. Between the sordid sheets of the Enlightenment, Empiricism was born, giving birth to the foundation of modern secularized Science. The marriage of science to naturalism during the mid-to-late 18th century, propagated by the Scottish philosopher; David Hume, symbolized the brokering of a union of academia to materialistic ideology. The union endures until today. But the dam is breaking apart, and this crooked perverse union, sealed centuries ago, is slowly losing steam. The claim: What science cannot prove to us, mankind cannot know - is a strawman at its best.

Why should we not ask the questions, which science has no answer for? And why can they not provide us with intellectually satisfying answers to the deepest questions of our existence? There are points where the sets of science, reason, theology and philosophy and faith converge to an intellectually satisfying understanding. If logic and philosophical reasoning besides empirical verificationism has no value to make meaningful sentences and inferences in regards of origins, as pop-scientism propagandist Krauss has claimed, then why does he even use his own logic and philosophical claims, if there cannot be worthy understanding by using it? His claim that the universe is non-logical and cannot be understood is self-defeating and irrational. The claim that God is anti-scientific, and shall have no place in academia since his existence cannot be tested, is a philosophical claim of inexcusable ignorance, fueled by the wish of secular scientists to be the masters of the universe, to which the intellectual proletariat has to look up to and devour with eager and healthy appetite all that comes from their wisdom, and dismiss all other sources of intellectual knowledge.

What modern scientists might re-consider is the fact that the last indispensable outcome of the scientific endeavor must be:  "Ye must have faith". That is, we make part of a finite universe, and there is a black impenetrable curtain on the boundaries of the universe, which we cannot penetrate and look beyond. The mystery of the last reality will not be lifted during our existence here on earth. Goedel's Theorem applies.

Gödel's incompleteness theorem
Perry Marshall:  The scientific method cannot prove, it can only infer. (Science originally came from the idea that God made an orderly universe which obeys fixed, discoverable laws.) Now please consider what happens when we draw the biggest circle possibly can – around the whole universe. (If there are multiple universes, we’re drawing a circle around all of them too):

There has to be something outside that circle. Something which we have to assume but cannot prove
The universe as we know it is finite – finite matter, finite energy, finite space and  finite time
The universe is mathematical. Any physical system subjected to measurement performs arithmetic. (You don’t need to know math to do addition – you can use an abacus instead and it will give you the right answer every time.)
The universe (all matter, energy, space and time) cannot explain itself
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is boundless. By definition it is not possible to draw a circle around it.
If we draw a circle around all matter, energy, space and time and apply Gödel’s theorem, then we know what is outside that circle is not matter, is not energy, is not space and is not time. It’s immaterial.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is not a system – i.e. is not an assemblage of parts. Otherwise we could draw a circle around them. The thing outside the biggest circle is indivisible.
Whatever is outside the biggest circle is an uncaused cause, because you can always draw a circle around an effect.

Unreasonable, blind and reasonable faith
There is no empirical proof of Gods existence. But there is neither, that the known universe, the natural physical material world is all there is. To prove, God does not exist, we would need to be all-knowing. We are not. The burden of proof cannot be met on both sides. Consequently, the right question to come to the most accurate, case-correct, evidence-based inference and conclusion does not need, require or demand an empirical demonstration of Gods existence but we can elaborate philosophical inferences to either affirm or deny the existence of a creator based on circumstantial evidence, logic, and reason.

Unreasonable Faith
Believing in something IN SPITE of the evidence. We hold an unreasonable faith when we refuse to accept or acknowledge evidence that exists, is easily accessible and clearly refutes what we believe

Blind Faith
Believing in something WITHOUT any evidence. We hold a blind faith when we accept something even though there is no evidence to support our beliefs. We don’t search for ANY evidence that either supports or refutes what we are determined to believe

Reasonable Faith

Believing in something BECAUSE of the evidence. We hold a reasonable faith when we believe in something because it is the most reasonable conclusion from the evidence that exists. The Bible repeatedly makes evidential claims. It offers eyewitness accounts of historical events that can be verified archaeologically, prophetically and even scientifically. We, as Christians are called to hold a REASONABLE FAITH that is grounded in this evidence.

Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins  37807610

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Positivism, Scientism, Verificationism, and the Presumption of Atheism 

We need to endorse a worldview that makes sense, and is a consequence of a carefully chosen and elaborated methodology of an epistemological framework, and applied to do a consistent, correct to the case research, and coming to meaningful, and the most accurate possible conclusions in regards of origins and reality. There are several ways, as rationalism, empiricism, pragmatism, authority, and revelation.
Rationalism holds that which is logical and consistent is true.

Empiricism holds that what can be systematically verified via sensory input is the way to accept the truth.
Pragmatism bases and derives its claims via practical life experience.
Authority is based on what experts say is true. And
Revelation holds that which God reveals is True; Revelations from God establish Truth.

A correct research to find truth is based on considering a mix of above. Atheists do commonly make the mistake to stick to empiricism and authority only. But someone has to consider the aspects of science, philosophy, theology, and applying reason, wisdom, and logic.

Can you use the scientific method to prove that the scientific method is the primary epistemology for truth claims?

The very greatest scientists, those from whom new perspectives finally come, those from whom paradigm shifts in human thought come, are open-minded on fundamental questions and begin to see the value of philosophy as a torchlight on the discoveries of science.

The average scientist is good at doing science but not much good at thinking about its implications. The average religious person is not so good at looking and understanding at what science has to say about reality and, more serious, seeing that science is more valuable than doctrines, traditions and authority systems about telling us about the true nature of things. 3

Every worldview, without exception, is a faith-based belief system, consisting of a set of statements the holder adopts as being true. Starting from this view, we can dispense with the foolish notion of "proof," as some are so quick to require (as though they have such proof for the worldview they currently hold). Instead of "proof" in the absolute sense, we proceed with examining the available evidence, which should point with confidence to the worldview that best accounts for that evidence. 

While every worldview (from Atheism to Theism) is faith-based, or perhaps more accurately, confidence-based (no absolute proof), there is none that should be based on no evidence at all (a pure blind-faith). The rule of evidence examination and conclusions we draw from it: truth is that which corresponds to reality, anything that does not correspond to reality is summarily rejected as false.

Socrates said, "The unexamined life isn't worth living." Correspondingly, the unexamined worldview isn't worth believing. Let's go.

Many (if not most) of the really important things in life aren't subject to scientific, empirical investigation. You can't scientifically prove the beauty of the beautiful, or the goodness of the good. You can't scientifically prove that love is better han hate, or even that life is better than death. You can't prove scientifically the friendship of your best friend, and even trying to would only serve to queer the relationship in some way. The bottom line is, when you're experiencing the friendship of your best friend, you don't need any proof. And when you're not experiencing the friendship of your best friend, no proof will do. So it is with God.

Positivists championed a Verification Principle of meaning, according to which an informative sentence, in order to be meaningful, must be capable in principle of being empirically verified.
Under criticism, the Verification Principle underwent a number of changes, including its permutation into the Falsification Principle, which held that a meaningful sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically falsified.
The statement “In order to be meaningful, an informative sentence must be capable in principle of being empirically verified/falsified” is itself incapable of being verified or falsified.
The inadequacies of the positivistic theory of meaning led to the complete collapse of Logical Positivism during the second half of the twentieth century, helping to spark not only a revival of interest in Metaphysics but in Philosophy of Religion as well. Today’s Flew’s sort of challenge, which loomed so large in mid-century discussions, is scarcely a blip on the philosophical radar screen.
If someone is asking for 100 per cent,  to truly know that God exists, we need to remind them this is unrealistic. We believe lots of things with confidence even though we do not have absolute certainty. 
'"It is up to logic and the factors of different perspectives to determine if God exists or not."
The marriage of science to naturalism during the mid-to-late 18th century ministered most famously by the Scottish enlightenment philosopher; David Hume, symbolized the brokering of a union which was nothing short of a shotgun wedding of academia to ideology.

Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

The criterion which we use to test the genuineness of apparent statements of fact is the criterion of verifiability. We say that a sentence is factually significant to any given person, if, and only if, he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express — that is, if he knows what observations would lead him, under certain conditions, to accept the proposition as true, or reject it as being false. — A.J. Ayer (Language, Truth, and Logic)
https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/

Scientific Proof Is A Myth
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/22/scientific-proof-is-a-myth/?sh=2f491d2a2fb1&fbclid=IwAR04qRL-RSohuC48i4Wlm5TgnmoMLRQJKHk4G2vGlY4Q97ln7HPyzD_AHG8

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins  How-na10

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Otangelo


Admin

Enlightening the Path: Fostering Critical Thought and Skepticism in the Information Age

The deficiency in scientific understanding and education, coupled with an absence of a robust framework for epistemological inquiry into the beginnings of all natural phenomena, has fostered a misleading sense of intellectual elitism. This, combined with a tendency to uncritically accept assertions made by mainstream science and media, forms a perilous concoction This blend not only misguides individuals but also continues to steer numerous individuals toward eternal damnation. To counteract this, it is imperative to provide comprehensive apologetics that is underpinned by solid reasoning and evidence. These should be conveyed with kindness, enduring patience, and discerning wisdom, aiming to enlighten minds and foster a culture of thoughtful inquiry and skepticism towards unwarranted inferences. This approach will not only educate but also empower individuals to critically evaluate information, leading to a more informed and discerning society.

A little science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him. A superficial understanding of science may lead individuals to question or even reject the concept of a higher power or divine presence, as initial scientific discoveries can seem to contradict religious teachings or beliefs. This is often due to a perceived conflict between scientific explanations and spiritual beliefs. However, as one delves deeper into the complexities and wonders of the universe revealed by advanced scientific inquiry, there can be a profound sense of awe and a deeper appreciation for the intricacy, complexity, and beauty of the natural world. This, in turn, can lead to a renewed sense of spirituality or a belief in a higher power, as the remarkable order and detail observed in nature are indicative of deliberate design or purpose. This quote underscores the importance of embracing both science and spirituality, not as opposing forces but as complementary perspectives that can enrich one's understanding of the universe and our place within it. It encourages a deep and open-minded exploration of science, with the understanding that knowledge and faith can coexist and even enhance one another, leading to a more holistic and profound appreciation of life and existence.

Scientism, verificationism, and the quest for a sound epistemological approach to finding truth in regard to origins  Paneas10

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum