Should Science Speak to Faith?

[Xard]

Hmh, read them. Maybe I should participate again.

 

Meh, I should read 4 pages if I'd want to understand **** what is going on here.

 

So I say only this: Logical Positivism SUCKS

Sit in the corner and suck on your lollipop. There's a good boy. Don't let the nasty complicated science hurt you.

 

Lol?

 

I have no problems with science, I have problems with Logical Positivism as a philosophy. Solipsism and Logical Positivism... Bah

 

I can stand the milder form, Logical Empirism (although I don't fancy it either), but Positivism? Uh, no thanks. LP has its use in "unification of science" or whatever the correct term is, but otherwise...

 

Other (well, most of) branches of Analytic Philosophy are all "fun and games" for me.

 

And no, I don't have any will to start my rant about Logical Empirism, just had to say something after your obnoxious answer.

[Istima Loke]

Now, again I must repeat, circularity in argument follows a valid deductive proof/argument (which is the essence of a "logical" argument/proof). Yes, it may be vacuous or unsatisfying, but that has no bearing on logicality (see again tautologies).

 

 

In an attempt to stop this misunderstanding, I will say:

 

"Circularity" IS a logical fallacy. The question is what is "circularity". I will give an example (because it is what I can do) to explain myself:

 

Circular proofs (or whatever they are called, proofs that contain "circularities" and therefore are false) were used, for example, in some theorems of Euclid's "Elements".

Hypothetically, Euclid wanted to prove that A stands. He then said: Let A stand --> ...yadayadageometrythingiesyada... --> A stands. Therefore I have proven that A stands.

 

This is a logical fallacy, it is called circularity and that is what metadigital was talking about at least as far as I understood.

 

EDIT: On the other hand saying that if A stands then A stands (is called a tautology if I am not mistaken) is logically correct.

 

P.S.: I hope that was helpful

Edited June 25, 2007 by Istima Loke

[Qwerty the Sir]

Thanks Istima Loke, I think you helped me see the impasse.

 

First of all, I just want to reiterate that I know that circularity is not at all convincing. If I was making an argument in my paper and the argument went as:

 

"The external word exists, therefore the external world exists"

 

...I would probably be called out for it. Had I submitted the paper in a Philosophy class, I would get a note about circular reasoning. Circularity is just not a good way to reason, it becomes too easy to prove anything.

 

But if I were to take a test in Logic class and was asked to give an example of a deductively valid symbolic proof/argument, I could very easily put:

 

1) P

Therefore P

 

...and get it correct.

 

But say I put down this as an answer:

 

1) P > Q

2) Q

Therefore P

 

...I would get that wrong, as it is not deductively valid but rather affirming consequent. Now, the second example is what most people would call much more fruitful than the first (affirming consequent/backwards modus ponens is used in abductive reasoning/inference to best explanation which is the way much scientific reasoning goes), but the first is "logical" and the second is not.

 

That is my point.

 

Logic is funny like that, for example, you can logically prove anything from a contradiction (which is why most logic systems are not paraconsistent and most logicians endorse the Principle of Non-Contradiction despite paradox against it.

 

Lastly, circular proofs or arguments do not have to be false at all (again, logic has nothing to do with truth). 'Illogical' arguments can be true. There are even those who say that there can be true contradictions.

Edited June 25, 2007 by Qwerty the Sir

[Cantousent]

As promised, I'm willing to give you the last word, meta. I gladly welcome anyone reading this thread to view our posts and draw his own conclusions.

Nice side-step on my counter proposal. I'll conclude that you concede that point.

 

Don't you ever get tired of putting words in my mouth? I merely gave you the last argument. I'm willing to let folks read what we've written so far, including your last post in regards to my arguments, and decide for themselves. If you'd really like my response, and see it as an opportunity to enlarge the discussion rather than aimlessly hunting for more TOMBS points, I'd be happy to respond. Otherwise, I'll leave your proposal in your post and you may think of it as a concession if that will help you sleep at night.

[metadigital]

Cant, I'm not putting words into your mouth, I'm trying to engage you in a discussion ... you've just given up, despite my reasonable attempts ... almost like someone who doesn't want to confront an ugly truth ...

 

 

Qwerty, I'm struggling to understand why you insist on trying to assert that I cannot use the term "fallacy" in an informal manner.

 

I'm also struggling to comprehend how, when I demonstrate that the proof for Purgatory -- as listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, under Purgatory, Proof, hence the principle proposition (P) to be proved is the existence of Purgatory, by the establishment of the existence of intercessory prayers (Q) -- is affirming the consequent and therefore a FORMAL LOGICAL FALLACY.

 

Now, as for the existence of God, let's just take the first three, and demonstrate their fallacious logic.

Thomas Aquinas

1. The Unmoved Mover. Nothing moves without a prior mover. This leads us to a regress, from which the only escape is God. Something had to make the first move, and that something we call God.
   
2. The Uncaused Cause. Nothing is caused by itself. Every effect has a prior cause, and again we are pushed back into regress. This has to be terminated by a first cause, which we call God.
   
3. The Cosmological Argument. There must have been a time when no physical things existed. But, since physical things exist now, there must have been something non-physical to bring them into existence, and that something we call God.
   

All these arguments rely on an infinite regress and invoke God to terminate it. They make the (unwarranted) assumption God is immune to regress (who created God). Even if we allow a terminator, and call it God, there is no reason to imbue it with personality.

 

So, the logic is:

(P) God is uncreated, unmoved and uncaused

(Q) everything is created, moved and caused

 

Once again we are affirming the consequent (Q) and expecting it to prove the Proposal (P):

P>Q

Q.

Therefore P

Which, you will recall (or look above and READ) is a FORMAL LOGICAL FALLACY. It is also a faulty premise (as I also indicated) because there is no justifiable reason to assume that there is a terminator to an infinite regression.

 

Really, the discussion of the correct semantic use of the term "fallacy" is so far from the topic of science and religion (well, except that religious people throughout history have used fallacies with monotonous regularity to prove the existence of God), that I doubt anyone of faith has bothered to read this far.

 

 

=====================

 

Let me just help this argument out of the nineteenth century; the singlemost important consequence of the Darwin-Wallace evolutionary concept of natural selection is this (read it slowly, because it is breathtakingly important):

it is (the only know way to explain) complexity from simplicity.

 

Incremental specialisation doesn't require anything else to explain complexity. This is the most important concept for everyone to grasp. It really is beautiful and beautifully simple. A horseshoe doesn't create a blacksmith, a watch doesn't beget a watchmaker ... but, through evolution an eye can grow in usefulness from a flatworm's light-and-shade detector, through the Nautilus's pin-hole camera image with blurry edges, to a mammalian eye and up beyond to an eagle (for example), depending on natural selection.

 

This is why, before Darwin and Wallace, thinkers were preoccupied with explaining our universe as originating from something more complex (God). There was no other explanation. And, if we had adhered to Church leaders like Martin Luther (vide infra), then we would not have this explanation.

Reason is the enemy of faith

Reason should be destroyed in all Christians

Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but -- more frequently than not -- struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.

Martin Luther

 

I trust this helps elucidate the matter to everyone's satisfaction.

[Sand]

I still think religion has more drawbacks than benefits and is holding back progress. Without the backwards thinking of religious conservatives and fundamentalists we may have made even more medical advances, but no, Bushie had to veto embryonic stem cell research... AGAIN! We seriously need to get the Republicans out of office.

[Guard Dog]

I still think religion has more drawbacks than benefits and is holding back progress. Without the backwards thinking of religious conservatives and fundamentalists we may have made even more medical advances, but no, Bushie had to veto embryonic stem cell research... AGAIN! We seriously need to get the Republicans out of office.

For Gods sake (no pun intended) Sand, Bush only vetoed FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research. And he was correct to do so, albeit not for the reasons he actually did it. I never read a phrase in the Constitution anywhere that stated is was Uncle Sam's job to promote, fund, aid, or hinder scientific research of any kind. Stem Cell research still goes on through private funding. Mostly paid for by the "big evil pharmaceutical" companies.

[taks]

the gov't does help fund adult stem cell research as i recall. of course, most commercial endeavors into stems cells are also adult varieties, but that's more due to the better results they seem to be yielding.

 

taks

[taks]

and the fact they don't usually turn into tumors. there's a reason venture capitalists are chasing adult stem cells, and it has nothing to do with government funding.

 

taks

[Sand]

the gov't does help fund adult stem cell research as i recall. of course, most commercial endeavors into stems cells are also adult varieties, but that's more due to the better results they seem to be yielding.

 

taks

 

The opnly reason they are yielding better results is because they are the focus of all the funding. I say give embryonic stem cell the same level of funding and research then lets see which gives the better results.

[Walsingham]

I still think religion has more drawbacks than benefits and is holding back progress. Without the backwards thinking of religious conservatives and fundamentalists we may have made even more medical advances, but no, Bushie had to veto embryonic stem cell research... AGAIN! We seriously need to get the Republicans out of office.

For Gods sake (no pun intended) Sand, Bush only vetoed FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research. And he was correct to do so, albeit not for the reasons he actually did it. I never read a phrase in the Constitution anywhere that stated is was Uncle Sam's job to promote, fund, aid, or hinder scientific research of any kind. Stem Cell research still goes on through private funding. Mostly paid for by the "big evil pharmaceutical" companies.

 

This argument would be valid if uniformly applied to all research. I may be wrong but doesn't Sam finance lots of things? It's what makes all power gravitate towards Washington.

 

On the same point, but back on topic, I consider stem cell research priority 1 in the world right now, because I have two close people to me who may die without it. However, that does not mean opposing it is automatically bad. Democracy means representing the willl of the voters, and the voters said to Bush "We want you to be a right wing narrow moralist." I'm sick of hearing people who didn't vote (not necessarily you, Sando) bitching about the situation they're now in.

[Sand]

Of course, I really don't like those types of people as well which is why I always vote. May it be local, state, or nation, whenever there is a call for a vote or an election I vote.

[WITHTEETH]

I still think religion has more drawbacks than benefits and is holding back progress. Without the backwards thinking of religious conservatives and fundamentalists we may have made even more medical advances, but no, Bushie had to veto embryonic stem cell research... AGAIN! We seriously need to get the Republicans out of office.

For Gods sake (no pun intended) Sand, Bush only vetoed FEDERAL FUNDING of stem cell research. And he was correct to do so, albeit not for the reasons he actually did it. I never read a phrase in the Constitution anywhere that stated is was Uncle Sam's job to promote, fund, aid, or hinder scientific research of any kind. Stem Cell research still goes on through private funding. Mostly paid for by the "big evil pharmaceutical" companies.

You do know our military budget alone is over a half trillion dollars right? There are so many problems with this administration I'm not even going to bother arguing it. For those who still defend it, thanks a lot.

Edited June 26, 2007 by WITHTEETH

[Guard Dog]

This argument would be valid if uniformly applied to all research. I may be wrong but doesn't Sam finance lots of things? It's what makes all power gravitate towards Washington.

 

True enough and you hear me (and others) complaining about it here, on libertypost.org, and other similar boards

 

On the same point, but back on topic, I consider stem cell research priority 1 in the world right now, because I have two close people to me who may die without it. However, that does not mean opposing it is automatically bad. Democracy means representing the Will of the voters, and the voters said to Bush "We want you to be a right wing narrow moralist." I'm sick of hearing people who didn't vote (not necessarily you, Sando) bitching about the situation they're now in.

We did not tell Bush to be a narrow moralist. He already was one, and everyone knew. Yup, we got exactly what was advertised in Bush. One thing to his credit he did not present himself as a moderate then govern as a conservative. But the thing is, and I think most people would agree, Bush was elected not because he was a good candidate but because the alternative was so repulsive it made him the best choice. I voted for him in 2000 because Al Gore is an Orwellian monster (believe me, I've met him twice), but voted for Mike Badnarik in 2004 because the choice between Bush and Kerry was like choosing to be stabbed or shot.

 

Back OT now. Politics is the art of "all things considered." And like it or not religion gets a seat at that table because religious people vote. And when religious interests conflict with research interests one has to win one has to lose. So the government cannot serve them both without political repercussions so the best thing is to ignore them both and pay no money to either. And how nice, the 1st and 10th amendments of the Constitution instruct the government to do just that. Those Founders were pretty smart huh? If they had just followed a strict interpretation of the law people like Sand would not be angry today. If you give a kid a toy, then take it away, they cry. But if they never had the toy to begin with.... you get the idea.

[Guard Dog]

You do know our military budget alone is over a half trillion dollars right? There are so many problems with this administration I'm not even going to bother arguing it. For those who still defend it, thanks a lot.

Thats different. The constitution requires the Federal Government to maintain the military, so I have no complaint with defense spending. The amount, application and management of it, that is a different story. I was not defending Bush, I was calling Sand on something he said that was wrong.

[Sand]

You do know our military budget alone is over a half trillion dollars right? There are so many problems with this administration I'm not even going to bother arguing it. For those who still defend it, thanks a lot.

Thats different. The constitution requires the Federal Government to maintain the military, so I have no complaint with defense spending. The amount, application and management of it, that is a different story. I was not defending Bush, I was calling Sand on something he said that was wrong.

Wow. You find it wrong to find cures and advance medical science so that people will not suffer with crippling diseases and injuries. If that is wrong, Guard Dog, then I don't want to be right.

[Guard Dog]

Wow. You find it wrong to find cures and advance medical science so that people will not suffer with crippling diseases and injuries. If that is wrong, Guard Dog, then I don't want to be right.

 

You know better than that. I said get the government out of the picture. Without government funding (and consequently interference) there is no science vs faith debate because the only thing they have in common IS government.

 

Federal government that is. If any state wishes to fund any scientific research then they are free to do so as long as the state constitution allows. Florida does fund a number of research programs.

 

Besides what you were wrong on is Bush did not veto Stem Cell research, he just said he would not pay for it.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Sand]

Sorry, but in my view the primary purpose of government is to take care of the welfare of the people it governs. A government that does not serve the people is a government that has no purpose. Bush rather kill people in a useless war by the looks of it, than spend the money necessary to save lives.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Sand

[WITHTEETH]

Let me just help this argument out of the nineteenth century; the singlemost important consequence of the Darwin-Wallace evolutionary concept of natural selection is this (read it slowly, because it is breathtakingly important):

it is (the only know way to explain) complexity from simplicity.

 

Incremental specialisation doesn't require anything else to explain complexity. This is the most important concept for everyone to grasp. It really is beautiful and beautifully simple. A horseshoe doesn't create a blacksmith, a watch doesn't beget a watchmaker ... but, through evolution an eye can grow in usefulness from a flatworm's light-and-shade detector, through the Nautilus's pin-hole camera image with blurry edges, to a mammalian eye and up beyond to an eagle (for example), depending on natural selection.

What got the ball rolling? what if the ball was always rolling, crashing, colliding, and combining? God doesn't have to be the unmoved mover. Why is an intelligent designer the only mechanism to find compatibility in the universe? With Occam's Razor, its much more plausible that the cosmos can find compatibility through random particles crashing and combining. What is congruent will harmonize, and what is non-congruent will never be. This method works to find compatibility, and no Intelligent designer is needed, thus the blind watchmaker.

[Xard]

Nonetheles, ball that simply was rolling and will ever be so is not any better argument than First Mover, I'd say it's weaker too.

[Guard Dog]

Sorry, but in my view the primary purpose of government is to take care of the welfare of the people it governs.

 

"Salus Populi Suprema Lex" huh? I disagree. But that is an old arguement neither of us will win.

 

 

A government that does not serve the people is a government that has no purpose.

 

I think Mao said that too. The governments job is not to serve the people but to provide the enviorment for the people to help themselves. But whatever, that is why you vote for democrats and I don't.

 

Bush rather kill people in a useless war by the looks of it, than spend the money necessary to save lives.

One has nothing to do with the other.

[WITHTEETH]

Nonetheles, ball that simply was rolling and will ever be so is not any better argument than First Mover, I'd say it's weaker too.

How did that first thing move then, random chance, or by a complex intelligent being? What are you implying?

[Sand]

The governments job is not to serve the people but to provide the enviorment for the people to help themselves.

 

And those who can't help themselves due to illness or disability? They should just die and rot, right?

[Guard Dog]

The governments job is not to serve the people but to provide the enviorment for the people to help themselves.

 

And those who can't help themselves due to illness or disability? They should just die and rot, right?

You know... forget it. Arguing with you is like swimming in tar. The more you struggle the deeper you get. BTW, taking an example to an unreasonable extreme is not the way to make a point. Plus I just cant get past you thinking it the governments job to "take care of everyone". As if there was not other way.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Guard Dog

[Xard]

I'm with Sand here when talking about what gov. should and should not do.

 

What are you implying?

 

 

I guess I'm implying Deism is more reasonable that atheism, although I'm neither.

 

How did that first thing move then, random chance, or by a complex intelligent being?

 

*shrug*

 

I have my own POV's but they're so heavily in field of ontology rather than religions/science debates

Edited June 26, 2007 by Xard