Science and Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-02-2015, 06:22 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 06:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 06:05 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  A realist metaphysics just means that you believe physical reality is real and not a figment of your imagination. The contrary to a realist view would be that of a berkelian or brain in a jar view.
So whether or not you believe souls exist should have little bearing on whether you believe reality is real.

Reality has evidence; souls do not.

I would argue that statement but it still has no bearing on whether or not one believes reality is real. For example I could believe that bigfoot existed yet still believe reality is real.

I'm homophobic in the same way that I'm arachnophobic. I'm not scared of gay people but I'm going to scream if I find one in my bath.

I'm. Also homophobic in the same way I'm arachnophobic. I'm scared of spiders but I'd still fuck'em.
- my friend Marc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 06:25 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 06:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 08:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  That Christianity has some precepts that are consistent with science doesn't mean much of anything when it has, at its core, tenets that are completely at odds with science.

Is this just a way of saying that Christianity is not compatible with ontological naturalism?

I don't see why Christianity would be incompatible with methodological naturalism, assume it in working methods. Especially considering that Christians are present in nearly every branch of science, this does seem to suggest this is quite possible.

It is incompatible with methodological naturalism. The fact that some people can compartmentalize their beliefs is not evidence that the beliefs are compatible.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 06:38 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 05:15 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  I wouldn't say that knowledge from revelation is contrary to science any more so than gaining knowledge from a friend is contrary to science. You are able to gain knowledge from someone telling you something. Same thing with knowledge without evidence.

I wouldn't call it knowledge until there is evidence. Until then it is just a claim. With a claim made by a friend I likely have a good deal of background info to begin judging the chances of the claim being correct.

Unless you have a reliable way to distinguish revelation from delusion any "knowledge" obtained by revelation would need a great deal of evidence before it could be accepted.

Quote:I presume that you do not require proof of every statement that your friend makes.

That depends on the nature of the statement. "I had eggs for breakfast" I will probably accept without question. "I saw a dragon" would need a lot of proof.

Quote:When one is practising science, then one uses the the scientific method. But for the most part we do not regularly practice science (by which I mean the job of scientists).

IMO you should be using the same principles to evaluate claims encountered in everyday life. The scientific method isn't just for "practicing science", it's a way of determining what is likely true and what isn't. You may not need to be as thorough and precise but the method applies.

Quote:Science is almost more necessary for Christianity since Christianity claims that miracles occur. In order to verify that the natural order has been violated they must know what the natural order is. I would say that science is the understanding of the natural order.

I don't disagree. Now you just have to figure out how you could possibly demonstrate that something does violate the natural order because until you do that it isn't reasonable to assume that that actually happens. All you can hope to show is that there is something you don't understand.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
19-02-2015, 06:41 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 06:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 06:15 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Is this just a way of saying that Christianity is not compatible with ontological naturalism?

I don't see why Christianity would be incompatible with methodological naturalism, assume it in working methods. Especially considering that Christians are present in nearly every branch of science, this does seem to suggest this is quite possible.

It is incompatible with methodological naturalism. The fact that some people can compartmentalize their beliefs is not evidence that the beliefs are compatible.

Well, that's kind of the point of methodological naturalism, than one can compartmentalize, and be fully cognizant of this. Christian scientists are able to assume it in working methods.

So while Christianity is not compatible with ontological naturalism, it can be compatible with methodological naturalism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
19-02-2015, 07:25 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 06:41 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 06:25 PM)Chas Wrote:  It is incompatible with methodological naturalism. The fact that some people can compartmentalize their beliefs is not evidence that the beliefs are compatible.

Well, that's kind of the point of methodological naturalism, than one can compartmentalize, and be fully cognizant of this. Christian scientists are able to assume it in working methods.

So while Christianity is not compatible with ontological naturalism, it can be compatible with methodological naturalism.

I think that's got it. I think for many it's not even compartmentalization, ontological and methodological are orthogonal. There's nothing to reconcile.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
19-02-2015, 07:31 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 06:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 06:05 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  A realist metaphysics just means that you believe physical reality is real and not a figment of your imagination. The contrary to a realist view would be that of a berkelian or brain in a jar view.
So whether or not you believe souls exist should have little bearing on whether you believe reality is real.

Reality has evidence;

citation. Drinking Beverage

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-02-2015, 08:32 PM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 01:42 AM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  Sorry i didn't mean that this idea originated in Christianity. I just meant that to be a Christian basically requires that you are a realist (depending on your Christology).

What? Why?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2015, 02:25 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 07:31 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(19-02-2015 06:11 PM)Chas Wrote:  Reality has evidence;

citation. Drinking Beverage

By definition.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-02-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: Science and Christianity
(19-02-2015 06:05 PM)TarzanSmith Wrote:  A realist metaphysics just means that you believe physical reality is real and not a figment of your imagination. The contrary to a realist view would be that of a berkelian or brain in a jar view.
So whether or not you believe souls exist should have little bearing on whether you believe reality is real.

While my brain may be in a jar or I may be in the Matrix, there's absolutely no reason I should factor that into my decision making.

Sure, I can't prove that it's not the case, but we can look at evidence and see what effects are likely. If I'm just a brain in a jar, there's no reason I should die if I get hit by a car. Still, if I get hit by a car, for all intents and purposes, I die from everyone's perspective.

So at the end of the day, I'm not going to factor nonfalsifiable "realities" into my decision making. And if I do, what's to stop me from factoring an infinite number of nonfalsifiable "realities" into my decision making? Because that's how many of those there are: infinity. Factoring just one nonfalsifiable reality (because we can't prove it wrong, amirite?) while ignoring all the others is just special pleading.

Sticking with observable reality, we get satellites, modern medicine, the Internet, and Taco Bell. I love all of those things. We've achieved this because we were able to draw meaningful conclusions from our observations. Sticking with speculative, hidden "realities" we get just that: speculation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: