Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps it seems to be the best that we are aware of?
Until a seemingly better method is available.
Do you have any contenders for the latter?

I'm not challenging the method just the philosophical statement that it is the best for gaining knowledge.......... full stop.

[jeremyp]

When you say knowledge are you not talking about all knowledge or only a particular class of knowledge

Correct I'm talking about things that humankind collectively understands about the World. Science has been outstandingly successful in this respect.

Do you have another class of knowledge in mind where some other method has produced results on the same level as science. Compare what science has revealed to us with religion: religionists can't even agree about how many gods there are.

[jeremyp]

I'm not challenging the method just the philosophical statement that it is the best for gaining knowledge.......... full stop.

It's not a philosophical statement: it's just a statement and it's self evidently correct.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's not a philosophical statement: it's just a statement and it's self evidently correct.

That the empirical method yields empirical results is not in question. The contention arises when you make claims of ''best'' in ''gaining knowledge''.

[jeremyp]

That the empirical method yields empirical results is not in question. The contention arises when you make claims of ''best'' in ''gaining knowledge''.

There is no contention. Can you name a method other than science that has had anything like its success?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is no contention. Can you name a method other than science that has had anything like its success?

Success is not a scientific concept is it? If you mention success surely you have to mention failure also...and then we are into discussing whether science has been more a success or a failure....all this, of course, in the context that empirical methods yield empirical results.

[jeremyp]

Success is not a scientific concept is it? If you mention success surely you have to mention failure also...and then we are into discussing whether science has been more a success or a failure....all this, of course, in the context that empirical methods yield empirical results.

Are you seriously trying to suggest science has failed to improve our understanding of the world? Sometimes you can be hilarious.

Still waiting for the better method of improving knowledge that you claim exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are you seriously trying to suggest science has failed to improve our understanding of the world? Sometimes you can be hilarious.

Still waiting for the better method of improving knowledge that you claim exists.

You are doing it again, I am not criticising methodology, merely the philosophy of empiricism. You are doing the typical atheist handwave stunt to get an argument over the methodology. I am not disputing that the empirical method gets empirical results.

On another issue though you have moved from the best way of gaining knowledge to ''improving'' knowledge.

[jeremyp]

You are doing it again, I am not criticising methodology, merely the philosophy of empiricism. You are doing the typical atheist handwave stunt to get an argument over the methodology. I am not disputing that the empirical method gets empirical results.

No, what you are doing is flinging around intellectual sounding words in the hope that nobody notices you have got nothing to say.

Forget trying to squeeze ideas into your pretentious boxes and just look at the evidence. The very computer you are going to type your reply on would not exist without science and empiricism. Look at what we know about the World we live in. Science and empiricism gave us all of that.

On another issue though you have moved from the best way of gaining knowledge to ''improving'' knowledge.

Is there really a difference worth mentioning?

[Outrider]

Success is not a scientific concept is it? If you mention success surely you have to mention failure also...and then we are into discussing whether science has been more a success or a failure....all this, of course, in the context that empirical methods yield empirical results.

Are we? Are we really going to have to discuss whether science has been more of a success than a failure? Is there anyone out there on the side of 'failure'? If science offered nothing throughout the entirety of history other than antibiotics it would be an unparalleled success in human endeavour beyond anything that any other idea could negate. Just in the field of medicine there are uncountable other developments.

In a panoply of bullshit-flavoured 'Devil's advocate' attempts to shred legitimate value and pin a fragment to your God-peddling, this is a preposterous step beyond even your usual nonsense.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, what you are doing is flinging around intellectual sounding words in the hope that nobody notices you have got nothing to say.

Forget trying to squeeze ideas into your pretentious boxes and just look at the evidence. The very computer you are going to type your reply on would not exist without science and empiricism. Look at what we know about the World we live in. Science and empiricism gave us all of that.
Is there really a difference worth mentioning?

The very computer? What about the very H Bomb pointed at the UK? Science gave us that. Empiricism in it's belief form gave us neither the H Bomb nor the computer IMHO.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Are we? Are we really going to have to discuss whether science has been more of a success than a failure? Is there anyone out there on the side of 'failure'? If science offered nothing throughout the entirety of history other than antibiotics it would be an unparalleled success in human endeavour beyond anything that any other idea could negate. Just in the field of medicine there are uncountable other developments.

In a panoply of bullshit-flavoured 'Devil's advocate' attempts to shred legitimate value and pin a fragment to your God-peddling, this is a preposterous step beyond even your usual nonsense.

O.

I understand that it is frustrating to be arguing the contribution of empiricist philosophy with someone who agrees totally that the method yields empirical results, it's just the belief that it's either the only way or the best way which needs some justification and indeed clarification.

[Outrider]

I understand that it is frustrating to be arguing the contribution of empiricist philosophy with someone who agrees totally that the method yields empirical results, it's just the belief that it's either the only way or the best way which needs some justification and indeed clarification.

No, arguing the merits of empiricism as an absolute philosophy isn't particularly frustrating - although the fact that you keep doing despite the fact that no-one is espousing it as an absolute philosophy gets a little repetitive.

What's frustrating is when you pull out deepity nonsense like the idea there's any discussion to be had about whether or not science has improved humanity's lot.

As to whether empiricism is the best way to move forward... currently, I'd say it's got the best success rate and nothing appears to be immediately threatening that position. I don't know that it's the best possible way, but it's the best we have at the moment.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, arguing the merits of empiricism as an absolute philosophy isn't particularly frustrating - although the fact that you keep doing despite the fact that no-one is espousing it as an absolute philosophy gets a little repetitive.

What's frustrating is when you pull out deepity nonsense like the idea there's any discussion to be had about whether or not science has improved humanity's lot.

As to whether empiricism is the best way to move forward... currently, I'd say it's got the best success rate and nothing appears to be immediately threatening that position. I don't know that it's the best possible way, but it's the best we have at the moment.

O.

I agree empirical methods are the best way to get empirical results but the belief in/of/ that empiricism is good for all things is positively dangerous IMHO. I think we have a long way to go to see if ''science'' has been ultimately beneficial since climatic disaster, cyberdisaster and nuclear war are apparently pending.

[Outrider]

I agree empirical methods are the best way to get empirical results but the belief in/of/ that empiricism is good for all things is positively dangerous IMHO.

Empiricism is (generally) good in that it increases our knowledge. What we then do with that knowledge may be good or bad, but what we do with it isn't part of the empricism.

There are instances - I'm thinking the likes of the Tuskegee medical atrocities, Japan's unit 731 during the 2nd World War - where the methodology used in gathering the information in the first instance has been horrific. I'm on the fence, to some extent, as to how much of that it is down to the 'empricism' drive, and how much was motivated by other factors, but it speaks against a blanket acceptance of anything in the name of 'science'.

I think we have a long way to go to see if ''science'' has been ultimately beneficial since climatic disaster, cyberdisaster and nuclear war are apparently pending.

I don't see that we do, really. We only know of potential climactic problems BECAUSE of empiricism, and even after a potential climate disaster we'll still be in a better place as a result of scientific developments than we were before the Industrial era that started the climate issues in the first place. Cyberattacks, whilst financially significant in some instances, are only capable of limiting the benefits that arise from having the cyber-capabilities in the first place; the worst cyberattacks can do is wean us off the internet and back to the place we were in before. As to nuclear war... take a look at the Eastern Front in World War II, or the Chinese losses in World War II, and you quickly realise that the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't make unconscionably large numbers of people vulnerable to the predations of war, it just makes the process quicker, whereas nuclear power (and particularly the prospect of nuclear fusion power) provides one element of the actions to be taken to address the climate issues you were worrying about earlier.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Empiricism is (generally) good in that it increases our knowledge. What we then do with that knowledge may be good or bad, but what we do with it isn't part of the empricism.

There are instances - I'm thinking the likes of the Tuskegee medical atrocities, Japan's unit 731 during the 2nd World War - where the methodology used in gathering the information in the first instance has been horrific. I'm on the fence, to some extent, as to how much of that it is down to the 'empricism' drive, and how much was motivated by other factors, but it speaks against a blanket acceptance of anything in the name of 'science'.

I don't see that we do, really. We only know of potential climactic problems BECAUSE of empiricism, and even after a potential climate disaster we'll still be in a better place as a result of scientific developments than we were before the Industrial era that started the climate issues in the first place. Cyberattacks, whilst financially significant in some instances, are only capable of limiting the benefits that arise from having the cyber-capabilities in the first place; the worst cyberattacks can do is wean us off the internet and back to the place we were in before. As to nuclear war... take a look at the Eastern Front in World War II, or the Chinese losses in World War II, and you quickly realise that the existence of nuclear weapons doesn't make unconscionably large numbers of people vulnerable to the predations of war, it just makes the process quicker, whereas nuclear power (and particularly the prospect of nuclear fusion power) provides one element of the actions to be taken to address the climate issues you were worrying about earlier.

O.

Thank heavens for the science that allowed us to see the damage science had done? Not a convincing argument.
If you are saying Science is responsible for the good then what is holding you back from science is responsible for the bad.

Of course it is the application of science that is important and that lies outside of empiricism.

[jeremyp]

The very computer? What about the very H Bomb pointed at the UK?

What of it? We aren't arguing about how the knowledge is put to use but how it was acquired.

Empiricism in it's belief form gave us neither the H Bomb nor the computer IMHO.

What did give us those things then? Name it or forever be labelled as a person who is full of crap.

[Outrider]

Thank heavens for the science that allowed us to see the damage science had done? Not a convincing argument.

Which is why I'm glad it wasn't the argument I was making. The argument I was making was that the same scientific method that prompted the Industrial revolution and subsequent expansion of humanity's fossil fuel use is the scientific method that has identified climate change and predicted the problems that are likely to come with it.

If you are saying Science is responsible for the good then what is holding you back from science is responsible for the bad.

Because knowledge is good - what we've done with the knowledge is a mixed bag, how we've come to the knowledge in some instances is questionable, but the world has never been poorer for having a better understanding.

Of course it is the application of science that is important and that lies outside of empiricism.

They are both important; one of them is more relevant to some of the discussions we have here. Empiricism is important, though, when it comes to claims about the nature of the world and reality - it's a far more reliable and well-validated tool by which to understand the nature of the universe than the various mystic attempts of religion to explain reality.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which is why I'm glad it wasn't the argument I was making. The argument I was making was that the same scientific method that prompted the Industrial revolution and subsequent expansion of humanity's fossil fuel use is the scientific method that has identified climate change and predicted the problems that are likely to come with it.

Because knowledge is good - what we've done with the knowledge is a mixed bag, how we've come to the knowledge in some instances is questionable, but the world has never been poorer for having a better understanding.

They are both important; one of them is more relevant to some of the discussions we have here. Empiricism is important, though, when it comes to claims about the nature of the world and reality - it's a far more reliable and well-validated tool by which to understand the nature of the universe than the various mystic attempts of religion to explain reality.

O.

I have nothing against the scientific method just the philosophy of empiricism.

[jeremyp]

I have nothing against the scientific method just the philosophy of empiricism.

Still waiting for you to come up with a better method of finding out about the World than the scientific one.

[Alan Burns]

As CS Lewis observed, the natural world appears to be designed to be manipulated.

CS Lewis didn't have a grasp of the "natural world". It doesn't look designed at all to anybody who has looked at it rigorously.

Just look at how mankind has discovered so many ways to manipulate and interact with the forces of nature to facilitate many aspects of modern life we take for granted. - -
using electricity, magnetism, radio waves, the properties of silicon, knowledge and use of chemical reactions, use of wood for building, the extraction of iron and steel from ore, crop cultivation, energy from fossil fuels ...
Were they meant to be discovered and used?

[ProfessorDavey]

As CS Lewis observed, the natural world appears to be designed to be manipulated.

And as numerous expert astrophysicists have observed, there is no evidence to indicate that the natural world needs a designer, and positing one makes explaining the natural world more, rather than less, complicated.

So who to believe on matters of astrophysics - on the one hand experts in astrophysics, or on the other hand an academic expert on medieval and renaissance literature.

Hmm - a tricky one.

[Alan Burns]

Again, what option do we have than to approach it from a human perspective. Although, I seem to recall being assured that we were 'created in his image'...

We are made in God's image in our capacity to consciously interact with this world using our free will to achieve our desired goals, reflecting God's creativity.  But this in no way allows us to see the world through God's eyes and pontificate on how God should be working.  We can use our faith to put our trust in God without fully understanding.

Good and evil are sensory perceptions, they're moral judgements. There is objectively pain and suffering, and if there's an omnipotent deity there doesn't need to be. Commentary about 'not seeing the bigger picture' is suggesting that this is an issue of the ends justifying the means, and that sort of pragmatic, utilitarian approach to morality can be justified in some sense by our human limitations, but if you're omnipotent you aren't limited by utility. Ironically, it's your defence of this depiction of God which is falling prey to human limitations.

see above

There is no evidence of any sort of intrinsic 'meaning' to reality - we make meaning for ourselves.

Our ability to perceive meaning within our conscious mind is a God given gift - as you appear to imply, there can be no concept of meaning within a physically pre determined material reality.

Does he not love the Angels? Do we not deserve, as the first manifestation of that 'freedom' to choose the angelic life free of suffering and aging and gradual decay and ignorance?

I appreciate I'm not necessarily fully cognizant of your exact stance on the story, but isn't the whole point of the story of Adam and Eve's exile from the Garden of Eden that this is very much not God's original plan? I mean that makes no sense in light of the claims of omniscience on God's behalf, but nonetheless.

The Bible implies that Angels can fall from grace - as can mankind.  It is all bound up with God's gift of free will which frees us from being entirely controlled by God or from nature - but such freedom comes with a price, intrinsic in our freedom to choose between good and evil.

I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion, or even what it means in detail. Everything is cosmically 'unnecessary', our significance is only to ourselves; our love is, therefore, as significant or insignificant as we choose to make it.

O.

Yes - our conscious freedom to choose is an essential ingredient for love to manifest.

[ProfessorDavey]

We are made in God's image ...

Unevidenced assertion and a positive claim from you so the burden of proof rests with you. So until, or unless you provide sufficient evidence to substantiate:

A) - that god exists, and
B) - that we are made in that god's image

the rest of your post is moot.

[Outrider]

We are made in God's image in our capacity to consciously interact with this world using our free will to achieve our desired goals, reflecting God's creativity.

Which, presumably, means making our own moral interpretations of what we find?

But this in no way allows us to see the world through God's eyes and pontificate on how God should be working.

I'm not saying that we would have a notional gods capacity, but we have some capacity and can do nothing other than exercise that to make the determinations that we can. The excuses offered on behalf of your god  do not stand up to that examination, which suggests one of three things: we do not have the capability to understand the full moral depths (in which case, to what extent are we made in God's image, and why were we made with only a partial capacity?); there is no God, and people are just trying to come up with ad hoc justifications for primitive tribalism writ as religion; or, there is a something that has been interpreted as god, but it doesn't match up to the Christian depiction.

We can use our faith to put our trust in God without fully understanding.

Which 'we' is this? Why am expected to give up my critical faculties and ignore the evidence in front of me?

Our ability to perceive meaning within our conscious mind is a God given gift - as you appear to imply, there can be no concept of meaning within a physically pre determined material reality.

It's not that there is no concept of meaning - we each find our own meaning - but there's no evidence that there's any overarching purpose to reality or our existence which we need to find. There's no evidence that reality was created FOR something; it is simply a naturally occurring event, of which we are an equally incidental part. We are significant to ourselves and each other, but to the universe at large we appear to be incidental.

The Bible implies that Angels can fall from grace - as can mankind.  It is all bound up with God's gift of free will which frees us from being entirely controlled by God or from nature - but such freedom comes with a price, intrinsic in our freedom to choose between good and evil.

Yet both biology and physics appear to render the notion of 'free will' untenable. There is no evidence of any 'missing' parts of our mental activity which would afford space for some non-deterministic component of thinking to represent the 'freedom' you talk of.

The future is not some as yet undetermined range of possibilities; there is no universal 'now' waiting for tomorrow to get here. Time is a dimension, and yesterday, tomorrow and all the other points along the timeline exist in parallel. Reality is already written, end-to-end, and we are not creating it as we go, we are documenting it from the inside as we travel the only road we can.

Yes - our conscious freedom to choose is an essential ingredient for love to manifest.

Regardless of whether you accept the idea of free will or not, I do not see a need for free will to be a thing in order to accept that you can love - indeed, the experience of innumerable people documenting affairs of the heart, familial relationships, notions of parenting and the like seems to show that who people love is rarely a matter of choice.

O.