"Believing in science" - what does that mean?

[Thomas]

They are not stuck with 4th or 7th Century beliefs.

This is a fallacious argument.

Euclid is still relevant, and he wrote his works in 300BC!

Circles are round, triangles have three sides, rectangles four ... and those beliefs are really ancient ...

The Ancient Greeks proposed the earth was round in the 6th century BC. By the 4thBC, there was observational data. It was common idea in the Roman world and throughout the Middle Ages.

Today, there are flat-earthers ... so the age of data is no guarantee of anything.

 

[wil]

A story. Maybe based on reality and grew over time? Maybe thoroughly allegorical and symbolic? Both?

Yes...a story...to which many have attributed much and others will claim blaspheming should anyone say it nkt literal fact.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yes...a story...to which many have attributed much and others will claim blaspheming should anyone say it nkt literal fact.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is a fallacious argument.

Euclid is still relevant, and he wrote his works in 300BC!

Circles are round, triangles have three sides, rectangles four ... and those beliefs are really ancient ...

The Ancient Greeks proposed the earth was round in the 6th century BC. By the 4thBC, there was observational data. It was common idea in the Roman world and throughout the Middle Ages.

Today, there are flat-earthers ... so the age of data is no guarantee of anything.

My problem is with superstitious religious beliefs like God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, etc. No problem with Euclid, but with flat-earthers.

 

[Thomas]

My problem is with superstitious religious beliefs like God, soul, heaven, hell, judgment, etc...

They're not actually 'superstitions', because the latter tend to the irrational, whereas religious belief as such is neither unreasonable nor irrational, but the produce of reason and logic – the existence of God can be argued logically.

Aquinas's Five Ways is a well-known discussion point, as is the Islamic Kalaam argument of Al-Ghazali.

(The argument of the lack of empirical evidence is illogical because God, by definition, transcends the bounds of the argument. It's something like 'a scientific superstition' because it's a belief in science that science itself does not validate.)

I'm not arguing for God here, just the well-acknowledged fact that 'science' and 'religion' are distinct methodologies. Neither addresses issues in quite the same way the other does, and to argue that religion must accord to scientific principles is as void as saying science must accord to religious principles.

Both science and religion have been guilty of insisting on claims that do not conform to their axioms. By the same token, the acceptance of one does not necessitate the rejection of the other.

Simply – there is no reasonable or rational scientific reason to not believe in God.

Whether one chooses to, or not, is another matter, one of personal choice and subjective determination. Same as whether one chooses to believe in multiverses or string theory. Or that all the laws of nature were hardwired into nature from the very first instant of the Big Bang ...

 

[Thomas]

A story. Maybe based on reality and grew over time? Maybe thoroughly allegorical and symbolic? Both?

I'd favour myth – in the sense that it's allegory and symbol that says more and better as myth – a kind of hyper-reality – quite likely also that the myth drew on certain historical realities, enslavement and migration and the like.

 

[Aupmanyav]

They're not actually 'superstitions', because the latter tend to the irrational, whereas religious belief as such is neither unreasonable nor irrational, but the produce of reason and logic – the existence of God can be argued logically.

Whether one chooses to, or not, is another matter, one of personal choice and subjective determination.

IMHO, they are products of social necessity, the carrot and sword system, not of any logic.
Well, people argue on all things, many of them illogically.
I am fortunate, because my 'Advaita' view does not differ even a bit from the scientific view.

 

[Thomas]

IMHO, they are products of social necessity, the carrot and sword system, not of any logic.

OK. But there are logical arguments.

Well, people argue on all things, many of them illogically.

Irrelevant, when the argument is logical.

I am fortunate, because my 'Advaita' view does not differ even a bit from the scientific view.

By which you suppose others are less fortunate?

 

[TheLightWithin]

Whether one chooses to, or not, is another matter, one of personal choice and subjective determination. Same as whether one chooses to believe in multiverses or string theory. Or that all the laws of nature were hardwired into nature from the very first instant of the Big Bang ...

Or whether we are convinced by it. I find it hard to override things I find convincing. No matter how much I like the idea of choice.

 

[TheLightWithin]

IMHO, they are products of social necessity

Sort of? But people often have deep personal questions about the nature of reality, G-d, the afterlife, the origin of things, the purpose of things, etc

 

[Aupmanyav]

On a second thought, Carrot and sword is logical for a society. I agree.

By which you suppose others are less fortunate?

Yeah, I do not have to defend any differences between my views and science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Sort of? But people often have deep personal questions about the nature of reality, G-d, the afterlife, the origin of things, the purpose of things, etc

This question is for future. We have no answer for nature of reality at the moment. The option is 'Goddidit'.
As for afterlife and purpose of things. we do have the answers.
Afterlife is chemical recycling and there is no purpose for life other than to continue life.
Dinosaurs had the same purpose but failed perhaps due to change of environment, but rodents succeeded.

 

[Thomas]

Yeah, I do not have to defend any differences between my views and science.

Nor do I ... so that's not really a valid argument against faith/religion.

 

[Thomas]

This question is for future. We have no answer for nature of reality at the moment. The option is 'Goddidit'.

On that scale, the views break down to:
A theist view – Goddidit
A physicalist view – Itjustis –
(That is, whether the universe is eternal, which everything suggests it isn't, and whether there was a 'Big Bang', to which the question is 'why?')

Neither is quite entirely satisfactory.

As for afterlife and purpose of things. we do have the answers.

I'd say it's more reasonable to say we have some answers.

Afterlife is chemical recycling and there is no purpose for life other than to continue life.

That's a recycling of the chemical elements. That doesn't address consciousness which is not, in itself, a chemical structure.

+++

Locally, I'd say there seems to be a disconnect between what we regard as 'fact', and what we regard as 'true'.

Propositions are carriers of ideas, and when they are proved true, then they become fact.
And when the idea is proved untrue, it does not become fact.

There are propositions that bear ideas that lie outside the remit of the scientific process to prove or disprove.

But this does not mean they are untrue or false.

The science is wanting, not the idea.

Dinosaurs had the same purpose but failed perhaps due to change of environment, but rodents succeeded.

And an 'extinction event' might again trigger a cataclysmic reset ...

 

[Aupmanyav]

A physicalist view – Itjustis –
I'd say it's more reasonable to say we have some answers.
That's a recycling of the chemical elements. That doesn't address consciousness which is not, in itself, a chemical structure.

Locally, I'd say there seems to be a disconnect between what we regard as 'fact', and what we regard as 'true'.

Propositions are carriers of ideas, and when they are proved true, then they become fact.
And when the idea is proved untrue, it does not become fact.
There are propositions that bear ideas that lie outside the remit of the scientific process to prove or disprove.
But this does not mean they are untrue or false.
The science is wanting, not the idea.

And an 'extinction event' might again trigger a cataclysmic reset ...

A physicalist would not be satisfied with that. He/she will ask 'why?'
There is no reason to believe that other answers are correct.
Consciousness is an emergent property of brain.

You are right. We take chemical recycling as fact, what is true is play of the four fundamental forces of nature.
The first is a pragmatic view (Vyavaharika), the other is the truth (Paramarthika).
Propositions = Hypotheses

IMHO, the ideas which science cannot handle are not true.
True, there have been quite a few. List of extinction events - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nor do I ... so that's not really a valid argument against faith/religion.

You have many things to defend. God, soul, heaven, hell, Judgment, deliverance, everlasting life, virgin birth, resurrection, Satan, etc.

 

[Thomas]

A physicalist would not be satisfied with that. He/she will ask 'why?'

As to 'why the laws of nature' or 'why anything at all', or 'what triggered the Big Bang ... there is no answer.

There is no reason to believe that other answers are correct.

Nor necessarily incorrect.

Consciousness is an emergent property of brain.

according to the physicalist view ... but those views are problematic.

The "hard problem" of consciousness is explaining how subjective experience can arise from non-conscious brain processes.

That consciousness is an emergent property of brains assumes brain-dependence. The scientific evidence suggests otherwise.

Consciousness may be a fundamental aspect of reality, as is matter, rather than as something emerging from matter.

These are just some of the discussions going on at the moment, within science and the broader reaches of philosophy, that challenge the physicalist view.

IMHO, the ideas which science cannot handle are not true.

OK, your opinion, but it's not true and science argues that it is not true:

The inability of science to evaluate an idea does not render the idea false.

Some ideas and hypotheses lie outside the scope of the methods of empirical investigation, that does not render them untrue.

 

[Thomas]

From a quick wiki (edited)

No, ideas that science cannot prove are not necessarily untrue; science cannot provide absolute proof for any idea, only support or refute it with evidence. What science can do is assess the likelihood of an idea's truthfulness based on evidence and predictive power, rather than offering conclusive proof. Ideas concerning morality, aesthetics, or the supernatural are also outside the scope of science, and therefore the inability of science to evaluate them does not make them false.

Why Science Doesn't "Prove" Ideas
No Absolute Proof:
Science operates on the principle that any scientific idea, no matter how well-supported, could be overturned by new evidence. Therefore, "proof" in the sense of absolute, undeniable truth is not a scientific outcome.

Evidence-Based Conclusions:
Instead of proving, science accepts or rejects ideas based on supporting or refuting evidence.

Falsifiability:
A key principle is that scientific theories must be falsifiable, meaning there must be some possible observation or experiment that could prove them false.

What Science Does Do
Supports or Refutes:
Scientific studies provide evidence that either supports or refutes a hypothesis.
Increases Confidence:
The more evidence that supports an idea, the more likely it is to be true, and the more confidence scientists have in it.
Provides Predictions:
Strong scientific theories are those that consistently make accurate predictions about the natural world, even if they can't be absolutely proven.

Ideas Beyond Science
Different Domains:
Ideas that fall outside the realm of the natural world are not within the scope of science.
Examples:
Questions about the supernatural, moral judgments, or aesthetic opinions are outside the domain of scientific investigation, so the inability of science to prove them does not make them untrue.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What science can do is assess the likelihood of an idea's truthfulness based on evidence and predictive power, rather than offering conclusive proof. Ideas concerning morality, aesthetics, or the supernatural are also outside the scope of science, and therefore the inability of science to evaluate them does not make them false.

Of course, there is no sure answer at the moment. That is what is being done - finding the best answer.
Morality is part of social sciences and it is well-researched. It differs from one society to another. There is no absolute morality.
"Coming of age in Samoa" - Margaret Mead, and so many others. Even the social mores of Gorillas and Chimps have been studied.
Aesthetics is personal opinion and supernatural is a fraud.
(Edited! What was edited?)

 

[iBrian]

The problem with the belief in science as a metaphysical system to the exclusion of all others, is the underlying bias specifically against anything of a spiritual nature. So it's not so much "belief" as "anti-belief".

For example, before the turn of the century, bumblebees were considered too heavy to fly. No rationalist declared they did not believe in bumblebees because of this. However, the same rationalist would commonly declare that they did not believe in God or an afterlife. Why? What is the difference between the two? Many people have seen bumblebees, and many people have had visions of God. The difference is simply one of bias - of the presumption that material reality is the only possible reality.

Personally I think that spiritual systems ask why life is as it is, and science explains how - and that eventually science will be able to explain the "how" of aspects of the spiritual world, just as it has with the physical world. Yet the rationalist above would not likely accept that could ever possibly happen, on any timescale.

And therein lies the problem - the closed-mindedness to the possibilities.

While there's nothing wrong in an individual making such a choice, it is clearly one rooted in subjective bias rather than objective reality, therefore cannot ever be said to be true or correct in terms of reflecting reality.