Science is a metaphysical party pooper.

Post Reply New Topic

do di oh do

Science does not deal in "beliefs", but in demonstrable facts (or at least internally-consistent hypotheses that don't contradict what we know of external reality - we call these "theories", and stand ready to abandon them the moment contrary evidence comes to light).

Religion deals in faith, often in matters that have no truck with science (the sciences deal with physical reality - nature - not the realms of the supernatural).

It's quite possible to have faith in supernatural entities, while still being a thorough scientist. You may need to abandon some of the doctrines of a given faith if contrary evidence comes to life (for instance, if one does an autopsy on a person who died just after receiving Communion, and finds that the contents of the stomach are wafers and wine, one would have to give up the Catholic idea of transubstantiation, except possibly as metaphor), but faith can still exist.

And by the way, AA doesn't insist that you believe in the Abrahamic God (Jehovah, Yahweh, whatever) - it lets you call on your own definition of "a higher power" to help bolster your sobriety. That may be God, it may be Allah, it may be the Triune Goddess, it may be the pantheon of the Asatru, it may be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it may be the picture of Elvis you have hanging in the den; AA doesn't care, they just want you to call on your Higher Power.

when i used the words 'faith' and 'beliefs' in regards to science, i was not using them in a literal sense. i meant to imply belief in the purity and logic of science, and faith in the scientific method. once again, i went using my imagination and non-exact language and bunged it all up with my ignorance. sorry for my inexactitude.



tell that to attila the science buff. apparently i am incapable of comprehending these sorts of complex issues because i believe i have a soul. so you really shouldn't be taking anything i say seriously, considering the source.

i'm a traitor to the cause.....i left science and turned to philosophy (philosophy is smokin' hot....science let himself go, got fat)

Interestingly, according to a survey among scientists/mathematicians conducted a while ago, belief in personal god varied fairly widely among people in different fields. As I recall, physicists were only about 20% likely to believe in god, biologists 30%, while mathematicians were up at 40%. I assume this study was in America (as it compared these rates with the 90% rates of the population as a whole).

I am surprised by that data, as I thought that biologists were the lowest. I did think that mathematicians were the highest though.

I'm a bit perplexed by it too; it is generally cited (1998). Skeptic. vol.6 #2.8 But I can't find an online version of it. But it seems consistent with the 40% of all scientists believe in god stat I've heard elsewhere.

A survey here claimed to have attempted to ascertain belief among "leading" scientists, and came up with a figure more to what you expected.

Once again, mathematicians, leading the pack.
Now, here's my question about that last one: how is it that in every group at least as many people believe in immortality as God? Is there some other popular belief in means of living forever?

Ok, that might be what I was thinking of.

As for the issue of immortality, I don't know what to think. Perhaps spiritualism? Is not popular, but it seems plausible, particularly given that I think the phenomena, while related can be separated.

Mathematics, after all, is not a science. Neither is philosophy or theology. Those three deal with suppositions that could or could not have connections to reality. Science deals with reality. It takes the suppositions of mathematics (which are rigidly self consistent) or philosophy ( which can be extremely vague and full of personal prejudice) and tries to find congruence in observed data. When that congruence is determined, the philosophy or mathematics which have been worked out can be very useful in predicting further validation discoveries. Those validated mathematics and philosophies are then accepted, temporarily, into science until new discoveries contradict them and new mathematics and philosophies must be discovered to become more valid in reality. Theology, on the other hand, formulates a paradigm which may have some points that correlate to reality but are more centered in emotional configurations that please its adherents whether or not they have counterparts in reality and so possess the minds of the faithful that they will commit atrocities to prevent the revelation of how foolish or inconsistent they can be. That is why science welcomes facts that conflict with normal paradigms since those conflicts add to the understanding that revisions are necessary and can advance science. Theology is horrified by revealed conflicts and twists and turns in a tortured manner to retain obvious foolishnesses as overwhelming inconsistencies can destroy the entire rickety structure. Religions are social power structures and, on occasion, when scientific disciplines surrender to the impulse to become power structures, they frequently fail in a disastrous manner. Power structures like religions and politics will distort reality in a violent manner to retain power and do horrifying things to justify their misconceptions.

Even if this is true, this is still a physical phenomenem which would eliminate the need for an immaterial soul.

Consciousness is a studiable process scientifically, although it is encountering more problems than other disciplines simply because of its subjective nature. Dualism is rejected by the vast majority of those working in the field (certainly the leading researchers - not just neuroscientists, but also philosophers, psychologists, medics, mathematicians and physicists). There are a lot of interesting ideas around, and experiments can and are being done to test some aspects of consciousness, and have shown some aspects of it to be illusions (shown by visual effects such as change blindness, and experiments finding that decisions about simple things such as 'conscious' arm movement are made before the conscious decision is made). 'Conversations on Consciousness' by Susan Blackmore is a good introduction to what people in the field think.

Of course, like most people my own beliefs about the mind are down to my own experiences - scientific evidence can be convincing intellectually, but actually believing things emotionally generally depends upon experiences. Dualism is natural for children and I resisted materialism long after I had stopped believing in God, basically because I had such a strong sense of self and couldn't comprehend how it could all end (a similar thing might account for the higher percentages believing in an afterlife than in God). The belief that the mind is seperate from the body (and hence could survive death) is the natural assumption to make given how we experience things in an intensely individualistic way, and it is difficult to overcome something that seems so intuitive - i.e. that we are more than just a brain. In my early teens this idea horrified and scared me, but with education and experience I became convinced of materialism, even though I was unhappy with its consequences initially - for years I was terrifed of death because my egoism could not support annihilation.

Ironically, given your comments about psychosis, it has been my own psychotic experiences and experiences with psychiatric medication which have led me strongly to believe that theo notion of consistent self is nothing but an illusion (but such a strong one that even though I am aware of it, I still assume I am 'me' the vast majority of the time - to do otherwise would be insane - literally). I have occasionally been able to directly relate certain subjective experiences I have to the physical process - such as 'feeling' a reduction in serotonin in my brain rather than feeling depressed (this isn't any less unpleasant and of course the knowlede that it is serotonin is intellectual, but my experience is of something wrong in the brain rather than a non material feeling).

Of course, this is only my point of view, but all current experimental evidence fits with this view (not necessarily exclusively I will add), it can explain some philosophical mind-body conundrums neatly and some leading researchers also express it, although in general don't seem to have subjective experience of it (this delighted me, to realise that my subjective viewpoint was also scientifically valid, although to non-specialists it seems way off the wall). If this is true, it means that scientifically the problems of 'what is the self' and 'what is subjective experience' become more a problem of 'how is the illusion of self and subjective experience generated'?

wow, you people are on a roll today. so far since sitting down at my computer earlier today i've been made to feel ignorant, foolish, ugly, shortsighted, selfish, immature, irrational, overly emotional and apparently also capable of committing great atrocities in the name of my faith?? this is only the second forum i have ever been a part of, but i must say i haven't had so much animosity tossed in my direction since....well since the last time i left my house and was told by some random punk kid that i look like a man, who then proceeded to laugh at me. and i though my self-esteem was low BEFORE. and yeah, i know, my self-esteem by definition shouldn't come from others, it's supposed to come from inside...i think i may have heard that a few thousand times in the last 29 years, and i do know it to be true....and yet no matter how much i know it to be true, and how often i remind myself of that....it never seems to stick. i seem incapable of shielding myself from a emotional reaction to the judgment of others upon me, no matter what i do. and i really have tried. so hard. maybe i am incapable of having self-esteem? either way, thanks for the boost. this site is awesome for that. there is no place for me, anywhere.

so you all win, ok? you're better than me. i am a hopeless idiot. i don't know what else to say.

How about this:
"I'm a little teapot, short and stout
Here is my handle , here is my spout.
When I get all steamed up hear me shout.
Tip me over and pour me out."

Calm down there, starvingartist.

One of the great advantages of a strictly materialistic perspective is that it's desperately easy to argue. You shouldn't feel too bad about coming out on the losing side of such an argument.

I am not attacking you. I am presenting my point of view. If you can consider it without emotion you are not stupid. I simply find your point of view irreconcilable with mine. If you cannot find any value in my viewpoint I am sorry, I cannot help you but that does not decrease your worth as a living creature. We each try to see the world in our own way.

We are not attacking you personally starvingartist, we are trying to debate things that we all consider strongly but inevitably do not agree on, and this inevitably leads to attacks on other people's opinions, but not on the people themselves personally (This is not only childish and stupid, but would violate the moderator's rules anyway).

Although I have certain views which I generally stick to, I find the specifics have varied as a result of participating in these debates and I have certainly discovered new arguments to support my views, in addition to encountering a series of objections against them. This forum wouldn't work without heated debate. If you wish to be a philosopher then you need to be able to defend your opinions in a logical way - something that can certainly be developed (I still can't do it face to face with someone).