Does the scientific community treat materialism/physicalism as absolute truth?

[Mallic]

3 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

There is no hierarchy, but the different scientific disciplines deal with different domains of enquiry. Psychologists are not trained in quantum mechanics, and you wouldn’t want a phycisist attempting to treat you when you go into a mental hospital, would you?

Inter-disciplinary communication and cooperation is crucially important, but most scientists have in-depth knowledge in only one particular area.

And i think that's my issue. I hesitate to call myself in any one area, but I studies most of the scientific fields to know at least the basics in a lot of them. So my knowledge is more....diverse at the very least. And I would at least hope most scientists would know basic first aid, at least.

1 minute ago, Markus Hanke said:

There is no “2 atoms thing” in physics.

I never said it was physicists who try to discredit religious people did i?

Edited July 26, 2018 by Mallic

[Strange]

Just now, Mallic said:

And i think that's my issue. I hesitate to call myself in any one area, but I studies most of the scientific fields to know at least the basics in a lot of them. So my knowledge is more....diverse at the very least. And I would at least hope most scientists would know basic first aid, at least.

I have seen no evidence that you have learnt much, if any, science at all. So your reading may be very broad but it also seems to be exceedingly shallow. So shallow as to be useless for making any judgements about science.

[Markus Hanke]

Just now, Mallic said:

And i think that's my issue. I hesitate to call myself in any one area, but I studies most of the scientific fields to know at least the basics in a lot of them. So my knowledge is more....diverse at the very least. And I would at least hope most scientists would know basic first aid, at least.

True, and that is a good thing. I would encourage you to keep learning, also across many different disciplines. 

However, to really understand something (such as e.g. quantum mechanics) thoroughly, having broad yet superficial knowledge isn’t enough - one also needs in-depth knowledge of the subject matter in question. And acquiring this generally takes time and effort, which is why most scientists are experts only in one particular field.

[Mallic]

5 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

True, and that is a good thing. I would encourage you to keep learning, also across many different disciplines. 

However, to really understand something (such as e.g. quantum mechanics) thoroughly, having broad yet superficial knowledge isn’t enough - one also needs in-depth knowledge of the subject matter in question. And acquiring this generally takes time and effort, which is why most scientists are experts only in one particular field.

At least you're more polite about it then the jerk above you. But yeah I get it. Still I can't really limit myself to just one field. Even if it is shallow i wanna at least know the basics so when i get in discussions i at least have SOME idea what im talking about.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Mallic

[Strange]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

I have seen no evidence that you have learnt much, if any, science at all. So your reading may be very broad but it also seems to be exceedingly shallow. So shallow as to be useless for making any judgements about science.

I don't mind you down voting this. But I do want to say that it wasn't intended as an insult. You have made a number of claims about science which are clearly either false or demonstrate a serious lack of understanding.

As I have said before, I think you should learn more about the scientific theories you are criticising before criticising them.

Being ignorant is nothing to be ashamed of. We are all ignorant to varying degrees. There are many people here who know a lot more than me about a lot of things. (And I doubt there are any subjects where I know more than anyone else.) 

We can all learn. And one of the great things about science is that there is always more to learn. Including, sometimes, that what we have learned before is now wrong! There have been several major paradigm shifts (like revolutionary changes) in science just in my lifetime. And I can't wait for the next one. I don't care if it is that consciousness IS a function of the brain or proof that it ISN'T. Just bring it on.

 

7 minutes ago, Mallic said:

At least you're more polite about it then the jerk above you.

I gave him an upvote for that!

He did manage to express it better than me. 

[Mallic]

11 minutes ago, Mallic said:

At least you're more polite about it then the jerk above you.

 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't mind you down voting this. But I do want to say that it wasn't intended as an insult. You have made a number of claims about science which are clearly either false or demonstrate a serious lack of understanding.

As I have said before, I think you should learn more about the scientific theories you are criticising before criticising them.

Being ignorant is nothing to be ashamed of. We are all ignorant to varying degrees. There are many people here who know a lot more than me about a lot of things. (And I doubt there are any subjects where I know more than anyone else.) 

We can all learn. And one of the great things about science is that there is always more to learn. Including, sometimes, that what we have learned before is now wrong! There have been several major paradigm shifts (like revolutionary changes) in science just in my lifetime. And I can't wait for the next one. I don't care if it is that consciousness IS a function of the brain or proof that it ISN'T. Just bring it on.

 

......You've never gone through death anxiety before have you? And I would learn more about scientific theories if a lot of them weren't so boring.

The main one's that interest me are astrology, Quantum mechanics, Various fringe sciences and what people tend to laugh off as pseudo science like parapsychology. I mean how much use is it, knowing all 11,800 species of ants? Or knowing about the 4th tooth difference between a croc and an alligator? And lets not forget the pitch drop experiment.....why does that one even exist?

Honestly I just want something to quell this feeling of dread of my own inevitable death. And forgive me if I get emotional, but something beyond death would mean those who got dealt a bad hand in life can get another chance....idk call me sentimental or the wish of someone powerless to do something himself.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Mallic

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Mallic said:

You've never gone through death anxiety before have you?

How do you know that? (I have, and I have no idea if it is better or worse to believe in an afterlife or not. Maybe believing that gives you some comfort.)

3 minutes ago, Mallic said:

The main one's that interest me are astrology, Quantum mechanics, Various fringe sciences and what people tend to laugh off as pseudo science like parapsychology.

Only one of those is a science!

4 minutes ago, Mallic said:

Honestly I just want something to quell this feeling of dread of my own inevitable death.

Maybe you need a priest or a psychiatrist. Or both! I don't know. But I certainly don't think science (or arguing against science) is going to help.

 

[Mallic]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

How do you know that? (I have, and I have no idea if it is better or worse to believe in an afterlife or not. Maybe believing that gives you some comfort.)

Only one of those is a science!

Maybe you need a priest or a psychiatrist. Or both! I don't know. But I certainly don't think science (or arguing against science) is going to help.

 

But wouldn't turning to the church be considered anti science?

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Mallic said:

But wouldn't turning to the church be considered anti science?

So? Science isn't going to help you anyway. And there are plenty of scientific people who are religious. And most major religions accept the conclusions of science. It is only a few fundamentalist crackpots who create a conflict between science and religion.

[Moontanman]

2 minutes ago, Mallic said:

But wouldn't turning to the church be considered anti science?

 

No it would be called illogical, believing the church over science could be called ignorant but there is no shame in ignorance. Ignorance can be cured by a person determined to find the evidence for or against what ever he is ignorant about. so far methodological naturalism works, everything we have in our lives we have due to science, need clean water? pray for it, want a church to pray in? pray for it, want food, power, houses, transportation? when prayer makes you a church go to it and pray for these things. Currently they are provided by science including the churches you seem to think praying in makes a difference. 

The supernatural has no measurable effect on reality, if it did it would not be the supernatural it would be natural. 

Stupid on the other hand cannot be fixed, stupid is forever...

[Mallic]

6 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

 

No it would be called illogical, believing the church over science could be called ignorant but there is no shame in ignorance. Ignorance can be cured by a person determined to find the evidence for or against what ever he is ignorant about. so far methodological naturalism works, everything we have in our lives we have due to science, need clean water? pray for it, want a church to pray in? pray for it, want food, power, houses, transportation? when prayer makes you a church go to it and pray for these things. Currently they are provided by science including the churches you seem to think praying in makes a difference. 

The supernatural has no measurable effect on reality, if it did it would not be the supernatural it would be natural. 

Stupid on the other hand cannot be fixed, stupid is forever...

But that's kinda moving the goal post isn't it? 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Mallic

[DrP]

1 minute ago, Mallic said:

But that's kinda moving the goal post isn't it?

What goal posts?  What is your goal?

[Moontanman]

4 minutes ago, Mallic said:

But that's kinda moving the goal post isn't it?

Only if cutting through to the chase is moving the goalposts, I doubt your own part in this is anything but running wildly around the field shouting you can't catch me when no one wants to catch you... 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Moontanman

[Mallic]

1 minute ago, Moontanman said:

Only if cutting through to the chase is moving the goalposts, I doubt your own part in this is anything but running wildly around the field shouting you can't catch me when no one is wanting to catch you... 

Stop trying to be subtle about your mockery you aren't very good at it. Also Never think i am ever discrediting science, I'm a technology nerd for crying out loud. Like strange said most religions are accepting of sciences advancements, but i just cant see how someone can justify that we are just glorified fleshy robots. How someone can say everything i think and feel are nothing more then impulses and delusions. I mean For example: I can't imagine any situation where say, Cheating on your wife and then telling her that it was caused by a chemical reaction in your brain, would have her be like "Oh ok"

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Mallic said:

i just cant see how someone can justify that we are just glorified fleshy robots. How someone can say everything i think and feel are nothing more then impulses and delusions.

And I suppose I can't really understand why anyone would think it wasn't. But we should all be tolerant of each others' beliefs.

6 minutes ago, Mallic said:

I mean For example: I can't imagine any situation where say, Cheating on your wife and then telling her that it was caused by a chemical reaction in your brain, would have her be like "Oh ok"

I'm not sure why anyone would argue that. It sounds a bit like the argument that "atheists must be immoral because they don't have a god telling them what is right or wrong".

[Mallic]

Just now, Strange said:

And I suppose I can't really understand why anyone would think it wasn't. But we should all be tolerant of each others' beliefs.

I'm not sure why anyone would argue that. It sounds a bit like the argument that "atheists must be immoral because they don't have a god telling them what is right or wrong".

If you were JUST an atheist, it wouldn't be a problem. But these days atheism is synonymous with Arrogance, cynicism and and in many cases nihilism/misanthropy. Like I know for a fact conservative atheists exist....which for the longest time i thought was a combination so rare, that i genuinely wondered if i could get them on an endangered species list.

Take this how you will, and maybe I'm not talking to the right ones. But I've yet to meet an atheist that was one because of genuine disbelief, as opposed to just using it as an excuse to spite people who do believe or as an excuse to just do whatever they want regardless of the consequences. For lack of a better term, I've yet to meet an atheist where a disbelief in god was all it was.

It's like that guy who can't go 5 minutes without reminding everyone that he's gay, you know the guy right? That's how it is with some of the people I've seen

The worst case I've seen was a guy who would literally just get set off if you so much as mention the word "Soul"......I am not exaggerating. He literally started ranting and raging the moment someone used the word "Soul". There's just so many things to say about that I don't know where to begin.

[MathGeek]

6 hours ago, Strange said:

They key word there is "methodological". In other words, this is description of the process of science, not the beliefs of scientists.

Right.  The presupposition of materialism is methodological rather than absolute.  As Gould points out, it cannot be proven by science but it is necessary for science to proceed.  

Gould went on to describe science and religious faith as treating "non-overlapping magisteria." (NOMA)  Religious faith treats matters of the spiritual realm - heaven and hell, God and angels, miracles and morality that are outside of the sphere of science because (by definition) they violate the methodological presupposition by which science operates.  Science only addresses things in the physical realm.

 "NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution." (Gould)

The National Academy of Sciences has adopted a similar stance, ""Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria and references therein.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Mallic said:

If you were JUST an atheist, it wouldn't be a problem. But these days atheism is synonymous with Arrogance, cynicism and and in many cases nihilism/misanthropy.

Is it? What do you base that on? I know plenty of atheists who are thoughtful, kind, modest, ... 

1 hour ago, Mallic said:

Like I know for a fact conservative atheists exist....which for the longest time i thought was a combination so rare, that i genuinely wondered if i could get them on an endangered species list.

I don't find that at all surprising. There might be a tendency for conservatism to be associated with religiosity, particularly in the USA perhaps, but it is not an absolute rule. I'm sure there are left-leaning fundamentalist religious types as well.

1 hour ago, Mallic said:

But I've yet to meet an atheist that was one because of genuine disbelief, as opposed to just using it as an excuse to spite people who do believe or as an excuse to just do whatever they want regardless of the consequences. For lack of a better term, I've yet to meet an atheist where a disbelief in god was all it was.

There are many atheists where the "a" seems to stand for "anti"; they can be very strongly anti-religious. Richard Dawkins is one, and I despise him for it. There are also several on this forum (who I occasionally get into arguments with because of it!).

My attitude to religious belief is similar to my attitude to golf: it is incomprehensible and of little interest to me. I don't disapprove of people who have faith and I certainly don't despise them. Faith has prompted great acts of human kindness, the creation of beautiful music, etc. (And, obviously as the anti-theists will rush point out in their usual whataboutism, has also been used to justify inhuman acts.)

What I will argue with is people trying to use evidence or logic to justify their belief (or lack of belief), or saying that science/evidence must be wrong because some book says so, etc.

1 hour ago, Mallic said:

For lack of a better term, I've yet to meet an atheist where a disbelief in god was all it was.

Hello. Nice to meet you.

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Strange
grammar

[Mallic]

4 minutes ago, MathGeek said:

Right.  The presupposition of materialism is methodological rather than absolute.  As Gould points out, it cannot be proven by science but it is necessary for science to proceed.  

Gould went on to describe science and religious faith as treating "non-overlapping magisteria." (NOMA)  Religious faith treats matters of the spiritual realm - heaven and hell, God and angels, miracles and morality that are outside of the sphere of science because (by definition) they violate the methodological presupposition by which science operates.  Science only addresses things in the physical realm.

 "NOMA also cuts both ways. If religion can no longer dictate the nature of factual conclusions residing properly within the magisterium of science, then scientists cannot claim higher insight into moral truth from any superior knowledge of the world's empirical constitution." (Gould)

The National Academy of Sciences has adopted a similar stance, ""Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria and references therein.

So it's not that one thing invalidates the other or that they should coexist and compliment each other, but that they deal with 2 separate fields of human experience entirely?

[studiot]

13 minutes ago, Mallic said:

If you were JUST an atheist, it wouldn't be a problem. But these days atheism is synonymous with Arrogance, cynicism and and in many cases nihilism/misanthropy. Like I know for a fact conservative atheists exist....which for the longest time i thought was a combination so rare, that i genuinely wondered if i could get them on an endangered species list.

Take this how you will, and maybe I'm not talking to the right ones. But I've yet to meet an atheist that was one because of genuine disbelief, as opposed to just using it as an excuse to spite people who do believe or as an excuse to just do whatever they want regardless of the consequences. For lack of a better term, I've yet to meet an atheist where a disbelief in god was all it was.

It's like that guy who can't go 5 minutes without reminding everyone that he's gay, you know the guy right? That's how it is with some of the people I've seen

The worst case I've seen was a guy who would literally just get set off if you so much as mention the word "Soul"......I am not exaggerating. He literally started ranting and raging the moment someone used the word "Soul". There's just so many things to say about that I don't know where to begin.

 

I don't have any indication of your age so that great thinker Bertrand Russell may before your time but you might find some  useful thoughts and even solace in his works, particularly

 

Why I am not an Atheist

&

Why I am not a Christian

 

I am sorry you are having worries about dying, they seem to be getting in your way of living.

Edited July 26, 2018 by studiot

[Mallic]

Just now, studiot said:

 

I don't have any indication of your age so that great thinker Bertrand Russell may befor your time but you might find some  useful thoughts and even solace in his works, particularly

 

Why I am not an Atheist

&

Why I am not a Christian

 

I am sorry you are having worries about dying, they seem to be getting in your way of living.

I'm not even in my 30's yet. You might be thinking "What?! You are way too young to be thinking about death!" Nononononon. I came to the realization that the specter of death can come for us at anytime. It almost claimed my brother and everyone says the fact that he's alive is a miracle.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Mallic

[DrP]

3 minutes ago, MathGeek said:

The National Academy of Sciences has adopted a similar stance, ""Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria and references therein.

Maybe you or they are confusing numinous with spirituality.

 

9 minutes ago, Mallic said:

If you were JUST an atheist, it wouldn't be a problem. But these days atheism is synonymous with Arrogance, cynicism and and in many cases nihilism/misanthropy.

If you are going to stereo type like that then I could ask  you if ALL catholic priests are homosexual peadophiles....  obviously they are not - but a catholic might be offended if you said they were just because a high number actually are.  

 

I wont bother typing any more  -  you have ignored EVERY one of my replies to tour posts over the last 3 pages. I get the message   -  you only want to hear what matches what you want to hear obviously  -  that isn't science and it isn't smart. Bye.

[studiot]

1 minute ago, Mallic said:

I'm not even in my 30's yet

Thank you for the information, I will promptly forget it as I wasn't really asking for it, just being chatty.

Was that all you got out of my post?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Mallic said:

I'm not even in my 30's yet. You might be thinking "What?! You are way too young to be thinking about death!"

In my case, it is the other way round. I have worried less about it as I have got older. I probably haven't worried seriously about it for 30 years. (Apart from the odd medical worry.)

[Mallic]

Just now, studiot said:

Thank you for the information, I will promptly forget it as I wasn't really asking for it, just being chatty.

Was that all you got out of my post?

No I'll look into this Bertrand Russell guy