I don't think that Scientism is self-serving, it just doesn't have all the answers right now...
Being able to investigate "gods" existince is contradictory to its feasibility IMO, since we are supposedly its creation. I can varify my creator by getting a sample from my parents... Science appiles in that case. If there is an omnipotent "god," it would be something incomprehensible. It would be beyond science's capabilities. Hence, there is no logical reason to give the idea of a supernatural creator any credibility. That concept filled a gap for its time... I view the bible as a primitive form of natural science in some ways.
The edict of scientism is basically this: "Only empirical evidence counts." This is self-contradicting because there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of that sentence.
Secondly, I said scientism is ego-serving not self-serving. The latter makes it sound like scientism is serving itself, whereas my point is that it serves the user. How? By limiting oneself strictly to empirical data, the user can assure him/herself that a transempirical god not only will never be found, but simply doesn't exist. Ego can rest assured that it is the highest form of consciousness known, and this, IMO, can lead to arrogance as readily as a religionistic POV.
While I do agree somewhat with what you're saying, it remains my feeling that Scientific Method is viable in transempirical investigation if we expand our definition of "proof." Of course, in the case of "God," we'd also have to supply a viable operational definition, and by definition "God" in the highest sense is ineffable.
Admittedly, this would be a very tough nut to crack. But theoretically I believe it could be done...or at least, I haven't come across any empirical proof which says it couldn't.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Empirical data is something that everybody can agree on. Truth is what is experienced by all people. Right now, empirical data is the only way to achieve that.
You forget that historically, God was not empirical, he was thought to be empirical. The conception of faith changed, for a variety of reasons, but one amongst them was that it removed God from quantification. If God was nonimperical, he could never be eliminated by experimentalism.
Science does not give a damn if God exists or not. Science is here to observe, not to explain. Scientists who explain why things happen, myself included, are breaking the code of science. Thats not the goal...AT ALL.
The scientific method is viable transimperically and is used in such a manner in a variety of other fields, namely the soft (non-natural)sciences. It has and will be continued to be applied in this manner.
However, one must realize that this is the scientific method and is not true natural science.
As you pointed out, God is a self-defeating concept because the concept of God is constantly readjusted to fit in the most accurate picture of the physical world available at the time...including redefining the concept in a non-imperical nature.
1. I would say it might be easiest, perhaps, for everyone to agree on. After all, we're tacitly agreeing on the meaning of the sentences we're using right now, otherwise we wouldn't be able to communicate.
2. Not forgotten; I just have a tendency to substitute what I may mean by God for what most people take God to mean. This is why I often put the word "God" in quotes. And certainly, as a concept, "God" has often been molded to fit people's views and needs. I think this is a main reason why "organized religion" hasn't faired well over time.
3. Absolutely: the aim of science is not to explain but to describe, to provide reliable (hopefully valid) "as ifs."
4. Psychology is a good example, but...aren't our minds natural?
5. If by natural, you mean physical or biological, then I agree.
6. The concept of God, yes. But I wonder if Scientific Method, employing transempirical tools and collecting transempirical data, might be used to verify, if not God in the highest sense, then the domains beneath "Him," as elucidated in the various schools of mystical thought.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Yes. I don't discriminate amongst gods. God as the void that fills in the gaps in knowledge cannot be disputed. God is certainly more a feeling than an man.
Natural Sciences are Biology, Chemistry, and Physics in their modern forms.
Psychology is more the study of thought and behavior, which is not real natural. Sorry Regret.
I don't know which schools you are referring to specifically, but I will say this. The scientific method will likely not apply to god, as it relies on reproducibility. If a god is all powerful, his actions won't be reproducible, as he can constantly change them. If god it not all powerful, the scientific method won't be able to distinguish him from the Natural Laws themselves.
God may be beyonf the Method, but he is not beyond logic. However, its important to keep logic and science seperate as I can think of MANY things that are currently thought true that aren't at all logical.
Yes. Scientists everywhere have increasingly found themselves on the defensive from societal groups, namely religious ones, that are bastardizing what science is in order to gain traction with things like "Intelligent Design" etc. Its really quite sad actually, but I believe that its partially the fault of science itself.
I can go on, but thats enough for now.
Basically, as a scientist myself and a History of Science major, there is a need, especially now, to define what science is and what it is not. Its something important to me and I feel it has positive consequences for society.
Behavior can be empirically measured--that's the whole point! When (eg) biologists go out in the field to observe an animal, That's what they're observing.
Basically, all the schools have a common thread, called the perennial philosophy, and by examining this common thread, it might be possible to come up with viable operational definitions.
Here I disagree. "God" (again, leaving the definition open for the moment) is translogical as well. Otherwise, for example, Aquinas' "ontological arguments" could be considered valid, which I don't think they are. I think if one pushes logic on "God," you end up with paradox. As to what these paradoxes ultimately mean (eg, Omnipotence Paradox), depends on the belief system of the individual.
Agreed. However, since there are many bright and insightful people in this forum, I personally like to push the envelope, as it were, in discussing "what science is." I Wouldn't do this in an "Intro to Science" course.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Logic is important when it comes to making decisions when there is a lack of evidence. Science can't have all the answers, but I find it to be the most promising alternative.
KMC Community Forums
Dec 17th, 2006 04:00 AM
Sorry Regret.
