IanS wrote:God's claimed existence is just as much open to investigation as the claimed existence of anything else.

We are only talking about a claimed God.

What is the evidence to suggest the claim has any validity?

I've yet to see any convincing evidence. God's existence can only be investigated indirectly by investigating claims of interventions in the material world. If your model of God doesn't intervene, its existence can't be measured either way by scientific methodology. Any more that science can map Plato's cave.

I have no idea what that sentence means. But I suspect it doesn't actually mean anything.

Ian.

Scientific measurement can tell us what happens, but not whether it should happen. So scientific results can inform ethics, but can't decide it. Unless you're ethically neutral, you already employ additional truth-seeking criteria, beyond the scientific method, to make judgments.

Shaker wrote:A superb article by philosopher Jamie Whyte which beautifully encapsulates exactly what I've also always felt.

I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Christianity or the other major religions.

Of course, religious assertion persists. But there are many reasons for saying religious things other than actually believing them. Most often, I suspect, people are expressing their hopes rather than their beliefs - substituting “I believe” for “I wish” in the unconscious endeavour to convince themselves.

...

I think this applied to me. I do still have hopes, especially I'd like to live many more lives.

Byron wrote:

IanS wrote:God's claimed existence is just as much open to investigation as the claimed existence of anything else.

We are only talking about a claimed God.

What is the evidence to suggest the claim has any validity?

I've yet to see any convincing evidence. God's existence can only be investigated indirectly by investigating claims of interventions in the material world. If your model of God doesn't intervene, its existence can't be measured either way by scientific methodology. Any more that science can map Plato's cave.

OK, well firstly without checking back, I'm pretty sure that my first posts in this thread made clear I was talking specifically about the Christian God of the bible and/or the Islamic God of the Koran. Not about other ideas of a god, which I might easily regard as becoming too tenuous and irrelevant to be worth serious discussion. And I expect "Deism" falls into that category.

So I'm not really interested in discussion of a so-called "deist" God, because that seems to me simply an artificial construct just devised to avoid anyone seriously enquiring about that gods nature and properties. Anyone could make endless suggestions of that sort about whatever they wanted ... and that's completely pointless, unless there is some genuine reason to think a deist god might really exist ...

... do you think there is any evidence or any good reason to suggest a deist god ever actually existed? ...

... if not then what is the point of discussing such a facile and frivolous claim?

However, despite saying the above, if we do persist with this deist idea for a moment, then I'd also say it's simply untrue when you then conclude the following -

Byron wrote:If your model of God doesn't intervene, its existence can't be measured either way by scientific methodology. Any more that science can map Plato's cave.

As I said before, in writing the sentence the way you have, you are implicitly suggesting that we begin by taking the deist suggestion seriously, as if the deist god might be real. Whereas in fact the most you can honestly do is to point out that the deist god is merely a claim without evidence, and apparently it's a claim of something impossible (a supernatural creator) ... however, if it's only a claim, then the claim is certainly something which can be investigated by science.

But further still, even with a claimed deist god, science can still attempt to investigate whether the properties of the universe are consistent with the deliberate act of an intelligent creator, or not. And so far, after literally billions of pieces of relevant scientific evidence studied in the most astonishing detail, there is zero evidence of any intelligent force acting to create the universe. ....

... do you know of any evidence to support the claim that a deist god created the universe? ...

... if not, if you don't know of any such evidence, then it's utterly worthless to suggest that we should seriously continue discussing a claimed deist creator.

Afaik - there is no evidence of a deist god or any other god. But entirely on the contrary - there is abundant detailed, and vast scientific evidence to suggest that everything in this universe, inc. it's initial formation, occurs for completely natural reasons explicable by physics, maths and chemistry.

Byron wrote:

IanS wrote: I have no idea what that sentence means. But I suspect it doesn't actually mean anything.

Ian.

Scientific measurement can tell us what happens, but not whether it should happen.

OK, well your statement there (above quote) is just clearly wrong, isn't it.

For example - scientific theories are always predictive. They specifically & directly do tell us whether things should happen.

In fact, about the half the number of scientific discoveries ever made have come about in precisely that way, ie via. the theory implying numerous effects and outcomes which ought to be observable & detectable in some way. Eg as I'm sure you know, relativity theory was packed with implications about numerous new/unknown effects which we ought to have been able to search for & detect in the future (after Einstein's initial papers), and in fact 100 years after Einstein's theory, we have now successfully used more modern technology to search for, confirm and verify precisely measure the effects which Einstein predicted, and that's been done in the most amazingly minute detail.

That predictive property arises from virtually all scientific theories and models ... millions upon millions of times over.

Byron wrote:

IanS wrote: So scientific results can inform ethics, but can't decide it. Unless you're ethically neutral, you already employ additional truth-seeking criteria, beyond the scientific method, to make judgments.

Well people might very well “ employ additional truth-seeking criteria, beyond the scientific method, to make judgments “, but that does not mean that approach is valid or correct in any way at all.

Obviously it’s often easier not to make a detailed scientific analysis of everything in our daily lives. So as a matter of practicality we all make trivial decisions in a trivial way. But that’s not what we are talking about in this thread. In this thread we are talking about the very big and very specific claims of religion, whereby it is claimed that God made man, that miracles are real, and that God created the universe etc.

That’s what we are talking about here.

And on those questions, science has provided very full complete, detailed, and testable answers.

If religious people wish to ignore or dispute those scientific answers, and if they want to say that they judge the world instead by some completely different criteria using philosophy and ethics (which is what I think you are saying?), then that is a matter for them ... but that way of judging the world is not one which is capable of producing real answers to real questions ... you cannot discover the truth about how stars first formed from so-called “philosophy” or “ethics“.

Alternatively if religious people or philosophers want to “ employ additional truth-seeking criteria, beyond the scientific method, to make judgments “, about much more tenuous ill-defined things such as “morals” or “love” or whatever, then that just introduces a potential error into their logic, whereby they are incorrectly treating such things as if they were specific well-defined objects ... but “love” or "morals" are not specific well-defined things ... they are simply words used to describe a complex and tenuous mix of all sorts of emotions ideas and actions ...

... however, if you/they really wanted to understand what was meant by terms such as “love” or “morals”, then the way to do that is not to make the study even more tenuous and obscure by talking about it in terms of philosophy or theology, but instead simply to make a scientific study of what the individuals really mean when they use words such as “love” or “morals” ... and that’s very easy for science to investigate.

Ian.

IanS wrote:So I'm not really interested in discussion of a so-called "deist" God, because that seems to me simply an artificial construct just devised to avoid anyone seriously enquiring about that gods nature and properties. Anyone could make endless suggestions of that sort about whatever they wanted ... and that's completely pointless, unless there is some genuine reason to think a deist god might really exist ...

Would you apply the same standard to philosophy? After all, it's impossible to prove that many of its fruits "really" exist, in an empirical sense, since its methods are qualitatively different from empirical measurement. The same goes for the abstract areas of mathematics. (There being much crossover between maths and philosophy, down to joint degrees.) This is why I said this discussion doesn't just hinge on a deity's existence or non-existence, but the nature of knowledge itself, and the acceptable routes for seeking it.

... do you know of any evidence to support the claim that a deist god created the universe? ...

No, and I don't expect to find any. Even if X theory, or collection of data, appears to suggest intelligent design, that's not a route I'd be interested in pursuing. Once you've accepted that hypothesis, it's the end of scientific inquiry, as literally anything can be written off with, "Oh, god did it, next!". There doesn't even have to be the appearance of design, as any god worth the concept could cover its tracks.

A qualitatively different inquiry, of the kind that philosophy undertakes, is a different matter. That's what the most liberal theologians are pursuing. Rudolf Bultmann's "demythologisation" of Christianity, separating historical and theological claims, might be out of fashion, but I think there's a lot in it. I don't come down on the side of a deist god in philosophical terms, either, but the question can be fairly asked. If nothing else, reducing god to scientific Pollyfiller cheapens the concept.

... however, if you/they really wanted to understand what was meant by terms such as “love” or “morals”, then the way to do that is not to make the study even more tenuous and obscure by talking about it in terms of philosophy or theology, but instead simply to make a scientific study of what the individuals really mean when they use words such as “love” or “morals” ... and that’s very easy for science to investigate.

Well, I wouldn't call it easy, but yes, science can investigate it. Investigating the nature of ethical positions is distinct from deciding which choice is right. Science can tell us that X causes Y amount of suffering, but not whether that suffering is justified. Or the reverse. Here science falls silent, and other reasoning processes must take over.

Ie, science can tell us what damage a weapon can do. It can't tell us whether it's right or wrong to use that weapon, in a given circumstance.

And to clarify, when I said "should" above, I meant in an ethical, not predictive, sense. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Byron wrote:

IanS wrote: So I'm not really interested in discussion of a so-called "deist" God, because that seems to me simply an artificial construct just devised to avoid anyone seriously enquiring about that gods nature and properties. Anyone could make endless suggestions of that sort about whatever they wanted ... and that's completely pointless, unless there is some genuine reason to think a deist god might really exist ...

Would you apply the same standard to philosophy? After all, it's impossible to prove that many of its fruits "really" exist, in an empirical sense, since its methods are qualitatively different from empirical measurement. The same goes for the abstract areas of mathematics. (There being much crossover between maths and philosophy, down to joint degrees.) This is why I said this discussion doesn't just hinge on a deity's existence or non-existence, but the nature of knowledge itself, and the acceptable routes for seeking it.

What are it's "fruits"? What has philosophy discovered?

I don't think the same does go for maths. Maths is just a numerical and symbolic representation of science. Whether we call it "abstract" or not, afaik - all mathematical research is in principle investigative in the usual scientific sense ... it's a scientific way of understanding aspects of the world around us. What makes it "scientific" is that it's " mans best attempt at an honest rational unbiased way of finding the truth about any situation" ... that's really a definition of science in general.

Philosophy, afaik, is specifically not trying to achieve that. On the contrary, all it's doing is pointing out whether arguments in words are correct or not according to accepted rules of language and comprehension. Eg, highlighting inconsistencies and contradictions in verbal or written statements. That's rather limited in it's use, because all it can really do is point out that someone may have used the wrong words. But it's not truly explaining anything, except in subjective personal terms of the individual philosopher/writer. If you want to test the truth of any philosophical statements, I think you will have to use science.

What do you think "knowledge" is? Do you think its' a statement of subjective belief from a philosopher?

I would say "knowledge" is what we learn from science about whatever is supported and explained by the evidence, inc. the mathematical aspects of the explanation (of course ... maths is an absolutely fundamental part of science ... despite theologians continually trying to claim that maths is not part of science and is instead an abstract construct just like a supernatural god/deity ... that's and old and very common theist attempt at an obvious deceit).

Byron wrote:

IanS wrote: ... do you know of any evidence to support the claim that a deist god created the universe? ...

No, and I don't expect to find any. Even if X theory, or collection of data, appears to suggest intelligent design, that's not a route I'd be interested in pursuing. Once you've accepted that hypothesis, it's the end of scientific inquiry, as literally anything can be written off with, "Oh, god did it, next!". There doesn't even have to be the appearance of design, as any god worth the concept could cover its tracks.

A qualitatively different inquiry, of the kind that philosophy undertakes, is a different matter. That's what the most liberal theologians are pursuing. Rudolf Bultmann's "demythologisation" of Christianity, separating historical and theological claims, might be out of fashion, but I think there's a lot in it. I don't come down on the side of a deist god in philosophical terms, either, but the question can be fairly asked. If nothing else, reducing god to scientific Pollyfiller cheapens the concept.

Well at least we agree that "God did it!" is simply not any kind of explanation at all, and is in fact merely an admission of ignorance.

I don't see how philosophy is as you say "a different matter" here. In what way is philosophy capable of telling us whether a deity might have created the universe? How is philosophy going to explain all the attendant processes of particle production and their relativistic and quantum properties ... how is it going to explain all the necessary maths of Big Bang and earlier states?

If you are again saying that philosophy offers us a different way of "understanding", then what is that way of "understanding" ... how does that actually explain the real observable and mathematically calculable processes and conditions which we believe are consistent with the birth of the universe?

Byron wrote:

IanS wrote: ... however, if you/they really wanted to understand what was meant by terms such as “love” or “morals”, then the way to do that is not to make the study even more tenuous and obscure by talking about it in terms of philosophy or theology, but instead simply to make a scientific study of what the individuals really mean when they use words such as “love” or “morals” ... and that’s very easy for science to investigate.

Well, I wouldn't call it easy, but yes, science can investigate it. Investigating the nature of ethical positions is distinct from deciding which choice is right. Science can tell us that X causes Y amount of suffering, but not whether that suffering is justified. Or the reverse. Here science falls silent, and other reasoning processes must take over.

Ie, science can tell us what damage a weapon can do. It can't tell us whether it's right or wrong to use that weapon, in a given circumstance.

And to clarify, when I said "should" above, I meant in an ethical, not predictive, sense. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Well you cannot unambiguously determine what is "right or wrong" in the sense you alluded to. Questions such as " whether that suffering is justified " are really not proper questions at all, because they are far too tenuous and ill-defined, they contain a multitude of un-stated factors.

They are subjective questions which depend very strongly (if not entirely) on each persons point of view. They are questions related specifically to human individual subjective opinion. And in that there sense there are no objectively correct answers ... there is no objectively correct "right or wrong" in the moral sense that you are now talking about.

What you are doing there is getting yourself into a defence of the sort of creationist argument used by William Lane-Craig, where he says that morals are absolute and determined by god.

You see, I think this is really the problem with thinking that " a way of knowing " is to be obtained through subjective semantic pursuits such as philosophy. Because it plays straight into the hands of theists (and indeed creationists). Whereby they can attempt to erect smokescreens, mirrors and mumbo-jumbo language in order to avoid ever coming to the point of having to admit that there really is no defence for the claim of either a supernatural god or a deity (if they are not in fact really the same thing anyway).

Forget the philosophy. The position is simple - Q. is it in any way reasonable, logical or honest to claim that a "deity" or a god might have created the universe?

The answer to that question is resoundingly, No!

No, it's not remotely reasonable to make that suggestion, because modern science has finally shown beyond all reasonable doubt that everything in the universe happens for entirely natural reasons explicable to science. And there are no known exceptions. Nor are there any known ways in which there ever could be any exceptions. And that is not changed, nor helped in any way, by confusing the issue with subjective ideas from philosophy or theology.

Ian.

IanS wrote:What are [philosophy's] "fruits"? What has philosophy discovered?

In the scientific sense, none. Its intangible fruits, such as jurisprudence, the philosophy of just war, inalienable rights, etc, have shaped our material existence. Just as the more abstract areas of maths have done. When you get past arithmetic (which is predicated on accepting that 1 + 1 does equal two) into theories like different infinities, maths is indistinguishable from philosophy. Yet originally abstract mathematical theorising has been translated into practical use, such as in computing, or cryptography. There is no neat division between the empiric and the abstract. If we didn't accept other tools beside scientific measurement, those areas would never have been investigated.

I define knowledge as the most reasonable conclusion from the available evidence. Philosophy can lead to reasonable conclusions, by testing hypotheses with logic. This goes beyond mere linguistic formalism, testing content, not just its expression. If you think giving philosophy weight is a smokescreen for theistic assertion, well, you're reducing two separate disciplines to their one shared factor -- their abstract nature -- and doing a disservice to both.

If there can be no objective ethical conclusions, how do we procede? Majoritarianism, where the course is decided by an amoral vote. What is the point of this populism? Since the principle of democracy is itself non-scientific, you can't even argue for that, objectively. It's a self-defeating road to set off down.

Byron wrote: When you get past arithmetic ....

Well I have a PhD in theoretical physics (which most non-scientists would probably regard as looking like nothing but the most weird abstract maths from start to finish), but I certainly don't regard it has having anything at all to do with "philosophy" (meaning the sort of "philosophy pursued in academic philosophy dept's). And out of all the thousands of mathematicians, physicists & other research scientists I met, I never met one who was remotely interested in what the philosophy dept. did or said.

But we are definitely going around in circles here.

If you really think there are other ways of genuinely "knowing", eg through as you say philosophy and ethics, then we'll just have to agree to disagree (but in this thread I remind you that we were talking about claims of a God who exists in some real material sense, and who intervenes in this world in a real material way ... and as I say - I don't think you can get genuine insight into testing the truth of those claimed interventions by some "philosophical way of knowing" ... eg if you truly want to know how this universe first came into being, then I think you will have to use science and not philosophy or ethics (or theology).

Ian.

IanS wrote:And out of all the thousands of mathematicians, physicists & other research scientists I met, I never met one who was remotely interested in what the philosophy dept. did or said.

Which is their prerogative, although I'd be interested to know how they related to mathematicians taking joint honours in maths and philosophy.

I don't think you can get genuine insight into testing the truth of those claimed interventions by some "philosophical way of knowing" ... eg if you truly want to know how this universe first came into being, then I think you will have to use science and not philosophy or ethics (or theology).

Agreed.

The origin of the universe is a material question, and is rightly measured by science. If science produces a theory of origin -- and there's no reason to think that it can't -- then it only shakes "god of the gaps" theologians, who cram god into the places where science falls silent. An ever-decreasing space and a fool's errand, IMO. Likewise, the material origin of our physical existence won't end philosophical debates about metaphysics. A philosopher can be a stonewall atheist -- and no shortage of them are -- and go with that. That's the key point: atheism needn't be synonymous with the strictest materialism.

Byron wrote: Likewise, the material origin of our physical existence won't end philosophical debates about metaphysics.

Sure. People will debate in any way they want, using whatever subjects they are interested in. It's a free world, and I wouldn't like to see it any other way.

Byron wrote:A philosopher can be a stonewall atheist -- and no shortage of them are -- and go with that. That's the key point: atheism needn't be synonymous with the strictest materialism.

Yep. I'm well aware that many people here (& on RDF) are atheists with a background in philosophy.

And again, yes - "atheism" does not need to be based on a strictly material or scientific understanding of things. There may be many reasons why people don't believe in gods etc.

All I'm saying is that - if you really want to show how things work in this world, if you really want to explain those things, then you need to take a scientific approach ... simply meaning " your best attempt to make an unbiased rational study of the situation " ... that method can be applied in many other academic studies outside pure science (in fact nowadays, afaik most academic dept's try to use that scientific approach wherever possible) ...

... and in particular, if we want to test the validity of religious claims, such as claimed miracles, faith healing, the efficacy of prayer, or how the universe formed etc., then as far as I can see there is no honest alternative to science. And in fact all of that has been studied by science, in great depth.

Really, as far as I can see, theists only have two remaining gaps where they can still have any credibility in claiming god (not much credibility, but still .... ). And those are (1)precise mechanism of abiogenisis, and (2)formation of the universe.

Afaik both of those questions are active areas of detailed scientific research, and a great deal has already been discovered and explained in minute detail. Just because we don't yet have full, complete and unarguable answers for those two rather complex, fundamental and rather distant (in time) questions, does not seem to me any reason to doubt that science will find an answer, and personally I think that will be sooner rather than later.

But I don't think we're really disagreeing on much at all now (unless I just unintentionally said something contentious in this post ).

Ian.