Science Is Limited Options

A common flaw of understanding I seem to come across scientists and those who reject then notion of God is the assumption that science is the explanation to all that exists.

Therefore when one asks for "evidence of God" they are simply suggesting scientific proof that can certify God, and they seem to accept no other.

Therefore my challenge for such people, if any on this forum, is to give me a conclusive and scientific definition to,

Friendship and Love, with no reference to philosophy or anything else.

I accept the challenge due to the fact i have studied the brain in deph.

The brain performs an incredible number of tasks for example:

•­It controls body temperature, blood pressure, heart rate and breathing.
•It accepts a flood of information about the world around you from your various senses (seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching, etc).
•It handles physical motion when walking, talking, standing or sitting.
•It lets you think, dream, reason and experience emotions.

All of these tasks are coordinated, controlled and regulated by the brain.

­Your brain, spinal cord and peripheral nerves make up a complex, integrated information-processing and control system. The scientific study of the brain and nervous system is called neuroscience or neurobiology.

­Your brain is made of approximately 100 billion nerve cells, called neurons. Neurons have the amazing ability to gather and transmit electrochemical signals -- they are something like the gates and wires in a computer. Neurons share the same characteristics and have the same parts as other cells, but the electrochemical aspect lets them transmit signals over long distances (up to several feet or a few meters) and pass messages to each other.

Neurons have three basic parts:

•Cell body - This main part has all of the necessary components of the cell, such as the nucleus (contains DNA), endoplasmic reticulum and ribosomes (for building proteins) and mitochondria (for making energy). If the cell body dies, the neuron dies.

•Axon - This long, cable-like projection of the cell carries the electrochemical message (nerve impulse or action potential) along the length of the cell.

•Depending upon the type of neuron, axons can be covered with a thin layer of myelin, like an insulated electrical wire. Myelin is made of fat, and it helps to speed transmission of a nerve impulse down a long axon. Myelinated neurons are typically found in the peripheral nerves (sensory and motor neurons), while non-myelinated neurons are found in the brain and spinal cord.

•Dendrites or nerve endings - These small, branch-like projections of the cell make connections to other cells and allow the neuron to talk with other cells or perceive the environment. Dendrites can be located on one or both ends of the cell

Here is a picture:



Neurons come in many sizes. For example, a single sensory neuron from your fingertip has an axon that extends the length of your arm, while neurons within the brain may extend only a few millimeters. Neurons have different shapes depending on what they do. Motor neurons that control muscle contractions have a cell body on one end, a long axon in the middle and dendrites on the other end; sensory neurons have dendrites on both ends, connected by a long axon with a cell body in the middle.



Neurons also vary with respect to their functions:

•Sensory neurons carry signals from the outer parts of your body (periphery) into the central nervous system.

•Motor neurons (motoneurons) carry signals from the central nervous system to the outer parts (muscles, skin, glands) of your body.

•Receptors sense the environment (chemicals, light, sound, touch) and encode this information into electrochemical messages that are transmitted by sensory neurons.

•Interneurons connect various neurons within the brain and spinal cord.

The simplest type of neural pathway is a monosynaptic (single connection) reflex pathway, like the knee-jerk reflex. When the doctor taps the right spot on your knee with a rubber hammer, receptors send a signal into the spinal cord through a sensory neuron. The sensory neuron passes the message to a motor neuron that controls your leg muscles. Nerve impulses travel down the motor neuron and stimulate the appropriate leg muscle to contract. The response is a muscular jerk that happens quickly and does not involve your brain. Humans have lots of hard-wired reflexes like this, but as tasks become more complex, the pathway "circuitry" gets more complicated and the brain gets involved.

The basic lower brain consists of the spinal cord, brain stem and diencephalon (the cerebellum and cortex are also present, but will be discussed in later sections). Within each of these structures are centers of neuronal cell bodies, called nuclei, that are specialized for particular functions (breathing, heart-rate regulation, sleep):

•Medulla - The medulla contains nuclei for regulating blood pressure and breathing, as well as nuclei for relaying information from the sense organs that comes in from the cranial nerves.

•Pons - The pons contains nuclei that relay movement and position information from the cerebellum to the cortex. It also contains nuclei that are involved in breathing, taste and sleep.

•Midbrain - The midbrain contains nuclei that link the various sections of the brain involved in motor functions (cerebellum, basal ganglia, cerebral cortex), eye movements and auditory control. One portion, called the substantia nigra, is involved in voluntary movements; when it does not function, you have the tremored movements of Parkinson's disease.

•Thalamus - The thalamus relays incoming sensory pathways to appropriate areas of the cortex, determines which sensory information actually reaches consciousness and participates in motor-information exchange between the cerebellum, basal ganglia and cortex.

•Hypothalamus - The hypothalamus contains nuclei that control hormonal secretions from the pituitary gland. These centers govern sexual reproduction, eating, drinking, growth, and maternal behavior such as lactation (milk-production in mammals). The hypothalamus is also involved in almost all aspects of behavior, including your biological "clock," which is linked to the daily light-dark cycle (circadian rhythms).



The cerebrum is the largest part of the human brain. The cortex contains all of the centers that receive and interpret sensory information, initiate movement, analyze information, reason and experience emotions. The centers for these tasks are located in different parts of the cortex.

***The cerebrum contains gray matter (neurons with no myelin) and white matter (myelinated neurons that enter and leave the cortex)***

The cortex dominates the exterior surface of the brain. The surface area of the brain is about 233 to 465 square inches (1,500 to 2,000 cm2), which is about the size of one to two pages of a newspaper. To fit this surface area within the skull, the cortex is folded, forming folds (gyri) and grooves (sulci). Several large sulci divide the cortex into various lobes: the frontal lobe, parietal lobe, occipital lobe and temporal lobe. Each lobe has a different function.

The brain is "hard-wired" with connections, much like a skyscraper or airplane is hard-wired with electrical wiring. In the case of the brain, the connections are made by neurons that connect the sensory inputs and motor outputs with centers in the various lobes of the cortex. There are also connections between these cortical centers and other parts of the brain.

Several areas of the cerebrum have specialized functions:

•Parietal lobe - The parietal lobe receives and processes all somatosensory input from the body (touch, pain).

•Fibers from the spinal cord are distributed by the thalamus to various parts of the parietal lobe.

•The connections form a map of the body's surface on the parietal lobe. This map is called a homunculus.

•The homunculus looks rather strange because the representation of each area is related to the number of sensory neuronal connections, not the physical size of the area.



•The rear of the parietal lobe (next to the temporal lobe) has a section called Wernicke's area, which is important for understanding the sensory (auditory and visual) information associated with language. Damage to this area of the brain produces what is called sensory aphasia, in which patients cannot understand language but can still produce sounds.

•Frontal lobe - The frontal lobe is involved in motor skills (including speech) and cognitive functions.

•The motor center of the brain (pre-central gyrus) is located in the rear of the frontal lobe, just in front of the parietal lobe. It receives connections from the somatosensory portion in the parietal lobe and processes and initiates motor functions. Like the homunculus in the parietal lobe, the pre-central gyrus has a motor map of the brain.

•An area on the left side of the frontal lobe, called Broca's area, processes language by controlling the muscles that make sounds (mouth, lips and larynx). Damage to this area results in motor aphasia, in which patients can understand language but cannot produce meaningful or appropriate sounds.

•Remaining areas of the frontal lobe perform associative processes (thought, learning, memory).

•Occipital lobe - The occipital lobe receives and processes visual information directly from the eyes and relates this information to the parietal lobe (Wernicke's area) and motor cortex (frontal lobe). One of the things it must do is interpret the upside-down images of the world that are projected onto the retina by the lens of the eye.

•Temporal lobe - The temporal lobe processes auditory information from the ears and relates it to Wernicke's area of the parietal lobe and the motor cortex of the frontal lobe.

•Insula - The insula influences automatic functions of the brainstem. For example, when you hold your breath, impulses from your insula suppress the medulla's breathing centers. The insula also processes taste information.

•Hippocampus - The hippocampus is located within the temporal lobe and is important for short-term memory.

•Amygdala - The amygdala is located within the temporal lobe and controls social and sexual behavior and other emotions.

•Basal ganglia - The basal ganglia work with the cerebellum to coordinate fine motions, such as fingertip movements.

•Limbic system - The limbic system is important in emotional behavior and controlling movements of visceral muscles (muscles of the digestive tract and body cavities).

What you have here is scientific knowledge. I skipped a few things inside the article and left things that i thought would help make the explanation more simple and less confusing. I also highlighted a few words for quicker reference.

Its worth noting however that i do believe in God, i just dont worship him (although i acknowledge his power).

Thanks for taking the time to post that

But I am afraid it does not suffice as to what I was asking. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear

Using science alone, explain HOW Friendship and Love work.

Yes we can acknowledge that love and friendships are built up of emotions which are located in the brain, but that does not tell us what the two are.

How can science tell us what is true love or what is a true friendship?

Thanks for taking the time to post that

But I am afraid it does not suffice as to what I was asking. Perhaps I should have made myself more clear

Using science alone, explain HOW Friendship and Love work.

Yes we can acknowledge that love and friendships are built up of emotions which are located in the brain, but that does not tell us what the two are.

How can science tell us what is true love or what is a true friendship?

What do you mean my answer does not suffice? I even included pictures for the dyslexic reader to understand. Inside science we refer to such things as love and friendship as types of emotions. I have held and examined human brains, and never once did i see the words friendship and love written on them.

The science of the emotions is complex as it deals with many aspects of the self, the feelings, mind, temperament, mood as well as the personality.

The body uses certain chemicals that control these very aspects, for example:

Take depression, it can be from mental or environmental. Mental depressionoften happens when the chemicals in the brain are imbalanced. This chemical is sometimes called "amino acids" (hundreds). If the body is missing the acid that helps controls the brain functions (L - Tryptophan, i think this is the correct one. Others are glutamine & tyrosine), depression sometimes occurs. The person no longer thinks about love, sex, relationships. As a matter of fact, these emotions of the relationship suffer.

There are many acids that help control the emotions, brain functions etc.

True love and true relationships combine many things through science and nature of mans emotions. Now the "science " of forming a relationship and developing it depends on the persons ability to trust, respect honor, love and commit.

Hope this is a start

What science justifies is that there is some emotion that exists that we call "love"

That is not sufficient grounds in understanding anything about love

Can science prove that my mother loves me? It can be proved by observation and experience and philosophy. Science, in this instance, cannot tell me that my mother does or does not love me. Perhaps objectively it cannot be proved that my mother loves me, even though maybe every single person that knows our relationships would believe that love exists. Yet what scientific evidence is there for this?

Just the same with God. The notion of God is not one that is scientific, therefore people need to stop using science as an excuse to reject/argue God.

Lack of evidence suggests scientific evidence alone. What I find that is most annoying is arguing with atheists who dont understand, or at least accept our conditions of what God is. When we tell them that God is beyond the physical universe, they reply by asking for physical evidence for Him.

Killed Bill,

Scientifically minded atheists, like myself, are only equipped to deal with the physical. All we know is math and observation. You're trying to get us to use a tool we don't have. If you want us to see the reality of your God, teach us the epistemological method for handling spiritual things, and show us how this method is a reliable tool to determine truth.

Killed Bill

I study mathematics. I was really shocked to find out that a theory exists which states essentially that mathematics can not prove "everything". There is a proof to this theorem as well. It really shocked me and changed the way i thought about mathematics and science in general. So for this, I completely agree with you. Mathematics, and thus science, can not prove everything!

On the other hand, it doesn't mean we should reject science that does exist or ignore things we don't like to hear that come out of logical scientific studies. Once you study enough science you will see that many things which at first glance might seem to argue against religion are very solid scientific fact. I think instead of pushing away science and progress, the key is learning to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific fact. Take evolution for example. Comparative embryology alone is enough proof for me to accept it! On top of that, studying plant pathology for 3 years and tracing the evolutionary history of plant viruses let me watch evolution first hand! (And my research prof and all of the other researchers on my team were Muslims too btw!) All of us strongly believe in science and the research which we worked on, yet we are all strong Muslims! Especially my prof

If anything, the argument I could make for religion is only that science is the logical explanation for the world we live in, but it doesn't give us any guidelines on how we should live our lives. I have lived life as an athiest with no guideline and I have lived as a Muslim as I am today and I can say I am a much happier person living by a moral code so for me, religion works

but the argument that cider posted definetely answers your question about love and friendship. As much as we would all like to think that these things are some unexplainable force, it all comes down to our biochemistry and our brains Everything about the way we think and live our lives comes down to basic logic. That's how AI is such a massive field today! We can make robots who think BETTER than humans because these process are based on nothing more than principles of logic that have been around as long as the universe has existed

Killed Bill,

Scientifically minded atheists, like myself, are only equipped to deal with the physical. All we know is math and observation. You're trying to get us to use a tool we don't have. If you want us to see the reality of your God, teach us the epistemological method for handling spiritual things, and show us how this method is a reliable tool to determine truth.

You must adhere to beliefs that are beyond all scientific justifications. We all hold moral views, can we say that science is its cause? The fact that science can explain something, does not mean that it can and should explain everything. We have the ability to reason and understand, that is the tool we have. Metaphysics is a serious area of study.

Most atheists base what they believe on pure fallacy, what cannot be proven (by science) must not exist.

I study mathematics. I was really shocked to find out that a theory exists which states essentially that mathematics can not prove "everything". There is a proof to this theorem as well. It really shocked me and changed the way i thought about mathematics and science in general. So for this, I completely agree with you. Mathematics, and thus science, can not prove everything!

That is true. Nothing can *actually* be proven, yet we accept it nonetheless.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean we should reject science that does exist or ignore things we don't like to hear that come out of logical scientific studies. Once you study enough science you will see that many things which at first glance might seem to argue against religion are very solid scientific fact. I think instead of pushing away science and progress, the key is learning to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific fact. Take evolution for example. Comparative embryology alone is enough proof for me to accept it! On top of that, studying plant pathology for 3 years and tracing the evolutionary history of plant viruses let me watch evolution first hand! (And my research prof and all of the other researchers on my team were Muslims too btw!) All of us strongly believe in science and the research which we worked on, yet we are all strong Muslims! Especially my prof

I hope I never suggested that science was not useful. Heck, I would argue that science helps prove religion.

If anything, the argument I could make for religion is only that science is the logical explanation for the world we live in, but it doesn't give us any guidelines on how we should live our lives. I have lived life as an athiest with no guideline and I have lived as a Muslim as I am today and I can say I am a much happier person living by a moral code so for me, religion works

Science doesnt provide logic, it simply provides facts through observation. Science cannot go one way or the either (although there are many contradicting sciences that all seem to be based on solid 'proofs'). It is useful, but we should not limit our understand to it.

That is true. Nothing can *actually* be proven, yet we accept it nonetheless.

Hmm... how exactly do you figure this? If it were the case, the entire foundation of mathematics, computer science, physics, engineering, heck, even economics, law, and many other fields would crumble. I'm sorry but much can and IS proven. It just happens to be that mathematics can not one day prove EVERYTHING about the universe

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you somehow?

I hope I never suggested that science was not useful. Heck, I would argue that science helps prove religion.

My apologies if I misunderstood u here

Science doesnt provide logic, it simply provides facts through observation. Science cannot go one way or the either (although there are many contradicting sciences that all seem to be based on solid 'proofs'). It is useful, but we should not limit our understand to it.

I don't understand what you mean here. Please elaborate! I never said science (which is too broad a term to be honest) provides logic, I said specifically that the way us humans think is entirely based off of logic to the extent that in todays world we can build computers which think just as good and often better than humans. And this is because the way which we live our lives is based off of simple logical processes

Hmm... how exactly do you figure this? If it were the case, the entire foundation of mathematics, computer science, physics, engineering, heck, even economics, law, and many other fields would crumble. I'm sorry but much can and IS proven. It just happens to be that mathematics can not one day prove EVERYTHING about the universe

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you somehow?

A proof to one eye is not in another

Although I guess we arent talking about simple 2+2 mathematics here.

I don't understand what you mean here. Please elaborate! I never said science (which is too broad a term to be honest) provides logic, I said specifically that the way us humans think is entirely based off of logic to the extent that in todays world we can build computers which think just as good and often better than humans. And this is because the way which we live our lives is based off of simple logical processes

I dont disagree

I think we are going slightly off topic. I acknowledge the importance of science, but I think metaphysics is important too. And that is an area in which science does will not belong

You must adhere to beliefs that are beyond all scientific justifications.

Sure, but I recognize these beliefs as unjustified. I'd like to get rid of them if I can.

We all hold moral views, can we say that science is its cause?

Yes.

The fact that science can explain something, does not mean that it can and should explain everything.

It can't of course. But we can generalize the stuff that we can explain to the more unavailable parts of the universe.

We have the ability to reason and understand, that is the tool we have. Metaphysics is a serious area of study.

What is your metaphysical standard for establishing the existence of non-physical entities/events? For that matter, how do you define existence?

Sure, but I recognize these beliefs as unjustified. I'd like to get rid of them if I can.

Why

Yes.

How so?

It can't of course. But we can generalize the stuff that we can explain to the more unavailable parts of the universe.

No we cant. That is no longer science

What is your metaphysical standard for establishing the existence of non-physical entities/events? For that matter, how do you define existence?

Using reason, I believe that non physical entity must exist. The idea of God is exactly this, yet there are still demands for scientific proof of God.

Defining existence of what? I personally define my own existence through reason, not necessarily science.

I really have to give it to Killed Bill on this one. He made a simple statement: science is limited. Up until a few weeks ago I would have argued that point to the death, but unforutnately I realized he is true. Science and mathematics can not explain all about the universe.

However, the only thing I do disagree with and have to give to the other side, is the response posted about the chemistry of love and friendship! I do think this is something that is very much described by what we know of science.

Interesting topic!

Why

I define truth (truth in the sense of existing), as the correspondence between ideas and the external universe. If I can't test a belief against the universe ( i.e. scientific method), or if a belief isn't compatible with observations, then I can't call my beliefs true while still holding onto my definition of truth. Naturally I want to have as many true beliefs as possible, so any beliefs that don't fit this criteria are suspect.

How so?

Morality is a function of society, an evolutionary adaptation.

No we cant. That is no longer science

Science must make generalizations. In fact, that is the whole purpose of science, to find and exploit patterns in nature. If an experiment or theory applied only to a particular event, then it would be of little use to anyone. E=mc^2, F=ma, maxwell's wave equations, etc.. all are wonderful and beautiful because they apply generally, even to things we haven't tested yet. True this might make our theories vulnerable to error, mistakes are inevitable, e.g. Newtonian mechanics, but the important thing is that we can recognize our mistakes and correct them. We are getting closer and closer to the truth, without actually hitting the mark. Even our mistakes are pretty darn close! (Newtonian mechanics is still taught and used more than relativity, even though relativity is more accurate) Imagine a scientist who refused to make generalizations...he would conduct an experiment and it would immediately become useless. His experiment worked at 5:00 pm but there's no saying that it would work at 5:01 pm. It worked in London but there's no saying that it would work in New York. He would never make any progress. In fact, he wouldn't even get to the experiment, because he would first have to reconstruct the whole history of scientific progress over again from scratch.

Using reason, I believe that non physical entity must exist.

Can you share the logical progression that led you to this conclusion?

Defining existence of what? I personally define my own existence through reason, not necessarily science.

Existence in general. For something to exist it must.... (fill in the blank). For instance, I would say that in order for something to exist it must be able to interact with something else. It must be able to act or be acted upon. Notice that this isn't exclusively a physical attribute.

Nazia,

Does that fact that science and math are limited justify the existence of a non-physical part of reality? If so, why?

This post has been edited by Emilygreen: Apr 4 2010, 11:41 PM

I define truth (truth in the sense of existing), as the correspondence between ideas and the external universe. If I can't test a belief against the universe ( i.e. scientific method), or if a belief isn't compatible with observations, then I can't call my beliefs true while still holding onto my definition of truth. Naturally I want to have as many true beliefs as possible, so any beliefs that don't fit this criteria are suspect.

What type of beliefs are we talking about here? An example would help

Morality is a function of society, an evolutionary adaptation.

That answer does not suffice. It lacks any sort of evidence.

That is your belief, and clearly it is not based upon science, for if it was, I would be forced to accept it.

No we cant. That is no longer science

Science must make generalizations. In fact, that is the whole purpose of science, to find and exploit patterns in nature. If an experiment or theory applied only to a particular event, then it would be of little use to anyone. E=mc^2, F=ma, maxwell's wave equations, etc.. all are wonderful and beautiful because they apply generally, even to things we haven't tested yet. True this might make our theories vulnerable to error, mistakes are inevitable, e.g. Newtonian mechanics, but the important thing is that we can recognize our mistakes and correct them. We are getting closer and closer to the truth, without actually hitting the mark. Even our mistakes are pretty darn close! (Newtonian mechanics is still taught and used more than relativity, even though relativity is more accurate) Imagine a scientist who refused to make generalizations...he would conduct an experiment and it would immediately become useless. His experiment worked at 5:00 pm but there's no saying that it would work at 5:01 pm. It worked in London but there's no saying that it would work in New York. He would never make any progress. In fact, he wouldn't even get to the experiment, because he would first have to reconstruct the whole history of scientific progress over again from scratch.

Fair enough, but generalisations arent 'true' explanations. Perhaps some are logical and do not need further elaboration, but others do.

Can you share the logical progression that led you to this conclusion?

This would turn into a God debate, maybe in another thread

Existence in general. For something to exist it must.... (fill in the blank). For instance, I would say that in order for something to exist it must be able to interact with something else. It must be able to act or be acted upon. Notice that this isn't exclusively a physical attribute.

This is once again something which differs for different people.

Some are not content with simply saying "I can interact with someone else, therefore we both exist" because flaws can be found within such an argument.

Look at Descartes Meditation for example. His 'Cogito ergo sum' still was not sufficient according to some philosophers of proving his existence.

Does that fact that science and math are limited justify the existence of a non-physical part of reality? If so, why?

I hope I had never suggested that. My thread was to show that because science (which itself is limited) cannot explain a non-physical thing, does not mean it cannot/does not exist.

We cannot provide one lined scientific answers that proves God, in fact, it would be stupid if we could.

When people limit themselves to only one form of understanding, they will become blind to the rest.

To summarize so far,

You originally stated that many atheists reject God because there is no scientific evidence for his existence. You rightly complained that this isn't sufficient reason to exclude his existence, because by his very nature he is unexplainable in physical terms. In response I asked for an alternative to scientific explanation and proofs. You brought up metaphysics and logic as a method for determining truths about non-physical things. I would very much like to push for a detailed elaboration on this last point. What kind of system do you use? What is the non-physical equivalent to the scientific method?

On the other things...

What type of beliefs are we talking about here? An example would help

Beliefs about the existence of things, buckets for an example.

That answer does not suffice. It lacks any sort of evidence.

What kind of evidence do you want? We can look at different creatures and they also exhibit moral-like behavior. Altruism has been observed in species such as elephants, dogs, monkeys, and other social animals. As a member of this category humans have many socially motivated characteristics, specifically the ability to function beneficially as a group. Since our behavior can be so closely compared to the behavior of similar animals, we assume a connection. We could be wrong. Doesn't matter much. It wouldn't greatly alter my view of the world. Since I don't have an explicit proof, you can just call it a guess if you'd like.

Fair enough, but generalisations arent 'true' explanations. Perhaps some are logical and do not need further elaboration, but others do.

I agree that not all generalizations are justified, but what would you call a true explanation?

This is once again something which differs for different people.

Some are not content with simply saying "I can interact with someone else, therefore we both exist" because flaws can be found within such an argument.

Look at Descartes Meditation for example. His 'Cogito ergo sum' still was not sufficient according to some philosophers of proving his existence.

I just want to know how you personally define it.

I hope I had never suggested that. My thread was to show that because science (which itself is limited) cannot explain a non-physical thing, does not mean it cannot/does not exist.

From Nazia's other posts I thought that she might think that. Sorry if that was a bad assumption on my part.

After science fails to explain something, should we depend on philosophical methods to determine existence? And then if philosophy fails to give an explanation, are we then safe to call the thing in question non-existent? Or are there things outside of both physical and logical realms that can't be explained by either? How are we to attribute existence to things beyond all methods of understanding?

When people limit themselves to only one form of understanding, they will become blind to the rest

What other form of understanding are you talking about? Reason and logic? Just to be clear, I embrace these whole-heartedly.

This post has been edited by Emilygreen: Apr 6 2010, 01:30 AM

You originally stated that many atheists reject God because there is no scientific evidence for his existence. You rightly complained that this isn't sufficient reason to exclude his existence, because by his very nature he is unexplainable in physical terms. In response I asked for an alternative to scientific explanation and proofs. You brought up metaphysics and logic as a method for determining truths about non-physical things. I would very much like to push for a detailed elaboration on this last point. What kind of system do you use? What is the non-physical equivalent to the scientific method?

Let me clear something up. What *can* be proved through Science (but perhaps has not yet been) should be. For example we are not sure what the Pineal Glands are for, but im not going to declare that they are the centre to which our minds and body interact (as the Cartesian's believe). That, to me, is jsut stupid. But when we are discussing "God", it is a different thing. His nature cannot be proved through Science, so I am not merely "filling in the gaps" of what we do not know.

Beliefs about the existence of things, buckets for an example.

What makes the Bucket true?

What kind of evidence do you want? We can look at different creatures and they also exhibit moral-like behavior. Altruism has been observed in species such as elephants, dogs, monkeys, and other social animals. As a member of this category humans have many socially motivated characteristics, specifically the ability to function beneficially as a group. Since our behavior can be so closely compared to the behavior of similar animals, we assume a connection. We could be wrong. Doesn't matter much. It wouldn't greatly alter my view of the world. Since I don't have an explicit proof, you can just call it a guess if you'd like.

We also see creatures that eat one another, creatures that kill each other, and more ghastly things. To say our behavior is (somehow) similar to animals does not suggest any moral grounds. A pig would eat its own child, is that morality? Look throughout the different societies we have had during our existence of the world, if you tell me that there is a very similar comparison between Egyptian morality and our morality, then I could not possibly agree.

I agree that not all generalizations are justified, but what would you call a true explanation?

A priori

I just want to know how you personally define it.

It exists because I believe it does

From Nazia's other posts I thought that she might think that. Sorry if that was a bad assumption on my part.
After science fails to explain something, should we depend on philosophical methods to determine existence? And then if philosophy fails to give an explanation, are we then safe to call the thing in question non-existent? Or are there things outside of both physical and logical realms that can't be explained by either? How are we to attribute existence to things beyond all methods of understanding?

Newton said that the rotation of the Planets could not be explained, therefore it was the work of God. The latter part was correct, but his argument was poor. The order of the planets can be proved through science because the planets are physical entities, to which we CAN have knowledge about them. Most things fall under this category, except for God. God is beyond physical understanding, therefore we cannot use science to understand Him. Science is observation, not explanation. So when you say science fails to explain "something", the only thing that science will not be able to explain is God.

What other form of understanding are you talking about? Reason and logic? Just to be clear, I embrace these whole-heartedly.

You need a scientific evidence for you to add your reason and logic. YOU cannot use the latter without the science

Killed Bill,

Let me clear something up. What *can* be proved through Science (but perhaps has not yet been) should be. For example we are not sure what the Pineal Glands are for, but im not going to declare that they are the centre to which our minds and body interact (as the Cartesian's believe). That, to me, is jsut stupid. But when we are discussing "God", it is a different thing. His nature cannot be proved through Science, so I am not merely "filling in the gaps" of what we do not know.

Understood and agreed. Now back to my question. Science is a valuable tool, but useless when it comes to proving the existence of God. Since we can't use science to prove God, what alternative tool should we use? You said metaphysics and reason earlier, but could you be more specific? Again, I apologize for being pushy about this, but I would really like to understand non-physical epistemological methods. Have you studied western philosophy formally? Do you know what I'm asking for here or should I explain in greater detail?

To better illustrate my concern, say that a certain scientist came up with a wonderful theory about a new group of fundamental particles. This theory was self-consistent and offered explanations about previously mysterious phenomena like mass and inertia. As a last step, the scientist decides to test his new ideas. Trouble was that according to his calculations, the particles central to his theory allowed electro and magnetic waves to pass straight through them. The newly theorized particles were invisible to the type of testing typically used. The scientist wasn't concerned however, "I'll just find a new way to test the particles," he thought. (This is what I want from you. Since we can't use science...show me another way to test spiritual theories.) So the scientist comes up with the following rule: if the theory can be made consistent with the mathematical models of quantum mechanics, then the particles must exist. Of course, he already knew that they were consistent, so to you and I and everyone else, this would not be a satisfactory proof. To determine the truth of his theory, we'd ask him to show evidence outside the realm of his already established ideas. Anything less would be circular. If he came up with a new method, we ask him to also test it for reliability. No matter how appealing the theory, it should remain distrusted until a better proof was given by the scientist. In my opinion, this responsibility does not only rest on scientists. Philosophers, theists, atheists, and thinkers in general should be held accountable for their claims. You can create your own method of justification if you'd like, even a non-scientific one, but don't fall into circularity like the scientist. I've yet to see any theist give a general method for determining truths about non-physical things, but I eagerly await your answer. Hopefully, this helps to better show what atheists want from theists. We want...(the 2nd requirement is especially important)

1) a non-circular, consistent proof
2) a epistemological method that can be applied to other things that are known to be true or false, in order to test the reliability of the method

What makes the Bucket true?

There is an object in space that exhibits certain properties which we arbitrarily call a bucket. It acts like a bucket and can be used like a bucket. If someone mistakenly thought the bucket was a spaceship, this person would be surprised to find that his/her ideas contradicted the actual properties of the object. If someone believed that the object was indeed a bucket, then they would never be surprised by the object's properties.

We also see creatures that eat one another, creatures that kill each other, and more ghastly things. To say our behavior is (somehow) similar to animals does not suggest any moral grounds. A pig would eat its own child, is that morality? Look throughout the different societies we have had during our existence of the world, if you tell me that there is a very similar comparison between Egyptian morality and our morality, then I could not possibly agree.

I never said that all animal behavior is moral. Of course it isn't. Not even all human behavior is moral. The pattern goes more like this....The high calorie content of fatty foods makes it preferable to many animals. Humans most likely prefer fatty foods for the same reasons (not consciously of course!). Many animal mothers care for their young to ensure their survival, human mothers most likely also care for their young to ensure their survival. Many animal societies have rules in order to function better as a group. Human rules may also have resulted from our need to function better as a group. Again, this isn't a hardcore proof, its just making likely connections. Your last point I don't quite understand. You don't think that Egyptians are also trying to create a well functioning society?

A priori

Interesting idea, do you believe that the laws of physics are necessarily true then? Or do they not count as true explanations?

It exists because I believe it does

Your mom tells you that she had eggs for breakfast and you believe her. She was mistakenly thinking of yesterday's breakfast, and later on remembers that she actually had pancakes. Since the conversation was trivial, she doesn't see need to correct you on her mistake. You go on believing that she had eggs for breakfast. Which event really existed, your mother having pancakes or eggs?

Newton said that the rotation of the Planets could not be explained, therefore it was the work of God. The latter part was correct, but his argument was poor. The order of the planets can be proved through science because the planets are physical entities, to which we CAN have knowledge about them. Most things fall under this category, except for God. God is beyond physical understanding, therefore we cannot use science to understand Him. Science is observation, not explanation. So when you say science fails to explain "something", the only thing that science will not be able to explain is God.

Was this an answer to my question? I'm just asking for any type of understanding/explanation you can cook up. It doesn't have to be scientific. I just want something, anything!

You need a scientific evidence for you to add your reason and logic. YOU cannot use the latter without the science

Are you saying me specifically as an atheist or that no one can?


Thanks for all your replies..


EDIT: If anyone wants to hash this out in chat, I'd love to have a faster paced conversation than what is possible in a forum. Just let me know and we can set up a time.

This post has been edited by Emilygreen: Apr 10 2010, 09:56 PM

I cant be bothered to read this at the moment, but I promise I will. I will get back to you soon

sorry