TPF : Philosophy vs Science

[Gnomon]

Philosophy vs Science
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/732296

Is this your understanding of the terms philosophy and science? — A Christian Philosophy

As a former Christian, I must say that your post is quite logical, and well-presented. And I agree that "The empirical sciences have not replaced the rational sciences". I also accept that " there must be at least one thing that is eternal, unchangeable". Moreover, I concur that "Scientism, the belief that any claim that is not provable by the empirical sciences is meaningless”, is itself not provable by the empirical sciences". Hence, it must be accepted on faith in human senses, and their artificial extensions. Yet, Logic (Reason) is a sort of sixth sense, that deals with subjective ideas, not objective things.

I can even agree that "Metaphysics - the science of reality" --- but with the proviso, that it's a "science" in the general sense of "a way of knowing". But, since the 17th century, Empiricism has arrogated the term "science" to its sense-experience experiments. Therefore, rational Metaphysics has been relegated to feckless Philosophy, with its debatable logical inferences. Ironically, Einstein was a theoretical physicist, who used rational-thought-experiments to determine the unseen forces and mathematical structures of reality -- only later confirmed by empirical methods.

However, while most religions have rational philosophical/theological traditions, their popularity is not based on logic, but due to emotional appeals, prejudices & preferences. Which is why they tend to eventually break-down into passionately defended sects, with only a veneer of dispassionate logic. Even a calm rational philosophy like Buddhism, has its zealous religious sects. Likewise, Scientism is a sect of Science, that is directly opposed to all hypothetical belief systems. Hopefully though, we can all get-along under the broad umbrella of Philosophy, with its dispassionate love of both empirical and theoretical truths.


Theoretical : considered, contemplative, speculative ; as contrasted to practical, pragmatic, empiricial



Hello, and thank you for the feedback. Yeah - I agree that a lot of people believe in a religion because of emotions and not reason. That said, I also think the right religion can be found by reason. — A Christian Philosophy

Perhaps. But how can we sort-out which of the many "true" religions is the "right religion" for me? In forum discussions, I've noted that Muslims (Islamists) make some quite rational & reasonable arguments for certain beliefs, such as the existence of an abstract (non-anthro-morphic) G*D. But in the final analysis (premises), they will insist that Muhammad was the last true prophet, that the Koran is the true word of G*D, and that Islam is the only "true" religion. By implication, your religion is false.

Unfortunately, reasoning is only as good as its premises. And, religious premises are seldom empirical or verifiable. Hence, as tolerant philosophers, we argue politely for our "truths", yet when all is said & done, we agree to disagree.

Premise : 1 : a statement or idea taken to be true and on which an argument or reasoning may be based.
Note --- For Christians, the veracity of the New Testament is their basic premise or axiom. Yet, for Muslims, the authenticity of the Koran is their starting point for reasoning. Belief bias is what allows some premises to "make sense" within one belief system, and to be non-sense for another.

Belief Bias :
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanies ... bc3e9f7c56

10 Reasons Why Islam is the True Religion :
So to prove that veracity of Islam rather than showing people subjective miracles, instead I am presenting 10 proofs/evidence found in Islam for why Islam is the true religion.
https://themuslimscomic.com/2020/12/13/ ... -religion/

Which, if any, of the world's 10,000 religions is the true one? :
https://www.religioustolerance.org/reltrue.htm

"A great many people think they are thinking [reasoning] when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." ___William James

[Gnomon]

Maybe I'm still too hopeful and naive, but I'd say we could find the true religion in the same way we find any truths, and debunk false religions in the same way we debunk any errors:
False religions will have contradictions or will be unreasonable, e.g., fail Occam's Razor.
The true religion will have no contradictions and will be reasonable, i.e., arguments may not give certainty but at least reasonableness. — A Christian Philosophy

I too, was once "hopeful & naive". By the time I graduated from high school, I had doubts about my own fundamentalist ("back to the bible") Christian religion. Around that time, my older brother came back from California, with enthusiasm for his new-found religion. It was the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG), headed by radio & TV preacher Herbert W. Armstrong. His writings provided reasonable-sounding answers to some of my own concerns. And his son, Garner Ted Armstrong, was even more charismatic & persuasive on TV. Their "heretical" departures from the Catholic heritage were justified from the perspective that the Old Testament was the revealed Word of God, and not to be dismissed as merely a temporary Law for errant Jews.

Some of those radical unorthodoxies made sense to me, on a rational basis. For instance, I could never find any scriptural evidence for changing the clearly commanded seventh day Sabbath to the indirectly inferred first day Sunday, as the "Lord's Day" for Christians. We seemed to have inherited that Catholic tradition, based originally on papal canonical councils, and on some questionable biblical exegesis. Anyway, I observed the WWCG from a distance, and even visited their campus in California. But H.W. Armstrong made some bold prophesies about "signs of the last days". Although he was in his eighties, he emphatically asserted that he knew he would still be alive when Jesus returned in triumph. He lived well into his nineties, but eventually died, and I saw no sign of The Second Coming (forty years ago). Therefore, I took that absence of evidence as empirical demonstration of a false prophecy. I also concluded from other evidences that the WWCG was a personality cult. And it soon fell apart upon the death of the prophet.

Therefore, you could say that I discovered a negative "truth" by means of experience, instead of by rational analysis of teachings. And I "debunked" certain beliefs by Bayesian probability updates, instead of by Logical certainty. As I said before, reasoning is only as good as it's premises. And religious premises are usually un-verifiable Axioms that must be taken on Faith, because conclusive evidence is not available. Those premises may be "self-evident" to yourself, but not obvious at all to someone else. As we discover daily on this forum. Consequently, ultimate "Truth" remains an unfulfilled quest for the Holy Grail. So, I practice no formal Religion, but I do have a personal Worldview, which guides my fallible reasoning about ultimate reality. FWIW, it does have a role for a G*D-of-the-philosophers (First Cause ; Logos),

There are thousands of religious sects, and they can't all teach a single cohesive Truth. So, their internal "contradictions" tend to be dismissed as "improper" interpretation, or surrounded by spurious sophistry, or dismissed as close-enough to "reasonableness". So, I don't engage each belief system in rigorous rational analysis. Instead, I have developed my own personal non-scriptural non-religious Philosophical belief system. It's based as far as possible on empirical evidence, but also supplemented with philosophical speculation. As you said, it's not absolute Truth, but it seems "reasonable" to me.


Bayesian probability is an interpretation of the concept of probability, in which, instead of frequency or propensity of some phenomenon, probability is interpreted as reasonable expectation representing a state of knowledge or as quantification of a personal belief.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability

[Gnomon]

Sounds like a good approach to me. If you already accept a being that is the First Cause, then here is a simple argument to tie it to the God of the bible: — A Christian Philosophy

Using personal Experience and innate Reason to hack a path through the jungle of religious beliefs was my only philosophical option. A common religious/political solution is to eliminate those who believe differently (excommunicate, burn at stake). Anyway, even though I had doubts about some aspects of my childhood religion, I could think of only two explanations for why-there-is-something-instead-of-nothing : A> Eternal Something (objects) or B> Eternal Potential (creative force). Before I was born, a Catholic priest proposed a controversial scientific point-of-origin hypothesis. Shortly afterward, Astronomical evidence for expansion of everything from a single speck of space-time began to pile-up. From those bits of logic & evidence, the Big Bang theory was formulated. Which called into question, the long-standing scientific & philosophical presumption that our physical world (something) was eternal, and all there is.

At first, that idea sounded heretical to most empirical scientists. Probably because, if you accept that our Something (universe) is contingent upon some Unknown Factor outside of spacetime, the notion of an intentional world-creator begins to make sense. But those opposed, on principle, to the creator-concept preferred to imagine an infinite super-universe of randomly popping Big Bangs, and space-time without beginning or end. From the premise that some essential something (e.g. matter & space & energy & time & laws) abides forever, you can reason-out the Axiom underlying the Multiverse theory. Unfortunately, that precept is no more provable than the traditional Creator & Law-Maker assumption. It has to be taken on Faith.

But to common-sense, ever-changing (entropic/self-destructive) matter/energy is an unlikely candidate for an everlasting substance or eternal essence. So, the remaining contender is the governing Laws of organization (LOGOS), that are not subject to thermodynamic decay. That seems to be a more promising postulate for the First Cause of -- and reason for -- the Big Bang. Furthermore, since Natural Laws are a form of immaterial Information*1, I think of the presumptive Law Maker as The Enformer. Which is a Causal*2, but non-anthro-morphic, concept. And that became the axiom for my personal (philosophical, not religious) Enformationism thesis. Consequently, my worldview is not exactly Atheistic, or Pantheistic, but PanEnDeistic. Moreover, since I can't prove empirically that such a super-universal entity exists, I must remain religiously Agnostic.

Even with a philosophical First-Cause-concept, I don't "tie" that god-model to the Hebrew/Jewish/Christian/Islamic/Mormon scriptures. Based on my rational/critical investigations, none of those books "rings true" as of the Word of God. Yet, all of those "Holy Books" are accepted, on faith by millions, as authentic revelations (attested to by witnesses) from God directly, or from Angels, or other Divine Beings. From an outsider perspective though, they all have the earmarks of ordinary human fiction*3. My own religion, was a Protestant sect --- a stem off a limb branched off from the Catholic tradition. Which placed its faith in the earthly authority in the Church (i.e. Pope), instead of the canonized collection of first-century writings, assembled & edited by its own in-house redactors. Ironically, by rejecting the sovereignty of the human Pope, Protestants were forced to rely on unaided fallible human Reason to interpret their inherited Catholic scriptures. And the result of that freedom of interpretation is the cacophony of Christian sects we have today.

Therefore, the foundation of my back-to-the-bible religion was undermined by my own Reasoning. So, like the Atheists, I found that I could only rely on my own personal Power of Inference, to discern the "truth" of how & why there is something-instead-of-nothing. Yet, my rational philosophical approach didn't find evidence to support the notion of accidental emergence of our self-organizing world from the random roiling of self-existent atoms & forces. Instead, it came to the same conclusion that Spinoza was excommunicated for. What Blaise Pascal derisively labeled : "the god of the philosophers" (nature god). However, Spinoza assumed that the lawful physical world itself was eternal, whereas I think it was the pre-big-bang Lawmaker (the Enformer) that logically must be self-existent. Beyond that general notion derived from "the inner light" of fallible reasoning, I have no direct revelation from the LOGOS. Hence, no mandate for a worshipful or ceremonial religion. And, I can't even say, for sure, that contrary opinions are wrong. Does that sound pathetic to you?

*1. What is Information? :
Information is the power to enform, to create
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page16.html

*2. Causal Information :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_causality

*3. It's easy to be skeptical & critical of other people's weird beliefs. But not so toward your own principles, premises & passions.
Note -- Empirical philosopher David Hume once said that "reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions". He's merely saying that reason, or logic, does not produce actionable beliefs. Apparently, he exempted freethinking philosophers from that servitude.

“Science is what you know. Philosophy is what you don't know” – Bertrand Russell

“Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck” – Immanuel Kant

“Philosophy is at once the most sublime and the most trivial of human pursuits” – William James

“The only thing I know is that I know nothing” – Socrates
13 minutes ago

[Gnomon]

Robert Grosseteste¹ was not a 20th century "Catholic priest" but a 13th century Bishop. (re: De Luce, 1225 CE)² — 180 Proof

Thanks for the obscure info. I had never heard of Grosseteste. I was referring to Lemaître in the 20th century. And the oblique reference was merely intended to suggest that the notion of a sudden beginning to space-time would seem more reasonable to a Christian than to an Atheist. Ever since, Atheists have been trying to find alternative philosophical (hypothetical ; speculative) explanations for the scientific evidence of a creation event (something from nothing). And they are still at it. (see below).


The Big Bang no longer means what it used to :
The idea that the Universe had a beginning, or a "day without a yesterday" as it was originally known, goes all the way back to Georges Lemaître in 1927.
Although it's still a defensible position to state that the Universe likely had a beginning, that stage of our cosmic history has very little to do with the "hot Big Bang" that describes our early Universe.
Although many laypersons (and even a minority of professionals) still cling to the idea that the Big Bang means"the very beginning of it all," that definition is decades out of date.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... g-meaning/
Note -- In place of a magical act of creation, this article is based on the magical notion of instantaneous Inflation ("Presto!") of a universe from a random "fluctuation" in a hypothetical "field" of nothing-but Potential.

Is The Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore :
Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 32b18fb45e

[Gnomon]

Thanks for sharing. All I can respond is keep searching for truth. I'll do the same. If one of the religions is true and can be found, then philosophy, being the search for truth, will sooner or later find it. — A Christian Philosophy

FWIW, my "search for truth" was never emotionally motivated (e.g. to find a warm & welcoming religious community to replace the ultra-conservative clique I was born into)*1. Instead, it was simply a dispassionate (agape) love of Wisdom (i.e. philosophy).

My current view is that all religions are "true" for people of faith, but are "false" for those outside the faith community. So, my current "church" is a community of one not-so-true believer. Hence, I'm standing up here alone, preaching to the invisible choir. I don't recommend it for die-hard truth-seekers. :joke:

*1. That's only partly true. After I got out of the Navy, I started going to a Unity church. But that was mostly to meet "nice" girls, and only partly out of curiosity about the way-liberal Unitarian off-shoot of the Christian religion. They had a sort of Pagan/New Agey truish Truth, but it wasn't my kind of truth. The girls were nice though.

[Gnomon]

You use the word "science" in the same way I use "science (modern meaning)" in the OP. In that sense, I agree with you that math, logic, epistemology, metaphysics and ethics do not fall under science (modern meaning) but under philosophy (modern meaning). — A Christian Philosophy

Yes. Those thought-experiment tools (logic, etc) are used to extract general or universal meaning from personal & local experience. As a matter of fact, theoretical & mathematical physicists (e.g. Einstein & Tegmark) are actually doing philosophy, leaving the messy hands-on mechanic-work to others*1. Ironically, some believers in Scientism act as-if the reductive & empirical methods of modern Science, have eliminated the need for the ancient holistic & intuitive methods of Philosophy. Which also provided the illuminating metaphors that inform the various worldviews of Religion (e.g. Plato's LOGOS vs John's Logos).

Unfortunately. that questionable exclusionary presumption often leaves stalwarts of Sovereign Science unable to articulate the general significance of their abstruse findings*2. Hence, their explanations sometimes take the sole-authority form of "because . . . science". In other words, their proof is based on the authoritative status of the "scientific method", which differs from Philosophy in its use of telescopes, microscopes, and cyclotrons. On the other hand, Philosophy is essentially Science without artificial tools -- using only your god-given reasoning ability : both deductive and abductive.

The distinction you seem to be making is that Scientism tends to lump Philosophy & Religion together as faith-intuition-based reasoning. Whereas, another way to look at those relationships is to view Religion & Science as the offspring of Philosophy. In that case, Science concerns itself with Physics (Matter-Energy), and Religion with Metaphysics (Mind-Soul), while Philosophy covers both aspects of this "blue dot" in the cosmos, inhabited by thinking lumps of matter : Reality & Ideality.

*1. Einstein's lab is a pencil :
"The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only intuition, resting on sympathetic understanding of experience, can reach them."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
Note -- a child once asked Einstein, "if you are a scientist, where is your laboratory?". To which he replied, wordlessly, by holding up a pencil.

Deduction : Literally subtraction of parts from wholes, specific from general, particular from universal ; analysis of integrated systems into isolated components.

Intuition : acquiring knowledge without recourse to conscious reasoning ; to know without proof ; instinctive ; holistic insights.
That's OK for the individual. But others may not intuit exactly what you feel "rings true". Hence, the necessity for logical or empirical demonstrations that are not peculiar to a single person. Yet, skeptical sounding may find that the bell is cracked, contrary to faith-based assumptions.

*2. Thus, the many Science-for-Dummies videos on YouTube, such as Science Without the Gobbedygook and Complex Questions Answered Simply.

PS___We can't depend on Empirical Physics to test the validity of Metaphysical beliefs. Skeptical Science may discover little evidence for the physical existence of Jesus (e.g bones in a cave ; Roman records). But belief in the role of the Christ is predicated upon the axiom of a non-physical Father in Heaven. And the only evidence to support or deny that common concept is metaphysical in (super) nature, hence a Philosophical question.