ChatterBank1 min ago
Scientific Cognitive Dissonance.
14 Answers
Is it not quite clear now that the scientific establishment cease to follow the scientific method when the observations from their experiments and understanding of the quantum world lead to the suggestion of a conscious mind behind the universe, and this is due to a well entrenched orthodoxy of metaphysical prohibition?
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
>>> when the observations from their experiments and understanding of the quantum world lead to the suggestion of a conscious mind behind the universe
I think that you might struggle to find many scientists who would agree with that statement. (Indeed, I suspect that many 'believers' wouldn't go as far as suggesting that there's any real scientific evidence for the existence of a creator. Religion is, per se, all about 'belief' and not about 'proof').
However as I've written before (and you've constantly ignored or side-stepped, Theland), even if scientists could prove beyond all doubt that there was some form of 'creator', it provides absolutely ZERO evidence for the existence of 'God'.
As an analogy, a scientist might create life in a test tube but that doesn't make him some sort of 'moral arbiter' over that life-form. Further, it doesn't imbue that life-form with a 'soul', which the scientist can then care for when the life-form dies. Similarly, proving that there was a 'creator' for the Universe does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING towards showing that there's a 'God' monitoring it.
I think that you might struggle to find many scientists who would agree with that statement. (Indeed, I suspect that many 'believers' wouldn't go as far as suggesting that there's any real scientific evidence for the existence of a creator. Religion is, per se, all about 'belief' and not about 'proof').
However as I've written before (and you've constantly ignored or side-stepped, Theland), even if scientists could prove beyond all doubt that there was some form of 'creator', it provides absolutely ZERO evidence for the existence of 'God'.
As an analogy, a scientist might create life in a test tube but that doesn't make him some sort of 'moral arbiter' over that life-form. Further, it doesn't imbue that life-form with a 'soul', which the scientist can then care for when the life-form dies. Similarly, proving that there was a 'creator' for the Universe does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING towards showing that there's a 'God' monitoring it.
oh and the dissonance is that they hold one set of rules for one and another for religion
No - - - agree the maff boy
more likely to be resistance to new ideas see - the structure of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts etc
we did all this in the C19 - the world was looked on as immutable as created and then the universities packed with vicars noticed that the geology formation clearly WEREN'T static
the wednesbury incongruity played a big part in this - a lower stratum (old) ended up on top of a ,more modern younger stratum - by twisting
and strata were obviously being laid down in rivers ( sedimentation)
This is Lyells geology 1830 and it was inevitable that it was taken into biology - and took 30 y
so did the scientists close their doubting eyes to biblical inerrancy and The TRUTH ? - no they closed their eyes to obvious inconsistencies for as long as possible
and then the paradigm shift occurred around 1860
we have had this before the question and answers are the same but perhaps with less enthusiam
new wiki page tho
https:/
No - - - agree the maff boy
more likely to be resistance to new ideas see - the structure of scientific revolutions and paradigm shifts etc
we did all this in the C19 - the world was looked on as immutable as created and then the universities packed with vicars noticed that the geology formation clearly WEREN'T static
the wednesbury incongruity played a big part in this - a lower stratum (old) ended up on top of a ,more modern younger stratum - by twisting
and strata were obviously being laid down in rivers ( sedimentation)
This is Lyells geology 1830 and it was inevitable that it was taken into biology - and took 30 y
so did the scientists close their doubting eyes to biblical inerrancy and The TRUTH ? - no they closed their eyes to obvious inconsistencies for as long as possible
and then the paradigm shift occurred around 1860
we have had this before the question and answers are the same but perhaps with less enthusiam
new wiki page tho
https:/
There are two great mysteries (that is to say in the goldfish bowl in which VE swims).
One is ultimate origins: how did it start? I read Laurence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" and couldn't understand. (For which I don't blame Professor Kraus, by the way.) Jim may care to comment on the competency of science to explain origins.
The other, and, in this atheist's book, more important question is "Are there moral truths?". This has been traditionally a philosophic question, thus assigned to an obsolescent discipline which Stephen Hawking asserts is about to be replaced by science.
I'd be interested to hear from Jim or anybody else whether they agree with Hawking. Or just comment generally on VE's "Big question".
One is ultimate origins: how did it start? I read Laurence Krauss's "A Universe from Nothing" and couldn't understand. (For which I don't blame Professor Kraus, by the way.) Jim may care to comment on the competency of science to explain origins.
The other, and, in this atheist's book, more important question is "Are there moral truths?". This has been traditionally a philosophic question, thus assigned to an obsolescent discipline which Stephen Hawking asserts is about to be replaced by science.
I'd be interested to hear from Jim or anybody else whether they agree with Hawking. Or just comment generally on VE's "Big question".
My problem (OK, one among many) is that I believe in a "moral law" (if you care to put it like that), but deny the anthropomorphic metaphor of the "Lawgiver".
And that for the reasons given in the Platonic dialogue Euthyphro. Socrates asks: Is it right because the gods ordain it, or do the gods ordain it because it is right?
And that for the reasons given in the Platonic dialogue Euthyphro. Socrates asks: Is it right because the gods ordain it, or do the gods ordain it because it is right?
Buenchico,
I accept that panspermia might have planted the seeds for life as we know it here on Earth. This does not however explain where those seeds initially originated. If they were purposefully and intelligently created we are still in the dark as to where that creator came from. If we assume intelligence guided such a creator than that intelligence must itself be a product of a highly evolved process at some point in some distant past. Paraphrasing Aragorn, "One does not simply pop into existence one day with the intelligence required to create life, let alone a universe."
I accept that panspermia might have planted the seeds for life as we know it here on Earth. This does not however explain where those seeds initially originated. If they were purposefully and intelligently created we are still in the dark as to where that creator came from. If we assume intelligence guided such a creator than that intelligence must itself be a product of a highly evolved process at some point in some distant past. Paraphrasing Aragorn, "One does not simply pop into existence one day with the intelligence required to create life, let alone a universe."
It leads to nothing of the sort. Whatever your definition of the universe is, it's part of reality. The reality you personally see around you is down to what you observe, it not the same throughout. The universe has many options you could have observed but didn't. Reality doesn't necessarily collapse when you observe it, you simply experience an aspect of it.
And how do you figure that the scientific method isn't used ? For sure at the bleeding edge of theoretical science many conjectures exist, scientists have their personal favoured ones but they are all awaiting a methed of being tested.
As for orthodoxy, it's only reasonable one sticks which that which seems to match what we know until a different explanation fits better and is clear it does to the majority knowledgeable enough to judge. Otherwise all would be chaos and progress extremely limited.
And how do you figure that the scientific method isn't used ? For sure at the bleeding edge of theoretical science many conjectures exist, scientists have their personal favoured ones but they are all awaiting a methed of being tested.
As for orthodoxy, it's only reasonable one sticks which that which seems to match what we know until a different explanation fits better and is clear it does to the majority knowledgeable enough to judge. Otherwise all would be chaos and progress extremely limited.
-- answer removed --
Haven't read Krauss's book so I'm not sure I can really comment on the details of his argument. I'm sceptical that Science is yet ready to discuss origins in any meaningful way. Presumably it's important to work out what's in the Universe now before being in a position to answer how it all got here.
Not sure I have much to add on the "big question" either. Isn't morality at least partly shaped by personal views on how individuals and societies should interact? Science can presumably discuss the mechanisms of these interactions but I don't see that it would necessarily provide a morality for them.
To take an example, it's scientifically well-established that the Earth's climate is changing rapidly, that these changes are in large part driven by human activity, and that those changes are going to continue and even accelerate in future. It also follows that the existence of many current species is going to be threatened by those changes.
But it's a *moral* question as to whether that is a "bad thing", and whether stopping it (or doing our best to change our activities) is worth the trouble. I have no interest in entering that moral question here, but I'd still hold that such a division exists between the purely scientific question of whether the climate is changing, and why; and whether it's worth trying to stop that change.
Not sure I have much to add on the "big question" either. Isn't morality at least partly shaped by personal views on how individuals and societies should interact? Science can presumably discuss the mechanisms of these interactions but I don't see that it would necessarily provide a morality for them.
To take an example, it's scientifically well-established that the Earth's climate is changing rapidly, that these changes are in large part driven by human activity, and that those changes are going to continue and even accelerate in future. It also follows that the existence of many current species is going to be threatened by those changes.
But it's a *moral* question as to whether that is a "bad thing", and whether stopping it (or doing our best to change our activities) is worth the trouble. I have no interest in entering that moral question here, but I'd still hold that such a division exists between the purely scientific question of whether the climate is changing, and why; and whether it's worth trying to stop that change.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.