johnsonma :
They are both bound by logic, so i'm not sure if your argument does anything in terms of religion.
Specifically, it has nothing to do with religion, religion is your talking point. I am keeping in context of the progression made through our posts regarding the inherent spiritual nature of Man and to deny your argument that Man creates everything and that Science can explain everything.
Stating that Philosophy and Science are bound by logic is just stating the obvious. Any reasoned thought requires logic to determine the correct from the in-correct. But what's really funny about stating logic applies to both Philosophy and Science is the fact that Logic (the study of the methods and principles used in distinguishing correct from incorrect reasoning) is a subset discipline of Philosophy. Do you know why Logic is a subset discipline of Philosophy instead of Science? It is because logic requires the student to think beyond their own perception and what can be proven and think in the abstract and make supposition, i.e.; have faith. So, as far as my argument is concerned, it only confirms what I previously stated, "that there is an immutable relationship between Science and Philosophy and philosophical discussion heavily influences scientific theory." This relationship between Science and Philosophy is why Science requires some level of faith.
I found it interesting that you chose not comment on the statement, "that science is unable to answer questions regarding value, morality, and the metaphysical." most likely because it is undeniable and it would cause you to admit that there are things that science can not explain.
johnsonma :
I'm not sure why you combined the ideas of natural and divine law in the middle of your argument. You don't provide any reason why either. Natural law is just a theory that arose through philosophical debate to explain why men create laws. If you divine natural law from the idea that we didn't kill each other off in our early years i would argue that it was clearly genetics that govern this. Some animals kill their fellow species, others do not. Its based on their genetic makeup. We all have the "same" genetic makeup so it makes sense that an underlying level of similar expectations would arise. If you look at other species this becomes abundantly clear.
I do not need to provide a reason why natural and divine law are combined. The writings of Augustine of Hippo, Sir John Fortescue, and Sir Edward Coke clearly explain why natural and divine are used interchangeably. Also, in this context, the word "divine'" does not automatically mean religion. When "divine" is used as a noun, as it is being used in this context, it refers to the spiritual nature of Man or the universal qualities of Man. Therefore, natural and divine law are interchangeable in that the order of the universe existed before Man, and that order was given to Man at the beginning of Man's existence. What really gets me is that you continue to contradict thousands of years of philosophical thought and dispute the greatest thinkers if humankind under the guise that science can explain everything when it is a fact that science can not.
To introduce the idea of genetics determining behavior might as well just open the can of worms that is "Nature vs Nurture". The fact is all genetics can do is determine a pre-disposition towards a behavior, multiple studies prove this limitation. Genetics can not explain all of Man's behavior for the same reasons science can not explain value, morality, and metaphysics.
johnsonma :
I would also argue that natural law as we perceive it would not exist without us, thus it is a creation of ours to understand our perception of our own tendencies. Would a species with a collective mind behave under a different set of rules? I would think so, plus natural law can almost be viewed as guidelines (edit: instead of guidelines think of it as an explanation of the normal tendencies of man, obviously some vary from this) as it is broken many times over and its not in any way absolute.
Making the statement, "natural law as we perceive it would not exist without us" is again stating the obvious. Given that natural law pre-existed Man, it is a foregone conclusion that Man can only interpret and give definition to what Man perceives. And, by concluding that same statement with, "it (Natural Law) is a creation of ours to understand our perception" is to deny the conclusions from thousands of years of philosophical debate and ignore the fact that the universe existed before Man. Just because Man can perceive something does not mean is came into existence as a result of that perception. The only thing created here is the definition Man gives to what has been previously unknown to Man. Lastly, stating that Natural Law is a set of guidelines demonstrates an amoral and relativistic world view, might as well begin debating "Relativism vs Absolutism". But it just seems to be an excuse to dismiss those things which science is unable to explain, i.e.; value, morality, and metaphysics.
johnsonma :
Again you broach emotion as being unexplainable when it most certainly is. The interaction of millions of brains cells is a complex matter that is beyond the scope of just about everyone who is alive today. Then you add in chemical reactions through glandular processes and its becomes even more complex. You say science can not place a value on feeling yet removing part of the brain can drastically change EVERYTHING about a person including their emotions. There is a reason behind this.
The very words you use to describe how science can explain emotions completely contradicts your argument. You state that emotions are explained by, "chemical reactions through glandular processes", but the key word here is reaction. The fact is the chemical reaction and glandular processes is a result of the emotion and it is not the chemical reaction and glandular processes causing a person to feel that emotion. The chemical responses and glandular processes allows the person to physically manifest their emotion. If you alter the brain, you are only altering or removing the mechanism that created the chemical reactions which allows a person to physically manifest their emotions or express themselves. Given that the physical nature of man is realized as a bio-chemical "machine" you only drastically change the physical nature of that person. Do not mistake altering/removing part of a person brain as destroying their inherent spiritual nature.
johnsonma :
You never explain why science requires faith, it doesn't. Coming up with a theory doesn't require faith because it is either right or wrong. If you don't approach it from this perspective then you are not being a proper scientist. It absolutely blows my mind that you think it takes faith to form a hypothesis. I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong, all it takes is perspective and creativity. Do you think einstein required faith when he figured out gravity bends spacetime? No, he viewed a guy falling off a roof and realized that gravity doesn't pull, only that space pushes. To come up with this theory in no way required faith.
Of all your responses, this one is my favorite because it makes me question if you understand the scientific method and what is necessary to formulate a hypothesis. You are correct when you say, "a theory doesn't require faith because it is either right or wrong" because a theory has already been substantiated. It is a hypothesis that needs to be vetted by scientific investigation to determine if it is right or wrong. However, I am going to presume you did not intend to use theory and hypothesis as synonymously. Again presuming you meant hypothesis, and replacing "theory" with "hypothesis" in your statement, then it is incorrect. If the hypothesis was determined to be right or wrong before the scientific investigation was applied, then there would be no need to perform the investigation to begin with. So, it stands to reason that prior to completing the investigation, the hypothesis is held in supposition until proven one way or the other. But the very act of holding a hypothesis in supposition is to think in the abstract and to place belief in the possibility of what can exist outside of known perception, i.e.; have faith and believe that the unknowable could possibly be true. And, for the life of me, if holding a belief that the unknowable could possibly be true isn't the epitome and essence of what it means to have faith, then I do not know what is.
Also, Albert Einstein was not without faith. He rejected being called an atheist and stated that an ethical culture was most valuable to his religious idealism. Even with all his intelligence, Einstein was wise enough to realize that the human mind was incapable of grasping the complexity of the universe. As a follower of Spinoza, Einstein believed that the soul (the spirit) and body are a single thing. Ironic that you chose Einstein to use an example to back up your "science does not require faith" argument because Einstein was at least wise enough to know that not all answers are contained withing the mind of Man and that the universe is greater than Man. So, to further say that Einstein did not require faith to formulate his hypothesis is a gross misunderstand of Einstein as well as a gross misunderstanding of the relationship between Science and Philosophy.
johnsonma :
The Scientific method does not have anything to do with spirituality. Combining the two is just wrong, science split from philosophy for a reason, yet you seek to combine them again. Like i said, forming a hypothesis doesn't require faith and doesn't result in a renewed sense of spirituality.
Now your just mis-stating my positions. I never stated that the scientific method has anything to do with spirituality, I stated that the scientific method, "require(s) some level of faith, no matter how diminished, in order to form a hypothesis." and that, "science requires faith". If you read faith as spirituality then that is your interpretation. Also, I am not seeking to combine science and philosophy, I am simply pointing out the fact they are immutably bound and that philosophy heavily influences scientific theory. And, I never stated that having faith results in a renewed sense of spirituality, I stated that, "the scientific/atheist mind is spiritually sated through the creation of hypothesis." for the reason spelled out above.
I take it that you disdain religion and/or organized religion. That's cool. Many atrocities have been carried out and justified under the banner of God and Religion. So, why you may not be open to religion, religious ideology and morality, I would hope that you do not deny your own spiritual nature under the guise that logic, science, and only that which can be perceived and proven is what makes the whole of Man's existence. Science can not explain why you feel the way you do, it can not explain the value you place on those feelings, it can not explain anything outside the realm of the physical world. And, there is much more to the world and universe that what the feeble human mind can perceive.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram