The Boundaries of Science

[_Gorman]

I agree, but it does make science incapable of authoritatively discrediting religion beyond some 'boundary'.

But if Religion can call bunk when science makes a claim outside of these boundaries, can't science also call bunk when religion makes a claim outside of these same boundaries?

Or do you think that science and religion have different boundaries?

John

I agree that science can call foul on religion when it is venturing outside its realm and into science's realm. If a religion claims that it can levitate a spoon in midair through 'spiritual powers', then science should be brought up to test its claims.

[_Gorman]

I agree that we should look at details in science, but science and religion are fundamentally different. Science is built from the ground up, while religion is a top down sort of thing.

By suggesting that religion is top down you are begging the question that religion is correct (hence at the "top").

I don't think you can give it any direction, or propositional grounding at all. It is true the science is grounded. Religion has no foundation.

John

When I say religions are top down I am merely trying to say what you have said here, that religions give 'answers' without any detailed backing of why the answer is correct. As you have said, science is grounded while religion is not. I agree with this fact.

[_John Larsen]

I agree that science can call foul on religion when it is venturing outside its realm and into science's realm. If a religion claims that it can levitate a spoon in midair through 'spiritual powers', then science should be brought up to test its claims.

Ah, there's the rub. I believe that since religion is a natural phenomenon it lies wholly and entirely inside the realm of science. All religious claims can be tested and challenged. There is no territory outside of science that is owned by religion. Religious territory is a subset of scientific territory.

John

[_silentkid]

I believe that since religion is a natural phenomenon it lies wholly and entirely inside the realm of science. All religious claims can be tested and challenged. There is no territory outside of science that is owned by religion. Religious territory is a subset of scientific territory.

John

I've been reading Dennett's Breaking The Spell and this is his major thesis. I think that as science progresses, especially in the neurosciences, this view will become more accepted. When I was teaching biology (before I read Dennett), I would introduce my classes to the NOMA approach (see Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks Of Ages). I feel it has merit and gives people an easy way to resolve their own science/religion conflicts.

[_Analytics]

I agree that science can call foul on religion when it is venturing outside its realm and into science's realm. If a religion claims that it can levitate a spoon in midair through 'spiritual powers', then science should be brought up to test its claims.

Ah, there's the rub. I believe that since religion is a natural phenomenon it lies wholly and entirely inside the realm of science. All religious claims can be tested and challenged. There is no territory outside of science that is owned by religion. Religious territory is a subset of scientific territory.

John

I sort-of agree. To the extent that God, the spirit, or any other religious phenomena interact with human beings and our observable world, then they are squarely inside the realm of science.

Perhaps there is some alternate plane of existence outside of our four-dimensional reality where God is hiding. If God is there and if the matter and forces there have absolutely no bearing on our universe, only then could I see how God could be beyond science. But if God starts interfering with our universe—by using his powers for anything from parting seas to subtly stimulating somebody’s neurocortex, he is fair game for science.

[_Gorman]

Ah, there's the rub. I believe that since religion is a natural phenomenon it lies wholly and entirely inside the realm of science. All religious claims can be tested and challenged. There is no territory outside of science that is owned by religion. Religious territory is a subset of scientific territory.

John

I sort-of agree. To the extent that God, the spirit, or any other religious phenomena interact with human beings and our observable world, then they are squarely inside the realm of science.

Perhaps there is some alternate plane of existence outside of our four-dimensional reality where God is hiding. If God is there and if the matter and forces there have absolutely no bearing on our universe, only then could I see how God could be beyond science. But if God starts interfering with our universe—by using his powers for anything from parting seas to subtly stimulating somebody’s neurocortex, he is fair game for science.

I disagree entirely with both of the above quotes. It may be that some religious claims could be tested by science (as in my example above), but I personally don't see how you could claim that something like "God exists" or "consciousness survives past death" is testable by science at this point. Science just can't say anything for sure about metaphysical phenomena (at least in its present state).

Let's assume that the case given by Analytics is true, and that God does exist in some other realm. It could then very well be true that he interferes with this realm and we just don't recognize it, or we chalk it up to some other assumed phenomena (i.,e. maybe it will be shown in the future that cosmic rays are actually God's influence 'raining' down on us, and they affect our sub-conscience in some way). Anything can happen when talking about metaphysical claims of science.

I'm not saying that religion is more reliable then science, I'm only saying that science in not necessarily more reliable than religion when outside some boundary. It appears that you two do not think there is a boundary beyond which science cannot be fully trusted. If so, we should discuss the example about String Theory that I gave above (I don't know a single scientist who fully trusts String Theory in its present state, even the String Theorists).

[_John Larsen]

I disagree entirely with both of the above quotes. It may be that some religious claims could be tested by science (as in my example above), but I personally don't see how you could claim that something like "God exists" or "consciousness survives past death" is testable by science at this point. Science just can't say anything for sure about metaphysical phenomena (at least in its present state).

The proposition consciousness survives past death is easily testable by science. Science has gone a long way to prove that consciousness arises from the brain. Once dead, the brain does not produce activity. Consciousness and brain function are well within the boundaries of science. If you contend that physical entities such as brains, fish or mountains also have properties that are not visible, cannot be measured and are entirely in the realm of religion--you cannot then call it off bounds to science. The burdon is on you to demonstrate that conciousness is not a product of the brain. This has clearly not been done.

you second proposition naked and alone: "God exists" cannot be disproved by science. However, a religious persons claim that God exists is well within the bounds of science. The distinction is subtle, but important. There are certain ideas that are outside of the ability of science to prove or disprove. But once a religious individual claims the idea to be a truth, the must establish that truth somehow. This claim to the knowledge of said truth is easily in the realm of science. For example, if a religious person claims to get all of their knowledge from a ghost, we can test to see if this is a physical possibility.

Religious people do not say that there might be a God, they say they know there is a God and then proceed to tell you how they know. This entire process is open to scientific inquiry.

John

[_marg]

I agree that science can call foul on religion when it is venturing outside its realm and into science's realm. If a religion claims that it can levitate a spoon in midair through 'spiritual powers', then science should be brought up to test its claims.

Ah, there's the rub. I believe that since religion is a natural phenomenon it lies wholly and entirely inside the realm of science. All religious claims can be tested and challenged. There is no territory outside of science that is owned by religion. Religious territory is a subset of scientific territory.

John

I sort-of agree. To the extent that God, the spirit, or any other religious phenomena interact with human beings and our observable world, then they are squarely inside the realm of science.

Perhaps there is some alternate plane of existence outside of our four-dimensional reality where God is hiding. If God is there and if the matter and forces there have absolutely no bearing on our universe, only then could I see how God could be beyond science. But if God starts interfering with our universe—by using his powers for anything from parting seas to subtly stimulating somebody’s neurocortex, he is fair game for science.

By saying God is fair game for science it implies science can evaluate God, but it can not. That isn't a shortcoming of science methodology but rather a short coming in critical reasoning by those making claims for a God or other supernatural claims, in that they offer nothing for verification.

It is up to those making God claims or afterlife claims to offer explanations which can be verified. i.e. predict what God will do and that can be tested for and verified. Religious supernatural claims offer no predictive value for phenomena.


From copi's intro logic text p 495, 11 ed.


Even an unscientific explanation has some evidence in its favor, namely, the very fact it is held to explain. The unscientific theory that the planets are inhabited by "intelligences" that cause them to move in their observed orbits can claim, as evidence, the fact that the planets do move in those orbits. But the great difference between that hypothesis and the reliable astronomical explanation of planetary movement lies in this: for the unscientific hypothesis there is no other directly testable proposition that can be deduced from it. Any scientific explanation of a given phenomenon, on the other hand, will have directly testable propositions deducible from it other than the proposition stating the fact to be explained. This is what we mean when we say that an explanation is empirically verifiable, and such verifiability is the most essential mark of a scientific explanation.

[_Who Knows]

It all goes back to my post about the rules of science.

If anyone would care to present something 'religious' according to the rules of science, then science could test it. However, these sorts of things usually don't pan out (studies on the effects of prayer, healing, etc.). And then the believers say something like 'god won't let scientists prove he exists' or something like that.

Present something according to the rules of science, and it's within it's boundaries. If you don't, or can't, then it's outside the scope of science (whether it's religion or anything else - aliens, karma, santa, etc.).

[_Analytics]

Of course I agree that scientific theories can be wrong. I would say that it is likely that science might not ever figure out all of the ultimate laws of physics.

All I am saying is that the realm of science entails matter, energy, space, and time. If something involves matter, energy, space, and time, then science can study it. It might not completely figure it out, but it can certainly try to observe it and quantify it.

Can science test whether or not “God” exists? Define what the name “God” refers to is in terms of matter, energy, space, and time, and we can talk about how the existence of God could be tested. Does consciousness survive past death? If you can coherently explain what consciousness past death means in terms of matter, energy, space and time, then we can talk about how to test for that.