Evidence for God from Science

Your actual points were several:

1) First, there's nothing inexplicable about love, hope, peace, joy, or any of that from a scientific perspective.
I agree with that. I had not disagreed with it. You were responding to crochet, who had said that there was no scientific evidence for them.

2) Yet all of them, rightly understood, still absolutely prove the existence of a loving God.
I agree that they are evidence for benevolence. Whether they are absolute proof I would dispute, but didn't this time.

3) And second, yes, we should add hate and despair to that list, for they, too, prove the existence of a loving God.
I did interact with this point. I denied that they proved the existence of a loving God. I wondered what you would consider evidence for a malevolent God.

4) More important for you is that you stop implying or maintaining epistemic scientific reductionism, which is to say, the idea that all things either can be explained by science or else only that which science can explain can be regarded as true or known. That's a self-defeating, and thus irrational, proposition to hold.
I did interact with this point too. I said that epistemic scientific reductionism was an appropriate method of enquiry for a discussion attempting to derive evidence of God from Science. I do not deny that many people find evidence for God from scripture, revelation or intuition, but that's not the approach suggested by the title of this website, forum or thread. What's more, if personal conviction from any source other than reason conflicts with reason, then it is the personal conviction that must be retracted, not reason. "Common sense, informed by Science" is fine only if it does not conflict with science. Otherwise it's wrong. The same is true of all other wholly personal convictions.

I did interact with this point too. I said that epistemic scientific reductionism was an appropriate method of enquiry for a discussion attempting to derive evidence of God from Science.

And this, and nothing else, is my irritation with you. My point is that scientism (i.e., epistimic scientific reductionism) is self-defeating. I stated why. That's two times I've made that point, and now a third, that you've simply ignored this. Baldly asserting in contradiction to evidence the opposing view isn't "interacting" with a point. It's merely gainsaying.

I don't have time for this, which is all you're offering me.

And if you don't see the self-contradiction in this:

"Common sense, informed by Science" is fine only if it does not conflict with science.

I don't know how to help you.

"My point is that scientism (i.e., epistimic scientific reductionism) is self-defeating." Yes. Perhaps I should have addressed that more directly. Your argument went like this:

"You cannot and can never let others make the claim that only science conveys truth. Such a statement is self-defeating. After all, the sentence "only science can convey truth" is not itself scientific. So if only science can convey truth, then that statement itself is false."

But you do not actually justify any of it. Firstly, I do not make the claim that only science conveys truth. I have specifically and repeatedly said that truth can also be found in scripture, revelation, and intuition. Secondly, the statement "only science conveys truth" is only self defeating if it is not a scientific statement. But in denying that it is a scientific statement, you do not say why, not provide any evidence for it, nor say how it differs from a scientific statement. Your repudiation of the statement is as unscientific as the statement itself. Thirdly, whether or not science is the only route to truth, it is, in my opinion, one way, and furthermore the way specifically engaged upon by this website.

So I'm sorry if I sidestepped your point. I just didn't think it crucial to the debate at this juncture.

hughfarey wrote:Firstly, I do not make the claim that only science conveys truth.

Of course you did. Here are your own words:

hughfarey wrote:Some people do not accept biblical authority at all (and even those who do accept it have different ways of interpreting it anyway), so their engagement with your convictions can only be on scientific lines.

You claim the only way to convey truth regarding our convictions "on scientific lines"--at least that's the only way when "people do not accept biblical authority at all." Now, you may feel free to retract your statement. But your statement, as written, is wrong and self-refuting, and that has direct implications on the conversation you were having with crochet.

I have specifically and repeatedly said that truth can also be found in scripture, revelation, and intuition.

Truth may be found in all of those things. But that doesn't say anything whatsoever about the point I was making to you, or, for that matter, that crochet was making to you when you responded with your scientism.

Secondly, the statement "only science conveys truth" is only self defeating if it is not a scientific statement. But in denying that it is a scientific statement, you do not say why, not provide any evidence for it, nor say how it differs from a scientific statement. Your repudiation of the statement is as unscientific as the statement itself.

I hardly thought it necessary to define a scientific statement. But even there, you still misrepresent my point. I didn't challenge you as claiming only scientific statements can convey truth, but that only discussions "on scientific lines" can convey truth. My point is much deeper than the semantic configuration of a sentence. In other words, I'm not complaining about a linguistic point. I'm saying you've made a self-refuting statement. Science, by nature, deals with certain aspects of reality and has a certain method. I hope you don't need a lesson in the scientific method. You should know, given this method, there are certain things in can accomplish and certain things it can't, and its inability to accomplish certain things presents no weakness in the method. It is simply a proper understanding of what science is and how it is to be used. "Scientific statements" are simply those in line with or that make use of ideas derived by employing the scientific method. Now, it should be obvious to you that the statement "only science can convey truth" is not subject to the scientific method. There's nothing there that can be hypothesized, tested, potentially falsified, or repeated. There's no predictions that can be drawn, etc. If, then, the sentence is true--if it is true that only science can convey truth--then since this sentence is not the result of science or scientific in and of itself, then, not being of science, this sentence can convey no truth. That is to say, such a sentence is false.

This whole problem is akin to A.J. Ayers logical positivism. He argued that any proposition that was not analytical (that is, the predicate is contained in the definition of the subject (e.g., "triangles have three sides") or verifiable by first person observation is meaningless. The problem, people soon realized, was that this statement itself is neither analytical nor is it verifiable by first person observation. Therefore, by the statement's own conclusion, it is false. That is, it is self-defeating.

Lastly, your line about my statement being unscientific continues to demonstrate your basic failure to grasp the simple point I am making. I am not the one claiming epistemic scientific reductionism. I say it is FALSE that only science can convey truth. I would never say that the sentence "only science can convey truth" is scientific NOR would say I say "the sentence 'only science can convey truth' is unscientific" is scientific. Imagine the following argument:

• Hugh: Jack, spell, "Cat".
  Jac: Fine, 'C,' 'A,' . . .
  Hugh: WAIT!!! Stop. You are now allowed to use letters for this exercise.
  Jac: What? That's impossible. You can't spell a word without using letters.
  Hugh: You're ridiculous. You're insistence that you can't spell "cat" without letters is no different from saying that you can't spell "word" or "letters" without using letters! So u r rong.
  Jac: Go away, troll.

That's what that last sentence looks like. So don't do that.

Thirdly, whether or not science is the only route to truth, it is, in my opinion, one way, and furthermore the way specifically engaged upon by this website.

Of course science is one route to truth. No one ever said it was NOT a route to truth. You are the one who said, and I'll quote you again,

You wrote:Some people do not accept biblical authority at all (and even those who do accept it have different ways of interpreting it anyway), so their engagement with your convictions can only be on scientific lines.

Once again, you're confusing my argument with yours.

And who says it is "the way specifically engaged upon by this website"? That's just silly. Yes, the website is called "Godandscience" but you do realize that this is a discussion board, right? None of us here own the home site. And even if we did, why would it matter if someone used some other means rather than science? The site isn't called "KnowingGodByScienceAndNoOtherMeans." Don't be silly.

So I'm sorry if I sidestepped your point. I just didn't think it crucial to the debate at this juncture.

Of course it is crucial to debate at this point. You rejected all means other than science to discuss God, His existence, and His attributes. What else is there to discuss? That's the only discussion you can have. You made a false statement. Unless you correct it, the conversation can go no further.

No, Jac, no. I wondered where you'd gone off the rails and now I see. Even though you actually spotted the point of my earlier post, 'at least that's the only way when "people do not accept biblical authority at all" ', you were so convinced I'd said something else that you forgot it. Indeed, when you quoted it the second time, you even underlined the wrong bit. Let me reiterate the entire comment:

"However, from a Scientific perspective we may ask whether there is any non-biblical evidence of this love, and also ask how does this love of interaction manifest itself. Some people do not accept biblical authority at all (and even those who do accept it have different ways of interpreting it anyway), so their engagement with your convictions can only be on scientific lines."

My comment was a response to a biblical conviction of crochet's, with which I personally agreed. I later said that there are indeed other ways of knowing the truth. However, my point here was specifically that in order to engage with people who do not believe the truth is knowable through scripture or other divine inspiration, then only scientific discussion will do. You appear to have missed that point, decided that I was entirely materialist, and went off on one, concluding with the wholly absurd "You rejected all means other than science to discuss God, His existence, and His attributes." You want me to reject that. Well I do. Completely. Utterly. Balderdash. Whoever said there were no means other than science to discuss God, His existence, and His attributes, is an idiot. But it certainly wasn't me.

But you're right, I don't think we need to press this point further. Audie and neo-x must be finding the whole exchange hilarious.

We do need to press this further.

in order to engage with people who do not believe the truth is knowable through scripture or other divine inspiration, then only scientific discussion will do.

This is the point I repeatedly make. You are saying that for people for whom Scripture isn't sufficient, we have to adopt scientism (epistemic scientific reductionism). That is a false and self-defeating statement. If Audie or neo or anybody else were to propose that science is the only means of coming to truth, the solution would not be to engage on a scientific level. It would be to point out the absurdity and self-contradiction of their position. You simply do not accept, much less promote, self-contradictory nonsense in a search or defense of truth. But more clearly, lies cannot lead to truth. And scientism is a lie. Demonstrably so, as I have demonstrated. THAT would be what you do.

Again, to be as clear as possible, if someone rejects biblical authority, fine. If, then, they insist, per your assertion and repeated defense, that the only way to access the truth regarding our convictions is along scientific lines, you do not ever argue on scientific lines. To do so is to give away the farm right there. The proper thing to do is to point out the self-contradiction and to point out that there are other ways to validate the truth of our claims regarding God other than through Scripture. Science may provide such an avenue on certain issues. But there many, many other means available. Common sense reasoning is the big one. But you have philosophy, but also history as yet another example.

Never, never, never let someone say that any field is the only way to approach a question (including philosophy, my own forte). Such an approach is at best just plain wrong and at worst self-contradictory drivel. And in all cases, it seeks to pursue truth by assuming error, and therefore doomed from the beginning. Scientific questions should be answered scientifically. All other questions are answered by the field of which they are subject. Where science can shed light on that field, fine (as is the case for other disciplines that can shine light on scientific questions). But make sure you're using the right tools to answer the right questions.

Well, there you go, Audie and Neo-X. It has been pointed out that attempting to understand the universe solely by science is a logical self-contradiction. Many commenters on this site think that the truth of spontaneous creation as declared by the bible is a "Serious Problem with Evolution". Any thoughts?

Jac3510 wrote: [... whole comment ...]

I find all this admirable, and now that I understand what you were getting at I must say I agree with it. One should not allow people to 'get away with' denying other ways of discovering truth than 'mere' science. However, I also think that one has to be pragmatic. Although there has been much interesting discussion about God and the origin of the universe on philosophical grounds, I think the origin of elephants does not lend itself to philosophical 'fact' in the same way. I'm not a philosopher (!! haven't you guessed !!) but I am an evolutionary biologist by profession and a science teacher by trade, so can engage with these subjects on an observational, experimentational, evidential, rational, scientific level. Anybody who thinks they have achieved some truth about the origin of elephants in some other way which conflicts with evolution, if they want to engage with evolutionists, will first have to establish that their 'truth' is actually 'true', and they can't do that just by denying scientific materialism. Even if one view is wrong, that doesn't necessarily demonstrate that another view is right. So how is one to approach the view that elephants were spontaneously created? How do we establish whether that's 'true' or not. By collective intuition? By philosophy? By looking at fossils and elephant DNA? Or some other way.

I think you make a good point in your last paragraph. "Scientific questions should be answered scientifically. All other questions are answered by the field of which they are subject. Where science can shed light on that field, fine (as is the case for other disciplines that can shine light on scientific questions). But make sure you're using the right tools to answer the right questions."

I agree that the whole theory of evolution is, to some extent, a philosophy rather than deductive fact. But then, apart from some publicists who use the words more for emphasis than accuracy, even scientists shy away from claiming that it is a proven fact. Its truth is inferred rather than deduced, and inferences may depend on philosophical rather than scientific axioms. We assume that 'the past' has actually occurred, for example, and that consistent processes govern the development of the universe through time. Neither of these can be demonstrated scientifically.

Crochet, bless her, attempts to demonstrate the truth of her convictions by quoting the bible. However, many people do not think the bible is literally true, and many more think it is no arbiter of truth at all. And just as nearly all proponents of "Intelligent Design" in spite of their insistence that it is not a religious philosophy, are in fact Christian Creationists, so nearly all deniers that the bible is the arbiter of truth are in fact Atheists. It would be fascinating to hear a discussion between an Atheist proponent of Intelligent Design and a Theistic denier of the truth of the Bible. Perhaps in Japan? But I digress. How is one to establish a dialogue between crochet and Audie? Is there any form of argument that they have in common? That's what I would like to find out.

Audie and I HAVE had 'conversation' on various subjects that have - pretty much - gotten No Where. Pretty much because from Her perspective - she has a great deal of scientific knowledge and feels that those who disagree with her are simply uninformed in various fields of science. She had accused me of 'bearing false witness against her' and would not proceed without apology from me. We've had conversation on PMs so I've gotten to know her on a more personal side. But, if you want to hear a dialogue between us - simply find the threads we've been on and read them.

I understand where she's coming From and ,so, I'm not surprised with her attitudes.

And, I don't really feel like 'performing' for Anyone in discussing various subjects.

An atheist is a non-theist. A non-believer in the existence of 'gods' or 'God'. And then there are Also -- can't think of the exact label presently -- but those who don't believe that there is enough information available to make a viable decision -- an agnostic -- from My perspective -- those people are not looking at any information -- bury their head in the sand and 'come what may' -- but, either there Is a God or there Isn't one. There's a real good source for information -- it's called God's Word. Take time to read it.

"a Theistic denier of the truth of the Bible' comes real close to making me sick. And, yes, Everyone has freedom to speak their own mind. But there should Also be respectfulness for the beliefs of others, no matter How crazy they sound. Each person's beliefs are important to them as a person.

And, yes, there Are those who do a lot of 'assuming' that the past has occurred in a certain way. That can be applied to both creation and evolution. The difference seems to be in regards to billions of years or thousands of years to bring life to what we see Now.

Well, fair enough. I think I'll leave it there till something new turns up.

Sounds like a good plan.

"a Theistic denier of the truth of the Bible' comes real close to making me sick. And, yes, Everyone has freedom to speak their own mind. But there should Also be respectfulness for the beliefs of others, no matter How crazy they sound. Each person's beliefs are important to them as a person.

And, yes, there Are those who do a lot of 'assuming' that the past has occurred in a certain way. That can be applied to both creation and evolution. The difference seems to be in regards to billions of years or thousands of years to bring life to what we see Now.

There should be respectfulness to others...not necessarily their beliefs. Nazis believed that non-german races were inferior and impure. Even if no violence occurred this is a belief I doubt you'd respect. Muslims believe that anyone doing blasphemy should be killed.

And on the second point, assumptions can only get you so far as to debate on things you don't have evidence about such as a lot of things that the Bible is silent about etc. Evolution, the topic of this thread has lots of evidence so you don't need to assume things when you have evidence. You can deny evidence or you can say you are not convinced or you can say you don't understand it. It is fair. But you can't say that the evidence of creation and evolution is equal or the same. That is untrue. Creationism is a belief, evolution is not.

neo-x wrote:

"a Theistic denier of the truth of the Bible' comes real close to making me sick. And, yes, Everyone has freedom to speak their own mind. But there should Also be respectfulness for the beliefs of others, no matter How crazy they sound. Each person's beliefs are important to them as a person.

And, yes, there Are those who do a lot of 'assuming' that the past has occurred in a certain way. That can be applied to both creation and evolution. The difference seems to be in regards to billions of years or thousands of years to bring life to what we see Now.

There should be respectfulness to others...not necessarily their beliefs. Nazis believed that non-german races were inferior and impure. Even if no violence occurred this is a belief I doubt you'd respect. Muslims believe that anyone doing blasphemy should be killed.

And on the second point, assumptions can only get you so far as to debate on things you don't have evidence about such as a lot of things that the Bible is silent about etc. Evolution, the topic of this thread has lots of evidence so you don't need to assume things when you have evidence. You can deny evidence or you can say you are not convinced or you can say you don't understand it. It is fair. But you can't say that the evidence of creation and evolution is equal or the same. That is untrue. Creationism is a belief, evolution is not.

Aren't people defined by their beliefs? A person being Jewish or Christian or J.W. for example. Compared to your reference to Nazis and other races. The Holocost -- it's hard to comprehend how brutal people can be to each other. Isn't that more political / cultural in nature?

The subject of evolution is so broad -- some aspects of it I might agree with -- other's I would Not. Okay -- I will say that I'm not convinced. There can be Lots of 'evidence' but how it is applied - categorized would make a difference.

I agree -- the evidence of creation and evolution are NOT the same or equal.

Neo:

That is untrue. Creationism is a belief, evolution is not.

Neo, what kind of whacky tobaccy are you smoking? Evolution has an asserted range of beliefs about an assemblage of evidences it has various related theories about. And yet the very SAME evidences are considered to indicate otherwise by many very qualified people. CONJECTURE and SPECULATION are not proofs, no matter who says so, or how many times they repeat it. You know well that the very same evidences can be interpreted outside of evolutionary understandings.

Just because there are things that appear to line up with Darwinian scenarios, doesn't make it a fact.

https://media.giphy.com/media/PJ2HhTL9Ei6wo/giphy.gif

Phil, I'm sure you would agree with Neo if he clarified that creation is belief, evolution isn't because it's become dogma.

• dogma
  ˈdɒɡmə/
  noun
  a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Seriously, what is this bias against belief, like believing in something is bad. I don't understand it. I do understand, because it has been an education revolution of sorts drilling into the minds of children/students that knowledge cannot be had (something I had to remove my child from in a school which fully adopted constructivism theory, and she's now really excelling in sciences). But, it is just folly.