6 ms·

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.

roel_v 16y ago
OK, but the second part of your sentence said that in that respect it is like aesthetics, which I don't agree with.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  Guilty as charged. I was trying to throw in a sound byte to illustrate how some things can't be illuminated by science (e.g. "I have good taste", "No, you have bad taste, I have good taste", "Well that's obviously in poor taste", "Taste doesn't exist, it's something that has evolved from...", etc.) but I wasn't really happy with it either.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
First, it depends on what god you speak of. If you speak of the typical monotheist God (Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni-benevolent, Has created our universe, Sentient, Listens to prayers, and sometimes Answers), then the question "Is there a God" is both falsifiable and false. (By "false", I mean of negligible probability given current evidence.) Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (creationism is a good example). Every time that happens, religions eventually back off, keeping only their claims that are not yet disproved. Second, while some topics (like choosing a morality) are definitely outside the scope of science, the accurate description of our world is definitely inside. If something we could reasonably call "God" exist in our world, it's got to have consequences. I expect science to find out, or at least try. "Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  I think this is exactly the kind of nonsensical flame war type post everyone wanted to avoid. Since you seem intent to go down that route I'll just leave you to it. EDIT In response to your edit: >"Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try. This is your projection, not mine.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Yes, that's my projection. Sorry for the ad hominem argument. It just smelled like a rhetorical trick, so I got carried away. I also admit my post was a bit trolley (I expected down-votes and no reply, actually). But I don't think it was nonsense. I merely stated my (strong) beliefs without the usual "I believe" disclaimer. There's a reason why: Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact. As you know, I don't believe in God. If I were polite, I would stop there. Same thing for a deist. We could have a conversation, say "I (don't) believe in God", and it would still look like we "respect" the other's beliefs, and therefore we respect the other, period. Trouble starts when I say "God doesn't exist" (it really doesn't). It's offensive. It makes too obvious that I think deists are wrong (they really are). Such a direct attack to their belief is of course not polite at all (yes, I am not polite). Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be). On the other hand, a deist that really believes in God, should tell me that it exists, that I'm wrong. Being polite is again secondary. Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake! I certainly wouldn't want to Burn in Hell for, say, wanting to be immortal. Another point. You said earlier: > […] "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. […] This is weird to my ears. I assume that for any thing that have observable effect, science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing. God is no exception. So, if you're right, then the existence of God doesn't have any observable effect (by contraposition). Then, belief in God, an observable effect, isn't linked in any way to the actual existence of God. Meaning, belief in God has no valid justification. Plus, the way that typical monotheists religions depict it, not only God is observable, it has actually been observed. For instance, any miracle God have performed should have a hope of being detected by archaeologists. (Unless God cleverly erased the evidence but I don't recall anything like that on the Bible. To my knowledge, it isn't written that God evades science.) Plus, God is almost always depicted as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent (let's live aside sentience etc.). Well, those three characteristics combined should be sufficient to have a pretty big observable effect: living in the best possible world. If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off. So, saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God. Weaker that plainly stating that God exists because three famous, old, Holy books say so (authority can be a valid argument).
- roel_v 16y ago
  Here again I disagree (with, I admit, a minute part of your point and one that was probably thrown in as an afterthought), in the same way I disagreed with loewenskind when he made an analogy with aesthetics. Morality and religion are dissimilar - maybe we will one day fully understand morality, but religion is (by religious people) in my understanding defined in terms that make it explicitly exempt from reasoning. Morality, we 'just don't understand' (maybe, depends on your position on the nature of morality, really); whereas religion is by its very nature we are said to be incapable of understanding. I agree with your real point, though; what I'm saying is that religion in a class of its own, because the religious make it (or should I say 'make it up') to be that way. (Related to this point, I do think that one day religion will be explained: when we fully understand the brain, how thoughts develop etc.; at that point, religion will be shown to be just a figment of our (rather, 'their') imagination. Maybe it served an evolutionary role once, who knows. Of course it won't give us insight in the nature of 'god', it will merely show that 'god' is a fabrication of our unconsciousness).
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Err… I agree. I said that choosing a morality is outside the scope of science. But I agree that science can (and probably should) study morality. See Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is trying to build a Friendly AI. He will probably need a complete theory of Intelligence and Morality to do that. Your other points are related to http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anti-epistemology http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anti-epistemology and http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/ (I suspect you know about these, but others may find them interesting.)
    - roel_v 16y ago
      Oh yes I see, you're right, I misunderstood your point.

No, what I'm saying is that the question "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. Science cannot answer every question for us. Philosophy is a better fit for religious questions.

roel_v 16y ago

OK, but the second part of your sentence said that in that respect it is like aesthetics, which I don't agree with.

loewenskind 16y ago
Guilty as charged. I was trying to throw in a sound byte to illustrate how some things can't be illuminated by science (e.g. "I have good taste", "No, you have bad taste, I have good taste", "Well that's obviously in poor taste", "Taste doesn't exist, it's something that has evolved from...", etc.) but I wasn't really happy with it either.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

First, it depends on what god you speak of. If you speak of the typical monotheist God (Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omni-benevolent, Has created our universe, Sentient, Listens to prayers, and sometimes Answers), then the question "Is there a God" is both falsifiable and false. (By "false", I mean of negligible probability given current evidence.) Religious claims are typically falsifiable, and repeatedly disproved (creationism is a good example). Every time that happens, religions eventually back off, keeping only their claims that are not yet disproved. Second, while some topics (like choosing a morality) are definitely outside the scope of science, the accurate description of our world is definitely inside. If something we could reasonably call "God" exist in our world, it's got to have consequences. I expect science to find out, or at least try. "Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try.

loewenskind 16y ago
I think this is exactly the kind of nonsensical flame war type post everyone wanted to avoid. Since you seem intent to go down that route I'll just leave you to it. EDIT In response to your edit: >"Science can't have an answer for everything" suspiciously sounds like it shouldn't even try. This is your projection, not mine.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  Yes, that's my projection. Sorry for the ad hominem argument. It just smelled like a rhetorical trick, so I got carried away. I also admit my post was a bit trolley (I expected down-votes and no reply, actually). But I don't think it was nonsense. I merely stated my (strong) beliefs without the usual "I believe" disclaimer. There's a reason why: Either God exists, or it doesn't. Of atheists and deists, one group is wrong. As a matter of fact. As you know, I don't believe in God. If I were polite, I would stop there. Same thing for a deist. We could have a conversation, say "I (don't) believe in God", and it would still look like we "respect" the other's beliefs, and therefore we respect the other, period. Trouble starts when I say "God doesn't exist" (it really doesn't). It's offensive. It makes too obvious that I think deists are wrong (they really are). Such a direct attack to their belief is of course not polite at all (yes, I am not polite). Politeness is secondary, however: we face Freaking Real Death! I bet many would like to solve that problem (and there are slim hopes that it will eventually be). On the other hand, a deist that really believes in God, should tell me that it exists, that I'm wrong. Being polite is again secondary. Hey, my non-believer's very soul is at stake! I certainly wouldn't want to Burn in Hell for, say, wanting to be immortal. Another point. You said earlier: > […] "Is there a God?" is both unprovable and unfalsifiable. […] This is weird to my ears. I assume that for any thing that have observable effect, science has a hope of detecting (and proving the presence of) that thing. God is no exception. So, if you're right, then the existence of God doesn't have any observable effect (by contraposition). Then, belief in God, an observable effect, isn't linked in any way to the actual existence of God. Meaning, belief in God has no valid justification. Plus, the way that typical monotheists religions depict it, not only God is observable, it has actually been observed. For instance, any miracle God have performed should have a hope of being detected by archaeologists. (Unless God cleverly erased the evidence but I don't recall anything like that on the Bible. To my knowledge, it isn't written that God evades science.) Plus, God is almost always depicted as omnipotent, omnipresent, and omni-benevolent (let's live aside sentience etc.). Well, those three characteristics combined should be sufficient to have a pretty big observable effect: living in the best possible world. If we don't (it's pretty clear we don't), then something is off. So, saying that the existence of God can't be tested strikes me as an extremely weak justification for belief in God. Weaker that plainly stating that God exists because three famous, old, Holy books say so (authority can be a valid argument).
roel_v 16y ago
Here again I disagree (with, I admit, a minute part of your point and one that was probably thrown in as an afterthought), in the same way I disagreed with loewenskind when he made an analogy with aesthetics. Morality and religion are dissimilar - maybe we will one day fully understand morality, but religion is (by religious people) in my understanding defined in terms that make it explicitly exempt from reasoning. Morality, we 'just don't understand' (maybe, depends on your position on the nature of morality, really); whereas religion is by its very nature we are said to be incapable of understanding. I agree with your real point, though; what I'm saying is that religion in a class of its own, because the religious make it (or should I say 'make it up') to be that way. (Related to this point, I do think that one day religion will be explained: when we fully understand the brain, how thoughts develop etc.; at that point, religion will be shown to be just a figment of our (rather, 'their') imagination. Maybe it served an evolutionary role once, who knows. Of course it won't give us insight in the nature of 'god', it will merely show that 'god' is a fabrication of our unconsciousness).
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  Err… I agree. I said that choosing a morality is outside the scope of science. But I agree that science can (and probably should) study morality. See Eliezer Yudkowsky, who is trying to build a Friendly AI. He will probably need a complete theory of Intelligence and Morality to do that. Your other points are related to http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anti-epistemology http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Anti-epistemology and http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/of/dissolving_the_question/ (I suspect you know about these, but others may find them interesting.)
  - roel_v 16y ago
    Oh yes I see, you're right, I misunderstood your point.